MOTION ON ASSESSMENT OF ADMINISTRATORS
Approved by the Manoa Faculty Senate on 1/16/2013
41 in support; 0 against
|Date||Document & Link||Source|
|1/16/2013||Senate voted 41:0 in favor of Motion on Assessment of Administrators at the January Senate Meeting.||Senate|
|1/10/2013||Committee on Professional Matters attended Committee on Administration and Budget meeting to discuss issue and reached consensus on motion via e-mail thereafter.||Cmtee. on Administration and Budget
Cmtee. on Professional Matters
|12/2012||Committee on Professional Matters' Fall 2012 Report:"CPM co Chairs met with members of UHM Human Resources to better understand the 360 evaluation. We continue to look at this issue to determine if a separate feedback mechanism is warranted. We continue to be guided by excellence through transparency. A report of our findings and recommendations is forthcoming. We have received communications from Doug Vincent, Chair of CAB, and intend to meet jointly with CAB on January 10, 2013 and share our findings in the Spring Semester."||Cmtee. on Professional Matters|
|12/2012||Committee on Administration and Budget's Fall 2012 Report: "CAB contacted CPM about any proposed action, awaits a response from CPM. It will be placed on the January 10, 2012 meeting agenda."||Cmtee. on Administration and Budget|
|8/2012||Senate Executive Committee added carryover issue to 2012-13 issues index and referred it to the Committee on Professional Matters and Committee on Administration and Budget for review||Executive Committee|
|11/16/2011||Committee on Professional Matters Update Provided at November Senate meeting: "This was discussed last year, and Committee on Professional Matters and Committee on Administration and Budget agreed that the Michigan model was appropriate. Under Hawaii law, no evaluations can be made public without the consent of the person evaluated. Committee on Professional Matters developed a proposed consent form last year. Committee on Professional Matters and Committee on Administration and Budget will follow up."||Cmtee. on Professional Matters|
|7/26/2011||2011-12 Senate Executive Committee charge: Committee on Professional Matters began studying this issue during the 2010-2011 academic year. Committee on Professional Matters is asked to form a joint working group with Committee on Administration and Budget to continue their study and recommend criteria and process for evaluating administrators to the Senate on or before October 2012. If the Committee on Professional Matters/Committee on Administration and Budget proposal is accepted by the Senate, Committee on Professional Matters will conduct the evaluation before the end of the Spring 2012 semester.||Executive Committee|
Presented to the Manoa Faculty Senate on January 16, 2013 by the Committees on Professional Matters and Administration and Budget as a motion encouraging greater procedural and substantive transparency in University of Hawai‘i at Manoa’s administrative assessment practices. Approved by the Mānoa Faculty Senate on January 16, 2013 with 41 votes in favor of approval and 0 opposed.
MOTION ON ASSESSMENT OF ADMINISTRATORS
The Manoa Faculty Senate urge the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa to devote its administrative, legal and political resources to achieving greater procedural and substantive transparency in its practices to assess administrators and that this transparency is sufficient to ensure adequate oversight of and trust in the University of Hawai‘i (UH) System.
Both the Committee on Professional Matters (CPM) and the Committee on Administration and Budget (CAB) concur that regular evaluations of UHM administrators are essential to ensure the proper functioning of the University. However the current procedures, implemented some years ago when responsibility devolved from the UH System to UH Manoa, have been under-resourced. In particular, administrative assessment practices at Manoa have evolved into something of a "black box", affording no transparency at either the procedural or substantive levels. This opacity serves neither the need for trustworthiness in the UH System nor the need for effective oversight of administrative performance. Under the present lack of transparency, it is impossible for the Senate to make a judgment about whether the present system conceals shortcomings or somehow exposes and addresses them.
In researching this issue, CPM determined that some US universities have been successful in designing transparent mechanisms for administrative evaluation. As an example, the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) has implemented a participatory program that appears to have invigorated the quality of administration even as it has opened the review process to the light of day, and at the same time significantly improved faculty morale and trust of administrators. This statement was made to CPM members two years ago when they contacted the Senate of the University of Michigan to inquire about their process, challenges, and successes. The publicly accessible University of Michigan Faculty Senate Administration Evaluation Website can be found at http://aec.umich.edu/ and provides data back to academic year 04-05.
Both CPM and CAB senators are well aware of challenges that could slow the implementation of such a system at Manoa: collective bargaining issues, privacy laws, and so on. Nonetheless we are of the opinion that it is essential to begin the process of strengthening Mānoa’s administrative assessment practices. The present political climate may be an ideal one, and the Mānoa faculty should be in the forefront in pressing for such change.