 "Photo: N/A")
Last Thursday, members of the UNH chapter of the American Association of Union Professors received an email announcing, in all capital letters, that they were conducting a no confidence vote on President Mark Huddleston.
The vote will decide whether the union deems Huddleston unfit to maintain his position at the university – a ludicrous thought at an even more ludicrous time.
Last week, Huddleston asked senators to avoid slashing the USNH budget more than $5 million after the House already approved a $45 million cut. The current budget is $100 million.
And now, professors have the chance to vote no confidence on Huddleston.
If professors don't have confidence in UNH leadership, how is the senate supposed to give USNH the $95 million it's asking for in the new budget?
In an email to AAUP members, English professor David Watters wrote, "just imagine if we vote confidence in Huddleston! It would send the message that the huge cuts in the House budget are just fine with us."
No, Professor Watters, it would not.
Huddleston has worked hard over the last week to ensure that the House budget is not passed. Voting confidence would show that you're going to stand up to the huge cuts.
Plus, this is a move that the AAUP is not prepared for.
Members have had just five days to mull over one of the biggest decisions in UNH history. And one of those days was a major holiday that many celebrated. For a typical meeting, according to union bylaws, members have at least 30 days to prepare.
Rather than discussing this major decision like mature adults – you know, the kind that professors are trying to mold students into – they decided to hold this vote.
While the AAUP doesn't cite contract negotiations as a contributor to approving the vote, it certainly didn't hurt. We've made it clear where we stand regarding these negotiations. The professors are simply asking for too much at a time when a USNH budget hasn't been approved.
President Huddleston didn't do himself any favors with the union during his speech, especially with lines like, "we still too frequently convey information in 50 minute lectures delivered by a ‘sage on the stage' to largely passive recipients in the audience."
But is he wrong? No. We've all encountered sub-par professors and we've all been a part of passive classes with unenthusiastic students. That's part of what he's trying to change with his strategic plan.
And he deserves a chance to do that.
The union should postpone this vote. It hasn't given professors the time to contemplate this and discuss it with other members. It hasn't given Huddleston the time he needs for reform. It sadly doesn't understand the effect that would have on the school.
So instead, professors need to head down to the library on Tuesday and Wednesday, grab their ballots and mark confidence in our president.
The union has already made two major mistakes in jeopardizing state appropriations and giving professors insufficient time before the vote. Let's hope they don't make a third.
is a member of the 
Official Music Sponsor: 
12 comments
The strategies used and the results achieved by union leadership over the past 10 years have been pathetic. They have increasingly resorted to name-calling, character assassination, and a campaign of misinformation. Meanwhile, the only things that they have achieved have been to repeatedly delay, delay and delay agreements on new contracts. They are worse than non-productive, they are actively poisoning the environment here at UNH, and they apparently don't mind trying to drag students into their political schemes either.
I cannot stomach the fact that 5 members of the union leadership have decided that this how they are going to spend their time, and my union dues. My only hope is that this vote blows up in their faces and galvanizes the faculty to either elect new union leadership, vote "no confidence" in the current union leadership, or decertify the entire union.
But I am not convinced that this vote will ensure that the senate will not send more money this way. The vote IS happening. Does this mean we actually have no hope of receiving more money? Could you please clear up my confusion and explain why the state will positively not be giving us more money as a result of the vote occurring? You sort of left me hanging with an absolute statement and zero explanation...
In reality, the outcome of this vote will be overshadowed by the fact that the vote is occurring at all. Such a situation is a clear indication of discontent among the faculty and staff of the university. Clearly, there is a large enough number of faculty members who are unsure of the current course the president has set for the school. Denying these important voices their own opinions is foolish and also self-defeating. The faculty are the people most directly affected by the mandates and policies of the president of the institution. Thus, they provide the most unfiltered opinions and knowledge about the direction of the university based on executive decisions. The most ludicrous statement in this editorial is the one that claims that holding the no confidence vote is itself ludicrous. Besides that, I would hope students at this school have more tact than to blatantly insult faculty by calling them immature or claiming outright that specific professor's statements are absolutely wrong.
I also find it ironic that President Huddleston's strategic plan, based on long-term development and future goals of sustainability, could be threatened by such immediate actions. Perhaps the TNH is confused as to the actual consequences of this vote. The no confidence vote does not force the president out of office. If there is a significant portion of the responses exhibiting a lack of confidence, it will be clear to the administration that the faculty is unhappy with the current state of affairs and is also hesitant to sign on to the strategic plans of the current president. Obviously the political atmosphere of the institution is volatile right now. But that is precisely why strong opinions, especially those that act against the grain, need to be heard. When everything is working properly within a system, the voices of discontent matter much less than when there are serious problems. So I believe that a vote like this, which is threatening to the status quo, will be at least a good indicator of the cohesion between the top administration and the faculty here at UNH. While it is easier to ignore those voices, it is also much more dangerous for the future stability of the institution. Who wrote this editorial anyways, Dean Kirkpatrick? Maybe that would be giving too much credit...(just fighting fire with fire there)
This is about the refusal of the administration to give the faculty their 12.5 % pay raise.
UNH faculty think they are the only intelligent people on campus. They think we are too stupid to see right through them.