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