Mānoa College of Arts & Sciences Reorganization

1. Mānoa College of Arts & SciencesReorganization Report of the Transition Team September, 2008

2. Two Committees • Working Group (WG) 9 members included faculty, deans charged with MQ/DQ & position description • Transitional Team (TT) 20 members included students, staff, faculty, chairs, deans 6 of 9 WG members also on TT charged with administrative structure & governance website (http://manoa.hawaii.edu/as-transition/)

3. Overarching Principles • Enhance centrality of liberal arts education • Facilitate inter-/transdisciplinary scholarship & education • Elevate stature of A&S on campus & to the community • Preserve outstanding programs & features that presently exist

4. Comparisons • Survey of Manoa’s Peer & Benchmark institutions ca 60% had single A&S College ca 40% had multiple A&S Colleges • Examined details of single A&S College at different institutions (from above) • Three general models emerged 1) Academic Model 2) Functional Model 3) Hybrid Model

5. Academic Model

6. Academic Model Pros • Closest to present arrangement • More flexibility organizing academic disciplines • Strong sense of identity for faculty, students & community • Greater faculty access to decision-making • Budgetary autonomy closer to departments • Emphasizes academic nature of the university

7. Academic Model Cons • Duplication of functions (not cost efficient) • Difficult to coordinate functional activities • Fragmentation of A&S as a unit • Fewer opportunities for interaction (less interdisciplinary) • May miss opportunity for innovation

8. Functional Model

9. Functional Model Pros • Uniform policies & procedures • Economy of scale • Equal access to support • Coordination more efficient (e.g. database analysis, management information systems, etc.) • Conducive to interdisciplinary education, scholarship, research • Permits new initiatives & strategic programs • Undergraduate education streamlined & coordinated • Department chairs report directly to Executive Dean

10. Functional Model Cons • Large number of departments reporting to Executive Dean making access difficult • Small departments have diminished access or voice • Less flexibility for unique circumstances in departments • Lack of academic deans gives too much power to Executive Dean • Loss of academic/discipline-based identities

11. Hybrid Model

12. Hybrid Model Pros • Executive Dean has more time for broad leadership • Budgetary support of functional units brings University’s vision closer to students • Functional & academic divisions at same level more easily align perspectives & priorities • Separate management of functional & academic activities more efficient • Brings A&S perspective to all programs & initiatives • Policies & procedures consistent across A&S • Equal access & services for all programs

13. Hybrid Model Cons • Coordinating academic & functional priorities & initiatives by the Executive Dean adds substantially to the workload • Priorities of academic & functional units might not agree • Establishment of discrete functional offices might lead to less flexibility

14. Hybrid Model Personnel • Executive Dean (E/M) • Office of Administrative Services (APT) • Office of Alumni & Community Relations (APT) • Office of Research (APT) • Office of Academic Affairs & Student Academic Services (E/M) • Academic Divisions (E/M) • To be determined

15. Hybrid Model $avings • Current 5 College administration (12 FTE) Deans/Associate Deans (9 E/M) Student Advising & SSRI (2 S-Faculty) Office of Community & Alumni Relations (1 APT) • Hybrid Model administration (7/8 FTE) Executive Dean (1 E/M) Dean of Acad Affairs & Student Acad Services (1 E/M) One Dean for each academic division (2 or 3 E/M) Directors of functional offices (3 APT/S-Faculty) • College clerical/APT staff remains same in both

16. Additional Recommendations • Decisions require close consultation with affected units budget, personnel & other resources involve Department Chair, Academic Dean & appropriate functional Dean or Director • All undergraduate advising campuswide should be recombined into a single office under College of A&S (with exception of professional schools)

17. Faculty Discussions • TT & WG reps met with Chancellor to present recommendations (9/30) • Report circulated to A&S & SPAS faculty via Department Chairs & Deans were asked to facilitate discussions (10/1) • TT & WG reps met with various faculty groups to provide perspectives, answer questions and clarify concerns: Manoa Faculty Senate Executive Committee (10/6) A&S Faculty Senate Executive Committee (10/7) SPAS faculty (10/8) Council of Chairs (10/17)

18. Next Steps • A&S Faculty Senate Executive Committee to send out questionnaire to faculty (including SPAS) • Plenary meetings of A&S & SPAS faculty to discuss academic divisions & departmental realignments • Reorganization proposal to be sent to HGEA (Bargaining Units 3 & 8) & UHPA for consultation • Search for Executive Dean