Present: SEC: Vice Chair Jim Tiles, Noel Kent, Bill Lampe, Barry Raleigh, Martha Staff and Robert Valliant
Absent: Robert Bley-Vroman
Senate Secretary Charlotte Mitsutani was present.
Approved with minor corrections.
Regarding the UARC vote, no petition to send it to the Congress has been received. Someone in PBRC may be trying to put one together.
The Chair of COR, David Duffy, has forwarded a resolution to the SEC to present to the Faculty Senate meeting on Dec. 7. It has not yet received majority support within COR, and COR won't meet again before the Senate meeting.
The researchers are worried that the faculty, the Faculty Senate or SEC is trying to become an oversight body for research proposals. They find this threatening and misguided.
Kent suggested that some oversight is warranted. The researchers should not be given a blank check for just any project. He expressed concern about threats to safety, to the environment, etc.
Raleigh said that he was concerned about the question of academic freedom --- even before he joined the SEC. He was concerned about how the faculty treat each other. Not how the administration treats the faculty.
Tiles said that Chair Bley-Vroman was looking for damage containment, that it was a question of civility, not academic freedom. He pointed to the Faculty Senate's 2002 resolution on academic freedom.
Lampe felt that there was too much over-reaction to the UARC vote.
Raleigh said that he sees it as a case of the many against the few and that is the problem. During the various debates, not just those in the Senate there was a great deal of intimidating behavior. He noted that very few researchers would ultimately have benefited from the UARC. Perhaps four or five would have received funding. Most of the people would be on soft money.
Kent said that the UARC opposition weren't the only ones doing the intimidating. He cited several cases of VCR Gary Ostrander's statements as examples of intimidating behavior by the administration.
Raleigh said that the UHARI email traffic showed that the UHARI members felt a general hostility toward science on the campus. This was the case even before UARC was proposed. UARC was simply a flashpoint. He also felt that some statement would be welcomed by the researchers. He felt that the COR resolution was not satisfactory and that it should be sent back to COR for rewriting.
There was general agreement that the resolution should go back to COR.
Raleigh added that if colleagues can deny academic freedom, the general faculty should find that cause for concern. Now a technique has been found to persuade the Board of Regents to deny funding. He pointed out the similarity of JIMAR (Joint Institute for Marine & Atmospheric Research) to UARC.
Tiles disagreed and said that there was a whole body of law that applied to UARC. That made the two very different things.
Kent said that he realized that most people thought that the next logical step would be to continue the struggle to get all DoD funding off campus. However, the group of people that he worked with to help defeat UARC --- Beverly Keever, Ruth Dawson, Kathy Ferguson, etc --- had no intention of going down that path. They had other fights to fight.
Raleigh said that the previous administration had simply bungled the entire matter.
Lampe, pulling the discussion back to the email from Chair Bley-Vroman who is in Vietnam, said that the SEC should not make any statement asserting ``what we don't want to do'', and that any statement should come from the SEC not the Senate.
Kent commented that VCR Ostrander had misstated the benefits of the UARC many times. Perhaps a more dispassionate person would have admitted that he couldn't deliver all that had been promised.
The committee decided to send the resolution back to COR.
The committee decided to remove the second ``whereas'' clause:
Resolved, That the Manoa Faculty Senate respectfully urges that an adequate portion of the projected State of Hawaii budget surplus be used to address repair and maintenance of UH campus physical plants, and further, that repair and maintenance projects funded in this manner incorporate facility upgrades and designs that reduce consumption of vital water and energy resources.
The Committee discussed several clauses and decided that rather than remove them now, amendment would be made at the Senate meeting.
Staff pointed out that there was no longer an INS. That agency had been abolished. The current office handling immigration was the US CIS (Citizenship & Immigration Service).
The meeting adjourned at 4:10pm