Tag Archives: University of Hawaii

Faculty union board under pressure following vote to drop NEA affiiliation

5 Replies

Opponents of the recent decision by the board of the faculty union board’s decision to end its affiliation with the National Education Association are organizing on several fronts to reverse the decision.

• A petition is being circulated calling for the board “to rescind the vote to disaffiliate from NEA.

The petition begins: “We want our voices to be heard. We want leadership that actively engages us in important decisions.”

The overriding complaint seems to focus on the board’s distance from the faculty.

“Despite the year of discussion the Board had about disaffiliation, the Board failed to engage us in meaningful discussion until the eleventh hour, just two weeks before the Board’s vote to disaffiliate.”

• Opponents of disaffiliation have been soliciting support for candidates running for seats on the board who will vote to overturn the board’s prior decision.

• And NEA has been recruiting volunteers for a “virtual phone bank” on April 13 and April 20 reaching out directly to UHPA members.

In an email soliciting volunteers, NEA wrote: “We are phoning members to find out their opinion on the recent board vote to disaffiliate and get them to turn out for a membership meeting at the end of April. The phoning?will happen between the hours of 10 am and 2 pm Hawaii time: 1 pm and 5:00 PDT; 4 pm to 8 pm EDT.?

NEA also reported on the result of an earlier effort: “In 90 minutes, the 28 people calling dialed over 500 numbers and talked with 95 members. Many people in Hawaii still have land lines and they answer the phone when they are?home. We are still following-up with some of the people who wanted to become active.”

UHPA fired back yesterday with an email to its members.

“NEA’s communications are designed to undermine the UHPA elected leadership and the By-laws of our union,” UHPA’s email charged. “The NEA direct communication with members also challenges UHPA’s role as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for the UH faculty through attacks on leaders that do not agree with them.”

UHPA also claimed an exclusive right to use the university’s email system for union business, and alleged that use by members to communicate via email on UHPA issues without its approval is a violation of the State Ethics Code.

“UHPA has not authorized any other persons, faculty members or organizations to use the UH system email for communications with faculty regarding UHPA or its role as bargaining agent,” the email said.

Frankly, that sounds like quite a stretch, and perhaps an indication the opposition has hit a nerve.

Another bit of University of Hawaii history: Carey Miller turned down first offer

1 Reply

When nutritionist Carey D. Miller was first invited to join the University of Hawaii faculty as an assistant professor, the invitation came via a Western Union Telegraph directly from UH President Arthur Dean.

The telegram, sent on April 1, 1922, was short and direct.

MRS CHENEY AND DR NORGAN SUGGEST YOU TO TAKE CHARGE DOMESTIC SCIENCE UNIVERSITY HAWAII ASSISTANT PROFESSORSHIP TWENTY SEVEN HUNDRED PLUS STEAMER FARE SAN FRANCISCO TO HONOLULU WIRE ME AT STEWART HOTEL WHETHER OR NOT INTERESTED
ARTHUR DEAN.

Her initial response was brief, the text handwritten and edited before being dictated to a Western Union clerk.

On further consideration decide I cannot accept Hawaii position.

Dean persisted. A follow-up telegram stressed the importance placed on renewed research into the nutritional content of Hawaii fruits and vegetables, said a 45 percent increase in “women undergraduates” meant likely increases in the number of students taking Domestic Science classes, and promised to invest university resources to build up the department.

“Will you reconsider decision,” Dean asked.

It paid off. This time Miller appeared to relent.

She responded:

With chance for nutrition work will consider assistant professorship three thousand plus steamer fare San Francisco to Honolulu nine or ten months session stop Is this right Stop Wish to talk further to Mr. Hemenway where can I reach him in New York Will letter to San Francisco reach you.

The series of telegrams are among Miller’s personal papers and other items left in my mother’s care after Miller’s death in 1985. Miller had been my mother’s mentor at UH in the 1930s, and the two remained good friends throughout Miller’s life. The exchange of telegrams turned up last week while my sister and I were starting the job of clearing a storeroom at my parents’ home in Kahala.

Along with the telegrams in a four page handwritten letter from the UH president to Miller.

It began:

I was glad to receive your letter of April 12 which made clear your acceptance of the position with us; it was not wholly certain from your telegram.

Dean’s letter went on to discuss travel arrangements on a Matson liner to Honolulu (“The best I could do was an upper in room 20 which is fairly good”), the class schedule, and housing in Hawaii.

And that was the beginning of Miller’s nearly 40-year career at the University of Hawaii.

I’ve scanned the telegrams and Dean’s handwritten letter, and also transcribed the letter for easier reading.

OIP opinion slams UH on concert report secrecy

13 Replies

The University of Hawaii should have made its fact finding report on last year’s Stevie Wonder concert fiasco public in its entirety, with the exemption of two brief items covered by a privacy exemption to the state’s public records law, according to a memorandum opinion issued last week by the Office of Information Practices.

The two specific reductions were the only ones found to be legally justified out of hundreds or perhaps thousands of items that were whited out before the reports were made public.

The opinion was issued in response to a request from Senate President Donna Kim, who led the special committee on accountability that probed the failed concert in a series of high profile public hearings. During the hearings, Kim and other senators were highly critical of the university’s lack of transparency and failure to publicly disclose relevant documents.

OIP’s opinion includes scathing comments obviously directed at the law firm of Torkildson, Katz, Moore, Hetherington & Harris, which was contracted by the university to make any necessary redactions.

During the Senate’s hearings last fall, attorney Jeffrey Harris repeatedly defended the numerous redactions with a stock answer: “Individual names were redacted out of respect for the personal privacy of the individuals involved.”

However, according to OIP:

…for the vast majority of redactions it was clear from the language of the UIPA, from OIP’s published opinions, and from court opinions regarding the UIPA that there was no basis for arguing that the UIPA’s privacy exception might apply.

For instance, UH redacted references to categories of companies and individuals who were not even named; names of units of government and government facilities; names of former UH employees; and names of numerous companies and other entities that are not natural persons. Perhaps due to its decision to outsource its responsibilities under the UIPA, UH’s response to requests for records related to this issue of high public interest appears not to have been supervised by anyone with even a passing familiarity to the actual law governing public record requests, the UIPA. OIP strongly recommends that UH ensure that in the future those responsible for responding to record requests on UH’s behalf, whether UH employees or otherwise, be competent in dealing with the UIPA. [Emphasis added]

According to OIP, only two redactions were justified–the name of a person who made a $50,000 personal loan to the concert promoter, and a brief reference to the promoter’s medical condition.

The OIP opinion addresses at length the university’s claim, based on the advice of the Torkildson firm, that the redactions were justified by two exemptions to the statute’s public disclosure requirements.

OIP also said any redactions should have been made by blacking out the information so that the public is aware deletions were made. The university reports were redacted using white-out, so not all redactions were obvious to readers.

OIP directed the university to remove the unjustified redactions and publicly release new and complete versions of the report and its several appendices.

Faculty hits Greenwood for lack of communication, consultation

12 Replies

There was a lot of reporting on UH President M.R.C. Greenwood’s appearance at this week’s meeting of the Manoa Faculty Senate, where senators voted by a narrow margin to indefinitely defer a “no confident” vote on the president.

But in all the news coverage, I didn’t see an explanation of the issues that have pushed the faculty to consider the “no confidence” resolution. You may be surprised to learn that most of the issues are unrelated to the Stevie Wonder concert and its aftermath. Instead, they involve the president’s general failure to communicate and cooperate with faculty leaders.

The Faculty Senate’s Committee on Administration and Budget (CAB) cited Greenwood’s overall “disregard of the principles of shared governance,” a foundation value of university administration, and “the pattern of behaviors that disregards seeking consultation with the faculty in matters that directly relate to the activities of the academy.”

The university’s 2013-2015 Biennial budget was drafted “without consultation with faculty and seemingly, UH-M administration,” the committee said.

Another area of contention is Greenwood’s multimillion dollar “innovation initiative,” which proposes to lure 50 “world class” researchers to UH with offers of salaries outside the normal range and promises of financial and administrative support.

The CAB said Greenwood developed the “50 new faculty” proposal without consulting with the Manoa faculty, and “without regard for the impact these positions will have on Schools, Colleges and Departments and individual faculty.”

The CAB regrets that this lack of commitment to consultation and shared governance, which has resulted in the loss of faculty morale, loss of prestige of the University, and perhaps, even loss of respect in our community.

The committee’s full statement on the “no confidence” motion can be found here.