Documents
Approved by the Mānoa Faculty Senate on May 4, 2011
42 in favor; 23 in opposition
Supporting Documents
| Date | Document & Link | Committee |
|---|---|---|
May 4, 2011 |
CAPP Powerpoint provided at May 4, 2011 Senate meeting | CAPP |
| April 27, 2011 | CAPP response to Council of Academic Advisor's comments | CAPP |
| Comments provided by the Council of Academic Advisor's (CAA) | Council of Academic Advisors | |
| CAPP Data on Repeated Courses | CAPP | |
| April 11, 2011 | CAPP Memo to Chair Hippensteele | CAPP |
| April 10, 2011 | CAPP Report on Repeated Course Grading Option and Formulation of a New Policy on Grade Replacement | CAPP |
| CAPP Data Sample of Student Transcripts | CAPP |
[Pdf]
MOTION TO ADOPT AND TRANSMIT THE NEW GRADE REPLACEMENT POLICY TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS TO BE IMPLEMENTED AS MANOA EXECUTIVE POLICY
Report from Committee on Professional Matters
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa Faculty Senate
November 15, 2010
Second Report Regarding Proposed Amendments to
Criteria for Tenure and Promotion of University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa Faculty
In our October 19 report, the Committee on Professional Matters (CPM) made the following conclusions
and recommendations.
The Committee on Professional Matters does not recommend that UHMFS support the revisions as
proposed. Below, we articulate each of our recommendations.
The five proposed amendments were
regarding
CPM
1. delegated authority for approving
waivers (p.4)
CPM recommends that the UHMFS support amendment #1.
2. articulation of authorship
conventions (p.7-9)
CPM requests additional time to better address the comments
from UHM faculty on amendment #2.
3. associate professor and researcher
tenure and promotion language
(p.10-11)
CPM requests that VCAA’s Office provide the origin of the
“well on their way” phrase and rationale behind the proposed
modification. With the origin of wording and rationale, CPM
will recommend that the UHMFS support amendment #3.
4. Deans' authority to consider dossier
after TPRC assessment (p.15)
CPM requests that amendment #4 be revised to reflect the
exact language of the UHPA contract on p.24 rather than an
interpretation of the contract language. We also ask that the
following be inserted after the contract language.
“Consideration by the Dean is for review only. This step is not
an opportunity for the Dean to provide an additional
assessment .” With that change, we also recommend that
UHMFS support amendment #4.
5. relationship of external evaluator to
faculty applicant (p.19)
CPM requests additional time to better address the comments
from UHM faculty on amendment #5.
In response on October 19, 2010, VCAA Reed Dasenbrock provided rationale for items 2, 3, 4, and 5.
In item 2, VCAA Dasenbrock agreed that the language needs to be further reviewed in terms of authorship
conventions. The committee and OVCAA’s office agreed to continue working on the wording and have a
final version for Senate consideration at the February 2011 meeting. Submission to UHPA is needed in
March 2011 at the latest.
In item 3, VCAA Dasenbrock shared that the wording came from discussion with various unit directors.
CPM now supports item #3.In item 4, VCAA Dasenbrock agreed to remove the changed language and quote the UHPA Contract
language. CPM now supports item #4.
In item 5, VCAA Dasenbrock agreed that the language needs to be further reviewed in terms of external
evaluators and the issue of time and objectivity. The committee and OVCAA’s office agreed to continue
working on the wording and have a final version for Senate consideration at the February 2011 meeting.
Submission to UHPA is needed in March 2011 at the latest.
Recommendations
CPM asks that the Senate vote on items #1, 3, and 4. CPM is in favor of those three proposed changes.
CPM asks that we revisit items 2 and 5 at the February 2011 meeting.