main | roster | committees | current session | minutes | documents | links | site index

Manoa Faculty Senate Minutes of December 8, 2004

Highlights

Committee on Athletics
General Education Committee
Committee on Professional Matters
Committee on Academic Policy and Programs:
Report from CAB

Wednesday, December 8, 2004
Architecture Auditorium

Senators Present:
Allen, Aune, Bley-Vroman, Bopp, Bridges, Brown, Caron, Chen, Chopey, Cohn, Cox, Dawson, DeMattos, Fryer, Fujimoto, Gibson, Grace, Hawkins, Hilgers, Inazu, Judd, Kim, Kipnis, Lee,CN, Liebert, Lukas, Magaard, McGranaghan, McKimmy, Moore, Mottl, Nielsen, Nishida, Nunokawa, Ramsey, Richardson, Ross, Rutter, Satsuma, Schroeder, Shiramizu, Singh, Skouge, Speitel, Staff, Stodden, Teves, Tiles, Uchida, Valliant, Ward, Warn-Cramer, Wilmeth, Yates, Yue, Yuen

Senators Excused:
Aeby, Baker, Cannon, Dator, Kazman, Lowry, Lu, Singleton,

Senators Absent:
Desser, Haning, Herring, Kasuya, Lee, L, Lee,MT, Lorenzo, Mark, Paull, Robinow, Yu, Zaleski

Others who signed in:
Chancellor Peter Englert, VCAA Neal Smatresk Ron Cambra, Heather Crislip, Sandy Davis, Ruth Hsu, Michael Jones, Linda Johnsrud, Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa, C. Mamo Kim, M. Kaiama, Wendy Pearson, Kathy Phillips, Helene Sokugawa, James Wingo, and one unreadable signature.

Tom Schroeder called the meeting to order at 3:15 pm.

Minutes of the November 17th Senate meeting were approved.

Chair Schroeder announced that beginning with this Senate meeting, several changes are being implemented to expedite the Senate meetings. Chair's report and others from the standing Senate committees will be submitted as written reports with comments on them taken at the end of the meeting. Action items that require Senate approval will be discussed early in the meeting.

Committee on Athletics

Committee on Athletics presented a resolution in Recognition of Dr. Stephen Martin's service as the Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR). For the past 25 years, Dr. Martin has been diligently serving in the capacity of the FAR.

Faculty Senate Resolution in Recognition of Dr. Stephen Martin's service as the Faculty Athletics Representative

Whereas Dr. Stephen Martin has served a vital function for the Athletics Department as the Faculty Representative for the last twenty-five years, and

Whereas Dr. Martin has contributed significantly to the well being of all student athletes at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa by serving as their adviser and advocate in an array of activities with his characteristic warmth and enthusiasm, and

Whereas Dr. Martin has developed detailed knowledge of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) policies and procedures and a deep understanding of their history that has greatly benefited UHM athletes, and

Whereas Dr. Martin has served the University by acting as the liaison between UHM and the NCAA and the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) and has represented UHM faculty at over 100 NCAA, WAC, Big West and Pacific Coast Athletics Association meetings, therefore

Be it resolved that the Manoa Faculty Senate recognizes his service as the Faculty Athletics Representative

Whereas Dr. Stephen Martin has served a vital function for the Athletics Department as the Faculty Representative for the last twenty-five years, and

Whereas Dr. Martin has contributed significantly to the well being of all student athletes at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa by serving as their adviser and advocate in an array of activities with his characteristic warmth and enthusiasm, and

Whereas Dr. Martin has developed detailed knowledge of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) policies and procedures and a deep understanding of their history that has greatly benefited UHM athletes, and

Whereas Dr. Martin has served the University by acting as the liaison between UHM and the NCAA and the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) and has represented UHM faculty at over 100 NCAA, WAC, Big West and Pacific Coast Athletics Association meetings, therefore

Be it resolved that the Manoa Faculty Senate recognizes his significant contributions to athletics at UHM and thanks him for his service and dedication to athletics at UHM.

Vote on the Question: In favor, 56; No, 0; Abstain, 0.
Vote on the Resolution: In favor, 56; No, 0; Abstain, 0.

Chair announced that the new FAR will be Dr. Peter Nicholson, from the English department.

General Education Committee

Kent Bridges presented the nominations for GEC/HAP Board;

Vote for approval: In favor 56; No, 0; Abstain, 0.

Committee on Professional Matters

The Senate took up the resolution on the conduct of classified research at the University of Hawaii, presented at the November 17 Senate meeting and postponed to this meeting. Ken Kipnis suggested that two additional statements might be added to the original resolution to respond to the comments that the Senate made at the November 17th meeting. (see agenda item # 4, Minutes of the Senate meeting Nov. 17, 2004)

A resolution on the conduct of classified research at the University of Hawaii

WHEREAS: The conduct of certain acceptable types of classified research, in the presence of proper governance and oversight, can benefit both the University of Hawaii and the polities of which we are a part;

WHEREAS: The conduct of classified research, in the absence of proper governance and oversight, can also significantly degrade the academic ambiance of a university by, for example:

Allowing external agencies to bar certain students from research activities for which they cannot obtain clearance;

Permitting faculty and student research that may not be examined and properly taken into account in tenure and promotion decisions and in certification for academic degrees;

Permanently preventing the publication of research findings and even wholly concealing the existence of research activities;

Compromising the approval and review procedures routinely used to ensure that proper academic standards are observed: i.e., human studies, research ethics, animal care, hazardous materials, etc.

WHEREAS: There may be opportunities to support the conduct of classified research in way that respect the four areas of concern listed above as A-D;

BE IT RESOLVED: That the UH Administration submit to the Manoa Faculty Senate, for its approval, a draft of policies and procedures that adequately address the four areas of concern listed above.

BE IT RESOLVED: That the Manoa Faculty Senate stands ready to cooperate with the Administration in drafting a satisfactory policy.

If these statements are added to the original resolution, the following would be the whereas statements.

1.WHEREAS: the Manoa faculty is deeply divided over the matter of classified research and, in particular, the issue of UHM becoming a research center for the Navy, and

2.WHEREAS: classified research can and has caused damage to institutions, to people and to the environment, and any university needs to take care the lessons of the past are not forgotten, an

3.WHEREAS: it may be that the conduct of certain types of classified research, in the presence of proper governance and oversight, can be of benefit to both the University of Hawaii and the polities of which we are a part;

4.WHEREAS: the conduct of classified research, in the absence of proper governance and oversight, can also significantly degrade the academic ambience of a university by, for example:

The rest of the resolution is the same as the original resolution. The original resolution is attached.

Ken Kipnis gave careful remarks distinguishing various restrictions on the publication of research findings. Ken has agreed to post his remarks on the Senate web page.

Steve Ward proposed a motion to form an ad hoc committee and to refer this resolution to this committee. The motion was seconded by Tom Ramsey.

Motion

That the SEC appoint an ad hoc committee, drawing from standing committees with an interest in this area and that this ad hoc committee report back to the Senate in January on:

1.The definition of classified research (as opposed to proprietary research) and

2.The issue of whether classified research should be conducted at Manoa and if so,

3. What the guidelines should be.

Tom Bopp asked whether a motion to refer to committee was in order with this content. Parliamentarian Robert Bley-Vroman responded that the rules of order permit such a motion to include the way the committee is to be formed, the charge to the committee, and the date by which the committee is to report.

Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa did not want the issue to be sent to a committee and wanted it discussed on all campuses by many faculty. Others also agreed that a wide discussion on each campus was needed. Some complained that while the newspaper, the Advertiser, stated that all research involving UH contracts with the military are for defense, we all know that our government also engages in offensive military action. Further, researchers may have no control of how their research will be used.

Matt McGranaghan noted that two years ago, an ad hoc Senate subcommittee studied this issue for months and the Senate passed a resolution on classified research (See minutes of the December 11, 2002 Senate meeting). Meda Chesney Lind noted that there was concern that during the summer of 2002, classified research was occurring at the UH, leading to the Senate action in the Fall of 2002.

Jill Nunokawa discussed how this issue had been badly handled by the administration and that substantive information has not been shared with the faculty. She asked how faculty can offer responsible comments without information and when faculty will have time to discuss and respond to these issues.

It was moved and seconded to stop debate and vote on the motion to refer the resolution to committee.

Vote on the motion to stop debate: in favor 33; opposed 15; abstained 2 [passed by the required two-thirds majority]

Vote on the motion presented by Steve Ward for an ad hoc committee: in favor 16; opposed 34; abstain 3;

Motion

Amarjit Singh moved that the Senate refer the CPM resolution to an ad hoc committee, as construed in Steve Ward's original motion, appointed by the SEC to gather information, and that this committee will consult with the Manoa faculty and students, and report to the March 2005 Senate meeting.

A lengthy discussion followed with the following points included:

David Ross, noted that if we deliberate for 3 months, how long is the administration going to delay its decisions. Chancellor Englert responded that he supports the position of the Manoa Faculty Senate but that the driving force behind this effort is the System office.

Torben Nielsen raised an additional category of communication with "selected agents" as defined in Federal law.

Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa noted that an extensive public process was needed, that 3 months was not long enough, and that 6 months was needed for all campuses, schools and students to respond.

Steve Ward noted that the UARC development needs to fit existing BOR policy.

Manu Kai'ama asked if the UARC is a done deal at UH. Chancellor Englert responded that at the BOR meeting, the UARC was given conditional approval, which means that the final contract still needs BOR approval. Tom Bopp said that the Senate, needs to get the November minutes of the BOR meeting to determine exactly what the BOR decided about the UARC.

Jim Yates noted that there have been benefits from classified research. We need facts and a more balanced approach to this subject.

It was moved and seconded to stop debate and vote on the on the motion to refer the resolution to an ad hoc committee.

Vote on the motion to stop debate: in favor 49, against 1, abstain 1.

Vote on the motion to refer an ad hoc committee: in favor 34; against 10; abstain 6.

Committee on Academic Policy and Programs:

David Ross presented the resolution from CAPP.

David Ross, Chair of CAPP, made the following introductory remarks.

CAPP was aware that non-public research already exists at UH, and that it was likely to increase.  We saw that the BOR policy concerning this kind of research were in the process of changing, in fact had already undergone nontrivial changes, aside from those future changes being considered by the VPR office.

We were concerned that - other than some language in the now-changing BOR policy - there are few guidelines on how such research is to be treated with respect to everyday process within the University, such as tenure and promotion decisions, and the use of departmental resources. CAPP noticed that the attention of other standing committees to these issues was mainly fixed on the large question of whether such research should be permitted at all, or the subsidiary question of how that research should be carried out, and little or no attention was on how this research should be integrated with our normal academic policy and practice.

We therefore drafted this resolution to address some of these issues.

We consider this a very different resolution than the others, in that it is neutral with respect to the larger questions on classified and proprietary research, and has immediate relevance to everyday process whether or not the University proceeds with the implementation of the ARL/UARC or other vehicles of non-public research.

Manoa Faculty Senate CAPP Resolution on Classified and Proprietary Research

Preamble:

CAPP is aware that other UHMFS committees, such as COR, CAB, and CPM, are evaluating guidelines governing classified and proprietary research at the University of Hawaii. However, CAPP notes that such research raises issues related to academic policies, programs, and other matters within the Committee's jurisdiction, moreover that some of these issues are distinct from the broader issue of whether such research ought to be carried out at all.

CAPP notes that from the standpoint of the University and of the people of Hawaii, classified and proprietary research is much more akin to independent consulting than it is to the ordinary duties of a UH faculty member. Such consulting is permitted by the University, since it can have value both to the consultee and to the researcher. At the same time it is very carefully limited, in recognition that the core mission of the University is scholarly research and teaching carried out under normal conditions of open discourse.

CAPP believes that research programs should not be micromanaged, and that any policy which imposes limits on what an investigator can or cannot study should be entered into only with the greatest care and exactitude. However, we note that even though research is technically done by individuals and not by institutions, that research carried out by anyone while an employee of the University is generally understood (correctly or not) to have been carried out under standards to which the University community subscribes. Open faculty review, such as promotion and tenure committees, outside examination of doctoral candidates, and so forth, is the concrete instantiation of this understanding. CAPP therefore recognizes that the faculty as a whole have a direct professional stake in any research done in their name, and that any research should either be open to broad faculty review, or not be considered as having been done in the name of the University.

CAPP sees potential for the unintentional degradation of academic programs in the relatively easy availability of funding from classified or proprietary sources. Within a department, faculty who limit themselves to funding from more competitive sources could find themselves "punished" with increased administrative or teaching duties. G-funded positions could be engulfed by the classified category, leaving teaching to soft-money replacements. Student access to University resources could become either diminished or structurally discriminatory, in that classified programs could be open only to students with appropriate clearance and citizenship. Moreover, the availability of funds from such sources could be used as an excuse to underfund the normal University activities of teaching and open research.

CAPP wants to emphasize that the purpose of the following resolution is neither to support nor prohibit classified or proprietary research, but rather to emphasize that it is not a core University activity, and to offer some safeguards for core University activities which might be impacted by the spread of such research.

A CAPP RESOLUTION ON CLASSIFIED AND PROPRIETARY RESEARCH

(1) Whereas "the role of our university is to promote the free exchange of ideas and to generate and disseminate knowledge" (UH-Manoa Strategic Plan,'Our Futures'); and

(2) Whereas the Strategic Plan includes as "Strategic Imperatives" that we "encourage research that benefits and involves the local community" and "publicize our research more widely to local, national, and international community" and "promote the free exchange of ideas and be a source of renewal for our society;" and

(3) Whereas the University represents a source of knowledge in the State which is by nature and charter isolated from political and commercial influence, and that this isolation is critical to the credibility of all work done at the University; and

(4) Whereas research contrary to the principles above is permitted by the university because it is similar to professional consulting work, such research nevertheless remains outside normal UH duties and subject to a variety of limits; therefore

Be It Resolved that

(1) Classified or proprietary research shall not in any way deplete resources used for regular research and teaching at the University of Hawaii. In particular, no general funds, tuition income, or other similar funding, or equipment or facilities bought with such funding, shall be applied to any classified project, in whole or part.

(2) Research that is not part of the public record shall not be counted towards researchers applications for tenure or promotion, nor counted as part of their normal duties at the University of Hawaii, excepting possibly as professional service. The policies governing tenure and promotion decisions will be understood to reflect this, as will guidelines distributed to candidates and committees.

(3) The University of Hawaii shall not have its name associated officially with classified or proprietary research, nor shall such research be included in tallies of departmental or University accomplishments.

(4) Under no circumstances shall a UH faculty member engaging in classified or proprietary research be treated any differently with respect to service responsibility from any other faculty member engaged in a comparable amount of independent consulting.

(5) In this resolution, "classified or proprietary" shall mean not only research that is classified or proprietary at the outset, but also any research entered into as part of a contract where the contractor retains the right to unilaterally restrict access to the research at any later stage of the project.

Several points were raised by the Senate, including:

Torben Nielsen stated that any research can be classified at any time. David Ross noted that this may happen but it is very rare and we cannot allow the exceptional cases to dictate the policy for the entire endeavor. Tom Ramsey suggested that this resolution would be helpful to the committee by setting limits on their discussions. It was asked whether RTRF funds would be used to fund classified research. David responded that RTRF from non-classified research should not be used for classified research but that classified research would also generate some RTRF and those could be used.

Amarjit Singh made a motion to refer the CAPP resolution to the same committee formed earlier to study the CPM resolution. The motion was seconded. Jim Tiles opposed and wanted the Senate to address the CAPP resolution separately. Ruth Hsu preferred that the CAPP resolution go to committee, as the issues were not clear. Parliamentarian Robert Bley-Vroman had to leave the meeting for another commitment. Tom Bopp was asked to serve as parliamentarian in his absence.

Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa suggested that the committee charged with investigating classified research seek campus-wide inputs and have 6 months to study this issue and the related consequences. Ruth Dawson moved to amend the motion to refer to committee to give that committee 5 months to report. Amarjit Singh accepted this as a friendly amendment.

Gay Satsuma inquired as to how was the issue of classified research related to the Naval Research Center Proposal? Tom Ramsey noted that these were independent issues. Classified Research is being brought forward by Jim Gaines and the NRC is being promoted by the Chancellor.

The acting Senate Secretary Janice Uchida was asked to read the motion.

Motion

The question was whether to refer the CAPP resolution to a committee to evaluate classified and proprietary research, and, after campus-wide consultative discussions, for this committee to submit a report at the May Senate Meeting.

It was moved and seconded to stop debate and vote on the motion to refer the CAPP resolution to committee.

Vote on the motion to stop debate: in favor 41; against 1; abstain 2.

Vote on the referral motion: in favor 36; against 6; abstain 2.

Report from CAB

Matt McGranaghan presented the CAB report on the Manoa and System reorganizations to the Senate.

[CAB report -- not found]

In the ensuing discussion, Senators were informed that there had been discussions at the Board of Regents of once more eliminating the Manoa chancellorship. Tom Bopp noted that this option was only mentioned in the context of the legislature not funding the reorganization and that the System and the BOR is "jerking" Manoa around.

It was moved and seconded to stop debate and vote on the question of receiving the CAB report. The motion to stop debate passed unanimously. The motion to receive the report passed unanimously.

Discussion continued with both Lilikala and James Caron making the point that the System has to be reduced in size. Manoa needs to affirm that we want our own Chancellor or champion for our causes and needs.

The discussion then turned to the Chairs report and other electronically submitted committee reports.

Gay Satsuma asked if Manoa, that is the Manoa Faculty Senate, has the capacity to assign a committee to study the UARC issue. Chair Schroeder offered some history leading to the creation of the Committee on Research (COR).

Linda Cox noted that the COR reviewed the UARC and had "no problem" with it. Lilikala asked "where is our authority and do we have it?" What is the effect of the MFS saying No?

Someone noted that the Senate did not approve the UARC. The resolution states that before the BOR approves the UARC it must be approved by the MFS. Tom Hilgers noted that we need to review the minutes of that BOR meeting, which are not yet available.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 pm.


main | roster | committees | current session | minutes | documents | links | site index

University of Hawaii | UH Manoa | UH Links | UHPA | Board of Regents