Mānoa Faculty Senate Minutes
of February 18, 2009
Present: Denise Antolini, Mary Ann Antonelli, David Bangert, Andrea Bartlett, Rhonda Black, John Casken for Mirella Brooks, Bei-Huan Chao, David Chin, Ross Christensen, Joel Cohn, Bryan Cook, Robert Cooney, Martha Crosby, Shirley Daniel, Sandy Davis, David Duffy, John Engel, Sheri Fong, David Griffith, Rosanne Harrigan, Patrick Henry, Vilsoni Hereniko, Thomas Hilgers, Judith Inazu, Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa, Klaus Keil, Carol Kellett, Mike Kirk-Kuwaye, Chin Lee, Julienne Maeda, John Mahoney, Richard Manshardt, Matt McGranaghan, Paula Morelli, Stephen Olsen, Maryann Overstreet, Martin Rayner, Karol Richardson, David Ross, Magi Sarvimaki, Bruce Shiramizu, David Stegenga, Nancy Stockert, Eric Thau, Mary Tiles, Lei Wakayama
Absent: Anna Ah Sam, Bruce Barnes, Shana Brown, Graham Crookes, Eric De Carlo, Susan Hppensteele, Spencer Kimura, Marcelo Kobayashi, Robert McHenry, Marian Melish, Luciano Minerbi, Martin Oishi, Katrina-Ann Oliveira, Aspy Palia, Todd Reed, Dave Sanders, Jane Schoonmaker, Grieg Steward, Russell Uyeno, Cynthia Ward, Markus Wessendorf, Anna Wieczorek, Leven Wilson, Tricia Wright
Excused: Steven Brown, Peter Leong, Jason Maddock, Courtenay Matsu, Kelly Roberts, Ilia Roussev, Scott Rowland, Elizabeth Wichmann-Walczak, Jean Young, Ivica Zalud
Chair Klaus Keil called the Senate to order at 4 p.m.
1. Minutes from the January 21, 2009 Senate meeting were approved.
2. Chair’s report
a. Update on Budget Workgroup
Keil drew attention to the Budget Workgroup website:
Klaus Keil, Ross Christensen, and Tom Ramsey are faculty members appointed to the workgroup. The workgroup has 4 subgroups: administration and supporting activities; student services; instruction; and research. The workgroup is exploring areas where we may save and thru which we can increase revenues.
The HI Council on Revenues will meet again in March and offer its latest estimate that will in turn determine budget restrictions. The legislature will pass a budget in May; the governor will decide on restrictions, resulting in a basic budget by mid June. UHM will have to make decisions on its budget for fiscal year 2010 in July.
Questions/Observation and Answers
Q: Are meetings open?
A (from Budget Workgroup chair Kathy Cutshaw): No, but detailed minutes are posted within 2 days.
O: Please make meetings open, since your money is our money. We should at least be able to listen.
A: Budget WG will not make budget recommendations; it will offer possibilities with their financial consequences, including hidden consequences. Chancellor will make decisions. We are looking at what can be achieved quickly. The Prioritization process is unlikely to guide immediate decisions.
Q: When will prioritization have an impact on budgets?
A: Budget decisions for long-range budgets, post fiscal year 2010, will be guided by prioritization. We have already committed $3M to energy savings, etc; we have already found $8M+ cuts. We are now looking at revenue-generating programs on campus to see if we can charge them for, e.g., electricity.
Q: When will process merge with budget?
A (from Mary Tiles): Prioritization is in progress. The chancellor has not yet formed a group to link prioritizations with budget decisions.
Q: What are self-supporting activities?
A (Cutshaw): E.g., food services; lab school; parking; etc.
b. Update on Process Committee Report
Keil asked Senator Mary Tiles to update the Senate.
Tiles reported that the committee met after the last Senate meeting; the “Response to the chancellor's process committee report” from that meeting was heeded by the committee. Specifically,
--the timeframe was adjusted to give units more time;
--text was added to make clear that all units are covered by process.
--feedback on process is now openly solicited
--the senate’s suggestion of possible process modification was considered; the committee decided to consider modifications, e.g. of communication lines, but not fundamental processes once underway. Questions and suggestions sent to the committee will be considered and, when possible, responded to asap.
The process committee cannot get it all right the first time around. But Round 1 is intended to lead to new Strategic Planning, followed by ongoing prioritizations. What is learned from Round 1 will guide our future efforts.
Q: The form is fraught with ambiguities. Can we get clarifications?
A: (Tiles): Much depends on what deans do. Deans know what units do and can determine what constitutes a “program.” Deans have to determine which particular rubric a unit is to use.
Q: Why all the ‘subjective’ measures? Why not seek documentation and hard data?
A: Where hard data exists, provide it. But across campus, hard data is not evenly distributed. Deans should know what makes sense for their units.
Q: Where do we put unit-wide suggestions?
A: Process website takes input. Input can specify what comes from an entire unit.
O: If decisions are left to deans, transparency may not make much sense.
R: Electronic form should allow comments.
O: Confounding prioritization with budget cutting is problematic, since this “trial run” will be used for critical budget decisions.
R: It’s better for the budget committee to have some information rather than none at all. That’s better than what’s presently done—after all, who determined the priorities reflected in our present budget?
3. Old business
3.1. Motion on “Faculty Senate Response to the Chancellor’s Process Committee Report”
Keil noted that the Senate Response to the process report has been acted upon by both the prioritization committee and the chancellor. At the last Senate meeting, we held open the option of following up the response with additional action. What do we want to do now, given what has happened since?
Senator Ross suggested leaving the response as is, to be resurrected if necessary. A motion to that effect was made, seconded, and passed.
4. New business
4.1. Location of future Senate meetings
Senator Kame`eleihiwa volunteered the Hawaiian Studies auditorium for the next Senate meeting, since the facility does not require electricity. Keil was appreciative and said that he would come by to view the facility.
4.2 Status of BOR decisions
A retired faculty member asked about the status of BOR decisions that involved BOR members found by the supreme court to have been illegally seated. A respondent noted that the current BOR ‘revoted’ in order to maintain decisions made by its predecessor board.
A motion to adjourn the Senate was made, seconded, and approved at 4:50 p.m.
Contact dave at math.hawaii.edu with comments regarding this site.