Students sitting on the lawn in front of Hawaii Hall

Hawaiʻi Hall

The search for a new chancellor for the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa has concluded without an appointment. Rather than reopen the search, University of Hawaiʻi President David Lassner is recommending that he continue to serve as interim UH Mānoa chancellor for two more years during which he will work collaboratively with the campus to advance Hawaiʻi’s flagship research university. Lassner has served as the interim chancellor since September 2016.

“It is my view that Mānoa can’t wait for a new chancellor to be selected to make the advances we need now, and that uncertainty places a severe damper on forward progress,” said Lassner in a February 15, 2017 message to UH Mānoa students, faculty and staff. Lassner is recommending that the current interim arrangement continue and is not proposing to merge the positions of system president and Mānoa chancellor. ”I recognize, perhaps better than anyone, that the UH presidency and the Mānoa chancellorship are two distinct, large and difficult jobs,” Lassner stated.


The recommendation is that the opening of a new search for a Mānoa chancellor be considered in two years. During that period, the focus will be to work collaboratively to advance key areas, including matters identified by the Board of Regents. This will include such priorities as: a modern, integrated data-driven enrollment management program to reverse declining student enrollment; mission-driven academic restructuring; new approaches to campus space management, facilities modernization and planning; and moving toward a new campus budget model.

“My charge in the chancellor’s office will be to work collaboratively with the Mānoa leadership, faculty, students and staff to make the changes necessary for UH Mānoa to thrive as Hawaiʻi’s great research university,” said Lassner.

Lassner added that based on his five and a half months as interim chancellor, he believes a significant restructuring of the Mānoa chancellor and vice chancellor offices would support greater progress in critical areas and position UH Mānoa for greater success.

He will hold an open forum in March to provide an update on progress and to receive input and ideas from the campus community. 

Search process

Last spring Lassner appointed a Search Advisory Committee for the chancellor of UH Mānoa. This group provided comprehensive stakeholder representation from the campus and included community participants.  

“I can attest that committee worked in an extremely collegial manner and was diligent and hardworking in their dedication to the task of helping select the next chancellor of UH Mānoa,” said Lassner. The committee reviewed the role of the Mānoa chancellor, updated the position description and advertised nationally and locally in specialized and general-purpose publications. After reviewing more than thirty applications, eight semi-finalists were identified and interviewed via videoconference. Three finalists were selected, and each participated in two-day campus visits that included meetings with stakeholder groups. A single finalist was identified for consideration of appointment, but upon the initiation of discussions that candidate withdrew from consideration.

“This was a superb Search Advisory Committee that did everything correctly, and I had no disagreement with their conclusions,” said Lassner. “I would like to thank the committee members for their thoughtfulness, care and diligence.”

 

Statement on UH Mānoa chancellor search and next steps

David Lassner

David Lassner

UH President David Lassner shared a message on February 15 to students, faculty and staff of the UH Mānoa campus.

Late last spring I appointed a Search Advisory Committee for the position of Chancellor of UH Mānoa. This group provided comprehensive stakeholder representation from the campus and included community participants as well. The committee reviewed the role of the Mānoa Chancellor within UH today and updated the position description. The position was then advertised nationally and locally in specialized and general-purpose publications. The Committee received and reviewed over 30 applications, including those of candidates who were nominated for the position and agreed to be considered.

Based on review of the written materials, the committee selected eight semi-finalists and interviewed them via videoconference. After extensive discussion, three of the semi-finalists were selected as finalists and invited to make campus visits. These visits took place during the end of 2016 and beginning of 2017 and consisted of two days of intensive meetings for each finalist with stakeholder groups and individuals.

I met four times with the Committee during their work and I can attest that the committee worked in an extremely collegial manner and was diligent and hardworking in their dedication to the task of helping select the next Chancellor of UH Mānoa. Their final meeting provided me with an assessment of the viability of all three finalists with strengths and weaknesses. This was a superb Search Advisory Committee that did everything correctly, and I had no disagreement with their conclusions.

Immediately after receiving the input of the committee, I reached out directly to one candidate. At that time I was advised of the candidate’s withdrawal from consideration for appointment at this time. I will not comment on the reasons for withdrawal since that might compromise the confidentiality of the Search Advisory Committee assessments. But I will say that the reasons in no way reflected on UH Mānoa or the qualifications, suitability and genuine interest of the candidate in the position.

Based on the committee’s assessments, with which I am in full agreement after my own meetings with the finalists, I am unable to recommend a new Chancellor at this time. The Committee’s assessments are confidential, and I will not comment further on details and reasons.

This of course raises the question of next steps.

UH Mānoa is now well-positioned for significant progress on major challenges and opportunities. These include such imperatives as: creating a data-driven integrated enrollment management program for the campus to reverse declining student enrollment; mission-driven academic restructuring; new approaches to campus space management, facilities modernization and planning; better integration of instructional and research missions and activities; and taking initial implementation steps toward a new budget model. Based on my five and a half months as Interim Chancellor, it is also clear to me that a significant restructuring of the Mānoa Chancellor and Vice Chancellor offices would facilitate progress in critical areas and position Mānoa for greater success while improving efficiencies.

It is my view that UH Mānoa can’t wait for a new Chancellor to be selected to make the advances we need, and that uncertainty places a severe damper on changes that support forward progress. It is therefore my recommendation that the search not be reopened at this time. I instead recommend that the Board of Regents charge me to continue in the dual capacity as President and Interim Chancellor. My charge in the Chancellor’s office will be to work collaboratively with the Mānoa campus leadership, faculty, students and staff, and with others in the UH System, to make the changes necessary for UH Mānoa to thrive as Hawaiʻi’s great research university. Last year the Board of Regents laid out a set of mandates for the campus, and there are other imperatives as well. Next month I will hold an open forum to provide an update on the work to date and to receive input and ideas from the broad campus community.

I recognize, perhaps better than anyone, that the UH Presidency and the Mānoa Chancellorship are two distinct, large and difficult jobs. So I am absolutely not recommending that the positions be combined. I believe that the question of campus leadership should be revisited in 2 years to determine how to fill the Chancellor position. In the meantime, I believe I can mitigate the conflicts that will naturally arise from time to time. And this arrangement will also provide for a closer relationship with the Board of Regents and with the System Vice Presidents as we advance the campus.

This is not what I had hoped to be recommending, but I believe this is the best path available at this time to create a great future for UH Mānoa as the flagship research university of the UH System.

Finally, I would like to thank the Search Advisory Committee for their thoughtfulness, care and diligence. I know they are disappointed, as I am and as are many on campus. This outcome is in no way a reflection on the Search Advisory Committee or their work.

ʻAʻohe hana nui ke alu ʻia.
(No task is too big when done together by all.)

David Lassner

Print this article
This Post Has One Comment
  1. February 23, 2017

    Concerning Why White, Robel, And Ramaswamy Withdrew From The Manoa Chancellor Race—The Lost, Erased, And Invisible Record

    Throughout the course of history events have been recorded—some accurate; some inaccurate—and in some cases events have been lost to history because they have not been recorded. The press release issued by University of Hawaii president David Lassner regarding why all three of the Manoa campus chancellor candidates withdrew from the race in the final stages of the selection process falls largely into the latter two categories because (i) the real reason why the three candidates all said “No” to the UH was not officially recorded; and (ii) the Pollyannaish press release was misleading to the extent that it inaccurately recorded this historical state event.

    As is often the case, the corollary to the distribution of a superficially attractive communiqué is the even wider—and uncritical—distribution by the mainstream media concatenating links upon links into an unbreakable chain of misinformation until—presto!—untruths become the truth.

    Contradictory to the administration’s positive spin, it is not a coincidence that all three finalists unexpectedly withdrew in the final stretch of a lengthy executive search. Operating from behind the curtain via communicating enlightening records, reports, and on-the-ground intelligence reflecting the less than stellar landscape and state of affairs within the UH bureaucracy, I was able to rationally persuade the candidates that the UH presented a poor pick. This is the real reason why all three finalists quit the race. Deciphering the staggering occurrence of the identical act of withdrawal by all three candidates, one could reasonably deduce that the finalists were implicitly protesting the UH administration’s record and tarnished reputation by electing to pull out of negotiations.

    A resounding theme made known to the candidates was the UH administration’s lingering historical record of injustice. Specifically, it has been assiduously documented that the UH administration has speciously withheld my lawfully earned diploma for twenty years. The attendant question, then, is why did three administrators outside the UH discern straightaway what administrators inside the UH have refused to recognize for two decades? The answer is clear—the UH administration is blinded by bias, favoritism, and closed-mindedness. In an administrative scandal implicating UH administrators, the UH administration erected various defense mechanisms to thwart external excoriation resulting in a bureaucratic state of denial.

    The small cadre of senior-level administrators at the UH are abysmal at policing themselves. Does anyone think for a second that the UH executive administration will sue itself or find fault with its own actions? Elevate your consciousness, be magnanimous, don’t be petty and mean-spirited is what I would write on the UH administration’s report card. If these changes come to pass, then the ominous clouds that have gathered over Bachman Hall for many years will begin to dissipate and peace will carry the day.

    David A. Mihaila

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *