Manoa Faculty Senate Committee on
Administration and Budget Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008, 11:00 p.m., Hawaii Hall 208

Present:  Ross Christensen, Shirley Daniel, Bob McHenry, David Sanders, David Duffy, David Chin, Matt McGranaghan, and Mary Tiles UHM Faculty Senate liaison

Excused:  Judith Inazu, Tricia Wright, CN Lee

Invited:  Vice Chancellor Kathy Cutshaw

The meeting was called to order at 11:05 a.m. 

The committee began the discussion on matters that were relevant to the VC Cutshaw’s responsibility as follows:

Budget:  The new Council of Revenues projection is a negative growth of 0.5%.  Thus cuts for the biennium budget are likely to go deeper than originally thought.  As the budget will have to go through the formal channels and the BOR, further details are yet unknown.  However, if there is a 20% budget cut scenario, there would be a $20 million reduction for UH Manoa.  This would be planned as a 1 time permanent reduction in the budget.  While details are not available, the UH System administration has indicated little resistance to this level of reduction, therefore, VC Cutshaw believes that internal reallocations will be required to address a large reduction in state funding.  For the current budget, there remain items that were not requested by the UH administration but were added by legislators.  The political ramifications of cutting these items is an issue. 

Status of the Process Planning Committee:  Chairman Christensen asked VC Cutshaw about the input process and formation of committees to set priorities at the UHM.  As Chair of CAB, he is serving on a special committee along with the UHM Faculty Senate President to discuss short term budget cuts.  There is another committee that will convene to discuss longer term strategic issues and priorities.  It is important for these long-term issues to be addressed by the administration and faculty who have a long-term interest in the UH.  One of the problems is where to cut.  The UH System CFO is leading the process and based on current budget levels and cash reserves, it appears that UHM will bear about 68% of the cuts.  One problem is that there are special fund cash balances being carried forward, but these funds are restricted for special purposes and cannot be reallocated to other general needs. 

Campus Priorities Survey Results.   The committee discussed the UHM faculty survey and comments with VC Cutshaw.  All were pleased with the relatively good response rate and all the insightful comments.  There were many good suggestions relating to energy conservation.  VC Cutshaw wants to create a better communication process so that faculty can know more specific ways that they can conserve resources.  For example, some buildings do not have variable AC controls, only on versus off.  Delamping projects, etc are underway that may save energy costs.  Similarly, switching from desktop to laptop computers with docking stations could also save energy.  Faculty need to better understand the issues and know specifically how they can help reduce energy costs. 

VC Cutshaw and the committee discussed putting information on a website so that faculty could know more specifics about their building and other energy management and facilities information.  The committee encouraged her to work with Mr. Haffner to create such an information website such as with FAQs, etc.  The committee also discussed other communications ideas such as promoting 1 energy saving idea per month in a coordinated way.  VC Cutshaw and Mary Tiles mentioned an initiative they wanted to implement in which each campus building would have a coordinator to help implement and monitor sustainable processes. 

VC Cutshaw and the committee also discussed some of the administrative improvements noted by the faculty comments.  Some of the issues brought up concern the issues of decentralization and which services are done by the UH System versus UHM.  There may also be opportunities for consolidation of services within UHM, particularly things like purchasing and procurement through which larger purchasing power might reduce vendor prices as well as administrative/clerical burden. 

VC Cutshaw described the process that is moving forward to implement the new FMIS system, Kuali.  Faster progress is now being made over the last 3 months or so, with special committees of experienced and motivated F.O.s and administrators working on the implementation issues.  They are trying to improve business process improvements along with the implementation.  The turnover at top administrative levels has impeded progress up until now, but things are moving forward better.  She noted that there was need for greater communication regarding these improvements and the implementation process. 

VC Cutshaw left the meeting. 

Chairman Christensen led the discussion of other agenda items as follows:

The minutes of the October 2, 2008 meeting were approved. 

Campus Priorities Survey Results (cont): 

The committee discussed how to communicate the results of the survey to the faculty.  It was agreed that Mary Tiles and Ross Christensen would work together to compose an email cover letter to all the faculty with a link to the results which would be posted on the UHM Faculty Senate website.  The cover email would provide the purpose of the survey, acknowledge the importance of the issues and the importance of the role of the faculty in making changes to save money and determine spending priorities.  The written survey comments would also be posted on the website, both in their original form and in the summary prepared by Judith Inazu and her student. 

The committee discussed the faculty survey at length.   Most helpful were the answers to the items in the main body of the survey, as they provide guidance about the approach that should be taken to address the looming budget cuts.  The faculty comments provide a lot of excellent suggestions and insights, but it was noted that the comments were helpful were also somewhat miscellaneous and do not address all issues, and that many important concerns will require a more meaningful discussion.  At a minimum, they do point to the need for greater communication.  There also seem to be recurring themes in the comments that point to larger issues that will need to be addressed by the long-term priorities committee previously mentioned.  These issues include, for example,

• the UH System vs. UHM and decentralization of functions
• athletics vs. academics
• spending for administration vs. faculty.

Proposed policy on procedures for the UHM executive search process

Mary Tiles noted that the UHM Faculty SEC had discussed the document from our last meeting with the Chancellor.  She circulated a revised process draft.  The administration has suggested a minor modification to the wording to emphasize the close coordination needed by the administration and the search committee during the process.  Mary Tiles also handed out a list of all UH Executive positions.  Because the BOR eliminated the M Classification, there are many E positions now.  The committee discussed to which levels of position the search policy should apply.  The committee agreed that the policy should apply to all positions noted as U and 15 level positions, and any other Dean level executives.  The committee concurred with the wording change recommended by the Chancellor, and recommended that the search policy move forward for consideration at the next UHM Faculty Senate meeting.

Tenure on appointment of administrators.   Mary Tiles indicated that the SEC discussed the proposed policy specific to UHM that was recommended at our last meeting with VC Ostrander.  No feedback has been received from the administration.  The committee agreed that the positions relevant to this discussion are the same as those noted in the discussion of the search process above (U, 15 and Dean level appointments). 

Proposed resolution requesting administrative commitment to improve research administration.  After a brief discussion of the response by the COR on these issue, and in light of overlap with other issues relating to budget cuts, decentralization, and administrative efficiencies, the committee tabled this issue indefinitely.   

Appointment of the VCAA.  This issue is still not resolved. 

Evaluation of the Chancellor. The committee discussed the history of this item on the agenda. Previously and currently, there is no formal process for faculty input on the evaluation of high level administrators. The UH System President has implemented a 360 evaluation process for Chancellors and high level administrators that seems to be working relatively well. The committee agreed to table this issue for the current time.

The meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Shirley J. Daniel