March 30, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Dr. Barbara A. Beno, Executive Director
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
Western Association of Schools and Colleges
FROM:
Mark Silliman, Ed.D., Chancellor
SUBJECT:
Progress Report from Leeward Community College
Enclosed are three (3) paper copies of the
Progress Report
(including the Attachments) from
Leeward Community College, University of Hawai‘i, due to the Commission by April 1, 2005, as
directed by the Commission’s corrected “action letter” to the College dated January 31, 2005.
As required by the ACCJC guidelines on the “Preparation of a Progress Report with a Visit,”
an electronic copy of the Progress Report and Attachments has also been transmitted to the
Commission office by e-mail (accjc@accjc.org).
The ACCJC guidelines on the preparation of a Progress Report require the Report to be reviewed
by the Governing Board prior to its submission. Please be informed that, as of this writing, the
Board of Regents (BOR) of the University of Hawai’i is anticipated to review Leeward CC’s
Progress Report, together with the Progress Reports to ACCJC of the six other University of
Hawai‘i Community Colleges, at its meeting on May 19-20, 2005.
However, in order to meet the Commission deadline of 4/1/05 and following appropriate
consultation between the UH System’s Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs
(Community Colleges) and ACCJC, Leeward CC’s Progress Report is being submitted to ACCJC
prior to BOR review with the understanding that ACCJC will be informed about the official
action taken on the Progress Report by the Board of Regents at its May 2005 meeting, and that a
revised Progress Report will be submitted to ACCJC should the BOR require any changes to the
report.
University of Hawai‘i
LEEWARD COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Office of the Chancellor
96-045 Ala ‘Ike, Pearl City, Hawai‘i 96782-3393
Telephone: (808) 455-0215, Facsimile: (808) 455-0641, http://www.lcc.hawaii.edu
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
Dr. Barbara A. Beno, Executive Director
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
Western Association of Schools and Colleges
Page 2
As indicated below, a copy of Leeward CC’s Progress Report (including Attachments)— together
with a copy of this memorandum—is also being mailed this date to each of the following two
other team members (in addition to Dr. Barbara Beno) who comprise the three-member visiting
team who will be conducting a special “group-colleges” visit, on Thursday, 4/7/05, in Honolulu,
Hawai‘i at the UH Community Colleges System Office, with representatives from Hawai‘i
Community College, Leeward Community College, and Maui Community College: Mr. Joseph
Richey, ACCJC Commission Chair, and Dr. Marie Smith.
If there are any questions, please contact the LCC Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer,
Dr. Peter Quigley, at 808/455-0440 or quigleyp@hawaii.edu.
Enclosures (3)
CC (with a copy of the LCC Progress Report):
Mr. Joseph Richey
Dr. Marie Smith
Dr. Peter Quigley, Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer, LCC
Dr. Robert Asato, Accreditation Liaison Officer, LCC
Ms. Lani Uyeno, Co-Coordinator, Institutional Self Study, LCC
PROGRESS REPORT
Prepared for the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
Western Association of Schools and Colleges
by
Leeward Community College
University of Hawai‘i
96-045 Ala ‘Ike
Pearl City, HI 96782-3393
March 30, 2005
____________________________________________
Mark Silliman
Chancellor
Leeward Community College
,
page iv
PROGRESS REPORT
University of Hawai‘i
Leeward Community College
March 30, 2005
Back to top
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I
Background ............................................................................................... 1
Statement on Report Preparation ................................................................ 3
SECTION II
Response to the Requests of the Commission in the Action Letter:
A. Recommendation 2:
Policies and Procedures to Ensure
Institutional Effectiveness and Program Review . ......................................
5
B. Recommendation 4:
UH System Structure: Staffing and Funding ..........................................
10
C. Recommendation 5:
Salary Placement Policies and Practices ................................................
14
D. Recommendation 6:
Function and Authority of
Associate Vice Presidents and Staff ......................................................
16
E. Recommendation 7:
System and Board Support for Student Learning
Programs and Services .......................................................................
20
ATTACHMENTS ...................................................................................... 22
Background,
page 1
SECTION I
Background
At its meeting in January 2005, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior
Colleges (ACCJC) of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges reviewed Leeward
Community College’s Progress Report (dated September 9, 2004) and the report of the
evaluation team that visited the College on October 25, 2004. As indicated in its action
letter dated January 31, 2005, the Commission accepted the College’s Progress Report,
continued the College’s Warning status, and required a Progress Report by April 1, 2005 to
be followed by a visit by Commission representatives. (See
Attachment A
or the website,
http://www.lcc.hawaii.edu/ac2006/ter/ACCJC_letter_050131.pdf
)
The action letter contained five “University of Hawai‘i System Recommendations” to be
addressed in the next Progress Report. These recommendations are enumerated below.
In a separate action letter, also dated January 31, 2005, to University of Hawai‘i (UH)
Interim President David McClain, the Commission notified the President that it had
placed six of the seven UH Community Colleges (including Leeward Community College)
on Warning. Although Hawai‘i Community College was the only college not placed
on Warning status, it was nonetheless required to submit a report on its own progress
in developing and implementing “an integrated program review system that leads to
institutional improvement.”
The action letter to the UH Interim President contained the five UH System
recommendations repeated in the respective action letters to the seven UH Community
Colleges (UHCCs). The Commission action to place the majority of the UHCCs on
Warning was taken after the Commission had reviewed the UH System’s October 2004
“Progress Report on the Substantive Change Request Related to the System Reorganization
and Other Commission Recommendations” and the report of the ACCJC team that had
visited the UH System in November 2004. The findings, conclusions, concerns, and issues
that gave rise to the five UH System recommendations are articulated in the visiting team
report.
As indicated in the Commission’s action letter to Interim President McClain, the
Commission accredits colleges, not systems. Quoting the ACCJC “Policy and Procedures
Background
,
page 2
for the Evaluation of Institutions in Multi-College/Multi-Unit Districts or Systems,” the
Commission informed the President as follows:
“When a team identifies serious inadequacies in the performance of district/system
functions, such a deficiency could jeopardize the accreditation of one, some or all of the
district/system’s colleges. Responsibility for correcting this deficiency will be placed on
the district/system offices as well as on the college(s) in question.”
By consensus of the UH Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs (Community
Colleges) and the Chancellors of the seven UHCCs, the seven colleges, in their respective
Progress Reports, would address any campus-specific recommendations contained in their
respective action letters and also incorporate the UH System’s response to the five UH System
recommendations.
Leeward Community College, which did not have campus-specific recommendations, is
providing an update on additional progress to date in the area of program review, as well as
responses to the UH System’s recommendations.
The five UH System recommendations addressed in the Progress Report are the following:
Recommendation 2:
The team recommends that the UH Community
Colleges develop policies and procedures to ensure:
• That the community colleges engage in regular assessment of
institutional effectiveness, including programs review;
• That the community college system as well as each college set
priorities for implementing plans for improvement that are based on
analysis of research data;
• That the colleges and the UHCC system incorporate these priorities
into resource distribution processes and decisions;
• That the colleges and the UHCC system develop and employ
a methodology for assessing overall institutional effectiveness
and progress toward meeting goals expressed through plans for
improvements; and
• That the colleges and the UHCC system report regularly to internal
constituencies and the Board on this progress. Standards I.B, II.A.1
and 2, II.B.3.a, II.B.4, II.C.l.e, II.C.2, III.A.6, III.B.2.b, III.C.1 and 2,
III.D.l.a, IV.B.2.b, and the Preamble to the Standards)
Report Preparation,
page 3
Recommendation 4:
The team report of April 2003 required the University
of Hawai‘i Community Colleges to submit a report on how the University of
Hawai‘i system structure has been finally staffed and funded.
Recommendation 5:
The Team recommends that the University of Hawai‘i
review its salary placement policies and practices, assures that those policies
are available for information and review by institutional employees, and
assures that they are equitably administered to all employees, including all
administrative staff. (Standards III.A.3 and 4)
Recommendation 6:
The UH Community Colleges and the University of
Hawai‘i system should identify more clearly the community college system
functions and authority assigned to the two Associate Vice President offices
and staff, and communicate those to the colleges and the University System-
wide Support. Both organizations must then design workflow and decision-
making processes that allow the Community College System-wide support staff
to provide support and delegated authority in areas of academic planning,
administrative (including personnel) and fiscal operations. (Standards IV.A.5,
IIIA.3, 1B)
Recommendation 7:
The UH Community Colleges should identify and
implement the means to ensure that the Community College governance
system at the system head and board levels meets accreditation standards by
developing and implementing policies and processes that ensure the quality,
integrity, and effectiveness of the student learning programs and services.
(Standards IVB, all)
Statement on Report Preparation
Background
Upon receipt of the Commission’s January action letter, Chancellor Mark Silliman informed
the campus community about the Commission’s decision to continue the College on Warning
status. He articulated the need to fully address and resolve the recommendations and related
concerns contained in the action letter.
The ACCJC action letter dated January 31, 2005 and the evaluation report of the ACCJC
visiting team were distributed in pdf format via e-mail to the campus community on February
4, 2005. In that e-mail, Chancellor Silliman explained and summarized the action letter
(
Attachment B
) and provided a link to the College’s accreditation webpage.
Report Preparation
,
page 4
In mid February, the Council of Chancellors met to decide on future actions. This meeting was
followed by a conference call with Executive Director Barbara Beno.
Process of Report Preparation
The System response to Recommendations 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 was prepared by the UHCC’s
Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs.
The preparation of the Progress Report relied on input from the College’s administrative team,
the Assessment Analysis Team, the Faculty Senate Program Review Committee (FSPRC) Chair,
the Accreditation Liaison Officer, the Strategic Plan Coordinator, and faculty and staff involved
in program and area assessments. Their collective work played a pivotal role in providing the
necessary information and documents required for the preparation and writing of these sections
of the report.
Report Writing
The System response to Recommendations 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were received from the Office of the
UHCC Associate Vice President and are included verbatim.
The principal writers of the LCC Responses were Bob Asato, ALO; Lani Uyeno, Strategic
Planner; Kathy Hill, Assessment Coordinator; with supervision by Peter Quigley, Chief
Academic Officer.
Review and Approval of Report
In March 2005, the campus constituencies were notified of the March 30 deadline for a review
of the Progress Report. Both the Faculty Senate and the Campus Council were advised of the
short timeline and the need to expedite the approval process due to the internal deadline for
Board of Regent’s approval.
The Chief Academic Officer distributed a draft of the report for review via email and feedback
from the College governance groups.
The Campus Council reviewed and approved the report with modifications on March 17, 2005,
and the Faculty Senate reviewed the report on March 30 2005. Revisions were made in response
to the feedback from the governance groups.
Chancellor Mark Silliman certifies this Statement on Report Preparation through his signature
on the Cover Sheet of this Report.
Response: Recommendation 2,
page 5
SECTION II
Responses to Commission Recommendations
SECTION II A: Responses to Recommendation 2
Recommendation 2:
The team recommends that the UH Community Colleges
develop policies and procedures to ensure:
• That the community colleges engage in regular assessment of institutional
effectiveness, including programs review;
• That the community college system as well as each college set priorities for
implementing plans for improvement that are based on analysis of research
data;
• That the colleges and the UHCC system incorporate these priorities into
resource distribution processes and decisions;
• That the colleges and the UHCC system develop and employ a methodology
for assessing overall institutional effectiveness and progress toward meeting
goals expressed through plans for improvements; and
• That the colleges and the UHCC system report regularly to internal
constituencies and the Board on this progress. Standards I.B, II.A.1 and
2, II.B.3.a, II.B.4, II.C.l.e, II.C.2, III.A.6, III.B.2.b, III.C.1 and 2, III.D.l.a,
IV.B.2.b, and the Preamble to the Standards)
System response
Recognizing that the Commission is concerned that the UH Community Colleges need to
develop an integrated system-wide program review, institutional assessment and improvement
process, the Chancellors met in February to get a briefing from each campus as to their current
policies, practices, and timetable; and to seek agreement on a number of principles that will
guide all campuses in the development and modification of their program review processes.
Following extensive discussion, eight principles were adopted to address ACCJC concerns, meet
UH BOR and Executive Policy requirements on program review (
Attachment 1
); and to provide
system consistency but also enough local control to make reviews meaningful at the campus
level:
• Each instructional and non-instructional program should undergo a comprehensive
review at least once every five years.
• Program reviews shall result in improvement plans that are linked to each college’s
Strategic Plan.
• There shall be an annual report of program data which is analyzed, reviewed, and,
where appropriate, reflected in updated action plans.
• There shall be an overarching commitment to continuous quality improvement.
Response: Recommendation 2
,
page 6
• The program review process shall be collegial.
• Program review information shall be publicly available.
• Comparable measures shall be consistent across campuses.
• Program reviews and resulting plans for improvement shall be used in decisions
regarding resource allocation
The community college chancellors made a presentation (
Attachment 2
) to the Board of Regents
at its March meeting that examined the issues detailed in the January 2005 letter from the
Commission. The presentation included the magnitude of the required program review task
within the community colleges, the planned review schedule for each campus, and the principles
the chancellors articulated to guide the campus processes to comply with both University
policies and ACCJC standards.
Campus Response
The program review process at LCC continues to evolve. It began with a very narrow focus and
has slowly expanded as a result of dialogue and more inclusive participation. Change was based
on new information gained on an almost weekly basis and was instigated by a need to address
emerging issues:
• how will we do program review?
• what do we assess?
• who will do the review and assessments?
• by when?
Initial Efforts: January to August 2004
Leeward Community College’s initial approach to Program Review focused on the assessment
of instructional programs, individual courses, and support areas. At the time of the ACCJC
site team’s visit in October, 2004, initial assessments of student learning outcomes (slo) in all
instructional programs had been completed. Areas and units such as the Chancellor’s Office,
Administrative Services, Student Services, and Academic Services (formerly Academic Support)
had also completed reviews of their respective areas.
As established in the Unit/Area Program Review Policy (May 2003), the Faculty Senate Program
Review Committee (FSPRC) implemented the review process for program slo assessments.
Program assessment activities were organized within the Associate in Arts (AA), Associate in
Science (AS), and Associate in Applied Science (AAS) degrees and certificates constituent to
them.
Response: Recommendation 2,
page 7
A Program Assessment Reporting Form template was used to provide consistency in collection
of data. To ensure the accuracy of describing outcome measures, selection of the data/sample
population, and method of assessment, all Assessment Forms submitted were discussed and
voted upon by the FSPRC before the collection of data. Those that were not approved were sent
back for revision.
By the end of Spring 2004 the initial phase of assessments was completed in all six of the
General Education Outcomes of the AA degree and in selected outcomes in the AS, AAS degrees
and certificates. The Assessment Form for all of these areas were uploaded onto the Assessment
Website (http://campus.leeward.hawaii.edu/group.asp?itemid=1000243)
Implementation of the Support Area assessments began with each area
• Developing a mission statement for its operational areas;
• Establishing goals and objectives;
• Selecting outcome measures;
• Analyzing and reporting on the results;
• Developing action plans for the upcoming year.
Reviews were also completed by the end of 2004 Spring semester.
During the summer, the Institutional Researcher compiled the FSPRC assessment results into a
Program Review Fact Book.
See (www.lcc.hawaii.edu/docs).
August 2004 to Present
In August 2004, the College engaged Julie Slark, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Educational
Services, Rancho Santiago Community College District, as a consultant to examine our progress.
After consulting with Ms. Slark, College leaders began to re-think assessment efforts to include
instruction, academic support, student needs and achievement, and most importantly, to create
a culture of evidence to produce data from which we could take appropriate actions. Several
individuals who were already engaged in research and planning activities participated in the
AAHE Assessment Conference in Glendale, where they began to formulate the College’s
program review model. The four participants became the core of LCC’s Assessment Team, a
group that has worked extensively with program and area assessment leaders on the design and
implementation of assessment projects. The rich dialogues that occurred have spurred a re-
thinking of what we do in our classrooms to support student learning and have provided a basis
for future actions that must be taken. (The revised Program Review Model is shown in
Attachment
C
)
Response: Recommendation 2
,
page 8
The following is a chronology of major events in the development of our Program Review.
• The revised model was shared with the campus community via numerous dialog
sessions during September and October. The intent of these sessions was to build a
common understanding of the terms, processes, and reasons for re-conceptualizing
our existing model, and to illustrate that the support area reviews would be driven
by the findings of College’s assessment of degree programs.
• This dialog was continued by an Assessment Analysis Team under the leadership
of the CAO in October, 2004. This team met with all groups who had completed
assessments of student learning outcomes in the AA, AAS, and AS degrees and
with unit heads from Administrative, Academic, and Student Services who had
assessed the achievement of specific objectives for their respective areas. The
purposes of these meetings were to identify slo or outcome measure assessed; to
determine the validity of the assessment tool and the information gained by the
assessment; and most importantly, to identify changes that could be made to
improve student learning.
• In January 2005, the CAO formalized LCC’s Assessment Program through
the naming of an Assessment Coordinator and Associate Coordinator. The
announcement was part of a Faculty Senate update and included information on
the Assessment Team’s work with program, course, and area assessments.
• An
Assessment Analysis Repor
t summarizing the Team’s findings was prepared and
distributed to the entire campus in February, 2005 (See
Attachment D
.) The
campus community was encouraged to use the Report as a basis for action plans
that would be incorporated in the revisit of the College’s Strategic Plan (SP) during
March, 2005. For the first time in the College’s history, student learning assessment
results will be the basis for the development of action plans in the annual revisit
of the SP. (See email message to faculty in
Attachment E.
) After faculty, staff,
and administrators have submitted action plans, representatives of the campus
governance organizations will collect priorities from their constituencies and will
work with administrators to create the budget.
• Another element of the process is that program and support areas will work
collaboratively in the design of action plans. For example, in the AA general
education assessment of written communication, faculty have pointed out the need
Response: Recommendation 2,
page 9
for a method to collect and access student writing samples, preferably in a paperless
form. In collaboration with the campus’ Educational Media Center, faculty
members have designed an action plan that calls for assigned time for both faculty
and support area personnel to facilitate the design of such a website, as well as to
carry on the initial implementation of the project in its new form. The Assessment
Team anticipates that other general education core areas would be able to use the
website for similar assessments of student learning.
• The Assessment Coordinator and Institutional Researcher are revising the campus’
Program Review Policy.
• LCC’s mission statement has been revised to emphasize student learning as central
to the College’s mission. (See
Attachment F
.)
• The College will administer the Community College Survey of Student
Engagement (CCSSE) in March, 2005. (
See Attachment G
.) This is student survey
that assesses the quality of educational programs, practices, and services.
The building of a culture of evidence has begun with the creation and approval of a new position,
Director of Planning, Policy, and Assessment (DPPA) that has been approved by the campus
governance bodies. The director and his staff will be responsible for ensuring that the results of
assessment are integrated into the College’s Strategic Plan and its budget priorities. The College
has also planned for instituting an enrollment management system so that LCC can more fully
understand what incoming students want as they enter, what they need while here, and where
they go after LCC. We have also moved a job placement position from extramural to general
funds so we can place and track students as they become employed. Finally, the analysis of the
degree program assessments strongly indicated a need for assigned time for instructors involved
in these efforts, which resulted in an action plan that the college reallocate a percentage of its
yearly budget to ensure the measurable improvement in student learning.
Leeward Community College’s Program Review process is the vehicle by which the campus
engages in regular assessment of institutional effectiveness. Through systematic collection
and review of student learning assessment and effectiveness measures, faculty, staff, and
administrators identify and address concerns and make improvements to ensure that programs
meet their goals and address the College’s mission.
Response: Recommendation 4
,
page 10
Currently, Strategic planners work with project directors in the carry-through and assessment of
their actions plans. Because these plans are developed to support the goals and objectives of the
College, assessments reflect the College’s improvement. Results of the action plan assessments
are published annually and shared via email with the campus community, as well as with
the larger community. (See http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/sp/03-04SPAssess%20Report.
pdf for a sample copy of the last SP Assessment Report.) A more comprehensive assessment
of institutional effectiveness is scheduled for Spring 2006, when LCC will engage in its
first complete Program Review. At that point, common data elements on student learning
achievement, faculty and staff, curriculum, support, and external input will be included. Results
of the Program Review will be communicated with the College, the UHCC System, and the
Board of Regents.
Additional Action to Be Taken by the College
Approval of the revised Program Review Policy by campus governance.
Continue implementation of Program Review
SECTION II B: Responses to Recommendation 4
Recommendation 4:
The team report of April 2003 required the University
of Hawai‘i Community Colleges to submit a report on how the University of
Hawai‘i system structure has been finally staffed and funded.
System response
The December 2002 University system reorganization resulted in the creation of a Council of
Chancellors reporting directly to the President. Represented in this council are chancellors of
each individual campus throughout the UH system, including a chancellor for each community
college. The reorganization also eliminated the Office of the Senior Vice President and
Chancellor for Community Colleges and reassigned the support functions of system community
college staff to various system-level vice presidential offices; established the office of the Vice
President for International Education; established the office of the Chief of Staff; and transferred
the Office of Research Services from the UH Mānoa campus to the office of the Vice President
for Research.
The 2002 system reorganization was premised in part on an assumption of a major infusion
of funding, which was requested from the Legislature, but not provided. In November 2004,
as requested by Interim President David McClain, the Board of Regents approved a system
Response: Recommendation 4,
page 11
reorganization that realigned the organizational structure to more closely fit the University’s
operating and administrative needs given the available resources. The reorganization was based
on models from other similarly sized multi-campus public university systems.
The purpose of the reorganization was to streamline the University’s system level organizational
structure while continuing to provide academic and administrative coordination to the
autonomous campuses. The number of Vice Presidents (plus the Chief of Staff position) was
reduced from eight to five through function consolidation and relocation. The new organization
preserved previous Board action designed to promote and facilitate campus autonomy
as represented by the Council of Chancellors in balance with system wide academic and
administrative coordination provided by system office executives.
The reorganization reduced the number of direct reports to the President from 18 executives to
15 executives as listed:
• Vice President for Academic Planning and Policy (retitled from Vice President for
Academic Affairs)
• Vice President for Research
• Vice President for Student Affairs
• Vice President for Administration
• Vice President for Budget and Finance/Chief Financial Officer
• Chancellor, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
• Chancellor, University of Hawai‘i at Hilo
• Chancellor, University of Hawai‘i at West O‘ahu
• Chancellor, Hawai‘i Community College
• Chancellor, Honolulu Community College
• Chancellor, Kapi‘olani Community College
• Chancellor, Kaua‘i Community College
• Chancellor, Leeward Community College
• Chancellor, Maui Community College
• Chancellor, Windward Community College
The community college campuses and system support offices comprise a single state
appropriation, and therefore tare managed as a separately fiscal entity. In FY 2002, prior to the
system reorganization, the Community Colleges system had 1,602.25 total positions and total
annual expenditures of $116,121,050. Table 1 details the distribution of positions by campus
and Systemwide support.
Response: Recommendation 4
,
page 12
Table 1
Following the system reorganizations in 2002 and 2004, and additional legislative
appropriations to campuses in FY 2003, the Community Colleges system had 1,610.25 total
positions and total annual expenditures of $120,510,565 (Table 2). In the process of making
those changes, the number of positions in the “Community College Systemwide Support”
category was reduced from 41.25 to 32.25 as positions were reallocated to either community
college campuses (7.0 positions), or University system functions (2.0 positions). The FY 2003
legislative appropriations included 8.0 positions and $611,121 for operational improvements
(Windward CC, Maui CC, and Kauai CC), and 2.0 positions and $144,644 for workforce
development programs (Honolulu CC). The need for additional resources was identified as part
of the community college assessment and budget request prioritization process.
Table 2
The current Board of Regents’ approved University system tables of organization and community
colleges campus’ tables of organization are located in
Attachment 3.
Response: Recommendation 4,
page 13
At the same November meeting, the Board approved the establishment of a new Executive
Class, Vice Chancellor, Community Colleges (CC), to which the following community college
managerial positions were allocated:
Dean of Instruction to Vice Chancellor (Academic)
Hawai‘i Community College
Honolulu Community College
Kapi‘olani Community College
Leeward Community College
Maui Community College
Dean of Student Services to Vice Chancellor (Students)
Maui Community College
Director of Administrative Services to Vice Chancellor (Administrative)
Hawai‘i Community College
Honolulu Community College
Kapi‘olani Community College
Maui Community College
There were no additional costs associated with the retitling of these managerial positions as the
College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) indexing
remains the same.
Campus Response
The College has been engaged in a review of its organizational structure. From August, 2004
through February, 2005, the Reorganization Committee, with broad-based, campus-wide
membership, met and discussed the administrative levels of the College. In February 2005,
the College governance groups, the Campus Council and the Faculty Senate, approved the
Reorganization Resolution, which included the conversion of our Director of Administrative
Services to a Vice Chancellor (Administrative) position.
Response: Recomendation 5
,
page 14
SECTION II C: Responses to Recommendation 5
Recommendation 5: The Team recommends that the University of Hawai‘i
review its salary placement policies and practices, assures that those policies
are available for information and review by institutional employees, and
assures that they are equitably administered to all employees, including all
administrative staff. (Standards III.A.3 and 4)
System response
In fall 2001, the University Board of Regents adopted a revised Executive/Managerial
Compensation Policy that called for salaries to be indexed to College and University Professional
Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) national salary benchmarks. The policy calls
for new Executive and Managerial employees to be normally hired at least at the median but
no higher than the 80th percentile salary of the applicable College and University Professional
Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) comparable class. The policy calls for interim
appointees’ salaries to be set at no less than the 20th percentile and no more than the median of
the respective class. This policy is in Board of Regents Policy, Chapter Nine - Personnel, and is
available to all on the Board Web site.
In addition, Transition Guidelines were also presented that called for salary adjustments to be
made for continuing Executive/Managerial personnel, subject to availability of funds, who were
performing above the fully satisfactory level. This salary adjustment was planned to allow the
University to hire and retain administrative personnel. The reorganization plan called for salaries
to be adjusted in 2003.
The Board of Regents adopted salary adjustment schedules for Executive and Managerial
position adjustments laddered over time and budget cycles. The first executive adjustments
were to be effective 7/1/02 (20th percentile), 7/1/03 (20th percentile), 7/1/04 (40th percentile),
7/1/05 (40th percentile), and 7/1/06 (median percentile). The first managerial adjustments
were to be effective on July 1, 2002 bringing all managers up to the 20th percentile, the second
adjustment to be effective July 1, 2003, to the 40th percentile, and the final adjustment to
be effective July 1, 2004 bringing all managers to the median CUPA-HR comparable level.
Implementation of the salary adjustment schedule for incumbents was delayed. The first level
adjustment was effective July 1, 2004.
Acknowledging that the high cost of living in Hawai‘i was a detriment to attracting new staff
from outside the state, the University hired new administrators from outside the system at the
target 50th percentile, and then decided in fairness it should hire current employees who were
Response: Recomendation 5,
page 15
going to new jobs within the system at the 50th percentile. In addition, as part of the first
reorganization (December 2002) there was a plan to adjust Community College Chancellors
salaries in the 2003-4 fiscal year.
In fall 2004, the Board of Regents’ delegated to the President authority to approve personnel
actions related to managerial positions and incumbents in those positions, provided that
managerial appointments above the median and salary adjustments for incumbents above the
60th percentile of the applicable CUPA-HR comparable class or appropriate equivalent salary
survey will require Board approval.
In December 2004, following consultations with the Chancellors, the President approved using
the funding available for executive and managerial salary increases to bring all incumbents
up to the 20th percentile of the CUPA-HR for their comparable class. In addition, the
Chancellors were asked to recommend to the President for his approval, salary adjustments
for managerial incumbents to bring them into alignment with their newly appointed peers. In
November 2004, the Board of Regents approved salary adjustments for executive positions,
including Chancellors and Associate Vice Presidents to bring their salaries at a minimum to the
20th percentile of the CUPA-HR for their classification.
The community colleges and the University system offices supporting the community colleges
have a total of sixty-four management level positions, twenty-one classified as Executive
positions that require Board of Regents’ approval for any salary adjustment, and forty-three
classified as Managerial positions requiring the President’s approval for salary adjustments up to
the sixtieth percentile of the CUPA-HR schedule.
An examination of Executive salaries on March 14, 2005 indicates that there were four recent
new hires, three appointees were placed at or above the CUPA-HR 40th percentile for the
position and one was placed between the 20th percentile and the 40th percentile. In the case
of incumbents, seven (50%) currently have an annual salary at or above the CUPA-HR 40th
percentile for the position, while seven (50%) have a salary that is between the 20th percentile
and the 40th percentile.
An examination of Managerial salaries on March 14, 2005 indicates that there were six recent
new hires, of which four appointees were placed at or above the CUPA-HR median for the
position and two were placed below the median. In the case of twenty incumbents who were
in their positions at the time the policy was adopted, eleven (53%) currently have an annual
salary at or above the CUPA-HR median for the position while ten (47%) have a salary below
the CUPA-HR median.
Response: Recommendation 6
,
page 16
There are fifteen Executive and Managerial positions filled on an acting or interim basis; all the
individuals filling these positions have a salary that is at or above the CUPA-HR 20th percentile
for the position they hold.
A table of the current community college managerial and executive personnel salaries relative to
the CUPA-HR median is located in
Attachment 4
.
Campus Response
No campus specific response required.
SECTION II D: Responses to Recommendation 6
Recommendation 6:
The UH Community Colleges and the University of
Hawai‘i system should identify more clearly the community college system
