Chair Robert Bley-Vroman, Vice Chair Jim Tiles, Noel Kent, Bill Lampe, Martha Staff and Robert Valliant, Administration: Interim Chancellor Denise Konan, Executive Assistant Myrtle Yamada. Senate Secretary Charlotte Mitsutani
Lampe said that VCAA Smatresk was following 50% of the instructions from last week. The communication that he sent to the SEC is ridiculous. The deadline is too quick because this is exam week. CAPP was discussing the issue in today's meeting. They see no reason to do it. They don't think that his task force should be started until this is worked out. Our suggestion to VCAA Smatresk should be to do ``nothing until you have talked to CAPP''.
Tiles said that since Interim Chancellor Denise Konan has a stake in this, it might be wise for her to talk to CAPP instead of VCAA Smatresk.
Bley-Vroman noted that Interim Chancellor Konan is coming today. But we have no items for her. There will be no CAPP meetings for a month.
Lamp added that CAPP has invited VCAA Smatresk to the second meeting of every month.
Bley-Vroman asked if CAPP would invite VCAA to the first monthly meeting instead of second. We want to be seen as bending over backward. We will respond to VCAA Smatresk's memo and will refer the matter to CFS. Seems unlikely we will be able to respond by Dec 16 since this is end of the semester.
Lampe said that CAPP was discussing ending of low enrollment degrees.
Minutes not available
Chair Bley-Vroman noted that had he met with Interim Chancellor Konan and talked about UARC. We don't want the Chancellor's authority undermined by any decision that Interim President McClain makes. He said that he would talk to Interim President McClain about that. He had hoped that we were finished with UARC at Manoa, but it looks like COR may still do something. He couldn't get a sense from people making noise what exactly their goal is. He wasn't sure if it is to get the UARC decision reversed or something else. At any rate there didn't appear to be much enthusiasm for that particular model of UARC. Many faculty are always skeptical. They didn't seem to be really trying to force the contract through.
Tiles said that VCRGE Gary Ostrander had asked COR to look at contract and that COR had agreed even though it was late.
Kent asked what the VCRGE was doing. He thought we had closure.
Tiles replied that it looks like Interim President McClain is trying to keep issue open.
Lampe noted that Interim President McClain was committed to having a meeting.
Bley-Vroman pointed out that civil disobedience is always a last resort act because it makes it difficult to use the system later. The activists didn't understand Manoa-System relationship and their actions had created a decision point at the System level. They also miscalculated because now they won't have control of the President's meeting.
Lampe suggested that the SEC bring up issue with Interim Chancellor Konan --- together with VCRGE's request to COR. We also should have had COR comment on UARC.
Bley-Vroman said that he went to a COR meeting and asked if they didn't have something to say. COR said ``no, it weren't interested. Let someone else do it''. Since COR was meeting on Wednesday he would go and remind it.
Lampe said that COR should not be dealing with the contract. It has already be dealt with by experts.
Tiles noted that there is perhaps more expertise on COR than elsewhere.
Kent said that it smacked of secessionism. Roger Lukas [UHARI] and David Duffy [chair of COR] were looking for almost complete autonomy and this poses some real problems. He said that the faculty needed to discuss this.
Tiles said that he went to see David Duffy on Friday. It had been a peaceful meeting. They were not in agreement, however. He wondered about the relationship between UHARI and the Senate? About who the activists are on COR? He noted that Duffy and Steve Ward are heard from frequently, but most of the others were quiet. He wasn't convinced the discontent came entirely from UHARI. Nor was he convinced there would be a quorum at the COR meeting.
Staff pointed out that at the Faculty Senate meeting Interim Chancellor Konan said that she wanted to hear from anyone impacted by the UARC decision. Steve Ward had mentioned only Roger Lukas as someone impacted.
Lampe noted that someone had mentioned to him that Lukas was going to be a director of the UARC.
Bley-Vroman said that with respect to the end-run problem, VCRGE Ostrander or COR or UHARI will go to President. He wondered what UHARI is trying to achieve. He noted that he had talked to Lukas about it, but that Lukas wouldn't say what outcome he wanted.
Kent asked if he didn't want legitimacy via the SEC. That might be pretty dangerous.
Bley-Vroman said that until about a year ago the view was that UHARI would become obsolete and researchers would work through COR. Now that has changed. With respect to the end-run, people will always try.
Tiles wondered where the focus is? The COR resolution was unsatisfactory. Now COR appears to have lost interest.
Lampe pointed out that Tiles's resolution didn't address the researchers' concerns. Tiles is a philosopher, they are mechanics. Their definition of academic freedom differs from his. Tiles simply wasn't reaching them.
Tiles said that he hasn't yet taken his redraft to COR. He thinks what COR really wants is in his last paragraph. The researchers want to be able to take any funding that they can get, but with UHM contributing to their well being and validating their contracts. If UHM does not approve of their funding source, they want to be able to take the money anyway.
Bley-Vroman said that they should present whatever they want to the university. They can still seek funding from wherever they choose and university must still support them. But the COR resolution was poorly drafted.
Lampe suggested that perhaps some obfuscation was necessary. If there was enough vagueness in the resolution everyone can claim victory.
Tiles said that Bley-Vroman's words lent themselves to various interpretations. So the reader of the resolution in the Senate would have to maintain a straight-face when reading it.
Lampe asked what goal is: clarity or agreement? The situation must be defused in a way that doesn't violate anything.
Kent suggested that resentment was fueling the researchers' discontent. They generate money and don't get enough back. This will continue to generate bad feeling.
Bley-Vroman pointed out that this will come up again. However, if we can defuse situation, it will help with the end-run problem.
Tiles added that if we take an acceptable resolution to Senate and Senate shoots it down we will be worse off.
Lampe said that the resolution should be high-minded, but not so sharply worded.
Tiles said that the SEC had handed them a draft with Bley-Vroman's wording on funding sources. It should have satisfied them. However David Duffy brushed it off and changed ``right'' to ``freedom''.
Kent said that he didn't see a huge amount of interest among the faculty in the issue. He wondered if we weren't over-stating the need to mollify a small number of people.
Bley-Vroman said ``Let COR make it what they want''.
Lampe suggested taking them a draft and telling them work on it. Make sure that they understand that the SEC had no hidden agenda, but that it just wants a higher quality resolution.
Bley-Vroman said that the language in the resolution on publications restricted research had enough space to weasel about in the language. However, hard core classified research would not be acceptable.
Tiles said that he would take the re-draft resolution to COR.
Lampe pointed out that the Senate wasn't finished with the issue because it still had to have a debate on proprietary research.
Tiles said that he couldn't find anyone willing to take it up.
Bley-Vroman summarized the discussion. There are two aspects to the end-run. (1) UHARI --- very little we can do as the Senate. (2) VCRGE Ostrander asking COR to review the contract --- we will ask Interim Chancellor Konan what this means.
Bley-Vroman said that CFS will make a recommendation on how to proceed. They will either say take the next runner up or have an election. Should the SEC advocate for either alternative?
Lampe said that he wanted an election. We have taken too many people from the list who got too few votes.
Bley-Vroman took a vote on the issue. Lampe, Valliant, Tiles, and Kent wanted an election. Staff preferred to let the CFS decide. Bley-Vroman said the he would prefer to take the next alternate. He said that he would tell CFS that the SEC would like to have an election.
Lampe said that he didn't have time to write up the rationale for an election.
Bley-Vroman said that he would use a previous memo with arguments for re-election. He will re-state it for CFS. Timing is the problem. We will leave it to CFS. They will have to figure out how to do it. They will decide if a nominating phase is necessary, or if they can use the previous ``willing list'' as basis and can ask for additional nominations.
Bley-Vroman said that there are legitimate differing views of this matter. He asked whether SEC members should be seen as being above the fray.
Tiles said that some kind of ritual was necessary --- such as saying ``I am speaking for myself, not for the SEC''.
Bley-Vroman said ``We will try to do that''. He noted that problems have arisen mostly in dealing with the standing committees.
Lampe agreed that Tile's suggested ritual would be useful --- particularly in email debates. People were always taking statements as the SEC's position. ``Always say that I am not speaking for the SEC''.
CAPP met today. It is wrestling with the Interdisciplinary PhD. The more it debates the question, the less it sees the need for one. The proposed degree would require three subjects and be housed in Grad Division.
Tiles pointed out that even a two-department PhD is difficult-to-impossible to do. A woman in Philosophy wanted to do work on the 19th century Japanese attitude toward science. That would put her in intellectual history. However, she ultimately abandoned the attempt after much departmental wrangling. There is just no institutional support for a two-department PhD.
Lampe asked if Tiles could come to CAPP and explain it. Ron Bonteko, a CAPP member, had suggested one PhD and several MAs as an alternative to an Interdisciplinary PhD.
Kent thought that such a PhD would be a great idea.
Lampe pointed out the general negativity in CAPP to this issue and to the question of teaching evaluations.
Kent asked what CAPP's problems with an Interdisciplinary PhD were.
Lampe said that it seemed to be a matter of standards. Who sets them? Which department? Who would have academic oversight of the person. CAPP is going back to Peter Garrod, associate dean of Grad Division, to ask why he is doing this.
Tiles said that he wanted to attend the CAPP meeting when Garrod talks about it.
Lampe said that regarding the course repeat policy, things seem to have settled down. VCAA Smatresk has agreed to go with policy as it stands.
Lampe said that the committee is meeting tomorrow. He wanted someone to sit in for him. Tiles said that he would. COA will be considering some NCAA proposals.
Nothing more to say.
Tiles said that CPM has received the re-draft of its last resolution, but hasn't met on it yet. It has taken out all of the management clauses. VCAA Smatresk, Louise Kubo, program officer in the Chancellor's Office, and Mary Tiles, UHPA president, will look at it and then it will come back to the Senate.
Staff said that Jenny Saman gave a presentation on Manoa-System relations this morning. She noted that two site visitors were coming from SUNY Buffalo and University of Pennsylvania. She pointed out that people doing immigration work on campus are all temporarily funded --- year-to-year from RTRF funds.
Staff said that the committee will meet tomorrow. She asked Joe Ramos, committee chair, to put together a memo to the SEC on alcohol policy. CSA will say something about alcohol in the dorms, but it deferred athletics-related alcohol policy to COA. Tomorrow Wayne Iwaoka, interim vice chancellor for Student Affairs, will talk. Then CSA will talk about financial assistance. CSA wants Interim Chancellor Konan to come in the Spring to talk about her Year of the Student initiatives.
Kent said that there is lots of talk about articulation, about how focus courses should be defined, but no resolutions. He has asked the chair for a memo summing up the semester. Everyone is being asked to send emails with their opinions on issues.
Nothing. Bley-Vroman said that CAB will have resolutions in January about the faculty housing problems. Another issue is Fred Riggs and the faculty retirees who want to see better use made of retired faculty. Perhaps there will be a proposal for some association with the Senate. They could be appointed to standing committees. That would require Bylaws and Charter changes. However, the retirees have lots of institutional memory.
Lampe said that the SEC should refer to CAB the question of automatically calling special elections when the choice for replacements to the SEC gets to the second or third alternate. This needs to be done by February in order to get it to the Congress. He said that he will do it.
Staff wondered if there wouldn't be a conflict with CFS' responsibilities?
Lampe said that it depends on how it is implemented.
Bley-Vroman said that he would be liaison to CAB and CFS now.
Tiles suggested that as a general principle, the chair of the SEC should be liaison to CFS because of the volume of work between the two.
Bley-Vroman replied that much of CFS' work involves GenEd. This is the usual working. CFS really has two main functions: elections, committee filling.
Bley-Vroman reported that at his Friday meeting with Interim Chancellor Konan, they had decided to activate the search committee for new a chancellor. As chair he will start assembling the committee right away. He needs to find six faculty members to serve on the committee. Currently, there are no criteria for members or preferences as to how the SEC should appoint them. He noted that Interim Chancellor Konan will send the SEC a memo telling us not to neglect the funded research constituency. He added that it would not make any sense to exclude people from the research side anyway.
Lampe pointed out that former SEC member Barry Raleigh had some interesting criteria: people capable and energetic enough to excite candidates. Committee members should act as attractors. But how do we figure out who they are?
Bley-Vroman said that the SEC could ask for nominations.
Lampe agreed that asking for nominations is better than asking for volunteers. He also suggested a statement of why the person being nominated should be on the committee.
The SEC consensus was that nominations should be sought from the faculty at large rather than from only the Senate. The SEC would ask for nominations rather than volunteers. The nominating statement should also include 200-400 words, half a page, of why the person was being nominated.
The SEC can use Wendy Pearson's email list to reach the entire faculty. A message asking for nominations should go out now. Lampe wanted responses to go to Charlotte Mitsutani, Senate secretary. The message should be repeated a week before classes start, ie., on Jan 4.
Regarding the time-frame, Lampe suggested a dual approach: an email now with a nominating deadline of Jan 11; another reminder email when people get back from Christmas break. Classes begin on Monday Jan 9. Jan 16 is holiday. The SEC could have a special meeting Friday, Jan 13 to winnow the responses.
Bley-Vroman said that other stakeholder groups can get their own names in. We choose only faculty members.
Tiles wanted to know how the SEC could broach to the Senate the question of the Manoa-System relationship. He felt that the SEC was way out in front of the Senate on the issue.
Bley-Vroman noted that Barry Raleigh resigned from the SEC; he did not resign from the task force. The task force has met twice. Interim VPAA Linda Johnsrud is now on task force. He has sent an email to Regent Kitty Lagareta asking for clarification of the status of the task force. Johnsrud said Interim President McClain thinks that the task force reports to him. Regent Lagareta hasn't said. The task force should report to the presidential search committee. Myrtle Yamada, assistant to Interim Chancellor Konan, is also on the task force and will report to Interim Chancellor Konan. Heather Crislip is staff. She will set things up.
Bley-Vroman said that his meeting with VPAA Johnsrud today was disappointing. Very little of substance was discussed.
Lampe said that the reactions of deans to the shift of functions and bodies from the president's office to the chancellor's office is ``that it will take years''.
Bley-Vroman said that as regards timing, the search committee will have to decide what is realistic. We will try to move ahead as quickly as possible.
He said that we could get the ad out right now --- if we could get agreement on it.
Lampe noted that Interim President McClain needs to approve the ad. He felt that the ad should not go out so quickly.
Bley-Vroman said that the task force also has a search underway for a VP for Academic Program and Planning.
Interim Chancellor Konan and Myrtle Yamada arrive 4:40pm.
Interim Chancellor Konan began by talking about the Year of the Student survey. She said that her office was still aggregating the data, but there are some things we can move ahead on quickly. The students are questioning instruction and the quality of instruction. ASUH has requested course evaluations. There should be a minimal set of evaluations that will help in keeping track of faculty activities.
Tiles asked if it should be uniform across campus or should the administration let the various units do it.
Lampe said that CAPP wants to know why this was being done at the VCAA level and not at department level.
Interim Chancellor Konan pointed out that evaluation was uneven among departments. The CAFE model is interesting, but should be updated.
Lampe repeated why at the chancellor's level? CAPP keeps asking ``what's the point''? Everyone is for student evaluations. Even the Math department --- the arch-reactionaries -- gets full pages from students with criticism.
Interim Chancellor Konan said that she wants to do it in a way that helps the administration. Current evaluation is uneven across departments in terms of quality.
Tiles asked why this is a problem.
Interim Chancellor Konan repeated that the student survey talks about the quality of instruction. But there is no way to find out where problem is. Evaluations provide one kind of indicator. Secondly, something more uniform will help streamline efforts. Alumni surveys aren't centralized and don't capture departmental information. Departments are duplicating efforts. There are economies of scale in this. She asked to hear any strong argument against the plan for uniform evaluation. She pointed out that some departments haven't really shown a consistent way of tracking instructional quality. She wants to be able to show an overall satisfaction index.
Tiles said that the case needs to be made for the instrument. Faculty will want to see the instrument and be persuaded that it will work.
Lampe said that some on CAPP claim expertise in this area and they felt that there could be horrid problems in trying to do it at all.
Interim Chancellor Konan said that some campuses do it and post the results. Without a systematic means, students will do their own rating. She pointed to rateyourprofessor.com.
Tiles wondered about the relationship between quality of instruction and how students feel about a professor.
Lampe said there remained great skepticism about doing it at chancellor's level.
Interim Chancellor Konan replied that when students say instructional quality is poor she has no way to address it.
Lampe conceded that this is a good issue, that we need to figure out how to measure quality. He will talk to CAPP. VCAA Smatresk is scheduled to meet with CAPP in January. He asked Interim Chancellor Konan if she could meet with CAPP before that --- to soften them up for VCAA Smatresk.
Tiles said that he needed more specifics.
Interim Chancellor Konan replied that we need to drill down. Focus groups are one approach. The point of contact at the end of the semester is also a very good one.
Tiles suggested that the administration think carefully about what it asks students.
Interim Chancellor Konan said that she wants faculty ownership of some of what the students are asked. She doesn't want everything to be done by the administration. She wants to see some faculty enthusiasm.
Lampe reiterated that the faculty doesn't see value in it.
As an example, Interim Chancellor Konan said that the students don't like student housing. So we need to drill down and find out what the problem is: resident adviser? food? what? Unless we know we can't address the issue.
Tiles said that we need to figure out what the questions are that need to be asked.
Lampe said that the faculty doesn't know what the administrations's problems are.
Bley-Vroman noted that VCAA Smatresk had complained about the difficultly in getting things though the Faculty Senate in timely matter. The SEC had pointed out that there are other mechanisms --- such as appointing a special committee to come up with a proposal. That is faster than getting CAPP to do it. Some combination of administrators and Faculty Senate, with Senate members from the particular committee, can be more effective and efficient.
Lampe suggested that the administration needed to change from student evaluations, to getting information that the chancellor needs to improve instruction.
Interim Chancellor Konan agreed that different levels had different needs and issues. She said that she would make the suggestion to VCAA Smatresk about moving forward. It is a matter for Academic Affairs.
Lampe encouraged Interim Chancellor Konan to refocus the task force.
Bley-Vroman showed Interim Chancellor Konan VCAA Smatresk's memo and pointed out that the time-line was unrealistic.
Lampe summed up by saying that to get the faculty behind it, the administration needed to figure out what information it needs and for what purpose, then explain the problem and the reason to the faculty.
Interim Chancellor Konan said that she had heard about it over weekend. She is now talking to VCRGE Ostrander about it. Interim Chancellor Konan reiterated that she will not send the UARC contract forward. Interim President McClain is going ahead with his open meeting because he is committed to it. All in all, she admitted it is an ``awkward situation''.
Tiles wondered what the outcome of open meeting could possibly be. What are we discussing now?
Interim Chancellor Konan said that the chancellor's decision had been made and should be respected.
Tiles said that some wanted UARC separate from the campus, not integral. But the contract calls for an integral UARC. If that is the case, there is no point in looking at the contract.
Interim Chancellor Konan said that she shares that opinion and is trying to articulate it wherever she can. Interim President McClain feels an obligation because he made a commitment. His meeting is an open one. If SEC has views, she suggested it voice them at Interim President McClain's meeting.
Lampe said that he voted against the resolution. He felt that it was not appropriate for VCRGE Ostrander to go to COR now because the Senate has acted. Why ask the committee to look at the contract? He (VCRGE Ostrander) paid for expert opinion. So asking COR is silly.
Tiles said that COR was only told last Friday (Dec 9). It would probably find the contract daunting. There were too many references to things not in contract itself, and each must be looked up. That is what the lawyers did. And that is where they found some problem clauses.
Lampe humphed, ``An inappropriate question at an inappropriate time''.
Bley-Vroman felt that it must somehow relate to the Navy, to the big-tent idea. Perhaps COR might want to say something.
Interim Chancellor Konan said that she had only preliminary email and not enough information to talk about it. She is not sure if the request came from COR or from elsewhere.
Tiles replied that did not come from COR. VCRGE Ostrander asked COR to look at it.
Interim Chancellor Konan said that she had put out a call at several venues. To date no replies received. She felt that doesn't mean people aren't impacted. She knows of some who think they are negatively impacted. She wanted to hear from the SEC.
Tiles replied that he had no feedback on Interim Chancellor Konan's statement. She did the right thing. She had emphasized the right factors: a UARC on campus, a lack of financial benefits.
Interim Chancellor Konan noted that there is a difference between people who have broader concerns about a research enterprise and those who would actually participate in UARC. UHARI is coming to talk to her. She hopes her Commission on Research will help ameliorate the situation.
Lampe pointed out that the people who weren't engaged are now enraged. How do we deal with that?
Interim Chancellor Konan said that she didn't tell anyone she was holding a press conference until the very last minute.
Bley-Vroman asked if the symbolism was right with him on podium with the Interim Chancellor for questions. Of course it was great for the Senate. It showed faculty support for the chancellor and vice versa.
Staff asked about the procedure for a standing committee to invite the chancellor to come and talk.
The consensus among the SEC and Interim Chancellor Konan was that a committee goes to its liaison who goes to the SEC chair who goes to the chancellor. This is to keep everyone in loop.
Staff said that she would inform Myrtle Yamada about possible dates.
Tiles questioned Interim Chancellor Konan about the rationale for a national search for a dean of Arts & Humanities. He said that the transition cost means it will remain as is. The post is rather small in terms of responsibilities, so the search won't draw a good pool of candidates. It will have to be filled internally. It seems to be a bad decision to go ahead. The transition costs don't seem to balance cost of leaving things as they are.
Tiles felt that there hasn't been enough discussion with the faculty. Faculty in the College of Languages, Linguistics & Literature aren't happy with their situation. We really don't know what of the majority the faculty think.
Tiles said that we should really be considering the best way to get instruction done on this campus. Don't just say it will cost too much to change. We don't know how scientific VCAA Smatresk's sampling was. The whole question just needs more thought. Combining all the colleges might not be the right thing. A&H is so different. It has two radically different units, so it is easy to see why there is no unity.
Lampe noted that any thoughtful restructuring would tackle the problem of SOEST.
Tiles said just leave the interims in place.
Interim Chancellor Konan asked if the campus is ready for massive restructuring.
Lampe quickly responded, ``The faculty aren't ready''.
Interim Chancellor Konan found the idea intriguing. How to restructure and build up the functions that we need. The next level is the deans' level. We need more synergy across campus, she noted.
Tiles said that question to bring to the campus is ``How can we function more successfully?''
Interim Chancellor Konan pointed out that for freshmen retention, our structure isn't successful.
Tiles asked why do freshmen fall through cracks? --- the inability of one part of the campus to cooperate with another.
Lampe pointed to students' lack of functional skills.
Interim Chancellor Konan suggested that it might be admission standards. But not totally. According to US News and World Report we are above the median.
Lampe asked if we are talking about ``published admission standards'' or ``actual standards''. Lots of students can't meet the published standards.
Kent mentioned the number of students who work.
Interim Chancellor Konan left at 5:34pm
Bley-Vroman talked about the schedule. He will not be in town on Monday 19th; Monday 26th is holiday, and January 2 is holiday. January 9 is first day of instruction and a special meeting is scheduled on January 13.
The SEC's next real meeting will be January 9, 2006.