UH Hilo Faculty Congress

DRAFT Minutes of Meeting

January 23, 2004

 

The meeting was called to order by the chair, Jerry Calton , at 3:10 p.m. 

 

Present : Jerry Calton, Bill Mautz, Barbara Heintz, Helen Rogers, Lincoln Gotshalk, Robert Fox, Philippe Binder, Sabry Shehata, Nina Buchanan.

Student Member: Liko Puha

Ex Officio: Chris Lu, Margaret Haig.

Guest: Jerry Johnson, Jim Juvik, Eleanor Vogt, Arthur Nelson

 

1.      Minutes of the meeting of December 5, 2003 were reviewed and approved.

 

2. Election of a new Secretary to replace Barbara Leonard, who has resigned.

Barbara Heintz was the sole nominee for this position.

Vote: 7 yes, 0 no, 2 abst.

 

3.Election of Members to the Assessment Support Committee.

This business item was postponed.

 

4. Standing Committee Reports.

a.      GE Committee. April Komenaka was not present to report on the activity of the GE Committee.

b.      Assessment Support Committee. The College of Agriculture has completed the process.  There are 4 more academic units pending.

Motion to accept the report of the committee.  Discussion. William Mautz objected to the use of the language “authentic” for student works submitted for assessment evaluation by visiting reviewers.  The objection centers on the implication that if the selected sample of works submitted for evaluation are deemed “authentic”, then the usual instruments of evaluation for a grade of students by their instructors (oral and written quizzes and examinations and written reports and papers) are somehow “inauthentic.”  William Mautz felt that the faculty would wish to assert that their own evaluation processes are indeed authentic, and failure to assert such would lead to linguistic dis-empowerment.  Robert Fox pointed out that the word “authentic” was generally accepted terminology in the business of education outcomes assessment.   

Vote to accept the report: 8 yes, 0 no, 1 abst.

c.       Joint Academic Policy/ Budget Committee prioritization of previous program change requests.  The prioritization was performed in relation to the Strategic Plan.  The ranking is for information purposes, and the report was presented to the UHH Congress.

A motion was made to approve the report.

Discussion: Jim Juvik asked if the intent was to present this report the the administration.  Jerry Calton responded that this is the intent.  Chris Lu had originally requested the UHH Congress to review the PCR’s and develop a recommended prioritization.

      Vote to approve the report: 8 yes, 0 no, 1 abst.

 

5. Query from the All Campus Council of Faculty Senate Chairs (ACCFSC): Does UHH faculty support a consistent system-wide grading policy?  For example a common +/- grading policy and uniform treatment of “N” grades (No credit) for courses not completed (UHM treats N grades as F for purposes of transfer evaluations).

Robert Fox made a motion that it is the sense of the UHH Congress that Congress is not in favor of a uniform grading policy, but is open to specific proposals.

Discussion favored the preservation of autonomy for grading policy.

Vote: 9 yes, 0 no, 0 abs.

 

6. Consideration of CEC Resolution #6 (postponed at 12/05/03 meeting) concerning the relationship between the UHH Graduate Council and the UHH Congress.

Jerry Calton read the resolution:

Resolution 6. Insofar as Board of Regents Policy 1-10 charges the Chancellor of each campus with fostering the greatest possible involvement of faculty members in decision making through organized faculty governance bodies, the UHH Faculty Congress calls upon the UH Hilo administration to limit appointment of individuals acting as faculty representatives on campus-wide decision-making or decision-recommending groups to those faculty members appointed by the UH Hilo Faculty Congress.

This resolution has been moved and seconded by the Congress Executive Council, and was opened for discussion by the UHH Congress.

Jim Juvik reported that the Graduate Council was now meeting and discussing what qualifications are appropriate for a graduate faculty.  They are using the UHM procedures handbook.  Thus far, there is consensus is that members of the Graduate Council should be nominated by the graduate programs and their graduate faculty members themselves.  The standards to be set for a graduate faculty member are under review.

Jim Juvik also stated that there should be co-ordination with the UHH Congress.  He requested another month to prepare a policy for presentation.

Nina Buchanan stated that Resolution 6 is broader in scope than just application to the Graduate Council.  The UHH Congress believed that there was an agreement reached last spring with the administration to the effect that faculty appointments to committees were to come before the faculty governance body.  The motion should be passed as it is explicitly stated.    

Jerry Calton stated that the Graduate Council proposal appears to circumvent the UHH Congress for the appointment of members.  An alternative is that nominations come from the graduate programs’ member departments.

Jim Juvik responded that units without participation in the graduate programs will have representation on the Graduate Council.

Robert Fox expressed strong agreement with this point.  The additional members, outside of graduate faculty participants in graduate programs, should be nominations that come through the UHH Congress, that is, the UHH Congress should have representation on the Graduate Council.  In the interest of clarity, it is noted that a faculty representative of the UHH Congress need not be a member of the UHH Congress.

Jim Juvik stated that such representatives should meet the qualifications for graduate faculty.

William Mautz stated that Resolution 6 can be passed, and then the UHH Congress can work with the Graduate Council to develop the policies of the relationship.

Sabrey Shehata called for the question.

Chris Lu wished to consult further with the Congress to make the language mutually acceptable.

Sabrey Shehata moved to again postpone consideration of Resolution 6 for 1 month with the understanding that Congress will meet with the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs and Graduate Council representative.

Vote: 9 yes, 0 no.

 

7. Consideration of the College of Pharmacy proposal (for establishment of such at UHH).

For discussion only. 

It was noted that on February 6, the UHH Congress will sponsor a forum for the UHH community to consider and present opinion on proposals for establishment of 2 doctoral degree programs at UHH.  One is the proposal for present discussion for establishment of a Doctor of Pharmacology Degree and the other is for the establishment of a PhD degree program in the College of Hawaiian Language.

Jerry Johnson briefed the UHH Congress on the proposal for a College of Pharmacy in conjunction with consultants to the proposal, Dr. Arthur Nelson and Dr. Eleanor Vogt.

Along with the proposal document and summary “fact sheet”, Dr. Nelson gave an extensive briefing on the proposal.  Prominent details were:

Senator Daniel Inoue has provided program development and planning grants.

Funding for construction of a building to house the program has yet to be identified.

The degree is a professional doctorate.  It is not a Ph.D. degree and entry to the program does not require completion of a Bachelor’s degree.

 

Significant concerns about the impact of this program on UHH were raised.   Most of these concerned the collateral requirements for UHH resources of faculty and space to support the curriculum needs of the large expected influx of pre-pharmacy undergraduate students. 

 

Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Bill Mautz,

Vice Chair, UHH Congress