Despite many testifiers’ pleas to include University of Hawaii faculty, students and staff as well as community members on the selection committee that will choose the next UH system president, the UH Board of Regents opted Thursday to stick with a “committee of the whole” composed exclusively of the 11 regents.
However, the board also boosted the role of a related advisory group by at least doubling potential membership to up to 12 key stakeholders and changing its description to clarify that it “will provide advice and recommendations” to the presidential selection committee.
“I have faith in us but currently the community doesn’t. The trust is clearly not there,” board Chair Alapaki Nahale-a said to the regents after listening to multiple testifiers’ calls for giving nonregents more say or even voting power in choosing the next UH president.
The UH Board of Regents is responsible for searching for and selecting a successor to UH President David Lassner, 69, who has announced that he will retire at the end of this year after more than 10 years in the position. The hiring is pivotal for the state, as the UH president is the administrative head of the 10 campuses and system operations of Hawaii’s only public university, which serves 49,000 students and employs 10,000 employees across six islands.
While Lassner has faced criticism and hints that he should resign by some state lawmakers, he has said he is not being forced out.
But the search for Lassner’s successor also is politically charged, with some state lawmakers trying to influence the selection and pushing to have Lassner vacate the post earlier than his expected departure at the end of 2024, according to several officials close to the process. Meanwhile, board membership for interim members Nahale-a, former Gov. Neil Abercrombie and attorney Lauren Akitake depends on confirmation by the state Senate after the state Legislature kicks off Jan. 17.
Advisory group grown
An initial proposal for the presidential selection process, written by the regents’ Presidential Selection Process Permitted Interaction Group 1 — regents Akitake, Wayne Higaki, Gabe Lee, Laurel Loo and Diane Paloma — was the subject of nearly six hours of board debate and public testimony in December. The regents voted for several changes to make the process more transparent and include more stakeholders’ input.
However, the board pushed to Thursday the consideration of a part of the initial proposal that called for an advisory group of four to six members, representing groups such as faculty, staff, students, administrators, alumni and members of the community, who would “provide advice … as requested.”
That provision drew the ire of the majority of the 65 people who submitted testimony for Thursday’s meeting, which ran nearly five hours including an executive session to consult with attorneys, and included an hour of live spoken testimony and more than 120 pages of written testimony. About 15 students staged a demonstration on Dole Street earlier in the day, holding signs with slogans such as “Our school, our choice” and “Don’t underestimate inclusion.”
“My concerns are regarding the failure of the search process in representing and incorporating students, faculty, staff and community members in the selection process for the next UH president,” UH student Sonja Giardina said in testimony before the regents.
“A committee of the whole composed solely of BOR members does not give voting representation to any stakeholders and goes against the principles of shared governance and past … presidential selection processes such as those in 2009 and 2013. There were students, faculty and community representatives sitting on the presidential selection committee with voting power.”
Karla Hayashi, president of the board of directors for the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly and a UH Hilo faculty member, said in her testimony that while the use of an advisory board is “reasonable” on principle, “how will you ensure that our individual and collective voices are heard, listened to and ultimately contribute to the selection of the next president?”
Hayashi also questioned the regents’ proposed timeline for choosing a successor to Lassner, which “targets” a new presidency to begin as soon as Aug. 1.
By comparison, most UH campuses have taken a year to search for and select their campus chancellors, she said, “including all of the various stakeholders on the search committee and scheduling a series of opportunities to meet with and hear from each finalist. … Why, then, do you propose selecting the next president of such a large and complex system as ours in less than a year? This timeline is rushed and contradictory.
“Concerns about undue influence on the search have already been publicly raised,” Hayashi continued. “Relegating student employee and community voices to a pro forma advisory committee and rushing the search process only reinforces the perception that this may not be an objective and transparent search.”
Nahale-a pointed out during the meeting that the UH Board of Regents already includes people who are UH graduates, former faculty or staff, plus at least one parent of a UH student. “This group not only has been vetted, but has deep ties to the university,” he said.
Paloma said she believes distrust of the board is due at least in part to a lack of public understanding of the board’s makeup. “We are an unpaid volunteer board. … There’s more than one Hawaiian on this board. We have a student regent who has voting authority, who is a part of our every day, every single meeting. … They are entrusting us to make this decision. And I want to entrust in them that we will make the right decisions.”
Changes implemented
The board ultimately made several changes and clarifications during their hours of discussion in the public meeting at UH Manoa, including:
>> Advisory group selection: A representative from each of the four UH governance groups — (faculty senate, staff senate and student caucus; and the Puko‘a Council, which represents 10 Native Hawaiian councils) — plus board Vice Chairs Lee and Ernest Wilson now are tasked with forming the advisory group. The maximum of 12 members are subject to recommendation and approval by the full board. The goal is to have the advisory group ready for the full board to vote on at the Feb. 16 board meeting at UH Hilo.
The regents also voted to require the group to be open to receiving recommendations and names, while also observing confidentiality and avoiding conflicts of interest.
>> Advisory group power: While the original draft said the advisory group would provide advice “as requested,” the regents approved a change so that the advisory group “will provide advice and recommendations to the Committee of the Whole to ensure key stakeholders and the broader community are included in the presidential selection process.”
By sticking with a “committee of the whole” of UH regents to conduct the presidential selection, “all of these conversations are happening in the public sphere, as it should be,” Nahale-a said in a statement after the meeting. “I am very happy that our stakeholders are using this opportunity, because their feedback is meaningful and impactful. This is the type of engagement that I know the regents are looking forward to in every step of the process to ensure that everyone’s voice continues to be heard.”
However, Bronson Azama, president of the Associated Students of the University of Hawaii, was among the stakeholders who were not wholly satisfied by the regents’ decisions Thursday.
“We continue to maintain a position that we want a choice, not just a voice, in selecting the next UH president,” Azama said after the meeting. “I hope that the regents honor what’s been done in previous years and refer the responsibility of choosing finalists to a body that is not the regents themselves.
“As some students shared, the university has a huge impact in our islands and across the Pacific, and with that comes the need for shared governance to be implemented in this selection process,” Azama continued. “It’s still not clear how well regents will act on these concerns, but I remain confident and concerned all at once.”
