�̾�����Ƶ

(Note: OLPM sections on this page may be cited following the format of, for example, "USA.III.G.1". These policies may be amended at any time, do not constitute an employment contract, and are provided here only for ease of reference and without any warranty of accuracy. See for details.)

---

1. Purpose

The USNH System Office is committed to providing a safe and secure working environment for employees and visitors. ��To support this commitment to safety, the use or possession of any firearms, other dangerous weapons that could be used to inflict injury, or explosives is absolutely prohibited on any property owned, controlled, or operated by the System Office.

2. Violations

Any person violating this policy shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary and/or legal action as appropriate under applicable federal, state, and local laws and the policies and procedures of �̾�����Ƶ and the System Office.

3. Exception

On duty law enforcement officers authorized to carry weapons are exempted from the prohibition established in this policy.

(Note: OLPM sections on this page may be cited following the format of, for example, "USA.III.G.1". These policies may be amended at any time, do not constitute an employment contract, and are provided here only for ease of reference and without any warranty of accuracy. See OLPM Main Menu for details.)

---

1.������This procedure shall apply to all requests for access to public records received by the administrative offices of the �̾�����Ƶ.

2.������Requests for access to �̾�����Ƶ public records should be made in writing and should include a specific description of the desired documents. All steps taken to comply with such requests should be documented in writing and should include a specific description of the documents that were made available.

3.������Public documents requested under the Right-to-Know Law must be made available within a reasonable time. That reasonable time is determined with respect to the circumstances of the particular request. The greater the administrative time and effort required to comply with a request, the greater the time that will be considered "reasonable." In the event a reply will take longer than a few days, a letter should be sent acknowledging receipt of the request and estimating when a substantive reply will be available.

4.������The Right-to-Know Law does not specify a particular method by which access to public records must be allowed. Access will ordinarily be afforded by providing photocopies of the requested materials. In some instances alternate methods -- such as allowing personal review of a particularly voluminous file -- may be more appropriate.

5.������A public agency may charge a fee for providing access to its public records. That fee should be calculated to cover the variable costs incurred by the agency in providing access to the records. The basic fee for producing photocopies of �̾�����Ƶ records shall be $.10 per page. Other variable costs incurred, e.g. personnel salary and benefits, may be charged in appropriate cases.

6.������While �̾�����Ƶ has an obligation to provide the public with reasonable access to its public records, the System must also respect the privacy interests of persons who are the subject of confidential, or otherwise exempted, information contained in those records. A �̾�����Ƶ record must be reviewed in its entirety before it is released in order to ensure that no confidential or otherwise exempted information is included.

7.������Other types of records exempted from the public access requirement include personnel records, student records, internal memoranda and draft reports, privileged documents (e.g. lawyer-client communication), records pertaining to litigation, collective bargaining, real estate negotiations, and records containing certain types of confidential commercial or financial information.

8.������It is possible that only a portion of the information contained in a �̾�����Ƶ record will be subject to public access under the Right-to-Know Law. In such cases �̾�����Ƶ must make a reasonable effort to provide access to the public portions of the record. For instance, a redacted photocopy of the document may be provided.

9.������The legislature has provided for private enforcement of the Right-to-Know law by suit in the Superior Courts. Plaintiffs are entitled to an expeditious hearing and, if successful, reimbursement for their attorneys' fees and costs. The General Counsel should be consulted whenever questions arise as to the appropriate response to a request for �̾�����Ƶ records.

10.������This procedure shall be effective immediately and shall continue in force until otherwise amended or repealed.

��

(Note: OLPM sections on this page may be cited following the format of, for example, "USA.III.G.1". These policies may be amended at any time, do not constitute an employment contract, and are provided here only for ease of reference and without any warranty of accuracy. See for details.)

---

The �̾�����Ƶ policy on conflict of interest () does not directly address the question of whether a �̾�����Ƶ employee can accept a gift (including, e.g., travel expenses, meals, entertainment opportunities, etc.) from a current or potential �̾�����Ƶ business partner. ��Even so, as a matter of practice �̾�����Ƶ employees, and in particular employees at the executive level or with relevant decision-making authority, generally are very careful to avoid accepting anything that might be considered a personal gift from a vendor. ��In addition, it is always important to consider the perceptions of a skeptical media outlet, state legislator, or citizen.

One useful decision-making exercise is to develop the bullet points to be used by our media relations people to defend the decision in the court of public opinion. ��It is also important that before implementing the decision you alert anyone who would have to support the decision in the event it is challenged – likely that will include both the department head and the Chancellor. ��And, if there is a potential for controversy, it is a good idea to document the decision and supporting rationale before you implement the decision. ��To state the obvious, we work in highly-visible positions of public trust and any perceived breach of our duties as stewards of the public good will harm our relationships with key constituents including the campuses, the Board of Trustees, student and their parents, and the legislature.

Some key factors to include in the analysis:

• The value to �̾�����Ƶ of participating in the opportunity;
• The total cost of the opportunity;
• The extent to which the opportunity is beneficial to �̾�����Ƶ versus a personally interesting/valuable experience;
• The extent to which the opportunity may raise, or be seen as raising, the cost of services to students or employees (e.g., the offer of an affinity credit card that provides payments to the institution based on usage);
• The public perception of the opportunity: ��the extravagance, the location(s), the expense, the activities (i.e., the “boondoggle-appearance” test);
• The �̾�����Ƶ employee’s role relative to the engagement of the vendor and/or the management of the vendor relationship (i.e., will the public perceive the opportunity as potentially influencing your judgment?); and
• If the opportunity is valuable to �̾�����Ƶ and reasonably priced, why shouldn’t �̾�����Ƶ pay for your participation and eliminate and question or appearance of conflict or impropriety?