Transition Team Meeting
July 10, 2008, 2:30 p.m.
Bilger 242
Present:
| Joseph O'Mealy | Alan Teramura | Dick Dubanoski |
| Hye-Ryeon Lee | Joel Cohn | Martha Crosby |
| Shankar Subramanian | Jerry Russo | Takeo Kudo |
| David Chin | Noel Kent | Carol Karimoto |
| Mike Kirk-Kuwaye |
I. Minutes of July 3, 2008 Meeting
-- no corrections
II. Discussion Notes
The pros and cons of the models discussed at the July 3, 2008 meeting were distributed (see attachments). The team members who developed the listings gave a brief overview and rationale. The three models are:
A. Academic Model: Executive Dean and the academic divisional deans similar to the current existing five units.
F. Functional Model: Executive Dean and clusters based on functionalities (i.e., undergraduate education, research and graduate education, administrative, outreach and alumni affairs)
AF. Academic and Functional (Hybrid) Model: Executive Dean with both functional associate deans/directors and academic clusters headed by deans (though not necessarily the current academic clusters)
Academic Units Only (Shankar)
- Includes feedback from others.
- Comment on #2 (Pros) -- would be easier to give prominence to certain units.
- Comment on #2 (Cons) -- if there are functional offices reporting to different deans, how would the functions be coordinated across colleges (each college would have function housed in the unit). Net result is inefficiency and lack of coordination.
- Additional Con -- the emphasis on liberal arts education would be diminished.
Functional Units Only (Hye-ryeon)
- Centers or schools within the college may help with identities.
- Comment re disciplines -- may have issues if there is no academic person in the structure that the faculty can identify with. There may be a perception that the Executive Dean cannot identify or have familiarity with faculty issues in other disciplines. A single dean makes this more pronounced.
- In this structure, the department chairs need to be strong and the Dean would have to work on cultivating strong, capable chairs.
- May need to rewrite policy for TPRCs, if there is one A&S college, so that individuals in A&S may serve on TPRCs for other A&S faculty.
- Who would advise the Dean on disciplines other than his own? One possibility is for there to be an Executive Committee composed of individuals from different disciplines, but this leads to the question of whether this body would be advisory only or have decision-making power.
- Important to have shared governance built-in to help answer this.
- Comment on Cons -- the different sizes of departments may have the smaller departments feeling left out. A possible solution might be realignments of small departments.
- Comment on Cons -- first bullet: With functional deans, it may not be necessary to see the Executive Dean; may be possible to see the functional area associate dean/director and have the issue resolved.
Hybrid - Academic and Functional Units (Takeo)
- This structure would establish functional support at the college level.
- The functional units would service the academic clusters. If the functional units are at the same level as the academic units, there will be conflict. Governance issues would need to be clarified.
- Issue of the cost of having functional support in each college. If the goal is to enhance undergraduate education, resources will be required.
- The functional units would exist orthogonal to the academic units. It would not be building new offices, but consolidating the expertise from the existing colleges.
- Faculty support for this model would depend on what the functional units will be and more detail is provided (number of clusters).
A point was made that what we have thus far may not be specific enough. We know that each of these models work in other institutions (from examining the peer and benchmark institutions). Suggestion that one be picked that would fit us, even if it is not perfect and a governance model recommended, though not necessarily with specific detail.
A meeting should be spent on the topic of governance.
Suggestion that agreement be reached as a committee on a model to recommend. If agreement on a particular model for the academic units cannot be reached, can the committee just decide on the functional areas.
A suggestion was made to recommend the model that has the most support and have two alternatives. Footnote to be included, contingent on resources being made available.
Recommendation that the group wait until after it meets with the Chancellor, has some of its questions answered, and then make a decision on this.
Point was made that in uncertainty, people will keep to the status quo. If the details are not there, faculty will find it hard to determine if they are for or against a recommendation. In addition, faculty will want to know What's in it for me? What value will be added to my work?
If a structural model recommendation cannot be made, perhaps we could recommend a process.
Do we think that having functional offices will be beneficial for the college? If yes, then are there some academic clusters we should break into?
The recommendation should go to the Chancellor. Though it will need to be discussed by the A&S Faculty Senate, Manoa Faculty Senate, and collective bargaining groups; the Chancellor is the proper office to bring it before those groups.
Recommendation should include:
- Comparisons to peer and benchmark institutions
- Pros and cons
- Highlight how concerns are addressed
III. Questions for Chancellor
Alan's office is working to secure a date for the Chancellor to come to a Transition Team meeting.
Team members were asked if there were additional questions for the Chancellor to be added to the list developed at the July 3 meeting:
- Add a question regarding getting back things that were removed from the A&S purview that should be in the college (i.e., undeclared majors).
- Resources needed by the merger
- Provide a historical overview to the Chancellor so she can see how the current structure came about and specifically what previously were A&S programs/positions/areas that are now under other offices' oversight.
- Add to the question regarding resources
even in the case of budget restrictions.
Note : tuition, right now, is not part of the budget algorithm.
If there are any other questions that need to be addressed by the Chancellor, they should be forwarded to Alan.
IV. Focus for Next Meeting
Need to agree as a group what the Transition Team's endpoint will be
Questions for the Chancellor
V. Next Meeting:
Thursday, July 17, 2008
2:30 p.m.
Bilger 242
Nancy Fujii
7/14//2008