UH Hilo Faculty Congress
Minutes of Meeting
April 4, 2003
The meeting was called to order by chair, Nina Buchanan at 2:05 PM.
Present : Nina Buchanan, Helen Rogers, Robert Fox, Bill Mautz, Lincoln Gotshalk, April
Komenaka, David Miller, Pila Wilson, Sabry Shehata, Doug Mikkelson
Student Members: Melvin Jadulang
Ex Officio: Chris Lu, Margaret Haig, Steve Hora
Guests: Jim Juvik, Susan Brown, Cam Muir, Marta deMaintenon, Don Price, Haunani
Bernardino, John Cheng
The UHH Congress convened a special session with two working groups to address issues
concerning the process of program initiation and graduate education at UH Hilo. The members
of the UHH Interim Graduate Council were invited as well as UHH faculty interested in
participating. The meeting was divided into the two working groups, and each were provided
with a series of questions prepared by the Congress to guide their respective sessions as follows:
Program Initiation
1. How can we realize at UHH the goal that “faculty owns the curriculum”? What is the role
of the college senates, Congress and Administration?
2. Should review by governance bodies consider both quality/appropriateness of the
curriculum and the financial impact of the program?
3. How shall proposals “flow” from departments through the process?
4. Would some programs necessitate general, campus-wide referenda?
5. Should there be a standard, university-wide request form? What information should be
included on the request form? Should the standard form parallel program review
requirements? Some information might include:
a. Need in the state of Hawaii for the program
b. Student demands/enrollment projections
c. Revenue/cost projections
d. Measurable learning outcomes
e. Centrality to UHH mission
f. Integration with existing programs
g. Special advantages afforded by the unique location of the Big Island
h. If initiated with external funds, maintenance when funding ends
i. Contribute to GE and/or other programs
j. Library Impact
6. How shall new program initiatives fit into cyclic planning processes of the university?
7. Should UHH develop an academic development plan to address how programs which
have been approved on campus are then prioritized for submittal to the system during the
biennial budget cycle?
8. Shall the program initiation process specify deadlines for each review (department,
division, college, dean, VCAA, Congress, etc.) in order for proposals to receive approvals
before being forwarded to the system in time for biennium budget deadlines?
Graduate Education at UHH
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
What are the duties and responsibilities of the Graduate Council?
How shall graduate faculty membership at UHH be determined?
How shall Graduate Council members be appointed/selected?
Where does the Graduate Council belong in the UHH organizational chart?
Who makes graduate curriculum decisions? Should there be separate review bodies?
How shall faculty review the potential impact of graduate programs on undergraduate
programs and who would be responsible for such a review?
7. How shall graduate programs be initiated, reviewed, approved and evaluated?
Doug Mikkelson moderated the working group on program initiation and Bill Mautz and then
Pila Wilson moderated the working group on graduate education. Summaries of the sessions
follow.
Program Initiation Working Group
Present in group: Chris Lu, Nina Buchanan, Doug Mikkelson, David Miller, April Komenaka,
Helen Rogers, Melvin Jadulang.
Chris Lu stated that, in order to allow a rational approach for our institution to grow, he supports
the idea of Congress developing a process – one that does not make too many layers. First
Congress should agree on the process, see if the college senates agree, and finally administration.
April Komenaka brought a copy of Executive Policy E5.201, “Approval of New Academic
Programs and Review of Existing Academic Programs.”
I.
Authorization to Plan (ATP) phase: Department to VCAA/Chancellor.
A.
Current path for approvals: department chair (after the department has discussed
the program) to dean, to VCAA, to Chancellor, who issues the ATP.
B.
What information is required? should there be a template to be consistent with the
new program approval request?
1.
The most important criteria should be addressed in a preliminary way,
e.g.:
a)
Need in the state for the program
b)
Centrality to the UHH mission/strategic plan
c)
Special advantages afforded by our island location
C.
Proposed pathway: Dept/Program to Division Chair to Senate to Dean to
Congress to VCAA
II.
New Program Proposal – new forms and timeline should be put on the VCAA website. It
would be to the university’s advantage to have one form for use across the campus. Form
should be much more complete than the one presently available in the division offices
A.
Should be revised to be consistent with system requirements (Exec. Policy
E5.201) and also our new program review guidelines.
B.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
WASC will want proposals to discuss desired learning outcomes and assessment
(also required in the Executive Policy)
C.
Should also incorporate criteria included in the UHH Strategic Plan
D.
Should talk about faculty ability to deliver the program (expertise needs?) and
needs for any special accreditation
E.
Resource requirements
1.
Better analysis than we’ve seen of how new program will affect campus
resources
2.
Department needs to work with the Library to develop a “library impact
statement” during this phase to determine realistic cost of library support
Timeline: Executive Policy E5.201(p. 5) explains the system’s deadlines; a campus
timeline is appropriate
There should also be guidelines for catalog descriptions of programs so that they are
more informative and consistent
Process:
A.
Department to CAS Senate or CHL or CAFNRM: academic issues
committees/curriculum review committee;
B.
Senate to CAS/CHL/CAFNRM Dean;
C.
CAS/CHL/CAFNRM Dean to Congress;
1.
review resource issues, cross-college academic issues, space, library
2.
when a number of programs go forward at once, there should be a set of
criteria for prioritization
3.
Congress Curriculum Committee?
4.
Consultation as appropriate and needed
D.
David Miller mentioned: If a worthy program is dismissed because of a lack of
resources, there should be a way to phase in the program
Closing down programs
A.
David Miller noted that, because there is no process for disestablishing programs,
the CAS Dean has had to proceed without advice from the Senate.
B.
Nina Buchanan noted that the program review process has provisions for stop outs
before termination.
C.
Program approval form will provide the criteria.
D.
Strategic initiatives: no money for them anyway! Let academic programs take
ownership, go through the program approval process
Graduate Education Working Group
Jim Juvik reviewed the administrative structure of the UHM Graduate Division and Graduate
Council. He also provided an advance written response to the Congress’ questions, and this
served as a starting point for discussions. As the discussion progressed there was a general
acknowledgement of the need for a UHH Graduate Council to advance UHH progress over the
earlier severe impediments present when UHH programs had to go through UHM graduate
administration bodies. There is now a need to define the duties and responsibilities of our
Graduate Council and its relationships to other campus administrative and faculty governing
bodies.
It was generally agreed that the Graduate Council is charged with establishing standards for
graduate education at UHH including standards for graduate programs, faculty participating in
graduate education, and graduate admissions. In this context, it was noted that the Graduate
Council has approved graduate program proposals from the standpoint of being academically
sound and not in regard to approval of budgetary or facility support from the University. Most
discussion then revolved around how graduate programs are developed and approved and
maintained. Two main issues were at play. One, that there be broad notification and participation
by all groups who will be affected by graduate programs: departments, divisions, colleges, and
faculty at large as well as the UHH senior administration. Two, that there not be such a multilevel hierarchical approval process with all these groups in succession that a program
development and approval process is thereby stifled by inaction at any level.
A proposed process was outlined which includes actions of consultation and/or approval on the
part of groups and interested parties. A possible example was presented: the idea of a graduate
program might be initiated by a group of interested faculty from one or more departments or
colleges. This group would put together an initial draft planning proposal in consultation with
faculty member department chair(s), division chair(s), college dean(s), the Graduate Council, and
the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs. As the proposal develops with this consultation, it is
then submitted to the Chancellor as a request for Authorization to Plan. If permission to plan is
awarded, then a formal proposal is prepared again in consultation with the Graduate Council and
with notification of department chair(s), division chair(s), and college dean(s) that the planning
proposal is in progress. The formal proposal is then presented to 1) the Graduate Council, 2)
college dean(s) and senate(s), and 3) UHH Congress for review. Approval on academic merit
may be granted by the Graduate Council, and review comments of the college administration and
UHH Congress would all be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs.
Another issue concerns whether a formal designated graduate faculty should be established and
how criteria for membership should be instituted.
At this point, Bill Mautz had to leave the meeting and Pila Wilson took over moderation.
The groups came back together and both presented their suggested procedures for program
initiation, which were similar. The graduate program group stressed that certain reviews and
approvals could be sought at the same time, which would help prevent proposals from
languishing at various stages.
A motion was made that the Congress Executive Committee put a suggested procedure down in
writing for consideration by the Congress. Passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.