Q. In reference to “Life’s Lesson #2, how are you deciding who needs help?
A. Like the Dean, I have an open door policy. Faculty often identify themselves when they need help. Other faculty are identified through their annual report, or more likely the lack thereof. Often a phone call or meeting reveals a personal or professional problem that seems insurmountable and results in lack of progress. If it’s a professional or administrative problem, I work with them to remove the bottleneck.
Q. What are your priorities for Extension?
A. Extension covers a very wide range of programs and activities. I haven’t seen any programs that need to be eliminated. After 7 months on the job, my priorities are also broad.
- Increase coordination with other CTAHR administrators and managers
- Develop policies to clarify the relationship between the departments and counties
- Avoid micromanagement
- Develop an effective grants management program
- Help faculty and staff achieve success
- Communicate more effectively
- Identify those areas were we need to develop or enhance our activities, e.g., distance education, entrepreneurship, communications, grantsmanship
- Develop a better understanding of extension programs and how they address the goals expressed in the College’s and University’s strategic plans
I intend to use an internal advisory committee to help identify specific programmatic priorities by the end of this year.
Q. How do you plan to help faculty and staff be more productive?
A. First of all, most of our faculty and staff are very productive. I have been impressed by their ideas, creativity and commitment. As with any organization of this size, there are some who appear to be less productive than they were at an earlier stage in their career. One can’t help these faculty to become more productive without first identifying why their career has stalled. That will simply take time.
Secondly, I’ve found that the best suggestions for increasing productivity often come directly from the individuals themselves. I will work with them if there are administrative or programmatic bottlenecks to their achieving their expectations.
Thirdly, 25 years ago, the electronic typewriter changed the way many of us worked. It even changed our relationships with our departmental secretaries. The desktop and laptop computers , the Internet, LANS, cellular phones and other communication aids continue to change the way we interact with our colleagues and our stakeholders. We need to develop or adopt new communication technologies that will help us do our jobs more effectively. I will help promote the adoption of those technologies wherever they are appropriate to extension.
Lastly, I need to work with others to recognize and reward faculty and staff whose programs, activities and commitment truly make a difference in our communities.
Q. Why can’t counties provide base funding for county-based extension agents?
A. The Interim Associate Director for Extension, Charlotte Nakamura, asked the same question. Unlike most of our counterparts on the mainland, Hawaii has had a very centralized approach to program management, e.g., public education. We are talking about changing a tradition. Counties have already demonstrated that they are willing to provide funding, albeit project funding, rather than base funding. If these projects are successful, we will be in a better position to solicit base funding. If the counties do provide base funding, the relationship between the county-based extension agents, county administration, and CTAHR may change. Bill Furtick was fond of the phrase, “Remember the Golden Rule: He with the gold rules.” Good communication, coordination and trust will be essential.
Q. How would you go about pursuing such base funding?
A. Meet with faculty and staff to identify and resolve issues involved, e.g., legal issues, contracts, priority setting, personnel accountability, and project management. I will examine what other states have done and create a model suitable for Hawaii. Meet with college, university and county administrators to identify expectations, mechanisms for administering funds and establishing accountability.
Q. CTAHR already has an Advisory Committee. Why do you want to set up another one?
A. CTAHR has a Board of Advisors composed of outstanding individuals external to the College. The purpose of CTAHR’s Board of Advisors is to “…guide the strategic direction of the College…” The purpose of the extension advisory committee is to keep the Associate Dean for Extension aware of those issues that may impact extension programs and, when necessary, advise an appropriate responses to those issues. The committee will also help set programmatic priorities with their areas of responsibility. It would be composed of CTAHR faculty who have demonstrated knowledge of a relatively broad area and who can put issues into a context appropriate to extension responsibilities.
Q. Is the “Industry Analysis” process part of your future plans? Whatever happened to Industry Analysis process and why?
A. Industry analyses were an effective way of identifying some of the bottlenecks to growth or expansion of a particular industry. The concept (and process) could also be applied to non-commodity programs, e.g., natural resources, youth development. It was funded primarily by the Governor’s Agriculture Coordinating Committee which, unfortunately, no longer exists. As the Associate Director, I support some iteration, e.g., mini-industry analyses that focuses on an activity or program where the College has expertise. Industry analyses are simply a more formal, comprehensive way of doing what many faculty have continued to do since the demise of the GACC.
Q. I have heard much informal discussion about CES agents in regard to their responsibility in departments verses in the counties (and to the county administrators). Is there a clear policy on this? We need to clarify the role of extension agents vis a vis departments / administrators, programs leaders. It’s hard to have three bosses with different goals and visions.
A. I agree. One of the tasks that Charlotte Nakamura worked on before she retired was the relationship between counties and departments. This topic came up in the breakout sessions, also. Dr. Hashimoto asked me to take a leadership role in developing the policies that would clarify specific roles so you won’t feel like you “…have three bosses with different goals and visions.” This problem is one of my top priorities for the next six months.
Q. How would you prioritize extension positions (Ag and HR)? How are they prioritized among those from departments?
A. Over the last 8-10 years we have lost a tremendous amount of expertise through retirements and resignations. In addition, several new initiatives or opportunities requiring new positions presented themselves. Last year, the departments were asked to identify (and justify) extension, research and instructional positions that needed to be filled to address vacancies or new opportunities. Those recommendations were forwarded to Dean Hashimoto who sought input from the three associate deans before making his decisions.
Several faculty have met directly with me to explain the need for a particular extension position. I assume that the process for filling vacancies or creating new positions will follow that used last year. Each request will be considered in terms of the College’s current and anticipated needs in agriculture and human resources. The more compelling the justification, the more likely the position will be approved. I will make one other assumption, i.e., that the State’s economic condition will improve to the point where we can fill positions.
Q. What do you see as your role in making extension / outreach a university-wide function.
A. The National Association of Universities and Land Grant Colleges’ Extension Committee on Policy issued a report in February 2002 defining their vision of extension in the 21st century. ECOP pointed out that while instruction and research have become an integral part of most universities and colleges, extension continues to be closely linked to agriculture. Why shouldn’t it be a part of every college within the university? Several land grants have already expanded their extension commitment to include non-agriculture colleges, e.g., medicine, engineering, business, and education. In most cases this new commitment requires a structural change in central administration with the director of extension reporting to a vice-president or similar office. This is a new concept for the University of Hawaii. I will meet with directors at other land grants to learn from their experiences and to develop a conceptual framework suitable to the University of Hawaii system. The role of CTAHR’s Associate Director for Extension would have to be defined based on that framework.
Q. How do our projects / programs impact our community today?
A. The Logic Model used for extension project proposals was developed to answer this question for the Congress. In the past, we often reported only our out-puts (e.g., number of stakeholders contacted, number of courses / meetings conducted, number of publications) without thinking about how our projects or programs impacted our community. In the past two years, many of our faculty made the effort to include outcomes; others are still struggling with what outcome measurements are appropriate to their project/program. If you are having problems with reporting outcomes, please see me or one of your colleagues trained in outcome reporting (Pamela Kutara, Kelvin Sewake, Hector Valenzuela, Ron Mau).
Q. How are you integrating R, E, I in the curriculum so our (1) CTAHR students benefit from hands-on research with their undergrad experience and (2) our communities benefit from the energy and enthusiasm of our students applying their new knowledge to improve conditions in the field and the community?
A. This question should probably have been directed to Dr. Marlene Hapai since it involves issues related to curriculum. However, the role of extension faculty, particularly specialists, in classroom instruction (including curriculum) has been debated since at least 1976. At one time, specialists were not allowed to be the primary instructor, but rather, were expected to contribute as guest speakers, bringing a “real world” perspective to the classroom. However, the loss of instructional faculty over the last eight years has re-ignited interest in extension faculty’s role in classroom instruction. Several extension faculty have three-way appointments making it difficult for them to meet their extension responsibilities. I think this is another aspect of defining the relationship between the counties (where most of our extension positions are located or where they interact with their stakeholders) and the departments (where the locus of their tenure and promotion resides).
|
