The state Senate’s divided vote Tuesday to reject University of Hawaii Board of Regents (BoR) Interim Chair Alapaki Nahale-a for a second term stands out for its close 13-12 split, and for what that split represents: dissenting senators’ rightful objection to Nahale-a’s removal; and the heavy-handed, accusatory approach employed by powerful Sen. Donna Kim and her Senate allies on matters involving the University of Hawaii (UH).

The brouhaha began on Feb. 27, when Kim’s Senate Higher Education Committee (HRE) voted unanimously to recommend against Nahale-a, despite the support signaled by fellow regents when in July, he was named interim board chairman. Immediate pushback erupted from members of the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly (UHPA), which called HRE’s rejection an “abuse of power.” Within days, some 16,500 had signed on to a petition opposing Nahale-a’s ouster.

Critics charge that Kim and the HRE overstepped their authority by wrongfully seeking to control UH administrative decisions, ousting a regent just as the board prepares to choose a new UH president — and they’re right. The Senate has an official duty to approve or reject regents, who are nominated by the governor, but asserting control over regents’ decision-making or policy choices is both out of bounds and damaging to university operations.

Here, Kim criticized Nahale-a for failing to recognize that a deteriorating university dorm on the Manoa campus, built in 1978, had never been renovated and has been shut since 2017. Given Hawaii’s severe housing shortage and the clear need for student housing, this is an apparent administrative blunder — but no justification for the release of Nahale-a, appointed by Gov. David Ige in 2019 and nominated for a second term by Gov. Josh Green last year.

The shuttered dorm came up again at an HRE hearing on Thursday — two days after Nahale-a’s rejection by the full Senate and his resignation later that night. News from the hearing, though, could be seen as countering Kim’s criticism, because it shows that the university did not ignore the problem, but considered action on the deteriorating dorm over the past seven years. A plan to repair dorm buildings was considered in 2017, then downsized. Specifications were created for renovating the then-shuttered dorm in 2018, but as the COVID-19 pandemic waned in 2022, a now-departed head of student housing canceled the project for yet-unknown reasons.

These developments, very unfortunately, did pass under the radar of UH President David Lassner, who as chief executive, should have been aware. Earlier this year, he acknowledged as much to senators.

When UH requested funds to renovate the dorm this year, Kim, HRE member Michelle Kidani and Senate Ways and Means Chair Donovan Dela Cruz fixated on the facility’s closure, showering Lassner with criticism. Now it appears that, unable to “fire” Lassner before his voluntary retirement at year’s end, his critics in the Senate took aim at Nahale-a.

Green connected the dots on a Hawaii News Now program, linking Nahale-a’s rejection with antipathy for Lassner. He “was one of President Lassner’s favorite people, and so off with his head,” Green said.

All this divisiveness and unnecessary drama is spewing out as the UH regents launch a search for Lassner’s successor, a pivotal post not only for the future of UH, but also for the state.

For her part, Kim denies having any interest in the presidential search process, but that seems disingenuous, given her years-long, very public criticism of Lassner.

The Hawaii State Constitution gives the UH greater autonomy than other state departments, with the UH Board of Regents holding “the power to formulate policy,” with “exclusive jurisdiction over the internal structure, management, and operation of the university.”

The Senate’s overreaching into BoR operations is tantamount to intimidation of UH’s leaders for acquiescence — and it has inspired rising outcry.

“Faculty will no longer condone and be silent as certain senators continue to wreak their damage on the academy and its members,” UHPA Executive Director Christian Fern and other union leaders stated after Nahale-a’s rejection.

Nahale-a himself said the narrow vote margin suggests that many disagree with legislators’ “inappropriate control over our university.”

Clear-eyed lawmakers and constituents must demand that the overreach ends. And legislators must understand that continued, unauthorized manipulation of UH may spark a backlash that won’t be controlled or deflected by blaming UH administrators.

It is reasonable, of course, that the regents do its own self-evaluation, and be better advocates for university maintenance and improvements.

Each entity — the Senate, BoR and UH administration — has distinct roles, which will get badly muddled when micromanaging, and intimidation, are injected. So it behooves the regents, and UH administrators, to pay closer attention to their respective missions — and that involves regents asking sharper questions of UH officials.

As Lassner’s term nears an end and another president takes on this immense responsibility, in tandem with the regents, these leaders must be free to pilot UH without unwarranted interference.