The University of Hawaii’s spotty management of Mauna Kea, long a sore point for environmentalists and Native Hawaiians, came under fresh scrutiny this week.

On Thursday, the UH Board of Regents held a special meeting to receive the draft master plan for the 11,300 acres UH manages on Mauna Kea under lease from the state Board of Land and Natural Resources.

The plan would expand the university’s responsibilities well beyond an exclusive focus on astronomy. It’s a welcome and necessary response to past missteps. It calls for greater emphasis on protecting the mauna’s unique ecosystems and expanding the cultural and historical understanding of the area through education. It also means providing proper respect and consideration for the sacredness that many Native Hawaiians hold for the mountain, reflected in cultural and religious practices.

The absence of the latter was exposed dramatically with road blockades by kia‘i, or protectors, who oppose construction of the massive Thirty Meter Telescope.

Nonetheless, the plan rightfully emphasizes the value of astronomy, the “single most important reason for (UH’s) position on the mountain.” Surely it makes sense that the university, well-versed in complex needs of astronomical education and research, would manage one of the most important sites in the world for land-based astronomy.

However, if the Legislature concludes that astronomy on Mauna Kea is no longer essential — which would be a mistake — it may consider a new draft report by the Mauna Kea Working Group, which was created by the state House to consider alternatives to UH’s current management role.

The report, released on Friday, calls for a “Governing Entity” that is “grounded in Native Hawaiian values and guiding principles.” Those values and principles are explained in considerable detail, and provide useful context in the debate. However, the working group appeared divided on how to control the number of astronomical facilities on the mauna, and could not “reach consensus on whether to include an astronomy representative on the board.”

It’s not clear how — or if — a new governing entity, still vaguely defined, could properly manage a place with as many important competing interests as Mauna Kea. It makes more sense to allow UH to proceed with the necessary changes.

You can find the working group’s report at capitol.hawaii.gov/specialcommittee.aspx?comm=mkwg&year=2021. The UH draft plan is at hawaii.edu/offices/bor/archive/index.php.

Comments on both are welcome.