agInnovation South
Summer Meeting
Roanoke Hotel and Conference Center
Roanoke, VA
Held In Conjunction with Southern Region Land-Grant Conference
August 15, 2000
Participants:
| Jerry Arkin, GA Greg Brown, VA Bill Brown, LA D.C. Coston, OK Nancy Cox, MS Everett Emino, FL Marty Fuller, MS Kriton Hatzios, VA |
T. J. Helms, ED Skip Jubb, VA Fred Knapp, KY David Morrison, LA Roland Mote, TN Anna Marie Rasberry Charley Scifres, AR Vance Watson, MS |
Greg Weidemann, AR Johnny Wynne, NC Liaisons/guests: Bo Beaulieu, SRDC George Cooper, CSREES Terry Nipp, AESOP Peter Roussopoulos, FS Allan Stoner, ARS/GRIN |
Agenda
| Time | Item# | Title and Presenter |
| 7:15 | Continental Breakfast | |
| 8:00 | 1. | Call to Order and Introductions – Vance Watson |
| 8:05 | 2. | Approval of Agenda, May Meeting Minutes, and Interim Actions of Chair – Vance Watson |
| 8:15 | 3. | National and Regional Genetic Resource Centers – Allan Stoner |
| 8:45 | 4. | By-Laws Update – T. J. Helms |
| 9:00 | 5. | Project Modification Requests – Vance Watson |
| 9:20 | 6. | NRSP Funding Issues: New Processes – T. J. Helms |
| 9:40 | 7. | Adoption/Implementation of New Guidelines for Multistate Research – T. J. Helms |
| 10:00 | Break | |
| 10:30 | 8. | CSREES Partnership Report – George Cooper |
| 10:45 | 9. | Forest Service: Southern Research Station Report – Peter Roussopoulos |
| 11:00 | 10. | Southern Rural Development Center Report – Bo Beaulieu |
| 11:30 | 11. | agInnovation South Strategic Plan: Implementation of Operational Plan – T. J. Helms |
| 11:45 | 12. | agInnovation South Strategic Plan: Brochure – T. J. Helms |
| 12:00 | Lunch on your own | |
| 1:30 | 13. | Research Expenditure Data: 1970-1997 – T. J. Helms |
| 2:00 | 14. | Report of ESCOP Activities – T. J. Helms |
| 2:15 | 15. | Plans for September Workshop – T. J. Helms |
| 2:30 | 16. | Announcements, Assignments, etc. |
| 3:00 | Adjournment |
Agenda Item 1.
Call to Order and Introductions
Background: The annual summer meeting of the Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors will be called to order by Chair, Vance Watson. Participants will introduce themselves.
Action Requested: For information
Agenda Item 2.
Approval of Agenda, April Meeting Minutes, and Interim Actions of Chair and Executive Committee
Background:
Agenda: All members were notified in advance of the meeting that agenda briefs were available on the Association homepage for review. Additions to the agenda will be considered.
Minutes of the May 8-10 meeting held in the Virgin Islands are on the homepage for review. Directors were notified in May of their availability.
Interim Actions of the Chair and Executive Committee are as follows:
- Appointed committee for development of Intellectual Property Guidelines consisting of Larry Rogers (Chair), Nancy Cox, Everett Emino, and Frank Gilstrap.
- Appointed Allen Dunn as Southern Region Administrative Advisor for NRSP-3 to replace William H. Brown.
- Notified ESCOP’s Chair of agInnovation South’s Resolution supporting an entity to help increase federal funds.
- Recommended ESCOP’s Chair have an agenda item at the September ESS meeting regarding NRSPs.
- Appointed Roberta Manish (VA) as Administrative Advisor to SERA-IEG-10 to replace Helen Shaw.
- Invited Peter Roussopoulos, Director of the Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, to participate in association activities as a liaison from the Southern Research Station. (Invitation accepted).
Action Requested: Approval.
Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Scifres/Hatzios, minutes and interim actions were approved.
Agenda Item 3.
National and Regional Genetic Resource Centers
Background: Dr. Allan Stoner from ARS’ National Germplasm Resources Laboratory in Beltsville, MD, will present an overview of the Genetic Resources program.
Action Requested: For information.
Information/Discussion: Dr. Stoner distributed copies of “Seeds for Our Future,” an booklet containing an informative overview of the U.S. National Plant Germplasm System. A few highlights from Dr. Stoner’s powerpoint presentation are as follows:
- As of 7/30/00, holdings contain 439,110 accessions and 10,038 species.
- GRIN (Germplasm Resources Information Network) makes collections accessible worldwide via the internet.
- In 1999, over 132,000 samples were distributed worldwide, with 67% of these in the United States.
Agenda Item 4.
By-Laws Update
Background: As prescribed in the Association’s By-Laws, recommended changes must be placed before the Directors at least one month prior to consideration and vote. The proposed changes in the By-Laws (available as a Word-Perfect file linked in the agInnovation South “Special Notice” section of the homepage) were reviewed with the Association during its most recent meeting in the U. S. Virgin Islands. In addition to general housekeeping items, there are three suggested amendments of substance which relate to: (1) agInnovation South membership on ESCOP; (2) change in the makeup of the Executive Committee by the addition of the chair of the Multistate Research Committee; and, (3) amendment of Association requirements for candidacy as chair-elect.
Action Requested: Approval of amendments to the agInnovation South By-Laws.
Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Emino/Hatzios, updates to bylaws were approved.
Agenda Item 5.
Project Modification Requests
Background: Disposition of the following requests for establishment or modification will be discussed. Specific proposals may be viewed through the links below under “Request #.”
| Request # Title |
Sponsor of Request or Administrative Advisor(s) |
Action requested and Recommendations of AC and Executive Committee |
|---|---|---|
| #0.3 Development of Innovative and Value-Added Products from Agriculturally-Produced Materials (Replace S-272) |
William H. Brown (LA) | Establish new Development Committee. AC-3, AC-5, and Exex. Comm. approve request. |
| #0.5 Development and Assessment of TMDL Planning and Assessment Tools and Processes (Replace S-273) |
Gerald F. Arkin (GA) | Establish new Development Committee. AC-1, AC-5, AC-7, and Exex. Comm. approve request. Specific comments by AC-1 and AC-7 should be seriously considered by writing committee. |
| #0.7 IEG-33: Review of Cooperative Variety Testing Programs in the Southern Region |
Vance H. Watson (MS) | Renew IEG-33 to 2005. AC-1 and Exec. Comm. approve. Comment from AC-1 should be considered by committee. |
| #0.8 Biotechnology and Bioconversion Engineering and Processes |
AC-5 (William H. Brown, AA) | Establish new Development Committee. AC-1, AC-2, AC-5, and Exex. Comm. approve request. Specific comments by AC-1 should be seriously considered by writing committee. |
| #0.9 Sources, Dispersal and Management of Stable Flies on Beef and Dairy Cattle in North America (With #0.10, will replace S-274) |
Fred Knapp (KY) | Establish new Development Committee. AC-2 and AC-12 approve request with specific comments by AC-2 which should be seriously considered by writing committee. The Exec. Comm. defers a decision to the agInnovation South meeting when AA, Fred Knapp, will be asked to provide reasoning for requesting two separate projects from S-274. |
| #0.10 Arthropods and Manure Management: Impact on Nuisance Factors, Plant Nutrients and Food Safety (With #0.09, will replace S-274) |
Fred Knapp (KY) | Establish new Development Committee. AC-2 and AC-12 approve request with specific comments by AC-2 which should be seriously considered by writing committee. The Exec. Comm. defers a decision to the agInnovation South meeting when AA, Fred Knapp, will be asked to provide reasoning for requesting two separate projects from S-274. |
| #0.11 DC98-01: Developing Genetic Resources for Cotton Improvement (S-258 Replacement) |
Johnny Wynne (NC) | Extend DC98-01 for one year. This will allow completion of new project proposal. Exec. Comm approves. |
| #0.12 S-270: Utilizing Potassium Buffering Capacity to Predict Cotton Yield Response to Potassium Fertilizer |
Larry Rogers (LA) | Terminate S-270. The S-270 committee felt that the major objectives of the project had been accomplished and requested a termination date of April 1, 2000 rather than September 30, 2001. This request and a termination report was submitted to CSREES 3/29/00. Exec. Comm approves. |
| #0.13 DC99-03: Phenology, Population Dynamics and Interference: A Basis for Understanding Weed Biology and Ecology (S-183) |
Larry Rogers (LA) | Terminate DC99-03. DC99-03 was established to write a replacement project for S-183. The committee will probably decide at its July 25-27 meeting to terminate the Development Committee and request an Information Exchange Group.Exec. Comm. approves request to terminate and to subsequently consider request for IEG, or possibly SERA-IEG. |
| #0.14 Biological Control of Arthropod Pests and Weeds (Replace S-267) |
Frank Gilstrap (TX) | Establish new Development Committee. Exec. Comm. approves. |
Action Requested: Disposition of requests.
Additional information/discussion: Two additional proposals were presented to the group:
- Renewal of IEG-22 – Dr. Emino presented a request for renewing “Soil Survey.”
- New IEG – Dr. Cox distributed copies of a proposal for establishment of a new IEG entitled, “Supplementation Strategies for Cattle Using Southern Forages.” This proposal will go through established procedures for review by the appropriate Advisory Committees, with authority granted to the Executive Committee to grant final approval contingent on the review outcome.
Action Taken:
- Approvals by Executive Committee on items #3, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14 were considered final approval for these activities.
- IEG33, activity #7, was approved for renewal on motion/second by Drs. Coston/Emino.
- After additional information from Dr. Knapp, activities #9 and 10 were approved for establishment of separate Development Committees.
- The renewal request for IEG-22 was approved on motion/second by Drs. Coston/Scifres.
Agenda Item 6.
NRSP Funding Issues
Background: If adopted in their present form, the Multistate Research Guidelines will require a change in the method for determining annual budgets for the National Research Support Projects. Historically, each region voted separately each year on the level of “off-the-top” funds to be allocated to each project with the additional requirement that 3 of the 4 regions must vote to support the project. The difficulty with this procedure has been that, although funding has never been rejected by 2 or more of the regions, there is seldom a clear consensus on funding levels. This is clearly demonstrated in the appended chart of funding recommendations for FY 2001.
The proposed procedure described in the new guidelines is as follows: “The lead AA for each NRSP prepares a five-year projected budget for presentation to and review by the ESS. All budgets will be reviewed and approved annually by the ESS, but the lead AA need not submit an annual budget request, except for extraordinary reconsideration. Annual NRSP budgets may be funded at the level requested or at the level of change in Hatch funding for each respective year, whichever is less.”
For FY01 funding, the regional Executive Directors were asked by George Cooper to provide a consensus recommendation. The following letter was sent to Dr. Cooper by all SAES regions:
Date: July 31, 2000
To: Dr. George Cooper
From: T. J. HelmsSubject: FY 2001 Funding Recommendations for National Research Support Projects
By concensus, the Regional Associations of SAES Directors have arrived at the following recommendations regarding funding of the NRSPs for FY 2001. These recommendations replace those previously submitted by each of the respective regional associations.
The Regional SAES Associations recommend that all NRSPs be funded at the FY 2000 allocation level with the caveat as described below.
FY 2000 Funding Level
NRSP-1: $219,398
NRSP-3: $113,011
NRSP-4 $482,243
NRSP-5: $248,332
NRSP-6: $161,931
NRSP-7: $ -0- (No decision needed)
NRSP-8: $380,000
Total: $1,604,915
Caveat: All projects are to share proportionately in any change (increase or decrease) in the formula fund (a.k.a. Hatch) budget for FY 2001.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Anna Marie Rasberry or me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
T. J. Helms
| Project | Allocations FY00 |
Requested FY01 |
NRSP Budget Requests for 2001: Funding Recommended by SAES Regions |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Southern Region1 |
North Central Region2 |
Northeast Region3 |
Western Region4 |
Consensus5 | |||
| NRSP-1 CRIS |
$219,398 | $289,250 | $289,250 | $225,622 | $219,398 | $289,250 | $219,398 |
| NRSP-3 Atmospheric Dep. |
$113,011 | $116,401 | $116,401 | $113,011 | $113,011 | $116,401 | $113,011 |
| NRSP-4 Minor Use Pests |
$482,243 | $482,243 | $482,243 | $482,243 | $482,243 | $482,243 | $482,243 |
| NRSP-5 Fruit Tree Clones |
$248,332 | $258,264 | $258,265 | $258,2642a plus $25,000 |
$248,332 | $247,1504a | $248,332 |
| NRSP-6 Potato |
$161,931 | $170,028 | -0- | $170,0282b | $161,931 | $164,5444a | $161,931 |
| NRSP-8 Animal Genome |
$380,000 | $389,272 | $389,272 | $389,2722c | $380,000 | $382,3924b | 380,000 |
1 All recommendations by the agInnovation South are subject to the following caveat: “Using FY 2000 funding as a base for comparison, the Association approves FY 2001 funding at the level requested or a percentage change the same as the change in Hatch funding, whichever is smaller. ”
2 All recommendations by the NCRA are subject to the following caveat: “The project will share proportionately in any change (increase or decrease) in the formula fund budget up to the level approved.”
2a Approved salary increase up to the level of the Hatch funds increase for FY2001 or the 4% requested increase, whichever is less; and approved one-time maintenance cost of $25,000.
2b The 5% increase is contingent on an increase in formula funds.
2c The 2.4% increase is contingent on an increase of at least that much change in formula funds.
3 FY01 funding is approved for all NRSPs at the same level as FY00, with no increases. “If Hatch appropriations for FY2001 is increased significantly, NERA will reconsider funding levels at the Association’s September meeting.”
4 Recommendations for NRSP-1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 carry the following caveat: “Approval contingent upon an equal percent increase in Hatch Funds to accommodate the request.” Recommendation for NRSP-4 carries no caveat.
4a Calculated based on FY2000 base plus 3% salary increase.
4b Caculated based on FY2000 base plus 2.4% salary increase.
5 These recommendations are subject to the following caveat: The project will share proportionately in any change (increase or decrease) in the formula fund budget.
TO: NRSP Lead Administrative Advisors
FROM: Richard Jones, Chair of ESCOPThe procedure for approving and funding National Research Support Projects (NRSPs) has been revised by the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP). Information regarding the development and authorization of an NRSP is found in the Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities manual (seehttp://www.escop.msstate.edu/guidelines.pdf). A new NRSP or revised NRSP will be reviewed at the annual meeting (usually held in September) of the Experiment Station Section (ESS) and voted on at that meeting by all stations that participate in the off-the-top funding process for NRSPs.
Because these activities draw on formula funds as the source of financial support, the budget for the life of project, usually five years, will also be voted upon at the same meeting. Thus, when a project and its budget are approved, they will be approved for the life of the project. The intent is to make known the expected costs of a project at the beginning of a commitment in order to expedite planning for future years.
Even though a project budget may be approved for five years, an approved budget will still be contingent on the level of the formula fund allocations for each year. For example, if a project budget has a 3% increase each year and the budget is approved by the Directors, then the 3% increase will be authorized as long as the formula fund allocation also increases at least 3%. If the approved increase (i.e.,3%) is larger than the formula fund allocation (i.e., < than 3%), then the NRSP budget will be reduced to the level of the formula fund allocation for the respective year.
Balloting for both project approval and budget approval will be by individual station Directors, as one vote per station. A simple majority of the voting Directors will rule.
This new process for each NRSP budget approval will be implemented this year at the ESS meeting in New Orleans, LA (see URL for info). The budget(s) approved this year will be for the remaining life of each of the NRSPs beginning with the budget for FY 2002. The FY 2001 budget has been handled as in previous years and that process is complete. The lead Administrative Advisor (AA) for each NRSP will present the budget for each of the remaining years for the respective NRSP. A standard format for the budget presentation is attached to this memo.
Requests for budget changes that are necessitated by extraordinary situations should be brought to the attention of the regional associations at their spring meetings in order that the Directors can have the request reviewed by their multistate research committees. This procedure will facilitate the decision making process for the requested budget change as well as serve to brief the Directors prior to voting at the annual ESS meeting.
Other procedures regarding NRSPs can be found in the Guidelines for Multistate Research manual noted above.
If you questions concerning this procedure, please contact me at your convenience.
Action Requested: For information.
Agenda Item 7.
Adoption/Implementation of New Guidelines for Multistate Research
Background: The Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) established new requirements and offered opportunities to change policies and procedures followed in the conduct of our Multistate research program. New guidelines for the Multistate Research program have been drafted by the four AES regional Executive Directors. An overview of these guidelines was presented for discussion and reaction by the agInnovation South during its recent meeting in the U. S. Virgin Islands. Version 11.0 of this document which appears in the “Workroom” section of the ESCOP homepage (http://www.escop.msstate.edu) will be presented for approval during the Experiment Station Section meeting in September.
Discussion related to the following questions (adapted from a list prepared for one of the other regional associations) will be very useful as we proceed toward development of the final draft of the guidelines.
- Do you want a national oversight committee? General agreement that some type of national committee is needed.
- Do you see a need to have the “Plan of Research ” linked to the multistate research processes? No.
- Should CRIS track all of your expenditures for multistate research activities? No.
- How do you react to the concept of numbering multistate research projects starting with 1000 after October 1, 2000? No concern.
- Are the peer reviews conducted by the AA and Association Chair sufficient for the Series 500 (“Rapid Response”) projects? Generally agreed OK.
- Should the “third peer reviewer” on multistate research projects be a NPL? Should not be required, but OK if the NPL staff has the appropriate expertise.
- Do you see a need for mid-term reviews for multistate research activities beyond what is already done in the Southern Region? No. If so, should the Multistate Research Committee assume the responsibility of monitoring the progress of activities as suggested in the guidelines?
- Does the CSREES representative need to attend all meetings for all types of activities? He/she should attend at least the first and last meeting.
- Are you comfortable with the new processes proposed for NRSP budget approvals? Generally, yes.
- What is your position regarding the use of electronic signatures? Should we use a pass code system? Not necessary.
- Are the procedures for addenda to multistate research projects adequately defined? Yes.
Additional discussion regarding several of the appendices to the Guidelines is also needed.
Action Requested: Discussion leading to Association responses to the questions posed.
Additional Information/Discussion: Brief indication of Directors’ responses appears as bolded text above following each question.
Agenda Item 8.
CSREES Partnership Report
Background: Dr. Cooper will update the agInnovation South on any new developments within CSREES and the Partnership Office.
Action Requested: For information.
Information/Discussion:
- A handout was distributed (copy available on request) that shows a comparison of the current method vs. a straight 25% allocation for Hatch Multistate Research Funds for each institution. An ESCOP resolution from the April Executive Committee meeting asked CSREES to consider the straight 25% method. However, the handout displays how using that method would impact universities. The allocation method will remain unchanged pending further study.
Agenda Item 9.
USDA Forest Service: Southern Research Station Report
Background: The agInnovation South invited Dr. Peter Roussopoulos, Director of the USDA Forest Service’s Southern Research Station in Asheville, NC to become a liaison member of agInnovation South. Dr. Roussopoulos accepted the invitation and provides the following report:
Southern Research Station
200 WT Weaver Blvd
PO Box 2680
Asheville, NC 28802
(828) 257-4832
Web: www.srs.fs.fed.us
Director: Dr. Peter J. Roussopoulos
The USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station serves the 13 southern States in collaboration with universities, industry partners, and other agencies to ensure sustainable resource management. Our mission is to create the science and technology needed to sustain and enhance southern forest ecosystems and the benefits they provide.
We have over 130 scientists, plus 340 technical and administrative support employees. We are responsible for natural resource research and development, including forest inventory, in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. Our work in disciplines ranging from research forestry, to engineering, economics, entomology, wildlife and fish biology, ecology, pathology, and many other fields is applicable throughout the South and beyond.
Our Strategic Plan is designed to enhance our ability to work with other members of the forest community to respond to complex issues that challenge natural resource management. Achieving sustainability and incorporating human values into our research program requires a multidisciplinary approach and a customer-driven framework. This approach is captured in six “cross-cutting themes” that are described in our Strategic Plan: Southern Pines; Wetlands, Bottomlands, and Streams; Southern Appalachians; Interior Highlands; Large-Scale Assessment and Monitoring; and Inventory and Monitoring. The Strategic Plan may be requested from the above address; it is also online at http://www.srs.fs.fed.us.
Action Requested: For information.
Information/Discussion: Handouts distributed were: 1) Annual Report for 1999; 2) Strategic Plan; and 3) list of recent publications of the Southern Research Station.
Agenda Item 10.
Southern Rural Development Center
Background: Bo Beaulieu, SRDC Director, will offer an update of key research activities that have been undertaken by the Center in collaboration with the region’s land-grant faculty. His discussion will include a status report on the Center’s special millennium policy series, an effort that received financial support from the Southern Agricultural Experiment Station Directors earlier this year. (Ten of the Millennium Briefs are currently available on the SRDC’s newly enhanced website at http://ext.msstate.edu/srdc/.) Furthermore, Dr. Beaulieu will outline the nature of the Center’s grant activities and will describe efforts being spearheaded by the SRDC to address e-business and workforce issues in the South. Finally, Bo will present highlights of some of the key economic, educational, and demographic shifts occurring in the South that pose major challenges for our region.
Action Requested: For information.
Information/Discussion: Dr. Beaulieu’s presentation focused on 1) Center activities and publications; 2) Grants and funding; and 3) “Changing Complexion of the Rural South’s Economy.”
Agenda Item 11.
agInnovation South Strategic Plan Implementation:
The agInnovation South Operational Plan
Background: The agInnovation South Executive Committee charged each of its members to review the Operational Plan and suggest the name of (a) agInnovation South member(s) or committee(s) who could be asked to take the responsibility for the Association achieving that objective. The responses from this exercise will be reviewed.
Action Requested: Concurrence on the assignments to be made.
Information/Discussion: The agInnovation South Executive Committee seeks feedback on what body, committee, or individual should be assigned responsibility for accomplishing the objectives. Send ideas to Dr. Helms.
Agenda Item 12.
agInnovation South Strategic Plan Implementation:
A Brochure
Background: As part of the approved implementation process for the agInnovation South Strategic Plan, a Strategic Plan brochure has been developed by North Carolina State University. The Executive Committee has reviewed the brochure and copies will be distributed for review by agInnovation South membership. The proposed distribution of the brochure includes agencies, key legislators, Experiment Stations, commodity leaders, Southern CARET, etc. will be discussed.
Action Requested: For discussion.
Agenda Item 13.
SAES AND 1890 ARD Research Expenditures (1970 – 1997)
Background: The expenditure data for food, agricultural and natural resources research from CRIS for FFY 1970-1997 which are housed at the Mississippi State University, Social Science Research Center have been summarized in charts and tables for use by the LGU System. This report may be accessed through the CRIS block on the agInnovation South homepage or directly at:
http://www.ssrc.msstate.edu/monitor/agInnovation South_AGRD/CRISExpenditures70_97.pdf
Selected portions of this report will be presented.
Action Requested: For information.
Agenda Item 14.
Report of ESCOP Activities
Background: Brief information will be presented concerning highlights of each of the ESCOP Core Committees:
- Advocacy and Marketing Committee – involved with new national C-FAR initiative.
- Budget and Legislative Committee
- Science and Technology Committee – working committee/task forces include Social Science, Rural Communities and Farm Safety Task Force, Ag Biotechnology Task Force, and Food Safety Task Force.
- Partnership Committee – 1) A think-tank group is being formed jointly with ECOP and CSREES to determine the best direction for SUNEI; 2) A Partnership Workshop is being scheduled for early February, 2001, in Baltimore.
- Planning Committee: The ESCOP Planning Committee met in Baltimore, MD on May 18, 2000. Minutes from this meeting are available on the Committee’s web site at the following URL: http://www.escop.msstate.edu/committee/plan00.htm#Action. Format for the budget priority setting session at the SAES Workshop on Sep. 26-28, 2000 in New Orleans was discussed. This year’s session will concentrate on projected research priorities for 2005-2010. Mark Drabenstott and a colleague will begin the session with presentations on future economic, social and technological changes impacting agriculture. Directors will then develop a list of projected research priorities for 2005-2010, using a facilitated small group format, that will be used by the ESCOP Budget & Legislative Committee in formulating future budget requests.The ECOP-SPC and ESCOP-PC Joint Planning Committee met on May 19, 2000 and minutes from this meeting are also available at the web site above. The Committee began developing the ECOP and ESCOP joint response to the studies and reports on the future of the land grant university system. The working title of the response is “Strategies for Enhanced Engagement” and will include the intent of the document, a statement of research and extension philosophy on engagement, a summary of salient points from the documents reviewed, examples of current successes at engagement within the land grant system, and objectives and recommendations for future action. A draft response document will be presented at the joint meeting of ECOP and ESCOP Executive Committees in August.
The next meeting of the ESCOP-PC and the ECOP-SPC/ESCOP-PC Joint Planning Committee will be October 4-6 in Mystic, CT. - Executive Committee
Action Requested: For information.
Agenda Item 15.
ESS Meeting, SAES/ARD Workshop, and Regional Meetings
Le Meridien Hotel
New Orleans, Louisiana
DRAFT – July 21, 2000
General Meeting Schedule:
September 25 – Reception (6:30-7:30 pm) – Sponsored by Louisiana AES
September 26 – ESS Meeting (8-12am)
September 26-28 – SAES/ARD Directors’ Workshop (noon September 26 – 10am September 28)
September 28 – Regional Meetings (10am – 2pm)
September 28 – ESCOP Executive Committee Meeting (2-4pm)
SAES/ARD Workshop:
Background Information: Managing State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAES-1862) and Agricultural Research Stations (ARD-1890). A workshop that addresses current and future opportunities for all stations. We will have 30-minute breaks (coffee, tea and soft drinks), continental breakfasts, and lunches for the full-day sessions.
LUNCH 12:00 noon – 1:00 p.m.
SESSION I – TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26 1:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.
Moderator: Fred Cholick, Dean, South Dakota State University
Building Support for the Agriculture Budget – Vic Lechtenberg, Dean, Purdue University, Opening Statement and Moderator (1:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.) [20 minutes]
- The CFAR Process and How It Is Proceeding – Joe Coffey, National CFAR Coordinator [40 minutes]
- The Century III Process and How It Is Proceeding – Sam Smith, Chair of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges Board of Directors for 2000 [40 minutes]
- Panel Discussion: Speakers plus Colin Kaltenbach, Director, University of Arizona; Charles Laughlin, Administrator, CSREES; Terry Nipp, AESOP Enterprises; and Don Holt, Senior Associate Dean, University of Illinois [45 minutes]
- Questions and Answers
We need to know the direction these programs are going. Are they on a collision course? Is one program threatening to the other? How do they fit the “A Single Voice” philosophy? What is the role of the professional societies, CAST, NRI, Co-Farm, NASULGC, CARET and AESOP in the development and implementation of these programs? Can synergism be gained by merging the two programs at some time and place? Where should any new money for agricultural research, teaching and outreach be located? How should the money be distributed? What are the odds of success of either of these programs? Is there a better way? Questions and answers with the directors.
Break (3:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.)
Review of the ESCOP Core Committee Process (4:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.)
- Opening statement about the process and brief statements by the Core Committee chairs about what works and what doesn’t. How can the structure be improved? [Each speaker 10-15 minutes]
- Budget and Legislative Committee – Tom Payne, University of Missouri
- Advocacy and Marketing Committee – Colin Kaltenbach, University of Arizona
- Science and Technology Committee – George Ham, Associate Director, Kansas State University
- Partnership Committee – D. C. Coston, Associate Director, Oklahoma State University
- Planning Committee – Eric Young, Assistant Director, North Carolina State University
- Questions and Answers
The ESCOP Core Committees have been in place for two years and it is appropriate to review the process and alter or amend it, if it can be improved. The informal communication process between chairs of the Core Committees has been very good, but there has been little oversight to the process. Are we happy with this or can we improve the mechanics of interaction?
SESSION II – TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26 (6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.)
Moderator: Gloria Wyche-Moore, Director, District of Columbia Experiment Station
Invocation and Comments – J. Patrick Jordan, Former CSREES Administrator
After Dinner Speaker – Don Latham, CARET Representative to ESCOP – “The Research System- A User’s Perspective”
Social – Cash Bar (8:30 p.m. – 9:30 p.m.)
SESSION III – WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 (8:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon)
Moderator: David G. Thawley, Dean and Director, University of Nevada
Building a Budget for the Out Years – 2005-2010
- The Social Economic and Technological Context that Agriculture Will Have to Live Within 10 to 15 Years (2010-2015). How We Can Best Help Agriculture Succeed in This Environment – Mark Drabenstott, Vice President and Director, Center for the Study of Rural America, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and Brian Staihr, Senior Economist, Center for the Study of Rural America, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City [60 minutes]
- Questions and Answers [10 minutes]
- Review of the Budget Building Process Utilized at the 1999 Workshop – Eric Young, Chair of Planning Core Committee and Tom Payne, Chair of ESCOP Budget and Legislative Core Committee [10 minutes]
- Review of the Budget Prioritization Process Findings in 1999 and Charge for This Session – Terry Nipp, Tom Payne and Eric Young [10 minutes]
Break (9:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. )
Breakout Group Discussions of Charge and Development of Responses (10:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon) (Groups of 10 to 12. Members of the Planning Committee will be recorders; Members of the Budget and Legislative Committee will be reporters.)
Lunch (12:00 noon – 1:30 p.m.)
SESSION IV – WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 (1:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.)
Moderator: Virginia Clark, Dean, College of Human Development and Education, North Dakota State University
Efficiencies and Effectiveness of Experiment Stations’ Organizations; Opportunities for the Future; Questions and Answers for All Directors (1:30˜p.m. – 3:00 p.m.) John Nye, Dean, University of Delaware (Northeastern Region) Eldon Ortman, Associate Director, Purdue University (North Central Region); Charles Scifres, Dean, Associate Vice President for Agriculture, University of Arkansas (Southern Region); Richard Heimsch, Director, University of Idaho (Western Region) and Sunil Pancholy, Associate Director, Florida A & M University) (Association of Research Directors-1890) [Each speaker 10-15 minutes]
- Questions and Answers
Break (3:00-3:30)
Understanding the new Multistate Research Manual and How to Use It – A National Perspective˜- T. J. Helms, Executive Director, Southern Region (3:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.)
- Questions and Answers
Dinner – On Your Own (free evening)
Review of Breakout Groups’ Responses – Terry Nipp, Tom Payne and Eric Young (internal)
SESSION V – THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2000 (8:00 a.m.- 9:30 a.m.)
Moderator: Jacquelyn McCray, Research Director, University of Arkansas-Pine Bluff
Reconvene Session on Budget Building for 2010-2015 – Terry Nipp, Tom Payne, Eric Young (8:00 a.m. – 9:15 a.m.)
- Discussion of Findings – Questions and Answers
Synthesis (9:15 a.m. – 9:30 a.m.) McArthur Floyd, Chair-Elect, ESCOP, Alabama A&M University
Break (9:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.)
Regional Meetings (10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.) (Box lunch to be served)
Action Requested: For information.
Agenda Item 16.
Additional Announcements, Assignments, Etc.
Background: Final announcements, assignments, etc. will precede adjournment.
Action Requested: For information.
[End]