University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
Mānoa Faculty Senate
UH Mānoa Faculty Senate Committee on Administration and Budget
Reorganization Proposal Consultation and Review Checklist
Senate Committee name:
Reorganization proposal:
Date review completed:
_CAB____________________________________________________________
_Campus Services___________________________________________________
_11/15/13_________________________________________________________
Summary of faculty senate committee review:
Committee consultation with Administration (names and meeting dates): none
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Committee consultation with affected units (names and meeting dates): none
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Other committee consultations (names and meeting dates): none
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Action recommended by the committee (check one):
 Endorse
___ X___
 Endorse with Reservations
________
 Oppose
________
 Returned without recommendation ________
Comments (summary rationale for recommendations): This reorganization of Campus Services has no direct
impact on any faculty because there are no faculty in Campus Services. The most relevant indirect impact is on
the functioning of the Bookstore. CAB feels that the consolidation of branch bookstores (for other campuses)
will be make operations more efficient as will the creation of a new centralized Buying Group to facilitate
purchasing in bulk for economies of scale and a separate Books Department that will serve both Mānoa and
branch bookstores. Also Faculty Housing will be put under the management of an APT also responsible for
Food Services and Mail Services.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Documentation of due diligence in faculty senate review of proposal:
Please provide comments to explain the committee’s rationale for each question. The lower the score, the more
explanation there should be of shortcomings.
I. Adequacy of reorganization proposal documentation
(Score 1 to 5: 1 inadequate, 5 excellent, or NA – Not applicable)
#
1
2
Question
Is the background and rationale for
reorganization explained in sufficient
detail to justify the organizational
changes proposed?
Are the groups affected by the
Comments
Yes, some issues required additional consultation with
the OVCS to clarify.
Score
5
yes
5
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
Mānoa Faculty Senate
reorganization (students, faculty, staff)
identified and the impact of the
reorganization on these groups
explained?
3 Are the supervisor/subordinate
reporting relationships properly
identified?
4 Are the position numbers and position
classifications accurate and properly
listed in the proposal narrative and
organizational charts?
5 Is specific qualitative and quantitative
information provided to explain the
problem being addressed and the
benefits of the reorganization?
6 Are all resource requirements or
savings fully explained?
7 Do the estimated resource requirements
or savings appear to be accurate?
8 Are the estimated annual costs and/or
benefits of the reorganization provided
with an explanation of how these costs
will be funded? (additional costs may
include new positions, position
reclassifications, office furniture or
other expenses.)
9 Will additional or alternative space be
required due to the reorganization?
9a If so, how are the space issues
addressed?
10 Have all documents and
correspondence been posted on the
OVCAFO website?
yes
5
yes
5
yes
4
yes
4
yes
5
yes
5
no
5
NA
NA
Not yet, still awaiting review by unions
3
II. Appropriateness of Administration’s process and consultation
(Score 1 to 5: 1 = process not followed, 5 process followed in the best of faith, or NA - Not applicable)
# Question
1 Is the reorganization being proposed by
the appropriate administrative leader,
and vetted with the appropriate superior?
2 Have the members of the affected unit
been consulted?
3 Has the administration responded to the
unit’s concerns about the reorganization?
4 Has all relevant information been posted
on the appropriate website?
Comments
yes
Score
5
yes
4
NA
NA
yes
4
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
Mānoa Faculty Senate
5 Has the faculty Union been consulted?
6 Has the administration demonstrated
appropriate respect for the consultative
process?
underway
yes
5
5
III. Merits of the proposal
(Score 1 to 5: 1 = proposal lacks merit, 5 =proposal achieves worthy goals, or NA – Not applicable)
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Question
Does the reorganization address or
resolve a problem that has been
identified/experienced?
Have other alternatives been explored
before proposing reorganization, such
as changing work processes?
Is the reorganization consistent with the
University strategic, program and
financial plans?
Is the current organization inadequate
to address the problems experienced?
What are the specific anticipated
benefits of reorganization?
Are the anticipated benefits significant
enough to merit the effort of the
reorganization?
Does the reorganization minimize
confusion over authority, roles and
responsibilities?
Are functional responsibilities
homogeneously grouped under one
organizational unit or are functions
duplicated among or between various
organizational segments?
Are there unnecessary levels of
supervision for the work that must be
performed?
Are there cost savings?
How significant are the cost benefits?
Are additional resources required?
How significant are the costs required?
Is there an impact on the instructional
mission?
Is there an impact on the research
mission?
Is there an impact on the service or
Comments
yes
Score
4
no
2
yes
5
Somewhat unclear, because some the proposed
structure is already in use.
Clearer reporting lines and program titles, better
marketing, more efficient bookstore system
yes
4
yes
5
This reorg consolidates merchandise buying in the
Bookstore Buying Group, book handling in the
Bookstore Books Department and branch bookstores in
a new group.
5
no
4
no
NA
Yes, $81,000 for new/reorg’ed positions
Costs will be covered by existing operating budget
There might be a minor positive impact in that the
Bookstore may become more efficient (we shall see)
no
NA
NA
3
3
5
Should not be
5
5
5
NA
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
Mānoa Faculty Senate
outreach mission?
17 Do the benefits outweigh the negative
impacts?
18 Are any negative impacts of the
reorganization justified?
yes
4
None provided.
4