Home > Documents



Issue #36.12
Approved by the Manoa Faculty Senate on 1/16/2013
41 in support; 0 against

[Pdf] (Motion)
[Pdf] (Transmittal)

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.


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.