Transition Team Meeting
September 18, 2008, 2:30 PM
Bilger 242
Present:
| Thomas Bingham | Joseph O'Mealy | Alan Teramura | Dick Dubanoski | Hye-Ryeon Lee |
| Joel Cohn | Martha Crosby | Takeo Kudo | Laura Lyons | David Chin |
| Vilsoni Hereniko | Noel Kent | Carol Karimoto | Mike Kirk-Kuwaye | Karin Mackenzie |
| Mike Peters | Lynne Higa |
I. Announcements
A draft document was emailed to TT members for review. As mentioned in Alan's email note on September 12, though this document is not secret,
it would be confusing to everyone if distributed outside the committee at this point since it is still in draft form. A final version should be ready for distribution in a few weeks.
If there are any suggested changes to the draft document in terms of syntax or wording, please email them to Alan.
Changes to content will be discussed at today's meeting.
Next week, the Transition Team and Chancellor's Working Group will have a combined meeting: September 25, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. in Bilger 242. It is hoped that we will have a finished document by that time.
II. Discussion Notes
What is the intent of the document? Will we be submitting the whole thing?
Make recommendation to the Chancellor.
Trying to be brief and succinct.
An executive summary will be added.
Context information should be added to the front and the TT concerns should be articulated (i.e., issue of resources). The issues that Shankar raised in his email (copy attached) should also be in the front section.
In the front section where the tasks of the TT are listed, the words and faculty
should be added after the Chancellor.
Does the current hiring freeze affect the Dean's position?
The Dean's position is an exempt position and an exception can probably be made.
But how will this look to the faculty?
The Chancellor has to make a long-term commitment to Arts & Sciences.
As people read the document, they need to understand the context under which the recommendations were reached.
Suggestion that links be available on the website for documents referred to in the TT document.
Documents that are imbedded/attached to minutes can be separated out and made available with descriptive links, so that there isn't a need to search through/or know which meeting minutes to open.
Comments: (1) The TT seems to be pushing the Hybrid Model. Instead, could we give three models to the faculty? (2) Under the Pros for the Hybrid Model, the phrase could be more efficient
is used, wouldn't it be better to make it a stronger statement or perhaps leave it out? (3)There are no suggested academic configurations.
The consensus was that the TT couldn't represent the faculty adequately and that they need to be involved in the process. In looking over the Peer & Benchmark Institutions for UHM, found that they could be divided into three types of structural models. The academic divisions were diverse. For that part of the reorganization, the faculty must have decision-making input.
From a conversation Alan had with Peter Quigley, the next steps
section is changed slightly.
When the document is finalized, it will be presented to the Chancellor and the A&S Senate Executive Committee at the same time. The TT should be available to answer questions. A copy should go to the Manoa Executive Committee. The A&S Executive Committee moves the document to the A&S Senate. The Deans should have their Chairs engage their faculty in conversations regarding academic clusters. There should be multiple conversations, as broad as possible. The TT is making a recommendation; the faculty decides.
Do we see the larger faculty coming to some agreement?
We cannot really know how the faculty will respond.
Comment was made that the larger group will have difficulty making a decision and the TT will have wasted all the time spent on this if we are not clear about the process.
In response, it was pointed out that the TT has provided focus -- its recommendation says that this
is the best fit. The faculty need to discuss the recommendation and perhaps do their own research by contacting their colleagues at peer and benchmark institutions to ask questions on the structure there and how well it works or not for them.
Comment that if the goal of bringing back the centrality of a liberal arts education is kept in mind, discussion/decision-making can be accomplished without rancor and the possibilities can be seen. It is not a matter of what is good for an individual unit -- the goal is to determine and implement what is good for liberal education.
It is important to have a common goal.
Suggestion that a moderator/facilitator (a neutral party) be found to help the groups in the discussion. Donna Ching from CTAHR was suggested.
Suggestion that when the TT meets with the WG that next steps be discussed.
The Deans should not facilitate the discussion(s) on alignments/clusters for the faculty.
There are two components to the discussion: (1) the structural model and (2) academic alignments.
Suggestion that research can be conducted (i.e., a web survey) on who works with whom (finding out which departments are connected by collaborations)
How many faculty will actually show up if there is a plenary session?
If the faculty know and understand what's at stake, they will attend.
There will need to be a lot of venues for faculty dialogue.
Organizational charts for the three models should be added in the appropriate sections of the document to help illustrate the structure.
The label Executive Dean
is used in the document, but there are other possibilities. It may be difficult to attract candidates with a title of Associate Vice Chancellor and Dean.
Task 4 on page 1 (Greater Expectations): may create confusion for the majority who are not familiar with the program. Though it was one of the original tasks for the committee, maybe it could be eliminated?
If it is kept in the document, then an explanation of Greater Expectations
is needed. Perhaps instead of Greater Expectations,
it could read, importance of liberal arts education.
It is important that this document accurately reflect the committee and the work done.
On page 6, the last three paragraphs: is this an appropriate ending?
Should this section have a new heading? Moved to the beginning of the document with context?
The Governance Structure was streamlined and a mission statement was added.
On page 8, Divisional Deans: sentence needs to be changed to accurately reflect that the Academic Deans provide academic oversight. In the sentence following, the word direct
should be removed.
Changes will be made to the current draft and will be sent to TT members before the next meeting.
III. Next Meeting:
Combined meeting with Chancellor's Working Group
Thursday, September 25, 2008
2:30 p.m.
Bilger 242
Nancy Fujii
September 23, 2008
----- Original Message -----
From: Subramanian Shankar <subraman@hawaii.edu>
Date: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 11:50 am
Subject: Re: Transition Team - Draft and Next Meeting
To: Nancy T N Fujii <nfujii@hawaii.edu>, teramura@hawaii.edu, shultz@hawaii.edu, vili@hawaii.edu
Dear Alan:
Thank you for sending us the draft of the report. I appreciate the work that has gone into it--thanks to whoever was involved in drafting it. I think it is a succinct and reasonable representation of our discussions, despite the following three reservations:
1. There were repeated expressions of anxiety throughout our discussions about making sure that budgetary and hiring/tenure decision-making powers be located at a level that is close to faculty/staff. The document as a whole makes no mention of this priniciple. I would propose that language be added that highlights this as an important general principle guiding us in the transition as a whole.
2. I think the draft's representation of the *likely* consensus for the hybrid model (after all the vote was a straw vote) is accurate. However, the cons for the hybrid model, should include the worry expressed by many that this model if not designed properly might lend itself to the removal of budgetary and hiring/tenure decisions to levels far from the faculty (echoing point 1 above).
3. The proposed timetable should recommend a stage for smaller discussions within currently existing colleges and schools, which would also be asked to take some responsibility in distributing the document to their faculty and staff. These discussions are likely to be better attended, more fruitful in producing feedback and more in line with the spirit of the changes we are proposing.
So these are the changes I recommend to the draft.
Thanks again to all involved in the drafting. A lot of work has gone into the document and it shows. I am sorry, especially because I feel strongly about the above three items, that I will not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow. I will be off-island for a prior commitment. Would you please share this email with the members of the committee?
Best
S. Shankar Professor, Department of English Director, Center for South Asian Studies University of Hawaii at Manoa http://www.english.hawaii.edu/faculty/shankar/shankar.html