Records of the 04-05 Academic Policy Committee
Prepared by Jene Michaud (Chair)
Meeting of 9/29/04
1.
The members of the 04-05 committee are listed below. All members except Jason Cabral and
Chris Lu attended the meeting on 9/29/04.
Jene Michaud
Jerry Calton
Rick Castberg of term)
Barbara Heintz chair
COBE representative (second year of term) social science representative (second year student services representative (second year of term)
Andrew Gabrar term) humanities representative (first year of
Cecilia Mukai of term)
Mark Haines natural science representative (second year
CAFNRM representative (first year of term)
Jason Iota Cabral CHL representative (first year of term)
Chris Lu VCAA
2.
Future meetings. a) The committee will meet on Friday October 8 from 12:15-1:15 for the purpose of summarizing the feedback on whether UHH should offer selected doctoral programs. b) The committee will meet with April Komenaka and Lynne Stamoulis on Monday October 18 from 12:15-1:15 for the purpose of learning what has already been done to develop performance indicators of the strategic plan.
3.
The committee has been charged with addressing revisions to the faculty hiring manual. We are currently awaiting feedback from the various senates (due about October 1).
4.
The committee learned that the tenure and promotion manual is under review by others, and that we have not--at the current time--been charged with addressing revisions to this document.
5.
The committee discussed the following documents: a) the working draft of "Faculty Contract Renewal, Promotion, and Tenure for 2003-2004"
(posted on the VCAA website); b) "How to Complete the Application for Tenure and/or promotion" (not posted on the VCAA website); and c) the working draft of "Hiring Handbook for Tenure Track Faculty" (posted on the VCAA website)
The committee unanimously approved a motion to make the following requests to the VCCA. First, the committee requests clarification of exactly which of these documents, if any, have been formally approved and which are going through a review process prior to approval. The committee also requests that this information be clearly posted on the VCAA website, and that each document should clearly state whether it has gone through a review and approval process and specify the date of approval (or, if in review, the date of the latest revision).
1

6.
The committee discussed our charge to design a template for a UH Hilo Academic Plan that is consistent with the UH System requirements. The committee is unclear about what this entails.
The chair will seek clarification from the VCAA.
7.
The committee discussed our charge to facilitate simplification of a governance structure. An ad hoc committee (composed of the senate chairs, the congress chair and vice-chair, and the APC chair) has been formed to address this issue. For the time being, the APC will await the recommendations of the ad hoc committee.
8.
The committee wants to meet with assistant CAS dean April Komenaka and Lynne Stamoulis from the Office of Institutional Research to learn what work has already been done develop performance indicators of the Strategic Plan.
Meeting of October 8, 2004
9.
Acting UH President McClain has requested feedback from UH-Hilo faculty on the question of the appropriateness of UH-Hilo offering selected doctoral degrees. The Congress, at its September 17th meeting, charged the APC with this task. The APC received 32 responses to its request for feedback. Only one or two responses were negative. A majority of the positive responses were conditional or expressed reservations or concerns. The reservations were mostly related to resources but also dealt with philosophical issues or the merits of the proposed programs.
Respondents tended not to confine themselves to the narrow question of whether UH-Hilo should be allowed--in principle--to offer selected doctoral degrees. Instead, respondents tended to address the two specific degrees under consideration. The Committee drafted the following summary of the responses. It is assumed that this summary will be forwarded to UH President McClain by the
Congress Executive Committee.
The Academic Policy Committee of the UH-Hilo congress has solicited feedback from the
UH-Hilo faculty and professional staff regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate for UH-Hilo to offer selected doctoral programs. Based on the feedback received, the consensus is support for selected UH-Hilo doctoral programs. This support is contingent upon:
1) whether the program is consistent with the UH-Hilo mission and strategic plan;
2) availability of adequate resources;
3) lack of negative impact on undergraduate programs; and
4) rigorous review of the proposed program.
10.
The Committee noted that it is concerned about the fact that outdated information on academic programs is posted on the official UH-Hilo website.
There were a number of meetings at which the Committee worked on faculty hiring manual.
Meeting of 11/17/04
1.
The Committee discussed the new document that provides information about the process associated with faculty contract renewal, tenure and promotion, and provides instructions and forms. This document was recently prepared by a drafting committee and is now undergoing review. The
2

committee identified a number of issues that deserve consideration. The committee decided to request feedback from the various college senates regarding their standards for contract renewal, tenure, and promotion. The congress can then include these standards in the document. The committee will also solicit feedback from the various senates on the proposed short annual review form (which would replace the current lengthy contract renewal application). Feedback on both these issues is requested by January 30.
Meeting of 11/29/04
The Committee began work on devising performance indicators for the strategic plan. The Strategic Plan includes Goals (set in stone and approved by the Board of Regents) and Objectives for each Goal. It was our understanding that our charge was to satisfy WASC requirements by devising a better way of measuring whether or not UHH is reaching the Goals stated in the Plan. It is assumed that each Objective will have one or more Performance Indicators that can be used to monitor whether the Objective is being met. The starting point for our work was a set of draft performance indicators that were developed by a previous committee. It was clear that there were far more Objectives than could ever be measured, and the
Committee pruned and edited them.
Meeting of 12/08/04
The committee finished pruning and editing the Strategic Plan Objectives (see text box in Appendix A.)
Meetings of 1/04/05
Meeting of 1/12/05
Email communications of late January 2005
At the first two meetings, the committee worked on the performance indicators for the strategic plan, but ultimately we decided that there were more pressing priorities than finishing this huculean task. The committee's recommendations regarding the strategic plan are found in Appendix B.
Meeting of 02/16/05
The Committee briefly discussed the cross-listing proposal, the unclassified student proposal, and some potential problems with general graduation requirements. The majority of the meeting was devoted to discussion of the P/T document. The committee voted to recommend the following two changes to the document. First, to eliminate the box on page 10 since it is merely an interpretation of the more official information on the proceeding pages. Second, to insert a statement that "The TPRC shall be individualized to each applicant so that the TPRC membership includes faculty members from disciplines related to that of the applicant".
Meeting of 02/23/05
The UH-Hilo registrar, Cathy Zenz, attended this meeting. The committee discussed a proposal from the ad hoc committee on cross-listing courses (See memo dated November 10, 2005). The proposal has two main changes: (1) In the catalog, program requirements will specify both cross listed courses (Eng 335
OR Ling 301). (2) During registration, there will be only one CRN and only one class list; students who attempt to register for the cross-listed section will be re-directed. This will result in departments getting full credit for the courses they teach. The senates have had an opportunity for feedback to these policies and there was none. The proposal is limited to administrative procedures for registration and catalog listing. As there are no real policy issues, the Committee felt there was no need for formal action.
3

The Committee also discussed a proposal from the Registrar regarding unclassified students. The current practice regarding unclassified students creates three problems: (1) unclassified students are not subject to academic dismissal even if they do poorly, (2) FTEs are not calculated correctly because Banner cannot distinguish between unclassified graduate students and unclassified undergraduates, and (3) Banner cannot determine who has a prior bachelors degree and is therefore eligible to take graduate courses. The
Graduate Council is in the process of formulating recommendations for unclassified graduate students.
The Committee will therefore wait until they receive the Graduate Councils recommendations before considering graduate issues.
The Committee passed the following motion 5-0:
All academic policies relating to satisfactory academic progress, probation, and dismissal shall apply to unclassified students as well as to classified students.
The Committee notes that the catalog states that "students" are subject to academic standards and dismissal, and there is nothing in the wording to suggest that unclassified students are exempt from academic standards. The current practice, however, is that they are not.
Meetings in March 2005
The committee met several times in March, in addition to conferring via email, regarding the proposed
UHH Promotion and Tenure Guidelines Teaching Faculty. The senates were given ample time for feedback but gave none, except that the CAFNRM senate passed a resolution calling for significant representation of agricultural faculty on the TPRC when considering applications from agricultural faculty. Feedback from faculty was solicited and several provided detailed suggestions for revisions. On
March 29, the Committee approved the document with substantial revisions by a vote of 4-0-0. The
Committee's report is attached as an appendix.
[Note: The P/T document was approved by Congress on April 1, 2005 with two revisions. The first revision eliminated the three year delay before newly-hired administrators could apply for tenure. The second revision states that when the applicant turns in an application, their department will be asked to provide an assessment of the applicant. This assessment will become part of the dossier and will be advisory to the DPC.]
Meetings in April and May 2005
1. There was a discussion of the advising award. While the Committee supports advising, it does not feel that the advising award is a matter which concerns the Committee.
2. The Committee reviewed the draft Policy and Procedure Recommendations for Graduate
Studies , which was written by the graduate council. The main part of this document is the equivalent of a graduate catalog. The Committee made a number of minor modifications to the part of the document that serves as a graduate catalog and recommended that Congress approve it. [note: it was approved at the May meeting] . The Committee did not recommended approval of
4

the part of the document that deals with the process for making graduate policy. This issue was deferred.
3. On approximately April 20, the Committee recommended making the following changes to
2. undergraduate policy (in all colleges), effective in Fall 2006.
1. The current "3-peat" policy will be relaxed so that students can re-take courses regardless of the previous grade received. The current policy on the number of times a course retaken will remain the same.
RATIONALE: The current policy is to allow students to retake a course only if they got a C-, D, or F. The new policy would allow our students to be more competitive for applying to graduate/nursing/professional programs. (A student who that got a
"C" could retake the course possibly and get an "A"). Not many students will exercise this option, so there will be a minimal drain on resources.
[note: this passed]
When a course is retaken under the "3-peat" option, the average of all grades received for this course will be used for GPA computation.
3.
RATIONALE: The current policy is that GPA calculations use the highest grade received and disregard lower grades. Some universities use averages and others do not. We propose using an average of all grades received because this better reflects the student's academic record. (It is recognized that this change will make it more difficult for weak students to meet minimum GPA requirements.)
[note: this did not pass. Instead, congress passed a motion that the last grade received is the one that is used in the students UHH GPA.]
Transfer courses with a grade of CR (credit) will be accepted for transfer credit regardless of the grade that the other institution uses as a cut-off between credit and no credit.
RATIONALE: The current practice is to accept CR transfer courses only if it can be determined that the students would have gotten a "C" (2.0) or better had they taken the course for a letter grade. It is nearly impossible to get this information.
[note: this passed]
5

Appendix A
Revised Objectives for the Strategic Plan
This is a working draft. It was never approved, either by the APC or by Congress.
It is included here in case it is of interest to some future committees.
6

Possible Revised Objectives for the Strategic Plan
as Revised by the APC in December 2004
The draft objectives are listed with bullets and the Plan Goals are included for reference. The following work was NOT forwarded to Congress because some larger issues with the Strategic Plan merited more immediate attention. This work is included here in case it is of interest to future committees.
Goal I: Maintain a well-rounded mix of liberal arts and professional programs, while distinguishing ourselves by taking full advantage of the extraordinary natural environment and cultural diversity afforded by our island setting.

Ensure that the people of Hawaii Island have access to higher education.

Emphasize studies of the environment, cultures, and societies of Hawai'i, Pacific, and East Asia.

Offer a well-rounded mix of courses and programs appropriate to a liberal arts university, along with selected professional programs that address needs within the local community.
Goal II: Continue to refine and strengthen efforts to fulfill our primary mission to offer high quality undergraduate liberal arts and professional programs.

General education curriculum offers students the opportunity to achieve the knowledge and skills expected

 of an educated person.
Raise the level of academic challenge.
Develop a culture of effective academic programs. [note: indicators will address learning objectives and program review]
Goal III: Build a learning environment that facilitates student development and success.

Increase retention and graduation rates.

Offer stimulating co-curricular programs.

Provide support services to at-risk students.

Improve crucial services such as advising, access to needed courses, and related services such as degree audits and transfer evaluations.

Respond to the needs of a diverse student body, including various ethnic/gender groups, nontraditional, commuter, transfer, and international students, and groups based on permanent residence.
Goal IV: Obtain sufficient resources to support enrollment growth, high quality programs, and enhanced services.

Sufficient funding on a per student basis.


Enrollment growth while retaining a caring, personalized atmosphere and quality of instruction.
Growth in the enrollment of students from the Big Island and other outer islands.
Goal V: Embrace opportunities for dynamic community involvement.

Students contribute to the community through various means, including service learning, internships, and research.

UHH provides the community with services that are natural products of our educational and research programs.

Economic development.
Goal VI: Establish a more effective organization and invest in human capital.

Maintain an open and inclusive governance process.

Maintain a supportive work environment with opportunities for professional advancement.

Maintain a transparent process for setting priorities and allocating resources.
7

Appendix B
Report on Performance Indicators for the Strategic Plan
(note this report was approved by congress at the next meeting with the following modification: omit the last line pertaining to BOR approval, which is not necessary)
8

Report on Performance Indicators for the Strategic Plan
From: Academic Policy Committee
To: UH-Hilo Congress
Date: January 21, 2005
Earlier this academic year, the APC was directed to develop performance indicators for the Strategic Plan.
It was our understanding that our charge was to satisfy WASC requirements by devising a better way of measuring whether or not UHH is reaching the Goals stated in the Plan. The starting point for our work were the previously approved Plan Objectives as well as draft performance indicators that were developed previously. The Committee worked for about a month on this project, and estimated that three months would be needed to complete the job. The following problems soon became evident:
* There are far more Objectives than could ever be realistically measured.
* Many of the so-called Objectives are really broad goals that cannot be measured in a meaningful fashion.
* Some of the Objectives do not have an obvious relationship to the Goals.
The APC is also concerned that there is little point in developing performance indicators unless more fundamental issues are addressed, such as the lack of a process for using the Performance Indicators in institutional planning.
The APC would like to point out that the WASC Visiting Team Educational Effectiveness Review
(March 17-19, 2004) commended UHH on many aspects of its Strategic Plan. WASC also described a number of areas in which our Strategic Plan activities could be improved. For example, WASC noted that it is not "clear how the campus is engaged in the process of determining the successful completion of strategic planning objectives, and how that progress is communicated to the campus community". They also noted that " There are a number of performance indicators stated in vague terms with measures of success that are not definitive. There is also an open-ended timeframe for completing the objectives with few corresponding target completion dates."
The APC therefore recommends that the following resolution be put forward for a congress vote.
"Be it resolved that the Vice Chancellor for academic affairs shall convene a broad-based task force
(composed of faculty, staff, and administrators) formed for the purpose of reviewing the processes surrounding the Strategic Plan. The task force should include the Director of Institutional Research as well as someone (perhaps from Social Sciences) trained in methodology. The charge of this committee would be to...
1. Clarify the purpose of the plan. Is the emphasis to be on public relations, or will it be a working document that guides institutional governance based on measurable objectives?
2. Develop procedures for review, enforcement, performance monitoring, establishment of time frames, and communication of monitoring results with the campus community. In addition, there should be a process for linking the Plan with budget planning.
3. Develop a small number of measurable objectives and meaningful indicators which can be used to monitor how closely we are meeting the Goals of the strategic plan. This process should include the development of operational definitions such as what constitutes a well-rounded mix of programs.
9

The time-frame for this process shall be as follows:
Feb. 1, 2005 VCAA solicits recommendations for appointments to the Task Force from the senates, Deans, HGEA, Library, and Student Affairs
Feb 15
May 1
Sept. 1 committee members are appointed to the Task Force recommendations from Task Force to VCAA consideration by college senates
Oct. 1
Nov. 1 senate recommendation to Congress, to APC
APC recommendation to Congress, to VCAA
Dec. 1 VCAA policy approval by Chancellor
Feb. 1, 2006 BOR approval, send to WASC"
10

Appendix C
Report on the "Guidelines for Contract Renewal, Tenure, and Promotion for Teaching Faculty"
(otherwise known as the P/T Document)
[Note: On March 29, 2005, a revised P/T document was forwarded to Congress by the APC.
Congress approved it on April 1, 2005 with two revisions. The first revision eliminated the three year delay before newly-hired administrators could apply for tenure. The second revision states that when the applicant turns in an application, their department will be asked to provide an assessment of the applicant. This assessment will become part of the dossier and will be advisory to the DPC.]
11

From: Jene Michaud
Chair of Academic Policy Committee
To: Congress Executive Committee
Re: Revisions to Tenure and Promotion Document
Date: March 29, 2005
The APC has finished its review and revision of the UH-Hilo Tenure and Promotion Document for Instructional Faculty (T/P document). We recommend approval of the attached document by the congress.
The starting point for our work was a document that was compiled/written by the CAS Deans office last summer, based mostly on similar previous documents. The senates have had an opportunity for review. The CAFNRM College has resolved that when CAFNRM faculty are being evaluated, there should be at least three members of the TPRC that are from agricultural specialties. As discussed below, however, the current T/P document does not address how the administration composes the TPRC. The APC has reviewed and revised the document written by the CAS Dean's office based on faculty input. We are appreciative of those who provided input. The union has indicated that they will review it after it has been reviewed by the UH-Hilo administration.
Please note that the accompanying document does not address the composition of the TPRC.
According to the current union contract, the administration is responsible for appointing tenured faculty to the TPRC. There are some, for example the CAFNRM College, who feel that the
TPRC should be individualized to each applicant so that there are members of the TPRC that are familiar with the standards of the applicants specialty. There are others who feel that individual panels would not assure consistent standards, and that using the same panel provides consistency across departments. There are those who are concerned that the TPRC is not acting consistently from year to year. In any case, this is an important issue. The committee has decided to separate the TPRC issue from the current document, which is primarily a guide to faculty seeking contract renewal, tenure, or promotion.
LIST OF SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES FROM PROCEDURES IN PRIOR YEARS
1.
As per the new UHPA contract, there is no contract renewal in years one and three.
2.
A CV replaces parts 3A, 3B, and 3C of the application form. Applicants are directed to include a publication list and a grants list in their CV.
3.
Applicants are directed to list adjustments to the 9-credit hour course load, such as grant buy outs, administrative release, and instruction of labs or large lectures.
12

4.
A new section has been added which addresses the procedures by which newly hired administrators are granted tenure.
Academic administrators (directors, deans, vice-chancellors, chancellor) may apply for tenure in a specific department of the after having served in an administrative capacity at the University of Hawai’i at Hilo for two or more years. The application shall go to the appropriate academic department, from which it will be forwarded with the faculty vote to the appropriate Division, School, or College which will treat the application according to the same procedures as all faculty applications for tenure. Tenure shall not be granted unless the procedures above have been followed.
5.
The number of advisees is no longer listed on the form. Instead, applicants are directed to describe the quality and philosophy of their advising efforts.
6.
Applicants are instructed to add additional information to the list of the courses they have taught: (1) the average grade (expressed as GPA) of each course taught, and (2) (optionally) information from questions 20 and 21 of the student evaluations. There is a new table for listing information about courses taught.
7.
The introductory pages and signature pages are different for P/T than for contract renewal.
The middle part of the form is the same for P/T and for contract renewal.
8.
The forth column in the table on p. 10 (how to meet criteria for promotion and tenure) has been eliminated as it illustrates a case for "unusual circumstances and exceptional cases" that we do not wish to encourage.
9.
Clarify who is eligible to serve on DPCs and on the PFF (from which the members of the
TPRC are drawn). It was clear from faculty comments that there was a lot of confusion on this issue.
10.
Expand (slightly) on the suggestions of how to demonstrate teaching effectiveness.
11.
The instructions now note that applicants have the option of asking senior colleagues to submit letters evaluating the impact of their scholarly efforts and impact on the Department's teaching mission.
12.
The page numbers are now automatic instead of part of the text which overflows onto the next page. The applicant's name is now part of a header instead of typed onto every page.
13.
The language which suggested that associate professors applying for tenure would also be applying for promotion to full professor has been changed. It is possible that an associate professor would be applying for tenure without applying for promotion to full professor. (See timetable on about p. 6)
13

14.
Because it is possible that a full professor could be hired without tenure, we have a timetable stating that such persons would apply for tenure in the third year, just like the associate professors.
SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES MADE BY THE APC TO THE DRAFT P/T DOCUMENT
PREPARED BY CAS DEANS OFFICE.
15.
Readers of the T/P document are referred to the UHPA website for the contract; the contract articles are no longer in the appendix of the T/P document. (as per recommendation of the union)
16.
The profiles have been eliminated, as they could be misconstrued or cause union problems.
17.
The annual report has been eliminated as it was confusing. The better features of the annual report have been folded into the contract renewal/P/T form.
18.
The reference to electronic submission has been eliminated.
19.
The language which explicitly discourages assistant professors from seeking early promotion
(in cases where assistant professors were hired with prior faculty experience) has been eliminated.
20.
The appendix which describes duties, responsibilities, and minimum qualifications of tenure track faculty now also describes the duties, responsibilities, and minimum qualifications of instructors (I-2 rank).
14