The brand-new chair of the state Senate Higher Education Committee certainly got the attention of University of Hawaii officials over her bid to cut the budget — but with an approach that’s ill-considered and likely to prove unproductive.

State Sen. Donna Mercado Kim has stirred a hornets’ nest of protest over her budget proposal: to cut some 220 faculty and staff positions, largely from the University of Hawaii at Manoa, in order to reduce spending by $30 million over the next two years.

To be sure, UHM, the flagship campus of the statewide public university system, as well as the system at large, have long endured considerable criticism for top-heavy administration and “deadwood” across the roster of salaried employees. There is a way, even a responsibility, for lawmakers to consider options to make the 10-campus system more cost-effective.

But not Kim’s way. Budget-cutting within a complicated, multi-layered institution requires a scalpel, not a hatchet. Kim is only the latest lawmaker with UH oversight duties who has unwisely devised guidance for assessing potential cuts that lacks nuance and could do real damage.

For example, former state Rep. Isaac Choy, as head of the corresponding committee in the House, once proposed eliminating certain programs and schools that fell below a set enrollment benchmark. That plan failed to consider the effects of losing programs that, while small, provided essential curriculum to related majors.

Similarly, Kim said she based the personnel cuts in her budget proposal on two criteria: whether the faculty member taught undergraduate classes, and whether he or she had brought in research grants over the preceding two years.

“Whoever taught zero classes and had zero grants for two years is what we put on this list,” Kim said.

Her intent was to ensure that the university met the stated goal of making teaching its first priority.

“We need to get this conversation with the university, and we need to look at what the students are getting and are these tenured positions doing what they are supposed to be doing,” she said.

Kim noted the limitations of her plan: “We only have position numbers; we don’t know who these people are. It’s not as if we are picking. We went across the board.”

That’s quite an admission. Kim plainly had not considered other functions employees might fulfill that UH might want to maintain.

Kim’s proposed matrix would permanently eliminate about 100 vacant positions throughout the system and delete about 121 employees at the Manoa campus.

UH may find it hard to defend some of those vacant slots. But Kim apparently didn’t think her plan through. For instance, she did not consider that some of the employees are staff who, while not responsible for seeking a research grant, may be essential to completing that research.

The senator said that “this is not scientific,” and that “we know we’re going to restore most of it.” Budget proposals don’t have to be scientific, but they shouldn’t be thoughtless either, tossed out like a fire bomb.

The union representing faculty has asserted that tenured positions cannot be erased so casually, that singling out individuals amounts to interference with the university’s autonomy over managerial issues.

It’s the role of Kim’s committee to hold the publicly funded university leadership accountable for its management. But the job requires that the work be done with professionalism and care.

Kim’s proposal also is at odds with the House version of the budget. By necessity the two spending plans will be hashed out in conference committee — behind closed doors, away from public view.

The chairwoman has, in her own words, raised “a lot of ruckus.” This is not how a financial restructuring of UH should be conducted. Yes, the university is accountable to the public. But so is the senator.