Mānoa Faculty Senate Minutes
of April 15, 2009
Present: Anna Ah Sam, Denise
Antolini, Mary Ann Antonelli, Andrea Bartlett,
Rhonda Black, Mirella Brooks, , Bei-Huan Chao, Ross Christensen, Joel
Cohn, Bryan Cook, Robert Cooney, Graham Crookes, Martha Crosby, Shirley Daniel,
Sandy Davis, David Duffy, John Engel, Patrick Henry, Vilsoni Hereniko, Thomas
Hilgers, Susan Hippensteele, Judith Inazu, Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa, Klaus Keil,
Mike Kirk-Kuwaye, Peter Leong, Jason Maddock, John Mahoney, Matt McGranaghan,
Luciano Minerbi, Paula Morelli, Maryann Overstreet, Aspy Palia, Martin Rayner,
Todd Reed, Karol Richardson,
Absent: David Bangert, Bruce Barnes, Shana Brown, John Casken, Eric De Carlo, David Griffith, Spencer Kimura, Marcelo Kobayashi, Chin Lee, Richard Manshardt, Courtenay Matsu, Robert McHenry, Marian Melish, Martin Oishi, Stephen Olsen, Robert Paull, Ilia Roussev, Dave Sanders, Magi Sarvimaki, Grieg Steward, Eric Thau, Cynthia Ward, Markus Wessendorf, E. Wichmann-Walczak, Anna Wieczorek, Tricia Wright
Excused: Steven Brown, David Chin, Sheri Fong, Rosanne Harrigan, Carol Kellett, Julienne Maeda, Katrina-Ann Oliveira, Kelly Roberts, Scott Rowland, Jane Schoonmaker, Leven Wilson
Guests: Caroline Blanchard, Ian Cooke, Meda Chesney-Lind
Chair Klaus Keil called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m.
1. Approval of 3/18/09 FS minutes
The minutes were approved as submitted.
2. Chair's Report
Keil, noting the confusion over UHM’s next biennial budget, introduced VCAFO Kathy Cutshaw.
Cutshaw noted that the Governor is proposing a 10% cut in the G-fund budget, plus using stimulus money to replace additional G-funds. Once the stimulus money is exhausted, the G-funds will not be restored.
The House has proposed a $33M cut in G funds, allowing UHM to replace $25M of it with tuition revenue. The Senate proposes a cut of $34.6M, replacing $14M of that with stimulus money if the Governor permits. A House/Senate compromise budget will come out by May 1; the Governor’s reaction is unknown.
Cutshaw went on to note that our own UHM Budget working group has proposed cuts to energy and other costs, as well as diverting tuition and RTRF revenues as a way of saving up to $20M. Because we potentially will need to cut far more, the Chancellor has asked units to cut 4% of their budgets in whatever ways are appropriate. In addition, we will use new tuition dollars in some cases to cover costs usually handled with G funds. The bottom line: UHM will have to cut its base budget.
Senators had several questions for Cutshaw.
Q: What about proposals for taking away the interest income that UHM earns from some special funds (e.g., parking)? What about the rumored “taxing” of UHM income?
A: The legislature can sweep RTRF and other special funds; and yes, there are proposals to tax UHM income and/or to sweep interest earned on special-fund balances through 2015. Since interest income is used to, e.g., pay for our share of Banner expenses, for UH Foundation services, etc., such sweeps would in addition require us to use other funds for such required pay-outs. These proposals may in part be attempts to keep all options on the table in case there is need for further cuts. (See House Bill 39, Senate Bills 292 & 884.)
Q: Are we going to absorb the pain, or make clear that cuts in services will result from budget cuts?
A: UHM is walking a fine line here, since the System handles the UH budget at the legislature.
Q: What about union contracts?
A: The System is doing the negotiating.
Keil thanked Cutshaw for sharing her observations.
3. Old Business
a. Resolution on the Process for Reorganization of UHM Units
Senator Martin Rayner asked the Senate to proceed with consideration of the resolution he presented at the last meeting. Here is the resolution:
Administration of the
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.
Senator Ross noted that reorganizations are likely to increase in number in the near future, and that the resolution is worded to cover all reorganizations.
The resolution was adopted unanimously.
b. Resolution on Dossier Simplification
CPM chair Andrea Bartlett reviewed how CPM had modified the resolution in
light of last month’s FS meeting.
She proposed the modified resolution for Senate consideration.
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 Hawai’i 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,
Whereas, the result of these changes has been the following:
1. Dossiers can now be doubled sided and placed in binders rather than folders with metal fasteners
2. The statement of endeavors now has a suggested page length
3. The application forms for tenure and promotion are now form fillable
Whereas, the new University of Hawai’i at Mānoa Faculty Senate emphasis on brevity and simplicity of dossier application and review led the Dossier Simplification Committee of the UHMFS to make the following changes to current guidelines:
1. The dossiers will no longer require applicants to employ awkward pagination requirements (e.g. 4.1, 4.2), which is difficult for many applicants.
2. The dossiers will no longer require an applicant’s name on every page, which makes submission of supplemental material time-consuming.
3. The new guidelines specifically recommend that applicants submit only relevant materials instead of extensive submissions.
4. The new guidelines encourage use of existing UHM forms (e.g. CAFÉ summaries, UHM course and program proposals).
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. Quantitative teaching evaluations should be compiled in tables, supplemented by comments when available. Qualitative teaching evaluations should specify whether the lists include all or selected comments. For tenure, it is suggested you report all available course evaluations. For promotion, it is suggested you 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
• 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, readers’ comments of manuscripts submitted for publication and unsolicited letters from peers in response to publication of your work. 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 may 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.
Senators had a couple of questions.
Q: What is your definition of “recent” in “recent evaluations”?
A: A DPC is likely to provide necessary definitions and explanations.
Q: The actual changes covered by the resolution don’t justify simplification as part of the resolution title. Will we have additional resolutions to cover what isn’t cover here, such as using on-line dossiers?
A: CPM will offer no more resolutions this year. What happens next year is for next year’s FS to decide.
The resolution was approved with 2 abstentions.
4. New Business
a. CFS Report: Results of the Special Elections for Faculty Senators
Although CFS chair Kellett was not available for the meeting, she provided the following update results of the 2009 Manoa Faculty Senate special elections. All newly elected senators serve a 28 month period starting May 2009 and ending July 2011. The highlighted names are senators elected to a second consecutive term.
Diamond, Guliz Erdem, Andrew W. Nichols and William S. Ward
Alternate: Lois Weiss
Law: Maxine A.
Units: Robert H. Cowie and Robert H. Richmond
Alternate: Hamid Pourjalali
Alternate: Marvin Puakea Nogelmeier
Alternate: Russell Uyeno
These CFS members were present during the ballot counting in Hamilton Library Systems Office Conference Room: Rhonda Black, Karol Richardson, Elizabeth Wichmann-Walczak, Carol Kellett.
Keil reminded senators to vote in the ongoing election of SEC members.
b. Report on the Academic Progress of UHM Student Athletes by Peter Nicholson, Faculty Athletics Representative, and Jim Donovan, UHM Athletic Director.
Keil invited the 2 presenters to the podium. Since no one approached the podium, he concluded that there was to be no report.
A senator moved to express the Faculty Senate’s displeasure with the failure of Athletic program representatives to appear. While some senators were trying to phone the representatives, another senator called the question.
While members were discussing a suggestion that we wait until 4 p.m. before voting, FAR Peter Nicholson approached the podium. He apologized for evident miscommunication and introduced himself, describing his responsibilities as the Faculty Athletic Representative, .5 FTE, appointed by Chancellor Peter Englert. Nicholson’s primary responsibility is to review and certify the academic qualifications of each student athlete. The FAR presents an annual report to the chancellor and the FS. Using NCAA rubrics, the FAR must determine how UHM ranks on several measures of student accomplishment. This year, UHM is just below the WAC average. But UHM is way below the average of Division I programs. Overall, UHM has improved over previous years. Some of the credit is due Jim Donovan, UHM’s relatively new Athletic Director.
Nicholson offered additional observations. If UHM’s goal is to have student athletes whose academic accomplishments match those of our regular student body, we are close. It is likely that 90-95% do match that profile. Many of the outliers finish 4 years of athletic eligibility with c. 110 credits and then drop out of UHM. Many of the outliers come to UHM as transfers who did not qualify for NCAA sports straight out of high school—sometimes they have sought out community colleges known to have “special programs” for this population. Some who transfer with that kind of background go on to succeed, but many do not and they pull down our student-athlete averages.
Should UHM review its admission standards? Should UHM have additional standards to determine who is allowed to participate in athletics? Nicholson offered his recent annual report for his recommendations.
Nicholson then introduced Jim Donovan, UHM’s athletic director.
Donovan told the Senate that he arrived at UHM in 1981; he played football and earned a bachelor’s degree. He noted that athletics is not the most important function of UHM. Athletics, he suggested, is more like a house’s porch, the first thing that many people notice —athletics is what first comes to mind for the annual 700,000 attendees at UHM athletic events. Athletics is, according to Donovan, UHM’s biggest marketing vehicle.
Senators had a couple of questions for Donovan.
Q: The Athletic Program’s debt is larger than the budget of many UHM departments. What is Athletics offering to do in our budget crisis so that we don’t have to service your debt?
A: When I arrived, most people assumed we were $1M in debt. I found that we were $5.8M in debt. I’ve cut that $300K since I arrived. Athletics generates $25M per year. UHM provides $3M in tuition waivers. The Legislature provides $1.5M directly to athletics. To save money, I have frozen all positions. We continue to have to pay all overhead for each position, since our funding is Special funds, not General funds. We are not allowed to cut women’s programs. We cannot cut football and basketball without losing our divisional status. We can cut our smaller men’s sports, but we’d save only $200-300K per year. To meet costs, Athletics in the past borrowed $5.5M+ from the “UH Treasury.” We are paying interest, and I am trying slowly to pay off the loan. We’re counting on things getting better so that our revenues increase and we can do better at paying off the deficit. We expect that in FY11.
Q: How will you meet problem of travel-cost increases?
A: The expenses for team travel were up 100-150% last year because of increased fuel costs. We are now back to earlier levels, and we are booking travel through the end of year at current rates. However, we expect oil costs to go up as the economy improves.
Keil asked if there were additional questions. There were none, and there was no additional new business. Keil adjourned the meeting at 4:08 p.m.
Contact dave at math.hawaii.edu with comments regarding this site.