Transition Team Meeting
May 29, 2008, 2:30 p.m.
Bilger 242
Present:
| Thomas Bingham | Jean Toyama (for Joseph O'Mealy) |
| Alan Teramura | Dick Dubanoski |
| David Hanlon (for Ned Shultz) | Hye-Ryeon Lee |
| John Mayer (for Joel Cohn) | Takeo Kudo |
| Vilsoni Hereniko | Carol Karimoto |
| Karin Mackenzie |
I. Minutes of May 22, 2008 Meeting - no corrections
II. Announcements
A. Chancellor's Transition Group (TG) met on May 28, 3008. Members of the Transition Team (TT) who are also members on the Chancellor's Transition Group provided an overview of the meeting (Hye-Ryeon Lee, Tom Bingham, Vilsoni Hereniko).
The main task assigned to the TG is the job description/search document. The TG members had questions and concerns regarding whose work (TG or TT) should come first. The Chancellor wants the TG to move quickly and have a job description in 2-3 weeks. A search firm will then be hired and the position advertised. Once an individual is hired, that person can have input on the 2-3 structures and rationales recommended by the TT.
Regarding reporting lines, the Chancellor seems to think that a Provost
is not workable. If there's a strong argument for some other title, it may be a possibility; however, at this time, she refers to the position as Dean
.
The Chancellor indicated that she would like to come to a TT meeting and talk with the members and answer questions.
TT Discussion:
- It seems that the Transition Team is to work on the structural model and the TG is to work on the search.
- If have several models, may have more flexibility. Need to include strengths and weaknesses for each model.
- The TT needs to have work done by the end of summer if want to have models in place when the Dean position is filled.
- A single model can be recommended to the Chancellor if the TT can come to a consensus on one model, with a clear rationale and strong argument for that model.
III. Discussion Notes
- At the last meeting, functional areas were broadly discussed and four main functional areas were listed.
- To aid in this week's discussion on what would be the best way of structuring the units, a chart listing the peer and benchmark institutions and their divisions was distributed earlier via email.
Structure
includes more than just the academic departments. There are functional needs that must be accounted for. Reorganization can work - having one person working/responsible for an area (i.e., retention issues) rather than one person in each unit taking care of it on a part-time basis.- What would be the best way to determine the models? Suggestion to work together as a group on the functional areas - determine what functions would remain in the purview of divisional deans and what would need a functional dean.
- Functional areas might be headed by Associate Deans.
- If there is an Executive Dean, wouldn't there need to be some kind of staffing? Coordination would be needed - possible model would be a single office to handle personnel, instead of five different offices. Minimally, the budget would go to the über Dean and then would be distributed to divisions; each division would need a budget person. Would each unit have a curriculum committee or would there just be one.? The über Dean would need to have some kind of support staff - how big would that staff be?
- Suggestion that the group look at current Deans and Associate Deans position descriptions and evaluation criteria and pull out the functions that the über Dean would have and identify functions that cross colleges.
IV. Assignment for next meeting
Deans will meet and come up with models as a starting point for discussion at the next meeting. Dean and Associate Dean position descriptions and criteria for the 360° evaluations will be needed.
V. Next Meeting:
Thursday, June 5, 2008
2:30 p.m.
Bilger 242
Nancy Fujii
6/2/2008