Transition Team Meeting
June 5, 2008, 2:30 p.m.
Bilger 242
Present:
| Thomas Bingham | Jean Toyama (for Joseph O'Mealy) |
| Alan Teramura | Dick Dubanoski |
| Ned Shultz | Hye-Ryeon Lee |
| Joel Cohn | Martha Crosby |
| Jerry Russo | Takeo Kudo |
| Laura Lyons | Vilsoni Hereniko |
| Noel Kent | Carol Karimoto |
| Mike Kirk-Kuwaye |
I. Minutes of May 29, 2008 Meeting -- no corrections
II. Material Distributed -- Information Requested at May 29, 2008 meeting
A. Chart containing Position Descriptions for Deans
B. Listing of questions used in 360 degree evaluation for deans
C. Draft College of Arts & Sciences Structure for Discussion Purposes Only (distributed via email on June 3, 2008)
NOTE: This document is a draft and for discussion purposes only. The group had requested that the deans meet and develop models for discussion at this meeting. This document is the result of their meeting.
III. Discussion Notes
In looking at the draft structure document, the group is asked to think about other possible divisions (clusters).
A list was provided by Joel Cohn with functional areas/titles for system level, Manoa campus, and proposed A&S College (based on draft structure document). He noted the apparent redundancy of having functions covered at three levels and questioned why the college would need to have an office/someone when it already exists at the campus and system levels.
- While it may seem redundant (e.g., to have an Associate Dean for Student Affairs, when there is a VC for Students and a VP for Student Affairs), it is not necessarily so. Other units (Business, Education, Engineering) have offices for functional areas. And it may be advantageous to have our own office/person for certain functional areas.
- Example: the VC for Students office is not actively involved in advising, where that would be an important area the college would need to address. Another area would be research. An office/associate dean for research would be able to provide support for all the A&S departments, which presently some colleges (A&H) are not able to provide for their faculty. This office can also address the need to be proactive in informing faculty of grant opportunities, provide support in writing grants, etc.
Question on where General Education would be and who would be responsible for it. General education falls under the Faculty Senate. The Executive Dean should be responsible as the academic leader.
There is a need to remember that improving undergraduate education is one of the main reasons for reorganization. It was identified at earlier meetings as one of the three positive outcomes the TT hopes to accomplish in the reorganization. While the structure itself will not improve undergraduate education, it can set a framework where improvement is possible in the various areas of concern (undergraduate education, liberal arts education and a single vision for Arts & Sciences).
The Chancellor originally didn't want to meet with the TT until after the TG was formed. Alan has met with Gary Ostrander and Peter Quigley, co-convenors of the TG and has their agreement that the two committees will not duplicate each other's efforts and there is a commitment to work in a complementary fashion. Since half of the TG is in the TT, there should be lots of transparency.
The Chancellor has made a decision and is moving in that direction. The TT can make recommendations under the auspices that we are representative of all the stakeholders impacted by reorganization. It behooves us to do this -- if we do not provide input, it will happen without us.
Members who are on the TG felt that the Chancellor's charge to the TG is very mininal. The issue of the value of a job description without having a structure determined was raised in the TG with the Chancellor. Her response was that if she waits for the structure to be determined, it will be too late.
Some members feel that the TT needs to meet with the Chancellor. Question on the level of detail the TT wants -- decided that the level of functional Associate Deans and Divisional Deans was sufficient.
It was suggest that it should be up to the faculty on how they want to be organized within the divisions.
Add to the draft structure document, Alternative Five Model: Unspecified groupings (N) letting faculty decide how many groupings..
By secret ballot, TT members were asked to indicate -- at this point -- which of the five models listed on the draft document would be their first and second choice.
Results:
| 1st Choice | 2nd Choice | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 -- Present Model | 5 | 3 |
| 2 -- Liberal Arts & LanguagesSciences | 1 | 2 |
| 3 -- World Cultures & Languages Sciences Liberal Arts | 1 | 5 |
| 4 -- Other groupings (4, 6 or more) | 0 | 0 |
| 5 -- Unspecified groupings of N | 5 |
TT will work as a group to determine pros and cons for the following models: 1, 3 and 5
The functional associate deans can be re-named and tweaked. Suggested changes are:
- Associate Dean for:
- Student Affairs --> Undergraduate Education
- Outreach --> Community Relations
- Research --> Research and Graduate Education
IV. Assignment for next meeting
Look at the three models (1, 3 and 5 above), list pros and cons for each, and bring to next meeting for discussion.
V. Next Meeting:
Thursday, June 12, 2008
2:30 p.m.
Bilger 242
Nancy Fujii
6/9/2008