UH Hilo Faculty Congress

DRAFT Minutes of Meeting

May 7, 2004


The meeting was called to order by the Chair, Jerry Calton, at 1:10 p.m.


Present:  Jerry Calton, April Komenaka, Lincoln Gotshalk, Philippe Binder, Barbara Heintz, Helen Rogers, David Miller, Bill Mautz, Nina Buchanan, Robert Fox.

Ex Officio:  Chris Lu, Steve Hora, Margaret Haig

Guests:  Larry Heintz, Cathy Zenz, Patricia Panahi


1.  Minutes of the meeting of April 2 2004, were reviewed and approved.


2. Results of the election of new members.

         Rick Castberg, April Komenaka Michael Marshall, Jene Michaud are the new members representing CAS to the UHH Faculty Congress.

         Jim Mellon will represent OSA.

Sabry Shehata will represent CAFNRM.


3. Second reading of the amendment to the UHH Faculty Congress Charter.

The proposed amendment to make the chairs of faculty senates of degree-granting colleges voting members of the UHH Congress was read a second time and was presented for a vote (2/3 majority of members present required)

Vote: 9 yes, 0 no


The amendment will now be presented to the faculty as a referendum vote for approval (simple majority required).


4. Announcement: A special meeting of the UHH congress will be called for Friday, May 14 to seat the new members.


5. Congress Executive Committee motion to amend the resolution passed 4/2/04 to create a task force on faculty governance.

The amendment calls for the following:

a.     Remove the May 15, 2004 deadline and substitute “to be completed during Fall semester 2004.”

b.     Broaden representation of task force to include more representatives of the Congress and other persons familiar with faculty governance issues.

c.     The task force would expand the scope of the inquiry to consider statements on university governance by bodies such as the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), American Council on Education (ACE), and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB).  (See attachment)

d.     The task force would review successful models of faculty governance based on the experience of selected universities of a similar size, composition, and mission of UH-Hilo.


David Miller expressed strong exception to the fact that the 4/2/04 resolution was not forwarded to the Chancellor in a timely manner.  There was an extended discussion on this topic and the various motives behind the delay in transmitting it to senior administration.  The delay was a consequence of further discussions between the CAS senate representatives and the Congress that revealed significant flaws in the original resolution including the fact that the congress would have only one representative on the task force compared to multiple members of the senates and administration; the Congress and the Senates have not yet had a real chance to try to work out the mechanisms of shared governance, and that it is premature to declare the implied deadlock in asking the Chancellor to intervene to manage faculty governance.

         Other problems were noted: 1) there is concern that there exist faculty groups, like the graduate council, that report to no faculty governance body; 2) it is not clear how representatives to the task force will be identified; 3) it presumes that the senates are already sympathetic to the task force, it does not invite the senate representatives.

         It was noted that the resolution was eventually forwarded to Chris Lu and that the Chancellor was aware of it.

         Steve Hora and David Miller stated that the situation will not resolve itself by further conferring between the Congress and the Senates.  The resolution asks the Chancellor to work with representatives outside of the Congress and the Senates.  This is necessary or faculty governance will be unable to accomplish significant business.


A motion was made to rescind the original motion to form the task force on governance.

Vote: 8 yes, 1 no.


6. Standing Committee Reports

A motion to move standing committee reports to the end of the agenda was approved unanimously.


7. Actions for the Academic Policy Committee

a. Proposal to allow students who earn C- or higher to earn a grade of Credit in a course in which s/he is enrolled for Credit/No Credit.  (See attachment)


b. Proposal to allow a student to retake a course up to two times regardless of the grades earned, and the highest grade only will be used in calculating the student’s cumulative GPA.


c.  Proposal to apply “3-pete” rule to students taking ELI classes for administrative credit and to limit the number non-ELI courses these students can enroll in, overall or by semester, if they are not making satisfactory academic progress in their ELI courses.


Following the reading of parts a and b, David Miller asked whether these motions have been approved by the Senates before considering action.  The answer was no, and David Miller moved that these resolutions be referred to the senates before action is taken.

Larry Heintz reported that they were referred to the CAS Senate Academic Affairs Committee.

Steve Hora stated that this is not a routing problem, it is an authority problem.

Jerry Calton stated that these issues are university-wide, and thus are the domain of the UHH Congress.

Nina Buchanan affirmed that these policies do not belong to the individual colleges; they are university-wide issues.

Robert Fox stated that this discussion relates back to agenda item 5 and is irrelevant to the issue at hand.  The Congress should know first the opinion of the Colleges.

Chris Lu stated that these proposed policies have already been widely distributed for consideration.  There needs to be a process for a decision to be made.

A call for the question was approved 9:0

Vote on the motion to refer the proposals to the Senates: 5 yes, 4 no for approval.


Regarding item c, there is a need to affirm a policy that is already in practice.

Motion to approve 7c: 9 yes, 0 no


6. Standing Committee Reports

a.     WASC has issued a favorable report on UHH.  WASC supports the UHH general education plan.  WASC advocates that the effectiveness of governance be improved by streamlining authority.

b.     Assessment.  A series of specific questions have been prepared for departments in review to answer.  This is in response to what in many cases has been a lot of superfluous information supplied by departments for the assessment process.


New Business

Nina Buchanan announced that she has received from Bill Chen a request for a process for the budget request for the biennium Program Change Requests.

 (I don’t understand my notes on this issue, Nina, can you clarify?)

Nina stated that Program Change Requests related to the strategic plan generally get brought up in May as faculty members are leaving, and there is thus no faculty governance involvement.  The development will happen during the summer when the faculty is for the most part away.  We need a process during the academic year.

Robert Fox asked how new Program Change Requests (PCRs) would be integrated into the current priority list of PCR's. Information was not available and this question needs to be clarified.  

Robert Fox requested that next fall Congress address faculty parking concerns. He stated his concern that faculty are not given special consideration for parking priority while administrators are.

David Miller made a motion, seconded by Barbara Heintz that the Congress express its gratitude to Nina Buchanan for her hard work and accomplishments as Chair of the Congress Assessment Support Committee.

Vote: Unanimous


Meeting adjourned: 2:45 p.m.


Respectfully Submitted,

Barbara Heintz

William Mautz