Transition Team Meeting
May 8, 2008, 2:30 p.m.
Bilger 242
Present:
| Thomas Bingham | Joseph O'Mealy |
| Alan Teramura | Chung Lee (for Dick Dubanoski) |
| Ned Shultz | Hye-Ryeon Lee |
| Joel Cohn | Shankar Subramanian |
| Jerry Russo | Laurence Paxton (for Takeo Kudo) |
| Laura Lyons | Vilsoni Hereniko |
| Carol Karimoto | Mike Kirk-Kuwaye |
| Karin Mackenzie |
I. Minutes of May 1, 2008 Meeting
- correction: second transition team
or Chancellor's transition team
should be Chancellor's Working Group
II. Announcement
Alan informed the members that the Chancellor's Working Group is beginning to coalesce. Peter Quigley, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel will be the convenor for the Chancellor's Working Group. A few of the Transition Team's members will also be members of the Chancellor's Working Group (Tom Bingham, David Chin, Hye-Ryeon Lee, Laura Lyons and Vilsoni Hereniko). Other members of the Working Group will be Gary Ostrander, Mary Boland, a representative from Student Academic Services (possibly Lynne Higa). The final composition of the Chancellor's Working Group has not been formally announced yet. The Chancellor has asked Peter Quigley to convene as soon as possible.
Alan has met with Peter Quigley. There is agreement that there will be total transparency and information will be shared between the two groups.
III. Reasons for Reorganizing
The group was asked to reiterate the positive reasons for reorganization as identified at previous meetings:
- A. Improving undergraduate education
- B. Raising centrality of a liberal arts education
- C. Having a single/consistent vision for Arts and Sciences
In addition, the features that should be preserved include:
- A. Faculty access to decision makers
- B. Outstanding/unique programs
- C.
Branding
or the unique designations such asArts and Sciences,
LLL,
Pacific Studies,
etc.
These need to be kept in mind as the team looks at structures.
IV. Peer and Benchmark Institutions
There was discussion on the question of how do we know which structure has done well? Structure may not be the primary driver for excellence; how well the organization works may be dependent on the leadership. In looking at our peer and benchmark institutions, we may need to get deeper information from the institutions on how their organization/structure is working.
Laura Lyons agreed to do an org chart for UH for comparison and present it at the next meeting.
Brief overviews were given on the peer and benchmark institutions assigned at the May 1 meeting (see handouts distributed):
- A. Iowa State University (Mike Kirk-Kuwaye)
- B. University of Georgia (Tom Bingham) - no hardcopy distributed
- C. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Ned Shultz)
- D. Indiana University at Bloomington (Laurence Paxton for Takeo Kudo)
- E. University of Colorado at Boulder (Carol Karimoto)
- F. UC Bekeley (Chung Lee, Hye-ryeon Lee)
- G. University of Florida (Jerry Russo)
- H. University of Missouri (Karin Mackenzie)
- H. University of Oregon (Joe O'Mealy)
- I. University of Washington (Vilsoni Hereniko)
- J. Ohio State University (Joel Cohn)
- K. Arizona State University (Hye-ryeon Lee)
Other notes:
- Discussion on difference between
colleges
andschools
. Schools tend to be more specialized than colleges. - Concern from SPAS that it is difficult to raise money, particularly in Asia, if the person doing it is a Director and not a Dean.
V. Summary and Next Assignment
Today we have looked over a sufficient range of models. Next meeting we will review structures and look at our current UH organizational structure. We need to eliminate the models that do not suit our purposes and focus on a handful of structures that we need to review in depth.
VI. Next meeting:
Thursday, May 15, 2008, 2:30 p.m. Bilger 242
Nancy Fujii
5/12/20