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 OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR OF UHM 4/22/15 Summary of faculty senate committee review: Committee consultation with Administration (names and meeting dates): Chancellor Robert Bley-Vroman, April 8, 2015 Committee consultation with affected units (names and meeting dates): Email exchanges with Mie Watanabe (UH System EEO specialist) 4/3-4/6/15 Email exchanges and face-to-face consultation with Dr. Lori Ideta (Interim VCSA ) 4/3-4/7/15 Email exchanges and telephone conversation with Dr. Clifton Tanabe of MCO 4/1-4/8/15 Other committee consultations (names and meeting dates): _________________________________________________________________________________________ Action recommended by the committee (check one): Endorse ________ Endorse with Reservations ________ Oppose X Returned without recommendation ________ Comments (summary rationale for recommendations): Title IX positionso More specific information should be included in the written proposal about classification of positions (APT, Specialist Faculty, or other) and duties of coordinator versus deputy versus compliant admin support. How does the reorg support Title IX compliance? Communications positionso Written proposal should include justification for the need for maintaining 6 positions (one being the director) and specific focus for each of these positions. In a time when faculty positions are not being filled across some schools and colleges and the general message from the administration is we have budget constraints and will end the fiscal year in deficit, being clear about why this amount of communications staff is necessary will assist the faculty to better understand the requirements of this proposal. Other o Provide individual comments of constituents after they have had a chance to review the reorganization proposal. UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA FACULTY SENATE 2500 Campus Road • Hawai’i Hall 208 • Honolulu, Hawai’i 96822 Phone: (808) 956-7725 • Fax/Polycom: (808) 956-9813 E-Mail: uhmfs@hawaii.edu • Website: http://www.hawaii.edu/uhmfs/ An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution MĀNOA FACULTY SENATE o Chancellor already has an Interim Director of Advancement and a Director of Communications in his office; how are these new & reorganized positions distinct and/or complementary to those? 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 changes proposed? 2 Are the groups affected by the reorganization (students, faculty, staff) identified and the impact of the reorganization on these groups explained? Comments Score Title IX is a federal mandate of U.S. Office of Civil 1 Rights and therefore needs to be addressed but more details are required, i.e., how will this reorganization proposal support Title IX compliance? Justification to expand the Government Affairs function or to improve the Office of Communications is unconvincing. Proposing a Government Affairs office ‘to forge strong relationships to send a unified message on UHM’s priorities and plans to state legislators, government officials and external entities because state and local appropriations for higher education fell 10% in FY13 from Fy09’ does not demonstrate direct causal relationships. Additionally, justification for a 6th Public Information Officer in Communications appears to be unnecessary unless additional information is provided to demonstrate otherwise. The rationale of need for 6 positions (including a Director) and specific focus/functions of each of these positions is requested. List of individuals/offices were identified; however, the 1 comments of each office and/or individuals are not clearly noted. How was the Ombudsman’s Office consulted since there is no one in the office at present? According to the MCO, the Gender Equity Specialist was consulted instead, which is appropriate but not the same as an ombudsman in the opinion of CAB. There is also a civil rights specialist in the Ombudsman’s office, but that individual was reported as unavailable due to a sabbatical leave. Consultations should be noted more accurately. It appears that each of the individuals were not consulted on the written proposal UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA FACULTY SENATE 2500 Campus Road • Hawai’i Hall 208 • Honolulu, Hawai’i 96822 Phone: (808) 956-7725 • Fax/Polycom: (808) 956-9813 E-Mail: uhmfs@hawaii.edu • Website: http://www.hawaii.edu/uhmfs/ An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution MĀNOA FACULTY SENATE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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? Do the estimated resource requirements or savings appear to be accurate? 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.) 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? but were consulted only on the concept of a single Title IX office. As such CAB was unable to assess impact to these groups at this time. Yes to some extent but for example the relationship, if 2 any, between Government Affairs and Communications was not clear. No, it is not clear if the Title IX positions are faculty or 1 staff positions and therefore narrative and charts are deficient. No, data is not provided. 1 No, proposal does not explain how many cases are expected for students and/or employees (workload), current staffing levels, etc., and therefore resource requirements or savings could not be assessed. No. 1 New funding is sought for the Title IX staffing and materials and Title IX’s 3 positions for System are currently being requested through the Legislature through an Omnibus Bill SB325. The question is what happens when funding is not received? How will the federal mandates be addressed between UHM and System, i.e., how will the MCO Title IX office interface with Systems Title IX office? Finally, there is mention in SB325 that existing positions will be converted to Title IX positions at campus units. It is unclear as to where these positions will be converted in this proposal. None 1 NA 5 No 1 1 5 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) UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA FACULTY SENATE 2500 Campus Road • Hawai’i Hall 208 • Honolulu, Hawai’i 96822 Phone: (808) 956-7725 • Fax/Polycom: (808) 956-9813 E-Mail: uhmfs@hawaii.edu • Website: http://www.hawaii.edu/uhmfs/ An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution MĀNOA FACULTY SENATE # 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? Comments Yes Score 5 It appears that individuals and groups were consulted on the concept of the Title IX office, which they were supportive of. However, not all of the consulted groups read the reorganization proposal and therefore in the opinion of CAB they have not been fully consulted. NA 1 3 Has the administration responded to the unit’s concerns about the reorganization? 4 Has all relevant information been posted No on the appropriate website? 5 Has the faculty Union been consulted? Yes –According to UHPA it is not supportive of the reorganization that adds the Government Affairs and Office of Communications. Reasons are that costs are not justifiable. In addition, as of 4/6/15, there has been no response to UHPA’s statement. 6 Has the administration demonstrated No. Consulted individuals/office should have been appropriate respect for the consultative able to review the proposal and/or specific suggestions process? noted, which could have improved the overall proposal. 3 1 1 1 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 Question Does the reorganization address or resolve a problem that has been identified/experienced? Comments Yes, in part, for the Title IX office. But the proposed functional statements are not adequate and clear and need to be worked out further. Score 2 No, regarding the rationale for the reorganization of Offices of Government Affairs and Communications. It did not appear to be the case. 1 Have other alternatives been explored before proposing reorganization, such as changing work processes? Is the reorganization consistent with the Yes, for Title IX. This is not clear for Offices of University strategic, program and Government Affairs and Communications. financial plans? Is the current organization inadequate Yes, for Title IX requirements, the current organization 1 3 2 UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA FACULTY SENATE 2500 Campus Road • Hawai’i Hall 208 • Honolulu, Hawai’i 96822 Phone: (808) 956-7725 • Fax/Polycom: (808) 956-9813 E-Mail: uhmfs@hawaii.edu • Website: http://www.hawaii.edu/uhmfs/ An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution MĀNOA FACULTY SENATE to address the problems experienced? 5 6 What are the specific anticipated benefits of reorganization? Are the anticipated benefits significant enough to merit the effort of the reorganization? 7 Does the reorganization minimize confusion over authority, roles and responsibilities? 8 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? 9 10 11 12 13 14 is not adequate per U.S. OCR. But the reasons for noncompliance are not clearly shown. No, for the rest of the proposal as the rationale has not been well developed. In addition, the Government Affairs position that is being transferred under the Chancellor from Communications to ‘strengthen’ legislative affairs and will be converted from a 4 position office to 1 position. How is this better and what does the individual do during non-legislative session? The Title IX office will assist UHM to better comply with the Title IX requirements although the benefits should be better articulated in the proposal. The benefits of the other two parts of the proposed organization are unconvincing. Yes for the Title IX office although much work lies ahead to make the office truly operational. No for other two offices No, much work is ahead to clarify authority, roles, funding and responsibilities. As an example, more specific information should be included in the written proposal about classification of positions (APT, Specialist Faculty, or other) and duties of coordinator versus deputy versus compliant admin support. How does the reorg support Title IX compliance? Description of the functional responsibilities appears to be incomplete. 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 It is difficult to assess if supervision for the work that is 2 not clearly defined is adequate. None as it is currently proposed. Not evident from the proposal. Yes. $305K. Potentially, if expenses related to the Offices of Government Affairs and Communications could have been better utilized at the campus level for instructional purposes. 1 1 3 3 3 UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA FACULTY SENATE 2500 Campus Road • Hawai’i Hall 208 • Honolulu, Hawai’i 96822 Phone: (808) 956-7725 • Fax/Polycom: (808) 956-9813 E-Mail: uhmfs@hawaii.edu • Website: http://www.hawaii.edu/uhmfs/ An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution MĀNOA FACULTY SENATE 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? None. 5 None. 5 The Title IX office is a mandate therefore we must be compliant once the functions can be better articulated. Benefits for the other two sections are not obvious and therefore benefits do not outweigh negative impacts until additional information is provided. The negative impact of added costs that may be scrutinized as ‘waste’ by external constituents need to be considered. 4 2 1 UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA FACULTY SENATE 2500 Campus Road • Hawai’i Hall 208 • Honolulu, Hawai’i 96822 Phone: (808) 956-7725 • Fax/Polycom: (808) 956-9813 E-Mail: uhmfs@hawaii.edu • Website: http://www.hawaii.edu/uhmfs/ An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution