REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
HAWAI‘I LAND-GRANT MISSION REVIEW
GROUP
January 2005
Christopher Lu, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, UH Hilo; the Convener
Peggy Cha, Chancellor of Kaua‘i Community College
David Cole, Maui Land and Pineapple Company, Inc.
Andrew Hashimoto, Dean of College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources,
UH Mānoa
Bruce Mathews, Professor and Faculty Senate Chair, CAFNRM, UH Hilo
James Nishimoto, Executive Assistant to the Vice President for Academic Affairs
Herbert M. Richards, Jr., Kahua Ranch, Ltd.
Bill Sakai, Interim Dean of the College of Agriculture, Forestry and Natural
Resource Management (CAFNRM), UH Hilo
Clyde Sakamoto, Chancellor of Maui Community College
Neal Smatresk, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, UH Mānoa
Halina Zaleski, Professor and Faculty Senate Chair, CTAHR, UH Mānoa
REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I
LAND-GRANT MISSION REVIEW GROUP
Background
The History and Legislative Basis of the Land-Grant University System
The land-grant system of colleges and universities was established in the mid-nineteenth
century to make higher education available to a broader segment of the U.S. population
and thereby meet a growing nation’s demand for individuals trained in agriculture,
engineering, and related fields. The structure and responsibilities of land-grant
institutions are defined by four Acts of Congress:
•
The first Morrill Act (1862) provided federal grants to each state for the
establishment of a public institution where the leading objective would be to teach
agriculture and the mechanic arts while not excluding other scientific or classical
studies. The goal was to promote “…the liberal and practical education of the
industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions of life.” Grants of federal
land (or the equivalent in scrip) provided locations for the land-grant colleges and
income to support them. The states were expected to contribute the buildings and
maintenance.
•
The Hatch Act (1887) provided funds for agricultural research to develop
scientific knowledge that could be shared with students and farmers. It authorized
direct payment of federal grant funds to each state to establish an Agricultural
Experiment Station in connection with its land-grant institution. The appropriation
varies annually and is determined for each state through a formula based on the
state’s number of small farmers. Federal Hatch Act funds must be matched by the
state.
•
The second Morrill Act (1890) extended the provisions of the original Morrill Act
to provide endowments for land-grant institutions with admissions policies that
did not discriminate on the basis of race. This resulted in the establishment of
historically black land-grant universities (“1890 land grants”) in the segregated
South. It also enabled the establishment of land-grant institutions in U.S.
territories.
•
The Smith-Lever Act (1914) created the Cooperative Extension Service
associated with each land-grant institution. Its aim was to disseminate information
gleaned from the experiment stations’ research. This act authorized ongoing
federal support for extension services, using a formula based on farm and rural
populations to determine the amount of the appropriation. Like the Hatch Act, the
2
Smith-Lever Act requires that the states provide matching funds in order to
receive federal monies.
The land-grant mission defined by these acts has three components: formal academic
instruction (mandated by the two Morrill Acts), research (mandated by the Hatch Act),
and extension service (non-formal outreach education mandated by the Smith-Lever Act).
The Land-Grant University System Today
As of February 2004 the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges (NASULGC) counted 107 land-grant institutions among its members. These
include 76 land-grant universities and colleges and 31 tribal colleges. Land-grant
institutions are located in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories
including Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
In the decades following 1914 several acts were passed that expanded the scope and
increased the support that the federal government provides to land-grant institutions.
Currently, in addition to the income from the original land grants, appropriations of
federal funds to aid the states in the maintenance of land-grant institutions amount to
more than $550 million annually. These funds are distributed to the states on several
different bases. Some funds are disbursed in equal amounts to all states, some are
allocated according to a state’s farm population, and some are allocated according to a
state’s total population in relation to the total population of the United States.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) plays a key role in the
administration of federal land-grant funds and the coordination of land-grant activities at
the national level. Within the USDA, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service (CSREES) is the agency that supports research, education, and
extension programs in the land-grant university system and other partner organizations.
Its purpose is to advance knowledge for agriculture, the environment, human health and
well-being, and communities. To accomplish this mission CSREES provides national
program leadership to help states identify and meet research, extension, and education
priorities in areas of public concern that affect agricultural producers, small business
owners, youth and families, and others. CSREES also disburses financial assistance
through the annual formula funding that supports land-grant universities as well as
competitively granted funds to researchers in land-grant and other universities. Receipt of
annual formula funding by land-grant institutions is predicated on compliance with
extensive program requirements administered by CSREES.
Policies Related to Disbursement of Land-Grant Funding
Before federal funds are disbursed by CSREES to a land-grant institution, the institution
must meet administrative and faculty obligations defined by federal statutes and
regulations. These include the certification of non-federal funds to match the federal
funds. After the monies are disbursed, the land-grant institution must meet reporting
3
requirements. The mandatory reports detail the purpose, output, and impact of the funded
project and define its fiscal components.
Sections 202 and 225 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act
of 1998 (AREERA), Public Law No.1 05-185, enacted amendments requiring all states
and 1890 land-grant institutions receiving formula funds authorized under the Hatch Act
and the Smith-Lever Act to prepare and submit to CSREES a plan of work for the use of
these funds. The plan of work must be updated every five (5) years.
Hawai‘i’s Agricultural Land-Grant Mission
In 1901 the Hawai‘i Agricultural Experiment Station (HAES) was founded on O‘ahu.
Hawai‘i did not yet have a land-grant college in 1901, but its citizens had a need for
agricultural research on diversified crops. HAES was devoted principally to the
development of new crops for Hawai‘i. By 1910 experiment stations had been established
on the Hawai‘i Island, Maui, and Kaua‘i. Supported with federal funds, HAES
conducted its research as an independent entity until 1929, when it was combined with
the smaller, locally supported research program in the University of Hawai‘i.
In 1907 the Hawai‘i Territorial Legislature established the College of Agriculture and
Mechanic Arts as Hawai‘i’s land-grant college. The college moved to its present location
in Mānoa Valley in 1912 and was renamed the College of Hawai‘i. In 1920 the institution
expanded, becoming the University of Hawai‘i, which had two colleges: Applied
Sciences and Arts and Sciences. When Hawai‘i became a state in 1959, it became eligible
to participate in the land-grant program under the 1862 Morrill Act. In 1961 the Hawai‘i
State Legislature enacted Act 158 entitled “An Act Accepting the Land-Grant College
Aid and Designating its Beneficiary and Custodian.” The legislature designated the
University of Hawai‘i as the beneficiary of federal land-grant funds (see Section 2 of Act
158).
Since receiving federal land-grant status, the University of Hawai‘i has delegated the
implementation and reporting responsibilities related to the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts
to the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR) located at UH
Mānoa. CTAHR “has operated as the land-grant designated beneficiary of the University
of Hawai‘i under mandates from state and federal laws which define agriculture,
clienteles, modes of serving clienteles, modes of organization, budgeting and
accountability, and mechanisms for priority setting and project review” (report by UH
President Albert J. Simone to the UH Board of Regents, February 2, 1988).
In October 1974 the Board of Regents unanimously approved the establishment of a
College of Agriculture at the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo to offer a Bachelor of Science
degree in Agriculture. This program was intended to complement rather than duplicate
the programs offered by CTAHR. The mission of the college is to provide “high quality
undergraduate instruction emphasizing practical, technology-based education for careers
in agriculture or for further graduate study.” The college identifies a secondary role of
4
“applied agricultural research and agricultural services directed toward solution of
problems faced by clients of the College.”
In 1987 Russell A. Suzuki, Hawai‘i’s Deputy Attorney General, was asked to address the
following question: “Is the status of the University of Hawai‘i as a land-grant institution
specific to the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa or general to the entire University of
Hawai‘i system?” He concluded that the Hawai‘i State Legislature had designated the
University of Hawai‘i, which includes not only the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, but
also the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, as the state’s land-grant institution. He also
concluded that various sub-components of the total land-grant program could be offered
at geographically separate campuses since they are all a part of the University of Hawai‘i.
In December 1987 the Board of Regents approved a recommendation from its Committee
on Academic Affairs instructing the administration to review the mission of the
agricultural programs at UH Mānoa and UH Hilo and to determine if collaborative
programs between the two campuses could be established within the scope of their
respective missions. On February 2, 1988, President Simone submitted a report entitled
“University of Hawai‘i Agricultural Programs: Mission and Action Alliance” to the
Board of Regents. In March 1988 the Board of Regents approved the concepts contained
in the February 2, 1988, report. A report to the Board of Regents entitled “Report of the
Agriculture Action Alliance Task Force” dated October 26, 1988, reiterates the need for
system-wide coordination of agricultural programs, the establishment of an Agricultural
Action Alliance Executive Council, and the retention of the Agricultural Action Alliance
Task Force.
The March 1988 Board of Regents action resulted in the following recommendations: 1)
that the Board of Regents approve the establishment of an Agricultural Action Alliance
Executive Council comprising the Dean of CTAHR (UH- Mānoa) who shall chair the
council, the Chancellor of UH-Hilo, and the Chancellor for Community Colleges; and 2)
that the Board retain the Agricultural Action Alliance Task Force to provide counsel to
the Executive Council, the UH President, and the Board of Regents relative to the
implementation and progress of the Agricultural Action Alliance. The agricultural
alliance was formed and funded for one year at $100,000. A follow-up report in 1995
listed the activities and accomplishments of the alliance over the intervening period.
In April 2004 the Board of Regents discussed an agenda item entitled “Proposed
Reorganization and Redistribution of Funds to Reflect the Land-Grant Status of the
University of Hawai‘i.” The specific actions requested were: 1) Reorganization of the
Agricultural Experiment Station and the Cooperative Extension Service to reflect the
land-grant role of the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa and University of Hawai'i at Hilo
and creation of a system-wide Agricultural Council for land-grant missions, and 2) To
mandate a fair distribution of federal formula funding for agriculture-related program
between UHM and UHH. The Board of Regents deferred this item, and requested that a
group be formed to address the issue of the land-grant mission and provide a report to the
board.
5
Review of Group Goals
In response to the April BOR action, Interim President David McClain, then Vice
President of Academic Affairs, appointed a Land-Grant Mission Review Group
consisting of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Peggy Cha, Chancellor of Kaua‘i Community College
David Cole, Maui Land and Pineapple Company, Inc.
Jack Fujii, Interim Dean of the College of Agriculture, Forestry and Natural
Resource Management (CAFNRM), UH Hilo
Andrew Hashimoto, Dean of CTAHR, UH Mānoa
Christopher Lu, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, UH Hilo
Bruce Mathews, Professor and Faculty Senate Chair, CAFNRM, UH Hilo
James Nishimoto, Executive Assistant to the Vice President for Academic Affairs
Herbert M. Richards, Jr., Kahua Ranch, Ltd.
Clyde Sakamoto, Chancellor of Maui Community College
Neal Smatresk, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, UH Mānoa
Halina Zaleski, Professor and Faculty Senate Chair, CTAHR, UH Mānoa
Dr. McClain charged the Group to examine issues relating to the mission of the
University of Hawai‘i as a land-grant university. Christopher Lu, Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs, was designated as the convener of the Group. In its initial meeting at
UH Hilo, the group reviewed and agreed upon the following goals:
•
•
•
•
•
•
To develop a system-wide effort to better serve agricultural stakeholders
statewide.
To propose an organizational structure within the University of Hawai‘i system
conducive to cooperation, collaboration, integration, and synergy.
To promote a collective effort to increase the base of extramural funding to
enhance faculty and staff professional growth and service to constituencies.
To facilitate the integration of research, extension, and education, especially on
Hawai‘i, Maui, and Kaua‘i.
To broaden the participation of faculty in research and extension
activities/appointments on Hawai‘i, Maui, and Kaua‘i.
To review the organizational structure of Agricultural Experiment Station (AES)
and Cooperative Extension Service (CES).
Issues
Reorganization of AES and CES, and Distribution of Hatch And Smith-Lever Funds
The 1987 opinion by Deputy Attorney General Suzuki was used as the rationale for the
proposed action at the April 2004 BOR meeting. The opinion was interpreted to
designate “both the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa (UHM) and the University of Hawai'i
at Hilo (UHH) as the responsible entities for the land-grant mission as mandated by
6
federal legislation” (Regent Hong Action Memo, April 1, 2004). Deputy Attorney
General Suzuki’s opinion did not designate land-grant status to UHM and UHH. As
stated previously, the question that Deputy Attorney General Suzuki was asked to address
was “Is the status of the University of Hawai'i as a land-grant institution specific to the
University of Hawai'i at Mānoa or general to the entire University of Hawai'i System?”
Since UHM’s CTAHR has always been the designated beneficiary of the Hatch and
Smith-Lever funds, the questions was raised as to whether this arrangement was
mandated by state or federal law. Suzuki’s opinion states that the University of Hawai‘i
system is the designated land grant beneficiary of the federal land-grant funds. The
opinion also states “it is clear under the act that so long as the State fulfills the provisions
of the act, it is free to designate or establish one or more colleges of the character
described in the act and make them recipients of the support.” Thus, Suzuki’s opinion
states that the UH system is the beneficiary of the Hatch and Smith-Lever funds and it
can decide who should receive and be responsible for implementing the programs and
fulfilling the federal reporting requirements (i.e. the UH system can delegate the program
implementation and reporting requirements).
More important than Deputy Attorney General Suzuki’s opinion, the Hawai‘i Revised
Statutes assign the Board of Regents the authority to accept the Hatch and Smith-Lever
funds to support the Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service
and to organize and plan programs to meet the requirements of these federally mandated
entities. The Board of Regents has delegated to CTAHR the role of the “land-grant
designated beneficiary of the University of Hawai‘i under mandates from the state and
federal laws which define agriculture, clienteles, modes of serving clienteles, modes of
organization, budgeting and accountability, and mechanisms for priority setting and
project review” (University of Hawai‘i Agricultural Programs: Mission and Action
Alliance, by Albert J. Simone, President, February 2, 1988). This is consistent with
CTAHR’s mission, which is “far reaching because of its designated mandates, tripartite
programs in research, instruction, and extension, and role in tropical agriculture which
serves state-wide and Pacific/Asian needs” (ibid.).
In summary, the Board of Regents has been designated by the state as the beneficiary of
the Hatch and Smith-Lever funds, and the Board of Regents has delegated these funds
and implantation and reporting responsibilities to CTAHR. There is no legal mandate for
the Hatch and Smith-Lever funds be managed or implemented by the UH system.
Collaborative Efforts to Serve Stakeholders
Irrespective of the formal structure of the federal land-grant programs, there is general
consensus that increased coordination and collaboration will benefit stakeholders and
programs at UH system institutions. President Simone’s 1988 Agricultural Action
Alliance report articulated the need for and provided examples of ways for system
institutions to work together. The Agricultural Action Alliance was funded for one year
by a legislative appropriation of $100,000 in Fiscal Year 1989. A status report dated July
1995 summarized the activities of the Agricultural Action Alliance including: student and
faculty exchanges, sharing teaching responsibilities in horticulture and animal sciences
7
courses, and participation of UHH CA faculty on CTAHR-managed federal research
initiatives. However, it appears that the Agricultural Action Alliance ceased to function
sometime in the mid-1990’s.
With the decline in plantation agriculture throughout the state, there is interest in every
county of the state to develop alternative agricultural and value added enterprises to keep
agriculture as viable economic entities. There is a clear need to increase the number of
agribusiness entrepreneurs with expertise in finance, marketing, and management, and to
develop sustainable markets for local products. For example, a recent comprehensive
economic development planning process in Kaua‘i County identified a number of
agriculture/food industry issues as top and second priorities. The top priorities include:
market data/studies for producers to identify worldwide demand; local farm/crop
directory for buyers/retailers; creation of an entity to coordinate marketing and
distribution in collaboration with growers; and the formation of a Food Cluster working
group to coordinate these efforts. The plan also requests more research and development,
business training, technical assistance for farmers, and recruitment and mentoring for
agricultural students from the University of Hawai`i.
In order to most effectively and efficiently address the issues and needs described in the
previous paragraph, there is clear consensus that increased coordination and collaboration
of UH system institutions on land grant programs and resources would benefit the state’s
agriculture and related industries. There is also a strong desire of faculty within the UH
system to have closer working relationships with other system colleagues to promote the
land grant mission.
Since 2003, agriculture-related programs at the community colleges, UHH and UHM
have participated as a consortium on a project entitled “Agribusiness Education, Training
and Incubation” through the USDA Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving
Institutions Program. This project accomplishes many of the same collaborative benefits
envisioned for the Action Alliance. Hawai'i receives between $1.5 to 1.8 million per
year, with an authorization limit of $10 million per year. In addition to serving as an
agribusiness incubation and business development vehicle statewide, this grant program
prepares students for future employment in many agricultural areas including sustainable
agricultural resource development and utilization; crop production, processing and
beneficiation (resource improvement); biotechnology; agribusiness development and
entrepreneurship; and culinary arts. The scope of this collaborative effort is much broader
than the programmatic interests of any single campus, and the grant program is using the
system-wide strength of the University of Hawai‘i to build capacity and generate a highly
skilled workforce. The positive outcomes and impacts this project will have over the next
few years are very encouraging. This type of mechanism should be used to foster further
collaboration among UH campuses on agriculture-related programs.
8
Recommendations
1. Land Grant Mission
The Group recommends that the BOR reaffirm that the Cooperative Extension Service
and Agricultural Experiment Station, which report to the College of Tropical Agriculture
and Human Resources at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, have systemwide as well as
statewide responsibilities. Thus, faculty throughout the system are included in the land
grant mission and should have the opportunity to compete for Agricultural Experiment
Station and Extension Service programs and activities if they meet the eligibility
requirements of these programs. The Group also recommends that participation in land
grant research and extension programs and activities by existing UH Hilo and UH
Community Colleges faculty should be encouraged and voluntary. Moreover, the UH
System should provide incentives for cooperation and articulation among UH programs.
2. Land Grant Agricultural Council
A UH systemwide Land Grant Agricultural Council should be created consisting of the
Dean of CTAHR, the Dean of CAFNRM and two Community College Chancellors (or
designees) appointed by the President. The Dean of CTAHR will serve as chair of the
Council. The Council will serve as a forum for identifying priorities, strategic planning,
systemwide coordination, integration, and communication to fulfill the land grant
mission. The Council shall also investigate mechanisms and incentives to increase
resources for the fulfillment of the mission. The Group also recommends that the
Agricultural Council provides counsel to the Council of Chancellors and the President
and support to the agricultural programs of the University of Hawai`i. The Council shall
submit an annual progress report to the Board of Regents through the President.
Because of the importance of the role of agriculture in the diversification of Hawai`i‘s
economy, workforce development, and the transformation of the lives of the citizens of
Hawai`i, the Group feels that agriculture should be included as an integral component in
system-wide strategic, academic, and programmatic planning and policy development
processes.
3. Leveraging Teaching, Research and Extension Resources
Recognizing the aspirations of some systemwide faculty to participate in the land grant
mission, and to further integrate education with agricultural research and extension in the
neighboring islands, it would be beneficial for county administrators in charge of
research and extension on each island to have a more formal role in the coordination with
the academic institution(s) on each island. The relationship could be defined as a joint or
affiliate appointment. Faculty who are currently focused primarily on research and/or
extension could voluntarily elect to teach, assuming that their research or extension
programs would not be negatively impacted. Their specialized expertise and research
9
could be directly and immediately applied with potential statewide benefit. Wherever
feasible, utilizing scarce and precious faculty expertise over the HITS and other
telecommunications facilities might permit credit and continuing education courses to be
offered to a distributed learner/farmer/agricultural entrepreneurship environment.
Likewise, faculty in primarily teaching institutions can be involved with research and
extension programs and activities, also assuming that their teaching programs would not
be negatively impacted. The Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving
Institutions grant should be used as a mechanism to promote collaboration between
agriculture-related programs within the University of Hawai'i system.
Appendices (documents may be accessed on the VPAA's webpage:
http://www.hawaii.edu/vpaa/)
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Deputy Attorney General for the State of Hawai‘i’s Opinion on the Land Grant,
July 31, 1987.
University of Hawaii Agricultural Programs: Mission and Action Alliance,
February 2, 1988.
Board of Regents Action on Agricultural Action Alliance, November 18, 1988.
Summary of the Agricultural Alliance between UHH CA and UHM CTAHR, July
1995.
Regent Hong Action Memo, April 1, 2004.
10