Mānoa Faculty Senate Minutes
of December 10, 2008
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Thomas Hilgers, Secretary
Contact dave at math.hawaii.edu with comments regarding this site.