Participants:

Assignments and Actions:

Background: The first item of business will include:
Call to order
Approval of agenda
Minutes from the previous Executive Committee Meeting - November 14, 2001, San Antonio, TX

Action requested: Approval.

Action taken: On motion/second by Drs. Coston/Woodson, agenda was approved with addition of item #25. On motion/second by Drs. Coston/Jones, minutes from November 14, 2001 meeting were approved.

Background:

Fiscal Year 2002 President’s Budget: The FY 2002 Budget for CSREES includes discretionary funding totaling $869,672,000. This represents a decrease of $116,832,000 or approximately 11.8 percent, from the FY 2001 post-rescission amount of $986,504,000. The FY 2002 Budget proposes to fund most programs, including formula programs, at the FY 2001 level. Earmarked Special Research Grants, Extension and Research Federal Administration projects and grants, Critical Agricultural Materials, Supplemental and Alternative Crops, Farm Safety, and Rural Health and Safety programs are proposed for elimination.

The FY 2002 Budget includes mandatory funding of $120,000,000 for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems and $2,500,000 for the Community Food Projects grants program. A total of $30,000,000 is included in the USDA budget for the Fund for Rural America to support research, education, and extension grants and rural development activities. The distribution among the authorized activities will not be developed until after the 2002 appropriations have been enacted.

NASULGC Budget Development: The Board on Agriculture Budget Committee has developed simplified documents to present the budget request. A one-page document was developed and made available at the CARET meetings. This document identifies the total increase that is proposed for USDA/CSREES. Four critical issue areas that warrant increased expenditures are identified as follows: Revitalizing Communities; Dependable Food Supply; Educated Workforce; and Environmental Balance. In addition to the single, one-page brief, individual single page briefs were developed for each of the four areas, however, without a budget figure for each. The approach is similar to that used by NSF, i.e., one budget figure and several targeted areas for the new funding. The goal is to develop teams of CARET members working with a "champion" in the House or Senate to promote one of the four targeted areas. The March CARET meeting was a workshop to develop the approach and identify people to make up the teams. The following team leaders have been committed: Revitalizing Communities - Tom Payne; Dependable Food Supply - Ed Hiler and Reg Gomes; Educated Workforce - Larry Cote; Environmental Balance - Bobby Moser.

The Farm Bill Task Force Report: The Task Force has been appointed by Tom Fretz, Maryland, and is similar to the 1998 group but with an expanded charge. The decision was made to look broadly on the total portfolio and not just the Research and Education Title. The Task Force decided to review the existing Farm Bill and look at opportunities for our system and handle technical corrections through the appropriate mechanisms.

A working group, which is a subset of the Task Force, was asked to develop a “white paper” to serve as a starting point for our deliberations. Stan Johnson, Iowa, led the working group and developed a paper, which attempts to put in perspective the various titles in the existing bill and the respective funding mechanisms. The paper is under review and is now just a discussion piece. The second draft will be circulated to the full Task Force and a team of writers will be impaneled to amplify the background information in each of the titles.

Milo Shult, Arkansas, on behalf of the Board on Agriculture, has been asked to put together a “white paper” to be presented at the CFERR session during the NASULGC Annual Meeting. Draft #3 of the “white paper” was sent out for comments and final revision was done in March.

Action requested: For information.

In-meeting discussions/activities:

• Budget Development: Dr. MacKenzie noted the need for an accountability mechanism. As a part of his comments, he distributed a copy of CSREES' internal "Report of the CSREES Working Group on Accountability," dated August 2000. Lengthy discussions regarding budget activities resulted in the need for a strategy for moving forward and a recognition that timeliness is critical. It was also stressed that increases must be targeted. To facilitate this direction, the following proposal was presented by Colin Kaltenbach:

  ---

  Formula Funds Accountability

  Issue: Develop a method to expend new formula funds (Hatch, Smith-Lever, and 1890 R/E funds) which clearly demonstrates the following characteristics:

  • Financial tracking on budgeting and expenditures
  • Stakeholder input
  • Integrated activities
  • Potentially multi-state

  Proposal: Develop Hatch MAP (Multiple Activity Program) in each of the four program areas identified by the budget committee:

  1. Revitalizing Communities
  2. Dependable Food Supply
  3. Educated Workforce
  4. Environmental Balance

  Who: ESCOP Task Force on New Formula Fund Programs composed of one representative of each region plus the five Executive Directors (ED), utilizing Multistate Research Committee (MRC) chairs for input. The Task Force process would be as follows:

  1. Each ED will develop the concept of a MAP (Multiple Activity Program) in each of the 4 areas (total of 20 MAPs);
  2. Task Force will review and modify the 20 descriptions (possibly using the MRCs);
  3. Task Force will share with ESCOP and Extension Directors for potential adoption as framework;
  4. The MAPs will be used to demonstrate how new Hatch and 1890 research money would be spent.

  Other:

  • Competitive grants' new money is already traceable.
  • Discuss this mechanism with ECOP immediately (Dr. Floyd discuss the internal CSREES Task Force report on accountability referenced above with ECOP Chair, James Wade, including Tom Payne and Jack Bagent, Chair of ECOP Budget Committee, in discussions. Might also involve Dr. Cooper in discussions.
  • Present this topic to the BOA Budget Committee on May 22.

  ---

• Farm Bill: Dr. Nipp reported on a recent meeting in which House staffers report wanting to hear discussions concerning relationships between private and public sectors as pertains to the research title of the Farm Bill. A hearing is expected in the House by summer.
  • The need for ESCOP to provide specificity to research issues in the new Farm Bill precipitated establishment of an ad hoc ESCOP Farm Bill Task Force. The Executive Directors volunteered to form a working group with Terry Nipp and immediately focus on several activities:
    • Conduct word search of current draft; (MacKenzie will work with Nipp to do this)
    • Index previous white papers;
    • Survey directors; and
    • Summarize findings into working white paper to be presented to ESCOP in July. This document will incorporate the House request to address private/public sector relationships.

  • Dr. Floyd is charged to look at appropriate liaisons with other groups.

  • Dr. MacKenzie brought to the attention of the group a public workshop on May 22-23 hosted by the Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources of the NRC. A committee chaired by Frank Loew will "conduct Opportunities in Agriculture, a study to evaluate the quality, relevance, and effectiveness of the research, education, and extension activities of the ARS, CSREES, ERS, and NASS." It was agreed that ESCOP should have representation and suggested that Dr. Charles Scifres would be asked to represent ESCOP. Dr. Nipp will secure an invitation to participate and get ESCOP on the agenda.

Action taken:

• Budget: On motion/second by Drs. Payne/Jones, approved acceptance of the Formula Funds Accountability proposal above.
• Farm Bill: On motion/second by Drs. Heimsch/Watson, approved formation of the ad hoc ESCOP Farm Bill Task Force as described above.

Background: The Advocacy and Marketing Committee met in conjunction with the Partnership Workshop in Baltimore in February. Two products/efforts were developed. The first was a bookmark that was finally finished and distributed by NASULGC this week. The second was a one-page summary of accomplishments (by state) on the IFAFS program. This effort was torpedoed by the BOA Budget Commmittee [to keep excess paperwork from going to the Hill].

The Committee is currently watching the reorganization effort within NASULGC to see where it fits into the overall scheme.

Action requested: For information.

In meeting discussion: Dr. MacKenzie further noted that the A&M Committee is at a turning point and is seeking direction, wanting to determine how the committee can best fit in the overall scheme of advocacy within the new BOA structure. Committee is recognizing the need for professionals to develop materials/information for distribution.

It was also noted that a task force was formed in March consisting of the BOA Assembly chair and chair-elect, ESCOP chair, and ECOP chair. James Wade, ECOP Chair, is providing leadership for the committee. According to minutes from the BOA Executive Committee meeting of March 7, the committee is to "provide administrative leadership, direction, and oversight to NASULGC advocacy contact...maximizing continuity and smooth operations as newly amended Rules of Operation are implemented."

Action taken: Chair of ESCOP was asked to communicate via letter with the BOA Chair the committee's concerns regarding direction and best fit for the ESCOP Advocacy Committee.

Background:

Action requested: For information.

In-meeting discussion/information: Dr. Woodson reported on various activities of the Science and Technology committee including the following:

• Meeting February 13 in conjunction with Partnership Workshop.
• March 12 conference call to address such issues as:
  • How to organize S&T to best address national priorities;
  • Chair of S&T will stay in touch with leadership of C-FAR and work with Food and Society Initiative groups;
  • Chair of S&T will work with Chair of ESCOP to review S&T structure and to form a new Task Force on Biobased Products - Dr. Woodson will draft a letter for Chair of ESCOP to send directors soliciting membership.
  • Ag Biotech Implementation Task Force, chaired by Tom Hoban, is holding stakeholder listening session at the NABC meeting in May
  • Social Sciences Subcommittee has generated draft reports which will be slightly revised before submitting to Planning Committee; Jan Bokemeir, MI, is the incoming chair, replacing Lou Swanson, CO.

Background:

Action requested: For information.

In-meeting discussion/information: The committee has drafted a report based on the 9 issues recommended for implementation during the Partnership Workshop. The draft has been sent to C. Hefferan, J. Wade, and M. Floyd for approval to release. (Dr. Floyd is notify Dr. Coston of his approval.)

The Task Force will work through the summer, then dissolve. Recommended evolution of the group will follow.

Background: The ESCOP Planning Committee and the ECOP/ESCOP Joint Planning Committee met in Baltimore, MD on February 11, 2001 and discussed the following items.

1. The flow chart outlining ESCOP program and budget initiative processes was reviewed. Improvements that are being developed include, modifying depiction of stakeholder input to show specific points of input, a potential timeline for the process flow, and a draft explanatory statement to accompany the flowchart.

2. The ESCOP-PC decided to focus its immediate future activities on joint planning with ECOP-SPC. Potential topics include:
   1. Joint priority setting through reconciling the current priorities of ESCOP and ECOP, identifying areas of overlap, and developing a potential future joint priority setting process.
   2. Futuring activities focused on information technology needs in the 21st century.

3. The ESCOP-Executive Committee asked that the ECOP/ESCOP Joint Planning Committee develop an action plan and desired outcomes to respond to recommendations made in the Strategies for Enhanced Engagement report. An ad hoc committee of Bill Trumble (U of NH) and LeRoy Daugherty (NMSU) from ESCOP-PC and Pat Sobrero (U of MO) and Dick Frahm (CSREES) from ECOP-SPC will draft action items/outcomes which will be finalized at the next Joint Planning Committee meeting.

4. The Joint Planning Committee was lead through future scenario building process by Gil Meyer of Dupont. This session focused on how the land grant research and extension system will insure that biotechnology is used for the betterment of agriculture, agribusiness and society with a time frame beyond 2020. The information from this session will be compiled and communicated to the Biotechnology Implementation Task Force for their consideration.

5. The next ESCOP-PC and ECOP/ESCOP Joint Planning Committee will be May 9-10, 2001 in Ft. Lauderdale. On May 9, there will be a combined session with ESCOP-PC and ECOP-SPC, PODC & PLC with a focus on information technology needs in the 21st century. On May10, the Joint Planning Committee will meet to finalize the Engagement action plan and to set its agenda for the coming year.

Action requested: For information.

In-meeting discussion/information: Copies of the flow chart were distributed; a group is working on finalizing it.

Background: The Science Roadmap effort is up and running. The committee has a couple of conference call meetings and outline of information to be developed has been drafted. Specific identification of "critical needs" will be identified by May 4. A first draft of the document to be developed is to be shared by June 1. It has taken some time to get this effort rolling but it apears to be rolling forward nicely at the moment.

Action requested: For information.

In-meeting discussion/information: Seven issue areas have been identified with Executive Directors assigned responsibility for leading a small committee to flesh out. It is anticipated that a preliminary report will be presented at the July meeting.

Background information was provided on this effort, with notation of original presentation at the September, 1999 SAES/AES Workshop in Memphis. (See Powerpoint presentation at: http://www.escop.msstate.edu/archive/99wkshop/Roadmap/index.htm). The ultimate goal is to present a document showing where the science of agriculture needs to go in the next ten years. It is thought that the final product may contain approximately 80 pages, with a 4 page summary.

Background:

Action requested: For information.

In-meeting discussion/information:

• Dr. Cooper distributed copies of the Administrator's Quarterly Update (copy available upon request).
• Dr. MacKenzie asked for ESCOP Executive Committee's endorsement to have CSREES utilize http://monster.com/ for recruiting minorities. Group agreed that all legitimate avenues must be utilized.
• Dr. Cooper reported that interviews for Associate Administrator will begin May 16 with recommendation and background checks to follow. Candidates are Wanda Collins, Jim Fischer, and Gary Cunningham. Dr. Hefferan has solicited questions from the BOA to ask during interview process.

Background:

Action requested:

In-meeting discussion/information: Dr. Nipp discussed various issue areas, such as:

• Biomass, Bioproducts, Bioenergy
• Biotechnology - Holt legislation for $10 million for competitive grants to study the safety of biotech probably won't pass but may be useful for Farm Bill efforts.
• Communities - (It was reported that during a recent conference "Exploring New Policy Options for Rural America" April 30 - May 1, 2001 in Kansas City, Missouri, sponsored by the Kansas City Federal Reserve Board, a speaker, Karl Stauber, advocated taking federal funding from the Land-Grant system to enhance rural communities.)
• Education
• Social Science - noted need for science based assessment - could become important venue for research to access funds.
• Reauthorization of Clean Water Act - probably overwhelmed by Farm Bill efforts.

Background: The BOA executive committee met on March 7, 2001. ESCOP liaison Scifres was unable to attend. The following represents excerpts from the minutes. The amendments to the Rules of Operation for the Board were approved by mail ballot. The nominating committee will be constituted as soon as sections respond. The committee will be chaired by Thayne Dutson and will include representation from EES, CES, APS, IAS, 1890s, 1994s and non-land grants NASULGC member institutions. The charge of the committee is to obtain from the units listed above two candidates for their representation on the Policy Board and then to conduct a national election among the membership of Board on Agriculture Assembly (BAA) for the Policy Board. The AHS will submit two candidates each for the position of chair and chair-elect of the Policy Board to the nominating committee. NASULGC will request member CEOs to name up to two representatives to the AHS. By unanimous vote, a management task force was formed and will be comprised of the chairs of ECOP and ESCOP and the chair and chair elect of the BAA budget committee. The charge to the Task Force will be to provide administrative leadership, direction and oversight to the NASULGC advocacy contact, which names the chairs of ECOP and ESCOP as agents, in the coming months bridging through the current contract period into 2002 so as to maximize continuity and smooth operations in government relations activities as the newly amended Rules of Operation come on line and are implemented with the nomination and subsequent election of the Policy Board, which will take office in November, 2001. The intent is for the management task force to carry out its responsibilities until de-commissioned and replaced by a successor structure by specific direct action of the Policy Board.. The management task force will be convened by ECOP chair James Wade and will provide an activities report on or about July 15, 2001, to chair, David Chicoine.

Action requested: For information.

In meeting discussion: It is thought that the main thrust for the Management Task Force is to transition advocacy efforts for 2002. Since the Policy Board won't be constituted until late fall, interim measures must be taken regarding AESOP's 2002 contract. Dr. Floyd asked for direction from ESCOP Executive Committee for his discussions with the Management Task Force. (See Action below).

A primary issue seems to be the AESOP Plan of Activities, and AHS's perception of lack of accountability of AESOP. There is talk of establishing a contract-basis advocacy group. A concern by AHS is that the BAA committee works closely with AESOP, but has no input into the approved Plan of Activities and suggests that a new contract is needed with more accountability. Several members requested copies of the current Plan of Activities. Dr. Floyd asked that the Plan be posted on the ESCOP homepage in the Workroom. (John Nye will send copy of Plan to ESCOP webmaster).

Action taken: On motion/second by Drs. Jones/Woodson, ESCOP requests that its chair advocate the position that ESCOP wants to renew AESOP's 2002 contract, based on due-diligence review of AESOP's performance.

Background: The ECOP Budget Committee has a conference call planned in two weeks. The ECOP Budget Committee basically is supporting the families plan to increase the budget by $200 million and double the budget over the next five years. There has been no discussion regarding detail break down of the budget, I expect that the detail breakdown will be discussed during the up coming conference call.

The ECOP legislative Committee has been very active following legislation that may impact Extension. The following attachment is a draft of the committees activities.

The FY02 Draft Plan was largely developed during a meeting of the ECOP Legislative Committee held during the November Annual NASULGC Conference in San Antonio, Texas. Subsequent to the conference, several opportunities have emerged. The Draft Plan reflects these opportunities and their integration with the initiatives that were determined by the ECOP Legislative Committee during the San Antonio meeting.

Attending the San Antonio meeting were Stanley R. Johnson, Carl W. O'Connor, Larry D. Luft, Billy D. Dictson, Nancy H. Bull, Ronald A. Brown, J. David Barrett, Betty Lou Gilliland, Philip M. Schwab, Myron D. Johnsrud, and Linda Kay Benning. (Guests were Sally Rockey, and Dalton McAfee.) Members not attending were Michael S. Heard, Velma L. Blackwell, Patricia S. Barber, and Fred A. Cholick.

The general consensus of the Committee during the San Antonio meeting was that the number of initiatives being pushed by the ECOP Legislative Committee should be reduced. In short, the idea was to focus the attention of the ECOP Legislative Committee on fewer issues and increase our probability of success. The issues on which the Committee agreed to focus are listed below. In general, this list is derived from a similar list prepared to reflect the ECOP Legislative Committee in FY01. The assignments of Committee members having primary responsibility for managing the activity associated with these initiatives is preliminary, and in some cases, subject to approval by the Committee members.

1. Communities and Rural Development (Coordinators Brown, Nipp and Johnson). During the last Congressional session, there was significant activity on communities/rural development. Numerous bills were introduced. See ECOP Legislative Committee Report for FY01. As the current Congressional session develops, it is likely there will be new legislation proposed, perhaps combining the efforts of those who introduced similar legislation during the last session. The ECOP Legislative Committee along with AESOP are monitoring the activities on communities/rural development. When it is clear that a particular bill has potential for becoming law, we will focus our efforts on assuring the authorization language is friendly to the state universities and land-grant colleges.

The Committee discussed the possibility of a significant tax reduction bill and its possible consequences for communities and rural development. There is an opportunity in the tax proposal of the Administration for tying tax credits to communities/rural development. Our focus in the tax legislation will be to attempt to introduce language that allows the tax credits to be given for education and technical assistance. The idea here is to put the funds in the hands of the local communities and related agencies. The state universities and land-grant colleges would then be identified as eligible contractors with the communities and/or local authorities.

2. Genome and Biotechnology. Both of these have been covered by the activities of the ECOP/ESCOP budget committees. It was the conclusion of the ECOP Legislative Committee that we should support the budget committees in their efforts to obtain funds in these areas, both inside and outside of USDA. Unless a clear opportunity is identified by the budget committees, the attention of the ECOP Legislative Committee will go to other initiatives.

3. Agriculture and Environment (O'Connor, Johnson and Nipp). Progress was made during FY01 (see ECOP Legislative Report for FY01) in the authorization language for the Conservation Title. In general, language was inserted to make it easier for the state NRCS authorities to cooperate with Extension in delivering education and technical assistance. We will continue to negotiate with NRCS and look for opportunities in the upcoming Farm Bill legislation for strengthening and expanding the authorization language that will support increased cooperation between NRCS and Extension.

A new effort has emerged called the Barnyard Coalition. Leaders from all of the animal agricultural commodity associations and from selected farm commodity associations have tentatively agreed on a set of "guiding" principles for managing contaminants from animal production. The focus has been water. Representative Stenholm is closely connected to this Barnyard Coalition and has indicated to the Coalition that if they come forward with a set of guiding principles and a legislative proposal, he will support it. The leadership from the NASULGC side for the Coalition is from Iowa State University and Texas A&M University.

The other areas identified for activity in FY01 were the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Act and a Carbon Cycling Research Initiative. O'Connor and Johnson will follow the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Act – Representative Kind will likely reintroduce his bill of FY01. The Carbon Cycling Research Initiative will be followed by AESOP. In both cases, the idea is to obtain language that would give access to the resources that might become available to Extension.

4. Agriculture, Biobased Products and Bioenergy (Brown, Nipp and Johnson). During FY01, the ECOP Legislative Committee was successful in developing a working relationship with DOE Assistant Deputy Secretary Denise Swink. For example, testimony was filed supporting the budget request for the Industries of the Future Program of DOE. Other accomplishments include:

(a) Opening the State Industries of the Future Program to state universities and land-grant colleges. (The RFP for the State Industries of the Future Program gives preference to proposals that are cooperative with state universities and land-grant colleges.);

(b) Developing a proposal for a series of workshops and conferences, "National Biobased Products and Bioenergy Initiative: The Role and Capacities of the State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges." (This proposal was slowed due to the change of Administration. It is now back on track. The revised version of the proposal is provided as an attachment to this Plan. We expect to initiate a set of workshops in the relatively near future.);

(c) DOE requested and received $18 million of new money for research on biobased products and energy. It is likely that DOE will expand this budget request in the current year. The RFP for the $18 million is nearly out and will be quite friendly to the state universities and land-grant colleges.

(d) A new effort has been funded (RFP now out) for projects to build linkages between the state universities and land-grant colleges and the DOE Laboratories, primarily through expanding the participation in the State Industries of the Future Program. This is a relatively small RFP, $500,000. However, it can be viewed as a signal of interest in expanded cooperation by the DOE.

5. Crop Insurance and Risk Management (Johnson, Nipp and Johnsrud). The special legislation for creasing the Centers for Crop Insurance and Risk Management was passed in FY01. This is a new model for obtaining funding. The initiative was led by the states in which the centers are to be organized. The ECOP and ESCOP worked with these states and the appropriate legislators in expanding the funding and identifying a significant component of this funding to be distributed to other states through competitive grants. This is a model for developing new funding sources that we may wish to explore in the future, perhaps in connection with the carbon recycling effort (see above).

6. Children, Youth and Families (Benning, Bull, Johnson and Nipp). Perhaps the most significant opportunity in this area will come with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Department of Education. Conversations are underway with leaders in the Department of Education, identifying opportunities for political support in exchange for authorization language that is friendly to Extension. For example, the North Central Directors and NASULGC staff will meet in March with a representative of the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program from the Department of Education.

Opportunities with the Department of Justice appear more fragmented. There were a number of bills initiated in FY01. It is not clear that a bill in this area will emerge in the current Congressional session. Our plan is to treat the "action" in juvenile justice very much as we will approach communities and rural development – identify bills with potential and then work for attractive language with the sponsors and political groups that are supportive of the legislation.

There is an attempt by the National 4-H Council to identify an appropriation in the Department of Education budget for Extension Youth and 4-H Programs. This is at its early stages. The target portion of the Department of Education budget already has earmarks for Boys and Girls Clubs and for other organizations serving youth. We will coordinate with Don Floyd and provide assistance as this effort progresses.

7. Farm Bill (Bull, Johnson, Johnsrud and Luft). The first priority of the ECOP Legislative Committee is to support the proposals that are put forward by the ECOP/ESCOP budget committees. Here there are issues of 406 accounts, competitive versus formula funds, etc. We will leave it to the budget committees to sort out the appropriate strategy. The ECOP Legislative Committee will support this strategy.

Much of the NASULGC/BOA activity on the Farm Bill will be managed under the Farm Bill Task Force. Johnson is a member of this Task Force and Chair of a subcommittee that is writing a White Paper that will guide BOA actions on the Farm Bill. A draft of this paper is now under review by the Farm Bill Task Force. It should be available for broad distribution within approximately two weeks. One of the strong focuses of this White Paper is to identify opportunities for increasing budgets that are accessible to the state universities and land-grant colleges in titles other than Title VIII.

Nancy Bull has been working with the forestry budget. An extensive proposal for increased funding of forestry education research and outreach has been developed. The Farm Bill Task Force is aware of this effort on the part of Nancy Bull and her colleagues. The plan is to integrate this with the broad effort of the Farm Bill Task Force.

8. Animal Waste (Wade and Johnson). We will try to coordinate the activities of the National Consortia on animal waste management of those with the Barnyard Coalition.

9. Food Safety/Biosafety (Heard and Nipp). It is likely that there will be legislation during the current year on biosafety, perhaps stimulated by the Star Link incident. The focus may be more on biosafety than food safety. There are active bills in both areas. The approach of the Committee will be to follow the new legislation, identify bills that appear to have a chance of passing, and work to include friendly language.

10. Food Grant Universities (Johnson, O'Connor and Nipp). Effort will be made to include the pilot that was described in the ECOP Legislative Report for FY01 in the current agriculture legislation. If we are successful, it will be likely a pilot program for the food grant universities. The Farm Bill Task Force has included this initiative in their White Paper, and will take it over in the FY02 Farm Bill legislation. In short, here the opportunity is for a timely pilot program that might occur in advance of a more coordinated effort in the FY02 Farm Bill.

11. Manufacturing Extension Program/DOC/NIST (Brown, Johnson and Nipp). This activity was described in the FY01 ECOP Legislative Committee Report. The idea is to encourage the Manufacturing Extension Program to ask for resources in the DOC budget to expand its education and technical assistance activity to the Food and Kindred Products and Lumber and Wood Products industries. Negotiations continue on this effort. There is also the possibility that the Manufacturing Extension Program could be extended to service industries. In both cases, we are working to "trade" political support for authorization language that provides Extension with opportunity for participation.

12. Farm A Syst (McAfee and Nipp). Gary Jackson has been very aggressive in promoting Farm A Syst. We are working with him to develop a legislative initiative that will grow out of the current program. There is significant energy associated with this initiative. If it emerges, it may take the form of the crop insurance and risk management special appropriation that occurred in FY01.

We will be opportunistic looking for possibilities to improve authorization language. One of the areas of opportunity may occur in connection with telecommunications. Others may involve the already mentioned tax bill and tax credits for education and technical assistance.

Action requested: For information.

Background: The National Multistate Research Coordinating Committee met April 18-19, 2001 on the campus of Mississippi State University for the purpose of planning and coordination of activities associated with the Multistate Research Program and other business. Attendees were Dr. Sam Donald, Dr. Daryl Lund, Dr. David MacKenzie, Dr. Tom Helms, Dr. Bob Heil, Dr. Myron Johnsrud, Dr. George Cooper, Lizzette Williams-CSREES/MSRO, and Anna Marie Rasberry-SAAESD.

Following is the meeting agenda. The ED’s will report on these topics:

1. "Windshield" Tour of MAFES on-campus facilities. (Helms and Fuller or Roberts)
2. Welcome & Introductions (Helms)
3. Review committee assignments of ED's (Lund)
4. IMSS (MacKenzie)
5. POW reporting guidelines (Lund; Cooper)
6. Proposed NE - RSP's (MacKenzie)
7. Luncheon meeting at MSU's Social Science Research Center; presentations by Dr. Arthur Cosby and Mr. Jay Ritchie (Helms)
8. NRSP external reviews; Annual approval of budgets (MacKenzie; Cooper)
9. Impact statements for MRF and integrated research and extension activities (Cooper; MacKenzie; Johnsrud)
10. Partnership meeting outcomes and follow-up (Heil; Johnsrud)
11. 2002 Farm Bill draft (MacKenzie)
12. Funding initiatives --- C-FAR, etc. (Heil)
13. Amendments to the MSR Guidelines (Helms)
14. SAES Executive Directors caucus re NRSP FY 2002 off-the-top budget recommendations (Heil, Helms; Lund; MacKenzie)
15. Land-Grant model (B. Glenn e-mail of 3/19/01) (Heil)
16. Website costs (Heil; Helms)
17. Proposals for communicating with NASULGC (MacKenzie)
18. Review survey results re Roles of Executive Directors (Heil)
19. September SAES/ARD Workshop (Lund)
20. Project record keeping (Lund)

Action requested: For discussion and actions appropriate for ESCOP response.

In-meeting discussion/information: In response to item #17 above, it was suggested that Dr. Donald set up a meeting for Dr. Floyd and Executive Directors to meet with Dr. Neufville. In conjunction with this meeting, also schedule a meeting with CSREES administration.

Background: The implementation of the NE Information Management and Support System (IMSS) for Multistate Research Project management has been completed. We are now turning our attention to deploying the system in each of the four 1862 geographical regions. To accomplish this deployment the software must be moved to the Oracle platform; the software customized to accommodate regional differences, and all the relevant data must be entered by the remaining three regional associations. The University of Maryland will be contracted to provide a common platform for offering the computer services, at least initially.

A timetable for these activities has been created, and a budget agreed to by the participating associations. Mrs. Rubie Mize will be the national coordinator for the IMSS, and Ms. Natalie Moy, the Cold Fusion programmer who developed the NE software, has been verbally contracted to complete the software’s transformation. We are awaiting instructions from UMD office of personnel to figure out how she can be compensated.

An oversight committee has been formed to represent the four 1862 regions and CSREES. The members are: two directors from each region plus the Executive Directors and Administrative Assistants from the regional associations, Natalie Moy, George Cooper (or his designate) from CSREES, a representative from ARD if desired, and an Extension representative if desired. Others may be added after more discussion. We hope to keep the size of the oversight committee to a reasonable number, however (it is presently numbering 18 members).

The agreed timetable sets out the target of completing Phase I implementation by October 1, 2001. Phase II activities may include automated impact statement drafting, and a web page template, offered as a service to all multistate research projects.

Action requested: For information.

In-meeting discussion/information: Dr. MacKenzie distributed copies of draft webpages of the proposed IMSS.

Background: There are continuing expectations for mid-term external reviews of all National Research Support Projects (NRSPs). Agreement has now been reached that the Partnership Office, CSREES will move ahead with reviews of NRSP-3 and NRSP-5 this FFY year. Other NRSPs have been scheduled in the out years, to get the pattern regularized.

The earlier proposal to have a portfolio review of all NRSPs has been modified following recent discussions. We are now proposing that a survey of opinions regarding the NRSP portfolio be conducted over the next months: to determine the extent of satisfaction with the current mix of activities; to assess the desired mix of activities; to evaluate mechanisms for funding the approved activities; and to explore suggestions for improving the NRSP management processes.

Additionally, it has been proposed that regionally sponsored Research Support Projects (RSPs) be sanctioned under the National Guidelines for Multistate Research. Examples of possible regional RSPs are: research farm management; regionally coordinated stakeholder listening efforts; regionally organized impact assessment; and germplasm resource management. Each of these examples is currently an activity in one or more of the regions, but not all are sanctioned by an association. If sanctioned as a regional RSP they would all qualify as multistate activities eligible to earn multistate credit under a state’s Plan of Work.

Discussion has also turned to the funding mechanism for NRSPs. It has been asked if it might not be more desirable to eschew off-the-top funding mechanisms for NRSPs [and if approved, regionally sponsored RSPs]? Would this give a new mix of research support activities? Would there be a greater willingness to start new NRSPs/RSPs? More dialogue on this question is needed.

Action requested: For information.

In-meeting discussion/information:

• Dr. MacKenzie distributed a copy of the August, 2000 draft regarding "Terms of Reference" for an external review of NRSPs.
• Dr. MacKenzie will draft a survey to help determine needs, priorities, future NRSP direction/uses, etc. EDs will edit before distributing to Directors.
• Dr. MacKenzie and Dr. Helms will write a NRSP proposal based on the presentation by the Social Science Research Center's Database Management tools. EDs will present preliminary info to ESCOP in July with final proposal to be presented at the ESS meeting in September.

Background: Karen Kubena, Coordinator, has asked ESCOP to reconsider its representatives' rotation schedule for service on the Advisory Committee. Dr. Helms will discuss options for setting up an appropriate schedule.

Action requested: For discussion.

In-meeting discussion/information: Dr. Helms made the following recommendation:

1. Ask LeRoy Daugherty to continue his service on the board for an additional year thereby making his term end in the year 2004. (Dr. Heil was asked to talk with Dr. Daugherty about this extension of his service.) This action would put ESCOP's membership rotation in order as the following terminations reflect:
   • Gilstrap - 2001/2002
   • Lemme - 2002/2003
   • Daugherty - 2003/2004
   • vice Gilstrap - 2004/2005
   • vice Lemme - 2005/2006
   • vice Daugherty - 2006/2007

2. During this year's summer meeting of ESCOP or soon thereafter, appoint the replacement for Frank Gilstrap. Dr. Gilstrap's term on the board ends in 2001/2002. His successor, however would be designated as the Incoming Coordinator with his/her term beginning in 2002/2003, serving as Coordinator in 2003/2004 and as Past Coordinator in 2004/2005.

Action taken: On motion/second by Drs. Scifres/Young, items #1 and 2 above were approved.

Background: As a result of reorganization of the Board on Agriculture, ESCOP will be asked to nominate two members, one of whom will be selected to represent ESCOP on the Board on Agriculture Policy Board. The nominations will be requested prior to August 1, for election by October 15. A procedure needs to be defined for identifying ESCOP's two nominees.

Action requested: Discussion.

In-meeting discussion/information: Dr. Jones, Chair of ESCOP's nominating committee, will convene the committee and secure names of 2 nominees for the BOA Policy Board. It will be understood that the nominee NOT selected, will be the alternate member.

Background:

Action requested: For information.

In-meeting discussion/information: Items reported were as follows:

• Copy of CARET Chair, Dan Dooley, testimony to House Appropriations Subcommittee was distributed;
• CARET members desire to be used effectively;
• CARET will not be meeting at NASULGC;
• CARET summer meeting will include a visit to the Hill;
• The following report, authored by Kristin Perry, was read:

  As yesterday came to an end
  and I thought about today,
  I realized that I should change
  what I had planned to say.

  Tom Payne did not my thunder take
  with priorities counted four.
  Had he not spoke, I wouldn't know
  we need to add two more.

  Those priorities we CARETs used
  and took up to the Hill.
  When we thanked them for the IFAFS funds
  but asked for doubling still.

  Two hundred million more we said
  and ADD that much EACH year.
  We need to get good research done
  to avoid what we all fear.

  We don't want mad cow disease
  or sheep with foot and mouth.
  And as the Mississippi floods
  don't float Missouri south.

  We can solve these problems, yes
  CARET was heard to say.
  But our Land-Grants need to get the funds
  we're asking you to pay.

  And so that was the main event
  when CARET met last spring.
  Since Tom has told you what's to know
  That's all I need to bring.

  Before I close this little rhyme
  there's one thing yet to say.
  Did you remember what Tom said
  about me gettin' pay?

  Well, even if that pay is lost
  it's been fun to be with you.
  From CARET and the folks you serve
  thanks for all you do.

• Additional discussions:
  • Dr. Nye suggested consideration be given to development of a "Research Award" for presentation during the NASULGC meeting. So doing would raise the visibility of research at both regional and national levels. Dr. Cooper and Dr. MacKenzie will work together to identify a process for submitting nominations for a research award. Other ways in which to raise visibility are to 1) provide research successes to CARET members on state-wide basis; and 2) bring CARET members to campus.

  • Dr. Payne suggested that when the Policy Board is formed, the relationship with and availability of CARET members will improve.

  • Dr. Young reminded ESCOP that the previous CARET liaison, Don Latham, had suggested that the load of committee assignments was burdensome and that different CARET members might be needed to serve on various ESCOP committees. It was agreed that this was an issue for CARET to address.

Background:

Human Resources Development Workshop: In concert with the 1890 Council of Presidents and Chancellors long range planning activities, an effort is being made to conduct a human resource development workshop. It is estimated that approximately 65% of the land-grant program administrators will retire during the next 15 years. It is essential to provide leadership training for the emerging administrators focusing on minorities and changing demographics. The workshop is scheduled to be held in Washington, D.C. in September, 2001.

Collaboration with Pacific Islands and 1994 Institutions: The Association of Research Directors met with the Pacific Islands land-grant institutions to discuss potential areas of mutual interest. Some of the activities which have already begun or in initial stages of discussion are: graduate studies program (agribusiness, nutrition, and plant science); web based course development; and research and extension activities in the areas of aquaculture, root crops, and small ruminants. As a result of a visit to the South Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI), the following areas of mutual interest were identified: water quality; GIS/land use planning; demonstration farm for native plants; phytoremediation studies; and cooperation on legislative issues of mutual interest.

Officers of the Association of Research Directors: The following were elected officers of the Association of Research Directors for the next two years: Carolyn B. Brooks, Chair; Alfred L. Parks, Chair Elect; P. S. Benepal, Secretary; S.K. Pancholy, Treasurer; and Willie J. Rawls , Member at Large.

Spring Meeting of the Association of Research Directors: The Spring Meeting of the Association of Research Directors was hosted by Southern University and was held at New Orleans, Louisiana on April 5-6, 2001. A tour of the Southern Regional Research Center, ARS, USDA, was part of the meeting activities. This is one of the four leading ARS, USDA, research facilities in the United States. The center’s research emphasis is on cotton quality, food processing and safety, new uses for farm products, sugarcane productivity, and Formosan Subterranean termite research.

Southern Region SAAESD Spring Meeting: Sam Donald represented the Association of Research Directors at the Southern Region SAAESD Spring Meeting which was held in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on April 1-4, 2001.

Action requested: For information.

Background:

1. NERA Chair Ronnie Coffman sent a letter to C. Hefferan, copied to all Chairs, requesting that NRSPs be reviewed as requested by ESCOP last year, and that the report be ready by the September meeting.

2. A follow-up was also made through George Cooper regarding MacArthur Floyd's letter to C. Hefferan for the adoption of a national paperless system. George Cooper replied that the amount requested is too high and that all regions should express their commitment to this undertaking. The other 3 regions have now expressed their commitment and financial support to develop a National Information Management and Support System.

3. NERA has developed and signed a MOU addressing the management of multi-institutional competitive grants in the Northeast. It is being used as reference for IFAFs proposals.

4. The NERA Executive Director attended the Partnership for Inter-University Cooperation in Education and Research for the Environment and Food Systems meeting in Munich, Germany. As a result of this meeting, the group decided to focus on land use and identify information gaps. They will then organize a research project to address these information gaps, preferably as a Multistate Research Project.

5. CSREES was asked to clarify that host states should not be required to certify matching funds for NRSP funds, and that a fix be applied the next Farm Bill.

6. A number of IFAFS and Grantsmaship workshops were conducted throughout the Northeast to help the region do better in the 2001 IFAFS. The results we have yet to see.

7. The next meeting of the NERA directors will be at Penn State on June 24-27. The following officer's for the 2001-2002 year were elected:
   Chair: Mark Mount, Massachusetts
   Chair Elect: Cameron Hackney, West Virginia
   Officer-At-Large: Paul Backman, Pennsylvania
   Past-Chair: Ronnie Coffman, New York/Cornell

In-meeting discussion/information: Regarding item #4 above, Dr. MacKenzie asked for suggestions for topics to be addressed in the next consortium meeting scheduled for mid April, 2002. This subject will be included on the July or September meeting agenda.

Background:

1. Officers for 2001 are:
   Chair - Virginia Clark
   Chair Elect - Ian Gray
   Past Chair - Tom Payne
   MRC Chair - Ian Gray

2. At the March NCRA meeting, (a) the NCRA agreed to the Information Management and Support System. A committee was formed to conform the NCRA guidelines with the IMSS project; (b) the NCRA agreed to join C-FAR as a regional organization; and (c) the NCRA had a prolonged discussion with Dr. Colien Hefferan regarding the annual report for the Plan of Work.

3. The NCRA summer meeting (mini land-grant) is scheduled for July 16-18, 2001 in Madison, Wisconsin.

In-meeting discussion/information: Dr. Payne facilitated discussion concerning the feasibility of having one multi-region land-grant meeting each year rather than each region having its own separate meeting. Several suggestions were made:

• Each director talk to his/her AHS at the joint COP meeting this summer;
• Each region bring up with their Deans and suggest trying a new approach experimentally, every other year?
• CARET promote if they endorse the idea.

Background:

1. Highlights from the recent spring SAAESD meeting in Baton Rouge are:
   • Approved Vance Watson as immediate Chair-elect, replacing Scott Smith; Dr. Watson will work with Chair, William H. Brown, LA and Multistate Research Committee chair, Nancy Cox.
   • Approved new Operational Guidelines, including method to incorporate association's Advisory Committees in review process of new multistate research projects;
   • Continuing discussions on ways to implement the Association's Operational Plan;
   • Approved support of the Information Management Support System (IMSS) for multistate research;
   • Extended Executive Director's contract to 2003, with 9-month notification of retirement plans;
   • Approved Association membership in C-FAR;
   • Approved nomination of Charles Scifres as chair-elect, effective November, 2001; and
   • Approved a resolution expressing renewed commitment to work with Extension regarding the current energy crisis.

2. Southern Region Land Grant Meetings - August 5-7, Oklahoma City, OK
   Under D. C. Coston's leadership, Southern Region chairs of AHS, AES, CES, ARD, and Academic Programs are working together to plan a meaningful joint program.

In-meeting discussion/information: Southern Directors asked that ESCOP be supportive of budget requests for the Rural Development Centers. A motion was made to this effect but was later withdrawn due to the fact that Center budgets were in fact included in the President's budget.

Background:

Action requested:

In-meeting discussion/information: Dr. Heimsch reported briefly on the following topics:

• Transition of WAAESD Executive Director position from Bob Heil to Mike Harrington effective in summer.
• Western spring meetings included approval to participate in IMSS.
• Summer meeting to be held in Keystone, CO July 15-18.

• Bob Heil received an enthusiastic round of applause in recognition of this being his last meeting with ESCOP.

Background: ECOP is the host for this year's Joint COPS/AHS meeting, which has been scheduled for July 23-25 at the Embassy Suites, Airport in Minneapolis, MN. Richard Heimsch, as Chair-Elect of ESCOP, is a member of the program planning committee for the joint session on Tuesday, July 24.

The schedule pertaining to ESCOP is as follows:

Monday, July 23
1-5 ESCOP Meeting

Tuesday, July 24
8-12 - Joint AHS/COPS Meeting
• Transition to the New Board on Agriculture Rules of Operation: Challenges, Issues and Opportunities
  Panel of Chairs: BOA, ESCOP, ACOP, ICOP, and ECOP
• The Farm Bill Rewrite: Issues and Recommendations
  Milo Shult, Chair, BOA Farm Bill Task Force
• Food and Society Project and C-FAR Initiative Updates
  Sam Smith and Terry Wolf (or David Graves)
1-1:30 CSREES Administrator's Update
1:30-3 Joint ECOP/ESCOP Meeting
3-5 ESCOP Meeting

Wednesday, July 25
8-12 ESCOP Meeting
1-2 Joint ESCOP/ECOP Executive Committees' Meeting

Action requested: For information.

General Schedule:

Monday, September 24:
1-5 Orientation for new Directors/Administrators
Evening Reception

Tuesday, September 25:
8-noon ESS Meeting
noon Lunch
1-5 SAES/ARD Workshop

Wednesday, September 26:
8-5 SAES/ARD Workshop

Thursday, September 27:
8-10 SAES/ARD Workshop wrapup
10-2 Regional Meetings
2-4 ESCOP Executive Committee Meeting if desired

The updated draft agenda of the SAES/ARD Workshop is as follows:

The workshop consists of three four-hour blocks (including one-half hour breaks), an additional 90-minute session and one evening session (with speaker). Following the workshop, each regional association will have an opportunity to meet.

A preliminary proposal for the seven sessions (each four-hour block can be divided into one two-hour session and one 90-minute session) and the evening session follows:

Tuesday, September 25, 2001 (1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.)

Session 1 (1:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.) (60 minutes)
Speaker (40 minutes): Joseph Jen: A Vision for REE
Moderator: Richard Heimsch, ESCOP Chair-Elect

Session 2 (2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.) (180 minutes)
Value of Formula Funds
Moderator: TBA
Discussants (15 minutes each): Wally Huffman (on NAS Study Committee)(Iowa), Bobby Edelman, Texas A&M, Art Cosby, Social Sciences Center, Mississippi State
Breakout Groups (60 minutes)
Open Discussion (30 minutes)

Break (3:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.)

Wednesday, September 26, 2001 (8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.)

Session 3 (8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.) (120 minutes)
Out Year Budgets: What are the Priorities for the SAES/ARD System?
Moderator: Gale Buchanan
Discussants (15 minutes): Fred Cholick, Chair ESCOP Budget/Legislative Committee, Eric Young, Chair, Planning Committee
Breakout Groups (60 minutes):
Priority Setting/Consensus Building (30 minutes):

Break (10:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.)

Session 4 (10:30 a.m. - 12:00 noon) (90 minutes)
Information Technology Systems: Where Are We?
Moderator: David MacKenzie
Discussants (10 minutes each): CRIS System - Eric Young, EASE System - Howard Ladewig, IMSS System - Chair of Oversight Committee, REEIS - Cindy Dickinson
Open Discussion (50 minutes)

Lunch (12:00 noon - 1:00 p.m.)

Session 5 (1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.) (120 minutes)

2002 Farm Bill: What Are the Priorities for the SAES/ARD System?
Moderator: Milo Shult, Chair, BOA Farm Bill Task Force
Discussants (10 minutes each): __________, Chair, ESCOP Farm Bill Task Force, Stan Johnson, Chair ECOP Legislative Committee, Bobby Phills, Chair of ARD Legislative Committee and Council of Presidents Legislative Committee, Phil Schwab, CSREES
Breakout Groups (60 minutes)
Priority Setting/Consensus Building (30 minutes)

Break (3:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.)

Session 6 (3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.) (90 minutes)
BOA Reorganization
Moderator: Tom Fretz, Past Chair, BOA
Discussants (10 minutes each): David Chicoine, McArthur Floyd, Mort Neufville, James Wade
Open Discussion (50 minutes):

Planned Program for Dinner

Thursday, September 27, 2001 (8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.)

Session 7 (8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.) (120 minutes)
Partnerships: Opportunities
Moderator: Gladys Vaughn, CSREES
Discussants (15 minutes each): DC Coston, Rodney Foil, Colien Hefferan and CFERR Representative
Open Discussion (30 minutes): Follow-up on the February 2001 meeting

Synthesis and Follow-Up (10:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.)

Regional Meetings (11:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.)

Action requested: For information.

In-meeting discussion/information: Dr. Lund will take all suggestions received and incorporate into a new draft (see updated draft above). In addition, based on discussion, a session will be added for Monday afternoon, 1-5, for orientation of new directors/administrators.

Background:

Action requested:

In-meeting discussion/information: Dr. MacKenzie distributed copies of a March 13, 2001 article in Science magazine by Henry Etzkowitz entitled "Networked Research: An EC Model for U.S.?" The article focuses on ways that the European community "benefits underrepresented minorities and less research-intensive regions through the distribution of research funds" by linking renowned researchers with relatively excluded groups. It was noted that the U.S. is already doing this with collaborations between 1862 and 1890 universities, as well as involvement by Cooperative Extension and the 1994 institutions. It was decided that an appropriate response would be a letter to the Editor. Dr. MacKenzie will provide a draft for Dr. Floyd's consideration.

Background: A brief wrap-up and assignment of duties will precede adjournment.

Action requested: For information.