1 / 18

Mānoa College of Arts & Sciences Reorganization

Mānoa College of Arts & Sciences Reorganization. Report of the Transition Team September, 2008. Two Committees. Working Group (WG) 9 members included faculty, deans charged with MQ/DQ & position description Transitional Team (TT) 20 members

lula
Download Presentation

Mānoa College of Arts & Sciences Reorganization

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  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

More Related