Home | Campus Journal Archive | Manage Your Subscription | Contact Campus Journal | Media Relations

Faculty Senate Minutes Summary Oct. 17, 2011

SHARE
Print this article Print
Email this
Subscribe
 Facebook

I.  Roll – The following senators were absent:  Ballestero, McKinsey, Pescosolido and Simos.  Guests were Mark Huddleston, John Aber, Lisa MacFarlane, Terri Winters and Dan Innis.

II. Remarks by and questions to the president – The university president said that he had recently hosted a budget forum which is now available on the university’s website.  The state appropriation to the university was cut by 32.5 million dollars, which is a staggering amount to lose.  New Hampshire’s percentage cut to its state university was the largest of all the states in the union.  The president added that the budget situation is fundamentally different this time from in the past and that new methods and changes will be required, while protecting the students, the important academic values, and the university’s mission.  Students must continue to receive a high-quality education.  The president said that we will approach this situation as a community and in a transparent and consultative way.  Faculty leaders and the Faculty Senate will be consulted.  There is a greater sense of urgency, in order to meet the externally imposed deadlines.  In December, the university will have to submit a proposed biennium budget to the Board of Trustees.  The president said that the roadmap of the university’s future is the Strategic Plan which staked out the direction for the university.  UNH must cut more costs and increase revenues.  The president indicated that the proposed two percent salary increase may no longer be feasible.  The assumptions that go into the budget are subject to change and include estimated retention rates, matriculation rates, overhead costs, etc.

Although the amount of the budget cut is about six percent of the university’s total budget, many parts of that budget are fixed and not available for change.  This puts the pressure on the remaining areas.  A senator asked how the decision will be made as to which areas will be cut and by how much.  The president said that a broad range of actions will be required.  The university will try to increase enrollments, including for the summer, January term, evenings, and graduate and professional programs.  The market realities will prevent a large increase in tuition, and the university must look at all possibilities to decrease costs.  Ideas to increase revenue tend to have effects in the future rather than the present.  Advancement efforts and annual giving may increase, but expenses must be cut.  The president said that this will be done first on the administrative side, even though that is incredibly lean already.  Then attention will turn to areas of the university that are not core to the mission.  The president mentioned that the New England Center ran a loss and was closed, and the senate chair asked if there are other units on campus that operate heavily in the red and are thus subsidized by other units.  The president said that there are and that UNH must ask each such entity to justify its existence, while considering that some entities which do not make a profit may be core to a good education.
In response to a question, the president said that a decision to self-insure had already been made by the university system, although university employees will not notice any difference in how they access their health benefits.  The university will assume the risks and the rewards of covering its insurance needs itself.  The statistical data indicated that this would reduce costs.  This will be reevaluated later to see if it is cost effective and, if not, might be put out for bid in the future.  The university has a stop-loss coverage for very large claims.  The president said that the university needs to mobilize faculty, students, parents, alumni and other citizens in a careful way to influence the legislators to provide appropriate funding to the university.  We should begin now to build a broad base of support for a reasonable budget and to revamp the strategies for gaining that support.  Over time there may be a gradual change towards more out-of-state students at UNH.  It might be possible to reduce the size of the system office.  The university wanted to make the point that this year’s huge budget cut has consequences, but the administration felt that it was impossible to deal with the cut entirely through a tuition increase.

III. Remarks by and questions to the provost – The provost said that he has talked with the deans about how the reviews of academic programs are done.  He said that the university will probably not close academic departments or fire faculty but will not be able to hire new faculty without a successful Separation Incentive Program.  There will probably be fewer tenure-track faculty in the near future.  He said that the program review process will be very positive and will show what is marginal to our core focus.  In that way UNH could meet this budget challenge.  Where can UNH trim within colleges and departments?  The four criteria are mission, efficiency, effectiveness and culture.  NAVITAS will help the university increase revenues.  Budget cuts will have to be decided early in the new year, so that the cuts can become effective in the next academic year.  The provost said that the Academic Plan will continue to be useful and that the Strategic Plan reflects the values in the Academic Plan.  The university must decide how to implement those plans and put those values into action.  The staff Separation Incentive Program reached its target, and the faculty SIP is in progress, with its first deadline on November 1 and another round in January which will take effect in July.

The senate chair said that there are tensions between the Academic Plan and the Strategic Plan.  The Academic Plan emphasizes undergraduate education, along with the feel of a New England college.  However, the Strategic Plan and actions taken in its name may be in tension with things that we do right now.  The provost mentioned a growth in graduate programs and professional programs which are instruction heavy rather than research heavy and said that several of the academic programs may not rate well nationally and should be reviewed.  The university must have a complete pantheon of graduate programs.  A senator asked if UNH could increase recruitment of veterans who may be from out of state and on the GI bill.
IV.  Update from Lisa MacFarlane on NEASC – Lisa MacFarlane described the NEASC self-study timetable for the next two years, which culminates in the full NEASC team visit on November 3-6, 2013, when faculty should be available to talk with the team.  2011/12 is for preparing the work which needs to be done, to make sure that UNH is in compliance with NEASC standards.  In 2012/13, the NEASC report will be written including a description of what the university has been doing, an analysis of what that means, and a projection of what should be done with those results.  In 2013/14, the accreditation report will be submitted and the NEASC team visit will take place in November, with possible rewrites to follow.

In September of 2011, the NEASC staff (including Lisa MacFarlane, John Kraus, Victor Benassi, and Judy Robb who is a faculty fellow) communicated with key constituencies about the options for the self study.  The staff is working with the President’s Cabinet and NEASC on the best format and context for the areas of emphasis, which must be approved up front.  In October, the staff will communicate with the Faculty Senate and other campus constituencies, attend a NEASC self-study workshop, and set up committees to work on the eleven standards.  The President’s Cabinet, with NEASC approval, will decide on an approach for the self study and will work with NEASC on the final configuration of the areas of emphasis.  In November, the NEASC staff will meet with faculty to discuss the self study and will confirm the process and various subcommittees and identify members of the Self-Study Steering Committee and its subcommittees.  Ongoing tasks are to do data collection, identify any gaps, and develop a plan to fill them.  Assessment includes qualitative data, E-forms, S-forms, the Assessment Activity Inventory, the College Learning Assessment, and any other types of documented assessment.

In the spring of 2012, ongoing data collection for the self study will be done; and the Standards Committees will compile the data and draft all details, including a description of what we have and what we still need.  The staff will work with NEASC to secure a chair of the Visiting Team; and the first formal meeting of the Steering Committee will be held in January, with a subsequent work plan.  Membership of that committee will include substantial faculty representation, including official Faculty Senate representation, and also staff, students, and administrators.  All committees will design surveys, interviews and such, to obtain supplementary data.  The Steering Committee chair will provide a NEASC update to the Faculty Senate.  In the summer of 2012, UNH will make sure all data collection is complete, with provisions for ongoing collection throughout 2012-2013, and do qualitative data collection, analysis of the data, and projections.  From September to December of 2012, UNH will complete the qualitative data collection; the Steering Committee chair will provide a NEASC update to the Faculty Senate; and the provost's and other relevant staff will complete a rough draft of the self study and write first drafts of the standards reports, including description, analysis, projection and appended data.  The self study is to be no more than one hundred pages long.

In January of 2013, drafts will be circulated to all constituencies.  In February, comments will be collected from all constituencies; and area committees will revise drafts of reports and submit them to the Steering Committee.  In March, the Steering Committee will circulate a second draft of the eleven standards to the UNH community, hold forums at UNH-Durham and UNH-Manchester, and re-draft to account for ongoing data collection, community comments, etc.  In April and May, UNH will circulate a Public Disclosure Statement about the accreditation visit; and the NEASC staff will revise and edit the drafts into a single document for review by the Steering Committee and then send the draft to NEASC for comment.  In July, the staff will revise the self study in accordance with NEASC feedback.  In August, the staff will send the final self study to NEASC and circulate the Public Disclosure Statement.  In fall of 2013, the full NEASC team will visit on November 3-6; and in spring of 2014, NEASC will deliver its report and UNH will make a response if appropriate.  Relevant websites include: 

http://www.unh.edu/academic-affairs/neasc/, http://cihe.neasc.org/downloads/POLICIES/Pp85_Student_Achievement_and_Success__Policy_Statement.pdf,
http://cihe.neasc.org/downloads/PUBLICATIONS/Focusing_on_Outcomes.pdf,
http://cihe.neasc.org/downloads/PUBLICATIONS/chapter_three.pdf,
http://cihe.neasc.org/downloads/PUBLICATIONS/chapter_four.pdf, and
http://cihe.neasc.org/downloads/Data_First_Cover_Memo_Oct_2008.pdf.

On 10/31/2011, Lisa MacFarlane will give a power point presentation to the Faculty Senate on the NEASC accreditation process.  Accreditation is a reasonable and appropriate exercise.  In response to a question, Lisa MacFarlane said that the urgency of the budget crisis means that budget decisions cannot wait for the accreditation review but rather that the review engendered by the budget crisis will form part of the data for the accreditation review.  In reply to another question, she said that faculty could ask John Kraus whether statistics on the percent of students graduating in four and six years could be given on a departmental level.  Previous accreditation work can help with the current accreditation effort.  Every year the provost’s office files an annual report as an update for accreditation, with additional work submitted every fifth year.

V. Remarks by and questions to Dan Innis on Faculty Activity Reporting – Dan Innis, who is dean of WSBE, is chair of the Faculty Activity Reporting Work Group; and Terri Winters is the FAR Project Manager.  Faculty Activity Reporting uses Digital Measures’ “ActivityInsights” program and is a single repository to enter, update, and review activities associated with publications, conferences, awards, committees, teaching, etc.  FAR will produce annual reports for faculty and reports for departments, schools, colleges, and the University Library.  The FAR project structure includes the Faculty Activity Reporting Working Group with representatives from each school, college, the library, Faculty Senate, institutional research, UNH information technology, and SAS (Research).  The FAR Working Group’s charges are to (1) develop the project plan and supporting budget, (2) determine FAR attributes and required reports, (3) determine initial data feeds and integration, (4) determine the pilot scope and schedule, (5) administer the pilot program in which thirty-six faculty were invited to participate and twenty-four faculty participated, (6) incorporate the pilot results by revising Digital Measures’ screens based on input, (7) define and implement reporting requirements, and (8) implement and roll out FAR to all faculty in the spring of 2012. 

The last two charges have not yet been completed.  The timeline was October to December of 2010 for the project overview and demonstrations, fall of 2010 for open forums, January to February of 2011 for Banner and InfoEd data mapping, February to April of 2011 for the pilot program, November of 2011 for open forums, and March of 2012 for rollout to UNH and UNH-Manchester.  Contacts are Terri.Winters@unh.edu, Dan.Innis@unh.edu, Jenni.Cook@unh.edu who is the Faculty Senate representative to the FAR Working Group, the college representatives, and the FAR Project Web site at http://unh.edu/provost/far.  Faculty will be able to add data to the FAR throughout the year and then will have the information needed for making reports.  Faculty will be able to cut and paste citations.  The administration has not yet decided how many years of previous data should be included.  Due to accreditation needs, WSBE used five years; and staff helped with that.  Automatic systems used by some colleges will be picked up automatically by FAR.  Publications with multiple authors, for example refereed abstracts, will be handled in the standard way in FAR; and faculty will state the type of publication.  A senator from liberal arts said that his college is skeptical about FAR, because it will count items but not measure quality.  Dan Innis replied that FAR will help produce the needed reports more easily and can have a qualitative aspect also, which is for the departments and colleges to decide.  That would come from the written narrative and the judgment of peers.  He added that the same people who had access to the previous reports would have access to the FAR reports.  The cost of the FAR program is $19,000 initially and $8,000 per year thereafter, plus UNH employees’ time.

VI. Remarks by and questions to the chair – The senate chair said that administrators have stated that, regarding budget cuts, everything is on the table with the possible exception of the Advancement Office.  The Faculty Senate has set up ad-hoc committees and has also charged some standing committees, to review all entities for possible budget cuts.  The primary committees doing that work are the senate’s Finance and Administration Committee, Committee on Organization of Science and Engineering, Committee on Organization of the Graduate School, and the Committee on Organization of Other Entities.  The senate has also consulted with David Proulx, who is the associate vice president for finance.  The proposed sustainability dual major must be reviewed by the senate’s University Curriculum and Academic Policies Committee, since the matter cuts across all colleges.  The colleges are currently receiving the intent to submit proposal; and the colleges will send their recommendations to UCAPC for its review of the proposed major.

VII.  Minutes – The minutes of the previous Faculty Senate meeting were approved unanimously.

VIII.  Update from the Committee on Organization of Other Entities – This committee’s charge is to review the academic and financial advantages and disadvantages of reorganizing the other entities of the university, including the administration and sports.  Stacia Sower presented the committee’s report.   Why are we considering mainly cutting academic programs, when athletics is not even in the academic mission?  If we are to consider cutting academic programs, all non-academic programs should also be reviewed.  The committee is gathering data now.  Only about six hundred students participate in intercollegiate athletics.  The Title IX law states that athletics scholarships must be distributed equally among men and women.  The President’s Panel on Intercollegiate Athletics presented findings in December of 2009 including the following.  (1) Intercollegiate athletics are of great value to UNH, providing increased visibility for the institution, enriching student and academic life, and instilling a strong sense of pride and connection for alumni and donors.  (2) Only a handful of intercollegiate athletic programs are financially self-sustaining.  UNH athletics and the vast majority of athletic departments require an institutional subsidy.  (3) UNH’s athletics program is lean and cost-effective.  (4) Key UNH athletic facilities need substantial investment.  (5) UNH athletics fundraising is under-performing compared to its peers.  (6) Fundraising for athletics must be increased dramatically.  (7) “Gate” revenue expectations should be raised.  (8) Substantial investments must be made in the Whittemore Center, the Field House, and Cowell Stadium.  (9) Athletics must not be treated as an “auxiliary” for budget purposes; instead, it must be budgeted as a “core” university function.  The UNH Athletic Budget in fiscal year 2001 was $15,652,278 for 24 intercollegiate teams; in 2011 it was $27,135,740 for 20 intercollegiate teams; and in FY 2012 it is $24,820,251 to date.  $9 million of that comes from student fees; and $6 million comes from the university’s general fund, which is largely comprised of tuition and state funding.

The panel stated in 2009 that additional general university funds should be earmarked for UNH athletics on an ongoing basis, because athletics cannot be treated as a self-sustaining auxiliary. Only a handful of athletic programs in the country pay their own way.  At UNH, as at peer institutions, an ongoing institutional commitment is essential. Athletics had an accumulated deficit of $1.3 million at the end of June of 2009 and projected another $300,000 to $500,000 increase to its deficit in FY10, a pattern that was likely to continue. The facilities assessment assigned to UNH athletics might also be revisited.  Consideration should also be given to using unrestricted gifts, when and if available, to underwrite critical areas of need in UNH Athletics.  About twenty-five to forty million dollars of investment might be needed at UNH for the football program, although more students participate in track and field and cross country programs.

New data requested from David Proulx


NCAA  Indicators Benchmark Data- 2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                        
                                Indicator

 

 

2007 UNH Revised*

 

 

2007 America East Mean

 

2007 CAA Football Mean

 

2007 Football Championship Subdivision Mean

 

2007 Public Institutions Mean

1. NCSS sponsored sports

                 20

20

21

18

16

2.NCSS Graduation Success Rate

92

85

81.5

73.5

67.5

3. NCAA Academic Progress Rate

973

974

974.6

962

960

4. Total athletics revenue ($)

$19,367,003

$12,842,162

$21,600,260

$10,570,847

$9,456,543

4. a. Generated revenues/total athletics revenue (%)

36%

27%

23%

28%

29%

4. b. Allocated revenues/total athletics revenue (%)

65%

73%

27%

73%

71%

5. Revenue self-sufficiency (%)

24%

25%

23%

28%

30%

6. Net revenues ($)

$236,707

$38,311

$102,064

$ -

$  -

7. Reliance on football revenue (%)

16%

0%

17%

20%

29%

8. Reliance on men’s and women’s basketball revenue (%)

5%

14%

13%

18%

18%

9. Total expenditures ($)

$19,130,296

$14,549,068

$21,586,011

$10,570,847

$9,413,051

10. Athletic student aid (%)

33%

29%

29%

28%

27%

11. Salaries and benefits (%)

30%

33%

30%

32%

34%

11. a. Coaches compensation (%)

18%

17%

16%

18%

20%

11. b. Administrative compensation (%)

12%

15%

13%

13%

14%

12.  Participation and game expenses (%)

15%

13%

15%

18%

19%

13. Facilities maintenance and administrative support (%)

10%

7%

15%

11%

7%

14. Miscellaneous expenses (%)

11%

11%

10%

9%

10%

15. Athletics expenses/student-athlete ($)

$48,564

$36,274

$41,088

$28,595

$27,887

16. Athletics expenditures/institutional expenditures (%)

4%

3%

5%

6%

5%

17. Athl. Exp. Rate of Change vs. Univ. Exp. Rate of Change (%)

3%

1%

-2%

3%

3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Excludes General Overhead Allocation and Majority of Facilities Expenses

 

 

 

 

 

Today’s update from the senate’s Committee on Organization of Other Entities stated that Northeastern University spent four million dollars a year on the football program with little to show for it.  Their reasoning to cut this budget was specifically to take those resources from the football program and reinvest them into academic needs and need-based scholarships.  The number of Northeastern University donors is up (from 19,559 to 21,797), as is the number of applicants (37,693 for 2,800 spots); and the stature of that university continues to rise.  A recent NCAA report about Division One revealed that just 68 of 120 schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision, the highest level of college athletics, made a profit on football in fiscal year 2009.  One competitive notch below, in the Football Championship Subdivision where Northeastern and Hofstra played and schools depend largely on ticket sales and sponsorships for revenue, only 2 of 125 football-playing institutions reported a profit on football during the same time span.  The cost of running Hofstra’s football program this past season was tagged at $4.5 million. The average home attendance this season was 4,260 people.  Hofstra University dropped its football team due to lack of funds and interest.  Boston University cut football in 1997, at which time it was spending $2.9 million to $3 million per year; and cutting football did not adversely impact the other sports.  Boston University’s endowments were $32 million in 1972 through 1997 and did not go down due to the budget cut to football, nor did the applicant pool.  Other teams were increased.  UNH faculty should send input to the chair of the Committee on Organization of Other Entities, who is Bob Taylor at bob.taylor@unh.edu.  The senate chair said that UNH can learn from the experiences of other universities.  A student observer said that the UNH students did not think they should pay more for athletics.  The University of Connecticut invested more money in athletics, and that worked; and other universities have cut the athletics budget, and that worked for them.  Football requires a lot of money and infrastructure.  The senate chair said that the COOE report is a work in progress.

IX.  Report from the Campus Planning Committee, on housing – The CPC charge is to investigate progress on graduate and family housing and attempt to secure a proposal, in collaboration with Doug Bencks.  The chair of the Campus Planning Committee stated that the committee met with Doug Bencks who said that things are ramping up in that regard and that consultants have been hired and a six-member group is being formed.  A market survey has been done.  They hope to have better housing on campus, and also Leewood Orchard off campus is a possibility.  The process is on going.  The CPC chair added that the arts plan is active now, the president is for it, and it is part of the capital campaign.  There is a working group for that project, which is moving quickly.

X.  New business – The chair of the senate’s Student Affairs Committee said that this committee proposes that the faculty senators have a dinner with the student senators.  This would not be a potluck dinner but rather would be held in a specially-assigned area of the Philbrook Dining Hall.  Faculty would pay $8.50 for the meal, and some faculty might also pay for a student who does not have a meal plan.  The dinner could be held at 5:30 p.m. after the Faculty Senate meeting on November 28.  At the October 31 Faculty Senate meeting, the SAC chair will pass around a sheet asking faculty to sign up to sponsor a student for this dinner.

XI.  Adjournment – The meeting was adjourned.