Following nearly six hours of board debate and public testimony at a University of Hawaii Board of Regents meeting Thursday, the regents voted to make significant changes to a proposed plan for finding the next UH president, to make it more transparent and include more stakeholders’ input.

There had been “fatal flaws” in the initial proposed plan, board Chair Alapaki Nahale-a said late Thursday in a Honolulu Star- Advertiser interview. “Then all that feedback got incorporated in different ways. … There was definitely an effort to hear people. I feel pretty good that the main concerns were addressed.”

The board is charged with finding a new executive leader to succeed current UH President David Lassner, who is retiring at the end of 2024 after a decade as head of Hawaii’s 10-campus public university system. Despite tension with certain state lawmakers, Lassner maintains he was not forced out.

The search for Lassner’s successor has since become a battleground for control of UH, with some state lawmakers working overtime to influence the selection and pushing to have Lassner vacate the post sooner than scheduled. The situation is politically loaded, especially because three of the 11 regents — Nahale-a, former Gov. Neil Abercrombie and attorney Lauren Akitake — still need to be confirmed by the state Senate in the next Legislature.

The initial proposed plan for the presidential search was created by a Presidential Selection Process Permitted Interaction Group, or PIG1 for short, made up of regents Akitake, Wayne Higaki, Gabe Lee, Laurel Loo and Diane Paloma. Among the changes the board made Thursday during a special board meeting on the Manoa campus:

>> The membership and importance of an advisory board of stakeholders — faculty, students, faculty, administrators, alumni and members of the community — will be revisited and clarified during a special meeting of the regents Jan. 4.

The advisory group originally was conceived as just four to six members who would “provide advice as requested” to the presidential search committee.

However, James Lee, chair of the Association of Emeritus Regents, said in testimony that broad inclusion and deep involvement by stakeholders are “the only way to prevent a situation where non-regent voices are relegated to second-class status.”

Nahale-a said the original plan for the advisory board had drawn criticism, and “I think that’s valid. If we don’t get that part right, there are going to be a lot of people very upset. This will be an opportunity to round out the process.”

>> Dividing the roles of UH system president and UH Manoa chancellor into separate positions will not be immediately implemented with a new job description, as had been initially proposed. Instead, the UH presidential search will be advertised with the duties combined, as they are now, but with a note that there is an “understanding that the current regents see the role of president as being focused on the UH system, and will be considering future separation of the duties of the president from those of campus chancellor for UH Manoa.”

Marguerite Butler, a UH Faculty Senate member who spoke in her personal capacity, said the autonomy of the UH Manoa chancellor from the system president is “a major unresolved issue that comes up again and again in WASC (Western Association of Schools and Colleges) accreditation reports. So if they (the roles) are just severed, will we have a chancellor who has no control over his or her buildings and facilities, no authority over the grants, administration, research, compliance, etc.? Responsibility without authority, I think, is a really bad combination.”

The two roles have been blended and separated at various times in UH history and were last recombined in 2018 through a complex and emotional process, so Nahale-a said during the meeting that it wouldn’t be right to abruptly divide the roles again without due process. “Who’s impacted? Are there any collective bargaining agreements? I feel like we owe the community that work, and we shouldn’t do it via job description,” he said. “That seems a little unfair.”

>> The presidential search committee will no longer be a small, new “permitted interaction group” of a few regents, but a “committee of the whole,” including all of the regents who opt to participate.

>> An upcoming survey of stakeholders will include a question about separating the UH system president and UH Manoa chancellor positions, as well as an open-ended question soliciting feedback with any information that the respondent wants to share with the search committee. Details of a broader “listening process,” such as proposed public forums, will be determined by the search committee.

>> The parameters for procuring a search or recruitment firm to assist with the search were updated. The regents voted to procure a firm with “access to Hawaii expertise and/or a Hawaii focus to conduct a national search to assist the BOR in its hiring of the next President of the University of Hawaii.”