UH HILO FACULTY CONGRESS
MINUTES FOR MEETING OF AUGUST 29, 2008
K-127 3:00 – 4:50 pm
2007-08 Members Present: Sevki Erdogan, Reni Ivanova, Barbara Leonard, Gail MakuakaneLundin, Chuck Malenfant, Cam Muir, Emmeline de Pillis, Regina Titunik
2008-09 Members Present; Harald Barkhoff, Jason Iota Cabral, Michelle Ebersole, Reni Ivanova,
Terrance Jalbert, Gail Makuakane-Lundin, Chuck Malenfant, Cam Muir, Hiapo K. Perreira,
Emmeline de Pillis, Pamela Thompson, Regina Titunik
Others Present: Chancellor Tseng, V.C.A.A. Castille, V.C.S.A. Hong
Meeting called to order at 3:05 pm by 07/08 Congress Chair Barbara Leonard
1. Chair’s Report: Barbara Leonard reported meeting with the budget committee over the summer,
and serving as a representative at budget meetings at both the UHH as well as UH System
level (as faculty rep from All Campus Council of Faculty Senate Chairs).
At the UH System level, she reported being asked to draft 3 PCRs but that, after everyone
had written PCRs and made their presentations, Linda Johnsrud and Howard Todo then came
back and said no, they just wanted 1 PCR, and it had to be focused on student success.
Everyone went back and revised requests to focus on student request, so, UHH's request for a
director of alumni affairs and other wished-for items were dropped.
The big focus this year is retention and graduation rate. There need to be some measures in
the budget to assure academic quality. We don’t want to become a diploma mill; other
measures should be considered. They are still stuck on numbers of students graduating, not
percentages, Pell grants, going rates, native Hawaiian outcomes or other measures more
appropriate to our campus.
B. Leonard and E. de Pillis worked together to explore these issues in "Aligning Admissions
Standards with Graduation and Retention Goals", which was published in the International
Journal of Learning over the summer. (Copies of this article were distributed to the
Congress during this meeting.) The second page of the text lists goals and strategic
outcomes. Strategic outcome 3 and 4 are not as important in this biennium budget process.
Strategic outcome 5 is met by deferred maintenance. This was based on E. de Pillis' work
on the Admissions Committee and B. Leonard's work on the Budget Committee. These are
issues the Congress will be working with this year. Again, that the measures are based on
quantity rather than quality continues to be a concern.
2. Regina Titunik reported for the General Education Committee:
Last May, Phil Castille and Barbara Leonard presented our new GE plan at the Council of
Chief Academic Officers. The CCAO members were apparently enthusiastic about the plan.
They suggested a few minor editorial changes and required that we rename the HAP
requirement. The General Education Committee consulted the faculty on this issue through
two surveys and the winning name for our old HAP requirement is Hawaii Pan-Pacific.
Kenny Simmons, Phil Castille, the members of the GE Committee and R. Titunik then put
together the action memo which will be sent to President McClain for final approval of the
plan.
The GE Committee, consisting of April Komenaka, Emmeline de Pillis, Bruce Matthews,
Karla McDermit, Seri Luangphinith, and R. Titunik, has had two meetings this term. They
will send out a formal announcement requesting syllabi for the new GE next week. (They
want people to have a chance to get used to the term a little.) Meanwhile, they have assigned
two of their members to each college and department who will be responsible for going and
helping that program revise their syllabi for GE approval. They are also putting together a
website which will have information on the GE transistion, a list of members responsible for
each program, and FAQs.
And that's where they are.
3. Unfinished Business: B. Leonard pointed out that there is a motion on the table to form a
university-level curriculum committee, which is also cited in the WASC action letter.
Congress will have to take up this motion at the next meeting.
4. Sevki Erdogan reported for the Assessment Committee:
We are starting another review cycle; and a new version of program review documents were
approved, so the new Assessment Committee will have to get them implemented.
5. B. Leonard thanked everyone for working last year and welcomed new members.
6. Elections for the 2008-2009 Faculty Congress:
Sevki Erdogan was nominated for, and won, Chair.
Cam Muir was nominated for, and won, Vice Chair.
A nomination was on the table for Chuck Malenfant as Secretary; he won.
A nomination was on table for Regina Titunik as Chair of the General Education Committee;
she won.
Emmeline de Pillis was nominated to continue as Chair of the Admissions Committee; she
won.
Sevki Erdogan was nominated for, and won, Chair of the Budget Committee.
Reni Ivanova was nominated, and won, Chair of the Academic Policy Committee; she won,
but is going on sabbatical in the spring.
The Chair of the Assessment Committee remains vacant.
The meeting was adjourned, and Sevki Erdogan reconvenes it as the first meeting of the 2008-2009
Faculty Congress.
1. As Chair, S. Erdogan thanked everyone for agreeing to serve as committee chairs, etc.
2. S. Erdogan directed everyone's attention to Chancellor Tseng's email of Aug. 29, 2008, ("Letter
to campus re: addressing WASC requirements"); the Congress will work on these issues this
year.
3. S. Erdogan reported on the last meeting of the Budget Committee. With regards to the $1.5
million shortfall on the campus electric bill, the Committee is looking into how to reduce
electricity waste without losing positions or degrading the academic infrastructure.
4. S. Erdogan called for each Congress member to offer New Business:
A. E. de Pillas asked, regarding faculty governance, how it is to be arranged and who will
make the final decision?
Chancellor Tseng commented that shared governance is hard to define, but UHH
seems to be very bottom up, and WASC wants it to be less so. Thus, curriculum
control has to be university wide, not college decision. We can do this, but it takes
time, and they want it to happen faster. But this is an evolving process on our
growing campus. So, WASC wants a plan. The main thing that needs to be clarified
is whether a college senate or a university wide body is final say on curriculum.
V.C.S.A. Hong will work on timeline to give WASC on when our plan will be
accomplished.
V.C.S.A. Hong added that WASC doesn’t necessarily want us to get rid of the
senates; is up to us and the process will make clear what we should do. The timeline
is some key landmarks that provide accountability for us to each other to make sure
that we are prepared for the next WASC visit. The Faculty Congress needs to have a
curriculum committee, for example, WASC seems to say.
V.C.A.A. Castille added that the Administration is setting up meetings with all the
shared governance bodies to flesh out what we think we understand about the WASC
letter and where we need to go with it, and each group will nominate a rep for a task
force for addressing the WASC concerns.
Chancellor Tseng commented that WASC seems to feel we should be like the
California model: just one senate campus wide.
B. Leonard noted that the A.A.U.P. has written on the role of faculty in governance,
and curriculum, and faculty affairs are important for faculty to have a say over. A
college level committee needs to evaluate curriculum and then send it up to university
committee. So, there is a role for the faculty senates, but no need for duplicate
committees between college senates and the Faculty Congress. The task force should
be elected, though, not appointed by the deans or by the University Administration.
B. H. K. Perreira cited the need to control overload/overwork on our small number of
faculty.
C. Muir cited the space problem. Biology and Chemistry in particular are in crisis; hiring
people with no lab space continues to be a problem.
S. Erdogan will ask V.C.A.A. Fitzsimons to come to a future Congress meeting to
talk about space allocation.
D. P. Thompson pointed out that there are lots of new faculty with questions about policy
and procedure for things like curriculum changes, etc.
B. Leonard added that she is in discussion with Dan Brown; we need clearer
procedures and we need them written. He should be invited to discuss this.
E. R. Ivanova cited the range of size of colleges we have on campus, and that we need to be
flexible when deciding whether to have senates, faculty governance needs, etc. We
have to be flexible and allow for differences.
F. S. Erdogan commented that it remains an issue that Pharmacy has not shown up for
Congress.
G. C. Malenfant cited the difficulties the Library and other agencies on campus face in
providing daily services under the seasonal constraints of the annual budget process.
H. R. Titunik stressed that General Education will be a big job; we should keep in mind the
system level and its problems; prioritizing graduation numbers is a huge problem; it
has the tendency to diminish academic rigor, we have to push back
I. H. Barkhoff commented that it is essential to share information about budgeting and
funding so everyone knows what’s going on around campus. Communicate criteria
used in budget decision making, etc. so people don’t feel disenfranchised.
5. Chancellor Tseng congratulates outgoing Chair Barbara Leonard and adds that the Congress
needs to continue to help find a way to move the system towards formula funding so UHH
gets its fair share. Congress should work on strategic planning for the future.
6. V.C.S.A. Hong reported on the Student Life Center:
It may be open by Oct. 1. There were significant delays, but the big thing was that the
windows and doors were not ordered in a timely manner by the contractor, then the window
glass arrived broken, so that’s the big delay. The latest delay is obtaining certificate of
occupancy; the bearer of the last signature needed passed away. The Center is also missing 3
sub-certifications.
Regarding fees: many campuses collect fees for years before construction even begins; we
didn’t. It’s not a user fee, it’s an operational budget fee. The operational budget is estimated
at $1.2 million per year –so the fees are less than fifty percent of that, so students’ fees for
this year are still needed.
Regarding faculty and staff usage: the building was student driven, so is for students. We
may open the door further down the line. Local gyms and clubs were also adamant that we
not engage in unfair competition; so, it’s currently a student service. When/if it does open to
faculty and staff, they will have to pay their own memberships so students aren’t subsidizing
them, and the pricing will have to reflect non-competitiveness. Currently, a faculty member
can come as a guest of a student. Your primary affiliation will define whether you can go;
so, a faculty member signed up for a single class won’t get in as a student.
7. When asked about financial support for the Faculty Congress this year, V.C.A.A. Castille stated
that every request for funding that B. Leonard brought to him last year, he met. He hopes this year
to also meet every reasonable request for support. He added that he is thankful to B. Leonard and R.
Titunik for all they did last year, and that they received wonderful comments at CCAO meeting. No
one has a budget yet; but, if his is same as last year, or even slightly reduced, he hopes to support
Congress as well as he did last year.
Congress adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Chuck Malenfant, Faculty Congress Secretary, 9/9/2008.