Congress Executive Council (CEC) Minutes for February 13, 2006
UH-Hilo Congress
Attendance:
Marilyn Brown, Kelly Burke, April Komenaka, Rick Castberg, Jim Mellon, Jene
Michaud, Beau Butts
Invited Guest: Jim Cromwell
1.
Minutes. The minutes from the previous meeting were approved.
2.
Transfer of Religious Studies Courses. The VC for Academic Affairs has requested that
Congress examine the transfer policy in the case of courses in religion from religious
institutions. It turns out that this issue arises for approximately five students per year.
Admissions Director Jim Cromwell discussed the existing/past practice with respect to
courses whose content renders them unsuitable for transfer credit. In cases of questionable
courses, Admissions asks for guidance from the appropriate academic program. The CEC
compared this practice to the official transfer policy1, and finds that the existing practice is
consistent with the existing policy. This finding hinges on the fact that existing policy
stipulates that courses accepted for transfer must be in a field that is typically part of a
baccalaureate program. Revisions to the transfer policy are therefore unnecessary. The
Congress chair will communicate the CEC's findings to the VC for Academic Affairs and
the Religious Studies Coordinator.
3.
Strategic Plan. The committee discussed the importance of making progress on the
assessment of the strategic plan. First, WASC expects us to undertake this. Second, it is
possible that the assessment process will stimulate institutional improvements. There was
considerable discussion of the strategic plan, how and if to evaluate institutional success in
meeting the strategic goals, and what to do next. There was consensus that the
administration has the primary responsibility for figuring out how to do assessment and
conducting the actual assessment. On the other hand the Committee felt that it was the
responsibility of the faculty to identify the key goals and objectives that should be the focus
of the assessment effort.
4.
Admissions Committee. It is not clear if the admissions committee is making progress
towards its primary charge. The Congress Chair will meet the Admissions committee to get
an update.
1
The relevant part of the existing policy is as follows. In general, we accept a course for
transfer if it is from an accredited College or University, providing that the course is in a field
that is typically part of a baccalaureate program. Certain categories of courses are excluded
from being accepted for transfer credit. These include remedial or developmental courses,
courses that are part of a vocational or technical program, or courses that are not at the
baccalaureate-level.
5.
Faculty Governance.
a.) QUALITY OF GRADUATE OFFERINGS. The Congress liaison with Graduate Council
is concerned that there is insufficient oversight over the quality of graduate courses and
proposed new graduate programs. For example, the Graduate Council has recently
approved new graduate courses initiated by faculty and programs without scrutiny of
academic rigor. Apparently the Council does not believe that quality control is within its
purview. Courses approved by the Graduate Council go to the VC for Academic Affairs
without Congress (or Senate) review. Similar problems exist for proposed new graduate
programs.
b.) INITIATION AND PLANNING OF NEW PROGRAMS. The CEC remains dissatisfied
with the level of communication about initiation of new programs, and lack of broad
faculty involvement early in the planning process. A case in point is the proposed
Masters in Social Work (MSW). Preparations of a legislative packet were underway
prior to permission to plan and prior to communication with faculty about the proposed
program. The VC for Academic Affairs failed to address the MSW development in the
prepared portion of his recent report to congress, in spite of specific encouragement to do
so.
c.) FACULTY GOVERNANCE MEETING with Vice President for Academic Planning and
Policy Linda Johnsrud. Rick Castberg and Jene Michaud gave a brief report on this
meeting. After listening to administrators and faculty representatives, Dr. Johnsrud made
two points. The first was that she struck by comments about the disconnect between
academic planning and budgeting. The second was that in her opinion, the faculty should
have the primary authority for executing academic programs (with administrative input),
whereas the administration should have the primary authority for conducting long-range
planning (with faculty input). VC for Academic Affairs Steve Hora recommends that
UHH undertake a self-study, with the help of a consultant, to do a stock-taking of the
current governance process.
d.) IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITIES. The CEC has identified the governance issues
that have not been resolved to our satisfaction (see next page for a list). The CEC plans
to schedule a meeting with the Chancellor and the VCAA for a discussion.
Respectfully submitted,
Jene Michaud, UHH Congress Chair
2
Governance issues tentatively identified by the CEC as priorities for discussion/resolution.
1. The relationship of the senates, congress, the administration, and the graduate
council.
a. Should a MOU be drafted to clarify the roles of these parties in the
decision making process?
2. The process for initiation and approval of new undergraduate and graduate
programs.
a. How can we achieve a process that provides for early communication and
broad faculty input early in the planning process?
b. Is there adequate oversight to ensure academic quality of new graduate
programs?
c. Should there be a process for evaluating proposed new programs in light of the
priorities of the strategic plan?
3. Role of faculty input in the appointment of teaching faculty to administrative positions.
a. Should the impact of the appointment on instructional staffing be a consideration
during the decision process?
b. Should the faculty member's home department have a say in the decision?
c. Should the faculty governance bodies have a say in the decision?
4. Should there be a policy regarding the length of time that an appointed Vice Chancellor
can serve before a competitive search is initiated?
3