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, April Komenaka, Hiapo Perreira.
Student Member: Liko Puha
Ex Officio: Chris Lu, Steve Hora.
Guests: Kalena Silva, Larry Kimura, Kauanoe Kamana
1. Minutes of the meeting of January 23, 2004 were reviewed and approved.
2. Jerry Calton called for a vote to suspend the rules to enter into the agenda an item of old business (Resolution 6) from the last meeting that was postponed from the December meeting for consideration at the January 23 meeting and then again postponed for consideration at this, the next meeting.
Motion to suspend: vote: 9 yes, 0 no.
Congress Executive Committee Resolution #6 concerning the process and principles of faculty governance. William Mautz 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. Representatives to such university-wide groups may be nominated by departments, divisions, colleges, or the VCAA, but they should not be considered to represent the faculty without Congress approval.
This resolution has been moved and seconded by the Congress Executive Council, and was again opened for discussion by the UHH Congress.
Steve Hora spoke against supporting the resolution. He stated that the Senates need to appoint faculty members to committees without the approval of the UHH Congress. The CAS Senate has had the wind taken out of its sails and is demoralized by the need to have Congress approve such appointments. There are many cases where the committee business may be utterly non-controversial, and the appointments should not need to go through UHH Congress review for approval.
William Mautz stated that in almost all cases imaginable, the Congress welcomes and will approve faculty nominations for committee appointments. There are cases where the UHH Congress should have been involved and was bypassed, and that is the reason why, for university-wide business, the UHH Congress needs to be in the process of the appointments.
If the UHH Congress does not have a say in faculty representatives on university committees, then the UHH Congress does not represent the faculty.
Steve Hora stated that perhaps instead of Congress approval, the resolution should call for consultation with the Congress. Also, how does this affect the appointment of the TPRC? Does Congress decide who is on the TPRC?
Nina Buchanan stated that we have an election process to constitute division personnel committees, and we take from those to constitute the TPRC. That seems to have worked.
Robert Fox stated that TPRC members are not faculty representatives. The union contract governs this process.
Chris Lu stated that in regard to the union contract, the TPRC is appointed by the employer. He suggested that the wording of the resolution should be more positive and to use the word "concurrence" instead of "approval." He is concerned about getting the jobs done on time, but he wants to empower the Congress.
William Mautz stated that timeliness is a separate issue. He thinks "concurrence" is not a strong enough word. If Congress cannot state its approval of faculty representatives, then he doesn't know what Congress does.
Chris Lu stated that final approval of policy rests with the BOR; we need to be aware of this fact.
April Komenaka stated that the resolution should mention college senates explicitly.
Chris Lu stated that his understanding is that, if he wants to appoint someone and Congress doesn't agree, then that person doesn't represent the faculty.
Sabry Shehata stated that "endorsement" may be a better term (as the last word in the resolution).
Liko Puha suggested "Congress representative."
William Mautz stated that the UHH Congress is simply expressing its opinion as a representative body of the UHH faculty by approving or disapproving anything. It is not setting policy for the university. If the UHH Congress is prohibited from using the word “approve” in expressing its opinion, then the Congress deliberations are not meaningful.
There was additional discussion about possible alternatives to use of the word “approve” and there were expressions of dissatisfaction on both sides of the debate. There was a call for the question.
Vote: 7 yes, 1 no.
3. Committee Reports.
A. General Education Committee.
April Komenaka reported that she met with the college senates (CAS and Agriculture) and representatives of the College of Hawaiian Language. The College of Agriculture cannot accept inclusion of the writing intensive course requirement or the Hawaii, Asia or Pacific requirement. The college cannot accept the added units to its already heavy curriculum. The College of Business also has concerns. The CAS Executive Committee believes that the hallmarks are not selective enough. April Komenaka reported that the GE Committee has taken considerable input from interested parties and has revised the proposal for GE. The committee wants to send the draft out to the entire faculty for review. A faculty forum to review the document is proposed for March 12 from 9:00-3:00 in UCB 100 to seek faculty input. Revisions will be ongoing.
A motion was made to authorize this course of action.
Discussion: Steve Hora raised questions he wished the Congress to consider:
1) Is GE a responsibility within a college or university-wide?
2) Is there a written policy regarding this responsibility?
April Komenaka responded that WASC believes it is a university-wide responsibility, but the colleges can modify the GE curriculum to meet their needs.
Chris Lu stated that students transferring with an AA or BA degree are considered to have fulfilled GE requirements, but those with a BS degree are not automatically considered to have fulfilled GE requirements.
Robert Fox stated that there is no system-wide GE policy. There is an articulation agreement.
Nina Buchanan stated that there is an agreement regarding basic units and area requirements.
An amendment to the motion was made to send the draft back to the senates again before it is submitted to the UHH Congress for approval (or other rendered opinion of its merit).
Vote: 7 yes, 0 no.
Call for the question on the original motion for faculty review and a forum on the GE proposal.
Vote: 10 yes, 0 no.
Nina Buchanan replied yes.
Larry Kimura responded that the CHL has submitted a series of informational files. Nina Buchanan responded that the submission was a comparison of the CHL program at UHH to the UHM program, but not an analysis of student outcomes. The assessment process needs to be clarified so the programs understand the details of the assessment process.
Larry Kimura asked whether there is funding available for this process.
Liko Puha asked whether the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs would provide the tools for this process.
Nina Buchanan responded that the committee can guide the CHL to resources.
Sabry Shehata suggested that before the report goes to the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, it could first go back to the college. There needs to be some suggestions of specific ways to make the assessment.
Hiapo Perreira expressed concern that the recommendation language effectively blocks the planning for the proposed PhD program while the assessment procedures are resolved.
Robert Fox stated the discussion is moving away from the committee’s opinion. The committee felt there was a lack of evidence of assessment.
William Mautz stated that it appeared that the recommendation to stop planning new programs because the assessment was not adequate is punitive, when the assessment problems appear to be due to a lack of understanding of what was required rather than an attempt to avoid the process. He felt that this kind of action was not necessary; instead there is a need for additional time to make the assessment.
A motion was made to withdraw the motion to accept the recommendations in favor of directing the CHL and the Assessment Support Committee to further confer with each other.
Vote: 9 yes, 0 no.
Jerry Calton turned the chair of the meeting over to William Mautz while Jerry, as Chair of the Academic Policy Committee presented the committee’s report.
B. Academic Policy Committee.
1. Review of CHL PhD program proposal.
Jerry Calton represented the committee in a motion that "given the demonstrated need and academic merit of the proposal, Congress approves this program in principle, contingent upon a strengthening of assessment processes at the undergraduate level and on the provision of additional resources needed to implement the masters and doctoral level programs. A phased implementation, based on a strengthening of the undergraduate and masters-level resource base should be followed before the doctoral program is started."
Jerry Calton said that the APC supports the proposal; the problem is the availability of resources. The APC is concerned about approving programs without obtaining the resources.
Hiapo Perreira made the following substitute motion for the Academic Policy Committee's motion: The UH Hilo Congress approves the proposed doctoral and integrated graduate program in Hawaiian and Indigenous Language and Cultural Revitalization and urges prompt Board of Regents approval and allocation of the needed resources for this graduate program and other aspects of the Hawaiian Language College committed to UH Hilo for the Hawaiian Language College by the Board of Regents in their meeting of October 16, 2003.
Nina Buchanan expressed her concern about UH Hilo, as primarily an undergraduate institution, offering doctoral programs. She was also concerned about CHL expanding into additional graduate programs before the quality of its existing programs has been assessed and established.
Kalena Silva stated that the state Constitution requires that the Hawaiian language be supported.
Steve Hora stated that he supports Hiapo Perreira's motion.
Vote: 9 yes, 0 no.
2. Review of the College of Pharmacy Proposal
The Academic Policy Committee presents the following motion:
1. That the UHH Congress request a resource audit from the CAS Natural Sciences Division to determine the impact of the proposed pre-pharmacy program upon their staffing and facilities needs. Consideration of the proposal should be contingent upon completion of this study.
2. That the Congress calls upon the CAS Senate to work with Professor Jerry Johnson in developing a set of required social science and humanities courses that will be a part of the proposed pre-pharmacy program. The impact of these course requirements on CAS staffing and facilities needs should also be considered.
Chris Lu stated that any resource impacts have to be supported with new funding. The University will need an additional appropriation, and if funds do not come, we cannot move forward. Any impact, including the pre-pharmacy program, will be supported.
William Mautz stated that there is a large number of expected students wanting training in pre-pharmacy classes and there are problems with existing space that are not addressed in the proposal.
Philippe Binder brought up the need for the proposed Science and Technology Building.
Chris Lu answered that we can ask the planners to add on to the proposal.
Sabry Shehata emphasized that this is a chance for UH Hilo to grow and also for the community to grow. The program will bring money into the Hilo economy.
Jerry Calton stated that the Academic Policy Committee is not opposed to the program. It is a good program but it will not work without a Science and Technology building.
Chris Lu stated that this was one of the best feasibility studies we have ever done.
William Mautz stated that it is a mistake to insist that have to have an additional whole new building before we can have this program, but we need to study the impacts on the undergraduate programs. The resources currently offered in the proposal are not adequate.
Chris Lu agreed that we need to obtain more resources, however, he stated that the approval should not continue to be delayed.
Jerry Calton stated that the UHH Congress has not been delaying action on the proposal; the UHH Congress only just received the proposal in January.
Nina Buchanan stated that she was opposed to the College of Pharmacy proposal, because such a professional school is inconsistent with the mission and character of UH Hilo as a small liberal arts university.
A substitute motion to the APC motion was made to support the formation of the College of Pharmacy provided that the administration will work closely with the College of Arts and Sciences to assess needed resources and obtain the required resources to support the pre-pharmacy program.
Vote: 7 yes, 1 no.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Vice Chair, UHH Congress
Member, UHH Congress