CTAHR Banner
UH Manoa seal
about us button
nav bar rule
academic & student affairs button
extension/outreach button
research button
nav bar rule
departments and units button
counties button
international button
nav bar rule
alumni affairs button
nav bar rule
ctahr in action button
college activities button
nav bar rule
for employees button
ctahr directory button
nav bar rule
employment opportunities button
For CTAHR Faculty & Staff
horizontal rule

CTAHR College-Wide Conference: Building A Shared Vision
Extension Workshop–May 10, 2002

Agents In Departments – With Follow Up

Burning issue: Uncertain acceptance by staff, and commitment of administration, to reorganized CTAHR with agents in departments.

Convener/Reporter: Doug Vincent

Recorder: Harold Keyser

Participants: Glen Teves, Robert Paull, Mel Wong, Mel Nishina, Carl Evensen, Doug Vincent, Terry Sekioka, Robin Shimabuku, Ruddy Wong, Andy Hashimoto, Harold Keyser, Ania Wieczorek

Recorder’s note: Many aspects of this issue were also discussed in the pervious day’s CTAHR Conference 2002 subgroup on Organizational/Personnel matters, and points from that discussion are included where they were identical.
Highest Hope
CTAHR will have clear delineation and coordination of responsibilities of Department chairs, county administrators, county agents, specialists and PIs regarding:
  • Personnel (staffing plan, hiring, promotion and tenure)
  • Program (plan of work), reporting and evaluation
  • Fiscal, budgeting process
Discussion issues on this subtopic:
  • Assignment to departments has increased the number of bosses that agents have.
  • Perception that some scientists (in departments) do not recognize value and importance of extension, with implications for promotion and tenure. Department chairs rarely visit counties to see activities first hand, which would lead to better understanding and communication.
  • Reduction in knowledgeable staff has resulted in broader responsibilities for specialists and agents, with implications for promotion and tenure. Agents (especially on neighbor islands) must have broad expertise to serve clientele, yet department affiliation may stress more narrow focus. Is the teaching activity in extension given full recognition?
Challenges & Barriers that must be overcome
  • Extension issues not often discussed in department meetings, with attendance by agents from neighbor islands restricted by budget.
  • Lack of clarity among agents regarding who directs programs and allocates funds; chairs or county administrators.
  • Apprehension in general about promotion and tenure for agents in the reorganized CTAHR.
  • Lack of clear duties and responsibilities that changed since original position description.
Strategies to overcome barriers and achieve the vision
  • Look at what has been done; there was a report by C. Nakamura on responsibilities of county administrators and chairs regarding extension personnel in the reorganized system – can it be found and distributed as a starting point for further discussion and development? Also, there was a faculty senate report (R. Shimabuku?) related to some of these same issues – again, this could be re-visited.
  • Make clear to all faculty/staff that position descriptions can and should be updated by mutual agreement with supervisor, especially if PD does not reflect current situation.
  • A mentoring program for new employees should be available that address critical issues such as multiple lines of responsibilities, expertise for networking within CTAHR, understanding the requirements for promotion and tenure.
  • Increase the opportunities for extension staff to attend department meetings and for chairs to visit county offices.
Action Items
  1. Assemble historic reports (C. Nakamura’s to BOR, R. Shimabuku to faculty senate, Jari Sugano report), get Dean’s input, distribute for discussion.
  2. A priority topic for the leadership committee to address is the issue of clarification of roles and responsibilities of chairs and county administrators regarding extension faculty.
  3. If the report by Nakamura in #1 above is not available, issue a paper that defines roles of agents, specialists, county administrators and chairs, including operating procedures for key actions (position description, hiring, program evaluation, promotion and tenure).
  4. Revisit evaluation procedures for agents and specialists.
Lead Administrator: for action 1, Rudy Wong; for action 2, Barry Brennan

Timeline for achievement: End of June 2002
horizontal rule

FOLLOW UP

Summary of the 1999 Task Force Report (Task Force led by C. Nakamura)
Background: The Phase II reorganization of the College resulted in the dissolution of 11 departments and their consolidation into six new departments. All BOR appointees (faculty and APT) located on the neighbor islands became part of one of the six departments. During the reorganization, a task force chaired by the interim assistant director for cooperative extension was asked to examine the relationship between departmental chairs and county administrators. The task force met on August 16, 1999 to (1) review and redefine the role of the county administrators, (2) examine how chairs and county administrators complement duties complement on another, and (3) clarify the roles of county administrators related to personnel actions.
The task force recommended that Department Chairs have primary responsibilities for:
  • Quarterly departmental staff meetings will include a minimum of two face-to-face meeting per year with outreach faculty.
  • Plans of work
  • Budget for departmental upkeep
  • Budgets for programs
  • Job/Position descriptions
  • Promotion and Tenure, Post Tenure Review
  • Professional development
  • Facilitate advisory boards to integrate research, extension and instruction at the departmental level (up to each department)
They also recommended that County Administrators have primary responsibilities for:
  • Facilities (repair and maintenance)
  • Budget for county upkeep
  • Budgets for projects (presumably for county projects only, BB)
  • Administrative support at the county level to process fiscal and personnel documents
  • Public relations and community events, e.g., fairs, open houses
The task force recommended the following responsibilities as they relate to extension (POWs, programs, projects and their budgets ):
  • For statewide activities – DC have primary responsibility, CAs have input
  • For multi-county activities – CAs have primary responsibility, DCs have input
  • For county activities – CAs have primary responsibility, DCs have input
Substantive, programmatic actions were to be determined jointly by the appropriate department chair and county administrator.

Recommendation. The task force recommended that both departments and counties hold quarterly staff meetings as there was a need for on-going communication involving faculty interactions with chairs and county administrators. Most if not all departments probably already meet at least quarterly. Participation of faculty not located on the Manoa campus has been limited by time and budgetary constraints. There is a need to develop a mechanism such as video or telephone conferencing to promote their involvement. (At least two departments have effectively utilized an e-newsletter to keep their faculty and staff aware of departmental activities.) Likewise there is a need to have chair and county administrators meet with the associate director for cooperative extension.

Additional notes. One of the problems noted by participants at the All College Conference was the lack of definitions for programs, projects and activities and an understanding of how sources of funding might affect program and project development, approval and reporting.

Programs are organized by a team with a convenor or coordinator. They often have multiple sources of funding, combine resources to obtain an impact, focus is long-term and generally multi-county. Examples include IPM, IR-4, and 4-H. Programs generally require a 3-5 year Plan of Work. Projects are usually “sub” to a program. They are specific, funded as a grant and may or may not be multi-county. Examples include variety trials, irrigation trials, and nutrition trials. Activities are not supported by funding. Examples include departmental or faculty meetings, planning, marketing, public relations, preparing reports, and developing project proposals.

Smith-Lever 3(d) funds are used to support several extension programs, e.g., 4-H, EFNEP, Farm Safety, IPM, Pesticide Safety Training, Rural Economic Development. Each of these programs has a designated program coordinator who is responsible for developing a POW and writing an annual report. Often times, the goals and general objectives of the POW will be dictated by CSREES’s National Program Leader (NPL). The POWs are approved by the NPL. Extension project proposals submitted in response to the recently announced RFP have to be approved by the department chair (and county administrator for county based faculty). Program coordinators should notify department chairs if they have projects initiated through special grants and partnerships with stakeholders (e.g., Hawaii 4-H Foundation, Farm Bureau, Hawaiian Home Lands). County administrators should be notified if the projects are initiated or conducted at the county level.
horizontal rule
Last updated on 12/11/02