University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
Mānoa Faculty Senate
UH Mānoa Faculty Senate Committee on Library Services
Reorganization Proposal Consultation and Review Checklist
Senate Committee name: Committee on Administration and Budget_______________________________
Reorganization proposal:
_Library Services__________________________________
Date review completed:
_February 8, 2012_______________________________
Summary of faculty senate committee review:
Committee consultation with Administration (names and meeting dates):
__Alan Grosenheider, Associate University Librarian (Interim) January 25, 2012________________________
Committee consultation with affected units (names and meeting dates): __Library Senate Members on
January 23, 2012_______________________________________________________________________
Other committee consultations (names and meeting dates): __UHPA, Kris Hanselman, Linda Aragon,
January 25, 2012_____________________________________________________
Action recommended by the committee (check one):
 Endorse
________
 Endorse with Reservations
________
 Oppose
___XX__
 Returned without recommendation ________
Comments (summary rationale for recommendations): _Most faculty members in the Library agree that some
reorganization of the library is necessary; however surveys conducted by the Library Senate indicate a minority
of the Library fully endorse the proposed reorganization. A survey conducted by the Library Senate indicated
less than 23% either strongly support or support the proposed reorganization. In contrast, 38.46% of the
respondents strongly oppose the proposed reorganization and 19.23% oppose the reorganization with 19.23%
undecided. This was echoed in the meeting with CAB meeting with the Library Faculty Senate. Most agree
that the library needs some reorganization but the proposed reorganization is drastic, not well justified in the
minds of the faculty. CAB opposes the reorganization and urges opening up the conversation with the library
faculty to sort out differences.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
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
Question
Is the background and rationale for
reorganization explained in sufficient
detail to justify the organizational
Comments
Yes
Score
4
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
Mānoa Faculty Senate
2
3
4
5
6
changes proposed?
Are the groups affected by the
reorganization (students, faculty, staff)
identified and the impact of the
reorganization on these groups
explained?
Are the supervisor/subordinate
reporting relationships properly
identified?
Are the position numbers and position
classifications accurate and properly
listed in the proposal narrative and
organizational charts?
Is specific qualitative and quantitative
information provided to explain the
problem being addressed and the
benefits of the reorganization?
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?
Not fully, one area of affected stakeholders that were
not consulted was the users of the library. Proposed
reorganization would reduce staff devoted to assisting
disciplines; no input from these groups was obtained.
1
Somewhat, concerns were raised about elevating APTs
to have duties done previously by library faculty.
3
Apparently
3
Qualitative information was provided in the
reorganization, however there were concerns raised
about the validity of the information.
3
Cost neutral but with the concerns raised by UHPA that 1
faculty duties will be changed, that new Department
Heads with additional responsibilities may deserve
greater stipends; that APTs duties may be increased
and may require rebranding of the positions, resulting
in greater salary and fringe costs.
Not apparent
3
Proposed reorganization is “cost neutral” however
2
concerns raised by affected parties may actually require
additional costs through rebranding APT positions;
new burdens on Department Heads. No apparent
physical plant costs.
No
NA
NA
NA
Yes
4
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?
Comments
Concerns were raised by some library faculty that the
entire Library administration is “interim” and the
proposed reorganization is the exit plan of the recently
Score
3
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
Mānoa Faculty Senate
retired University Librarian
Consulted, yes; yet concerns were raised by a majority
of library faculty that suggestions for change were not
taken into consideration or ignored.
Has the administration responded to the
Differences of opinion exist on this. Written document
unit’s concerns about the reorganization? and Library administrator indicate that concerns were
taken into consideration and the proposed plan is a 2nd
or 3rd iteration of the plan; yet Library faculty believe
that the plan still is short sited and not fully vetted with
the affected faculty and staff
Has all relevant information been posted Yes
on the appropriate website?
Has the faculty Union been consulted?
UHPA has been consulted and been actively
questioning the reorganization; HGEA might be
affected
Has the administration demonstrated
Again, differences of opinion exist; the administration
appropriate respect for the consultative
views that they’ve been open and forthright; yet many
process?
of the library faculty are unhappy with the process
2 Have the members of the affected unit
been consulted?
2
3
2
4
5
6
4
5
2
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
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?
Comments
Differences of opinion exist; many in the library
believe that some reorganization is necessary yet the
proposed plan fails to be fully justified
According to the Library faculty, there are other
alternatives that could be included in the plan
Score
3
Not apparent
3
Clearly yes, the case is well made for some
reorganization and the faculty agree that some
reorganization is needed but there are problems with
the proposed plan.
Improved efficiency
3
Not apparent
3
Definitely no, the Library faculty (many of them) had
problem with the logic of the reorganization and the
placement of existing units with the new proposed
units. Some Department heads would oversee
2
2
3
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
Mānoa Faculty Senate
8
Are functional responsibilities
homogeneously grouped under one
organizational unit or are functions
duplicated among or between various
organizational segments?
9 Are there unnecessary levels of
supervision for the work that must be
performed?
10 Are there cost savings?
11 How significant are the cost benefits?
12 Are additional resources required?
13 How significant are the costs required?
14 Is there an impact on the instructional
mission?
15 Is there an impact on the research
mission?
16 Is there an impact on the service or
outreach mission?
17 Do the benefits outweigh the negative
impacts?
18 Are any negative impacts of the
reorganization justified?
significant faculty and staff; whereas others would not.
Not apparent; the logic of the reorganization was lost
among many of the library faculty
There are reductions in levels of the organization; with
some Department Heads having enormous supervisory
responsibility and others with considerably less.
Proposal indicate cost neutral but others have
suggested that there could be significant salary costs
due to rebranding of APTs, requiring greater salary and
fringe benefit costs
Not obvious
No physical plant requirements
Claim to be cost neutral yet other contend there will be
significant costs.
The amount of staff devoted to subject areas will be
reduced, e.g. a librarian that once handled social
sciences may have additional responsibilities to serve
natural sciences and other areas; reducing the
effectiveness because the subject matter librarian
cannot fully understand the other disciplines
Stakeholders who use the library for research support;
e.g. faculty and graduate students appear not to have
been consulted in the reorganization plan and the
proposed plan will reduce the amount of staff devoted
to serving the subject matter areas; staff will have to
take on additional responsibilities reducing the overall
effectiveness of the library to assist the research
mission
Outside stakeholders within UH-M appear to have not
been consulted.
Not apparent – some reorganization will bring
efficiencies, in particular the loss of confidence with
library faculty and staff
No
2
2
2
3
4
2
2
2
2
2