Printable Version

Mānoa Faculty Senate Minutes
of March 18, 2009

Chair Klaus Keil called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. 

Present:  Denise Antolini, David Bangert, Andrea Bartlett,  Rhonda Black, Bei-Huan Chao, Ross Christensen, Joel Cohn, Graham Crookes, Martha Crosby, Sandy Davis, Sheri Fong, Rosanne Harrigan, Thomas Hilgers, Susan Hippensteele, Judith Inazu, Klaus Keil, Peter Leong, Jason Maddock, Julienne Maeda, Richard Manshardt, Courtenay Matsu, Matt McGranaghan, Luciano Minerbi, Paula Morelli, Martin Rayner, Todd Reed, Karol Richardson, David Ross, Magi Sarvimaki, Jane Schoonmaker, Bruce Shiramizu, David Stegenga, Mary Tiles, Russell Uyeno, Lei Wakayama, Markus Wessendorf, Jean Young

Absent:  Anna Ah Sam, Bruce Barnes, Shana Brown, Steven Brown, John Casken, David Chin, Eric De Carlo, David Duffy, John Engel, Patrick Henry, Vilsoni Hereniko, Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa, Spencer Kimura, Mike Kirk-Kuwaye, Marcelo Kobayashi, Chin Lee, John Mahoney, Robert McHenry, Marian Melish, Martin Oishi, Stephen Olsen, Maryann Overstreet, Robert Paull, Ilia Roussev, Scott Rowland, Dave Sanders, Grieg Steward, Nancy Stockert, Eric Thau, Cynthia Ward, E. Wichmann-Walczak, Anna Wieczorek, Leven Wilson, Tricia Wright, Ivica Zalud

Excused: Mary Ann Antonelli, Bryan Cook, Robert Cooney, Shirley Daniel, David Griffith, Carol Kellett, Katrina-Ann Oliveira, Aspy Palia, Kelly Roberts

1.  Minutes of the 2/18/09 FS were approved as submitted.

2.  Chair's Report

Chair Keil introduced the chancellor and the vice chancellor for administration to address the Senate on implications of the state’s financial situation for UHM.

2.a. Chancellor Virginia Hinshaw reported that in-process legislative actions have major implications for UHM’s Comprehensive Research University status.

Although the recent UHERO report demonstrates that UH Manoa returns $5.34 in state spending for every $1 invested, the House proposes an ongoing $33M cut in UHM funds.  This cut will mean losing positions, cutting programs, and cutting our investment in improving student experience.  The federal stimulus package may buy us a little time for planning, and we need to plan if we are to determine our own future in an economically restructured world. Ultimately, UHM can no longer afford to be what we have become.  So what do we want to be in the future and how can we get there while remaining affordable?

2.b  VC Kathleen Cutshaw reported that the House budget recommendation cuts UHM’s G-fund budget by $33.6M—a 13% cut. The final cut remains to be seen:  the Senate has yet to make its determination and the final legislative budget will not be approved until the legislature ends its session in May. The Council of Revenues, which has consistently cut its funds forecast, meets on May 28.  The governor’s initial release of funding for the next fiscal year will come after that forecast.

Cutshaw, for purposes of comparison, reported on UHM spending for the budget year ending in June 2008.  The $244M in G funds went almost entirely for salaries, with about 70% for FTE faculty. The initial $92M in tuition revenue went for salaries (24%) and operating costs (76%), with $14M carried over.  RTRF was allocated for personnel (34%) and operations (66%), with $24M carried over.

Cutshaw also reported that the Budget Work Group is meeting weekly but talking ‘around fringe.’  $12M can be saved without cutting jobs.  But that’s not $33.4M.

Questions

Q: Why don’t we send deans to DC to look for funding opportunities?

A: (Cutshaw) VC Ostrander is looking for opportunities in DC and through various agencies.

Q: Why are UH information forms so horribly complicated and difficult to access?

A: (Hinshaw): The Office of Research Services is at the UH system and UHM cannot make all determinations.

Q: Why won’t the community colleges be cut?

A: CCs are cut 10% in the governor’s budget, but not in the House budget. We are cut because UHM is a generator of income while CCs are not.

Q: What can the faculty advocate?

A: We may well call on the faculty for help. But we cannot cut repairs; we cannot cut native Hawaiian programs. We know that long-term gradual cutting is inevitable. But we don’t want to overcorrect in panic.

2.c  Update on Planning Meeting with Manoa Administration

Keil reported that the CAPP draft on shared governance led the SEC to meet with all FS committee chairs.  Dialog begun at that meeting will continue during a planning ‘retreat’ on 4/29 involving the same group plus the VCs and chancellor.

3. New Business

3.a RESOLUTION IN RECOGNITION OF CHARLOTTE MITSUTANI

Chair Keil read the following resolution into the record:

The resolution was approved unanimously and the text will be forwarded to Charlotte Mitsutani.

3.b. Resolution to Approve a Graduate Certificate in Entrepreneurship

CAPP chair Susan Hippensteele read the following resolution into the record:

WHEREAS, one of the underlying objectives of the “University of Hawai‘i System’s Second Decade Project” is to balance our educational mission and economic development in Hawai‘i; and

WHEREAS, nationally and internationally there has been a growing demand for entrepreneurial courses, certificates and degrees; and

WHEREAS, the graduate certificate in entrepreneurship (GCE) will provide a mechanism for students admitted to and in good academic standing at University of Hawai‘i at Manoa (UHM) graduate programs to obtain the skills and knowledge needed to successfully start their own business, commercially develop new technology, or work in an entrepreneurial enterprise; and

WHEREAS, UHM lags behind peer institutions in the number of disclosures, licensing income, new venture spin-offs and other products of technology commercialization that would benefit UHM and the State of Hawai‘i; and

WHEREAS, the GCE objectives are to promote research applications, commercialization and culturally sensitive economic development in services, high technology, diversified agriculture, tourism and other emerging sectors important to the continuous economic development of the state; and

WHEREAS, successful completion of the GCE curriculum will enhance the knowledge and skills of graduates in enabling transfer of new technologies to the private sector; and

WHEREAS, all courses necessary to complete the GCE are currently available and regularly taught; therefore, be it

RESOLVED, the Mānoa Faculty Senate approves the Graduate Certificate in Entrepreneurship.

-----

Hippensteele opened discussion and directed questions to Shidler Professor John Butler.  Discussion involved sustainability, a focus desired by many students; target students (Shidler, Engineering, and Natural Sciences, with a focus on non-business students); funding (students may incur some costs; program will not pull resources from other campus sources); the number of required courses (5, typical for certificates).

The question was called.  The resolution was approved with 1 nay vote.

3.b.  Resolution on Dossier Simplification: Supporting Materials

CPM chair Andrea Bartlett presented this resolution as “Part 2” of a resolution passed by the Senate last fall.

DOSSIER SIMPLIFICATION RESOLUTION: SUPPORTING MATERIALS

COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL MATTERS

Whereas, the current dossier guidelines and forms are dated, unnecessarily complex and bureaucratic for the candidates and reviewing bodies,  

Whereas, the current process is also wasteful and cumbersome producing huge stacks of multiple copies of large folders that must be securely transported and stored,

Whereas a review of the dossier process that included interviews with key stakeholders as well as two focus groups of faculty who had recently submitted dossiers produced no evidence that the dated format and submission process adds anything in terms of quality or value,

Whereas the 2007-08 University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa Faculty Senate passed a resolution supporting the effort to streamline, simplify, and codify existing guidelines and forms to make for a more efficient submission and review process with the ultimate goal of a secure, paperless submission process,

Therefore be it resolved that the following Supporting Materials and Compiling the Dossier descriptions substitute for current language in the Criteria and Guidelines for Faculty Tenure/Promotion Application beginning Fall 2009:

B.    Supporting materials in the Dossier. Appropriate supporting materials depend on your faculty classification. Faculty in the Instructional classification must submit documented evidence of teaching accomplishments, as outlined below.

1.   Appendix A: Teaching. If you are in the Instructional classification, you must have documented evidence of your teaching ability and of your contributions to the curriculum.

a)      Teaching ability is usually documented by means of teaching evaluations. If your department or unit uses quantitative teaching evaluations, results should be compiled in tables, supplemented by comments when available.  If your department or unit uses qualitative teaching evaluations, you should specify whether the lists include all or selected comments. For tenure, you should report all available course evaluations. For promotion, you should report a representative sample of all of the courses you have taught in recent years.

b)      You are encouraged to include any awards or citations for excellence in teaching.

c)   Contributions to the curriculum may be documented by UHM curriculum forms. You may also want to include a few sample letters from students or peers regarding teaching innovations.

2.   Appendix B: Scholarly Activity.

For both Instructional and Research faculty, a bibliography or other objective record of scholarly work is essential. Section a (below) gives the format you should use in compiling your bibliography. Faculty in fields such as the fine arts may substitute a list of shows, performances, etc., in lieu of a bibliography. Professional reviews of your work by peers not associated with UH Mānoa are important and should be included if available.

a. Your bibliography provides an invaluable objective record of your scholarly   activity. The format which should be used is as follows:

1)   Separate your published works, conference presentations and manuscripts into appropriate groupings. The following categories may be adapted to your discipline. Additional categories may be created as necessary.

•     Books of original scholarship–author/co-author

•     Chapters in books

•     Edited volumes

•     Textbooks

•     Articles in international or national refereed journals

•     Articles in other periodicals

•     Unpublished work, accepted for publication (with  documentation: submitted, conditionally accepted, in press, etc.)

•     Internal reports and other unpublished work

•     Invited conference presentations

•     Refereed conference contributions

•     Departmental seminars

•     Published abstracts

•     Other scholarly products (such as major software, video or film)

•     Grants (indicate funded, approved but not funded, submitted but not approved, etc.)

2)      Within each category, list your works in order of publication or completion, with the most recent works first. Make a clear division between work published or completed since your last promotion at UHM (or initial hire if you have not previously been promoted) and earlier work.

3)      For each item, give complete citation. An entry for a published article, for example, should include all the authors as listed in order by the journal, complete title, volume, year, and pagination. On-line publications should include the Web address.

4)      Make a clear distinction between works for which you were an author and those for which you were an editor.

5)      For all jointly authored and edited works, you must estimate the percent of your contributions.

6)      Faculty in disciplines such as the fine arts, music, drama, etc., should provide a complete listing of exhibitions, performances or other appropriate presentations of their creative work. A clear division should be made between presentations since your last promotion (or initial hire if you have not previously been promoted here) and earlier ones. Complete information as to the nature of each presentation, place, dates, etc., should be provided.

b. You should include letters of acceptance for publications in press.

c. Peer evaluations of contributions. You should include relevant external reviews of your published work or creative productions. These include published reviews, grant reviewers’ comments, letters to the editor, and readers’ comments of manuscripts submitted for publication. Inclusion of testimonials that do not provide specific substantive support may detract from the effectiveness of your presentation.

3.   Appendix C: Service

Faculty whose job descriptions include Service should list University, Professional and Community Service and may include a few carefully selected letters of recognition.

      a. University service. Academic service activities may include (but are not limited to): participation in faculty governance by membership in standing and ad hoc organizations, committees and task forces at the university, college/school, and department/unit levels.

      b. Professional service. You should include activities related to service to your discipline and professional organizations. Professional service activities may include (but are not limited to): serving as an officer in a professional organization, editing a professional publication, organizing conferences/workshops, creating discipline-related instructional models and resource materials for use in K-12 education, etc.

      c. Community service. Public service that is related to your profession is considered a positive factor in reviewing faculty for promotion. Still, for Instructional and Research faculty, the lack of professional public service accomplishments (unlike University service) is not detrimental to advancement–a recognition that the opportunity for such work in some fields is quite limited. Public service is not a substitute for research and teaching achievements. It is complementary to these other types of activities for Instructional and Research faculty. While not weighted equally with research and teaching, meritorious public service activities–if linked closely to the other two areas–can have a favorable impact on tenure and promotion decisions.           

    C.    Compiling the Dossier

· Paginating. Be sure that every page of material you submit has a page number. Labels   may be used to paginate supplemental materials.  Appendices can be indicated by tabs.

 

· Binding. Dossiers should be bound in a three-hole binder or a manila file folder.

When using a three-hole-punch binder the dossiers may be printed double-sided.

For dossiers bound in manila file folders, fasten at the left side of the page with a prong paper fastener. The margins for each appended page should be wide enough to ensure that no part of the text is obscured when the dossier is bound.

 

• Submitting. EIGHT COPIES SHOULD BE SUBMITTED. Label the original dossier as “Original” and number it “Copy 1.”  Number the subsequent copies “2” through “8.” Place a file label with the applicant’s full name, college/unit, department, and copy number on the front of each three hole binder or manila file folder tab. Confidential letters in their own manila envelopes should be included in the dossiers (but not attached) by the Department Chair.

    D.     Supporting Materials Box

Candidates should prepare a box for materials that document their accomplishments as presented in the dossier.

            Section A: Teaching:

                  (1) Actual course evaluation forms in folders by course/semester

                  (2) Unsolicited letters from students and peers about teaching innovations

                  (3) Course syllabi for each different course taught in the period under review

            Section B: Scholarship:  Publications, as listed in your bibliography

 

 

            Section C: Service: Selected letters regarding quality of your contributions

+++++++++++++++

Several questions were posed; Bartlett responded.

Q:  How does this resolution streamline dossiers?  It’s not paperless.

A:  It clarifies—e.g., tells which teaching evaluations to include for tenure, for promotion; moves details around; updates; specifies.

Q:  Should “Whereas” clauses be changed so that they don’t set expectations not met by details of resolution? Can’t we at least specify shorter dossiers?

A: The “Part 1” resolution did set page limits.

Q: Why don’t we put dossiers on CDs?

A: We were cautioned against this last year. Perhaps that needs a separate resolution.

Q: Shouldn’t we vote next month, after we have seen changes being proposed?

A:  That seems reasonable.

Bartlett determined that the resolution will be brought back after further consideration by CPM.

3.c.  Results of the 2009 Senate Elections

Since CFS chair Carol Kellett was out of town, the list of elected senators for 09-11 was  presented by Jean Young.  It was noted from the floor that many missed the election: ballots dropped into a sea of email are easily overlooked.  Young agreed that we have to fight the decline in the number of faculty members willing to serve if elected.

3.d  Resolution from the floor

Martin Rayner on behalf of the PBRC executive committee offered a resolution from the floor. Rayner noted that when he came to UHM in 1964, he was affiliated w. PBRC. He then read this into the record:

RESOLUTION ON REQUIRED PROCEDURES FOR REORGANIZATION OF A UNIT

WHEREAS the Administration of the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa has informed the SEC of its intention to dissolve the Pacific Biosciences Research Center (PBRC), a fully-functional Organized Research Unit;

WHEREAS the Faculty Senate finds it a matter of major concern to close an established Organized Research Unit without a formal and detailed Reorganization Plan as prescribed in Administrative Procedures A3.101, along with adequate time for Senate committees and other concerned constituencies to comment;

WHEREAS the Administration has produced neither the required Reorganization Plan, nor information necessary for the Committee on Administration and Budget and the Committee on Research to assess the proposed reorganization, despite requests to do so;

WHEREAS the Administration has informed the SEC of its intention to place the reorganization before an upcoming Board of Regents meeting;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate of the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa urges the Board of Regents not to consider the reorganization of PBRC until all proper procedures have been followed and careful consideration has been given to the viewpoints of all concerned parties.

=====

A questioner asked for the date of the BOR meeting that will consider this reorganization and was told that the topic has yet to appear on a BOR agenda.  PBRC executive-committee chair Marilyn Dunlap suggested that how PBRC is reorganized may have an impact on later prioritization-driven reorganizations.

Chair Keil noted that the resolution could not be considered today but will be on the April agenda as “old business.” 

There being no further business, Keil adjourned the meeting at 4:46 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas Hilgers
Secretary