Mānoa Faculty Senate Minutes
of December 10, 2008
Senators present:
David Bangert, Andrea Bartlett, Rhonda Black, Steven Brown, Beei-Huan Chao,
David Chin, Ross Christensen, Bryan Cook, Gertraud Maskarinec for Robert Cooney,
Graham Crookes, Martha Crosby, Sandy Davis, David Duffy, John Engel, Sheri Fong,
Rosanne Harrigan, Patrick Henry, Vilisoni Hereniko, Thomas Hilgers,
Susan Hippensteele, Judith Inazu, Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa, Klaus Keil,
Chin Lee, Peter Leong, Jason Maddock, Julienne Maeda, John Mahoney, Matt McGranaghan,
Luciano Minerbi, Paula Morelli,
Katrina-Ann Oliveira, Maryann Overstreet, Aspy Palia, Martin Rayner, Karol
Richardson, Kelly Roberts,
Senators absent:
Anna Ah Sam, Denise Antolini, Bruce Barnes, Mirella Brooks, Shana Brown,
Eric De Carlo, Spencer Kimura, Mike Kirk-Kuwaye,
Marcelo Kobayashi, Courtenay Matsu, Robert McHenry, Marian Melish, Martin Oishi,
Ilia Roussev, Dave Sanders, Margi
Sarvimaki, Grieg Steward, Eric Thau, Russell Uyeno, Markus Wessendorf, Anna
Wieczorek, Leven Wilson, Tricia Wright, Jean Young, Ivica Zalud
Senators excused:
Mary Ann Antonelli, Joel Cohn, Robert Cooney,
Shirley Daniel,
Daphne Desser, David Griffith, Carol Kellett, Richard Manshardt, Stephen Olsen,
Elizabeth Wichman-Walczak
Guests:
Gary Ostrander (OVCRGE), Meda Chesney-Lind, Duane Stevens (CAPP)
FS Chair Klaus Keil
called the meeting to order at 3 p.m.
1. Update on the Office of Research Services
ORS director Yaa-Yin Fong’s update report is available at
http://www.hawaii.edu/ors/filecabinet_presentations.html
Fong noted that ORS
has streamlined operations in order to handle the doubling of the UH research
budget during last decade – to nearly $400M per year. It now has a timeline for
tracking each grant’s progress toward completion. Of particular help may be its
new online orientation program for PIs.
2. Approval of the Manoa Faculty Senate Minutes of
November 19, 2008
The minutes were
approved unanimously.
3. Chair’s Report
3.1.
Chancellor’s Process Committee
The Process Committee, appointed this fall by Chancellor Hinshaw, has met
regularly. Its deliberations are summarized at
http://www.manoa.hawaii.edu/ovcafo/newprocess/index.html
Keil urged senators
to go to the site and review the committee’s “Draft Principles, Priorities &
Criteria for Program & Department Review.”
The committee’s acting head, Dean C. Sorenson of Education, noted that the
committee began by looking to establish campus priorities in light of likely
faculty retirements. The committee
is now concerned with priorities in light of likely budget cuts.
It seeks to ensure that UHM face the economic downturn by making
strategic cuts rather than across-the-board cuts.
Committee member M. Tiles urged senators to review the draft report now,
since budget cutting cannot be delayed. She invited on-line comments ASAP.
In response to a question, she noted that all units will have to go
through the prioritization process; units’ priorities will, it is hoped, guide
the inevitable budget cuts.
3.2. Budget
working group
Chancellor Hinshaw created a
budget working group to complement work of the Process Committee. It will look
at ways for UH Mānoa “to have the flexibility and nimbleness it needs to
accomplish changes in the best way” (see the workgroup’s charge at
http://manoa.hawaii.edu/chancellor/budget.html ).
If there are budget cuts this year, the budget group will have to
recommend cuts immediately. If cuts
involve the next fiscal year, the Process Committee’s recommendations can guide
the budget committee.
Floor discussion revealed that budget meetings will be private, but
minutes will be posted. Each department will determine its priorities; those low
on the list are likely areas for budget review. “Experiments,” such as building
closures over the holidays, may provide data for money-saving efforts.
3.3. Arts and
Sciences Reorganization
Chancellor Hinshaw has sent
the UHM community information on her intentions.
The timeline envisions welcoming a Dean of Arts and Sciences in
June-August 2009.
3.4. VCAA Search
Status
The search for a VCAA has
been reopened by Chancellor Hinshaw. The search committee, absent the Chancellor
and VCRGE, has been reconvened. The Chancellor recognizes the urgency of filling
the position, and has assured SEC that the search process will be carried out in
an expeditious manner.
4. Old business
4.1. Motion on
the hiring process of executives (reported by the Committee on Administration
and Budget)
CAB chair Ross Christensen
offered guidelines for executive searches. The Chancellor drafted guidelines;
CAB reviewed the draft and suggested revisions; the Chancellor sent her
responses; CAB made modifications.
Christensen moved the resultant document (with
CAB modifications to Hinshaw’s draft in italics) for senate approval:
(For Ranks U and 15 – Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Dean
or Dean-equivalent)
GENERAL SEARCH INFORMATION
1. The Search Advisory
Committee’s role is advisory to the Chancellor, or designated hiring authority.
It does not serve as a selection committee.
The Committee will be asked to provide a
unranked list of names with a
corresponding assessment of strengths and weaknesses to the chancellor for
consideration and action.
The Chancellor (or designated hiring
authority) will not serve on the committee, although it is anticipated that
there will be close coordination between the committee chair and the hiring
authority.
2. To protect the
applicants and nominees, confidentiality is an essential part of the search
process. However, with the exception
of search advisory committee deliberations, information pertaining to
applicants/nominees, and other confidential issues, the search process will be
as transparent as possible with updates periodically provided and the timeline
shared.
SEARCH PROCESS
1. Updating/Developing
the Position Description
The position description for the position, if needed,
will be updated. The revised
document will then be approved by the Chancellor and forwarded to the UHM
Office of Human Resources for final approval.
2. Composition of the
Search Advisory Committee
The Search Advisory Committee is comprised of diverse
representatives from key UH Mānoa constituencies including faculty, students,
staff, alumni, administrators, and external community representatives.
After consulting with appropriate individuals and groups (e.g., ASUH,
GSO, Faculty Senate, Kuali'i Council, etc.), the following distribution is
typically used:
Faculty (3 members, nominated by the appropriate faculty
governance group); Students (2 members representing undergraduate and graduate
students); school/college deans (2 members);
APT Staff Representative (1);
Administrative/Clerical Representative (1);
Community Representative (1-3);
Kuali’i Council (1);
Vice Chancellor (1).
The Chair of the Search Advisory Committee will be
appointed by the Chancellor or a Vice Chancellor, depending on the level of the
search.
Advertising and Recruiting
The University will widely advertise the position.
An executive search firm will often but not always assist in the search
process. Although a “first
screening deadline” will be included in the advertisements, there will be
continuous recruitment until filled.
This means that the committee may accept applications and nominations for
consideration up until the time the position is filled.
3. The Search Advisory
Committee – Charge and Challenges
EEO/AA Overview.
The Search Advisory Committee will receive training in EEO/AA and Human
Resources rules and regulations.
Review of Applicants and Nominees.
The Committee will review and consider the applicants and nominees, often
with the assistance of an executive search firm.
Based on this vetting and review process, including interviews of the
most promising candidates (typically 6-8 individuals depending on the number of
highly qualified applicants), the Committee will provide the Chancellor with a
list of approximately three names.
The recommendation should include a listing of strengths and weaknesses of each
candidate.
This segment of the search process must remain
completely confidential. The
names of candidates who are non-finalists will not be publicly released.
The names of finalists will only be released upon written permission to
release their names and upon acceptance of the invitation for on-site
interviews.
It is inappropriate for a member of the
search committee to be or become a candidate during the search process for which
that committee was convened.
4. The Selection Process
A. On-site interviews.
On-site interviews with finalists will encompass a minimum of two days of
professional meetings and social events.
Candidates will be asked to meet with university administrators, faculty,
staff, students, and members of the community; asked to do a public
presentation; engage in question and answer sessions; and attend social events.
B. Evaluation Process: Written Evaluations. At the
conclusion of the on-site interviews, the University’s internal and external
community will be invited to provide comments, in writing, on the suitability of
the candidates. These comments will
be summarized and will be considered as part of the selection process.
C. Selection of Appointee.
The Chancellor, or designated hiring authority, will make the selection
and negotiate terms for employment.
D. Presidential/Board of Regents Action.
The Chancellor will then forward the recommended candidate to the
President and/or Board of Regents, if applicable, for final action.
The name of the designate will not be released until after all required
administrative approvals are secured.
Floor discussion resulted in two friendly amendments:
M was added to
UH; Kuali’i Council was added to the list of “distribution …
typically used” on committees. The
amendments were approved, with 3 abstentions. (The text above includes the
amendments in green.)
A motion to approve the policy was made and seconded; the motion was
adopted with the majority in favor, 1 against.
4.2. Resolution
to include Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) on UHM-1 and -2 Forms (from November
19th Senate meeting)
CAPP Chair Susan Hippensteele had opened discussion of this resolution at
the last FS meeting. Today, she reopened discussion and invited possible action
on the resolution.
WHEREAS, with the introduction of new WASC Standards
that will be in effect as of July 2008, that is:
“1.2 Educational objectives are clearly recognized throughout the
institution and consistent with stated purposes. The institution develops
indicators for the achievement of its purposes and educational objectives at the
institutional, program and course levels. The institution has a system of
measuring student achievement, in terms of retention, completion and student
learning. The institution makes public data on student achievement at the
institutional and degree level, in a manner determined by the institution” and
“2.3 The institution's student learning outcomes and expectations for
student attainment are clearly stated at the course, program and, as
appropriate, institutional level. These outcomes and expectations are reflected
in academic programs and policies; curriculum; advisement; library and
information resources; and the wider learning environment.”
The MANOA FACULTY SENATE RESOLVES that, as part of good
teaching practice, all courses should clearly state the expected Student
Learning Outcomes (SLOs), as part of published syllabi, and that for any new
courses or course changes submitted on forms UHM-1 or UHM-2, SLOs must be
included in the justification section. These SLOs should reflect the SLOs of the
program under which the course is listed.
Discussion ensued. “Con”
arguments included these: the resolution is premature and offers the narrowest
possible interpretation of WASC’s requirement; CAPP’s effort is sincere, but the
resolution should not become policy without being forwarded by the faculty head
of the Assessment Office, as approved in principle by the Senate during Spring
07; having SLOs on forms is not the same as using SLOs to improve programs.
“Pro” arguments noted that many departments are already doing what is
called for; SLOs are good for students; SLOs help faculty committees in
reviewing course proposals; learning outcomes are listed in some departments’
program brochures; requiring SLOs can help a faculty focus on its curriculum in
productive ways.
A motion was made to amend the resolution thus:
The resolution will not become effective until we have a Director of the
Faculty’s Manoa Office of Assessment who reports to the Faculty Senate.
Discussion of the motion to amend involved the General Education Office
and its reporting line or lines; hiring decisions, reporting lines, and locus of
tenure in the Assessment Office; the distinction between a unit’s “ownership”
and the implementation of its decisions.
The discussion was ended by a senator’s calling the question on the
resolution. It was decided that calling question the question has priority over
moving a motion. The calling of the question was approved and a vote on the
resolution was taken. The vote
yielded 15 yeas, 15 nays, and 1 abstention. It was noted that the chair may vote
in the case of a tie. But before the chair acted, there was a call to determine
quorum. 33 senators were found
present; quorum required 40. All
voting ceased.
4.3. Resolution
on search for permanent director for the
A professor from CRCH was present to present the resolution, but since no
vote was possible, it was decided to return to the resolution at the January 09
FS meeting.
4. New business
4.1. Resolution
on the establishment of a Manoa Assessment Committee (reported by the Committee
on Academic Policy and Planning)
CAPP Chair Hippensteele
suggested discussion take place without a vote on the resolution.
A member of CAPP noted that the resolution on assessment takes up half
the issues raised during the terminated discussion of the SLO resolution. That
being the case, it was decided to return to the resolution on assessment at the
January FS meeting.
4.2. Progress
report on the reorganization of the
According to CAB Chair Christensen, PBRC members have voiced concern that
official processes required for reorganization of a unit have not been
undertaken. PBRC members also question claimed budgetary consequences of
reorganization. Before it offers its assessment, CAB wants a report from the VCR
on these two matters.
Chair Keil, learning that CAB had not invited VCR Ostrander to the
meeting, suggested such an invitation. Other questions revealed that we do not
have clear indicators of what constitutes a reorganization, which may well be
problematic given our budget situation.
COR Chair Pat Henry reported that COR had presentations from both VCR and
PBRC. COR expects that all required
reorganization processes will be followed, since this is clearly a
reorganization. Information
available to COR did not allow it to resolve conflicting statements from VCR and
PBRC.
Floor discussion involved possible motives for the dissolution of PBRC,
all related to needs of the
5. Adjournment
Chair Keil, noting
that no substantive business was possible without a quorum, invited a move to
adjourn, which was made, seconded, and approved. The meeting was adjourned at
4:39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas Hilgers, Secretary
Home | Committees | Current Session | Senators | Minutes | Resolutions | Calendar | News & Events
University of Hawaii | UH Manoa | Manoa Chancellor | UHPA | Board of Regents | Senate Resources
Contact dave at math.hawaii.edu with comments regarding this site.