Minutes & Agendas
University of Hawaii at Manoa Faculty Senate, April 12, 2000
Law School Classroom 2
55 Senators were present:
Belinda Aquino, Barry Baker, Horst Brandes, John Cox, Thomas Craven, MarilynDunlap, Ernestine Enomoto, Andrea Feeser, David Flynn, Agnes Fok, Patricia Fryer, Carolyn Gotay, John Haig, Emily Hawkins, Manfred Henningsen, Lenard Huff, Dianne Ishida, Robert Joseph, Nanette Judd, Karl Kim, Peter Kim, Irvin King, Laurence Kolonel, Takeo Kudo, William Lampe, Edward Laws, Bruce Liebert, Glenn Man, Joy Marsella, Matthew McGranaghan, Chris Measures, Linda Menton, Ralph Moberly, Jane Moulin, Charles Mueller, Joseph O'Mealy, Mary Pateman, Robert Paull, Teresita Ramos, John Rieder, Thomas Schroeder, Brent Sipes, Martha Staff, Virginia Tanji, Mary Tiles, Jane Tribble, Janice Uchida, Robert Valliant, Richard Varley, Frank Walton, Charles Weems, Joel Weiner, John Wendell, David Yount, Ming-Bao Yue, Sylvia Yuen.
9 Senators were excused:
Iqbal Ahmed, Robert Cooney, James Dator, Donna Fukuda, Casey Jarman, Susan Miyasaka, John Mount, Karen Peacock.
5 Senators were absent:
Robert Bart, William Haning, Joel Hanna, John Melish, Stanley Saiki.
7 administrators were present:
Dean Smith, David Robb, Ken Tokuno, Judy Hughes, Judith Inazu, Jim Manke, Alan Yang.
19 others signed in:
Ronna Bolante, Jody Moore, S.R. Haley, Wanita Willinger, Michelle Vicari, Rosemarie Woodruff, Peter Manicas, Emanuel Dreschel, Jean Toyama, D Hiple, Sandy Davis, Amy Agbayani, Karen Sakamoto, Rick Jacobs, Kathrynn Hoffman, Jim Tiles, Russ Henrie, Tang Zhryn, plus one undecpherable name
Chair Mary Tiles opened the meeting at 3:11.
1. The minutes of the Faculty Senate's March 8th, 2000 meeting were approved without amendment unanimously by voice vote.
2. Chair Tiles reported about the presence of police on Campus during the last Board of Regent's (BOR) meeting. SEC members John Cox and Barry Baker had met with President Mortimer to discuss the issue and stress that the communication issues involved here required a conversation of all the parties concerned.
A working group is preparing documents to bring before the BOR's June meeting concerning the implementation of the newly approved core. Draft documents will be posted on the Senate web page and the working group hopes to present the final material to the FS May meeting. In particular the action memo to the Board is less specific than the FS resolution and will only specify what needs to be added to Board policy. However the BOR will be presented, for information purposes, with all the documents that were part of the resolution passed by the FS. Any comments on the draft materials should be passed to Chair Tiles.
There will be a rally of all public sector Unions on April 19th in front of the Capitol building. All Faculty are encouraged to attend, and buses will be provided although details of the arrangements are not currently available. The issues involve the collective bargaining rights of all Civil Service employees, not just Faculty.
3. Committee reports
Karl Kim, co-chair of CAB, reported that CAB would meet jointly with CAPP during the summer to develop a governance structure for the implementation of the new core and any interested Faculty were invited to participate.
CAB had responded to a request regarding reporting of transactions involving funds connected to the UH foundation by drafting a resolution to require sharing of such information with the appropriate unit's Faculty. This memo had been circulated widely and the Administration had responded that they were generally in favour of the request and would draft a policy to respond to the request. With this in mind CAB had temporarily withdrawn its resolution while the Administration formulated this policy.
Co-chair Kim then presented a second reading of a resolution to amend the FS by-laws. It was pointed out that the resolution embodied three kinds of change: firstly to make FS by-laws consistent with BOR policies', second, to give the FS more explicit authority to act for the Faculty by adding the word "acts " to that of resolutions wherever it occurred; third to improve the appointment process of faculty to task forces and committees.
In response to a question as to whether reference to the University of Hawaii should be to UH Manoa, Mary Tiles pointed out that in some cases there was ambiguity about the designation of administrators so it was appropriate to retain a corresponding ambiguity in our By-laws.
Adoption of the changes was made by voice vote with 2 abstentions
4. Joy Marsella presented a report from the CAPP sub-committee that was looking at mechanisms to implement an earlier FS resolution calling for a single senior administrator (Dean/Vice Chancellor) to be responsible for lower division undergraduate education. It was pointed out that this sub-committee was part of a larger committee that was chaired by Joy Marsella and was composed of seven administrators and seven faculty. It was further pointed out that this was the final report of the committee and that its report would be presented to the Administration.
The committee had held 17-2 hour meetings, its charge had been to analyse the need to oversee undergraduate education and it incorporated the recommendations of the enrollment management committee into its final recommendations. The committee had been guided by previous FS resolutions as well as previous reports on related matters. Marsella explained that in coming to its recommended structure, which was part of the material presented to Senators, the committee had rejected several other options for a variety of reasons. The proposed organisational chart showed that many existing programs would be moved into the proposed office. The responsibilities of the new Dean were outlined and it was also stated that accomplishing this would require the internal reallocation of funds from existing college budgets or from the next campus-wide 4/4/4 cut. Estimates for the total costs for the new office ranged widely up to 1.5-2.0$M. The estimates included salary for a new Dean, a director of enrolment management and secretarial support. Included in this total was money to allow the new Dean to offer incentives for the development of undergraduate courses as well as money for recruiting. It was expected that while the successful implementation of this office would increase recruitment of students from the mainland and overseas, the major beneficiary would be local students from Hawaii. It was also pointed out that while there had been some criticism that the new organisational chart appeared to proliferate the Administration, the committee's charge did not permit it to propose a wholesale reconfiguration of the upper levels of the Administration.
In response to a question concerning whether the learning assistance centre that is currently used a lot by graduate students in the Medical School would still be available to them after its incorporation into the new undergraduate office, Alan Yang, Dean of Student Services, responded that moving this office into the new Undergraduate Dean's office was not intended to disenfranchise other students, but it was being moved because it was a service that was heavily used by Freshmen and thus it would make more sense to incorporate it into the new office. The services, though, would continue to be available to all students, including unclassified graduate students.
Rosie Woodruff read a statement expressing several concerns about the proposed reorganisation and asked that the Senate not vote on this report until the answers to several of these questions had been provided and the FS had been given time to digest them. In particular she raised the concern that the while learning assistance centre (LAC) was being moved into the new structure, undergraduate counselling was not. Alan Yang responded that the LAC was being moved because it worked closely with Ron Cambra's office and needed to be part of the new structure; further the committee did not believe that LAC and counselling had to remain together. He also pointed out that the University needed to respond to changing times and student needs and that changes inevitably meant that groups would have to give things up.
Karl Kim asked if these were one time or continuing costs. Tom Schroeder explained that he had charts to show a breakdown of the costs. Joy Marsella responded that salaries were needed for the new Dean and the Director of enrollment management and would be recurrent. Tom Schroeder pointed out that the increasing undergraduate numbers would increase revenue but that the FS needed to look at the projected costs of 0.5 to 1.8$M. Emily Hawkins said that the enrollment committee was not from the FS so we should not consider its recommendations. Bill Lampe pointed out that what was being presented was an informational report, not a motion; however the Senate could choose to make a resolution under new business if it cared. Mary Tiles pointed out that the FS had in fact called for the appointment of an office of enrollment management. John Cox asked what would the Vice-president for student affairs do under his new system. He stated that this was an opportunity for rearrangement of Administrative structure but that this would require leadership from the top. Peter Manicas noted that this was not adding a new layer of administration but a new player involved in undergraduate affairs; it was further pointed out that in the 15 Colleges and Schools with their deans and associate deans there were already in excess of 65 Administrators none of whom specifically had undergraduate education as their sole concern. Rick Jacobs, interim Dean of LLL, pointed out that as one of those deans just mentioned, he was interested in undergraduate education. John Wendell explained that in theory this was not a zero sum game since expending this money would result in growth at Manoa. Several other questions were then asked, which included whether the Manoa Writing Program would move under the new Dean, whether the new Dean would be able to solve problems like class size, whether teaching will be rewarded in different ways, and would the new Dean have authority in tenure and promotion cases and whether the money to fund the program would come from our units. Another speaker explained that the new Dean would need power to accomplish his goals and that means money. Joy Marsella said that current Deans could have solved many of these undergraduate problems but the current UH structure does not encourage them to do it. Students get lost in this process, she said, and we need to rely on Dean Smith to negotiate a new structure. Peter Manicas pointed out that we needed to give the Dean money to buy and encourage small classes, etc. Dave Robb (Director of Admissions and Records) pointed out that the recruitment budget at UH was very low compared to its peers. Kathryn Hoffman asked if the money would come out of existing unit budgets; Robb replied that the new unit must have larger resources. Andrea Feeser asked if there was money for scholarships for graduate students; Robb replied that this was just for undergraduates. Joel Weiner said that some of this money would be spent anyway, regardless of the form of the administrative structure.
Dean Smith thanked the committee and stated that we must do something about undergraduate education. It was important to improve the quality of undergraduate offerings at Manoa but he was mindful that we needed to balance this against other campus needs. He was sensitive to the point about keeping the number of administrators in check and would welcome comments which he urged Faculty to email to him. He noted, though, that it is important to do something this summer; he does not want to see another year go by without some action.
5. Robert Paull, interim chair of the Department of Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences, CTAHR, introduced a motion to amend the Hawaiian/Second waiver language requirement. The purpose of the amendment was to allow the Faculty of the various Colleges and Schools to determine for themselves whether an Hawaiian/Second language requirement should be imposed on the student taking their majors. He pointed out that the UH Manoa has approximately 90 majors within 15 different Colleges each of which have different goals. A single language requirement for all schools simply did not work and needed revising. The FS needed to reach consensus on this issue; it should not be left to the BOR. The Faculty need to determine when waivers should be granted.
He pointed out that the real justification of the second language requirement was humanistic, not fluency, since the latter could not be achieved in the currently required 0-16 credits. He showed the FS a table indicating that under the new core and language requirement, 66% of the credits were already in the Humanities with only 13% in social sciences and 21% in natural sciences; this contrasted sharply to a WASC accreditation standard that called for a balance of required courses amongst these three disciplines. He also pointed out that when the FS debated the language requirement in December, Senators were told by Faculty from LLL that 88% of Carnegie I universities required a second language for graduation. However, he had looked at the raw data from which this figure was produced and found that this number was very misleading. The 88% figure was only true if you counted a language requirement in any single program within that university as determining that the university was requiring a language of its students, but that did not mean that all students at 88% of Carnegie I universities were required to take a second language. Looking at the numbers closely he found that within Arts and Sciences departments 83% of students getting BAs and 62% of those getting BSs had to conform to a language requirement but that outside A&S Colleges only 16% were required to take a second language. Manoa is a land grant college and of the 16%, besides Manoa, only three are land grant colleges. In checking the Modern Language Association survey, two of these Universities require a second language for international agriculture majors and the other has one year requirement (Virginia Polytechnic and State University). He further stated that the humanistic goals of a second language could be obtained by a variety of other cultural classes that would ensure cultural diversity; the purpose of this motion was not to drop diversity goals but to allow students to achieve them in a manner consistent with timely graduation. Paull then presented a table indicating that the passage of this amendment would probably not lead to the major decline in students taking a second language that some feared. He expected that since 70% of UHM students graduate from A&S none of these students would be affected. For other Colleges while some might decide to waive the requirement, many would keep it as would CTAHR for some of their majors.
The motion was then seconded by John Cox.
John Wendell asked if any other land-grant college required 16 credits of a second language; Paull replied that only one, Virginia Tech, did. Joseph O'Mealy, acting associate Dean for LLL said that there was something procedurally wrong with a motion that allowed College Faculty to be both judge and jury on an issue like this it was also inappropriate for a University-wide requirement to be decided by a single college. Paull replied that this was not so unusual; in fact the language departments were both judge and jury on language placement exams that students could take to mitigate their language obligations.
Ralph Moberly pointed out that a very serious issue here was that some of the information that had been presented to Senators in December upon which they had based their votes the last time the language issue was debated, appears to have been flawed. A speaker pointed out that not all languages required 16 credits, some required fewer. Bill Lampe suggested that there was a procedure for objecting to the University requirement. Paull pointed out that this procedure does not work because of interference from a variety of sources. John Wendell pointed out that under current policy, the waiver decision goes to Dean Smith. The proposed policy would be an improvement because it would put decision making in the hands of the Faculty.
Karl Kim asked if this new policy had been given much exposure in the UH Community, and also what was CAPP's opinion. Paull replied that there was actually no Faculty involvement in the current policy. Kathryn Hoffman said that if this motion was passed, the FS could open up all core and graduation requirements. John Wendell replied that since there already was a waiver policy for languages, this was not opening up anything, it was merely changing the way a waiver was obtained. Paull pointed out that the language was also not a general education requirement but a graduation requirement. Emily Hawkins said that this was splitting hairs.
Bill Lampe pointed out that although the BOR incorporated language into the core in practice, it is separate. Chris Measures pointed out that he was sure that the language requirement would not be counted as a general education requirement when the new core was sent to the BOR. For if it was counted that way the BOR would soon realise that the new core had only marginally reduced the credit load on undergraduates and since the proposal called for the expenditure of significant amounts of new money, they would be unlikely to pass it. More importantly, though, it was important for the FS to realise that the second language requirement was a major barrier to undergraduate recruitment at UH Manoa. Faculty could not continually blame the administration for the continuing decline in enrollment at UHM if the Faculty failed to take action to remedy barriers to recruitment of its own making, simply because it impacted the self-interest of some groups of faculty.
Another speaker pointed out that UHM does not have language admission requirements because some high schools do not teach certain languages. Charlie Weems pointed out that although the BOR claims that the University of Hawaii is one seamless system, only UHM has a language requirement; neither UH Hilo nor the community colleges require it.
Joseph O' Mealy moved that the motion should be referred to an appropriate committee such as CAPP for further study. After seconding by Emily Hawkins and some debate, Bill Lampe pointed out that, under Robert's Rules, O'Mealy's motion could be debated and voted on while the original motion was still on the floor.
A vote, by show of hands, with 20 votes in favour, 26 against, and 1 abstention, defeated the motion to refer.
A call for the vote on the original motion was then made. The vote to decide whether to call the question was agreed to by a show of hands that indicated 32 in favour, 8 against and 5 abstentions.
The motion to approve a new waiver policy approval process was then approved by a show of hands indicating 28 in favour and 20 against, 0 abstentions.
There being no other business, the FS adjourned at 5:02pm.