Hello, Michael, good morning. My name is Alapaki Nalia, Chair of the Board of Regents.
I call this meeting to order. Like to acknowledge the presence of other regions, Vice Chair Lee. Vice Chair Wilson.
Regent Abercrombie is on his way. Regent Haining, he is joining us by Zoom.
Regent Lou, Regent, Mawai, Regent, I want to just clarify that. This is a meeting of the Board of Regents.
And all the guidance governing those meetings applies. We're calling it committee of the whole so that we can do the function.
These meetings will be called for the function of acting as the search committee for our next president. But the rules apply to the full board meeting supply.
That's important for things like decisions we make in these meetings. Have the effect of decisions with the border regions.
At this time, we'll move to public comment. Before I call on Jamie.
To move forward. I wanna emphasize that today. I'm gonna be a lot more. Disciplined about asking testifiers or requiring test the fires to stay to the 3 min limit.
We have lots of testimony and lots of work to do. In addition, I'm getting some feedback from folks.
Who are staying to the 3 min and they feel it's unfair when Let other folks go much longer.
So. As comfortable as it will be for me. We will be asking folks to wrap up at 3 min.
And if you continue to go on. You're Michael get cut off or you'll be off of zoom.
So thanks for your consideration at the outset. Alright, Jamie.
Okay, so we did receive, the office did receive on numerous testimonies. Commenting on the presidential president show selection process both on time and late written testimony that testimony is available on our website.
We also have a number of testifiers. We signed up to provide oral testimony. So I'll start by calling the individuals who signed up via to testify via Zoom and then we'll go to the.
Present in the room. So first up and I got to make one more for Regents. We always have the ability to call testifiers up during our deliberations.
So if there's something that someone says and you want to follow up on. You, you can follow up during regular session.
Thank you.
So we do have 11 people who signed up to provide testimony via Zoom, but only one person is currently in the.
In our waiting room.
So I'm gonna call up.
Karla Hiashi?
So is she in the room? So, Carl, you can go ahead and test up fine when you're ready.
Oh, sorry.
I like to note the arrival of
So do you see me and hear me?
Yes, we can see.
Okay, thank you. So good morning, Regents, President Lasner and attendees.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. Concerning the search for the next president of the University of Hawaii system.
My name is Carla Hayashi. I am a faculty member at the University of Boy at Heivo campus.
I am also the president of the UHPA Board of Directors. The authority to select the next president rests with the Board of Regents.
The selection process, however, must be inclusive of all the stakeholders and should proceed in a timely manner intended to identify.
Qualified candidates who possess the comprehensive academic and administrative knowledge of university operations. The next president must be able and qualified to take the helm of a system.
That includes the R one public land brand research university campus and 4 and 2 year campuses situated across the state.
Such an important position deserves the attention and commitment of numerous stakeholders. Especially those whose daily experiences will be directly impacted by this individual.
We all agree that the welfare and well being of students is paramount. Their voices need to be represented.
In an effort to select a new president. Employees of the University of Boys System as well as community members must also have their opportunities to be involved in a search process.
Advisory body sounds reasonable. But how will you ensure that our individual and collective voices are heard, listened to, and ultimately contribute to the selection of the next president.
In contrast to the short search process proposed, consider the following. Each campus typically conducts a year long search for a chancellor by including all of various stakeholders on the search committee and scheduling a series of opportunities to meet with and hear from each finalist.
These public meetings along with meetings with various campus unit members. Provides the campus community the ability to evaluate 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 this search have already been publicly raised.
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.
No one is questioning your authority to select the next president. We are, however, asking that the process to identify.
The next president be inclusive and transparent. Thank you.
Mala. Okay, next up we have Sonia.
Hello, can you all hear me?
Yes.
Okay, Aloha, Michael, my name is Sonia Jordana and I'm a student at the University of Ho, in the school of Ocean current science and technology.
I'm speaking today to express my concerns regarding the presidential selection process finalized during the December seventh Board of Regents meeting.
Generally, my concerns are regarding the failure of this search process and representing and incorporating students back of these staff and community members in the section process for the next president.
My primary concern is about the lack of inclusion of these various stakeholder groups in the presidential selection committee.
Which as it stands is composed of Board of Regents members. A committee of the whole composed only of BR members does not get voting representation to any stakeholders and goes against principles of shared governance.
And passed to H. Model of presidential selection processes such as those in 2,009 and 2,013.
There were student faculty and community representatives sitting on the presidential selection committee with voting power. Another concern of mine is the process for selecting the advisory group.
The proposed advisory group is meant to represent community members, faculty, staff, students, and other administrators as to include non board members in the section process.
Currently the Board of Regents holds full of authority in appointing the members of the advisory group.
I instead advocate that elect existing elected student bodies at are used to select representatives of key stakeholders.
The system has already elected student representation through the student caucus, which comprises the 11 student governments.
There are parallel organizations for faculty that could be used to support the border. Regents in selecting representative individuals on the advisory group.
I'm also concerned about the advisory group's capacity to affect change throughout the process if only able to provide advice at the request of selection committee.
This does not reassure me that this group of constituents representing many key stakeholders will be given adequate access to provide meaningful input throughout the process.
I urge that the advisory group is consistently integrated into the search process. In addition, considering the critical influence of the role of president on the university at Hawaii, I would also like to emphasize the importance of quality and careful deliberation over expediency in this selection process.
Overall, I want to advocate for students, faculty, and staff and committee members to be included in the selection committee.
And given some amount of voting power. It is imperative that those who will be most heavily impacted by this decision are meaningfully integrated into the selection process at every step.
Thank you for taking the time today to consider this testimony. I look forward to seeing action towards a more inclusive search process that brings all stakeholders to the table.
As you work together on making this decision for the university and for Hawaii. Muhammad, thank you for listening.
Mala.
Next up we have Rosiana Osman.
Good morning. My name is Dr. Nadi Asman. I'm a psychology professor at UHmly College and I've been teaching at the University of over 20 years now.
The presidential search process permitted interaction group final report recommends the BLR higher search firm with Hawaii experience and or a whole focused to conduct a national search.
Well, this sounds like a good idea in theory. Now, where does mention they would also be a search firm with expertise in higher education.
I've done some searches. I can find firms who understand how lightly sculpture or I can find firms with higher education experience.
Live in diagram does not overlap. Given the mistake of urgency that a new president was behind before fall to submit the budget, which would be nice, but is not necessary.
I fear this frenzied artificially time crunch search, which would be ill. Will yield either a reliable higher education church firm that is clueless about the nuances of our island culture or a firm that understands somebody but who may treat our university like a business.
The former will bring it bring us candidates who will likely want to swoop in to save us and make us more like universities on the continent.
Perhaps you're reminding us the presidents of Christmas past. The latter will try to impose a Walmart like business model incongruent with needs of our education.
We are not Walmart. I know that many of you have strong business backgrounds, which I respect, but please allow me to explain why university cannot be treated like a business.
If the university is a business and a product would be graduates. As a successful business, we would have higher retention and graduation rates.
That's good. The faculty in the different disciplines would be like the vendors. We hope that we're providing the right products, which would be education to attract customers to come for a business.
Cheers with the analogy falls apart. Who are the customers? The people we're attracting to the store.
The students, how can it be the students because they're a final product? I do not know of any successful business model in which the customer is also the product.
This contradiction is why treating higher education like a business never works. It's also part of life for profit universities lose credibility and their degrees of little value.
As you move forward to decide how our university system will proceed when President Lasner steps down. I ask you remember why we are all here.
Faculty administration and staff like are at this university system for one may reason. To educate our students.
Without our students, there would be no need for university in. Every decision we make must have our students education and best interests in mind.
And we need to remember all of our students and all their diversity across the system at all of the different campuses as we choose new leadership.
As a faculty member, teaching at the only institution of TURCERY education for the islands of Valley, I can tell you that very few of my students that the supposedly typical college and demographic, most not some of my students work full time.
With families to support.
With that, pardon me. They cannot.
That much to support, they are lucky if they can squeeze in 6 to 9 credits on top of all the other obligations, but they eventually do so with pride and distinction.
For many of my students, they stop coming to class, it's not because they're lazy or unmotivated.
They cannot stop working because they need to pay the bills. They cannot stop taking care of their family because they understand honor and responsibility.
And in closing, I need to ask what's the rush? Before we hire president, asner, we spent over a year in the search process.
I can tell you when my students look at work, it can be done quickly, but it can be done properly.
When we rush the emphasis on being done rather than being done well. Okay.
Last sentence, thank you. Hiring the next president is too important to the future of and it needs to be a well thought out, completely transparent process.
Mahal for your consideration.
At least stop the. Please wrap up. Thank you.
Next up we have Christie and Nita.
Aloha border regions. Happy New Year to all of you. My name is Christina Nita, chair of the Mono Staff Senate.
As we come together again today on the same topic, I'm given the honor to once again testify on this topic.
Of the selection of the Next president, I would like to reiterate that what we stated on last testimony that as we move forward with this presidential such process.
The Manor Staff Senate. Excuse me, would like to ensure that we have a voice from inception to completion.
While we know that the border regions have already been composed of members, something that we might want to look at in the future is and bring that to the table is involving shared governance in the selection of the Board of Regents appointees.
From listening to and reading all other testimonies it is very clear that moving forward in this projected.
Shash has major flaws and needs to be analyzed by shared governance and not just the border regions appointees.
Thank you so much today for your time. Consideration and dedication to the university. Mahalanui.
Mahalo. Okay, so we do have several other individuals who signed up to provide Zoom testimony, but they're currently not present.
So I'm going to move to the individuals present in the room. First up we have Dustin.
Letter this morning. I find my voice a little better this morning. The last time I testified I was nervous and I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
I'm an LGBT studies major. I had experienced that the classic research institution story being an LGBT studies major on and off this campus.
The next president to replace President Lassner should be aware of gender and sexuality studies and the hostilities we face on and off campus.
Before fall, 2,023 began, a person moved into my home. Threatened me with a knife.
People on staff on campus casually spoke about it. This is the educational environment I'm living through coupled with being indefinitely present last night, defunded.
I'm disabled. I can't work and go to school. I was I'm experiencing violence through poverty.
Because the school refuses. To fund an LGBT studies major. So please keep this in mind.
With the search moving forward. Also, I will close with I testified under the authority of the Board of Regents because the administration is changing and I do act ask that the Board of Regents act.
Thank you for your time. Hello. Okay, I'm gonna call the next 3 names so we know so people know who is Up next for testifying.
So first, We'll have Ashley Me and Ard and then after that we'll have Branson Osama and Kyson James force.
Good morning, Regents. President Lassner. I'm Dr. Ashley Maynard, Professor of Psychology at Manoa.
I came here to share some highlights of the written testimony I submitted with Dr. Margaret Butler, Professor of Life Sciences.
I hope you will read it and take it seriously. As we are at a serious crossroads at a university and in our state.
We agree with others that there should be a fair and open presidential search process free from legislative interference and that we ought to follow the national best practice of including faculty chosen by the faculty.
Students and community members in the search committee. We must also have a thorough discussion of qualifications that would make the best president of our system.
Our system is unique and many ways and has only one R one research intensive doctoral granting campus, Manoa.
Because we are one system, it is imperative that the president must also be qualified to be the chancellor of the flagship campus, whether they are separate positions or one.
The president must have an academic background as a tenured faculty member at a research university and not be merely a convenient political selection.
We must have an academic leader of to truly maximize our strengths. Hawaii is the gateway to the Pacific in geography, earth history, culture, biological resources, evolution, climate, and many fields of human endeavor.
It is the reason why we serve as strategic basis for military installations. Agricultural experimental stations and federal agencies, including the East West Center.
We are the only R one university for thousands of miles. Yet too often it is outside research groups that spearhead the study of Hawaii's resources.
An informed academic leader could retain and motivate faculty to lead these enterprises, create opportunities to benefit from the university at every educational level, making the university's resources available to all, and drive innovation from our local communities to the world.
Our institution is currently so far out of alignment that we risk veering off the proverbial road losing sight of the academic mission.
While we agree that administrative concerns and an eye on the budget are important without academic leadership, particularly the Manoa campus has suffered.
For example, discussions of curriculum at the highest levels have centered on mechanics and convenience of integration rather than what's best for student learning.
As another example, the creation of a campus town where a College of Education now stands will have serious repercussions for educational quality in both the K 12 and the university systems.
An academic leader can help bring pardon me all conversations about the institution, its resources and its future back into balance.
Research teaching and innovation are central to the mission of the university and the university is central to the mission and health of the state.
The best person to leave the institution will have the skills and experience not only to understand what the university does, but also to explain and defend it to others.
Positioning the institution to lead and make the difference it can make. Thank you very much. Thank you.
No, no, Ikea, cool. I opened an appreciation to relate to the students, to the students, to the faculty, and for all who took the time to take time to the faculty and for all who took the time to take time to testify here at this meeting.
I know it's set to the faculty and for all who took the time to take time to testify here at this meeting.
I know it's set during business hours. So there's often struggles with either it be class conflicts or working conflicts and then schedule.
So Mahala to those who took the time off to be a part of this. Historic moment.
As a community member, president of ASUH and as chair of the University of Hawaii Student Caucus.
I stand on the positions that have been discussed by reelected bodies that we want more than just a voice but a choice in selecting the next president.
Although the authority is vested in the Board of Regents through rights that from what some will call an illegitimate body, it does not set in stone how the regents come to the conclusion of who you select.
In an ideal world, I will say as my elders taught me that the past should have a voice but never a vote.
People who will not live with the lasting consequences should not be the ones deciding the fate of those who will roll through the turmoil.
And in fact, we as young people should learn from the discernment of wisdom and also learn to live with the consequences of our decisions.
But we live in less than an ideal world. Our student region will be ending her term during the process and with that I request that the regents grant us choice power through other means and will stand on my written testimony for those recommendations.
In respect to wisdom, I appreciate the words of Regent Wilson at the last meeting that regents must be willing to take time to plan so that it may be an expedient implementation and quality.
DECISION rather than be expeditious with a painfully long transition. In further response to Regents deliberations.
I would say it is not about quick decisions based on what's in front of you, but a need for inclusion so that we can cover the viewpoints from where you sit, where you sit, and from where I stand so we can cut so that we can see the 360 degrees that's around us when making this decision.
I close with words inspired by the farewell speech of President Eisenhower over 60 years ago, that authority and power should not overrule the opportunity and benefits of authority and power should not overrule the opportunity and benefits of, overrule the opportunity and benefits of collaboration, shared governments, and the need to engage with humility, that we must prioritize quality over expediency, the decisiveness must not be without consideration of 7 generational
thinking, and that our deep biases and undue influences do not go unchecked. As we all as always the historic moment is before us and I hope that our cause for choice and not just voice will be adhered to.
Mahalo.
Hello, I'm my clock cool. My name is Kaisenkonola, James Fory.
I'm a senior from Koi High on the Big Island. I'm a current senator for the College of Arts and Sciences for ASUH and I serve as our chair of undergraduate academic affairs.
I'm here today to express my continued concerns regarding the presidential search process and its lack of meaningful state stakeholder involvement, utilizing a committee of the whole as the selection committee, although expanding the range of perspectives so ignores our university's principles of shared governance and ignores the voices of students, faculty, and our wider community.
From the perspective of shareholders the current approved process by consolidating voting voting power to the Board of Regents and limiting stakeholders to an advisory group of regents and limiting stakeholders to an advisory group means that our input and involvement are minimal at best and have no lasting impact on the selection of And although stakeholder involvement is technically achieved through surveys, open forms, and the advisory group, there still remains nothing to hold the Board of
Regents accountable to that input. Furthermore, surveys and open forms absolutely do not meet what should be considered the minimum for stakeholder involvement considering that speaking on what is considered an ideal candidate is drastically different than speaking on the merits of prospective presidents of the University of Hawaii and being able to vote in accordance to those merits.
I continue to urge the Board of Regents to consider the inclusion of students. Faculty and community members on the selection committee and follow the president's set.
The president set by past presidential search processes. Having individuals representing these groups sit in on the selection committee not only grants them a well deserved voice and vote, but also ensures that the Board of Regents is not completely out of touch with the opinions and views of their stakeholders.
Failure to do so only breeds an environment of mistrust, mistrust between the university's administration.
And stakeholder groups and for actors the ability of the future president to start with the full support of the student body, faculty, and community.
In regards to the advisory group and is my hope that the board of Regents considers granting it a position that is more actively involved in the recruitment and selection process.
Including but not limited to interviewing candidates, providing the Board of Regents recommendations, and the ability to communicate in a limited and controlled fashion with their respective stateholder groups.
Remotely transparent and inclusive process. It is further paramount that the advisory group consists of representation from all 10 campuses, both student and faculty, as well as community members from across the I mean, steadfast in my position that the Board of Regents should opt to include students, faculty, and community members in the selection committee itself, and that a seat at the table is the only guaranteed way that our opinions and voices
are considered and accounted for. This presidential search process represents a great opportunity to foster a healthy environment of cooperation across each every level of the University of Y system and allows every one of us to play a part in building the future of our university and by extension our beloved Carolina.
And so I urge you, please do not throw this chance to wear. Thank you for taking the time to listen.
Next up, One next up we have Mariko Quinn. Will be followed by and Ethan Cruz.
Hello, my name is Marco Quinn and I am the current senator of the School of Ocean, Earth Sciences and Technology here at Manoa for
Like many others, I'm here today to express my significant concerns regarding a presidential selection process finalized at the December seventh meeting.
To begin, the implementation of the Committee of the Whole in which all regions will be included. But fails to give voting power to any external stakeholders is the decision that goes directly against the principles of shared governance.
Failing to engage faculty, staff, students, and community members by not giving them a voting representative fractures trust immediately between the potential candidates and their future constituents before they even begin the job.
This decision is especially concerning as it abandons the precedent of the most recent presidential search in 2,013 during which there were 3 non-regent voting members to represent several stakeholder groups.
As previously mentioned, the use of the survey open forums and advisory groups as a means to technically fulfill the need for inclusivity, falls short of ensuring that stakeholders are meaningfully included.
There's currently nothing in place that ensures the regions will meaningfully engage with and consider this feedback.
And more importantly, these surveys and open forums are only to address the position description, which the first step in a very long selection process.
While I recognize that this meeting today is meant to focus on the role of the advisory group alone, I think that it is crucial that the decision of the selection committee membership is revisited and reconsidered before we move forward in order to ensure the best possible outcome and transition for the university.
At the December seventh meeting we heard several regions express concerns that bringing in representatives of different stakeholder groups would extend the duration of the search process.
While I hear these concerns and appreciate these regions that are seeking to fulfill their job description by ensuring a quick change in power.
I would argue that by diminishing stakeholder engagement with a small advisory group and a survey. Would function to further delay the acceptance of a new president and also cause long-term problems in the relationship between our future president and their constituents.
The Board of Regents needs to consider the long-term problems that the future president will need to address and how a positive relationship with faculty, staff, students, and the community will support them in doing their job much more effectively.
Taking time now to execute this search process in an inclusive way will ultimately save time in the future.
The role of the advisory group should be expanded in size to include more representation for various stakeholders. The proposed group is meant to encompass a wide variety of stakeholders.
And it's crucial that the Board of Regents utilize elected bodies to nominate members of the advisory committee rather than nominating them themselves.
Overall, I really urge the Board of Regents to seriously consider what it might mean to fail to meaningfully include stakeholders at all steps the process.
All of us here today are not here representing our own personal interests. We are here representing a collective hope for our participation in our university's future.
One that could be built on cooperation and collaboration. This is a crucial moment for our university and we really hope that you listen to us and include more stakeholder involvement.
Thank you so much. Thank you.
Hi.
Sorry, and I'm nervous up here first time. Should have got coffee, but Hello, I'm here today as a senator at large here at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
I was hesitant at first to testify out of Richard or something. Who knows? But nonetheless, I'm representing the great many students here on our campus.
But one word comes to my mind when I listen to all of these things. I don't understand, I'm still a student.
You know. Undemocratic. Right. That's the word that lingers over my head when I listen to all these things, not just from students, but from faculty and to people off our campus.
Undemocratic. When we make the process here today, what happens in this room, but when we walk out the door.
What will happen in this confusing transition of leadership at the University of Hawaii, a sense of democratic participation has become increasingly absent.
A process which concerns not just every faculty member and student here at Manoa campus. But at every campus in the system.
I believe that while the input and feedback from the border regions is required and can be good. And a good way of evaluating the future president.
The failure to bar the very people who will be affected by this leadership should too have a voice within the process.
Saying that a student poll is enough is in salting. Let us build a better University of Hawaii so we can build a better Havoy.
Simple, right? I would also like to remind people. To listen to the people who were elected by the student body.
We are acting on that voice. We're not here with any hatred or any group behind us or whatever reason, but we're speaking, I'm speaking from my now and I'm going to take the bullet real quick and I want to say I trust all of you.
I do. You have a Kapuna, you have knowledge that I've never seen and who knows, I've seen you guys as resonates.
Well, the stock is big. Might just get like 5 words. But if I'm gonna trust you, will you trust me?
Will you trust the students here on our campus? Will you be able to walk out this door and hold your head up high to all the students?
I know each and every one of you 2 have had all the final countdowns up there. I know each and every one of you have also taken those own risks in your own lives, even if they're small.
I've seen that with you how you guys have spoken to and the system that you guys have to navigate around.
But please take that step. Because we're following in your footstep to tomorrow's of what you is our Hawaii as well.
Mahalo, thank you.
Good day, board. I'm Ethan Hopi Cruz. I'm a student at the University of Hafayette and I'm an employee.
I'm here today to express my concern with regards to the findings of the PIG. One and convey my support of the spirit of the associated students of the University of Havaya at Manoa's Senate resolution, O 500, and, 24.
Demanding student faculty and community inclusion on the presidential selection committee, which explains. That we oppose the use of a search forum to vet and screen applicants.
And believe that the duty of the search committee be limited and put up for further discussion for student faculty and community input.
And that we demand that one, the BOR form a presidential selection committee that includes stakeholders from students.
Faculty, staff, council, and consider broader community representation such as cultural practitioners. And 2, the demanded presidential selection committee be test with the recommending 2 to 4 on ranked finalists to the VOR to consider.
It is in the best interests of the Board of Regents to employ the most democratic process in the election of the next president to forge rounds for a relationship of trust between the president and those there meant to serve.
Thank you.
All
Hey, next up, next up we have will be followed by Aaron Santayo and Jarrett Leon.
Here
Aaron, Sentayo.
Helloha Regents and President Lastner. My name is Aaron Santayo and I'm testifying today as chair of Manila Faculty Senate and as co-chair of the ACC FSC, which is the All-campus Council for Faculty Senate Chairs.
First, thank you for all of your work that you continue to do for University of Hawaii and for the presidential selection process.
On December thirteenth, 2,023, the Manila Faculty Senate unanimously passed a resolution that supported previous testimony that I provided on behalf of the Mano Faculty Senate Executive Committee.
Today I want to reiterate that testimony on behalf of Mano Faculty Senate. We understand that according to Article 10, section 6 of the Hawaii State Constitution, the Board of Regents has the authority to appoint the president.
However, we believe that the proposed University Hoy presidential selection process goes against best practice and policies of shared governance.
And does not allow an official voice of the faculty to contribute to the recommendation of the next president.
Hiring a president is one of the most essential tasks of the Board of Regents. You are aware, previous presidential selection committees have included key stakeholders.
The selection committee must consist not only of a committee of the whole, but also a faculty, staff, students, and community members.
An advisory group is very different from official participation in a selection committee. As stated in the report, an advisory group advises as requested.
Where those on a selection committee can be part of all of the conversations and voice their opinion whether it is requested or not.
Having a representative representative selection committee is consistent with suggestions from numerous national organizations. On behalf of the ACC FSC, I'd like to add that we passed our own statement regarding the presidential search process on December, the eighteenth, 2,023 with a unanimous vote.
The ACCCFC submitted its own testimony, but I'd like to reiterate a couple of important points.
First, similar to MFS and many others that are here today, we ask that there be an inclusive presidential selection committee that goes beyond the Board of Regents committee of the whole and includes stakeholders including faculty, staff, students, and community members.
Second, that in additional advisory committee still be established that includes additional stakeholders. And finally, this process needs to be transparent and widely inclusive, similar to previous presidential search committees.
I appreciate and welcome the Board of Regents interaction with the Manoa Faculty Senate and ACCFSC on the presidential search.
Mahalo Nui for allowing me to testify today. Hello.
Start. I get so aloha regents. My name is Jared Leong.
I am the current UA staff council chair which represents all the staff at the University of Hawaii.
And the staff council is a collection. Of staff representatives who are elected from their respective campuses, which includes most of the campus staff leadership their campus chairs.
From all 11 campuses and again we include system as one of those campuses because they do have a lot of staff there.
We want us to say that we stand by our written testimony. We've done testimonial for the last 3 meetings.
Hopefully you guys were able to read those. We do stand by that and I do want to mention 3 main points.
First, we still want to reiterate that we would like to be included in a core. Search committee and not an advisory.
A role. We would like to be included from the beginning phase and that that includes being part of the process to determine the whatever firm you guys decide.
And I also like to advocate for additional seats for staff, especially considering that we do have. 2 and 4 year campuses.
We do want to offer a suggestion I think was similar to what the faculty were suggesting. Allow shared governance groups.
On the core search committee and potentially have an advisory group with more representatives. You know, my final thought is we recognize that the that you are given the authority and responsibility to select the next president.
But as I teach in my public administration, leadership course. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
And just because you have the right to. Something doesn't mean you have the right to that is the right thing to do and I believe that this board This border regions knows what's right.
I know a lot of you know exactly what's the right thing to do and I'm hoping that you're willing to stand your ground.
And really voice that concern today. I will be available. During deliberation, if you guys have any questions, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Okay, next up we have, Sam.
Sam Peck who will be followed by Kano Barreto and Shannon Hennessy.
Hello.
Thank you to the regents and to President Lazner for being here today. My name is Sam Peck and I'm a senior here in the Sustainability Program at Yorkshire Manila.
I'm here to testify today, to my strong belief that the presidential selection process finalized on December seventh is exclusive, colonial, and racist.
Refusing to grant decision-making power to students and to the local community, the board demonstrates unacceptable disregard for the well-being of unique students and to write you as a whole.
This only extends and strengthens the legacy of colonial extraction from Habitas and its people.
Yes, as it clones, the bird seeks to do it as best for you and to that route through shared governance.
It must grant full decision-making power to represent those from a stone body, local community, and cultural practitioners.
To close, I will show this. Defining yourself through rhetoric is easy. So it is through action that you say what is really in your heart.
So to the board numbers somber today and President Lazen I ask what will you say? Thank you for your time.
Velina, Alco, my name is Konomo Conneil, Ventra Abbreto.
I'm a freshman from Kailua. I just like to say first of all that I wholeheartedly agree with the SUH resolution related to the presidential selection process.
And you know, this whole process has made me think about when I was a senior at Cala Hill High School and a representative of Manoa visited our college and career centre and I learned that the University of Huai is the third largest industry in the Hawaiian Islands.
You know, an archipelago of over a million people. And so when I think about the impact that the president has, it's beyond, you know, the almost 50,000 students, even beyond the Hawaiian Islands, it gets to millions if not.
Billions of people and reconsider the research that has been done historically related to such chemicals as Agent Orange and Roundup or the failed attempts to construct a 30 metre telescope on and there are very severe political consequences and you know, if the process is not democratic and it's not taking into account these.
Viewpoints and these concerns then It's oligarchy really. If it's such a small number of people impacting such a massive population, even beyond our shores.
And someone who's recently been organizing around the issue of the genocide in Gaza, I would also say that it's
Very concerning to see an administration at this university that you know, kind of tries to, you know.
Treat all sides with aloha in respect, but I mean at what point do people draw a line in the sand and say that something is morally wrong.
And it's really concerning to see that that line in the Senate has not been drawn and that instead this kind of facade of, oh, we're just trying to consider everybody's opinions and what have you.
It's very concerning to see an administration and a university that. Won't take the strong moral stances when lives are at stick.
So that's what I'll say. But yeah. Oh look.
Hello, hi Kako. My name is Shannon Polemic. I am a PhD student in the political science department here at
Manoa. I joined many others today to testify regarding agenda item A. Regarding the potential action in the presidential search process.
I'm primarily concerned that the presidential selection process as finalized during the December seventh Board of Regents meeting.
Fails to effectively include students, faculty, staff, and community members in selecting the next president.
I'm here because a trusted friend brought this issue to my attention. An issue that affects not only myself and my peers as students and graduate workers, but also my family and broader community.
As residents of Hawaii, and Native Hawaiians, and even my future children as potential students of this institution.
I understand the need to focus on this university itself, however, the fact is that as Keno said and so many before me said, at the leading public institution of higher education in these islands, any decisions made here will affect all of Havay.
The decision for the next leader of the institution especially will impact. Those within these university walls and beyond. And we as members of the student body and community at a legend to serves deserve a voice and a choice in this selection process.
With that in mind, I would like to highlight and amplify the excellent points and suggestions that ASUH and its leaders have already made.
First, the implementation of a selection committee of all members of the Board of Regents, which does not give voting representation to any external stakeholders, goes directly against the principles of shared governance.
As ASUH Senator of SOS, Mariko Quinn mentioned, the board ought to consider including non-board members of the selection committee with voting power as they did in 2,013.
Rather than relegating them to a largely performative advisory group. Second, as Marika also suggested to expedite this process of forming the expanded committee or an advisory group with voting power, the board should utilize elected bodies to nominate members of the advisory committee rather than nominating student members themselves.
For example, the student caucus represents students from all 10 H which campus. Campuses and can facilitate a brief election to select student representatives for the selection committee.
Other similar elected bodies that have spoken today for faculty and staff can be utilized also in this way.
Finally, I want to highlight a section from one of the sources that the permitted interaction group pick one. Employed in the 2023 article what's you need in your next president search consultant suzanne tier quotes Donald Gould chair of the board at pizza college who oversaw their recent presidential search.
He said the change in leadership provides an opportunity to pause and consider where the college is today and what it needs next in the next leader.
Giving all constituencies a voice in that process leads to a greater acceptance and support of the Kent, who is ultimately selected.
To prevent the input from major stakeholders, this institution purportedly serves is to do it a service to both the new candidate who will be unfairly judged based on election criteria outside of their control and the institution.
Given the present selection process, it's very probable that the board only selection committee will not reflect the needs or wants to the larger campus.
I urge you to seriously reconsider the present presidential selection process if not for me than for the kind of university.
And more broadly, hope to build one that fairly represents the people it's supposed to serve.
We do have one other individual who Signed up via Zoom is online now, mister, or, PIN Tor.
Bye, my name is Cardenas Pentor. I was originally supposed to be on Zoom, but now I'm here in person, And I am the ACH Senator of the Colleges of Social Sciences Health and health sciences and social welfare.
I have nothing much to add from what other speakers have already said. But I do remember this one thing from one of my social work classes, which is the difference between empathy and sympathy.
Sympathy is pretty much distress, understanding that someone is distressed and going through some problems. Empathy is actually taking is actually having the action.
To help others. To be there. You are giving us a voice on this decision as students. And for the faculty, you're giving us a voice on the presidential selection.
Whenever you give us a voice, that is sympathy. Because even though you're hearing it, it goes through one ear out the other.
You're not giving us any action. You're not giving us a vote. You're not giving us a choice.
Which is more effective. And it is empathetic. So I asked for a little bit of empathy.
Within the selection process. Mahalanui.
Me to check that conclusion, that the board office. Before I move on to agenda items, I just want to thank everybody who took the time to submit testimony or if testonian person and I also wanna, and I also thank the testifiers for honoring the time limit.
Much appreciated. But also that I thought the testimony was. You know, well thought, well delivered, well crafted and especially the student testimony.
I could see my fellow regents, really moved by the thought and and tensions that went into those statements.
So thank you very much. Also before we move into our gender items. I gonna, use chairs prerogative and opine that I think.
We're talking about the presidential process. And one of the things. I'm happy about is that we're running this process about as openly and transparently as you possibly could.
We asked our big one. To do monumental list in a short period of time to propose something.
For the for the intention of it being able to be seen by the public. Right. And it was it was in front of the public guy for a meeting we couldn't comment on.
So lots of folks got to see it. Have feelings about it rally support and then we get to talk about it ourselves at the last meeting.
I think that's why we see so many people able to come and voice their opinion. And I think that's part of this process.
And today we'll get a chance to talk further about how do we incorporate. The thoughts and views of our of our community and to our work.
So hopefully this is an example that our process will continue to be open, transparent, accessible, and our decisions are in mind folks are being made in the public.
Like this the committee that we've set up. Is meeting agenda is open testimony at all stakes.
I think that's a positive sign as well. So, but that note, move to agenda items.
Further deliberation decision-making regarding the final report for the presidential search process permitted interaction group form pursuant to section 92 dash 2.
Dot 5 B HRS to investigate and make recommendations regarding the presidential search process and potential action on the presidential search process.
Item one is selection 2 k dot one roles responsibilities function make up and membership selection process of the advisory group.
Okay, all that stated for the record. The way I'm gonna ask us to organize this conversation, because I'm sure lots of us have thoughts and feelings and suggestions.
I'm gonna bucket it into 3. Categories hopefully. And the first is for us to just tackle what are we asking the advisory group to do.
So we're gonna project onto the screens. We can all see it and those watching and see it.
What's currently being asked or phrased. And then we get a chance talk about, do we wanna?
Elaborate on that, clarify it, add to it so that so we can be. We can accept the recommendations as is or we can amend.
So the first time I'm gonna, so I'm gonna note. The report says we'll provide advice to committee of the whole.
As requested. The first thing I'm going to ask is if we could amend that to say we'll provide advice and recommendations to the committee of the whole as requested.
And the additional recommendation and consultation with council allows us to give the advisory group. Decision-making tasks.
If we leave it to advice, then it's just, you know, comments. So if we could add that, then we have the ability to give them decision-making tasks.
Could I get a motion today effect? We have a motion to consider what That's okay. We should actually talk it.
So within second did we add provide advice and recommendations. Discussion. Mr. Chairman, and members.
I hope you can hear me. Okay, I'm having as you know, but a bit of difficulty on occasion with hearing.
Prior to last year's comment on just exactly what we're talking about.
I think we need to recognize the incredibly professional and helpful. Work that the. Regent's staff has done.
And putting all of this together. More particularly. In the light of the testimony which I'm sure along with everybody else I've read every bit of the testimony.
Including today. Every single bit. And, the what the staff has provided us in terms of previous search groups All of that going back, pre, President Greenwood.
I think the decision that we made, this is in conjunction with what you just said about, Openness, inclusiveness, transparency, involving faculty, staff, students, alumni, and the broader community.
The survey that's going on now. I believe is going to produce the single most open, complete.
Thorough process of examining what is involved in the selection of a president that has ever taken place in the state of Hawaii and will match anything and possibly exceed anything that's been done.
With any other university. Again, the staff has provided us with an enormous. Broad array of information with respect to what other universities and other what are the regions other trustees that have done.
My understanding is, is that the survey that we put out which has 6 excellent questions. On it is being responded to by faculty, by staff, by students, by alumni, by the broader public in the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds.
Of responses and there and these responses are coming in writing detailed writing I am told. That we are going to be the recipients and the advisory committee will be the recipients of an incredible amount of trenchant dialogue and and discussion with respect to what is expected of the university and the presidential selection process.
So. I see in every one of the testimonies that we we've had so virtually every one of the testimonies we've had so far this request for the inclusion and respect for the opinions and and judgments and analysis of students, faculty, staff, the public alumni and so on.
That's coming in. Literally again, hundreds and hundreds of commentaries, thousands of questions being answered in writing.
So, I think we should, we need to put to rest that the advisory committee is some kind of peripheral, marginal, adjunct.
To what we're doing is the regents. On the contrary, we see that if If I'm speaking generally here for what I understand we have done to this point.
The advisory committee is a crucial and fundamental joined operation with us in terms of us being able to make the decision we're required to do by law and have sought to do.
What does one other point there going over what's what's the previous records this is not an adverse commentary on previous regions or previous selection committees or anything.
But it's crystal clear to me that And it's ironic that Having a selection committee with one special interest group represented and and an individual over here and a couple of regents and and a mishmash all put together.
It doesn't work. It really doesn't work. It ends up actually truncating faculty staff and, and, students and alumni.
The process we've initiated with the survey and with what is proposed for the role of the advisory committee will be the most inclusive, the most public, the most transparent, the most comprehensive body of information and perspective.
That any Board of Regents will have had in the selection of a president.
For the discussion on the motion to add the phrase and recommendations.
Seeing that all those in favor of the addition say aye. Any opposed? Right now, the only stated assignment.
You know, proactive statement to the advisory group is that at least one member advisory group will attend the open forms in each county.
So. To reach Abercrombie's point. I actually also believe that this group will use an advisory body.
And I'm in a very deliberate intentional way. The question I have is do we do and That will play out in the things we ask them to do. Right.
And the advice we ask them to give us. That no matter what we say today with proof will be in the pudding.
And I actually agree with you, Jabber. I, in us. Currently community doesn't.
But the trust is clearly not there. So my question is, do we wanna add specific? Tasks for that virtual group now that we would we could add to the list and codify.
Are we ready for that? So I opened that discussion up.
Is that, Mr. Chairman, I quite agree with that. I'm not sure I wanna take up the time right now, but the previous, searches that have been made that come up with precisely that kind of criteria and there's whole listen here rather than Then take the the time right now, but if it.
If. Maybe by the time, the end of, well, let me ask you this.
Do you want, do, would you want a list of because I can, I, do you want a list of?
Cause I can, I, I, it's not me personally, but I have, have lists here that, that probably are.
Representative of dozens and dozens of searches that have gone to for the president. It's not a wheel it has to be invented.
Yeah, it's, it's an invitation. My sense is there's some things that we might all agree would be great to get the advisory groups assistance with.
And if we start to populate that now, that some trust will be built. I think it's worth articulating kind of what.
In a more concrete stance. What the advisory role is going to look like because from looking at their survey responses and from hearing testimony today.
Regardless of what people's opinion are on the process that we've already chosen. There is clearly a desire.
To legitimize the advisory group. And I think that it should be our goal today to kind of hammer out what weight we're going to give to the advisory role like you're saying to create that public trust but also because it's important and I don't think any of our board wants to just ignore what people have to say.
That's why we appreciate testimony. So I think that this should be one of our folks, our main focus today is to really ensure that there's adequate representation, there's adequate roles and that we don't just listen to them but we figure out what that role is going to be and how we're gonna interact with them going forward.
Okay.
It's can I float some ideas at this point? Is that sort of where this might?
So let me try floating because you know, so the goal is transparency, the goal is voice and choice.
Right. And, and. Honoring the constituents. So If that is since that's where we want to go.
Might this group. Select the firm. I'm gonna just Throughout some ideas, select the firm.
Work with the firm to evaluate. Candidates. Coming from the firm.
And provide the selection committee, the Board of Regents with. Some number. Of candidates that would then Proceed to a more public.
For the process. So let me just throw that out. I don't know if you want that as a motion, but.
It seems like it might be premature as a motion. And it's a good example of the kind of things that this advisory group might have much of the same functions that the kind of things that this advisory group might have much of the same functions that the selection committee of the past had.
But the way I interpret what. But this word did is they said, we want to be more involved.
We want to do more of the left. The region ever was very expressive of this earlier. Like since we have to make the decision, why don't we do more of the work?
And I respect that. So. I think we're in this place, okay, great. Well, but we certainly want to honor the role.
Of our stakeholder community in the broader community. So that's for that balance. So I appreciate Regent Sochi lifting up an example, the advisory group could have much of the same functions as previous selection committees.
While we still hold the ultimate. Decision. Regent Wilson.
I think one of the things that's going to be critical is to define. You know, what it is we're looking for in terms of and experience the skill.
To and do that in the context of really understanding and having a discussion. About what, where we headed as an institution where we need to move towards as an institution so that we can.
Identify what are the key things. That we would be looking for. In a president in order to achieve that.
So I think that's very critical that we. Focus on that first before we and and look at that you know is that something that is the advisory.
Committee's role. I believe it should be. And would that would that be covered if the task was to come up with the selection criteria with the recruiting firm?
That would be an example of something we could practically add, the advisory group would come up with that criteria.
With the recruiting firm that we select. Other other thoughts? Question suggestions.
If not, I'll just quickly open to rental cheekies. Point one of the other things we could do Hi, hybrid would be to give the advisory group.
Much of the actual. You know, processing deliberation discussion, but they would be bringing those. Every other decisions to us.
For ratification so that there's still be a balance of them being fully involved. Making the recommendations.
But then we would vote for every single thing along the way. And because we're planning on meeting twice a month.
That we could have that cadence reasonably. other thoughts, question. Yeah, I think we Again, reading through all of the way this has happened in the past here and elsewhere.
You, you have to define the scope of your search. In order to do that, the the regions have to have what is it that they want in a president and of course the advisory committee and again believe me I've read it over and over and over again everybody wants the same thing.
In fact, President Lasner, when he was a candidate, nomination.
For for the presidency outlined page after page of what is expected of a president. A, the Negian.
Undertaking by the way, which I'm sure he'll agree is there. So that's that's not going to be hard to do.
So, first, what do we need in a president? What are we looking for?
What, what, what's defining leadership needs? Right, like Ernie. Ernie says, I think.
Then, you, What's required then is Are you going to have a search firm do this?
As in, as an initial, step or are you gonna go to the advisory group and, and the regents working together to do this.
My conclusion is that It's a complete waste of time and money. To get a so-called search.
Firm in it, they have their own agendas. The, search firms take an average of 4 to 7 months or longer.
Before they're ready to go. They they reach out to candidates and and and resources that are part of their agendas.
And over and over again, you see in the in the history of these firm surges, 600.
700 contacts are made. Then they end up with between 70 and a hundred. Actual applications.
And maybe 50 nominations come in. Hundreds of contacts are made. And then when those nomination, when those applications and nominations, all the search committees, regardless of whether it's regents and trustees or whether it's a an amalgam of various interests, they immediately go down to about 15.
People. The first cut cuts dozens and dozens of in the first cut. I just think it's a it's it's wasting our time.
It's wasting money. It's it's it's it debilitates the the advisory committee by by having the search committee.
I think we need to empower if you're going to have an advisory committee that's meaningful and empower them to get moving, get cracking.
But on this point, I, one of the things I certainly I would love to see the advisory group.
And powered because there are a lot of work to do. Right. And so for those who want to stick to a timeline and be expedient, like the the more we divide up that work and the more we share the the lift the you know the faster we can go while still being deliberate so I think Again, my proposal is that right now what we're what we're really discussing is.
Well, how much what's being assigned to the advisory group? Exactly. Sorry, I need to interrupt.
I guess I'm still trying to wrap my head around how these 2 will interact. And this is just an idea.
Wonder if, you know, we're gonna agenda is everything that we're gonna be doing at the meeting if the advisor, so we know.
What much what decisions will be made where we are in the process and if the advisory because they can meet.
Together, yes. I just come from a, Council, what are what are the sunshine law requirements on the advisory group?
Is it dependent on the functions that they are assigned?
Yeah, the limitations are only on the regions if they're sitting on such a group, but not.
That is correct. And we do have an executive session scheduled today in case we have to dive deeper into.
These issues, but our understanding is they could move more. Absolutely. So if we have say, we got all the proposals from the search firms in and we know we're going to make a decision at the next meeting.
Then we in this advisory group. They can can meet and talk about and discuss the proposals. And then we all meet and they're here and we all talk about it.
I guess I'm not quite understanding. How this the vote. This this vote comes into play because I think we've shown that When we're all here and we're discussing We find consensus and alone like when we were put in pig one we did the best we could with 5 members and clearly we didn't.
Have all the perspectives because we weren't allowed to and when we were able to put that out to the broader community, we got great feedback.
And realize we have to change things. That was recommended in our payroll, one report. So with is that a structure that's possible where we know what's coming up, advisory can This discuss it.
I'm getting the look from our legal council. What what are your thoughts, Kerry?
Yes. So, again, preference would be to discuss. Fully advising you in exact session.
As opposed to yes, no answers, which are in complete, but I would, respectfully.
Ask Jan, VPA about the German. So I know your question, your your hypothetical broader than just the selection of the search firm.
But I think there's a restrictions on. Whole of that information being published before decisions made. Alright, understood.
So I. That is a little why we have to we can't enumerate exactly what. Everything that we're gonna ask advisory to do because they are gonna be limitations like that.
That come up. Go ahead, others have.
I'm gonna go to the regions that have questions, right? But I think. This is the right conversation in terms of how we're gonna, it's what I hear is clear.
There's the intention for us is to. Is to empower this group to do a lot of the lift.
And so some of this will be. They'll believe it when they see it. Some of it is what can we say today that gives confidence and the other point is it's going to help us recruit members of the advisory board if they know we're asking them to do.
So that's what we're trying to do this morning. Regent H. I'm glad it was brought up about the sunshine law.
Again, the material that the staff has provided us shows us over and over again and they and it mentions other states other institutions are subject to their various aspects of sunshine laws, all of which messes the process though.
For everybody that testified here today. And everybody that sent in the testimony. Not one single person or one single group.
Yeah, of the testimony mentions the sunshine law. With respect to the all inclusion and the and the transparency and all the rest of it.
Much of it is all theoretical about about this inclusion, but the practical reality is, is the advisory group, they get to talk with one another.
They get to commiserate with one another. They get to intellectually arm wrestle with one another.
The regents We're hamstrung. I could use a lot stronger language than the chairman knows that I've used it in the past about what the so called sunshine law does to the border regions.
We are really dependent. Upon the integrity and the and and the character and the hard work that an advisory committee can do because they can engage in conversation and discussion and analysis that we can only do essentially sometimes in executive session.
So we can't bring up the the I was going to mention that we can't bring up the search firms.
And do it because the second she do that you're gonna have to publish. What it is, some idiot will come in.
Well, I gotta, I gotta withdraw idiot. Is that part of the minutes now? Of some group or individual with their own agenda.
I guarantee you the second you bring up the search for and we do the second you bring up the search for and we do the second you bring up the search for and we do the second you bring up the search for and we do the second you bring up the search for and we do the second we have any exchange with you folks out there You're serious about what you're doing.
You gotta remember, we have the sunshine law, you don't. So we have to be super careful about what we say and what we do.
And what we ask because somebody is going to come in and say, oh, under the sunshine law, you gotta do this.
And one of the things that's crystal clear, Mr. Chairman. From all of the reading and all of the material we got is confidentiality is absolutely crucial.
If you're going to be have a successful search for a president, regardless of what criteria you set up for.
You have to have confidentiality. The advisory group has to understand. This isn't a free for all that you get to engage in where you shoot your mouth off to the press.
Some of the people who have testified, for example, here today, but nice sober, serious presentation to the Board of Regents.
I've listened to some of the very people who testified here shooting their mouths off on television. About what's going you do that and we're gonna be in serious trouble under the the sunshine law We're going to have an advisory committee.
They have to understand. They're going to have to sign confidentiality agreements. If they have to work with one another, they're going to have to have confidential understandings with one another.
So my point really is here is that the search firm business, we got to be real careful. I'm against it because I know, I know for a fact the Sunshine Law is gonna come in and it's going to delay us probably for months.
You will see.
Yeah, you know, I go back to, you know, even when we talk about a year, some discussion about what the search firm
He's me. And all of those started to talk about the thing that we've been talking about in region, Ibercombe, we talked about this has to do with the search firm.
You know to me part of this is We need to focus on. What do we not only what do we want the advisory committee to do, but what do we want the search firm to do?
I mean, in terms of, because to me, if you hire a search firm, you tell them these are the key indicators that we're looking for.
This is what we require. You know that the person must meet these qualifications. And then to me they do their job going out and trying to identify.
People would be able to do that but I still go back to the fact that we need to have in place and I think this is the as you said would be a job of the advisory committee really define first what it is we are looking for.
You know, if we're going to use a simple example, if. You know, I'm the coach of a professional football team and I'm looking for a wide receiver.
Okay, what are the qualifications that we need to have of a wide receiver? Well, one.
The time that they can do to 40 or dashing. C how fast are, you know, what's there been directed kind of thing?
And I think that's the focus. The first that has to be. Made and I think that would be a job of the advisory committee, which would be need to be made up and representative of the constituencies that we heard here today.
Could I, did I float 8? Thoughts. Is that a suggestion? And I want to see Regents reaction.
How would we feel about?
Articulating, changing the language right now to say that This advisory group would provide. Advice and recommendations on all aspects of the presidential search.
And again, this doesn't mean they make decisions. We all the decisions are still held by this body.
We, that's the selection committee's job. So we can still in the future. Disperse specific decision making, but.
It says that that group. Ken opine on any matter.
We're just hanging.
At 1 point, finally, towards the end of the testimony, I heard something that I was listening for.
Which was the addition of accountability or responsibility to the word authority as our roles in this. When you throw that in for which there can always be a consequences.
It changes the level of the discussion. I would encourage anyone who has doubts about.
Here, start over again. Government by plebiscite usually doesn't work. It's too big.
2 ways to bog down a process. One is by non-inclusion and the other is by overinclusion.
Somehow or another, we're going to want at the conclusion of all of this, a group with identified responsibilities.
That in in fact, is functional. Does not does not require too much retooling. There will be people who are undoubtedly going to be on happy at one end of that spectrum and people who will be unhappy at the end of the spectrum.
Hold on, what we have to be able to do is satisfy our consciences that to the extent committed by the existing rules governing us to the extent permitted by the existing rules governing us.
We in fact acted in good faith to the people who are sitting in the audience. And virtually in the audience right now.
And that may sound a little airy fairy in its way. But I think that's. Been true.
Any, any process. That mixes function with idealism. And so here's where I was.
Hoping to go with this.
Any time that we, and when, when you encounter a sunshine law. In any context elsewhere here. It's because somewhere along the line, 2 people lost trust in each other.
There was a failure in trust and I had started the process going and now what we have is a case of over in my view at least, over scrutiny.
Of people who were elected. You can't possibly get all of the stockholders into this room. On, be possible and get on some level.
We're expecting the regions to be trustworthy in selection of this process. What helped assure that is the region selection process and for anyone who has any doubt about how we are.
How we arrived here at these comfortable seats around a table with pleasant company. Go to the web page and have a look at the Regents Advisory Council and see the process.
It won't be perfect, but it's indicative of a number of people who have made a commitment.
To act in good faith on behalf of those in the universe again, spoken for much too long. I wish I had been as brief as The young man was from the Students Association, moments ago.
But on that last point, if I do a quick check of Regents, how many regions, you know, we're students, our alumnus of
How many students have been faculty? About me, Regents and faculty. Any staff? So to the other point, right, you say, besides the criteria.
These are folks that, you know. Parent, how many parents? Right, yeah. What if you pay tuition bills to university?
Yeah, this group not only has been vetted. Has deep ties to the university. Alright, yeah, Vijay,
Oh, I wanted to respond to your, question. And that. Right.
At any part of the process to me, I feel it's inherent that we listen to our constituents, councils, the people who have come today.
I didn't feel like we were excluding them at all when we initially We're meeting coming up with this and I think 2 and a half weeks.
As a pig. Meeting what felt like every other day. And so So really, I think.
The the assumption that we are not going to listen or don't want to listen. Should not be construed in that way.
It was never meant to be exclusive. It was actually meant to be inclusive. And I and I recall when we started.
Right, who would be on this advisory committee? You could go down a rabbit hole for days and days and days.
We started, you know, you could start making a list. I think the list got, by the time it got to like 30 plus members community faculty staff.
The the logistical like how would you do that logistically to have every person in the room at every meeting?
And, and so I think what I think what I recall is we started with the And then President Laszne, you can remind us the 4 governing bodies that are officially recognized.
Was the start, right? And then you start to add on names and councils and groups. I mean, within within the Faculty Senate.
I mean, there's committees and there's representation and I realize that everybody wants a piece of the pie.
But, but what I think I was the most troubled about by the testimony and the, the initial survey responses which were about over 700 to date was that the meaningful inclusion which is which is what was repeated in many of the letters and in many of the testimony was that meaningful inclusion meant a seat at the table for a vote.
And meaningful inclusion is a very subjective word and I think we're trying to define that which is really difficult.
At this point in time because we are early on in the process. And so To answer your question, yes, right?
I, I expect that we as a Board of Regents include that meaningful inclusion at every at every point of the way.
And to me that's actually inherent in the process and not a separate. Item that we need to separate or address.
But that is my perspective that it is included in that whole process. I do also want to say having having done recruitments for chief executive positions, having a search firm does habits benefits.
I realized that because this is so visible, I think we also talked a lot about having our border region staff if there were 700 applicants just like how there were 700 responses to the survey.
Someone has to vet through that, whether it be HR, someone has to make sure that they meet the minimum qualifications.
Someone has to make sure that they have the academic, whatever the minimum qualifications are, desired qualifications.
And that really the search firm was to be used more as a administrative and logistical tool rather than providing guidance towards the actual.
Candidate. I don't know if I can articulate it as well, but really to help. T it up for us as regents and the advisory committee so that the administrative burden, I mean, I can't imagine us opening envelopes or responding to emails individually.
Responding to emails individually. I mean, responding to emails individually. I mean, so anyways, that's kind of my, so anyways, that's kind of my, not one, the search firm, but really I, feel like we, have to, we how we find respect with each other.
I will just say one more comment and then I'll close that the I will say the comments really struck me as there is a definite distrust of just the Board of Regents.
Itself. There were some, of course, so we can't address every, error, but we are unpaid volunteer board.
There are more than one, there's more than one Kanaka model. There's more than one Hawaiian on this board.
That we have a student region who has voting authority, who is a part of our everyday, every single meeting.
I do believe that there is distinct representation on this board. We saw it by also alum, faculty, parents, and so.
If if we could the the trust goes both ways. I feel that if right and to and to the student, Mahalo for reminding us that, right?
They are entrusting us to make this decision and I want to entrust in them that we will make the right decision so
Okay. My thoughts and my comments were gonna be directly along the lines of reaching Paloma, also building on recent painting.
Governor Abercrombie, talking about I feel like a lot of the comments and the testimony.
Sort of are questioning our individual. Intentions as regents. Our desire to be open. And inclusive and just echoing what Regent Paloma said, you know, we were in pick one not was not the intention.
Again, we were put in a small group. And we did the best in a very short amount of time as a starting point.
And so I appreciate everyone's input here and we came to a a better informed. Decision when we put it all out there.
Also I want to say along the lines of what Regent Abercrombie was saying about non-disclosure agreements and conflicts of interest.
You know, I spoke about this at the last meeting and in pig one. Just about the public trust in us regions, I mean, we went through a thorough process to get here.
As Regent Paloma said, we represent different groups here, faculty, staff, alumni, parents.
Former students. We also file financial disclosure agreements. That's you know out there and so we're held to a high standard here so The the question to be our intention intentions here is particularly as we are volunteers.
That's a little disappointing and I, and I hope we can. We can clarify that today that it's not our intention.
To exclude people. I hope you can see by our discussions that we're listening and we're trying to include.
Everyone. I also want to speak to Regent She is an amazing student region. I know I have not been here that long.
But if, and maybe. Everyone's not watching the entire length of the meetings. We've had very long meetings.
She speaks up, she's prepared, she's articulate. She speaks for the students. We all appreciate her opinion.
And she's not shying away from these topics. And so to the extent that, you know, our intentions are being.
Questioned in ways and She's sitting here speaking for the students. I'd like to say I think she's doing a really.
Wonderful job. Thank you.
Shirley. Chair, getting back to the wording, on the recommendation. I can see, modifying it to, it was advice and, and recommendation.
But the additional wording you wanted was I think a little too. Wide open. I think we can.
Assigned the advisory committee. What to do but if it's too wide open it's not gonna they may not be focused and productive.
And, so I just. At the and recommendation, but the other wording.
Shirley kinda taking the
Think the task for us now is are we moving forward as it is with that small amendment, right? And we're gonna.
Come up with specifics going forward or are we going to. Lay some down. Today. I, my own.
I respect by Shirley's. Position that's not mine. I feel like whether we give if we form an advisory group they're gonna opine on every aspect.
Of the search. As, and I think that's what I heard, Regent Promise, that why wouldn't they do that?
I think I would expect them to do that because that's what we want. Yeah, so for me it's like, it's just like seeing it up front.
Yeah, we get it that you're gonna give us your feedback. And we will welcome it when you give it.
The issue about what task they get, I think, and if the wording could be amended so that it's clear that doesn't mean you get to make decisions on whatever you want.
It's that we respect. Feedback on every aspect of the internet. Now the irony is because we create a committee of the whole.
That's gonna be true for every single thing we decide because it's gonna be agendas and folks can testify.
All faculty, all students, all staff can give their direct feedback to us. On anything we decide to do.
The advisory group is just an elevated group that it actually kind of picks us off the hook. Because we don't have to answer to every single testifier.
We can say, well, we're trusting the advisory group. We're trusting the faculty member that you appointed or remember you pointed that's who we're taking our guidance from.
So it's an interesting, you know, where. Are we gonna wait the opinions of advisory group over individual testifiers?
This can be interesting. I think the key word, It's up to us to. Establish the tasks for the Advisor group, otherwise it is a free for all.
I'll go back to. As usual, region heading has a capacity of facilities for zeroing right in on.
On the essential element. Over and over again it happens by the way. That's meant to be accomplished, a compliment, I know.
Please don't go. But, and it's true, it is. And what he said, this is not a referendum.
We're a representative. This is representative government. Now somebody wants to be a parliamentary system. They can go to another country or another state.
They want to have referendum. They can go under another set of circumstances. We can't, no, can't we do that?
But one of the reasons I think that we're here is we're representatives. And the advisory group will be representative.
Of a broader opinion and so on, hopefully. So they get assigned the task. If it's wide open, I agree with, with Regent Lee.
I mean, I know what you're driving at and I agree, but if, If they apply on anything, for example, search.
We, we gotta decide that. That shouldn't be something the advisory committee. It gets a crack at because I can find 6 or 7 other things that we should make decisions on like like the criteria for for the task of picking the president.
I don't think it should be a referendum. Out there with 7,000 participants in it.
We have said we need to assign the tasks and that's what they apply on. And the like whether there should be a search firm or not, we should decide that.
That's not something you want to throw out there because in terms of of time expending. If that's what's gonna be done, we're gonna be here.
The past 2025. Quick side.
Yeah, so who we choose and what they do this though
Thank you. I think one of the things that again, at least the reading I've done, says that I think we could do with our staff and an HR firm, but if you're going to talk about search firm.
I think you should get a, if you're going to do a firm at all, it should be an HR firm.
They do logistics and so on. They can pull that together and then we make decisions about the cut.
Was over and over and over again when you read the record of what happens with search firms is they, they have an interest in spending your money.
And they're going to reach out to hundreds of people and the mainland and international and all the rest of this stuff and what happens at the end of this expensive long process that involves hundreds of people is all of a sudden you end up with 79 applications and in the first pass it's down to 15.
Okay, and then, and the reason, it's talking, I do wanna just so that we're on the same page.
We voted last time. To move forward with the search for a recommendation. And then based on the comments, you've made similar comments last time.
We changed it so that and HR firm could be. Could, bid or partner with another, a local firm.
Okay. Just mentioned that so between meetings we did come up with, well the criteria was in the pig report and then we came up with the waiting.
And they so we started the RFP process. One of the things we did add that you had recommended is for the search firm to disclose if they're bringing cannabis to us.
That. That. We at least know that if they're gonna You know, they have a like an agenda.
You know, yeah. Regent Tochiki. I think.
One of the primary responsibilities of our university is . To grow the citizenship and I have to say that in listening to the testimony one of the things because I've been very worried about our democracy.
One of the things, because I've been very worried about our democracy, frankly. And so it is heartening to hear the faculty.
Heartening to hear the staff and especially heartening to hear the students come forward. To have a role in this process.
That said that role is a lot of work. And so those people who are stepping forward.
Those those constituencies that are stepping forward are stepping forward kind of the same way that we are which is thankless.
In many ways. Volunteer. And also taking on a huge and important responsibility. And I, I appreciate their willingness to do that and therefore I want to honor that I think as a body.
And that means honoring that that role that voice and choice to work out from their various perspectives.
Who will be the search for? Cause we heard from the 900 or so responses some very strong. Thoughts about and today as well.
Very strong thoughts about, should the emphasis be of that firm? We as as a group, as a committee of the whole and I like how in the notes now we're a cow.
So we have a pig and now we have a cow. But as a cow. There is no way that we can review.
Nor should we. what the procurement process and, and the, the vetting.
Well, we, we do have the responsibility of the final approval. Because that is the the responsibility given to us by the Constitution and the And the government, but but with the advice.
And the. Recommendation. I think that word is really, really important of of the committee. So I think what I'm saying is This is building trust and and I think whether we need the broader language or the more specific language.
Recommendation about the search firm. Recommendation about the the attributes that we're looking for in the in this position.
Recommendation about. The vetting process and the overview of the vetting process and recommendation of the candidates.
I, whether we do that specifically or, you know, as a general statement, I'm not sure.
Which is necessary, but I, I do think that. That's where we are. And this.
And the, to the trust component of it. I've gotten some, feedback that We take a So, give us 10 min.
Built and then. We'll reconvene.
Calls me back to order. Okay.
All right, we're back in session. Regents, I know, we're talking talking about what is next in line, but I wanna.
Set on something first. Everything I've heard from Regents is that The attention was always. To have a legitimate advisory group that is.
You know, a meaningful part of the process. And we're talking today, I think we've gone to the point where we're looking, what it's not about whether it's legitimate or not.
It's No, how do we do that? How do and how do we not both indicate that to our community and how do we operationalize it?
What I wanna suggest and it's why we put this on our agenda. Is we moved to executive session because some of the dynamics about what we would have them do and what the operationalized that impact things like sunshine law and document sharing so If we could go into exact session, consult with our attorney, we could get some guidance on.
You know, what can we articulate and how and and what needs to be avoided. If we agree, can I get a motion to go into executive session?
I. All those in favor of going to executive session say aye. Any opposed? My apologies to the audience that we didn't think of this earlier and you had to take break and Come back and hear that.
So. We will convene. Soon as we're done delivering our consulting with our attorney.
And can you hear us?
Do you know? Oh, directly direct still, yeah.
I'm just kinda trying to get Wayne, make sure Wayne's online.
And then we'll get started.
Let the, the, glare, the glamorous life of a. My apologies for not having lunch.
I that's an unacceptable oversight.
We pass on that way. Thank you.
Oh, I'll take, Cool. Alright, Wayne, can you hear us, Wayne?
Yes, I can.
Alright, okay, we're back in session. I wanna, you know, I wanna thank Regents.
This is an extra meeting we added. Some of the most busiest folks around and so appreciate the service.
And we're gonna go back to the conversation we're having. Before I do, I wanna just reiterate, we went into exact session.
To talk to our. Our council. But all the ramifications of the way we're trying to approach this process in regards to advisory group.
And the task we assigned to an advisory group have different legal components to them. So, Thank you for most patience as we did that.
Consultation. What's clear is that all regions have a strong intention. For the advisory group to be a meaningful.
Significant part of the process. We're not all in agreement from the earlier conversation. We're not all in agreement about how to do that.
So we're gonna go back to that conversation. Again, on the screen. You can see that the what we have is.
Bye'll provide advice and recommendations to the committee of the whole as requested. The only other specific task was to be part of the listening sessions.
Regents. Further discussion?
Okay. I, I wanna. Just reiterate how much I appreciate the, the testimony that we've received and that.
That concern about voice and choice, is, where we're. We're trying to balance, right?
And then it was also very helpful to think about. Where issues of having a robust. Search also means that we have to honor confidentiality and the the needs of the applicants.
And so China balanced that and so this is really helpful. I think where I'm lending right now and where would like to see us go is to.
Have that road best advisory. Group.
Get started, but then also give it some more time to actually. Figure out who. And what they will do, but to give some of that decision-making.
To the representatives on the advisory group to help us. Collaboratively work that through. So I think that's where we, what I heard in the discussion and what I'd like to see.
So I will pine again.
That the language as request, I think someone else also mentioned this seems to have triggered a reaction that the interpretation of that is
We don't need your perspective unless we ask for it. I don't think that's the intention of the region.
One of the things I'm wondering, even if we're going to Lay out the actual tasks and.
Yeah, that we, that we include this group. Is substantive by the actual stuff we do with them and how we engage.
And like us to find ways to try to voice significance now, right? There's never probably the way perhaps the phrase as requested has been misunderstood.
What we're talking about, at least that I believe this is, is that a task and that tasks will be assigned.
To the advisory group. And that's the request. The request is that the advisory group, take up the burden of the tasks.
Is that make? I think that is an additional point. That's not the point I heard.
What I heard is that's still as only when you need us. No, no, I understand that there were people who said that, but that's not what we meant.
Only when you need it. So what we mean is as requested that there's gonna be specific specific task specific requests.
Made by the VOR. But don't we still determine those tasks? Oh yeah, we have.
We have to have the I mean, the advisory group can't meet in a vacuum.
We're picking the president. And what's associated with picking the present. We don't wanna, them to anybody to not understand what it is that we were looking for.
You, And if I can kind of clarify the thinking or my interpretation of the the thinking and discussion that we.
Need to have it and have had. Yes, step one. That we.
Reach out. Form. Hey group.
Which would then discuss the makeup. Of the advisory. Group. Once they have done that made that recommendation that that we would.
Then approve. The recommendation as to. How the advisory group would be organized, what it be made up of.
And then the next step would be the advisory group would then. I have to. After we approve it, come back.
And say, okay, this is going to be. The recommendation on how the advisory. Who would can be, make up the advisory group?
And once that comes back for approval by the board. Then the advisory group would start its work. And come up with.
All of the tasks. That would be Done by the advisory group. But that this first step assisted.
So you are you suggesting that the advisory group could propose the functions that they would like to do? That's that's why I'm hearing what you're saying.
One of the difficulties right now is that
We don't, we don't know specifically. All that we can break off. To the advisory group to be able to enumerate that here.
And it is constrained by legal considerations. But what I want to say is that to the extent that and I don't know that we're going to be able to enumerate everything today.
To the extent that we can't do that. I want everyone to know that as a board what chair said is correct that we are committed to making sure there's meaningful participation here.
And I also want to say there's some very strong advocates amongst the regions for that participation. So.
I feel confident. That along the way when we do figure out each elements and how this is going to be broken down.
That there is gonna be strong voices as a board, but also there are strong advocates. Where to say that we absolutely have to have.
Meaningful participation. So I don't want that if we don't come out with an enumerated list.
To think that that again is some indication that we're. Trying to take things away. But just sitting right here now, I don't.
See that we can enumerate that unless any10, see is a way to do that, then, then please, you know, put that on the table.
So I would concur that it'd be very challenging, particularly understanding that the legal considerations to enumerate all the.
The functions. So to press this, like, so how do we give our community more confidence on the intention.
I gotta propose this language at a starter. So instead of as request, they would say, committee.
Provided advice and guidance or recommendations commit a whole.
Okay. To help ensure that the perspectives, the key stakeholders, and the broader community are included throughout the selection process.
How that's done, the legal. You know, nuance of what assignments to get that can all be worked out, but it's a much stronger statement of the intention of the advisory committee and how to view them.
Vision. Kind of say back what I just heard so that I understand. When I'm, what I'm hearing is, A proposal about kind of the call.
For the advisory, the call to action for the budget group. Which is a much more robust statement than it currently is.
And then as I'm understanding it, the next step will be. For us to discuss. Who's in the advisory group?
Okay. So kind of just. Taking little bites of this, right?
So. Okay, thank you. That helps me. And so then are you looking for a motion for that language right now?
Sure. We're not voting on. I would open it up and then we can discuss and both up or down.
Or just discuss first, that's fine. That's how we typically have done things.
Regent Evercrombie, I thought, and understand, but, We simply remove the word help and say go directly to assure that the key.
Yeah, stakeholder just for you. Even more, That was essential. That
I'm gonna get sassy remarks about my English again. Yeah. Are you changing? Are sure to ensure?
Is that right? Our English professors. Yes, yes. That's the proposal.
I'm gonna pretend I said that in the first place. Other thoughts about that language change?
I would also say I think the other recommendations in the pig about the public like who should be on it and the qualifications to me that's why you guys recommended those qualifications because they will help us on our voice, but other thoughts about this.
Are you ready for a motion? Showing it up.
Region listen. The second. Region 2 s. Any further discussion on that language change?
Seeing none all those in favor signal by saying aye Alright, any opposed?
Alright. So I'll based on other conversation we've had. Are there any other proposed? Additions to that section of the report, the talk about the functions of the advisory group at this time.
I reiterate that what we understand is P have to be assigned. Those tasks have to be timing of those, the legal components have to be vetted so This is not the end of it.
We'll have to continue. The conversation. Are we ready to move on to who's going to be on this advisory group?
Seeing no objections. Cool. One task done today. Thanks, to the work of our pay one.
We have a starting list and. The way I interpret the wording, but I'll differ to you vice chair leap.
This wasn't a recommendation, it was kinda open, right? Could include these, yeah. So this is a starting point, but we really have a kind of a blank slate.
On who to include. You can. Can I start by including those 4 governing board? Councils sorry about terminology.
Yeah, I recognize formally that have a existing relationship. And then just keep building or we could just kinda craft things as they come up.
So. Let's just take that one individually for now because it says it's a substantive change.
So the proposal is to add Is identified faculty staff and students as the 3 of the 4 codify groups and to add Buko as the fourth codified group.
So membership would include the 4 entities that we currently reference. That's the proposal discussion. And, and I'll come to the center of the room.
So it's just discussion on this. I'll just listen to just this one for now, Anyone else on this region, Malay?
Yeah, so these 4 groups are faculty Senate staffs in it student ASUA. I mean, student caucus.
Are, are we like going detailed in here? If I could get some help from staff, the way it's the way it's codified is, is as original why is Stating it, yes.
Yes. So what we'll do is we'll confirm the actual language and but yeah, but we'll use the language.
Yeah. I think that's a good. So we're gonna change this. To list the 4 groups that 4 formalized groups and I'm sorry I'm at a loss for the specific, Any other discussion?
And I guess, so that, the language would be that these would be the beginnings of it and and it would be these forest established codified groups and they would each in their own bodies select.
Who will sit on the my current proposal is that we handle the how do the seats get filled. Next, but I'm open if we want to talk about that now.
I, my thought is that we should not be selecting. Who are the representatives of each of these groups and that they as organized and elected bodies should do that selection.
Is that a would you consider that part of your proposal? Yeah. So the proposal is that those 4 groups are part of the advisory group and that they choose their own representatives.
I'm going to, you, everybody first, back to you. Just because of, my reason.
Joining the group. These 4 groups are is that is in my understanding they have official recognition of some.
Degrees, I mean, cause there's other groups. Correct. Obviously that we recognize. so how, does, how does the 4 groups again for public purposes for the communication of the greater public out of these 4 groups.
Distinguish themselves in terms of their officialness as opposed to other groups that are associated with the university. I'm not sure who's best to other groups that are associated with the university.
That changes the nature of the relationship. In other words, there's a region policy that distinguishes these 4 groups.
Okay, that's fine. As I said, it distinguishes the groups by specific entities too, right?
Not just generically. So, Any other discussion about the So we are just going forward with these 4 groups.
Is now the time that we would be talking about if we're gonna put regions on it or not or put other stakeholders on it or not or put other stakeholders.
I'm talking about if we're gonna put regions on it or not or put other stakeholders on.
If we agree to this one, There's other discussion about the proposal. It's been, Move the second.
It has not. That's that's that your motion, Okay, is there a second? Any further discussion.
Is it understood that this is for starters? Yes. Okay, see now for the discussion all those in favor by saying I.
Any opposed? Motion carried so we now have 4 official members of the advisory group.
Going to the recommendation. The other categories were administrators alumni. Members of the broader community between 4 and 6.
Bye, Shelley. I just wanted to throw out. I mean, this is gonna come out to more than 6, but.
Alumni association . H. Foundation and save from the business community. Either a wide business round table or the Chamber of Commerce of Y.
I could check that. Those entities that Is it similar that we would ask them to send us a rep from their groups?
Yeah.
Is that so that can I send that a motion? Don't. Discuss.
Sure. Okay, sure.
And then I'll go to, the, the, the, of the further away. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. How, Regent, I would like to add or at least suggest another group that would be our Regardless.
And I know we can all see it. We could probably share a talk with you if we need to or make it bigger.
So right now we have the alumni, if we need to or make it bigger. So right now we have the US Alumni Association, the HH Foundation.
The way business roundtable chamber of commerce.
And, the region Meritis group. Okay, I'm gonna go here and then there.
Okay.
During because I'm worried that This gets us in a big circle, right? And I'm wondering if it would be helpful to make the next proposal.
That there be in addition to the 4. 2 regions in this group already. Let's before our next meeting get together.
Discuss. What other community members should be in the group. And come back to the cow. So the 4 that we've already determined.
We meet with who? 2 regions. 2 regions. And then they would bring us a recommended list.
So the 6 people meet. Immediately. I don't know if that's possible. I don't know that each organization already has somebody in mind, but.
And come back to us with a proposal about the constitution of the advisory committee.
So we have, we, we're bringing a list of bodies. That could choose representatives. Suggestion here is we could actually do a process where recommendations are made between meetings and come to us.
That's on a table too. Okay, that check, Regina, is your hand up?
My apologies, I forgot to take it down.
Again, no worries. Regent, Hawaii.
So we still have to like. We voted on the first 4, but we would still have to vote on these other groups.
Okay. I would just like to add, athletics from both Halo and, or I don't know.
But athletics having a Rep. Rebecca Okay. So I agree with Regent Totki.
This is gonna just keep going because I could say right now I want to make sure there's neighbor island representation.
Make sure there's gender diversity. I mean, we could just really keep going with organizations.
I do like, in theory, the idea of tasking. The the 4 groups plus the 2 regions to meet immediately.
And then come up with some recommendations. But I want to ask because we did and out of the pig, we talked about a number.
Was 4 to 6 out of the pig and there was a rationale for that. And so if we as a company of the whole board want to Give the 6 we're gonna meet if we go that route.
Some parameters. I think now would be the time instead of having them meet, come back and say we want 20.
Do we, so we can still discuss what's on our minds collectively and then. If, if we agree with Regent Tuki's idea, they'd have they'd already have a starting.
Like some parameters. I just wanna put that out there because I like that idea, but I wanna see if we want parameters.
I'm gonna go back to Regent Hennings. Oh, originally, Remember, and this isn't a plebiscite.
Or a referendum. And for example. 2 or 3 business groups have already been named, but I didn't hear anything about labor.
I didn't hear anything about unions. And if we get into that, are we talking about separate when we're talking about specific, groups representing, I didn't see anybody bring up Operation Manong.
I mean, we've got certain groups already represented among the student body. There's 2 or 3 other groups in the student body that represent a significant portion, what about, All the Chamber of Commerce.
Yeah, that's fine, but there's a lot of chambers of commerce out there.
And I did nobody brought up OHa. So we gotta be. I think we need to take a deep breath here at this stage.
And you want to talk about politics? You want to talk about lobbying? You want to talk about influencing from the outside.
Listen this this Board of Regents is a paragon of virtue. With respect to being influenced compared to what's going to start the second This comes out of us that who's going to be on it? Who isn't? Now we've made a good start.
These are official bodies. But I think we ought to think very, very carefully about. Exactly what we want to have here in the advisory.
And recommending group. Oh, when it's finally established in terms of membership. the way I was looking at it.
Trying to think. I was trying to think of names. Less in terms of what they represented because There's ethnicity, there's There's neighbor islandness, there's there's experience of various kinds so on and so forth.
I I was thinking more of names of people representative of of the kind of people who I know are going to be thoughtful.
Are going to be, have an eclectic. The view etc.
In other words, I'm not quite sure that group think. Is necessarily what we need to have.
And I'm talking about the community side now. Common. If we get into groups per se, we're gonna get up to 35 or 40 or 50.
50, reasonable. Contenders. So I wish I had a more definitive answer as to how to deal with it.
But, I'm thinking more about. Individual names coming. Forth that have a kind of background and experience and I that I trust.
I said, other reason why after I check on this question and I'm not sure if it's like Shirley or Shocket.
So I think I misread that report section about the 4 to 6 members. I thought it was faculty staffs to the administrator alumni.
And then 4 to 6 community members. But the recommendation was that of all those bullets. Finding 4 to 6 people would kind of give us that broad perspective.
That was the. Okay, so that's why you're saying. Well, how much members are we talking about adding to the advisory group?
Yeah, and we just put 4.
So, Yeah, because it's so unclear, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I was thinking the 4 to 6 too that we picked 4 to 6 individuals and they're not necessarily going, you know, what we want to bring, we're gonna bring Catholics and Mormons in?
I mean, we got to be careful about a group of representatives of groups for the 4 to 6 members.
Rather than 4 to 6 members whose Who's perspective. In terms of They're love for and their desire to be helpful.
To the university in advancing its cause. Through its new president is recognized. For example, of a name, if she was still alive, pick Gladys Brent.
For one thing. I think. Establish yourself in or if he was still alive. It was a professor of religion.
At university, I'm picking people of religion at university. I'm picking people deliberately that that that wouldn't but that's what I'm talking about.
There are individuals recognized throughout our community regardless of their background regardless of their their affiliations who who are respected in terms of their commitment to why I think that's who ought to be in the 4 to 6.
It's clear it's a big decision. It's a big decision. I had to add up first. And the good reason was the next.
I want to make sure I'm mapping all the stuff they're talking about. Number one, there's this, do we pick?
We have 4 already chosen codified. To add to that, battling between groups. That would say members versus individual members is something that's on the table.
The number of folks in advisory groups another issue on the table first top up. All the correct things, Regent Muy and then Regent, wanted to understand what you are saying, Raja, Abercrombie, of You're you're oh still okay with the 4 codified governance groups, but you're just talking about the additional That would be added.
Okay. I, I don't know if now is the time to do that, but would like to talk about Laura.
Proposal and if we go that route is it possible to say this is the max amount of people that we would want you to a point which is the 4 to 6 is one. Okay.
So then we can make a cap on how many additional people from these groups that we've recommended or suggested to the advisory council from these groups that we've recommended or suggested to the advisory council that you can pick from these groups that we've recommended or suggested to the advisory council that you can pick from and one from each.
However, you know, and I don't know if it would be a list, but that's what I'm understanding, right?
I think it's 2 separate things that we could if we went with the. We could.
Ask them to bring us back recommendations and we could we could give them. A number parameter and then they can put whatever they want in there or we could say these are the folks that we were looking for representation from these sectors or whatever.
No, it's all to send him clarified that. This is once. We identified the for codified.
And the 2 regions. That's a group that would then come back. Was the recommendation on? The others that we can set a limit to.
Right, it's really what you're saying, right? I think that's polishing Regent Tochiki's proposal.
Right.
Other discussion about any of these topics, the proposed way to approach it. Number of regions, Just a little bit.
Microsoft.
And I can't imagine that we're going to get through without it turning into. 2 or 3 hot washes.
With additional names thrown in there is inevitably going to be people that we will So like this, of course.
I mean, the Department of Education has more of an investment in the university than most others. And we don't feel very foolish if we didn't.
Think about them as well. Doesn't mean we have to put them in. Doesn't mean we need an extensive list.
To consider. So when we're charging this small group, 4 plus 2. With our expectations.
Is it not reasonable to say we're not anticipating that we get This all resolved in one.
Or even to follow on meetings.
I think that's a certainly likely that we don't come to consensus. I don't know, I, Wilson, I think is hand is not.
That region Wilson.
Thank you, Chair. So, to may understand correctly. We have this group of 4, 2 regions.
And we're gonna ask them to. Come up with additional names. To make up this advisory group.
Did we come up with a number total? Cause that's already 6.
Or is that only the 4 and the 2 regions don't count? So. I'm just a little bit confused on the total number.
I'll do, I think the recommendation was this is. The 4 that are already established for the advisory group and 2 regions would work with them to to determine the other members not the regions wouldn't be continued on the advisory group.
And who would?
They just help with the process of coming up with a recommendation. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct.
Who would decide the total numbers?
That's what we're talking about. That's one of the proposals. We're talking, brought up was the current recommendation from the pig one was between 4 and 6 total members.
So we're talking now one of one of the topics in front of us is do we want to put a cap?
If we're going whether we put a whether we defer it to this group of 4 plus 2 regions or not.
Do we wanna establish a cap number, which right now is 6. Yeah, So I just wanna. Put this on the table.
One of the reasons This is along the lines of what, Governor Abbott probably was talking about regarding.
The people who would be chosen. When we when we talked in the pig, We did start down this route.
We had so many groups exactly what we're talking about here. And it was a little bit like Let's cap it.
Because we'll know it when we see it. And so I just throw it out there. We're talking about a process.
To then have another process or have another group and then we have to decide again. I wonder if we can do the 2 regions, the 4 groups.
And those are already the advisory. Members. And then we have 2 maybe 2 community members or however many we want to say 2 3.
And do we wanna pick those? That was the initial intention of the pig. That we would put forward names and you sort of know it when you see it.
Based on their qualifications. I'm just throwing that. Out there. So we have representation from the 4 that they choose.
That are already going to be on the advisory group. So we don't have a second step. Of their recommendation and then We come back what was intended with with the P one report was that we came with names.
And we picked. The community members or Initially it was all everyone but now if we're narrowing it down that we're picking for the community versus.
These 4 picking for the we would consider work whether an administrator and alumni get a seat of the bus left, right, that we would choose.
Yes. Amongst the non
Here's the next step. So. What should the make up be? How many members that's one thing and then well how did they get chosen?
Is another and I get that there it's related. Regent, why? To upon on alumni.
I feel like a lot of community members are already alumni. Doesn't mean that they will be, but even faculty, a lot of them are alumni, so I don't know if there necessarily needs to be a select person that functions as a alumni, whereas if there is someone who already is alumni that functions as something else.
I don't know if that could kind of eliminate an extra person. Okay. Forgive me, Abigail, but.
I couldn't agree more, but I think you're making the point or you're strengthening the point I made before.
I think we should eliminate this idea of groups. And we should get to individual names because you're going to see a combination of factors and various individuals.
And I think the number, should be 12. The reason I picked that, it's arbitrary, but it's not capricious.
But that's what a jury is. And a jury, by the way, I think I've got my, my jurisprudence history right here.
You know, there's enough lawyers here to tell me. I think the reason they picked 12 and not an odd number is, is they wanted consensus.
They wanted the group to have to decide they didn't want 7 and 6. Or 6 and 5 like we've got 11 you can you know 6 people can you know slaughter the other 5 kind of it's one of the problems with the pig right that 5 people were in and then 6 were out So I would think to 12 and I think we should go.
To individual, I think the, the other folks on the advisory committee should be picked by the.
Regents. Because I think if you go to the other group, they're going to, they're going to have to take into account all.
All these different groups and lobbying and all the rest of it. I think we should come up with some names.
We're pretty good at that. Let's. Have some consensus, my only problem with that.
Having said so, as I need to ask about where the sunshine law comes in. Everybody that I talk to.
I would they consider being on advisory committee understood that they might not be that's the first thing that they might not get picked And not because people don't like them or they're bad persons or anything, but that everybody's got various criterion and everybody understood that they might not get picked.
No. Maybe that some people don't want to go through that and I'm not quite sure where the sunshine all comes in on that.
It's something that I would like to. Yeah, I think understanding is if we choose the. Advisory group members.
Then the names we consider will be public. Then if that's the case, I don't think that might cause some difficulties.
So if the if we're gonna send this to the, So under the present circumstances, the group, the codified group, I guess that's what we're talking, that's the phrase to use.
I think they just ought to take up names then. And, and forget about the groups as such.
And that people submit names and of respected and people who they feel would do a good job in trying to advise and consent. I'm gonna go, just me to check real quick.
That's Toshi, sorry. Okay.
We're gonna go, just me to check real quick. Okay. I'm gonna go to the regions, but I wanna say I think my sense and you can agree disagree.
Is one of the things we should settle first is the number of members on the advisory group because that all.
Informs other decisions going back to region, okay, talking a suggestion and we have another number proposed. And the report has one but I'll just put that on the table.
I don't have a preference. 12 sounds good. I don't really have a for a number other than not making it too big, but.
I think that my issue about us appointing or choosing names other than the confidentiality issue is that when we had the selection committee Hicked for athletics, there was a lot of issues about who was then selected.
To be on that and some people, you know, wanted to be honest that they weren't on it.
And then we added people and or we didn't it but it added people and and that sort of thing so I would actually prefer that the advisory group pick who else they want to put on the committee because they're gonna be the ones that are working with them.
They're gonna be the ones that are on this advisory committee together and if we give a limitation to, hey, you can't have more than this.
Then they're effectively able to use their voice to say who else they want their expertise from to be honest.
Advisory Committee. And I think that that's in my opinion. And we don't have to agree is a way that.
They have more meaningful input. Then us selecting who else should be on it. And just to confirm the recommendation.
Oh, just to confirm, we're asking for a recommendation which we would agree to. Right? We're not saying they would choose who's saying give us a proposal.
That's my understand. Okay. Regent, I'd like to talk back around this way.
And do you just want to say coming out of the pig, the list? Of the various groups. That was not meant to be one per each.
These were like suggestions of the different groups. So, and The group grouping is hard and not ideal.
Along the lines of what Regent Abercrombie was saying. So I just want to clarify that coming out of the pig.
It's not one per, that wasn't the intention. Okay, for we could have chosen 2 per formally recognized group, but the motion was one.
So there is a motion, right, on the table now or is there not? I don't think it was moving second.
Okay, so. I'm going to move. That we.
Ask the the beginnings of this advisory group made up of the 4 organizations were codified. 2 regions.
To meet and discuss and decide on a recommendation 2. This call. Of, other, of their membership, not to exceed 12 people.
Okay, let's do a second. I'll give the regional list in the second. For the discussion on that proposal.
We have a not to discuss the personnel is about the 4 groups. For groups to have. A narrow focus.
With respect to their, I'm not seeing individuals on it that are narrow minded or have a narrow focus themselves.
But the groups are organized for certain purposes. And the certain purposes are. All involved with certain elements of the university.
And they have certain focus.
They have a certain focus in in in the university. Part of the reason. That we're looking to expand the numbers.
Part of the reason that we're looking to expand the numbers. Is to get a broader. Representation of broader foundation.
When I say broader, again, that's not a commentary on the, on the integrity or intelligence of the individuals that would come out of.
The the initial selection. But rather in terms of experience in terms of outlook and etc. Background to fill out this group that would come up possibly to a dozen.
So I'm I'm a little concerned. That it's very, very difficult when you.
When you represent a specific group that has a specific purpose within the, in this instance, within the university.
That they're necessarily best qualified. Even if they're oriented toward it, but best qualified then to pick the other.
The other 8 people. No, that That might just be a theoretical. concern of mine.
For a reason I'm saying that about and emphasizing individuals. I had some people in mind that were previous administrators.
At the university who were retired. Now and have had very broad national and international experience in terms of academic administration and so on.
That's a name. That I was thinking of. I, there's another a person in the I'm gonna say the Hawaiian community that I came up with that isn't necessarily a affiliated with.
With particular groups or any of those. My point being that can we just talk a little bit longer about how we get the other 8 names if, we approve.
Of the the proposition I'm for the proposition I'm gonna vote for it but I'm a little concerned.
That that the 4 groups
Despite best intentions. By definition, have a starting focus that isn't as necessarily broad in terms of who's likely to be recommended.
Some of what we heard in the testimony, we may have one group say. We need 5 more of us.
We need 5 more faculty. We need 10 more students. You know, but so we have parameters to say.
Okay, the 4 represented. We're gonna have this number, but We're giving you parameters.
We need. 3 community members. We'd like to, you know, I don't know, then we're kind of categorizing again, but if we don't do that and we give these the 4 narrow focused people.
Sort of just go for it. We may get Bye faculty by students. I don't think this is necessarily that that would happen. Before we go, oh, I'm sorry. Those folks have their hands up now.
So I want to go Regent Wilson and the region Okay. You know, I think the codified First of all, students, students are customers.
They're a large group. I mean, it's in the institution. It's been a large group.
Faculty. The largest providers, staff, launches. Where was all to get the job done other than what the faculty is responsible for?
So, you know, I think it makes sense that we and You know, make sense that the codified groups and the core console because of where we are.
But I think the we do that first. And then let the Uber 6 to 4. And in 2 regions.
Spend time looking at an opportunity to do more research and find out of the people that we should recommend, why would we recommend and what value do they add?
2 the institution. And I think that's what we need to do with with the others. But the 4 that are codified, our key constituents, the greatest part.
Of the institution. Faculty students and the staff.
And they're not they're alone just 2 regions is the motion is with 2 regions, right?
So Is there your hand up? Reasonable way. I don't oppose giving more parameters.
As long as it doesn't become then us classifying again, which is like circular. I, I think though.
I disagree with you, Regent Abercrombie, because Everyone has their own interests. I mean, we all come from different backgrounds.
I always advocate for athletics. That was part of my interview when they said, how are you not going to be biased to things?
Like we all inherently are and that's why we have the 4 because they do represent something and that's what's important is that they do serve as a representation.
So I think that us, even if we narrow it down to say we need to have 3 community members or give parameters, I think that's okay because they do represent a crucial part of our.
Islands community that we want input from so I don't know if if the bias I mean maybe that that term is not correct is is God, we want people that come from different communities and have different backgrounds to be giving that input.
So. That's just how I see it. Good discussion. Any other discussion about the motion?
We haven't taken the regions yet, but 2 regions with the 4 formerly recognize groups.
Would propose to us. 1212 member by 8 had 8 members to advisory group. There's an open question about we give them more parameters.
I'll just opine real quick. I agree with reason why. I have faith in those folks.
I think they I don't think I don't agree they have they may Be staff members, but I don't think they don't care about other perspectives.
And we'd have 2 regions in the group. We would still have to approve. So they proposed to add 8 faculty members, we probably wouldn't approve that.
So I did a check there, but that's just my opinion. Other regions. I certainly never meant to imply nor did I think I, I don't think I said that I didn't think they'd, that the 4 groups and who they pick out of it would have, after all, we're not talking about 4 groups.
We're talking about 4 individuals that will come from the those groups who will be representatives didn't indicate others.
I don't disagree with what you said at all. Quite the opposite. What I'm what I'm driving out is I think So they're already represented.
And I think they're, and, and I read, again, Friends, I ask you to think back.
On all the testimony we received. Faculty, staff. students. We're mentioned occasionally alumni over and over and over and over again.
Virtually none of the testimony we received. From the groups, either the groups that we have formerly picked already or representatives of the of the various other university and and college entities.
Mentioned mentioned the broader community or how to how to pick somebody from that That's all I'm saying is, is the natural inclination is, is Are we going to have faculty represented?
Are we gonna have staff representative? Are we going to have students represent? And the answer is yes. That's been already decided that's done.
I'm just thinking that that we need to have a perhaps a different way of picking the other 8 and that maybe I'm not quite sure where the sunshine law comes in.
I, I almost think we should do it. Or that.
Or Maybe that a pig can be put together to recommend names to the board. I don't know.
That accomplish what I hope will accomplish. I'm, it's a dilemma.
I wish I had a more definitive. I apologize, I'm not more definitive. About this other than I'm concerned that we need to have a broad section from the community.
Thank you. With 2 regents to. Recommend 8 additional names. Up to up to 8.
And we certainly could give them all the material and the minutes from this meeting that they could consider. I would count on the region reps to do the same.
Is to opine on where regions stand. Is there any further discussion about that motion before I take the vote?
Yeah, I missed the first part of what you were saying. Were you suggesting that we as Regents and send names to the to the group for their consideration.
I did I just was repeating them what the motion was which was . To to assign the selection of up to 8 additional members.
I think I said. No more than 12 total. So that's actually Yeah. No more than 12 total.
Maybe just say it that way. Members. To the formally recognized groups plus 2 regions.
That's the motion on the floor that we've been discussing. So it's checking if we're ready to move to a vote.
So we have a problem. Yeah, just the point of inquiry.
If that passes and it moves forward. Would it be? Out of line and maybe, Kerry, you gotta tell me too, whether this in terms of sunshine.
Could names from anybody. For that matter not just from regions but Could I as a region or anybody in the broader community send Names to that group for the consideration.
I think we could make that part of the motion that. That they needed to. Receive the open to receiving suggestions.
Hello about transparency and openness.
Yep. And that their process would not be governed by Sunshine law, right? As they craft the recommendation.
They can meet, they can discuss the recommendation they bring would be involved in. So yeah, so we could note for the record.
As a friendly amendment or just on the minutes that the expectation is that they are open to receiving suggestions from anyone.
Including regions. The one concept is if depending on the assigned task of this advisory group, the willingness of the members to.
Keep things confidential. Right, so the We'd have to make it clear. That there's expectations of the folks who are recommended recommended.
And we would we would opine that those members that therefore recommending need to have been spoken to and yeah.
So all we would be getting back then if we proceeded this way would be the names recommended from the advisory group and the names going in would remain confidential with them while they were making their decision about recommending.
As long as they're going to keep them comfortable. I'm overjoyed when Kerry is smiling.
So, for the or the motioner and the seconder. Can we consider those part of the motion that the these clear expectations is that.
They need to receive names, open process. And that they will keep those names confidential. What? Who they?
Who they deliver it? Yeah, notes, notes onto the motion. Yeah. Okay.
Okay, that's so we know what we're discussing. Is there another discussion gonna call for the vote?
Okay. All those in favor. Of the motion as. Discussed and amended.
This signal by saying I. Aye. Any opposed?
Okay.
Excellent. And so that. Actually tackles the 2 other buckets. Which was the membership makes up.
And how they're gonna be determined. So the next meeting for the cow is January eighteenth. That would be quite something to accomplish by then.
So we may not, yeah, if at all possible, it'd be nice to have that group.
Determined. So that's the first opportunity. We certainly now have to go and we're making a request.
They could certainly say, no, we don't do that for you, but I, I hope they'll be amenable.
Recent caucus said they can get a representative. No better than the twentieth, so I would hope that other people can follow suit.
Nice. Hello. So the next for to close up this one, we need to choose the 2 regions.
That will be taking on this task. Anyone, is anyone burning to take on this role?
I'm not burning. But I'd like to say, because mentioned was made. Stop me if I wrong was mentioned made in the open meeting or was mentioned made in the in the executive session about the membership.
And about, well, I just want to say I'm up for confirmation. That doesn't, I do not want to be on, I'm not asking to be on that.
Of the 2, quite the opposite. But I don't think that should be a consideration. We're regions.
And we're doing our job. And somebody else doesn't like it. Well, that's that's something we will crowd but I I have full confidence.
In the in the 3 of us that are up that we're doing a job as regents and that's the end of that.
I agree. So I guess I'm starting off with anyone really want to take on this task. Regent Wilson is volunteering to be one of the regents.
Vice Chair Lee is anyone else? I nominate Regent Tochiki. Are you willing to accept that nomination?
Okay. It's now on the eighteenth. I'm running a conference next week. You know, I mean, so.
But I, yeah.
But you could send names.
Okay, if there's no one else. I'm gonna ask for a motion to approve. Bye, Shirley and and Vice Chair Wilson as our representatives.
To this body? Also nominate regent
Are, are you willing to accept that nomination for me? No, I don't, I don't want this to be a contest.
I don't think so. I'm gonna put a lot of names in though. You hear that learning?
Anyone else?
Can I get a motion for the 2 vice chairs to serve this role? Regent, the, Regent, Lu, second, any further discussion?
All those favorite signal by saying I. All right, any opposed?
And extensions. I wanna put one abstention.
Not very quickly.
I would. Hi, okay. So that process has been determined. We have parameters for a group, a process to select them.
And urging to bring back recommendation as soon as possible. Moving on to the next. Items on our agenda.
It's a quick update. We do a quick update on the survey. Folks have referenced it multiple times.
Okay. So yeah, as of yesterday, we did receive 828 responses and it's gonna continue.
Until February fifteenth. Okay. I think it's a great initial response. We certainly want to make sure that that continues as I encourage everyone to make sure that that continues as I encourage everyone to throw the state to fill it out.
We get the once school starts again because I know our students are not looking or. Glance at their emails, can we get the university?
Email that they sent it out to resend it out again. Is that possible? After break is over.
Okay, thank you. Next update is was already mentioned by Shirley. You guys delegated he and I to work with administration to get the RFP out for the recruiting companies assistance.
I really want to thank the team at for working over the holidays to meet those. So that got done.
We do the next step that I think was not clear in the authority. Given that we want to ask for is If Regent leave vice chairly and I can continue to, make the selection of the recruiting firms.
So with the assistance of someone from HR, so be 3 of us. The criteria for check has been decided.
But you guys didn't formally say we could decide if we don't do that. Then we'll need to bring that here to the full body.
Which will, you know, there'll be other components of that. Sunshine law issues plus time issues.
With authority, we can, what's the deadline again? What is that? We're getting all the proposals back by.
Yeah, so we won't be able to bring that to this board by the eighteenth. We won't be able to bring that to this board by the eighteenth.
We won't get the, we won't be able to bring that to this board by the eighteenth.
We won't get the, the, by then. So the soonest would be that first meeting of February, even that would be a super tight turnaround.
So there's a. That's one of the other reasons to differ, but. Happy to discuss that role.
You wanna say anything more about that? No, I think we're the reason for the.
Human resources person is that they've done. Process before.
Yep. Is that In the end. Again, going back over all the.
The previous selections of president. The human resources and the staff ended up. Doing all the work. The research firm spent all the money.
And went through their song and dance. And then in the end, the human resources folks here and.
And whoever was stepped in. And then up doing the actual logistics. All I'm saying is I think we should have it no later than February.
If they, if they haven't got proposals, you can. Deal with before then then don't do it.
And I hope, I don't see any. I don't see any reason why we can't consider when they say search, I don't see any reason why we can't consider local firms.
That are experienced in in organizing. Not just necessarily executive searches but But, deal and human resources deal, deal with the question of, of choosing leadership.
For various companies and groups and so on. I don't know. I'm just looking at you, Diane, because of the particular.
Organization you're with I'm assuming there was a companies locally who Cause I've, I've worked with local companies before that aren't necessarily professional search firms.
But their HR firms and they know how to organize for selection of people to take various tasks up on the executive level.
Just saying I hope that I'm confident that you could go locally and get proposals in that you could make a decision to be presented to us by February.
I'm also hoping we get those proposals. So the, again, the, the thing we wanted to clarify was if the board authority to vice chairly and I includes the selection of proposals that come in.
And if not, then this body wants to do that process. We can, it'll just take a little bit longer to actually get someone on board.
Bye. The question, how are we getting that information out that you're looking for proposals or is that already going out?
It's already been posted and so that normally is that we beat those bushes but I would say Those folks who know local firms that could do this work should be encouraging them to apply.
So, at least we, we, we can't. We can't, So select them if they don't apply.
Yes, no, but I just notice that information out there. So now locally. Yeah, let me yes.
Well, it, you know, if it isn't, it should be because we're talking about it.
I don't, I don' I couldn't opine on, okay, how the community is responding.
I'm just pushing this a little right now. That somebody's listening, maybe it'll be in the paper, right?
The story, you know, that be added in the paper, right? And the story, you know, that could be added.
Yes. Maybe the media can say that we're actually looking for a search firm as opposed to fighting with one another.
Alright, so, So this is a little bit going back. Is that okay or should we wait till later?
Is it about the question I have about whether we're authorized? No. Well, can we close that one up first?
And then, yeah. So if not, the issues kind of get a
To authorize by Shirley and I to. Work with a member from HR to select the recruiting firm, Region Haining, moved, and lose second.
See no discussion, all those in favor of saying I. Any opposed? Congratulations, more work.
Don't you can go golfing. Okay. Yeah, I can talk to you.
One thing I wanted to mention as, see if everyone's in agreement a parameter for the the advisory.
Group. Well, the process we just approved to have the 4. And then the 2 regions to come back with names.
In our pay report. We talked at length about. You know, special interests and conflicts of interest in disclosing those things and so.
I, the language here was Advisory Group nominee shall disclose as a prerequisite to being considered.
Any current or potential financial interests or other conflicts of interest in or relative to the University of Hawaii system when being considered for the advisory group.
So I would hope that as part of screening and bringing forward these 12 names that this would have been done.
In the group so that That would be embarrassing. For additionally embarrassing for people to be put forward in the 12 and then.
You know, they didn't disclose this or that because they weren't asked to. So just putting that out there that that's our.
Request.
And that the guidance and the. This. The statement is that there's an expectation to follow those recommendations.
Does that work?
If, there's no other. Issues from the agenda list. We've come to that.
No problem. Representative. Yeah, yes, they're gonna, what they're gonna bring, that.
Up to up to 12. Recommendations yeah okay So if there's nothing else we're on to announcements.
The next meeting is January, 1820, 24 at the University of Oahu. My, I didn't miss anything.
I'll share my share. Lee knows that I'm not able to make that meeting, unfortunately.
So he's prepared to. To run the meeting, Vision. Yeah. Did we?
Make parameters for who they're gonna pick or did we not do that? It was it was not included in the motion.
But my hope. We will send them the minutes and the comments and the concerns and that. Trust them to consider those things.
Yep.
You know, being know, well, comment, but I just wanted to emphasize everybody got the email from Christine and from Yvonne relating to preparations for the Meeting back to back.
Yes, thank you. That's a important announcement at this stage. It'll be a, a new approach.
2 days we started off with the best town so As a Yeah. Anything specific about that? Just making sure folks respond, right?
If they need rooms and yeah.
Oh wow. Okay, Monday. Yeah, folks, we didn't know we could book travel and hotels and And don't forget, it's a 2 day meeting.
Alright. Okay.
They've already got a Yeah. And again, and we've been saying this lots. Thank you to the staff for like this decision to do this adds a whole bunch of other work for staff including they have to travel.
Right, so be away from family and things like that. So much appreciation to everyone. I also want to point out in addition just on the record in addition to that conflict of interest.
Paragraph in the pig report. We also enumerated, let's see, non board member advisory group members should have the following qualities that include knowledge of the institution and its aspirations and willingness to learn more, the ability to rise above parochial concerns and mesh with a group that commits to serving the interests of the institution as a whole.
The ability and willingness to maintain the searches confidentiality even after it concludes. And the ability to understand and abide by the role that we're tasking them to do.
And the paragraph I read earlier would be the last requirements. I just want to emphasize. Thank you. And can I also just Assume there's no no objections.
That's also the expectation we have. Of the representatives from the 4. Formally recognized groups. Yes, absolutely.
Thanks for clarifying that. And back to what Regent Mawai was just clarifying that. And back to what Regent Mawai was just asking about the parameters.
We did set some parameters. So,'s 12. No more than 12, but that includes the 2 regions.
So it's really 6. If the The 2 regions are only for the purpose of recommendations. That if the regions are gonna continue on the advisory group that has to be in the recommendation.
But they would be part of the 12.
No? No, the motion was just that. 2 regions and the 4. Formally recognized groups would give us a proposed list of names.
For the 12. And all 12 would be non-region. That's up to them. They could choose regions, not choose regions.
Alright. And that those 4, would I assume suggestive representative from themselves and then. Community members are to be.
Represented in the total 12. That's our expectation. So there are some parameters. We put on the record.
Yep. Yes. And if, Regents are unclear, we can reconsider this and make sure we're crystal clear.
Yeah, I was unclear when I voted on it, I guess. Cause I was thinking it was.
12 total. Not.
12 additional. A is 12 total. But the wording was up to 12. And total, correct.
So that's 4. 4%. Regents is not included in the. Regents were only assigned to help come up with the recommendation list.
So this clearly we're clearly not all on the same page. I understand. And so if we need to reconsider this vote, we certainly can.
We did have a problem. When the recommendations come forward, is that subject to a vote then? Yes.
Only a recommendation. Yeah. Yup. And not publicly, so I do wanna see on the record that.
It was discussed that the possibility of the 2 regents. Continuing on or the 2 or any questions in general, on with the advisory.
Committee board. In the future. Just to mention that publicly so that that can be considered. When the 6 come up with the 12.
That they could, it was discussed to have 2 regions continue on. With the 12. Locked to 12.
And Regents can certainly share. Even more of those details. The other truth is if we have tell, 12 adviser members that don't have regents and we assign them a task we could put up to 2 regions.
On that task. Yeah. Yeah. Are there any implications for Sunshine law that would I think complicate that.
That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure. Right. Yeah.
And it's just kind of things that I appreciate you bringing it up. Those are the kind of things we're talking about an exact session, right?
Is all these details. Yep. So we're now on the same page that we voted on. The regions are assigned just to help over the recommendations.
Regions could be on or not. We'll see when that comes up. And it's no more than 12 total.
Okay, great. Alright, any other announcements, questions, clarifications?
If not, thank you guys all for your time and energy and commitment. This meeting is adjourned.
There is