John Beverly (TX)
Bob Blackmon (AR)
James Boling (KY)
Gregory Brown (VA)
Robert Cannell (VA)
Jerry Cherry (GA)
George Cooper (CSREES)
D. C. Coston (OK)
Nancy Cox (MS)
Larry Crowder (OK)
James Daniels (SC)
Elwyn Deal (SC)
Everett Emino (FL)
George Foster (ARS)
Frank Gilstrap (TX)
Thomas Helms (ED-agInnovation South)
Richard Jones (FL)
Fred Knapp (KY)
McKinley Mayes (CSREES)
Keith Prasse (GA)
Graham Purchase (MS)
Anna Marie Rasberry (agInnovation South)
Don Richardson (TN)
Larry Rogers (LA)
Charles Scifres (AR)
David Teem (AL)
Greg Weidemann (AR)
Johnny Wynne (NC)
Continuing Education (CCE) Rooms 409-411
Agenda Items
1. Approval of Agenda; Additions to the Agenda…..Dr. D. C. Coston
2. Review and Approval of Minutes of April 1996 Meeting; Interim Actions of the Chair…..Dr. D. C. Coston
3. By-Laws Committee Report…..Dr. D. O. Richardson
4. SRIEG-67 Pilot Studies Committee Report…..Dr. J. Wynne
5. agInnovation South Management Information System…..Dr. T. J. Helms
6. Partnerships & Collaborative Agency Reports
a. CSREES…..Dr. G. Cooper
b. ARS…..Dr. C. Onstad
7. ESCOP Environmental Affairs Committee…..Dr. G. Arkin
8. SRRC Report…..Dr. E. Emino
9. Advanced Food Technology & Food Safety Initiatives…..Dr. P. Crandall
Recess (Association will reconvene at 9:00 a.m., Sunday, July 14)
Sunday, July 14, 1996
Continuing Education (CCE) Rooms 409-411
Meeting reconvened at 9:00 a.m.
10. Report of Senior Representative to ESCOP…..Dr. J. Wynne
11. Report of Southern Regional IPM Policy Committee…..Dr. L. Crowder
12. Report of Resolutions Committee…..Dr. F. Knapp
13. Fayetteville II (Continued Discussion of Future Direction
of the agInnovation South)…..Dr. D. C. Coston
14. Adjournment
BACKGROUND
The agenda and agenda briefs were distributed to all members prior to the meeting.
ACTION REQUESTED
Discussion, modification as needed and approval.
ACTION TAKEN
Agenda Item #12 (Report of Resolutions Committee) was removed from the agenda. Other agenda items were approved to be out of the printed order due to weather delayed arrivals of some presenters. Agenda was then approved following a motion by Richard Jones and second by James Boling.
BACKGROUND
Minutes of the April 1996 meeting were posted on the agInnovation South homepage. The interim actions of the Chair are as follows.
- Letter to CSREES requesting approval of SRDC 94-07, “Solid-Phase Extraction Techniques for Pesticides in Water Samples” as a regional project upon recommendation by SRRC.
- Approved request for S-103. “Technical and Economical Efficiencies of Producing and Marketing Landscape Plants,” to meet outside the Southern Region.
- Appointed Dr. Dewayne Ingram as Administrative Advisor to IEG-63, “Nursery Production.”
- In conjunction with Walt Walla, Chair of ASRED, appointed Drs. Gaines Smith, Ray Campbell, Jack Bagent, Jerry Arkin (Chair), Lowell Frobish, and Allan Jones to serve as the ad hoc committee to investigate agricultural weather information needs in the region. Committee to report at the joint meeting in July.
- Approved a request for S-269, “Biological Control and Management of soilborne Plant Pathogens for Sustainable Crop Production,” to meet outside the Southern Region.
- Appointed Dr. William Brown to serve as a member of the GPRA Programs Strategies Task Force to replace Dr. Jerry Arkin.
- Appointed Dr. William Brown to serve on the GPRA ad hoc “response team.”
- Appointed Dr. Verner G. Hurt as Treasurer of the Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors, effective May 1, 1996.
- Approved a request for S-251, “Genetic Enhancement of Health and Survival for Dairy Cattle,” to meet outside the Southern Region.
- Appointed Drs. Don Richardson (Chair), George Kriz, William Brown, and Larry Crowder to serve as a committee to review the agInnovation South By-Laws.
- Sent letters to Mr. David Purtle and Mr. Ross Fain, Tyson Foods Inc., on behalf of agInnovation South, to express gratitude for the Tyson hosted event on April 30, 1966, during the meeting in Fayetteville.
ACTION REQUESTED
Approval.
ACTION TAKEN
Minutes of the last meeting were approved following a motion by Charles Scifres and second by Gerald Arkin.
Interim Actions of the Chair were approved following a motion by Larry Crowder and second by Greg Weidemann.
BACKGROUND
During the April 1996 meeting we discussed potential amendments to the Association’s By-Laws. Many of the proposed changes involve bringing the language up-to-date. Other discussion centered around having the Executive Director assume the responsibility for preparing the minutes of Association meetings, discontinuing the office of Secretary, and creating an elected Executive Committee Member-at-Large position. (The initial report of the committee is attached.)
ACTION REQUESTED
Discussion and approval.
ACTION TAKEN
The committee chairman distributed copies of “Additional Changes for Consideration in the Bylaws of agInnovation South” which was compiled from comments the committee received after the initial draft of the bylaws was released. (File copy in ED office). Additional editorial suggestions were received.
| A motion was made by Don Richardson and seconded by Larry Rogers that the revised draft with new suggestions be approved. Motion passed unanimously with 11 states represented which fulfills the requirement of a 2/3 majority vote to amend the association’s by-laws. |
It was requested that the Executive Director’s office add the newly amended by-laws to the Association homepage. (By-laws can be viewed on the agInnovation South homepage in the “agInnovation South Infobook” or select By-Laws here.)
D. C. Coston expressed appreciation to the By-laws Committee which consisted of Don Richardson (Chair), William Brown, Larry Crowder, and George Kriz.
With the adoption of the amended by-laws, an Executive Committee Member-at-Large must be selected. Jerry Cherry moved that a nominating committee, to be appointed by the Chair, make its recommendation at the agInnovation South meeting in November in conjunction with NASULGC. Charles Scifres seconded and the motion was approved. Chair D.C. Coston appointed Charles Scifres as chair of the nominating committee with members Johnny Wynne and Gerald Arkin. This action was superceded by actions taken on 7/14 as follows:
Further action on the election of an Executive Committee Member-at-Large was in the form of a motion by Johnny Wynne (Jerry Cherry seconded) to have an election of a new Member-at-Large conducted by electronic mail. Motion approved. A new motion was then presented to supercede the previous motion in which Don Richardson moved and Graham Purchase seconded that the nominating committee meet, and report their recommendation at the adjournment of the joint agInnovation South/ASRED session (7/14). Motion was approved.
After a recess for the joint agInnovation South/ASRED meeting, the agInnovation South meeting reconvened for a report from the Executive Committee Member-at-Large nominating committee.
| Jerry Cherry made a motion to accept the committee’s recommendation of James Boling for the position of Executive Committee Member-at-Large. Don Richardson seconded and the motion was approved. |
BACKGROUND
At the February, 1996 meeting, the discussion of SMIS was cut short by available time and early departures of a number of members. The proposal brought forward by the ad hoccommittee on this subject was that the next step in bringing the SMIS into use as a regional planning tool would be to ask one or more stations to undertake a pilot study on several topics that arose from the discussion of the committee. The (former) Executive Director was asked to proceed to solicit preproposals to undertake these pilot studies by one or a small group of stations. Three potential areas for pilot studies were discussed: (1) Applications of SMIS to GPRA and Other State-Imposed SAES Impact Assessments; (2) Use of GIS-Based Methods for Siting Research Locations; and, (3) Natural Resource Base Planning for Agriculture and Forestry.
In considering the charge to solicit preproposals, Dr. N. P. Clarke felt that there had really been insufficient discussion by members of the Association to provide a clear concept and approach for implementation. Inasmuch as this seems to involve the possibility of off-the-top funding for such a project, and, on the advice of the Chair, it seemed appropriate to delay further action until guidance could be obtained from the Association.
It was the consensus of the members of the Association that a committee be asked to develop procedures and define pilot studies in the interim before the next meeting and bring specific recommendations for action to the Association.
Because of their previous involvement in this matter, the Chair appointed Drs. Wynne, Jones and Fischer as an ad hoc committee to do the following;
- Define one or more pilot studies as indicated in the agenda brief.
- Develop methods for gaining commitments of one or a small number of SAESs to conduct these studies (including consideration of a competitive process).
- Define methods for selection of pilot studies to be undertaken.
- Select one or more pilot studies for recommendation to the Association.
- Recommend methods of funding, including off-the-top funding.
As an exception to established procedures which call for annual consideration of all funding decisions at the spring meeting, it was agreed that the committee would bring its recommendations to the July 1996 meeting of the Association.
ACTION REQUESTED
Review and discuss the committee report; decide on course of action by the Association.
ACTION TAKEN
The committee presented several options to the association as follows:
- Do nothing as an Association and encourage each SAES to use SMIS. Hold session at a future meeting to discuss how GIS/SMIS have been used, if used;
- Continue to develop SMIS as a database to assist in management of regional research.
- Ask individual SAESs to volunteer to conduct and report on pilot studies–no cost to the association (Example: NCSU – compare test site with growing area for tomatoes).
- IEG-67 to develop a regional research project with objective of using SMIS to manage and plan regional research portfolio. Association would pay from regional research funds via SAES’ involvement in project.
- Prepare a competitive grants process. Draft RFP for use of GIS/SMIS for projects to aid in managing and planning for regional research. Areas to consider include: 1) Agroecozone mapping of southern region; 2) GIS based methods for siting research locations for consolidation of programs; 3) Natural resource based planning.
The three options under item 2 involve a range of funding from zero to $60,000 depending on methods/uses. No committee recommendations were made.
D. C. Coston suggested the need for a clear delineation between this discussion of benefits of SMIS and the proposal for MIS for agInnovation South (see Agenda Item #5). Dr. Helms indicated that the primary difference in the two systems would be that CRIS data would be included in the MIS for agInnovation South and that very little, if any, overlap of effort would occur.
| Johnny Wynne made a motion based on option 2a. above that individual SAESs be asked to voluntarily conduct and report on pilot studies with no cost to the Association. Everett Emino seconded the motion which passed unanimously. |
BACKGROUND
During discussion related to future direction of the Association in April 1996, the Executive Director proposed to establish a management information system for the Association. The Association directed the Executive Director to prepare a more specific proposal for presentation during a future meeting (see following proposal).
A Proposal to Establish a Southern Regional Data Support System for agInnovation South
Purpose of the Project
To develop, maintain, and integrate data bases relevant to support of the agInnovation South Executive Director’s Office and members of the Association.
Background and Plan of Action
The Social Science Research Center (SSRC) at Mississippi State University has developed several information management support strategies for the purpose of assisting decision-makers in a variety of organizational settings. These activities have centered around the acquisition and development of visual management support systems which develop and integrate data from numerous and varied sources for the purpose of analysis. A similar information system can be developed for the agInnovation South.
Using the CRIS, as well as data from the U. S. Census of Agriculture and related state and/or federal data, the SSRC will serve as an information support mechanism for the Executive Director and member Directors of agInnovation South. This system will provide timely, and accurate, tabular and graphic output from the integration of data for the purposes of description, analysis, and presentation. Using state-of-the-art hardware and software, as well as expertise gained from several years of data management experience, this information support system will greatly enhance the decision-making and planning capability of the Association as a collective group, as subregional or multi-state groups, or as individual Directors.
Specific advantages of this project, based upon these capabilities, include:
- Timely reporting and analysis consistent with decision-making timeframes;
- Access and use of a wide range of extant data maintained by the SSRC/MSU; and,
- Visual presentation and analysis that is useful for the examination of multi-disciplinary problems as they relate to regional and local experiment station issues.
Proposed Budget — The proposed budget includes annual costs for personnel ($23,180) and operating costs ($5,600) for a total annual cost of $28,780. A one time equipment purchase is proposed for the first year of operation ($8,000). Thus the total proposed request for FY 97 is $36,780 and for FY 98 is $28,780.
ACTION REQUESTED
Approval.
ACTION TAKEN
Dr. Helms presented additional information relative to example products that a Southern Regional Data Support System could provide for agInnovation South. (File copy in ED office). It was also noted that the budget for this project is separate from the operating budget of the ED’s office. D. C. Coston called a meeting of the Executive Committee to develop a recommendation regarding this proposal.
Recommendation of the Executive Committee was:
- Conduct the project for a two-year trial period with full reporting, both programmatic and budget related, at the Spring, 1998 meeting with project concluding June, 1998.
- Commence the project October 1, 1996; thus budgeting 3/4 of annual funds for 96/97.
- Approve one-time purchase of computer equipment.
- Asssessments for funding would be handled the same as for ED operating budget.
| This recommendation was made as a motion by the Executive Committee and seconded by Larry Crowder. Voting of 13 state representatives was done by secret, written ballot with 11 states voting “in favor” and 2 states voting “opposed”. Motion passed. |
Presenter: Dr. G. Foster, representing Dr. C. Onstad, for ARS
BACKGROUND
Drs. Cooper and Onstad have been invited to make presentations to the group.
ACTION REQUESTED
Information and discussion, action as indicated.
ACTION TAKEN
No action required; informational discussions only.
- Dr. George Cooper distributed a handout entitled “CSREES Update”. (File copy in ED office).
- Dr. George Foster distributed a handout entitled “Project Evaluation Guide” from USDA-ARS dated April, 1996. (File copy in ED office). In addition, Dr. Foster outlined the ARS priorities (in no specific order) as: 1) Food Safety, 2) Genetic Resources and Diversity, 3) IPM and Biocontrol of Pests, 4) Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, 5) Integrated Farming Systems, and 6) South Florida Everglades Program.
BACKGROUND
In late May the proceedings of the jointly sponsored workshop by the Office of Research and Development of EPA and the State Agricultural Experiment Stations entitled, “Opportunities for Research on Agriculture and the Environment,” was distributed. (This document can be found on the agInnovation South homepage [http://www.msstate.edu/org/agInnovation South] by selecting EPA-ESCOP Intiatives.) It was clear from the workshop that there is a large and growing opportunity for engagement between the experiment station system and EPA based on existing research of mutual interest and on future strategies common to both groups.
The ESCOP Environmental Affairs Subcommittee plan was to quickly initiate follow-on activities at the policy, administrative, and scientist levels to explore further those research opportunities of mutual interest identified during the workshop. Unfortunately, little progress has been made toward staffing in AESOP Enterprises to support these activities. Until staff support in AESOP or elsewhere is available, the subcommittee’s follow-on activities are stalled. Initial momentum and enthusiasm in EPA and within USDA is of concern. Follow up with scientists and administrators is secured. The subcommittee’s plan to broaden its mutual opportunity agenda to include other federal science agencies involved in related research and development is also in a stand-down mode until staff support is available to assure continuity of effort.
As a follow up to the subcommittee’s discussions with Dr. Bob Robinson, CSREES Administrator, concerning the subcommittee’s activities, Dr. Robinson appointed a team to work with the subcommittee. The team, lead by Dr. Ralph Otto, Acting Deputy Administrator for Natural Resources and Environment, includes Dr. Ted Wilson, Deputy for Plant and Animal Production, Protection, and Processing, and Dr. Ann Datko, NRI Program Director for Natural Resources and Environment. A meeting between the subcommittee and this team is being planned. No meeting time will be set until the support staffing issue is resolved. ESCOP is considering alternative staffing options.
ACTION REQUESTED
Information only.
ACTION TAKEN
Presenter Arkin reiterated the background situation as described above noting the need to get movement on this issue. Dr. Arkin agreed to convey the message to ESCOP that this issue was discussed and to ask ESCOP for serious discussion on how to get movement started.
BACKGROUND
- Since the Committee of Nine has been abolished, SRRC continues to receive, review, process and recommend for approval proposed projects according to the same procedures which we have followed for the past several years. A project passing SRRC review is recommended for approval to the Chair of the Association who, if he or she concurs with the SRRC recommendation, further recommends to CSREES that the project be approved. CSREES has approved at least one southern project since the closure of the Committee of Nine. As we understand, CSREES is considering various alternatives for incorporating input from the four regional associations into the regional project approval process.
- SRRC Project Activities in 1996:
- Projects Approved by CSREES:S-270: Utilizing Potassium Buffering Capacity to Predict Cotton Yield Response to Potassium Fertilizer; Developed under DC 93-06; K. W. Tipton, LA; Expires September, 2001.S-271: Solid-Phase Extraction Techniques for Pesticides in Water Samples; Developed under DC 94-07; N. P. Thompson, FL; Expires September, 2001.
- Evaluated by SRRC and Returned to Administrative Advisor:DC 94-01 to Replace S-239: Animal Manure and Waste Utilization, Treatment, and Nuisance Avoidance for a Sustainable Agriculture; Russell B. Muntifering, AL.DC 95-06 to Replace S-250; Development of Textile Materials for Environmental Compatibility and Human Health and Safety; John I. Sewell, TN.
- Administrative advisors of new/revised projects under development should be reminded that, for these projects to be approved for October 1, 1996 funding, they must have been reviewed by the SRRC, been corrected according to SRRC review comments, and have the final copies of the project submitted to the chair of SRRC preferably by September 1, or September 10 at the latest. Projects may be submitted for approval at any time. The above deadlines are related only to consideration for October 1 funding.Before proposed projects can be sent to SRRC for review, at least three outside reviews must have been completed and the reviewers’ comments must have been addressed in the proposed project outline. Submit the reviews along with the copies of the proposed project to the Chair of SRRC.
ACTION REQUESTED
For information only.
ACTION TAKEN
No action required, informational discussion only.
BACKGROUND
Initiatives written by Dr. Frank Flora, Principal Food Scientist, USDA/CSREES are presented for information and discussion. (File copy in ED office).
ACTION REQUESTED
Information only.
ACTION TAKEN
No action taken. Dr. Crandall was unable to be present. Dr. Helms will request that Frank Flora visit with each state’s IFT representatives who in turn could visit with their respective Director. George Cooper indicated that CSREES supports the initiative and Larry Crowley, 1998 ESCOP representative, indicated that group’s support of the effort.
BACKGROUND
Update of current ESCOP activities, including results of the recent AESOP Enterprises Inc. referendum.
ACTION REQUESTED
Information only.
ACTION TAKEN
No action required; informational discussion only.
BACKGROUND
Procedures and guidelines for the FY 96 Southern Regional IPM Program were sent to all SAES Directors on 11/10/95. Following the deadline of December 21, the IPM Policy Committee reviewed the preproposals to select proposals for further development. From 90 preproposals received, 33 were selected for development as full proposals in the areas of vegetables and fruits (6), ornamentals/turf (4), cotton (6), general science (6), and joint research/extension (11). All Directors were notified February 14, 1996, regarding which preproposals were selected for further development and that proposals were due in the office of Dr. Bobby Pass on April 15, 1996.
A peer panel of seven scientists from outside the Southern Region was selected by Drs. Pass and Crowder. The panel met in Lexington, KY, June 16, 1996, to discuss the proposals and make their recommendations.
The IPM Policy Committee discussed the recommendations by conference call June 21, 1996, and agreed on funding the proposals and amounts shown on the summary sheet below. Dr. Pass was informed of our recommendation, and award and rejection letters were sent to each principal investigator. Copies were also sent to each Director and a summary of the panelists’ comments was provided to each principal investigator.
Based on the merit scores and comments of the peer panel, the IPM Policy Committee awarded two proposals in cotton, two in ornamentals/turf, two in vegetables and fruits, and two in general science. Two joint research/extension awards were recommended for funding from AES, CES, and EPA. All proposals funded had a peer panel score of 82.0 or higher. No adjustments were made to the requested budgets.
The IPM Program operated behind schedule this year because of events and uncertainty at the federal level. The IPM Policy Committee is attempting to return to the normal schedule with awards in February 1997. We express appreciation to Dr. Pass for his continued efforts in the program.
An ad hoc group of six representatives from Southern Region AESs and CESs associated with IPM programs met in conjunction with the technical review in Lexington. This subset of various AES and CES committees will coordinate the grants management of the joint program with extension. They have provided input to the priority categories for the FY 97 program. The IPM Policy Committee has considered this input and recommends to agInnovation South the following commodity/category areas for FY 97: Cotton, Ornamentals/Turf, Vegetables/Fruits, and General Science.
We will again continue the joint research/extension grants by matching CES up to the $100,000 previously approved by agInnovation South. Additional funding from EPA is expected. Based upon the Executive budget, there still exists the potential for the “Strategic Plan Implementation of a USDA IPM Initiative.” This could result in as much as $8 million new monies for IPM research and extension programs.
| Number | Amount | |
| G-06 | Reducing Herbicide Use Through Site-Specific Weed Management; H. D. Coble; NC | $ 75,065 |
| G-02 | Contribution of Different Inoculum Sources to the Epidemiology of Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus in a Multi-Crop System; R. L. Brandenburg, J. W. Mover, T. G. Isleib, and J. L. Sherwood; NC-OK | $ 98,332 |
| U-04 | Determinants of Resistance of Woody Landscape Plants to Japanese Beetles; D. R. Potter, T. R. Hamilton-Kemp, and R. E. McNiel; KY | $113,893 |
| U-02 | Disease Management and Fertility for Rose Maintenance in the Urban Landscape; K. L. Bowen, B. K. Behe, and E. A. Guertal; AL | $ 32,100 |
| C-04 | Efficacy of Transgenic B.t. Cottons as Influenced by Applications of “Hard Pesticides”; S. G. Turnipseed, J. D. Mueller, and J. Ruberson; SC-GA | $ 67,450 |
| C-03 | Resistance for Management of Root-Knot Nematodes; J. L. Starr, S. A. Lewis, and J. D. Mueller; TX-SC | $ 71,644 |
| V-02 | Cropping Systems for Management of Curcurbit Virus Diseases; J. P. Damicone, J. V. Edelson, F. L. Mitchell, J. F. Motes, N. E. Roe, R. J. Schatzer, and J. L Sherwood; OK-TX | $ 98,476 |
| V-01 | Curcurbit Polyculture: A Novel Strategy for Control of Foliar Diseases; J. A. Duthie, C. L. Campbell, B. W. Roberts, J. V. Edelson, and R. J. Schatzer; OK-NC | $ 99,964 |
| TOTAL | $656,924 | |
Total Available: $662,259; Research Extension Initiative: $227,000
Balance of $5,335 to be allocated to the KY AES to cover costs for peer review coordination by Dr. Bobby Pass and to provide support for program administration.
ACTION REQUESTED
Approval of FY 97 commodity/category recommendations.
ACTION TAKEN
| Larry Crowder made a motion that the four FY 97 commodity/category areas (cotton, vegetables/fruits, ornamentals/turf, and general science) be accepted. Discussion followed which questioned the absence of a “food animal” category. Fred Knapp moved to amend the previous motion to include “food animal” as a fifth category. Richard Jones seconded the motion for amendment. The motion to amend was defeated by a vote of 5 “in favor” and 6 “opposed” with one state abstaining from the vote. The original motion passed unanimously accepting the four commodity/category areas as defined. |
BACKGROUND
Several persons have or will soon leave the ranks of the Association. Resolutions recognizing their contributions and thanking them for their service will be presented.
ACTION REQUESTED
Adoption.
ACTION TAKEN
This agenda item was deleted from the agenda (see agenda item #1).
BACKGROUND
This is a continuation of the brief discussion session held at the close of our April 1996 meeting in Fayetteville. A summary of that session follows.
- Issues/Concerns
- Decisions are needed regarding our planning efforts; we go through the motions (i.e., the mechanics of planning and analysis of the research portfolio), but an evolutionary process needs to occur. For example, we might begin to evaluate our success toward implementation of the Southern Specific Opportunities; we need to set benchmarks against which we might evaluate our progress.
- The number of meetings agInnovation South holds annually is excessive; we might lengthen certain meetings and eliminate at least one.
- The “buy-in” by Department Heads (ACs) is important; we need to maintain our activities with them and their involvement in the process (e.g., the Spring meeting).
- The membership on Planning Groups needs to rotate to allow the Directors to be involved in several or all over a period of time.
- The request from AESOP Enterprises, Inc. was discussed.
- Somehow, we need greater involvement by our stakeholders in certain of our meetings.
- Internal vs. External Plan(s)
- The current plan does a fair job of addressing/marketing the “who & what” we are, but ther are additional steps needed to make it a complete process (as reflected also in number 1.a above).
- There must be stakeholder buy-in in the plan.
- The total research portfolio needs to be reflected in the plan.
- First, we must have buy-in internally by department heads, scientists, administrators, etc.
- We need to talk about implementation among ourselves.
- There must be commitment to the process.
- We need both bottoms-up and top-down efforts to develop regional research projects. We need to tie our planning process to development of regional projects/programs.
- Funding for regional projects within the respectives states — Directors need to “cleave off” those projects they do not wish to support through the RRF program; the Directors need to pay more attention to regional project outlines when they come across their desks.
- We need to involve project leaders to participate occasionally in meetings to make presentations to Directors.
- We need to coordinate our planning process with the Directors of Cooperative Extension.
- The Executive Director needs to find out what’s going on in each of the Southern Region states; we need an analysis of regional/subregional cooperation outside of the RRF program.
- The Executive Director addressed the area of on-site visits; he requested that each of the Directors communicate their view of the “Best of the Best” program/project-wise and people-wise within their respective experiment stations. The Executive Director was encouraged to request the inclusion of Cooperative Extension, ARS, and FS in his visits to the experiment stations.
- Several things were discussed for which follow-on activities/actions will occur:
- Proposal for financial support to develop a management information system.
- Establish a Program Planning Committee (it was suggested the the Executive Committee could/should serve in this capacity).
- The Executive Director will continue to develop and distribute a quick reference agInnovation South General Information Book for the Directors’ and their staffs.
ACTION REQUESTED
Active participation by all members of the Association.
ACTION TAKEN
Richard Jones suggested that agInnovation South have a planning session at the next meeting to “plan the plan” discussing why and how administrators use the Southern Region Strategic Plan. Dr. Jones and other chairs of the various planning groups will bring a report to the next meeting for a two hour session on planning.
Relative to item 1.b. in above summary:
A review of the four traditional times/activities for agInnovation South meetings was discussed indicating the following:- February (in conjuction with SAS) / planning activities
- April / approve new regional activities / for social/spouse interaction (2 – 3 days)
- July (in conjunction with Mini Land-Grant) / joint meeting with Extension administrators
- November (in conjunction with NASULGC) / for national interaction (agInnovation South is half a day; entire Experiment Station meeting is 2 to 3 hours).
Richard Jones made a motion to eliminate the agInnovation South meeting in February at SAAS and to move any agenda items for that meeting to the April meeting. Graham Purchase seconded. Discussion concerning the need to keep the agInnovation South meeting at NASULGC brought about a substitute motion, to be effective immediately, recommending the following meeting schedule: - Have a “to be called” brief business meeting in conjunction with SAAS in February. This meeting would be called by the Executive Committee as needed with the decision made and announced in November.
- Continue to have a main meeting in April/May as a planning meeting.
- Continue to have a summer meeting (in conjunction with Southern Extension Service Directors and also in conjunction with Mini Land-Grant meeting, if held).
- Have the Executive Committee meet in November at NASULCG with other directors invited to participate if desired.
Substitute motion passed unanimously.
Relative to item 4.b. in above summary:
The Executive Committee will serve in the capacity of a Program Planning Committee.
Agenda Item 14 Adjournment Presenter: Dr. D. C. Coston
BACKGROUND
It is anticipated that the meeting will adjourn on or before 12:00 p.m., July 14, 1966.
ACTION REQUESTED
Vote to adjourn.
ACTION TAKEN
Prior to adjournment, several announcements were brought before the group.- Chair D. C. Coston expressed appreciation to those individuals who agreed to serve as administrative advisors.
- Dr. Helms announced the intention to place more of the association’s business on the homepage. The group agreed that minutes, agenda briefs, etc. could be placed on the web thus saving considerable expense of mailing hard copies from the ED’s office.
The agInnovation South meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. on July 14, 1996.