WHEREAS Section 1-10, "Regents' Policy on Faculty Involvement in Academic Decision Making and Academic Policy Development" of the Board of Regents Bylaws and Policies, states:
It is the policy of the University to maintain and strengthen organized and systematic involvement by faculty in academic decision making and policy development.
WHEREAS there is a historical practice of faculty consultation in the development and review of reorganization proposals, and
WHEREAS Blue Ribbon Panels, Task Forces, unit and campus faculty bodies have all taken part in various reorganizations, and
WHEREAS there have been differences among units in the extent and nature of faculty involvement in the process, and
WHEREAS due to the economic outlook, it is anticipated that many more reorganizations will be proposed, and
WHEREAS it is recognized that reorganization is a fundamental administrative responsibility but it is noted that specific language consistent with the BOR policy of faculty involvement in decision making and policy development does not appear to be present in the document that outlines the reorganization procedures,
THEREFORE, be is resolved that Section A3.101, "University of Hawaii Organizational and Functional Changes" of the "Guidelines for Processing Organizational and Functional Changes" be revised as follows: [Added language shown in capital letters and bold print]
Change 1: Add sentence to p. 3 of document A3.101 under
5. Reorganization Proposal Requests
A proposal must be prepared for each reorganization to be approved. THE PROPOSAL SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE APPROPRIATE UNIT FACULTY SENATE OR, IN UNITS WHERE NO FACULTY SENATE EXISTS, WITH A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE UNIT FACULTY. This includes those to be approved by the BOR as well as those to be approved under delegated authority. All proposals shall include a narrative and copies of the current and proposed organization and position organization charts, and functional statements.
Change 2: Add new paragraph to p 4 of Document A3.101
F. FACULTY EVALUATION
1) INCLUDE AN EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL BY THE UNIT FACULTY SENATE OR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.
2) SHOULD THE UNIT FACULTY SENATE OR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BELIEVE THAT FURTHER EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL IS REQUIRED IT MAY REQUEST THAT THE PROPOSAL BE REFERRED TO THE APPROPRIATE CAMPUS FACULTY SENATE BY THE APPROPRIATE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT.
Change 3: Update flow chart, Attachment A, to reflect these revisions.
April 15, 1998
TO: Faculty Senate, University of Hawaii at Manoa
FROM: Committee on Academic Policy and Planning (CAPP)
SUBJECT: Motion to approve the proposal for the reorganizing Summer Session and the College of Continuing Education and Community Service
The University is in the process of considering reorganization of a number of the academic units on the campus, primarily for the purpose of achieving cost-savings. There are two avenues for reorganization: A: Reorganization which occurs by action of the Board of Regents, in which case the reorganization proposal is referred to the Faculty Senate for review before being taken to the Board of Regents, and B: Reorganization by delegated authority, in which case the University Administration can undertake reorganization without going to the Board of Regents and without reviev by the Faculty Senate.
Under delegated authority, the process does not provide for Faculty Senate review nor does it specific faculty involvement in reorganization decisions. We believe that faculty need to be participants in all reorganization decisions. It is urgent that we clarify the faculty role at this time, since reorganization decisions for units at UH-Manoa are under imminent consideration.
The attached resolution is for consideration of the Faculty Senate at its April 22 meeting. The resolution suggests two amendments to explicitly indicate the need for faculty participation to the document A3.101 Guidelines for Processing Organizational and Functional Changes, July 1991. Attached is the proposed resolution and the first 4 pages of this document, indicating where the proposed language should be inserted.
P 1 of 19 -- not included
A3.101 P 2 of 19
3) A new university program is being established or an existing one is being abolished, e.g., an organized research unit.
Whenever a new program is approved in concept by the BOR but the organizational functions and structure for that program are not presented to the BOR for approval at that time, programs are required to obtain a subsequent BOR approval for the organizational structure and functions which will be implemented.
b. Approval Under Delegation of Authority Authority to approve other organizational changes, which are not subject to BOR approval in item 3.a., above, is, delegated by the President to each Senior Vice President and Chancellor, the Senior Vice President, each Vice President, each Systemwide Director, the State Director for Vocational Education and the UH Manoa Deans and Directors.
This policy and procedure applies to the following:
a. Reorganization Proposals
Reorganization proposals should reflect authorized permanent positions only. They should not reflect positions which are desired but are subject to appropriation by the Legislature.
A reorganization is defined as:
1) Creation of a new organizational segment or the abolishment of an existing organizational segment.
2) Creation of a new supervisory level or the deletion of an existing supervisory level.
3) Rearrangement or regrouping of existing organizational segments involving the reassignment or redistribution of functions, as well as positions which are affected by these changes in functions.
4) Addition of new programs or functions and/or the deletion of existing programs or functions.
A3.101 P 3 of 19
b. Changes in titles of organizational segments.
c. Annual update of organization charts and functional statements.
5. Reorganization Proposal Requests
A proposal must be prepared for each reorganization to be approved. Insert here This includes those to be approved by the BOR as well as those to be approved under delegated authority. All proposals shall include a narrative and copies of the current and proposed organization and position organization charts, and functional statements.
The narrative should be structured as outlined below.
a. Present Organization
b. Proposed Organization
c. Background/Nature Of the Proposed Reorganization
1) A discussion of the conditions or factors prompting the proposed reorganization, e.g., new program requirements.
2) An explanation of the details or nature of the proposed reorganization including but not limited to:
a) the reassignment of existing positions and functions;
b) the addition of new positions, functions, and programs;
c) whether position variances must be completed and whether new positions will be required as replacements for positions reclassified;
d) how operational, organizational, functional, and programmatic relationships will be affected, includingthe impact on services to the program's target group(s);
e) the impact of the reorganization on existing positions, e.g., reclassification or redescription;
A3.101 P 4 of 19
f) a discussion of the need and availability of office space or other requirements necessary for the implementation of the reorganization;
g) the estimated additional cost of the reorganization, including details on new positions required, reclassification costs, cost of equipment, furniture, utilities, etc., and the availability of funding.
d. Reasons for Proposing the Reorganization
1) A statement as to whether there is a basis in law or policy which supports the reorganization.
2) An explanation of the reasons for. proposing the reorganization and why an organizational solution is being advocated.
3) An explanation of how the problems or conditions which exist will be either eliminated or improved upon and why the existing organization is inadequate.
4) A discussion of the benefits and desired results which will be achieved by reorganizing.
5) Qualitative and quantitative data which will support the reorganization.
6) An explanation of why functions are being grouped as they are under the proposed organization if a change in grouping is proposed.
e. Other Alternatives Considered
Discuss other alternatives (both organizational and non-organizational) which were considered but were deemed undesirable.
f. insert here
6. Procedure for Processing and Obtaining Approval for Proposed Organizational Changes Under the Delegation of Authority (see flowchart in Attachment A)
It is the responsibility of each Senior Vice President and Chancellor, the Senior Vice President, each Vice President, each Systemwide Director, the State Director