UHHILO FACULTY CONGRESS

Meeting Minutes Meeting

April 28, 2006

Members Present: Philippe Binder, Marilyn Brown, Kelly Burke, Jerry Calton, Rick Castberg, Keola Donaghy, Sevki Erdogan, Robert Fox, April Komenaka, Michael Marshall, Bruce Mathews, Jim Mellon, Jene Michaud, Helen Rogers

ExOfficio Members Present: Randy Hirokawa, Steve Hora, Corinne Tamashiro

Others Present: Kainoa Ariola, Karla Hayashi, Brendan Hennessey, Jean Ippolito, Yumiko Ohara, Larry Rogers, Kenith Simmons, Pila Wilson

Meeting called to order by Congress Chair Jene Michaud at 3:00 pm.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Congress Chair Jene Michaud made the following announcements:

  • The last meeting of the 2005-2006 Congress is scheduled for Friday, May 5 at 3:00 in UCB 245. The 2006-2007 Congress will convene immediately thereafter. New members who have been elected to date include Shuguang Li from CAS Natural Sciences (replacing Jene Michaud), Tom Pinhey from CAS Social Sciences (replacing Rick Castberg), Yumiko Ohara and Mark Panek from CAS Humanities (replacing April Komenaka and Michael Marshall), and Gail Makuakane-Lundin from Student Affairs (replacing Jim Mellon).
  • Brendan Hennessey, the new Institutional Analyst, was introduced. He began working at UH Hilo on April 17, 2006.
  • Each campus has recently presented their "stocktaking" proposals (budget requests for the next biennium) to UH System administrators. The stocktaking presentations may not be on the website yet, but will be eventually at

REPORTS AND ACTION ITEMS

  1. Approval of the minutes of the March 24, 2006 meeting. Approved by acclamation.
  2. Assessment Support Committee

a)Committee report

Chair April Komenaka submitted a written report (available on the Congress website). She mentioned that the “Program Review Schedule 2002-2009” on the second page of the report is already a bit out of date: specifically, Physics & Astronomy has already submitted its report, which is now in the hands of the dean. Rick Castberg asked whether the Administration of Justice (AJ) program would need to undergo review in 2006-2007, as is stated; AJ was included in the Political Science program review in 2005-2006. Both Steve Hora and Randy Hirokawa replied that it would not. (The Chair later submitted a revised report, which is on the Congress website.)

b)Revisions to the Academic Assessment Plan

The Chair reported that the Academic Assessment Plan has not been revised since April 2002, when it was approved by Congress. The committee has revised the plan; a copy of the plan was distributed and is available on the Congress website. A few of the changes highlighted include:

  • The statement on page two at the top, which reads that “the administration shall establish a permanent line for assessment in the annual budget to fund campus training in assessment and to support the recommended actions emerging from program reviews and ongoing program assessment, and agreed upon by departments and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs,” is consistent with practices on other campuses.
  • The statement (also on page two), which reads that “the Alumni Office and Institutional Analyst shall assist all academic programs to gather career and educational information from graduates and shall acquire feedback from employers and other stakeholders as to how effectively programs have prepared graduates for employment and further education,” is a new item.
  • The final section of the Plan includes an Assessment Time Line (what has been accomplished from 2002-2006, goals for 2006-2007, and long term goals). The Chair reported that much progress has been made.

Motion: To endorse the revised Academic Assessment Plan.

Vote: 13 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstained. Motion passed.

  1. Student Success Committee

Chair Kenith Simmons reported on the Student Success Committee. A report was distributed and is available on the Congress website. The charge of the committee was to review recommendations from last year’s Student Success and Retention Committee, as well as other reports pertaining to retention, and to make recommendations on implementing some of the ideas that have been discussed and proposed in the past. The committee focused on three key recommendations: better coordination of enrollment and academic planning, establishing a UH Hilo learning center, and modifying the academic advising model currently used at UH Hilo.

With regard to better enrollment and academic planning coordination, the committee felt that situations must be created in which courses that students need are offered; currently there is no systematic way of doing this. Better data—specifically, predictive data on what courses students need to make progress toward meeting degree requirements and graduating—are needed. The committee also recommended establishing a standing admissions committee, which would include faculty and administrators. Administrators should be included because they are the people who can institute policies and recommendations.

Karla Hayashi, a member of the committee, reported on the recommendation that a learning center be established at UH Hilo. Such a center would provide comprehensive support that many students need in basic skills and content areas. Currently there is no cohesiveness or consistency to tutoring that is available on campus; a learning center would bring consistency to tutorial services on campus but would still allow programs and departments to maintain control over content. The proposed center would bring establish a clearinghouse of tutorial services in one physical location on campus so that students would not have to figure out where to go to obtain tutoring.

Kainoa Ariola, another member of the committee, reported on the committee’s recommendations pertaining to academic advising. The committee is proposing an advising center staffed by professional advisors, who would advise students without or between majors and provide advising on General Education and graduation requirements for students with any major. Advising currently being done by faculty members in departments would change in that they would only be expected to advise students about major requirements, careers, and graduate study; they would also approve modifications for the majors. The goal is ultimately to have four professional advisors: one for CAS Social Sciences, one for CAS Natural Sciences, one for CAS Humanities and General (undecided) students, and one for CAFNRM, COBE, Ka Haka ‘Ula, and pre-professional students. The advisor to student ratio would be approximately 1:750 using that model. The Chair added that the committee is recommending that the deans take the lead in establishing an advising mechanism for departments. For example, a department may choose to have one faculty member in the department do all the advising for its majors; another department may want to conduct advising in groups.

There was discussion about the number of times a student would be required to meet with an advisor. The committee proposed requiring it at two points during a student’s career (one when they enter and the other when they declare or change a major). It was suggested that advising also be required when a student is getting close to graduation. The Chair commented that the committee did not want to mandate that, and that theyhope that students would seek advising at that point anyway and also that in the future students will have access to better tools to assess their own progress toward meeting degree requirements. Years ago students needed to get PINs from advisors before they could register, but there were problems with this because sometimes an advisor was not available.

Robert Fox commended the committee for a good job and encouraged them not to disband. He pointed out that advising by faculty in departments is different--but related--to the kind of advising provided by professional advisors. “Bonding” is closer to the kind of advising that faculty do. He also commented that a central organization for a learning center is a good idea but that there is merit in having more than one place that students can go to for tutoring and to think in terms of having more than one physical site.

Motion: To endorse the report of the Student Success Committee.

Vote: 11 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstained. Motion passed.

  1. Ad Hoc Committee on Undergraduate Interdisciplinary Programs

Chair Jene Michaud reported that an ad hoc committee was formed by Congress to examine issues related to undergraduate interdisciplinary programs. The intention of the committee was to give the administration a foothold in supporting interdisciplinary programs in an efficient manner. The committee invited all directors of interdisciplinary programs to participate. She summarized the findings/major issues as:

  • Coordination and long-term scheduling of courses
  • Budgeting, especially instructional budgets, which is closely related to staffing
  • Cross-listing
  • Determining who gets credit for instructional hours and costs

The committee came up with several recommendations, many of which are of a “housekeeping” nature. A copy of the committee’s report was distributed and is available on the Congress website.

Motion: To endorse the report on undergraduate interdisciplinary programs, forward the report to all parties to whom recommendations are addressed, and recommend that the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs take the lead in coordinating administrative review and implementing recommendations.

Vote: 13 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstained. Motion passed.

  1. Second reading of the proposed modifications to the Congress Bylaws

Chair Jene Michaud explained that the most important modification to the bylaws is to create a standing Congress admissions committee. Other minor revisions include changing wording to reflect the formation of the College of Business and Economics and providing for consistency through the addition of student representatives to the standing committee that did not previously have them. Steve Hora noted that the bylaws stipulate that standing committee chairs will be granted a course reduction of not less than one course per semester, but that currently committee chairs cannot command this course reduction. April Komenaka noted that committee chairs have never been granted course reductions. Robert Fox noted that a few years ago the issue was discussed by Congress with the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, but that the issue was never really resolved; everybody agreed not to push it.

Motion: To approve the proposed modifications to the Congress Bylaws.

Vote: 13 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstained. Motion passed.

  1. General Education Committee

Chair Marilyn Brown distributed two documents: a chart showing the current and proposed UH Hilo General Education (GE) requirements and a proposal for the GE curriculum by the GE Committee. Both documents are available on the Congress website. The committee looked at the work done by the previous GE committees. It was sensitive to the fact that each college may have slightly different concerns with respect to GE and wanted to develop a GE program that would provide for flexibility yet also provide a common GE experience. Courses would have to meet hallmarks to be certified as GE courses. The proposal includes a table that lists issues/concerns and how each was addressed. The committee did not address assessment of GE; this remains important work to be done in the future.

The Chair highlighted some of the major changes:

  • The World Cultures and Hawai’i/Asia/Pacific requirements would be included as “Basic Requirements”;
  • Upper-division courses (in addition to lower-division) would be eligible for GE courses;
  • The “Area Requirements” (Humanities, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences) would require two courses (and a laboratory for the Natural Sciences) (instead of the 9 credits currently required in the Humanities and Social Sciences and the 10 credits in the Natural Sciences);
  • The Writing Intensive requirement would be included as part of GE.

The Chair noted that languages would be eligible as a World Cultures requirement in the proposal; specifically, the second semester or higher of a language course that meets the hallmarks for World Cultures would be acceptable to fulfill a World Cultures requirement. Incorporating a language option into the GE curriculum would encourage students to study a two-semester sequence of a foreign language without putting an unrealizable burden on the resources of the languages department or the administration. The Chair noted that this language option was contentious among committee members, and that several members of the GE Committee submitted a minority report expressing their disagreement with including languages as eligible to meet a World Cultures requirement. Rick Castberg noted that several years ago CAS voted to require one year of language study, and although the policy was never implemented, the CAS vote was never rescinded. Steve Hora said that the CAS vote to require one year of language study applied only to BA degrees and that it was not proposed to be part of GE. Larry Rogers explained that reasons that then-CAS Interim Dean Jerry Johnson did not implement the policy: 1) one year of language study was considered insufficient, 2) GE was in the process of being revised, 3) the absence of a language requirement helps CAS recruit students, and 4) cost. When asked about language faculty who at that time expressed opposition to a language requirement because they did not want students in their classes who were there because they were being forced to take a language course, Larry Rogers replied that there may have been faculty at that time who believed that but that is not the case anymore. Jean Ippolito said that it is her understanding that the administration at the time did not have the resources to fund such a requirement. She said that many students don’t take a language course because it doesn’t fit into GE. The GE Committee considered proposing that language courses could fulfill two of the three Humanities area requirements, but it eventually compromised and proposed allowing a language course to potentially fulfill a World Cultures requirement. It was seen a step in the process of eventually establishing or allowing language courses to fulfill GE requirements.

Discussion also occurred about whether only Mathematics courses would be eligible for the Quantitative Reasoning requirement. It was suggested that courses offered in other departments such as statistics and computer science be included as eligible for this requirement. It was also pointed that if the Writing Intensive (WI) and Hawai’i/Asia/Pacific (HAP) requirements are included as part of GE, then students who transfer to UH Hilo with an AA degree (who have their GE requirements waived for most degree programs) would potentially have the WI and HAP requirements waived as well. The Chair noted that that was an unintended consequence of proposing to include those requirements as part of GE.

Motion: To charge the 2006-2007 Congress with taking up the GE Committee’s recommendations and visions at the first Congress meeting of Fall 2006.

Vote: 13 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstained. Motion passed.

  1. Budget Committee

Chair Jerry Calton distributed a report of the Congress Budget Committee, which is available on the Congress website. He said that this year more faculty were involved in budget processes, and were involved earlier on in the process. The level of faculty engagement in the budget process this year has been higher than at any time in UH Hilo’s recent history. He summarized some of the recommendations in the report, including:

  • The process of faculty engagement should begin earlier;
  • A more open and coordinated discussion and ranking of PCR (Program Change Requests) proposals should be conducted at the college level before it gets to Congress;
  • PCRs based on memoranda or understanding between the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and academic programs that arise out of the program review process should be given a higher budget priority, which would strengthen the linkage between the program review and the budgeting process.

With respect to the recommendation above regarding program review, Steve Hora said that he would like to set aside funds from the upcoming tuition increases to use in the program review process. He feels that currently program reviews are perceived as punitive rather than as a rewarding process.

Motion: To accept the recommendations set forth in the April report of the Budget Committee.

Vote: Unanimous in favor. Motion passed.

Steve Hora reported that the state legislature is still in the process of considering requests for supplemental funds for UH Hilo. Up-to-date information can be accessed at (click on “Legislature” then “Bill Status and Docs”). The House had allocated $4.9 million in supplemental funds to UH Hilo, but the Senate allocated only $2.2 million. At the moment it looks like the final figure may be around $4.3 million. If so, this could be about 50 new positions. The University will be renting office space from the new building on Kilauea Avenue, and some offices that do not interact directly with students may be moved there. In the Hawaii CC budget, there is $2.2 million to pay for utilities and the joint services UH Hilo currently provides for Hawaii CC. With regard to the stocktaking process for the 2007-2009 biennium budget, some of the PCRs that were submitted may need to change depending on the outcome of this year’s supplemental budget requests. High priority was given within UH Hilo Academic Affairs PCRs for positions to resolve “bottleneck” courses (e.g., chemistry, writing, math). More information about UH Hilo’s stocktaking process can be accessed on the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs website (