Minutes & Agendas
University of Hawai'i at Manoa Faculty Senate December 6, 2000
Law School Classroom 2
- Chair's Report
- Committee Reports
- Special Advisor to President - Harold Masumoto -- Manoa Chancellor
- Two views
- Seeking consensus
- Chancellor 1971-1985
- When will new chancellor be in place?
- Relationship between President and Chancellor
- Can search be on-budget and on-time?
- Faculty discussion
- Vice Chancellor structure needs clarity because they will do real work - Dean Smith
- Reduce number of deans
- President vs Chancellor vs Vice Chancellors
- Two views
Iqbal Ahmed, Michael Antal, Belinda Aquino, Hazel Beh, Kent Bridges, Craig Chaudron, Meda Chesney-Lind, Jerome Comcowich, Joanne Cooper, John Cox, Thomas Craven, Martha Crosby, Jim Dator, Sandy Davis, Marilyn Dunlap, Ernestine Enomoto, Carl Evensen, Andrea Feeser, David Flynn, Michael Forman, Richard Frankel, Donna Fukuda, Carolyn Gotay, Emily Hawkins, Manfred Henningsen, Karen Jolly, Merle Kataoka-Yahiro, Irvin King, Ed Laws, Bruce Liebert, Glenn Man, Joy Marsella, James Marsh, Susan Miyasaka, Ralph Moberly, Jane Moulin, Wendy Pearson, Teresita Ramos, Philip Rehbock, John Rieder, Gerard Russo, David Sanders, Francis Sansone, Gwen Sinclair, Brent Sipes, Martha Staff, John Stimson, Charles Weems, Joel Weiner, Sylvia Yuen
Barry Baker, Robert Cooney, Robert Joseph, Nanette Judd
Elaine Bailey, Horst Brandes, Pamela Fujita-Starck, Michael Garcia, William Haning, John Hardman, Peter Kim, Laurence Kolonel, John Melish, Charles Mueller, Robert Paull, Frank Walton, Kelley Withy, Ming-Bao Yue
Thomas Bopp, Mona Chock, Judith Inazu, Jim Manke, Harold Masumoto, Barbara Polk, Dean Smith, Ken Tokuno
OTHERS SIGNED IN:
Lance Collins, Catherine Cruz, Emmanuel Drechsel, Ruth Hsu, Mamo Kim, Ken Kipnis, William Lampe, Peter Manicas, Joe O'Mealy, Barbara Ross-Pfeiffer, Jim Tiles, Mary Tiles.
Vice Chair John Cox called the Senate in session at 3:07 PM.
The minutes of November 8 were adopted unanimously, with one abstention.
Vice Chair Cox announced that Chair Barry Baker is in San Francisco, and will give a detailed report on his activities since the last Senate meeting at the January meeting. Cox remarked that a summary statement would be that "we have made no major progress on any front, but we are doing our best."
He also announced that David Iha, Secretary of the Board of Regents, will inform us of progress in the Presidential Search Committee during our January Senate meeting.
The first order of business was the report by the Committee on Academic Policy and Planning (CAPP) concerning the General Education Implementation Resolution.
Manfred Henningsen, chair of CAPP, introduced the report by saying this finishes a major portion of the "dirty business" of the Manoa Senate in regard to the revised Core-- namely, designing the governance and committee structure through which the new Core curriculum will come into existence. Prof. Henningsen especially thanked Karen Jolly and Craig Chaudron for their outstanding work.
He also quoted Tom Bopp as saying that the Senate's work on the Core represented a paradigm shift for the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. Faculty are now assuming responsibility for maintaining as well as defining the Core. The former used to be the duty of Bachman Hall. Now it is our responsibility. We can no longer blame the Administration for any failures. We are now running the show. Thus, it is essential that we encourage all of our colleagues to participate in the Core governance process and to give as much time as possible to these activities.
Whatever we may think of the President, or the Governor, or the Extra Terrestrial who will visit us later today, the Core is now our responsibility. While it would be desirable if the university community could choose its own leaders--as is the case for every European university--at least we have control over our Core. So let us act wisely and well, Prof. Henningsen exhorted.
He then introduced Prof. Chaudron who modestly said that he only performed some organizational functions in preparing this report; that the intellectual substance came from all of the many other faculty members who participated in preparing it, namely, S. Davis, P. Fujita-Starck, M. Garcia, W. Iwaoka, H. McEwan, P. Rehbock, M. Tiles, K. Tokuno, R. Cambra, D. Preble, D. Robb, M. Stitt-Bergh, J. Toyama, and S. Yuen.
Chaudron then referred to the document titled "Faculty Governance of University of Hawai'i at Manoa General Education", which was attached to the Senate agenda.
He displayed an overhead of Figure One which shows that while the overall responsibility for the definition and operation of the Core lies with the Faculty Senate, a new eleven-member Standing Committee, the General Education Committee (GEC), will be responsible for the routine operation of matters related to the Core, including the approval of courses recommended to it by the Foundations Boards and the Focus Boards.
The three Foundations Boards and the Four Focus Boards (including the already-existing Writing Intensive Board) recommend core courses on the basis of material they receive from school or college curriculum committees, departments, and individual faculty members. Determination of Diversification and Wild Card courses, and oversight of the Hawaiian and Foreign Language graduation requirement (including waivers sought to that requirement) are the duty of the GEC.
In order for this complex structure to operate the Senate Committees on Budget and Administration and on Faculty Service need to draft necessary changes in the Senate By Laws and choose people for the various Committees and Boards.
Chaudron also called attention to the Appendix A, "Assessment Structure and Procedures for General Education", attached to the main document. This is an assessment process distinct from that embodied in the Assessment Handbook, which the Senate adopted at an earlier meeting. Appendix A applies to assessment procedures for the Core.
With apologies to flow-chart specialists in the audience, Prof. Chaudron discussed Figure 2 which outlines the Core Assessment process. The figure indicates that ultimately the GEC is responsible also for Core Assessment, but is aided in this by a GEC Assessment Committee and by assessment procedures designed and implemented by the various Boards that are part of the overall Core Governance process.
Prof. Chaudron concluded by saying that even though many details of operation have been anticipated and described in these documents, many more will certainly arise as the process moves forward, and it is imperative that representatives for all parts of the university community become actively involved in the operation.
He turned the floor over for questions.
Ken Kipnis wanted to know what the responsibilities of the UH Administration were in all of this. While the faculty has the duty of running the Core now, only the Administration has the resources needed. Do we have the Administration's support on this?
Prof. Chaudron agreed that the Administration's support is essential. He observed that it is one of the duties of the Senate Committee on Administration and Budget to identify those needs and then present them to the Administration. Among the resources needed will be office space, faculty release time compensation, secretarial and other staff support, and money. Other needs may be identified later.
Prof. Kipnis acknowledged that he was scared because there is plainly a new paradigm for the faculty and the use of its time, but that there is no concomitant commitment on the part of the administration to support this change.
Prof. Chaudron admitted that he did not know about the commitment of the Administration, but did believe that the Administration would support the faculty in good faith here.
VPAA Dean Smith rose to assure the Senate that the new Core procedures are indeed a paradigm shift that the Administration agrees are proper and desirable. The Administration will provide the support needed to make the new system work. He mentioned action by the Administration favoring the creation of the new Dean of Undergraduate Education (however that is actually structured) as being an indication of this. Having the Core operate as envisioned here is among the highest priorities of the Administration, VPAA Smith pledged.
Meda Chesney-Lind raised a question that she suggested is probably on the minds of many other faculty members. She teaches a core course now that was grandmothered in.
What should she do now to see that it makes it into the new Core?
Chaudron observed the grandmothering of courses was only a temporary measure for this year. All courses, existing and new, must be reviewed by the relevant committees previously indicated before they will become part of the new Core. Exactly which courses will be considered in what order will be determined by the Core Governance committees themselves as they begin their operations.
Karen Jolly added that each Department needs to look over its prerequisites in relation to various aspects (such as Diversification) of the new Core as well.
Chaudron noted also that it had not even been determined so far how many Core areas a single course could fulfill. Can you double-dip or even triple-dip with one course? This is yet to be determined.
Lance Collins observed that since many of the core courses are in fact taught by graduate students, would it be possible for an amendment to be made to the proposal so GSO representatives could sit on the various committees, at least with a voice if not with a vote?
Chaudron concurred that this is in fact desirable, and was discussed. But the matter soon got out of hand because there were many other constituents who would also like to be present when these decisions are made--from the community colleges, student affairs, undergraduates, etc. It was finally decided to keep the Core governance committees as small as possible in order to make them workable, but for them to solicit ideas and comments from everyone concerned. He added that there is to be an ASUH member, with voting rights on the GEC, since the Core does impact all undergraduates directly.
Ralph Moberly had a concern about the language in Appendix B, page 5, concerning language graduation requirements.
Tom Bopp affirmed that the language in the Appendix is in fact still correct, since it states the existing policy, but that waivers to it, which the recent faculty vote allows, are to be submitted to the GEC.
Along with such waivers, the new Governance of General Education document states that "colleges and schools should submit their revised General Education proposal to the GEC for review and recommendation."
There being no further discussion, a vote on the Resolution on General Education Committee Governance submitted by the Committee on Academic Policy and Planning, on December 6, 2000 (attached to the Senate Agenda) was called. It passed with 44 in favor, none opposed and three abstentions.
Vice Chair Cox thanked Chaudron and the CAPP for their exceptional work in this matter and urged the Senate members to now join with the various Core committees created to make it work as envisioned.
Cox then introduced Harold Masumoto, Special Advisor to the President, to speak about plans under consideration in response to the faculty vote for the creation of a Manoa Chancellorship.
Masumoto started by reminding the Senate that the Council of Deans and Directors also voted in favor of creating a Manoa Chancellor, and that he had been instructed by the President to come up with a proposal to give to the Board of Regents for their meeting on January 20, 2000. He also reminded everyone that the resolutions supporting the creation of the Chancellor position required that it be done "within existing resources"--that is to say, at no extra expense, which is a significant constraint.
Masumoto said that he consulted as widely as he could with anyone interested, and came up with two versions of what a Manoa Chancellors Office might look like. He put them both on the UH Webpage on November 8, and they can be accessed by clicking on "Community Views".
He explained that these are both process-oriented documents, and are not his views, nor necessarily those of the committee working with him. They rather represent what he believes to have been the existing sentiment on campus then.
Subsequently, the Council of Deans and Directors has discussed these proposals in detail, and Dean Barry Raleigh has come up with a third version that inspired Dean Judith Hughes to develop a fourth version. And there may be others floating around out there, Masumoto observed.
Masumoto emphasized repeatedly throughout his presentation that he is seeking consensus within the university community on a single version, but that so far that has not emerged.
He also declared that it is high time the faculty, through the Senate or SEC, weighed in with its version, or its support of one of the proffered versions.
All of the versions assume that a Manoa chancellor will exist. They differ mainly in what the structure beneath the chancellor looks like. Will there be vice chancellors similar to those at the Systems level now, or will there be a new functional grouping of vice chancellors? Will a vice chancellor for student affairs be separate from a vice chancellor for academic affairs, or does student affairs report to academic affairs. These are the major points of difference.
These differences must be resolved quickly if we are to meet the January 20 deadline.
And again Masumoto expressed his desire to do this via a consensual process. It that fails, then he affirmed that he will take the majority view and try to get the minorities to buy into it.
UHM had a chancellor from 1971 and 1985. During that time there were seven Manoa Chancellors. That is unacceptable turnover. However, during that same time, there were only two administrative chancellors. The problem with the former system was on the academic side, and not the administrative side, Masumoto gleefully pointed out.
But 2000 is not the 1970s and 80s, and the main difference is that we now have much more autonomy from the State than we had then, and will be getting more and more. The university will be undergoing a greater internal change because of autonomy than it will because of the creation of the chancellorship. We need to rethink everything so as to be as accountable and responsible as possible.
There are many interests at stake here as we both change the structure and respond to autonomy. People as well as functions will have to be shifted around within and between the System and the campuses. We need the participation of the union as well as staff, faculty, and students to make this transition as smooth and efficient as possible.
One of the other major immediate problems is when should the new structure be established? President Mortimer swears he will be gone by July 1. He has mandated a timetable which has the BoR hiring a new president by March/April 2001 so that the phasing in of the chancellorship, and the choice of the chancellor (and other officers) can be made in consultation with the new president.
This is optimal. Highly desirable, but not very likely, Masumoto feels. The WASC accreditation visit happens in 2002. It is essential that we have all our acts well together before that time. If we don't, we will be in chaos.
[Masumoto later reminded us that of the last seven searches for a President, only one (that for Mortimer) went as scheduled, and even that was a few months behind. In the others, people accepted the job and then resigned it; the first four choices turned us down and we went with our fifth choice, and other problems greatly delayed our getting a president onboard.]
The Deans and Directors are talking. It is essential the faculty do so now and quickly.
And that we all reach consensus, Masumoto concluded.
William Lampe made the first comment. It is the relationship between the President and the Chancellor that needs specifying, not the vice chancellors under the chancellor, he asserted.
Masumoto replied he realises that.
Meda Chesney-Lind remarked that there had been a continual power struggle between the President and the Chancellor previously.
Ruth Hsu wanted to know whether it would be possible to hire a new president according to the timetable, and Masumoto again expressed his doubts.
Someone thanked Masumoto for his candor, especially in discussing the various structural options, but can it be done within the existing budget?
Masumoto answered that everything assumes that existing people will be reassigned to new positions, but that there will certainly not be a one to one fit that way. Moreover, all administrators work at the pleasure of their superiors, so that when the new president and chancellor come in, they will want to hire their own people and not just accept what is handed to them.
Masumoto expressed the hope that the BoR would accept the broad principles of structural change, and not require that certain people or certain positions move to other positions. That needs to be done later, after the general policy has been accepted. There are a myriad details that have to be worked out--where will the EEO go? Will the Manoa Bookstore continue to serve the community colleges? Will the Office of the President move off the Manoa Campus? If so how can this be done with no extra cost? There are many other similar questions.
Lindy Aquino opined that she didn't see how the search for a president and a chancellor could be conducted separately since they had to work together.
Masumoto agreed but replied that it is strictly a matter of timing. We have to get a new president because the current one leaves by July 1.
Ralph Moberly noted that he assumed that the chancellor to be chosen would be an interim chancellor.
Masumoto admitted that would be optimal but it is also possible that a permanent chancellor could be chosen.
William Lampe again raised the issue of how it was possible even to search for a new president when the structural relationship between the president and the chancellor had not been worked out.
Masumoto responded that the search is for a president, and not a president and chancellor (as previously), and there is language about fund-raising and other things in this search that had not been in previous ones. However, it is indeed possible that the new president may also become the acting chancellor, and may not want to vacate the post later, Masumoto suggested.
Vice Chair Cox thanked Harold Masumoto for his report, and the Senate gave him a nice round of applause, rare for the Senate in recent days.
Cox added that if plans move forward to build a new aquarium in Kakaako, it might be good to put the new president in the old aquarium in Waikiki, and ask him to run it too until the new one is built.
It has a great view, Meda Chesney-Lind pointed out.
Ruth Hsu asked, "What's next?"
Cox observed that since the Deans and Directors are moving ahead, it is essential that the Faculty catch up. He asked for input to the SEC for its upcoming meeting next Monday, December 11. It is essential, as Masumoto made clear, that the Campus be sufficiently united on a plan that the decision to create a chancellorship can be made by the BoR, or else we may not get one at all.
Mamo Kim asked if Cox had a notion of what the faculty want, structurally, and Cox confessed that he did not.
VPAA Dean Smith then further clarified the differences in the versions as Masumoto had laid them out. It was clear that Smith believed that there should be separate vice chancellors for student affairs and for academic affairs and that the former should not report to the latter. He did not express a preference for how the academic units should be clustered, whether traditionally or functionally.
Smith said that it is necessary to be clear on the vice chancellor structure because they are going to do the real work for the campus so that the chancellor can be free to do the work within the community and elsewhere which the faculty wants in order to raise the reputation of Manoa locally, nationally and internationally. Speaking from personal experience, Smith commented, it is not possible for one person to do both detailed administration and PR.
Smith also declared several times that it is critical that the faculty weigh in with their opinions now.
Someone suggested that the number of deans should be cut, and Smith immediately responded, with a devilish smile on his face, that that would be ideal. "Let's collapse the four arts and science deans into one and TIM into Business Administration," he proclaimed, to which boos and murmurs of opposition as well as assent were heard.
Smith reminded the Senate that only the University of Florida has more deans that the University of Hawai'i, and that both are far out of the norm in this regard. Money for reorganization could be found by cutting down the number of deans, he said.
Francis Sansone exclaimed he was surprised to hear Smith say that the chancellor is not to be responsible for the day to day administration of the Manoa Campus. He thought that was indeed the purpose of the new chancellorship.
Smith replied that the faculty has declared it wants the chancellor to speak for Manoa, and thus the chancellor needs to be free to get out in the community to show the face of Manoa. If he does that, he cannot also run the campus in detail.
If we establish a strong president system, then it will be up to the chancellor to do the PR and fundraising work, Smith explained.
Hsu and Kim both expressed the belief that there should be separate vice chancellors for student affairs and for academic affairs.
Cox also recommended that the Athletic Department stay at the Manoa level and not migrate to the Systems level.
He closed by begging Senators to express their views on governance to the members of the SEC as soon as possible.
There being no further business, the Senate adjourned at 4:43 pm.