Less than a minute into one of the first University of Hawaii briefings of the year before state Sens. Donna Mercado Kim, Donovan Dela Cruz and others, it was already shaping up to be yet another showdown in a long-running and often bitter divide over who calls the shots for the state’s massive public university system.

UH President David Lassner had just sat down in a chair at the testifier’s table, facing Dela Cruz and Kim, who respectively are the powerful chairs of the Senate Ways and Means and Higher Education committees, and other senators.

Dela Cruz tapped his gavel and formally opened the briefing. Then he looked at Lassner and said, “I notice, (at) the (state) House, you stand, yeah?”

Lassner responded that he had indeed stood during an earlier House briefing because “they only had a podium.”

Dela Cruz smiled knowingly and continued: “Yeah. Because they think it’s gonna be brief.” Nervous laughter rippled around the room. “In the Senate,” he continued, “you gotta get comfortable.”

Dela Cruz’s remark was as telling as it was prescient: Three and a half hours of tense exchanges, with frequent aggressive questioning and pointed remarks by the senators, followed during the Jan. 12 briefing. It was one of the latest examples of the power struggle between a handful of state senators and UH’s top officials, despite Hawaii voters’ approving a constitutional change in 2000 to give UH greater autonomy.

Many observers say the divisiveness lately is worsening, hindering UH’s legislative and budget initiatives at the Legislature, casting a shadow on the university’s relationships with business and nonprofit sectors, and hurting its reputation and ability to serve students and the state.

But how the divide could be bridged remains unclear.

In an unusual development Saturday, Lassner released a nearly 400-word response to a Honolulu Star-Advertiser request for comment on the tug-of-war over UH control. (Read the full text below and at 808ne.ws/Lassner.)

Lassner’s statement said in part that recent years have seen “an erosion of the authorities of the (UH) Board of Regents provided in the 1990s.” That and repeated efforts by legislators to change the governance of UH, he said, have “impacted both the morale and ability of those within the institution to serve Hawaii without undue political influence. Nonetheless, we all remain deeply committed to our higher education mission and the people we serve across the state. And we are proud of the work we do every day and the successes we achieve as the institution most vital to a thriving future for Hawaii.”

Kim, Dela Cruz and Sen. Michelle Kidani (D, Mililani-­Waipio Gentry-Royal Kunia), vice chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, each recently told the Star-Advertiser that they think it’s time for Lassner to resign. Some prominent Hawaii leaders, including all four members of Hawaii’s congressional delegation, have spoken in support of Lassner, who has led UH since he began as interim president in 2013. He has given no sign he intends to step down in the near future.

Mounting frustration

Supporters of Kim and Dela Cruz say they are simply doing what they were elected to do in providing oversight and holding UH leaders accountable for their management of Hawaii’s sprawling public university system, with its flagship UH Manoa campus, regional universities in Hilo and West Oahu, seven community colleges, a $1 billion-plus operating budget and 7,900 employees, serving nearly 45,000 students.

Kim (D, Kalihi-Fort Shafter-Red Hill) told the Star-Advertiser Feb. 10 that she, Dela Cruz and others get an unfair bad rap for the pressure they put on UH and its leaders to put students’ needs first and make sure decisions and spending are executed properly. She labeled “troubling” what she feels has been a slow response by Lassner and other UH officials on a long list of issues, from making sure faculty teach their required classroom hours to setting a clear vision for the university’s future.

“Technically they do have autonomy, and we certainly want to respect that,” Kim said. “But yet, so many things are brought to our attention, and it would be derelict on our part and the public gets mad at us if we don’t make the changes or we don’t have the hearings — but when we do, we get criticized for micromanaging.”

Dela Cruz (D, Mililani-­Wahiawa-Whitmore Village) in a separate wide-ranging interview Feb. 9 expressed similar mounting frustration with UH and its leaders. He added that he feels the 11-member UH Board of Regents is too large and slow-acting, and that he personally would prefer to do away with the advisory board that chooses regent nominees for the governor to appoint.

“That way when the governor has a vision for what has to occur, he can match the nominees for this vision,” he said.

In response to members of the public who have accused him and Kim of picking on the university, Dela Cruz said “it’s not picking; it’s relative. It’s what standards are we using and what goals and objectives do we all have? So if you want to keep the status quo, great, they’re doing an excellent job. I wouldn’t disagree with them. But if we want to be globally competitive, and we want to modernize the university so that we are really meeting the needs of our students or potential students, nontraditional students or communities, then you know what? I don’t think we’re there.”

‘A lack of respect’

Critics of the senators say they they are meddling, even bullying, and that some of their proposals, questioning and budget provisos seem punitive. The senators’ frequent skepticism feels inappropriate to those who cheer UH for some significant recent signs of growth, including breaking its own records in research grants and philanthropic support in 2022, and pivoting comparatively smoothly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Remarks by Kim and Dela Cruz during hearings are also thought by some to run against state Senate rules requiring senators to “treat their fellow Senate members, staff, and the general public with respect and courtesy.”

“I think there are some issues with respect to a lack of respect for the president of the university, regardless of whether or not you like him or think he’s doing a good job or not,” said Christian Fern, executive director of the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly. “The bottom line is, he is the president of the only public institution of higher education in this state, and I think that deserves some respect, just by being in that role. But I think those (Senate) hearings speak for themselves.”

Many UH faculty feel frustration particularly with Kim.

Kim was the sole lawmaker named specifically in the UH Manoa Faculty Senate’s “Resolution Finding Inappropriate Legislative Actions Undermining University Governance and Free Speech” last March. It contends that Kim “has repeatedly introduced legislation to usurp the decision-­making authority of the UH Board of Regents, UH administration, and UH faculty,” and introduced legislation seeking to alter tenure and shift managerial authority of UH to the Legislature, among its accusations.

The Manoa assembly was among seven faculty groups from various UH campuses to issue rebukes last year over political interference in university affairs.

More measures this year also introduced by Kim and others are aiming to change how UH is governed.

Kim Binsted, chair of the UH Manoa Faculty Senate, said in an email Friday that “the concerns expressed in the Manoa Faculty Senate’s March 2022 resolution still stand. We remain committed to the principles of appropriate governance and free speech to keep the university independent of political interference.”

Clashes to continue

The clashes and tension are harming the university’s ability to reach its maximum potential, according to Neal Milner, a political analyst and a professor emeritus of political science at UH who at one time served as the UH ombudsman.

While lawmakers have a duty to oversee much of state government, Milner believes Kim and Dela Cruz reserve a special level of criticism for UH.

“They obviously do some good things, but I think they do show an animus toward the university and I think it’s because they think the university is badly run, that it wastes money. And that therefore, ‘We can do whatever we want.’”

Article X, Section 6, of the Hawaii State Constitution says in part that the UH Board of Regents “shall have the power to formulate policy, and to exercise control over the university through its executive officer, the president of the university, who shall be appointed by the board. The board shall also have exclusive jurisdiction over the internal structure, management, and operation of the university. This section shall not limit the power of the legislature to enact laws of statewide concern. The legislature shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to identify laws of statewide concern.”

The last two sentences all but guarantee the political skirmishes will continue.

“The university is supposed to have, by law, by the constitution, a greater amount of autonomy than other state agencies … but it’s never been really litigated what autonomy means,” Milner added. Yet it’s unlikely the university will ever try to go to the court over the issue, he said, because “there are serious political as well as legal costs.”

—

Statement from UH President David Lassner

“In 1997, Hawaiʻi’s Economic Revitalization Task Force recognized that strengthening the University of Hawaiʻi would help drive the local economy and that greater operational flexibility, often referred to as “autonomy,” would unleash a stronger entrepreneurial approach that would enable the university to achieve world-class standing in specific areas and diversify its funding base. Legislation enacted in 1998 implemented that flexibility and a constitutional amendment approved by the public in 2000 clearly stated that “The board [of regents] shall also have exclusive jurisdiction over the internal structure, management, and operation of the university.”

The members of the task force appointed by the governor, speaker of the house and senate president, as well as the 1998 legislature that enacted Act 115 were exactly right. The flexibility provided through their foresight has enabled UH to exceed all expectations. UH has diversified its operational funding far beyond the one-fifth to one-third anticipated in the 1990s. Extramural and philanthropic funding has increased ten-fold or more to the highest levels in history. Student success has blossomed across our islands. UH has indeed achieved world-class distinction in multiple fields including astronomy; Earth, ocean and environmental sciences; climate change and resilience; energy; international business; advancement of Indigenous people; studies of Asia and the Pacific and more.

The positive economic impact of what UH has accomplished for Hawaiʻi utilizing the flexibility provided is truly staggering. To highlight just a few findings from UHERO in 2021, in fiscal year 2020 each dollar of state general fund spending at UH translated into $7.21 of total business sales, $2.01 of employee earning and $0.37 of state tax revenue. In addition, the 9,345 degrees conferred to UH students in that one year are expected to produce more than $7 billion in net lifetime earnings benefits for UH graduates over the next 40-50 years.

Over the past years we have seen an erosion of the authorities of the board of regents provided in the 1990s. This, along with multiple examples of proposed legislation, has impacted both the morale and ability of those within the institution to serve Hawaiʻi without undue political influence. Nonetheless, we all remain deeply committed to our higher education mission and the people we serve across the State. And we are proud of the work we do every day and the successes we achieve as the institution most vital to a thriving future for Hawaiʻi.”