Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 3, 2017)
12 CapitalPress.com November 3, 2017 Trump administration decision ‘could simplify or moot the issues’ TIMBER from Page 1 The Association of O&C Coun- ties and the American Forest Re- source Council both filed complaints against the expansion, arguing the national monument can’t include fed- eral property that’s dedicated to tim- ber harvest. Those cases were stayed after the Trump administration decided to re- view the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument and others created in the past two decades. During the summer, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke submitted recommendations implying the mon- ument should be reduced by roughly 16,600 acres that were previously open to logging under resource man- agement plans. The Association of O&C Coun- ties is dissatisfied with this proposal, since Zinke did not address the inclu- sion of more than 35,000 acres of so- called O&C Lands in the monument. O&C Lands were once granted to a railroad but then repossessed by the federal government and devoted to logging, with Western Oregon coun- ties receiving a portion of the timber revenues. The counties’ lawsuit against the federal government should be re-ac- tivated since their fundamental prob- lem would not be resolved under the recommendations delivered during the summer, according to the Associ- ation of O&C Counties. “Since that time, however, the Secretary has completed his review and submitted his final report to the President and there is no clear pros- pect of relief. If anything, the oppo- site is true,” the group said in a court brief. The American Forest Resource Council likewise argued that its law- suit might as well be resumed since it won’t be mooted by anything other than a complete reversal of the ex- pansion. “This inevitableness means that a stay only kicks the metaphorical can down the road, while continu- ing to worsen the harmful impacts the Monument expansion is having on the timber industry,” according to AFRC’s court brief. The timber group claims the mon- ument’s expansion has effectively shut down timber harvests that were planned for the next 10 years in the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s Klamath Falls Resource Area. “Timber on federal lands is high- ly regulated, and the sudden evap- oration of millions of board feet of timber in one resource area is not easily absorbed in another area that is under similar sustainable manage- ment,” the brief said. Attorneys for the federal govern- ment said it “simply is not accurate” that timber harvests have completely ceased in the region, noting the ex- pansion did not cancel timber sales that were already approved. Delaying the litigation until Dec. 1 would prevent the court from wasting resources, since the Trump administration may reach a decision that “could simplify or moot the is- sues.” Senior U.S. District Judge Rich- ard Leon sided with the government in both cases and agreed to prolong the stay until Dec. 1, when the par- ties will submit a joint report on the status of the litigation. CAHNRS faculty members are evaluated annually RESEARCH from Page 1 “I think they do feel indus- try is calling all the shots (and) shared governance has been compromised,” Potts said. The AAUP considers shared governance to be a “shared responsibility among ... gov- erning boards, administrations and faculties” for running the university. Several current and former faculty members spoke with the Capital Press about the is- sue. Breeding dispute Nnadozie Oraguzie, a for- mer WSU sweet cherry breed- er, says the Washington State Tree Fruit Research Com- mission pulled its funding of $180,000 per year until he pro- vided a strategic plan for his breeding program. Oraguzie submitted a plan after check- ing it with his supervisors at WSU’s Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Cen- ter in Prosser. Oraguzie said the industry set the direction, and he did ev- erything it wanted him to do. “They’d say, ‘This is what we want you to do,’ and if you don’t do what they want you to do, of course you’re setting yourself up for not getting any funding,” he said. “It’s not about what they want me to do that I’m not doing.” Oraguzie said CAHNRS leaders directed him to get the funding back from the com- mission. Former research commis- sion manager Jim McFerson is now the director of WSU’s Tree Fruit Research and Ex- tension Center in Wenatchee. He told the Capital Press the sweet cherry breeding pro- gram was then in the process of being re-established. He said progress wasn’t being made quickly enough on fun- damentals, the steps before plant selection, breeding prog- ress or new varieties. “Things gradually got better, but they were never at a level that was viewed as sufficient,” he said. “This is growers’ money. We know it’s a long-term investment; no one expects a new variety in five years, for God’s sake, but there is an expectation, as with any program, that the aspects of the program will be run ... acceptably. The program nev- er really ran as efficiently and effectively as the committees felt it should.” The commission commu- nicated its concerns on a reg- ular basis through the breeding program advisory committee and to WSU and Prosser staff, McFerson said. The commission and in- dustry do not get involved in personnel matters at the uni- versity, McFerson said, adding that the commission only com- ments on projects it funds. Or- aguzie’s program received the same level of communication and concern as other commis- sion-funded projects, he said. Oraguzie said CAHNRS administrators at the time told him if he stayed at WSU, he’d face three to four years of re- views that would be posted online for anyone to see. His other option was to resign and receive six months’ sala- ry. Oraguzie chose the second option. Oraguzie left the university in 2016 after eight years, and is applying for professor or scientist positions around the U.S. “I think this is all about money,” Oraguzie said. “The industry is dictating what to do. If the industry says, ‘We don’t like somebody,’ WSU Dan Wheat/Capital Press File Don Jenkins/Capital Press Ron Mittelhammer, dean of CAHNRS: “... We can’t lose sight of the fact that every faculty member is ultimately an employee and has an obligation to be accountable to the taxpayers of Washington and other funders that provide funds for their salaries and operations.” Jim McFerson, former man- ager of the Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission in Wenatchee. Matthew Weaver/Capital Press Matthew Weaver/Capital Press Washington State University wheat researcher Kulvinder Gill. He ques- tions how administrators handled his research and breeding projects. has to comply. They don’t want to lose the money they’re getting from industry.” Administrators blamed Kulvinder Gill, a wheat geneticist at WSU, blames CAHNRS administrators for damaging his connections with industry members who provid- ed funding for his research. He was hired as Vogel En- dowed Chair in 2002, fund- ed by the Washington Grain Commission. The commission decided to end his funding in 2014, even though his research on Clearfield wheat varieties was going well, he said. No clear reason was given, Gill said. He believes CAHNRS administrators misled the commission, telling the orga- nization he was not working with other wheat breeders. CAHNRS asked him to give his material to other wheat breeders to finish his varieties, he said. Gill refused, thinking it was an inappropriate request. “I didn’t think that was the right strategy for my varieties, so I decided to finish those my- self,” he said. A CAHNRS administrator asked him to step down from the endowed chair. Gill re- fused, as that was the position he was hired to fill. After Gill refused, CAHNRS reviewed the endowment. Gill doesn’t consider the review valid, since he received no questions after his presentation. “They took the endowment away even though my (yearly) evaluations were really good, varieties were coming along, the research part was going well,” Gill said. Gill also received addition- al funding from the commis- sion for his projects. He said he was doing better than the objectives he had promised. “They tried to push me out as hard as they could,” he said of the CAHNRS administra- tion. Gill elected to remain at WSU and develop his variet- ies without commission fund- ing. “That’s why we named this recent variety Resil- ience, even though we had zero funding, no support from CAHNRS and no support from the grain commission,” he said. Gill is now developing wheat varieties that better tolerate warm weather, using funding from a $16 million grant from the U.S. Agency for International Develop- ment, now in its fifth year, and the government of India. Gill said he has no prob- lem with the grain commis- sion or its members. Gill said CAHNRS admin- istrators need to be fair, even if they don’t like him or his research process. He believes evaluations are used as a pun- ishment. “They have not been fair to me, at least,” he said. “I’m learning I’m not the only one. They should not be targeting people. I still say I deserve justice, I was badly treated and wrongly treated. If I was not performing, then taking everything away from me makes sense. If I can develop these varieties without any support, imagine what I can do with support.” Research mission Mittelhammer, the CAHNRS dean, points to WSU’s mission as a land- grant university. “I’ll admit sometimes we’re at cross-purposes with Randy Fortenbery, small grains economist at Washington State University. Conflicts can arise at almost every university, particular- ly in times of political turmoil, declining resources and controversial public policy issues, he said. faculty who oppose getting input from others, but we can’t lose sight of the fact that every faculty member is ulti- mately an employee and has an obligation to be account- able to the taxpayers of Wash- ington and other funders that provide funds for their sala- ries and operations,” he said. Potts, of the AAUP, be- lieves the industry should have some say, but said facul- ty members were hired by the university to conduct research broadly. “I think it’s dangerous to let them have all of the say,” she said. “It’s dangerous to say just because industry doesn’t appreciate them at the moment that they no longer deserve to be employed.” Mittelhammer agrees on that point. “The industry should have some say; they should not have the only say,” he said. In cases where a “prob- lematic” faculty member is considered for tenure, the case should go before a fac- ulty status committee of their peers, Potts said. In some cases, a committee refused to hear the faculty member’s case, she said. CAHNRS faculty mem- bers are evaluated annually by a career guidance com- mittee and in their fifth year by a promotion and tenure advisory committee. Tenure and a promotion are normal- ly granted in the sixth year. Faculty are evaluated by ten- ured peers in the department, at least four tenured faculty members from “peer institu- tions,” the CAHNRS promo- tion and tenure committee and the provost’s promotion and tenure advisory committee. CAHNRS faculty evalu- ations are “rigorous,” “fair,” and “multi-dimensional,” Mittelhammer said. Reviews include feedback from peers, colleagues, staff and admin- istration, he said, with faculty members given many oppor- tunities to resolve and address any professional challenges they face. “If they ultimately don’t fare well in their faculty roles or are not evaluated well, it’s inevitably due to a variety of accumulating, compelling performance issues, (which) certainly may include but wouldn’t be limited to only issues with stakeholders,” Mittelhammer said. Mittelhammer was ap- pointed interim CAHNRS dean in June 2013 and given a two-year term in September 2014 while WSU searched for a new dean to replace Dan Bernardo, who is now the uni- versity’s provost. WSU ad- ministrators, led by Bernardo, announced last summer they would extend their search, and Mittelhammer has agreed to remain until a replacement is hired. Commission funding The federal and state governments provide the li- on’s share of funding for CAHNRS, but commodity commissions provide a sig- nificant portion of the col- lege’s research budget. The CAHNRS 2018 fiscal year budget is $98.5 million, $41.2 million of which goes specifi- cally to the college’s office of research. The Washington Grain Commission funds 28 re- search projects conducted by 36 WSU scientists and 19 USDA Agricultural Research Service scientists devoted to wheat, said Glen Squires, commission CEO. The com- mission funds about $2 mil- lion in research projects each year, with $1.6 million going to CAHNRS researchers and $455,000 to USDA research- ers in Pullman, including the Western Wheat Quality Labo- ratory. In deciding which research to fund, the commission has a pre-proposal meeting to dis- cuss possible projects and of- fer feedback or ask questions, he said. Then, at a research review, scientists make a final project proposal to commis- sioners, county Washington Association of Wheat Grow- ers representatives and other farmers. If farmers feel a project isn’t working, they’ll decide not to fund it, Squires said. The nine-member Wash- ington Tree Fruit Research Commission funded or over- saw funding for 43 research projects under the direction of 22 WSU researchers work- ing on apples, cherries, pears and stone fruit, for a total of $2.66 million in the 2017 funding cycle, said Mike Willett, now the commission manager. Commission mem- bers are growers appointed by the state’s fruit and apple commissions, and the state agriculture director appoints a pear grower. The industry identifies pri- ority areas and solicits pro- posals from scientists. “We assume that when a researcher writes a proposal for us, they’ve identified that those are the objectives they feel they can meet given what they understand about the field of study and what they feel they can do in the peri- od of time in the project,” he said. Neither commission has a say over tenure or employ- ment, Squires and Willett said, adding that those deci- sions fall to the university. Willett said the commis- sion is satisfied with the work WSU researchers are doing, as evidenced by a 2013 deci- sion to double its research as- sessment to set up a $32 mil- lion endowment for tree fruit research. McFerson, the former commission manager, said he too is sensitive to the poten- tial for micromanaging by the industry. “The bottom line is, sci- entists can choose not to ap- ply (or) choose to apply for funding, and if you’re funded to do a project, those are the objectives,” he said. “If you’re not making progress, funding doesn’t happen by magic.” Randy Fortenbery, a small grains economist at WSU, said he doesn’t know about specif- ic complaints raised by other faculty, but he has never felt pressure to provide a specific research result. Such conflicts arise at al- most every university, par- ticularly in times of political turmoil, declining resources and controversial public policy issues, he said. “There’s also the issue of how people communicate (about) their research and whether or not their message is being received in the way they intended it to be,” he said. However faculty members are evaluated, Fortenbery said the process must be transpar- ent. “I think there’s always room for additional transpar- ency, but these are also per- sonnel issues, so there’s some things that, by law or univer- sity mandate, can’t always be completely discussed out in the open among everybody,” he said.