UH HILO FACULTY CONGRESS
MINUTES FOR MEETING OF March 23, 2007
K-127 3:00 - 5:00 pm
Members Present: Philippe Binder, Marilyn Brown, Kelly Burke, Jason Cabral, Keola Donaghy, Kerri
Inglis, Barbara Leonard, Shuguang Li, Bruce Matthews, Mark Panek, Helen Rogers
UHHSA Members: Aurora Manly
Ex-Officio Members Present: Steve Hora, Marcia Sakai
Others Present: Todd Belt, Jane Dineen Panek, Anastasia Pavlovic
Meeting called to order at 3:03 pm by Congress Chair Barbara Leonard
OLD BUSINESS
1. Approval of the minutes of the February 16, 2007 Congress meeting:
http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/uhh/congress/documents/Congress06-07Minutes02-16-07.doc
Approved by acclamation
2. Second Reading of the Proposed Changes to the Bylaws:
http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/uhh/congress/FacultyCongressBylaws032307.doc .
CAFNRM student representative Aurora Manley submitted a resolution detailing student
government opposition to the Bylaws amendment reducing the number of student
representatives on the General Education Committee from four to one:
University of Hawaii at Hilo Student Association 2006-2007, Senate Resolution 07-013,
Dated March 22, 2007
Whereas, the University of Hawaii at Hilo Faculty Congress is the representative body
for the faculty of the University of Hawaii at Hilo, And
Whereas, the University of Hawaii at Hilo Faculty Congress makes decisions on policy
having strong effect on the university and the student to which it caters, And
Whereas, the University of Hawaii at Hilo Faculty Congress has members from the
College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Natural Resource Management, College of Arts and
Sciences, College of Business and Economics, Ka Haka Ula Ke’elikolani College of
Hawaiian Language, College of Continuing Education, and Office of Student Affairs, and
the University of Hawaii Hilo Student Association, And
Whereas, the University of Hawaii at Hilo Faculty Congress has five standing
committees, Academic Policy Committee, General Education Committee, Assessment
Support Committee, and Admissions Committee, And
Whereas, currently the General Education Committee has four student members
representing each individual college, And
Whereas, the General Education Committee proposes adjustments in the General
education curriculum for the University of Hawaii at Hilo that has direct impact on new
and transfer students, And
Whereas, the University of Hawaii at Hilo Faculty Congress has taken action and
proposed changes to student membership on the General Education Committee from
four students to one student, And
Whereas, the University of Hawaii at Hilo Faculty Congress is considering adjusting
these by-laws without consulting the President of the University of Hawaii at Hilo Student
Association who represents over three-thousand four hundred students, And
Whereas, currently the Admissions Committee currently has one student representative
and the Director of Admissions, And
Whereas, the Admissions Committee oversees recommendations of admission
standards to the University of Hawaii at Hilo Chancellor effecting all new and transfer
students, And
Whereas, the University of Hawaii at Hilo Faculty Congress has taken action to propose
changes eliminating student representation as well as the Director of Admissions
position on the Admissions Committee, And
Whereas, the University of Hawaii at Hilo Faculty Congress is considering adjusting
these by-laws without consulting the President of the University of Hawaii at Hilo Student
Association who represents over three-thousand four hundred students, And
Whereas, eliminating the Directors of Admissions position on the committee eliminates
his or her experience and expertise in admitting students to the University of Hawaii at
Hilo, Therefore
Let It Be Resolved, that the University of Hawaii at Hilo Faculty Congress should rescind
its proposal limiting student representation from the General Education Committee, And
Let It Further Be Resolved, that the University of Hawaii at Hilo Faculty Congress should
rescind it’s proposal to eliminate the student representation as well as the Director of
Admissions position on the Admissions Committee, And
Let It Finally Be Resolved, that a copy of this resolution shall be submitted to the
Chancellor of the University of Hawaii at Hilo, Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, Vice
Chancellor of Student Affairs, The Board of Regents of the University of Hawaii, the
President of the University of Hawaii, the Vice President of Student Affairs for the
University of Hawaii, College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Natural Resource
Management Faculty Senate, College of Arts and Science Faculty Senate, Kaha Ka Ula
Ke’elikolani College of Hawaiian Language Faculty Senate, the College of Business and
Economics Faculty Senate, Ke Kalahea Student Newspaper, and the Tribune Herald.
Passed this 22nd day of March 2007. 5 in affirmation, 0 in opposition or abstention.
Discussion of the changes to the Bylaws continued. General Education Chair Philippe
Binder and Former General Education Chair Marilyn Brown pointed out that General
Education Committee meetings are always open to visitors, and suggested increasing
the number of student representatives only if students show interest in the form of
regular attendance at such meetings. They stated that it has been difficult at times to
have a quorum when the students do not attend the meetings regularly. Keola Donaghy
suggested amending the Bylaws to allow four student representatives to continue
serving on the General Education Committee, but to reduce their voting power to a
single, collective vote, as it is on the Faculty Congress. There was no second to the
suggestion.
The motion to pass the Bylaws as amended passed, 11 for, 1 against, 1 opposed.
3. Report from the Chair:



ACCFSC selected Tom Randall, Ph.D., of UH Mānoa, as the faculty
representative for the candidate advisory council for nominating Board of
Regents members.
At the Board of Regents Meeting, J.N. Musto called for more autonomy for
individual campuses.
The Chair met with WASC representatives and discussed faculty governance at
the system level.
4. Reports from committee chairs:

Kelly Burke, Academic Policy Committee
Report from the Chair on the status of University 101. The committee met last
week and discussed the idea of having the Congress approach the College of
Arts and Sciences, as a protocol, to change the course from a CAS course to a
Student Services course. Kelly Burke agrees to meet with the CAS on the issue
as the liaison for the Congress.

Philippe Binder, General Education Committee
Philippe Binder discussed minimum WASC requirements with WASC advisor
Richard Giardina, and came to the following conclusions:
General Education is as important to WASC as the degree programs themselves.
WASC wants us to have a clear mission statement, a scheme for what we want
UHH graduates to be, and a means of assessing courses that will fit that
scheme.
Steve Hora strongly suggested that we do not parrot UH Mānoa’s processfocused course assessment, but instead focus course assessment on outcomes.
WASC sees General Education as a university-wide issue.
The General Education Committee hopes to come up with uniform standards that
respect the differences between colleges. The recent faculty poll was aimed at
learning to define these standards. Two more surveys (one for faculty, one for
students) are in the works.
WASC is “seriously concerned” with our lack of progress in reforming General
Education. Giardina suggested the General Education Committee focus on two
areas before the next WASC visit in March of 2008. The General Education
Committee hopes to show clear progress on reforming General Education’s
quantitative reasoning and writing requirements by next year.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Keola Donaghy moved to have the Congress endorse the CHL restructuring that will
involve the hiring of a new dean. Kelly Burke acknowledged the Congress’s appreciation in
the CHL’s wish to inform the Congress of the restructuring. The motion passed
unanimously.
2. Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs Steve Hora submitted a list of reasons why the
Chancellor’s cabinet opposes the Congress’s instrument to assess administrators (see
below) and conveyed that the Chancellor would like to fund an outside consultant to help
come up with a better review process for administrators to “improve confidence in the
process.” Barbara Leonard welcomed the Chancellor’s input on helping improve the newlyapproved instrument for next year.
Concerns expressed by the Chancellor’s cabinet include:
 The construction of the instrument was not based on the job descriptions and duties
of the individual offices.
 The questions posed are very similar for all administrators despite substantial
differences in duties, authorities, and responsibilities from position to position.
 There was no attempt to obtain goals set either for or by the individuals being
evaluated and to measure progress against these goals. Only system wide
performance measures are mentioned. These measures do not relate to many of
the instrument items.
 The process of evaluation should begin with notification of the individuals at the start
of the review period as to the nature of the evaluation.
 The questions do not have an opened ended component to allow respondents to
explain their interpretations of the question or the reasoning behind their answers.
 The instrument does not provide constructive feedback to assist the evaluated
administrators in improving their performances.
 The evaluators are from a limited constituency.
 There is concern that the majority of faculty will not have specific knowledge of each
administrator’s contribution in the detailed areas.
 There is no control for nonresponse bias.
 The process adds little to the 360 evaluation mandated by the system and already
underway.
 There is a concern that the process was put together hurriedly and in an ad hoc
fashion to influence the process for selection of vice-chancellors.
Because the process and the findings can have substantial impact on the careers of the
evaluated administrators, Chancellor Tseng wishes to provide funding for an outside
consultant to review and possibly improve the process and instrument. This will help
improve overall confidence in the process. It may be then possible to replace the 360
process with our own evaluation process.
3. Jane Dineen Panek of the American Association of University Professors gave a
presentation on national standards of academic freedom that focused on the idea that
“academic freedom isn’t free”—with it comes responsibility. Emerging from her talk was the
suggestion that stronger oversight of new faculty at UHH at the departmental level—
including regular classroom observations and monitoring of course syllabi—would lead to an
atmosphere of more openness and collegiality. She suggested looking to other university
faculty handbooks that detail the responsibilities of a department chair—responsibilities that
include such oversight and mentoring. Also emerging from the talk was the suggestion that
we look to other multi-campus state systems to see how smaller institutions maintain
autonomy and define their missions as separate from the “flagship” campuses in their
states. Congress members were grateful to be given copies of the AAUP Red Book.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:44 pm by Congress Chair Barbara Leonard.
Respectfully submitted April 2nd, 2007 by Mark Panek