Parshotom Benepal
Mike Chippendale
Virginia Clark
Al Dedrick
Sam Donald
Richard Heimsch
Dave MacKenzie
Al Parks
James Stewart
Susan Welsh
Eric Young
2. MacKenzie - Historical Perspective
Past SPC divided planning into short, medium, long term planning
did not address short term planning
medium term = strategies on how to organize ESCOP, which lead to current
reorganization
need to monitor medium term plan, how well reorganization is working
Short term - not done yet
current committee will be given requests from other committees to develop
short term plans in some areas
Long term planning was done jointly with ECOP
futuring activity with 10-20 year time frame
effort to merge research & extension
brought in futurists to discuss various areas
solicited scenarios from the land-grant community
futuring activity will probably not result in a hard product, but new Planning
Committee may decide to build on what's been done
Issues that Committee might consider
If going to plan jointly with ECOP and ACOP have to deal with cultural
differences and agree on process early
1998 Farm Bill needs some planning to implement
need to keep good parts of regional research and improve on the current
process
planning to create new partnerships in conjunction with the Partnership
Committee
How do we come together with extension?
appears to be a desire to put in place a CRIS-like system to track extension
activities.
How do you decide what sort of collaborations in the multi's will be "approved"
or "allowable"
system needs guidance and standards on various Plan Of Work elements
need examples of how to comply without huge expenditure of time and effort
Suggested content for POW
How can activities be accounted for? What outcome measures are appropriate?
How should institutions report against their plan? Guidance for impact
reporting.
set standards for merit and peer review
recommend to ESCOP that these standards be developed
Ad Hoc group is currently examining how to reduce paper work for multi-state
activity approval
looking at areas where research and extension can overlap
guidance and standards are needed on what would constitute research / extension
joint activity
guidance and standards on stakeholder input
3. ARS Representative Comments
Working on an improved peer review process for intramural funding proposals
Grouping national activities into National Programs (see handout)
In developing a new national program, evaluating relevance, quality, and
impact (see handout)
5 year cycle or input, planning, implementation, and assessment, starting
with workshop to gain input in a particular program area
involve appropriate extension people in planning
will have a peer review panel for new programs
also will have on assessment, retrospective review of program
annual reporting is also being changed to better communicate impact of
work
would like suggestions for members of "Blue Ribbon" panel to review this
process
4. CSREES Representative Comments
would like a set of standards developed for various aspects of POW, particularly
if ECOP could be included in development
Planning Committee could also make recommendations to CSREES, through ESCOP,
on how POW's are reviewed
need additional advice on how to make impact statement writing more uniform
and inclusive
5. Discussion of Planning Committee Charges
Joint planning with ESCOP
Three areas for possible joint short-term planning
Standards for POW elements
Multi-functions activity to report in POW
Common set of program areas
Heimsch, Chippendale, Donald and Young will definitely attend July 23,
24 joint ESCOP/ECOP Planning meeting in St. Louis, entire committee is
invited and encouraged to attend.
ESCOP Restructuring Assessment
Subcommittee consisting of Virginia Clark, Mike Chippendale and Henry Bahn
agreed to develop draft assessment process and report back to Committee
Subcommittee will also contact ESCOP leadership regarding expected outcomes
of restructuring
ESCOP Strategic Target 7
primary motivation for budgeting process is to acquire needed resources
this has not been well aligned or integrated with planning
need to look at developing national initiatives/priorities that are incorporated
in the budget
need a process for developing these national priorities
also need a process to foster partnerships around the priorities and other
program areas that should be worked on with other agencies/groups
develop process to bring up priority areas/initiatives from local experiment
stations, build consensus for a few priorities and use in ESCOP budgeting
process
use the September Experiment Station Directors Meeting to finalize priorities
and to begin developing priorities for next year
Stakeholder input into this should come at local Experiment Station level
6. Nomination of Non-land Grant Members
Possible areas to nominate non-land grant members for ESCOP Chair to appoint
to Planning Committee
city or county planner
producer
life science industry
state department of agriculture
someone who's been involved in reviews of agricultural colleges
Committee members are to email Eric Young with nominations for these appointments
7. Tasks Assigned
Recommendation to ESCOP Executive Committee - Young
Set up ad hoc group with regional representation, possibly joint with
ECOP, to develop common standards for the following:
Stakeholders input
Peer and Merit review - build on similar documents, i.e. ARS
Criteria for legitimate multi's activity
Criteria and guidelines for reporting impacts - adopt or modify work
on impact guidelines done for Image Enhancement