Tuesday, July 20, 1999
1.0 Call to Order and Introductions - D. W. Nelson
Present: Scott Angle, P.S. Benepal, Jim Carlson, Jerry Cherry, Fred Cholick, George Cooper, D. C. Coston, Sam Donald, Julius Dasch, McArthur Floyd, Eddie Gouge, George Ham, Michael Harrington, Bob Heil, Richard Heimsch, Tom Helms, Richard Jones, Colin Kaltenbach, Ed Knipling, Karen Kubena, Don Latham, Chuck Laughlin, Richard Lower, David MacKenzie, Carol Meeks, May Naddaf, Darrell Nelson, Mort Neufville, Terry Nipp, Ron Pardini, Tom Payne, C. P. Patrick Reid, Daniel Rossi, Tim Schilling, Dale Vanderholm, Walter Walla, Eric Young,
1.1 Approval of February 16-17, 1999 Minutes
(Refer to: http://www.escop.msstate.edu/workroom/min2-99.htm) The minutes were approved and seconded.
1.2 Approval of Agenda and Additions
3.6 - NASA Program - Julius Dasch
1.3 Interim Actions of the Chair
2.0 ESCOP Core Committee Reports
2.1 Budget, Legislative, Advocacy and Marketing, - T. Payne and C. Kaltenbach
2.2 Science and Technology - G. Ham
2.3 Partnerships - D. Coston
2.4 Planning - E. Young
3.0 Other ESCOP Reports - Ongoing Activities and Subcommittees
3.1 Marketing via C-FAR - C. Kaltenbach/R. Heil (20 minutes)
3.2 Science Road Map - G. Ham (20 minutes)
3.3 Image Enhancement - R. Pardini (15 minutes)
3.4 Pest Management Strategies - E. Ortman (teleconference) (20 minutes)
3.5 ESCOP/ACOP Leadership Development - K. Kubena (15 minutes)
4.0 Regional Reports (15 minutes for each presentation)
4.1 ARD - M. Floyd
4.2 North Central - D. Vanderholm
4.3 Northeastern - J. Angle
4.4 Southern - D. Coston
4.5 Western - R. Pardini
5.0 1998 Farm Bill Discussion - D. Nelson
5.1 Implementation Strategies - D. MacKenzie (45 minutes)
5.2 National Manual - R. Heil (45 minutes)
5.3 CSREES Update on POW Program - G. Cooper (45 minutes)
6.0 Follow-Up of Day's Activities - D. Nelson
Thursday, July 22, 1999 (Meeting Room 60/61)
7.0 ESCOP Liaison and Other Reports (10 minutes for each presentation)
7.1 NASULGC - M. Neufville
7.2 ACOP - M. J. Burke
7.3 ECOP - W. J. Walla
7.4 ICOP - T. Tucker/E. Price
7.5 CARET - D. Latham
7.6 Board on Veterinary Medicine - J. DiPietro
7.7 Board on Human Sciences - B. J. Collier
7.8 NAPFSC - C. P. Patrick Reid
7.9 SUNEI - D.C. Coston
8.0 Agency Reports (30 minutes for each presentation)
8.1 USDA/CSREES Report and Discussion - C. Laughlin
8.2 USDA/ARS Report - F. Horn
9.0 Budget and Washington, D.C. Update - T. Nipp
10.0 Rules of Operation Update - R. Lower
10.1 Nominations Committee Report - D. Rossi
11.0 Future Meetings
11.1 Global Consortium of Agricultural Universities, July 22-24, 1999, Amsterdam, NL - D. Nelson
11.1a www.iastate.edu/~gcau/ and Potential Follow-up - D. MacKenzie
11.2 ESS, SAES/ARD Directors' Workshop and Regional Meetings - September 28-30, 1999, Memphis, Tennessee - T. Helms and R. Lower
12.0 Wrap-Up Discussion and Assignments - D. Nelson
12:00 Adjourn
Meeting Date: July 20, 1999
Agenda Item: 1.3
Presenter: Darrell W. Nelson
Agenda Item Title: Interim Actions of the Chair
Background Information:
Listed below are some of the ESCOP activities undertaken since the last
ESCOP meeting:
Action Taken: Administrator Charles Laughlin will be meeting with the COP chairs, incoming chairs and members of the Board on Agriculture on August 17. Need to be in contact with these members and voice concerns that should be addressed to Administrator Laughlin. Need to provide specific examples of problems, etc. ECOP is not interested in the joint marketing activity.
Meeting Date: July 20, 1999
Agenda Item No.2.1
Presenter: Tom Payne/Colin Kaltenbach
Agenda Item Title: FY 00 and 01 Budget, Legislative, Advocacy
and Marketing
Background Information:
The Board on Agriculture (BOA) 00/01 Budget Committee has continued to actively stay the course and be proactive in support of base funds and the NRI in the 00 budget. ESCOP members of the BOA Committee are solidly behind the BOA effort and are active team partners. AESOP has been sending "News from the Hill" updates and thus all of you should be well-informed about the status of agricultural related budget activities for 2000.
The BOA met in early May and has started conversations with various support groups regarding the 01 budget. The initial working draft for FY 01 proposed initiatives was developed and should be available to ESCOP as soon as the minutes from the BOA May meeting are distributed.
The next BOA Budget Committee meeting is scheduled for August 18, 1999.
The Advocacy and Marketing discussions have taken place with CFAR representatives from Illinois. An update on these activities may be available at the time of our meeting.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: With luck, it appears the middle of September may be when the budget is passed. Base funds and the NRI are the highest priority. The ESCOP Planning Committee will work to build the next budget for 2002. At that time, may have reassessment on how the budget is built. ESCOP needs to be at the table with ARS in budget planning; a process needs to be built that doesn't violate ARS' constraints.
Meeting Date: July 20, 1999
Agenda Item No: 2.2
Presenter: George Ham
Agenda Item Title: ESCOP S & T Committee Report
Background Information:
The ESCOP Science and Technology Committee met in Washington D.C. on May 12, 1999. Minutes of the meeting are available at http://www.escop.msstate.edu/committee/stmin599.htm.
Issues discussed include the following:
Action Taken: Dr. Ham indicated that committee members have been added in human ecology, rural sociology and economics. It would be interesting to see what program areas were developed as a result of the POWs. The next meeting is scheduled for September 27, 1999.
Meeting Date: July 20 and July 22, 1999
Agenda Item: 2.3
Presenter: D. C. Coston
Agenda Item Title: Partnership Committee
Background Information:
The Partnership Committee has committed to developing a plan for the partnership encompassing the LGU system and CSREES programs. In addition, the plan will emphasize development of collaborative efforts with other federal agencies having compatible programs. A subcommittee is preparing a background document covering rationale and historical context of the partnership that will include potential items for inclusion in the plan. The Partnership Committee plans to bring a draft of the conceptual plan to the Experiment Station Section meeting in Memphis in late September.
The Committee believes that a comprehensive marketing approach is needed for the LGU system. We encourage the Budget, Legislative, Marketing and Advocacy Committees to pursue development of strategies for enhanced marketing of our programs. An assessment of marketing approaches showing positive results would be beneficial to individual institutions as well as the system as a whole.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: Dr. Coston indicated that there are good signs on the horizon that partnership with CSREES is ongoing. The commitment is to put together a partnership plan with CSREES. The committee invited members of the program staff to talk about their purview and discuss where they have interactions with other agencies in the government and the members seemed happy to have the opportunity. If ESCOP is going to "partner" with other agencies, agriculture needs to bring something to the table. It is obvious that CSREES is a "unique animal." AESOP had prepared testimonies that went before the appropriate committees.
Meeting Date: July 20 and July 22, 1999
Agenda Item: 2.4
Presenter: Eric Young
Agenda Item Title: Planning Committee
Background Information:
Our next committee meeting will be on Tuesday, August 31 in Dallas,
Texas, close to DFW Airport from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Al Parks will be
making the local arrangements. Our first joint ESCOP/ECOP Planning meeting,
where we will decide the agenda for future joint meetings, will be on Thursday
evening, September 30 and Friday morning, October 1, immediately following
the SAES Directors' Workshop in Memphis, Tennessee. George Cooper's office
is making the arrangements for this meeting and hopefully it will be in
the same hotel as the SAES Workshop.
On May 13 and 14 I met with the ECOP Strategic Planning Committee as
the ESCOP representative. One of the topics of discussion was future joint
ESCOP/ECOP planning efforts. I summarized for them our committee's discussions
on joint planning from our March meeting. They agreed that the joint committee
should have specific goals and outcomes in mind when we meet and that we
should have an initial meeting to determine these. At the May meeting it
was proposed that both ESCOP-PC and ECOP-SPC come to the September meeting
in Memphis with at least five suggested topics for the next joint planning
session. We will then determine the format for the joint session, choose
a potential speaker(s), pre-session reading material, and how to communicate
the results. At our committee meeting on August 31 we will decide on these
potential topics for joint planning. Also, Jon Ort, incoming ECOP-SPC Co-
Chair, will attend our meeting to relay some of ECOP-SPC's thinking regarding
joint planning.
In addition, at our August 31 meeting we will discuss the priority-setting
session that will take place during the SAES Directors' Workshop. We will
develop a few high priority initiatives during that session to pass on
to the Budget, Legislative, Advocacy and Marketing Committee for consideration
in the FY 2002 budget development. The process to do this will probably
involve one or more speakers to set the stage followed by small group discussions
to generate initiatives and subsequent reports and priority setting. Also,
we will discuss how this process can become an annual cycle with input
from the whole system that routinely feeds into budget development.
Action Requested: No action needed, for information only.
Action Taken: There needs to be more back and forth between the Planning Committee and Budget Committee.
Meeting Date: July 20, 1999
Agenda Item No.: 3.1
Presenter: Colin Kaltenbach/Bob Heil
Agenda Item Title: Marketing via C-FAR
Background Information:
Revised Notes
C-FAR Meeting
June 10, 1999
Participants: David Downs, Bob Heil, Don Holt, Colin Kaltenbach,
Richard Lower, Samuel Minor, Kenneth Olson, Tim Price, Steve Pueppke, Lyle
Roberts, Ron Warfield, Kraig Wagenecht, Mike Williams and Randy Woodson
An overview and purpose for the meeting was given by Warfield and Kaltenbach
and then Wagenecht and Roberts were asked to provide the background for
CFAR which is summarized as follows:
Purpose:
Initially to get enabling legislation to support a ramping up of facilities
and people for agricultural research. User input, advocacy and accountability
is the charge for CFAR.
Participants:
Had a small working group (eight) to help plan the legislation. Don
Holt was the writer/crafter of putting all of this together
Process:
Obtained two grants ($10K and $100K) at University of Illinois for planning
from the Kellogg Foundation. A friendly, non-agricultural group was hired
as a lobbying firm. Lobbyists from all segments worked on the process but
they were coordinated by the hired lobbying firm. Took three years to get
money from the legislature. Important to get money in systematic way to
show progress and growth, rather than a large chunk at one time (too much
too fast). Have very broad-based support. Brought in dieticians, environmental
groups, sustainable agriculture, Audubon Society. Started with some "conflict
resolution" meetings to get everybody on board.
Program:
The Food and Agriculture Research Act is the title of the legislation.
Involvement of the private sector is required. The Illinois Department
of Agriculture is the pass through for the money. Money is split among
four universities with 82% going to the U of IL. Fifteen percent of the
money stays in a competitive grants pool coordinated by C-FAR. There are
five research foci and each has a working group comprised of C-FAR members.
A 5-member board of directors, and the past chairman who serves in an ex-officio
capacity, are elected by the membership. When nominees are slated for the
board, consideration is given to the board composition being representative
of the membership: traditional agriculture, sustainable, environmental
and consumer.
General Comments:
Change is something that must be instituted and then demonstrated. Encourage
collaborative approaches. Must be new money; not money transferred from
other sources for agriculture. Researchers did not fully participate early
on, but do now. Without researchers as participants, the process suffers.
Must have the buy-in by all parties. Don't listen to story that there are
no new dollars. If you are accountable and well prepared, can get new money.
Commitments to people and infrastructures are still a real concern.
Reasons for success (Holt):
Basic Requirements:
1) Must have a small dedicated group (2 to 3 people) with a fire for
truly leading and planning. Back these individuals with a committee of
12-15 including individuals such as Lyle Roberts, Ron Warfield, Tim Price,
Ken Olson.
2) Must have the money (~$150,000) up front for planning. It cannot
come from big agriculture. Must be sensitive to all players. Do not go
for the money until everything is in place and everyone convinced it must
happen. Money from Kellogg keeps everyone at the table and gives credibility
through Kellogg.
3) The big players in agriculture must be on board and ready to advocate.
Conflict resolution is key and must be given great emphasis. Need to sell
the framework to stakeholder leaders. Must have a common front for research
or splinter groups will disable the process.
4) Conflict resolution must be done at state and regional levels or
it will never work nationally.
5) Use a nontraditional lobbyist that wants to be associated newly with
agriculture.
6) Leadership for this must be outside the Land-Grant Community. Need
a "Don Holt" from the land-grant system to work in the background.
Approach:
Two options were considered, these being either a) a coalition
of national food and agricultural organizations; b) identify delegates
within each state to participate in a national organization, or
c)
some possible combination of a and b. There are pros and
cons of each approach were discussed but a consensus as to the most appropriate
was not reached.
Possible Leaders:
Joe Coffey and Martin Massengale were suggested as possible individuals
who have the ability and possibly the interest to take on such an assignment.
Issues:
What about Extension? Some felt they should be part of a new effort.
Others say bring them in slowly. General agreement was to move forward
without Extension at this point.
Next Steps:
1) Invite Joe Coffey to Chicago for discussions to determine if he is
interested in taking on this task (Illinois Farm Bureau kindly agreed to
host this visit).
2) Identify possible sources of planning money.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: This needs to start out as a research initiative and then extension needs to be involved. ESCOP needs to talk to extension and make sure they will go along with this. Colin Kaltenbach will address this issue with extension. This needs to come together with Century III and the Science Roadmap. This will be an agenda item for the SAES/ARD Directors' Workshop in September 1999.
Meeting Date: July 20, 1999
Agenda Item No: 3.2
Presenter: George Ham
Agenda Item Title: Science Roadmap Subcommittee Report
Background Information
1. The ESCOP S & T Science Roadmap for Agriculture Subcommittee
being chaired by Randy Woodson is coordinating with the Board on Agriculture
Science and Technology Policy Committee (BOA S& T) being chaired by
Daryl Lund. The charge of the BOA S & T committee was to advise BOA
and the REE Advisory Board on issues related to science and technology.
The committee is just getting underway and is still working through their
charge from the BOA. They have paid close attention to several items in
recent months: 1) report on US Science Policy authored by Vernon Ehlers
and provided a response; 2) interagency cooperation, specifically, BOA
and S & T committee has reviewed MOU's between USDA and other federal
agencies; 3) discussion of mechanism by which recommendations can be made
by lay/advisory groups serving in an advisory capacity to the federal government
related to research and science policy.
2. After reviewing the recent Vanderhoef report which recommended a
"New Initiative" for agriculture and food system research and education,
the BOA S & T Committee agreed that a "Science Roadmap" for the Agriculture
and Food System should be a high priority. Further, such a roadmap should
be bigger than research and include educational issues in order to be well
received.
3. Peter Magrath is scheduled to meet with the BOA and AH in August
specifically to discuss the Vanderhoef report and to develop an implementation
plan. Both BOA and ESCOP S & T Committees decided to wait until after
this meeting before initiating any major roadmapping activity.
4. BOA S & T committee encourages ESCOP to discuss the issue of
developing a Science Roadmap that is coordinated among the research and
educational groups in the Land Grant System.
7. Recommendation is to get a sense of where the Vanderhoef report leads the BOA S&T Committee and then develop an implementation plan in cooperation with the BOA S&T Committee shortly after the August meeting.
Action Requested: Discussion and consensus to move forward.
Action Taken: After some discussion, it was agreed that the committee needs to keep focus on the concept of the Science Roadmap. There needs to be coordination between the Board on Agriculture and the Science and Technology Committees. We need to be more aggressive; need to think long term (exclusive of the political agenda). If we wait, we may lose momentum.
ESCOP Agenda Brief
Meeting Date: July 20-22, 1999
Agenda Item: 3.3
Presenter: Ronald Pardini
Agenda Item Title: ESCOP/ECOP/ACOP Impact Assessment
Background Information:
1999 Impact/Image Enhancement Project USDA/Land-Grant University Partnership
Total Impact submissions to 1999 National Impact database: 3,337
Total 1999 Science and Education topical impact sheets: 18
Total institutional mentions in 1999 Science and Education series (approx.): 360
All states which submitted were mentioned at least once. Topics used in the 1999 sheets:
The database will be made available for public use this year, meaning it will be promoted to members of Congress, the media, and other decision-makers as a resource for information about the outcome of research and education within the land-grant system. Because of that, all entries to the database' were reviewed by at least one writer or administrator. In addition, a nation-wide distribution system, developed by Purdue University was debuted on June 15. This state-by-state project will focus on distributing the Science and Education impact sheets to decision-makers on a regular two-week schedule through out the year. States are currently being solicited for participation. Any director who would like to his/her state to participate should contact the state impact project representative (typically in the Ag. Communication office.) Purdue will coordinate this distribution process with a similar effort planned at AESOP with Terry Nipp to distribute the Science and Education series to commodity groups for use in their member communication efforts and newsletters.
The Impact 99 Science and Education series was released on June 1, 1999. If you need more copies or would like to participate in the national distribution effort, please contact:
ECOP Representative: David Foster, Arkansas
ESCOP Representative: Ron Pardini, Nevada
ACOP Representative: Marla McIntosh, Maryland
Communication Representative: Dave King, Purdue
Terry Meisenbach, Director
Communication and Information Access
CTDE/CSREES/USDA
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202-720-2677
Fax: 202-690-0289
email: tmeisenbach@reeusda.gov
The Science and Education Impact report for 1999-2000 is available on the USDA/Land-Grant University Partnership website and may be accessed at: http://www.reeusda.gov/success/impact.htm.
In addition, an overview/description of Impact is available on the Purdue University website at: http://persephone.agcom.purdue.edu/AgCom/news/NIP/nippurpose.htm
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: It was suggested that administrative advisors may
want to "brainstorm" with their committees to determine what type of impact
the committee can have. A session on writing impact statements will be
held during the SAES/ARD Directors' Workshop in September 1999.
ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF
Meeting Date: July 20, 1999
Agenda Item No.3.4
Presenter: Eldon E. Ortman
Agenda Item Title: Pest Management Strategies Subcommittee
Background Information:
Three items are occupying a significant portion of the pest management agenda:
1. Impact of the implementation of FQPA. The primary concern focuses on minor crops and the future availability of chemical controls.
2. The use of transgenics in pest control. Many of the initial GMO's were developed to resist pest or tolerate chemicals for pest control. Bt engineered corn, cotton and potatoes have been high profile in this discussion. NC-205 has provided several documents on Bt corn, refuges, etc. It has provided the "official statement" for the land grants and USDA. Members of NC-205 were prominent presenters in the Bt Workshop in Chicago, IL, on June 18, 1999 hosted jointly by EPA and USDA. EPA is relying extensively on NC-205 as they formulate their regulatory policy.
3. Regional Pest Management Centers: A New USDA/EPA Partnership. A document is attached please review and be prepared to discuss.
Action Requested: Please review the attached document and be prepared to discuss it.
Action Taken: Ortman indicated that PIAP has asked that pest management centers have new money. If no new money is found, the centers cannot be formed. Do not want to take money away from the pest management program. The Office of Pest Management has the need for information at their fingertips; the land grant universities are the providers. There is duplication between the states. Would like to see this rolled into a multistate concept.
The invasive species issue goes beyond IPM. Starting to gain some support with creating an opportunity for funding. Professional societies have been drawn into the invasive species issue. ;
Dr. Laughlin indicated that the Office of Pest Management appears to be developing their field network. Looks like "the centers" may be going way beyond pest management - need to be proactive.
Regional Pest Management Centers: A New USDA/EPA Partnership
Global markets for food, fiber and grain products demand high quality at competitive prices. American farmers and agribusiness must also satisfy consumer expectations for food safety and environmental progress; a task made more difficult by ever-increasing production costs coupled with decreasing or unstable commodity prices. Added to these contemporary challenges is the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), the most sweeping reform of national pesticide law and food safety policy in nearly 30 years.
The FQPA imposes a much more stringent, health-based standard that must be adhered to in setting pesticide residue tolerances. While the FQPA will help ensure an even higher level of confidence in the safety of the American food supply, it will also impose unprecedented challenges and uncertainty on agricultural producers, both in the short and long term. Several pesticides, including some which have been important components of integrated pest management (IPM) systems, may no longer be available because of potential public health risk stemming from one or more routes of exposure. Hence, there has never been a more critical need, nor more appropriate timing, for USDA and EPA to cooperatively provide strong support for and leadership in advancing development and adoption of biologically intensive IPM systems and component technologies.
Prevention-based, multitactic IPM systems are already in place on thousands of farms. Recent scientific advances and the healthy pace of innovation in the agricultural chemicals industry are providing pest managers with new tools and novel tactics to ensure a safe, nutritious, economical food supply for the American public, while maintaining a strong, competitive agricultural economy.
Since crops, pests, and weather patterns differ so greatly from region to region within the United States, no single national public policy, research program, or regulatory approach to pest management will be universally effective across all agricultural regions. It is also not necessary, nor an efficient use of public and private resources, for every state within similar production regions to organize and support repetitive, and often competing and duplicative, pest management program efforts. Accordingly, USDA and EPA are committed to the establishment of a network of regional pest management centers focusing on major regional cropping patterns, pests, and environmental challenges. The centers will help foster coordination in program efforts and the identification of research and education priorities. They will be responsible for advancing our ability to measure progress toward biointensive IPM and challenged to quantify the linkages between IPM and attainment of environmental quality goals. Centers will create new mechanisms to seek out and benefit from broad public participation and will use program resources to foster public-private partnerships in setting and achieving pest management and pesticide use goals.
Vision. The USDA Office of Pest Management Policy and the U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs envision the establishment of Regional Pest Management Centers based on crop production zones similar to EPA Pesticide Residue Field Trial Regions. Centers will be housed at land-grant universities or other appropriate facilities such that little new infrastructure would be required. Programmatic activities and administrative processes within the Centers will evolve from and integrate, to the full extent possible, current state-level IPM program administrative infrastructure. As the FQPA implementation process unfolds, a primary function will be to provide rapid access to information on pest challenges, IPM options, and data on pesticide use patterns. Over time, Centers will also be asked to assume expanded and new roles in the development of regulatory policy on a regional basis and in the administration of competitively awarded research and education programs.
Mission. The Centers will support the pest management needs of federal and state regulators, extension personnel, and the public through a coordinated effort at the regional level. Each Center will (A) address critical pest management needs for the crop commodities within the region, (B) develop and share national expertise in a specific cross-commodity area such as biological control, biotechnology, invasive species, precision agriculture, resistance management, or information technology, and (C) maintain an IPM measurement and reporting function to help document the attainment of IPM and environmental quality goals, and to satisfy GPRA and other program evaluation needs. Each center will provide rapid response to information requests from funding agencies and will actively promote pest management education and implementation in both agricultural and urban environments. Key Center activities will include:
1) The Pest Management Alternatives Program (PMAP), a program to develop replacement tactics and technologies for pesticides under consideration for cancellation or use restrictions by EPA. The focus of this program is primarily towards replacement of individual chemicals in a biologically intensive IPM system on a crop by crop basis;
2) Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation (CAR), a research and implementation program for several crops that face potentially severe economic constraints resulting from loss of certain pesticides through implementation of FQPA. Development of new multiple-tactic pest management strategies to help ensure economic viability and productivity of food crops will be the goal of the program; and
3) FQPA Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program for Cropping Systems (RAMP), a new approach to risk reduction with a food and grain production system focus, integrating food safety and water quality considerations as impacted by the FQPA. The program will involve the major acreage crops including corn, soybean, wheat, cotton and rice as well as the fruits and vegetables most important in the diets of infants and children. The program goal is to eliminate pesticide residues in food crops and drinking water.
Organization. Each Center will be composed of a Center Director and staff, an Advisory Board, and an Executive Committee. The Center Director and staff will be responsible for establishing center goals, assuring broad-based participation, developing budgets and securing funding, and day-to-day management of programs and activities. The Advisory Board will consist of individuals dedicated and willing to work cooperatively toward the goal of promoting adoption of IPM. Boards will include stakeholder and funding agency representatives, IPM innovators in the field, researchers and other technical experts, and consumer and environmental advocates. The Advisory Board will:
Funding. USDA and EPA are planning, on providing some basic support for Center activities. In addition, substantial other federal funds will be allocated to Centers in block grants or through cooperative agreements, to be administered by the Center at the regional level. Federal funding will come from both USDA and EPA. In addition to support from USDA and EPA, Centers will be encouraged to identify and seek out other sources of public and private sector funding to augment Center programs. Center fund-raising activities and policies will vary, but must comply with a set of principles that will be issued by the federal co-sponsors, USDA and EPA.
Center Locations. Centers would be developed in 12 regions of the United States based on similarity of cropping systems, weather patterns, pest problems and geography. These regions would be similar to the field trials regions developed by EPA for use in determining where crop residue studies should come from. The regions would not necessarily follow political boundaries such as state lines and certainly some of them would have overlapping boundaries. It will be necessary to get input from the regions before final boundaries can be defined.
ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF
Meeting Date: July 20 and July 22, 1999
Agenda Item: 3.5
Presenter: Karen S. Kubena
Program Coordinator (Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, College of Agriculture & Life Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station)
Agenda Item Title: ESCOP/ACOP Leadership Development Program: - Participation and Outcomes
Class 9 of the ESCOP/ACOP Leadership Development Program has concluded. Successful completion of Phases 1, 2, and 3 can and does result in increased effectiveness of the faculty member/researcher as a leader and as a member of the research or academic team. An overview of the program and goals of each component will be addressed.
Overheads presented at meeting:
ESCOP/ACOP Leadership Development - 500 Graduates
ESCOP/ACOP Leadership Development Program
Class 9 - 1999-2000
The ESCOP/ACOP Leadership Development Program is designed to improve management and leadership abilities of faculty and staff who are "emerging leaders" of experiment stations, colleges of agriculture, and related organizations of the future.
Originating in 1991 through the efforts of the ESCOP Leadership Development Subcommittee and co-sponsored by ACOP since 1993, the ESCOP/ACOP Leadership Development Program has provided training to eight classes each with approximately 75 members. Composition of the incoming Class 9 (n=81, 74% male, 26% female) follows:
Geographic representation*
(37 states and Samoa)
Northeastern Region 15%
North Central Region 22%
Western Region 14%
Southern Region 48%**
* No applications received from AK, CO, DE, ID, KY, MA, MT, NJ, NV,
SD, UT, VT, WV.
** Includes representation from Tuskegee, Florida A&M, and Langston
University.
Positions titles (primary)*
Professor 28%
Associate Professor 36%
Assistant Professor 7%
Administration 16%**
Extension 3%
Research 7%
USDA CSREES 3%
* Total position titles in the area: administration 26%, extension
12%, research 11%
** Associate department head, associate director experiment station,
director extension, school director, associate dean, etc.
Program length - 3 phases: 11 months (mid-July to mid-June)
Phase I - Leadership Training, Indianapolis, Indiana
Consulting firm conducts intensive training in leadership skills, utilizing methods such as case studies, team efforts, and 360-degree assessment. The latter involves data compiled prior to Phase I from supervisors, subordinates, peers, and self by participant and peer coaching during Phase I. Goal setting occurs at the end, progress for which is assessed by the consulting firm during Phase II.
Phase II - "Internship" at the Home Institution
Objectives include learning about the organization's structure and function. The mentor (dean, director, or designee) plays a key role in the conduct of this Phase. A project usually is assigned which allows application of skills learned in Phase I and "ownership" by the participant. Guidelines for Phase II and a workbook have been developed by the ESCOP/ACOP Leadership Development Program Advisory Committee.
Phase III - Washington, D.C.
The 3-day workshop involves presentations on congressional function and federal policy by representatives from stakeholders groups, congressional members and staff members, USDA administrators, and experts in the area. With the assistance of their home institutions, participants visit congressional offices to meet with representatives, senators and/or their legislative staff members. The consulting firm also conducts a workshop on mentoring. Graduation takes place at a banquet on the last day of Phase III.
Application process:
Target group: current, incoming, or potential administrators; researchers or faculty members who could provide leadership in their current positions
Deadline - April 15, 2000
Cost - $1800 plus travel, hotel, meals for Phase I and II
Applications - Available on the ESCOP home page or from Program Coordinator
Program Coordinator: Karen Kubena, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Texas A&M University, College Station
Phone: 409/845-3712
FAX: 409/845-6083
Email: k-kubena@tamu.edu
Action Requested: Continued support for the program through sponsorship of participants, mentoring participants during the program, and utilizing leadership ability of graduates
Action Taken: Encourage your state's participation!
ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF
Meeting Date: July 20, 1999
Agenda Item No: 3.6
Presenter: Julius Dasch
Agenda Item Title: NASA's Space Grant College and Fellowship
Program
Background Information:
Dr. Julius Dasch spoke to the committee regarding NASA's Space Grant College and Fellowship Program. You may contact Dr. Julius at the following address:
NASA's Space Grant/EPSCoR
Education Division
Office of Human Resources and Education
NASA Headquarters
Code FE
Washington, DC 20546
202-358-1523
202-358-3048-fax
j.dasch@hq.nasa.gov
www.nasa.gov
Overheads Dr. Dasch used for his presentation:
NASA Space Grant College and Fellowship Program
Office of Human Resources and Education
Education Division
NASA Headquarters
NASA's Strategic Enterprises
National Space Grant/EPSCoR Network
1997 Results
52 University-Based Consortia
NASA Investment $13.6 M
Participants
March 1999
A BRIDGE BETWEEN EARTH SCIENCE RESEARCH AND USER COMMUNITIES
THE SPACE GRANT EXTENSION PROJECT
Purpose
Utilize the NASA National Space Grant Program To:
To bridge the gap between NASA Earth Science, Remote Sensing and Users
New positions within State Extension Systems for Specialists with expertise in geospatial technologies.
Role of Specialist:
Three Pilot Programs in three states: Utah, Arizona and Mississippi.
Meeting Date: July 20-22, 1999
Agenda Item: 4.1
Presenter: McArthur Floyd
Agenda Item Title: 1890 Association of Research Directors Report
Background Information:
Summer Meeting of the Association of Research Directors: The Summer meeting of the Association of Research Directors was held at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, on July 6-9, 1999. This was the first time that the ARD meeting was hosted by an 1862 Land-Grant University. We are grateful for their initiative to build mutually beneficial collaborations with the 1890 Institutions. The highlights of the meeting were: visits to well known research and agricultural instruction centers at ISU and personalized partnership meetings; visit CAST; and visit to Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. at Johnston, Iowa. In addition to the research administrators from the 1890 Land-Grant Universities, officials from the CSREES, and ISU attended the meeting.
Matching Requirements for the 1890 Land-Grant Universities: According to the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act (AREERA) of 1998, there are matching fund requirements from non-federal sources for formulae funds at the 1890 Land-grant Universities. Although administrators have been working hard, it does not appear that all of thel890 land-Grant Universities will meet the matching requirements in FY2000.
The Twelfth Symposium of the Association of Research Directors: The first symposium of 1890 Association of Research Directors was held in 1976 to commemorate the United States Bicentennial. Since then, the symposium has generally been held biennially. The Twelfth Symposium of the 1890 Association of Research Directors will be held in Washington, D. C. on April 19-21,2000 to celebrate the millennium. The symposium is designed to showcase research accomplishments of the faculty and students in Food and Agricultural Sciences at the 1890 land-Grant Universities. Approximately, 500 persons are expected to attend the symposium which includes students, faculty and administrators from the 1890 land-Grant Universities, as well as persons from USDA, and private industry. We are especially inviting the 1862 Land-Grant Universities who are interested in student recruitment and research collaboration to exhibit at the symposium. Other millennium events will continue throughout the year 2000.
ARD Special Meeting in Con junction with CARET: ARD will be meeting in conjunction with the Annual CARET Meeting in early March, 2000 in Washington, D. C. and will participate in the "Ag on the Hill" exhibit.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: Officers for 2000 are: Carolyn Brooks, Chair; McArthur Floyd, Past Chair. A copy of the "Strategic Plan 1999-2004, Association of Research Directors, Inc., 1890 Research: An Indispensable Investment for the New Millennium" is available in the North Central Executive Director's Office or from either Drs. Floyd or Donald.
ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF
Meeting Date: July 20, 1999
Agenda Item No: 4.2
Presenter: Dale Vanderholm
Agenda Item Title: North Central Report
Background Information:
The North Central Regional Association held a regular meeting March 16-18, 1999 in Kansas City, Missouri and will meet again July 14, 1999 in Chicago, Illinois. A North Central "mini-land-grant" meeting was originally scheduled to be held in East Lansing, Michigan in July, but NCRA decided to meet separately and not participate in that meeting. A full North Central "mini-land-grant" meeting is being planned for Summer, 2000, with NCRA heavily involved in the program planning.
The NCRA Executive Committee participated in a conference call with representatives of North Central ECOP to discuss partnership activities at the regional level and with CSREES. Most of the discussion focused on national concerns and how to communicate these. NCRA will continue to work with North Central ECOP on integration of AES and CES as it pertains to AREERA Plans of Work, multi-state, multi-function activities, and other issues.
A survey and summary of variety release/germplasm release policies in the North Central Region was prepared by George Ham and discussed at the March NCRA meeting. Changes are occurring, but there is a lot of non-uniformity among NC AES.
The North Central Regional Research Committee (Multistate Research Committee) solicited input from NCA committees (department heads/chairs) on the North Central Regional Research Priorities approved in 1996. Input will be reviewed and the need to revise priorities will be assessed.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: The officers for 2000 are: Tom Payne, Chair; Ian Gray, Chair-Elect; and Fred Cholick, Past Chair.
ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF
Meeting Dates: July 20 and 22, 1999
Agenda Item: 4.3
Presenter: J. Scott Angle
Agenda Item Title: Regional Report- Northeast
Background Information:
Action Taken: The officers for 2000 are: John Nye, Chair; Mark Mount; Incoming Chair; and Bruce Wiersma, Past Chair.
ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF
Meeting Date: July 20 and July 22, 1999
Agenda Item: 4.4
Presenter: D. C. Coston
Agenda Item Title: Regional Reports - Southern
Background Information:
The Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors (SAAESD) will meet August 16-17 in conjunction with the Southern Region Land-Grant Conference in Baton Rouge, LA on August 14-16. The theme of the Conference's general session is Role of the Land-Grant University in Economic Development. Additional information concerning the conference program and other activities may be obtained from the Land-Grant Conference website at http://www.agctr.lsu.edu/wwwac/99landgrant/index.htm.
In addition to the general session and social events for all participants, opportunities for interaction among Experiment Station Directors and other Southern Region functions include:
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: The officers for 2000 are: Vance Watson, Chair; John Beverly, Chair-Elect; and Jerry Cherry, Past Chair.
ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF
Meeting Date: July 20 and July 22, 1999
Agenda Item: 4.5
Presenter: R. Pardini
Agenda Item Title: Regional Reports - Western
Background Information:
The mini-land grant meetings of the Western Directors was held last week in Sun Valley, Idaho. An issue that came out of the meeting was for a policy institute that deals with public land issues. The CARET group indicated there was a need to have a clearing house with lands use.
The Regional Coordination and Implementation Committee had its first meeting this summer. Still in place is RIC; turned over to RCIC the coordinating committees. The membership was broadly based: 2 directors from research, extension, academic programs, international, ARS, forest service, NAPFSC, veterinary medicine and human sciences. CARET will be added.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: Officers for 2000 are: Henry Vaus, Chair; Jim Jacobs, Chair-Elect; and Richard Heimsch; Past Chair.
ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF
Meeting Date: July 20 and 22, 1999
Agenda Item: 5.1
Presenter: D. MacKenzie
Agenda Item Title: Implementation Strategies ('98 Farm Bill)
Background Information:
The ESCOP Chair appointed a Task Force at the Committee's February 1999 meeting. The charge to the Task Force was to study the issues and to recommend approaches for the implementation of the provisions of the Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Reform Act of 1998 (a.k.a. 1998 Farm Bill).
The Task Force compiled a comprehensive list of issues that was then reduced to the nine most important items. These nine items were then supplemented with a set of plausible options, and reported back to the ESCOP Executive Committee at its April meeting.
Based on that exchange the Task Force directed its attention to developing a report for consideration at ESCOP's July 1999 meeting at Lake of the Ozarks. That final report is attached to this Agenda Brief.
As the Chair of our Task Force I want to express sincere appreciation for the many contributions of all of the members (please see Appendix 1 for the membership).
Action Requested:
The following actions were taken on the report:
Multistate Activities: A motion was made to adopt the recommendation (except for the caveat regarding the two-stage review; this depends on the region); and proposing to make the transactional process less than doing an MOU - need to make it easy. Motion was seconded; approved and carried.
Multi-Disciplinary Research: A motion was made to adopt the recommendation (would delete two-step) and that would get fields of RPAs. Motion was seconded and approved.
Integrated Activities: After discussion, this was tabled until ESCOP can sit with ECOP and have a discussion on integrated activities. A motion to discuss and develop guidelines for 204 was made. Motion was seconded. With a vote of 7 yes and 4 no; motion carried. Need to look at this for what is going to be done in five or ten years.
Peer Review: A motion was made to approve the first recommendation. The second recommendation was set aside. Motion was seconded and approved.
Stakeholder Listening: A motion was made to approve the recommendation with the following deletion: "... and not involve the regional or national associations. ...". Motion was seconded and approved.
Plans of Work: A motion was made to approve the recommendation. Motion was seconded and approved.
Accomplishments Reporting: A motion was made to approve the recommendation. Motion was seconded and approved.
Financial Reporting: After discussion, it was noted that no RPAs are assigned to the "less formal projects";there is some wrong language; the second recommendation should say the individual station project because if a director is using their administrative project, they may still have an individual station project; there is integrated work that is not accounted for. A motion was made that the ESCOP Chair refer to an appropriate group for further development on this recommendation. Motion was seconded and approved.
Assignments of Responsibilities: Two separate motion were made to approve the recommendations. The motions were seconded and approved.
Recommended Actions for ESCOP: The EDs will continue to work on the manual and open up discussion with Extension.
IMPLEMENTING THE 1998 FARM BILL
A Report to ESCOP
by the
Farm Bill Implementation Task Force
July 1999
Lake of the Ozarks
Introduction:
The Chair of the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP) appointed a Task Force at the Committee's February 1999 meeting. The charge to the Task Force was to study the issues and to recommend approaches for the implementation of the provisions of the Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Reform Act of 1998 (a.k.a. 1998 Farm Bill). The Task Force is made up of the five Executive Directors, the five chairs of the Multistate Research Committees and five representatives of the USDA's Cooperative States Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES)(1).
Approach:
The Task Force compiled a comprehensive list of issues that was then reduced to the nine most important items. These nine items were then supplemented with a set of plausible options, and reported back to the ESCOP Executive Committee at its April meeting.
Based on that exchange the Task Force directed its attention to developing a set of recommendations for presentation to ESCOP at its July 1999 meeting at Lake of the Ozarks, to discharge its responsibilities in a final report. This document constitutes that final report.
Requirements of the 1998 Farm Bill:
The 1998 Farm Bill requirements relevant to the conversion of the former Regional Research Program to the Multistate Research Program are requirements for:
Multistate Activities:
Recommendation- We recommend continuation with the Regional Research portfolios virtually unchanged, with the following exceptions:
Recommendations- We recommend that the two-step project proposal review process (suggested above) include requirements for providing information on the intentions for multi-disciplinary research efforts. We further recommend that the Director of the Current Research Information System (CRIS) be asked to prepare an annual update on the projects in the Multistate Research portfolio that qualify for claiming as multi-disciplinary efforts, based on analysis of combinations of Fields of Science and Research Problem Areas. Individual station directors could then easily verify multi-disciplinary compliance using this report.
Integrated Activities:
Recommendations- We acknowledge that considerable integrated research and extension activities have occurred, and will continue to occur, within our Land-Grant Universities. Moreover, in many cases, the institution will already have in place data retrieval systems suitable for generating reports on intra-institutional integration (e.g., joint appointments). Creating a national reporting system to capture this information does not seem justified. We therefore recommend that the Director of CRIS be requested to annually prepare a report on the Multistate Research Projects that qualify as integrated activities.
We further recommend that ESCOP seek to establish a forum with the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) to address opportunities for harmoniously identifying activities that qualify as functionally integrated.
Peer Review:
Recommendations- We recommend that ESCOP adopt a set of guidelines and performance criteria for conducting peer and merit reviews (see draft document in Appendix 2). The use of the ESCOP Peer Review Guidelines by any institution or regional association would be voluntary. The intention of this recommendation is to provide assistance to station directors, as they comply with the Farm Bill's requirements. An additional benefit would be in reducing the likelihood that any one station would adopt needlessly burdensome peer review requirements.
We further recommend that ECOP be encouraged to do likewise for merit reviews of Extension projects, especially when the project is likely/intended to include integrated activities.
Stakeholder Listening:
Recommendations- We recommend that all stakeholder listening be the responsibility of the participating station, and not involve the regional or national associations. However, we believe that the regional and national associations may have an important role to play as a clearinghouse for information useful for managing the multistate research portfolio. We therefore additionally recommend that the regional associations and the ESCOP Planning Committee be requested to assume responsibilities for annually synthesizing state-based stakeholder listening information, and providing periodic reports to the SAES System on overarching regional and national stakeholder needs.
Plans of Work:
Recommendation- We recommend that regional associations NOT engage in developing regional Plans of Work, but rather they should be encouraged to develop a regional 'Coordinated Multistate Research Framework' (see Appendix 3 for description of a framework mock-up). We envision these frameworks as serving as a 'menu' of current and possible areas of collaboration from which station directors could select Multistate projects, or initiate Multistate projects, for addressing one or more of the five national goals, consistent with their state/institutional POW, and the mission of their station. In the aggregate, the regional Coordinated Activities Frameworks would additionally facilitate interregional planning, and assist the extended membership of the SAES System in identifying opportunities for collaboration nationally. And, the collective set of Coordinated Activities Frameworks could be adopted by reference by individual Station Directors in their POW (and appended to their plan), thus greatly reducing the need for them to describe their intended Multistate research activities.
Accomplishments Reporting:
Recommendations- We recommend that the CRIS Form AD-421 be modified substantially to allow annual reporting of accomplishments by each Multistate research project. This would mean one submission by each project; not station-by-station reporting. Modifications to the AD-421 should allow detailed results reporting by project milestones and outcomes. Final project reports should focus not only on outcomes but the achievement of intended impacts as well. Participant contributions should be identified, and the information must be of sufficient value to professional writers to allow them to prepare Impact Statements.
We further recommend that the current requirements for projects to report meeting minutes and annual reports be eliminated, and replaced with encouragement(4) for the individual multistate projects to maintain a home page, perhaps with support from their sponsoring regional association's Office of the Executive Director. Association guidelines for maintaining a home page could be modeled after the home page guidelines presently used by the Southern Region.
Financial Reporting:
Recommendations- We recommend that the CRIS Form AD-419 be modified (if necessary) to permit individual station directors to annually report expenditures allocated to Multistate Research Projects. We further recommend that this information be assembled in CRIS in ways that information retrieval can efficiently extract aggregate expenditures for individual and groups of Multistate Research Projects.
We further recommend that a process be developed to allow station directors to voluntarily report expenditures against the 'less formal projects', such as coordination committees, bilateral projects and exchanges. We propose that the existing multistate administrative projects (e.g., NE-059) be adapted to permit activity by activity reporting of all multistate expenditures, some of which have here-to-fore not been captured in CRIS.
Assignment of Responsibilities:
Recommendations- We recommend adoption of the schedule of responsibility assignment as presented in Appendix 4. This schedule was carefully constructed with the advice of CSREES' Partnership Office, and has the endorsement of the Regional Executive Directors.
We further recommend that the ESCOP committee composed of the Executive Directors be given the authority for creating and maintaining a national Multistate Research Manual to offer guidance to station directors, administrative advisors, technical committees and agency representatives on the purposes, processes, procedures, and responsibilities of multistate research. The charge to the committee should specify the following desired outcomes:
The bottom line here is, some significant changes are needed to the currently slow multistate review and approval processes, as the present process gets in the way of our intentions. Would the use of pre-proposal help on this front?
We have not addressed the integration of the multistate Research management process for the 1890 and 1862 Land-Grant Universities. Should there be one manual for all Multistate Research Projects, or should the processes be kept separate?
6/17/99
Appendix 1
Farm Bill Implementation Task Force
Membership
Ted Bauer, USDA/CSREES <tbauer@reeusda.gov>
S. Benepal, VSU/1890 Director <vsuars@aol.com>
George Cooper, USDA/CSREES <gcooper@reeusda.gov>
David R. MacKenzie, Northeast Directors' Association
<dm184@umail.umd.edu>
Sam Donald, 1890 ARDs' Association <sldonald@mail.umes.edu>
Bob Heil, Western Directors' Association <wdal@lamar.colostate.edu>
Tom Helms, Southern Directors' Association <tjhelms@ra.msstate.edu>
Dick Lower, North Central Directors' Association <richard.lower@ccmail.adp.wisc.edu>
Terry Meisenbach, USDA/CSREES <tmeisenbach@reeusda.gov>
Larry Miller, USDA/CSREES <lmiller@reeusda.gov>
Phillip Roberts, W MSRC <philip.roberts@ucr.edu>
Bill Saylor, NE MSRC <bsaylor@udel.edu>
Colin Scanes, NC MSRC <cscanes@iastate.edu>
Greg Weidemann S MSRC <gweidema@comp.uark.edu>
Ted Wilson, USDA/CSREES <ewilson@reeusda.gov>
Appendix 2
Guidelines for Peer and Merit Reviews
DRAFT
Performance Standards
and
Intention: This document sets out performance standards and operational guidelines for peer and merit reviews(6) of research to be supported at State Agricultural Experiment Stations by federal formula funds. The intention of the document is to facilitate individual stations and their collective multistate activities in complying with the provisions of the federal Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. Adoption of these standards and guidelines are voluntary, and will be primarily accomplished by adoption-by-reference in individual state Plans of Work (POW).
Definition: Scientific review of an individual research project proposal is defined as the:
evaluation of the conceptual and technical soundness of an intended research activity by individuals qualified by their status in the same discipline, or a closely related field of science, to judge a project's worthiness and relevance to a set of stated program goals.
Reviewers may also be asked in some cases to assess a project proposal for its likelihood for achieving the intended objectives and the anticipated outcomes.
Scope: The topics covered by this document pertain to research project proposals that are to be sanctioned and funded as part of the federal-state partnership in agricultural research. These standards and guidelines do not apply to proposed research that is subject to peer review by competitive grant agencies, peer review of research publications, or merit review of extension activities. However, in the aggregate, all research projects sponsored by stations and the regional association adopting these guidelines will have been formally peer and merit reviewed, before the expenditure of any federal funds.
Process: Prior to the initiation of any research project (to be supported wholly or in part by federal formula funding or by a special research grant), the responsible SAES director (or, in the case of multistate projects, the administrative advisor) will call for a review of the proposed research activities. A minimum of three peer scientists (i.e., individuals qualified by their status in the same discipline, or a closely related field of science), will be asked to read and provide written comments on the proposed activities.
Terms of Reference: The terms of reference for the reviewers will focus their attention on questions of the quality of the proposed science, the technical feasibility of the research, the validity of the scientific approach, and relevance to stated programmatic goals. Additional comments may be requested on the likelihood for completing the stated objectives, the project's relevance to a station's (or a region's, or national) priorities, the degree of integration with extension (as appropriate), responsiveness to stakeholder needs, and the accuracy of any claims for multi-disciplinary and multistate collaboration.
Responsibility: All review activities for proposed station projects are the responsibility of the station's director. All review activities for a proposed multistate project are the responsibility of the project's administrative advisor. However, this responsibility may be delegated to others by the station director or the administrative advisor, respectively.
Appointment of Reviewers: Reviewers may be selected from the same campus or from another institution, at the discretion of the SAES director (or the administrative advisor), or by the person delegated this authority. In the selection of reviewers consideration may be given to the expenses associated with reviewing individual project proposals.
Additional consideration will be given to appointing reviewers who are without any apparent conflicts of interest and who are without personal or professional bias. Consideration may also be given in selecting reviewers that can protect confidential business information.
The anonymity of reviewers will not be preserved except in very special circumstances.
Documentation: Reviewers will be asked to present their findings in writing, and records of the reviewers' comments will be preserved for the life of the project, or for a period of three years in the event that a project is not initiated. Document storage will, for the most part, be electronic.
Research not Covered: Projects funded by competitively awarded grants, federal contract research projects, and federal cooperative agreements are not subject to these provisions, as they would be reviewed under other authorities.
Performance Standards: Peer review of proposed projects is expected to provide the following performance outcomes:
Appendix 3
Coordinated Multistate Research Framework
A mock-up of a "Coordinated Multistate Research Framework" can be found at:
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/NERA/workshop/RPAFramework.html
The intention of this database is to support our multistate research programs, and to facilitate development of individual state Plans of Work. State Agricultural Experiment Station adoption of this framework by reference should fulfill the requirements of the 1998 Farm Bill for describing planned multistate research activities. Additionally, some of the less formal multistate research collaborations (e.g., coordination committees) and integrated activities with extension may eventually be supported under this framework.
The content of this matrix is the current multistate research projects, classified by CRIS Research Problem Areas (RPAs) for each region. Additionally, those regional association-sponsored projects that meet the criterion of being a National Research Project (i.e., three or more regions participating) are listed under that category (NRPs), as are the current National Research Support Projects (NRSPs).
Future versions of this Framework will incorporate:
Appendix 4
Schedule of Responsibility Assignments
DRAFT
for
Implementing the 1998 Farm Bill's
Provisions for Multistate Collaborations
FEDERAL (CSREES)
ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF
Meeting Date: July 20-22, 1999
Agenda Item: 5.2
Presenter: R. D. Heil
Agenda Item Title: National Manual
Background Information:
The ESCOP Multistate Task Force is recommending the development of a "National Guidelines Manual" to replace the Regional Research Manual. The purpose of the manual is to provide guidelines for implementing the multistate research and multistate integrated research and extension requirements of AREERA. The focus of the manual is on those policies and procedures that would be standardized at the national level. These are identified in Appendix 4 of the Multistate Task Force Report to ESCOP as reported in Agenda Brief 5.1 for this meeting. A "draft" of the manual has been developed and is currently being reviewed by the Executive Directors and several AES Directors. The plan is to finalize the manual ASAP following discussion at this meeting relative to the recommendations being made by the ESCOP Multistate Task Force.
Actions Required: Information only.
Action Taken: The manual is to help implement recommendations for multistate activities; it is "a work in progress"; intent is to have a final draft in September; the EDs will meet to discuss the manual; issues to be addressed: 1) do we have one manual for the entire system? 2) have a national manual that covers the basic aspects of AREERA and allows us to establish commonalities among the regions and also have regional supplementary manuals linked to the national manual? and 3) Need input from CSREES for what the expectations are so that they can be built into the process.
Meeting Date: July 20 and July 22, 1999
Agenda Item: 5.3
Presenter: George Cooper
Agenda Item Title: CSREES Update on POW Program
Background Information:
Dr. Cooper indicated that as of Friday 48 POW plans were submitted. There seemed to be a movement toward joint submissions of the POWs. CSREES has assigned teams to review the reports. The review and comments will be sent to the states by September 15 with CSREES recommendations in time to release funds by October. There are variations on how the reports were submitted.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: None.
ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF
Meeting Date: July 20 and July 22, 1999
Agenda Item: 6.0
Presenter: Darrell Nelson
Agenda Item Title: Follow-Up on Day's Activities
Background Information:
Meeting Date: July 20, 1999
Agenda Item No: 7.1
Presenter: M. Neufville
Agenda Item Title: NASULGC Report
Council on Research Policy and Graduate Education
1999 Summer Forum
Sunday, June 27 to Wednesday, June 30
Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort, Snowbird, Utah
Draft Program Outline
Sunday, June 27
4:45-6:45 p.m. Council Executive Committee Meeting
Chair: Robert Barnhill, University of Kansas
7:00-7:45 p.m. Welcome: Robert Barnhill, University
of Kansas
University of Utah and High Technology
Introduction: Richard K. Koehn, University of Utah
Comments: Steve Jacobsen, University of Utah
7:45 p.m. Council Reception for all registrants
Monday, June 28
7:30-8:30 a.m. Board buses to University of Utah. Boxed breakfasts provided.
8:30-9:15 a.m. Information Technologies: Research
and Research Administration
University of Utah Demo: Birthplace of High Tech Computer
Graphics
Host: Richard K. Koehn, University of Utah
Group A: Presentation at the INSCC auditorium on high-speed
campus
network developments, goals, links to vBNS, Internet
II, etc.
Leader: Julio Facelli, University of Utah
Group B: Demonstration at the UU/SGI center on high
performance
computing and scientific visualization program.
Leader: Chris Johnson, University of Utah
9:15-10:00 a.m. Groups A & B switch and the programs are repeated.
10:00-10:15 Break
10:15-11:15 a.m. Federal Information Technology Issues
During the Summer Forum we will discuss federal research support in general and for IT in particular. A useful document for the former is "Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National Science Policy"- House Science Committee (http://www.house.gov/science/science_policv_report.htm). For federal IT information see: "President's Information Technology Advisory Committee Report to the President" (http://www.ccic.gov/ac/report); "National Policy Guidelines for Advanced Networking to Support the Mission of American Universities in the 215' Century" - AAAS EPSCOR Conference (http://www.aaas.ore/Presidents). We will invite discussion on the import of the federal initiatives on NASULGC universities. We hope you will be able to review these reports before the meeting.
Moderator: Robert Barnhill, University of Kansas
Speaker: Joe Thompson, Mississippi State University, Member of President's Information Technology Advisory Committee
11:15 a.m.-12:15 p.m. National Issues and NASULGC's Role
Moderator: Mark Brenner, Indiana University-Purdue
University
Indianapolis
Speaker: C. Peter Magrath, President, NASULGC
12:30-1 :30 p.m. Lunch at the University of Utah Alumni House
1:30 p.m. Return to Snowbird by way of University of Utah Research Park
Afternoon Optional Group Excursion
Tuesday, June 29
8:00-9:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast
9:00-10:15 a.m. Recorder: Linda L. Brinkley, University of Memphis
9:00-9:45 a.m. A Better Way to Rank Graduate Programs
Comments: Hugh D. Graham, Vanderbilt University, co-author,
The
Rise of American Research Universities, 1997, Johns Hopkins Press
9:45-10:00 a.m. Evaluating Research Performance
and Program Rankings: A Case Study from Texas and the Big 12
Comments: David J. Schmidly, Texas Tech University
10:00-10:15 a.m. Faculty Productivity and Doctoral
Program Rankings
Comments: Lawrence B. Martin, University at Stony
Brook, SUNY
10:15-10:30 a.m. Break
10:30-11 :45 a.m. Recorder: Teresa A. Sullivan, University of Texas at Austin
10:30-11 :00 a.m. The Value of Reputational Rankings
of Graduate Programs
Comments: David Webster, Oklahoma State University
11:00-11:15 a.m. Identification of PeerInstitutions
Comments: Anthony Boccanfuso, PricewaterhouseCoopers,
formerly Dean, Graduate School, Bowling Green State University
11: 15-11 :30 a.m. Outcomes Measures for Doctoral
Programs in the Biomedical Sciences
Comments: Joan F. Lorden, University of Alabama at
Birmingham
11:30-11 :45 a.m. Plans for the Next NRC Study of
Research Doctorate Programs
Comments: Charlotte Kuh, National Research Council
Noon -1:15 p.m. Luncheon Roundtables on Ranking
Graduate and Research Programs
(to address issues of taxonomy, data to collect,
etc.)
Biomedical Sciences Facilitator: Robert C. Gesteland,
University of Cincinnati
Engineering and Applied Sciences Facilitator: Michael
D. Devine, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Humanities and Arts Facilitator: Frederick W. Byron,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Life Sciences: Facilitator: Gordhan L. Patel, University
of Georgia
Physical Sciences and Mathematics: Facilitator: George
E.Walker, Indiana University
Social Sciences: Facilitator: Bianca L. Bernstein,
Arizona State University
Additional Roundtables: Facilitators: Robert Smith,
University of Connecticut Vivian A. Vidoli, California State University,
Fresno
1:30 - 2:45 p.m. The Entrepreneurial University:
Opportunities and Barriers to
Technology Transfer and New Business Formation
Moderator: Rodney A. Erickson, The Pennsylvania State
University
Panelists: David N. Allen, Ohio State University
Peter Gerity, Utah State University
Richard K. Koehn, University of Utah
Robert C. Miller, University of Washington
2:45-3:00 p.m. Break
3:00-4:15 p.m. Federal Research Issues
Discussion Leaders: Robert Barnhill, University of
Kansas Richard L. Harpel, University of Colorado
George E. Walker, Indiana University
6:00 p.m. Council Reception and Dinner. All registrants welcome.
Wednesday, June 30
7:00-8:00 a.m. Breakfast
8:00-9:00 a.m. Ups and Downs in Graduate Education:
Right-sizing Graduate Programs
Discussion Leaders: Bianca L. Bernstein, Arizona State
University
Earl Lewis, University of Michigan
9:00-10:00 a.m. Well-being of Post Does and
Grad Students
Discussion Leader: Teresa A. Sullivan, University
of Texas at Austin
10:00-10:15 a.m. Break :
10:15-11 :15 a.m. Discussion of New Models for
Ranking Graduate Education and Research
Participants will begin the drafting process for white
paper to make recommendations to the NRC.
Moderators: Joan F. Lorden, University of Alabama
at Birmingham
Lawrence B. Martin, University at Stony Brook, SUNY
11:15a.m.-12:30 p.m. CRPGE Business Meeting and Wrap
Up
Chair: Robert Barnhill, University of Kansas
12:30 p.m. Adjourn
AASCU/NASULGC FEDERAL AND STATE ISSUES LIST
May 1999
Higher Education Act Reauthorization: Negotiated Rulemaking
(AASCU/NASULGC)
Negotiators for NASULGC: Nancy Coolidge, Karen Fooks, Jerry Roschwalb
Negotiators for AASCU: Ed Elmendorf, Patricia Smith
Team I: Lender and Guaranty Agency Issues
Team II: Loan issues
Team III: Refunds, program and student eligibility issues
Team IV: Institutional eligibility issues
FY 2000 Appropriations
Student Aid (AASCU/Alliance Lead)
NIH, NSF, NASA, DOD, DOE, EPA, NOAA, NEH, NEA
Direct Lending (AASCU lead)
Competition causing attrition in direct lending
Tax Issues
Higher Education Reporting Relief Act (AASCU Lead)
Section 127 (AASCU/NASULGC)
Student Loan Interest Deduction (AASCU/NASULGC)
Prepaid tuition (AASCU/NASULGC)
R&D Tax Credit (NASULGC lead)
Information Technology, Telecom, and Intellectual Property Issues
Copyright and Intellectual Property, and Database Protection (NASULGC Lead)
Next Generation Internet/Internet 2 (NASULGC Lead)
IT2 (AASCU/NASULGC)
Telecommunications-last mile, rural and non-internet2 connectivity
(AASCU/NASULGC)
Teacher Education
NCES Consultative Committee (AASCU)
AASCU Teacher Education Reform Report (AASCU)
Multi-association accountability project (AASCU)
Agriculture (AASCU/NASULGC)
Urban and Metropolitan (AASCU/NASULGC)
FY 2000 Appropriations for Urban Community Service and Community Outreach
Partnership Centers
AASCU/NASULGC Commissions meeting May, 1999
Outreach to national urban and metropolitan organizations
Other Policy Issues
Immigration: CIPRUS (NASULGC Lead)
Medicare/Health Issues (NASULGC Lead)
Welfare Reform (AASCU/NASULGC)
IPEDS Redesign and Reform (AASCU Lead)
Postsecondary Standards Council (AASCU Lead)
State Issues
Prepaid tuition and savings plans development in states (AASCU lead)
Community College and Baccalaureate degrees (AASCU lead)
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: A meeting will be held August 18 with the BOA and AHS Executive Committees to discuss the budget situation and on-going matters. NASULGC is in the process of sending a letter or a brief proposal to the Kellogg Foundation to solicit funding to launch an educational effort with NIH, NSF, etc., on the importance of food safety. If you have any suggestions, please forward to NASULGC.
ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF
Meeting Date: July 20, 1999
Agenda Item No: 7.3
Presenter: W. J. Walla
Agenda Item Title: ECOP Report
Dr. Walla indicated that ECOP is appreciative of Dr. Kaltenbach's presence at that meeting. It was suggested that ECOP appoint a representative who is not on the ECOP Executive Committee so they can participate in the full meeting of ESCOP. ECOP appreciates ESCOP's agenda briefs. Need to keep the relationship between ECOP and ESCOP on-going. With the farm crisis issue, need to be sensitive to the issue. ECOP and ESCOP need to invest time and effort as they look at the long-term issues. Agriculture will be substantially changed in the next 10 to 15 years. Funding/budget is and will continue to be a critical issue. Extension has an opportunity to work with ESCOP at the rural development issues in a parallel track - may want to support one another in these areas. Need to work together; interdependency is very important.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: ECOP would like suggestions from CARET on how to help with the farm crisis. Would like ECOP/ESCOP/CARET to get together and develop some plans.
ESCOP Agenda Brief
Meeting Date: July 22, 1999
Agenda Item: 7.4
Presenter: Tim Schilling,
ICOP
Agenda Item Title: International
Agriculture Update
1. FY 00 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill
On June 28, the Senate passed FY 2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill by a vote of 97-2. Draft language in bill includes a request for $500 million for international agriculture and of that $34 million for the CRSPs, which represents a doubling of current funding levels. The same language was included in the House Sub-committee on Foreign Operations appropriations bill but will be more difficult to pass since total Foreign Ops is significantly less than what Senate included in its bill. The new language included for increased international agriculture was the result of the letter writing campaign by the University Community to their Senate and Congressional delegations.
2. USDA and GASEPA
GASEPA, Globalizing Agricultural Science and Education Programs for America, has developed an agenda intended to help position U.S. agriculture to continue to be a major contributor to global food security in the post-Cold War era Dimensions include Human Resource Development, global environmental issues, global market creation and increased participation in global markets. First major initiative was to get GASEPA authorized by congress which was accomplished in 1998 however no appropriations were made by congress for the implementation of GASEPA's agenda. This year GASEPA worked on developing a congressional appropriation for a competitive grants program through the GASEPA initiative for FY00. Senate mark-up did not include an appropriation but reasons are not well understood. OMB's Noah and Goldberg felt that maybe the request was so small that they overlooked it. This is disappointing since a competitive grants program through USDA/CREES was a component of the request and would have positively impacted University research. In addition, early appropriation failures have a historically poor record of succeeding later on. Nevertheless, AESOP -feels like we have a good chance to secure appropriations next year if we are well prepared. They suggest that we should develop a one pager clearly showing the importance at potential impact of the program and be specific on where the program should be funded from. i.e. the 401 account, the 406 account, etc.?
3. Title XII Legislation
Title XII (The Famine Prevention and Freedom from Hunger Act) was passed in 1975 and authorized U. S. Land Grant University engagement in foreign assistance as a partner to USAID. Many projects in International Agricultural Development and Research were funded under the Title XII legislation including all the CRSPs. In recent years, Title XII has lost its "punch" as a conduit for development assistance. A comment by one USAID official that the reason Universities were seeing a decrease in funding in international agricultural research was that the authorizing language was out of date. When this matter was brought to the attention of an ad hoc university working group on international agriculture, Bobby Moser asked Ed Price to lead an effort with Dave Sammons to re-write Title XII. Over two years, the process involved much interaction with USAID staff, ICOP and ESCOP members. Draft legislation was reviewed by BIFAD at its latest three meetings and final changes were made in April of 1999. Republican Representative Kevin Brady of Texas agreed to introduce the bill to reauthorized Title XII but wanted it to be co-sponsored by a democrat and chose Jim Davis of Florida who expressed interest in co-sponsorship.` Events in Kosovo disrupted momentum and activity is expected to pick up again this fall.
4. International Agriculture Group, IAG
IAG is an informal coalition of 23 universities led by President Peter McPherson of Michigan State University. The major objective of this group is to increase funding of international agriculture and to ensure that universities receive some part of the increased funding. Efforts over past two years contributed to the modest increase in congressional appropriations seen from that of FY97. In order to be effective with congress, LOG engaged the services of Collins & Company, a Washington based consulting firm who has coordinated IAG efforts and outreach with Congress and USAID. Mr. James Bond and Ms. Dena Spilker are the Collins & Co. consultants working most closely with JAG. In a recent IAG coordinated meeting between Universities and high-level USAID officials, USAID reconfirmed its desire to review the University role in achieving AID strategic objectives in the new atmosphere where agriculture development has reappeared as a strategic objective of USAID. The USAID officials expressed a desire for specific proposals for approaches where Universities can play a key role to assist USAID meet its objectives. Suggestions were also made to better the relationship between the University community and USAID. One suggestion was to have IAG make a presentation to USAID Mission Directors preparing to leave the U.S. for their foreign posts. This suggestion was realized two weeks ago when George Wilson from N.C. State University was invited to represent the University community and give a presentation to a small group of new USAID Mission Directors in special training for their new jobs. Dr. Wilson made an excellent presentation entitled "Hidden Resources" which outlined many of the unique resources universities possess and how they can be leveraged to meet USAID objectives.
5. Partnership for Food Industry Development
USAID recently announced the creation a new CRSP-like activity intended to increase food quality and safety in developing countries. The two major components of the activity are (1) to assist LDC governments and private sector meet new WTO imposed export requirements for food quality and safety by enhancing their legal, regulatory and policy frameworks, and (2) to develop the LDC food industry by providing technology in food processing, marketing and management. The program will have a core budget of $1M per year for five years. In addition, the program will manage a "fast track" contractual vehicle for USAID missions to purchase the services of the program for specific mission related projects and problems. Mission demand for such services are stated to be overwhelming by USAID officials and the programs developed through this mechanism should more than compensate for the mediocre core funding of $1M per year. An REP will be released in the next few weeks seeking proposals from consortiums of organizations with a University as the lead. University partnerships with the U. S. private sector, USDA, EPA and FDA are strongly encouraged.
6. GREAN
Global Research on the Environment and Agricultural Nexus, GREAN has recently announced the PROCITROPICOS Collaborative Research Program which will issue requests for proposals for collaborative research between U.S. University scientists and PROCITROPICOS member scientists in four target areas including soil degradation. Scientists from GREAN Universities are encouraged to compete if interested. <grean@gnv. ifas. ufl.edu>
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: None.
ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF
Meeting Date: July 20 and
July 22, 1999
Agenda Item: 7.5
Presenter: Don Latham
Agenda Item Title: CARET
Liaison Report
Background Information:
CARET met in Washington, D.C. February 28 through March 2 for its winter lobbying sessions. While there, most CARET delegates participated in the Agriculture research reception held in the Cannon House Office Building. The reception was well received with an estimated 750 attendees.
During CARET's business meeting two motions were passed by the body. They were:
With the concurrence of the Administrative Heads Section, CARET offers its services in accessing funds from within the budgets of agencies outside of USDA.
CARET urges USDA to enhance its budget presentations and offers its services to make them more effective.
June 28 and 29 the CARET Executive Committee met in Arlington, Virginia for its summer meeting. During the meeting the Committee approved the proposed FY 2000 CARET budget with projected expenditures of $228,610 compared to the FY 1999 projected expenses of $224.600.
Plans are underway for the CARET Annual Meeting in San Francisco beginning with an Executive Committee dinner meeting on Thursday, November 4 and ending at noon on Sunday, November 7.
Noah Engelberg, the OMB program examiner for agriculture, spoke to the committee about the Federal budget process. He seemed to want help from CARET in learning more about formula funds (and their relationship to competitive grants) and other areas under our budget.
There continues to be a need for better communication between AESOP and CARET. The AHS liaison was going to take the concerns expressed in the meeting to AHS and see if things could be improved.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: During the discussion, it was brought out that the system (both extension and research) tends to be reactive rather than proactive. The research community should step forward with information they have, especially on the GMO issue - needs to have an independent unbiased voice that provides information to the policy makers.
ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF
Meeting Date: July 20 and
July 22, 1999
Agenda Item: 7.7
Presenter: Carol Meeks
Agenda Item Title: Board
on Human Sciences Update
Background Information:
The Board on Human Sciences has focused its efforts on its major goal of broadening relationships at the Federal level and working to increase partnerships and collaborations. The major activities and accomplishments are outlined below.
Action Taken: None.
Meeting Date: July 20, 1999
Agenda Item No: 7.8
Presenter: C.P. Patrick Reid,
National Policy Chair, NAPFSC
Agenda Item Title: National
Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges (NAPFSC)
Background Information:
NAPFSC has taken significant steps toward elevating the importance of educational and research programs at member universities to the health and productivity of forest resources of the nation. This past year considerable attention has been given to building stakeholder support, and to increase collaborative efforts with the National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife Programs (NAUFWP).
NAPFSC along with the Cooperative States Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) held a successful Summit in Washington, D.C. in February, that engaged stakeholders in collective deliberations focused on the role of research, education and extension in sustaining America's forests. An Executive Summary has been issued and a full report is available at
http://cafnr.missouri.edu/forcon/.
The Summit set in motion a number of high priority actions in NAPFSC's strategic plan including fostering continuous dialogue and collaboration among its members and cooperators. We have enjoined with stakeholders to develop a comprehensive plan and course of actions to provide information in response to public needs. We have expanded our constituency interactions beyond the traditional federal agencies and the forest products industries to include non-governmental organizations, representatives from forest landowner groups and others.
NAPFSC is positioned to actively pursue the development of bold new initiatives that will benefit our member institutions. The focus on non-federal forests is in line with contemporary needs as identified in the NRC report, "Forested Landscapes in Perspective: Prospects and Opportunities for Sustainable Management of America's Non-Federal Forests", published in 1998 by the National Academy of Science Press.
NAPFSC's Policy Chair, Dr. Pat Reid, is chairing a national coalition of individuals representing federal and state agencies, non-profit organizations, professional organizations, and forest landowner groups. This national coalition has identified specific goals and priority actions that need to occur over the next 3-5 years and is preparing a strategic plan for implementation.
Another initiative underway that will help fuel the efforts of the Coalition and coincides with our concern for strengthening support for NAPFSC member institutions is the preparation of a brochure "The Role of Research, Education and Extension in Sustaining America's Forest Resources-Why You Should Care". This should be completed and available by the end of this calendar year.
The document's fundamental purpose will be to inform members of the US Congress, the Executive Branch and Professionals in federal and state agencies about the critical problems facing forest owners and managers and the importance of providing support for forestry research, education and outreach. The role that such funding sources as McIntire-Stennis, Renewable Resources Extension Act, and NRI play in strengthening the capabilities of universities will be noted. This brochure is being developed with the assistance of CSREES.
Another example of an important collaboration is with the National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife Programs (NAUFWP). We have many common interests. Larry Jahn, NAUFWP Executive Director, has been a full participant in the Summit planning and follow through. Their incoming President Dr. Bruce Menzel serves on the national coalition mentioned above.
Another area in which NAPFSC has been very active is agroforestry. The development and support for agroforestry nationally has provided an excellent example of bridging between the forestry/ natural resources and agriculture disciplines. Alley cropping, riparian tree buffers, silvicultural systems for animal waste management, are illustrations of collaborative research, education and management efforts that are taking place at our institutions.
The Executive Committee has represented its members at discussions on criteria and indicators of forest sustainability that is being addressed by the USDA Forest Service and the National Association of State Foresters.
NAPFSC Executive Liaison, Ms. Terri Bates has greatly enhanced the presence of NAPFSC, particularly in the Washington, D.C. area.
Several additional efforts involving the NAPFSC membership include:
Action Taken: None.
Meeting Date: July 20 and
July 22, 1999
Agenda Item: 7.9
Presenter: D.C. Coston
Agenda Item Title: SUNEI
(State University National Environmental Initiative) Report
Background Information:
1. Current and Recent Activities:
EPA:
There is an interest in assisting EPA and NASA with their budget efforts that would directly benefit the SAES and LGU System programs. SUNEI has been working with AESOP to define an environmental portfolio that will be included in the broader Board on Agriculture (BOA) Budget. AESOP has also asked SUNEI to identify specific funding lines in agencies where the LGU System can have an impact on congressional testimony. Most recently, SUNEI representative have contacted the ESCOP and ECOP Budget chairs to discuss the concept of the Section 406 Integrated Activities account and it's impact on the water quality lines. Additionally, SUNEI has asked the Chair of the ESCOP Pest Management Subcommittee to discuss the relative priority of invasive species research activities with the ESCOP Leadership.
SUNEI will continue to strengthen and broaden the engagements with EPA and NASA and will expand partnership activities to include other agencies (e.g., DOE, EPA-OW, NRCS, and the Forest Service). We also intend to continue to dialogue with OSTP and participate in relevant USDA Remote Sensing and Weather and Climate coordinating committees.
Both EPA and NASA have requested matching funds for mutually beneficial competitive grants programs. No formal mechanism appears in place for appropriate budgeting. SUNEI will focus its efforts this year with the assistance of AESOP and the BOA Budget Committee to find creative solutions to this problem.
3. Requests for Approval of Special Activities:
SUNEI recommends to the ESCOP Partnership Committee that AESOP be enabled to more actively work with SUNEI and partner agencies on particular budget advocacy issues that would benefit our programs. Issue areas might include: water quality, carbon sequestration, invasive species, and precision agriculture/geospatial technologies.
4. Committee Membership Changes:
Mike O'Neill is replacing Ann Datko on the SUNEI Steering Committee. Dr. O'Neil has taken on the NRI responsibilities at CSREES.
Prepared by Mary-Ellen Devitt, SUNEI Project Coordinator
July 9, 1999
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: SUNEI is now functioning under the ESCOP Partnership Committee. It has been a good investment in moving forward several years ago. SUNEI would like ESCOP to endorse AESOP to work more actively with SUNEI.
Meeting Date: July 20, 1999
Agenda Item No: 8.1
Presenter: C. Laughlin/G.
Cooper
Agenda Item Title: CSREES
Report
1999 SECRETARY'S HONOR AWARDS
Program, writeups on individuals and groups, and photos taken the day of the Secretary's Honor Awards celebration are available on the CSREES web site. From the front page, click "News and Information." From there you have a choice of looking at the program, with accompanying writeups and photos taken with the Secretary and Deputy Secretary; candid photos taken at the CSREES reception; or an index of photos of individuals receiving certificates from Dr. Colien Hefferan, Acting Administrator. We hope you will enjoy this information and the photos of your colleagues and partners as they were celebrated for their exemplary work. We appreciate the work of these and other colleagues in the system for supporting research and education initiatives important to the Nation and look forward to next year's award honor awards celebrations. CSREES Contacts: Jodi Horigan (jhorigan@reeusda.gov) and Angela Simmons (asimmons@reeusda.gov)
PLANS OF WORK (POW) UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH\EXTENSION AND REFORM ACT OF 1998 (AREERA)
Plans of Work required under AREERA are due to CSREES by July 15, 1999. This deadline and guidance information was transmitted to the System via a memorandum from Colien Hefferan dated June 8, 1999. A Notice of the applicable requirements was published for comment in the Federal Register on April l9, 1999. Comments were received and reviewed, and where appropriate, were incorporated into the Final Notice.
The final guidelines for the AREERA Plan of Work were published July l, 1999, in the Federal Register. To read or to refer other there, a link to the document on the Federal Register can be found on our Agency AREERA web site at the following: URL: http://www.reeusda.gov/part/areera/
In addition to the final guidelines, the link above will take you to discussions of the planning process, the review process, and a section dealing with frequently asked questions.
Ralph Otto, Deputy for Natural Resources and Environment, has been asked to coordinate the review of the Plans of Work (CSREES). He takes over for Mitch Geasler who retired on July 2, 1999. Otto can be reached on 202-401-5877 or via e-mail: rotto@reeusda.gov
FORESTRY SUMMIT
The National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges (NAPFSC) has released the executive summary of the results from last February's Forestry Summit that was held in Washington, DC. Single copies are available by contacting the CSREES National Program Leader for Forest Management, Larry Biles 202-401-492S, or e-mail: lbiles@reeusda.gov. The results will be further reviewed with an eye toward implementation at the upcoming NAPFSC meeting in Portland, Oregon, September 9- 11, 1999.
PARTNERSHIP TO ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY IN HOUSING (PATH)
PATH is a White House initiative to bring the strengths of several Federal agencies to bear on technologies associated with housing. In addition to new products and processes for building new houses, PATH also addresses the need to retrofit more than 100 million existing homes to make them, among other things, more energy efficient. For additional information, contact Don Nelson, National Program Leader for Wood Products: 202-401-6444; e-mail: dnelson@reeusda.gov
ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE
In 1998 ECOP approved a national initiative on animal waste management and named an implementation team. This team is co-chaired by Frank Humenik, NCSU and Mary Ann Rozum of CSREES.
Over 30 states have submitted names of persons who will serve as the state animal waste management contact. These contact persons will serve as the link between CSREES and the animal waste programs in each state.
A strategic planning workshop has been planned for October 17- 19, 1999 in Kansas City, MO for invited participants from each state, representing the land grant system, commodity organizations, agencies, and environmental organizations. Each state is encouraged to bring a state team representative of key disciplines, state and county extension staff and critical stakeholders groups. The workshop will include regional planning meetings to define state strengths and needs, collaboration priorities, leadership and structure. The agenda and speakers for the workshop are in place. A web site lists the mission and goals for the initiative <http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/waste_mgmt/wmi>. The Kansas Center for Ag Resource and Environment is assisting with financial support of the workshop. NCSU has provided services for supporting the web site. CSREES has provided $15,000 for support. A draft brochure has been designed that will describe the national initiative.
A correlated conference, The Alliance for Environmental Stewardship: A Comprehensive Approach, addressing nutrients management has been partially funded by CSREES at $15,000. This conference will be held September 27-29, 1999, in St. Louis, MO. The web site is <http://www.inform.umd.edu/manurenet/workshops/workshop.htm>
For additional information, contact: Mary Ann Rozum, 202-401-4533, e-mail: Morzum@reeusda.gov, or Richard Hegg, 202-401-6550; e-mail: rhegg@reeusda.gov
FY 2000 AGRICULTURE BUDGET UPDATE
The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee marked up the FY 2000 appropriation bill on Tuesday, June 15, with the Senate Full Committee mark-up occurring on Thursday, June 17. The Senate bill provides $936.1 million for CSREES, which is $12.3 million over the FY 1999 level of $923.8 million; $11.9 million below the FY 2000 President's Budget of $948.0 million, and $25.2 million over the FY 2000 House Bill of $910.9 million.
The Agriculture Appropriations Bill has passed the Full House but has been stalled in the Senate due to debate on health related issues. Congress has adjourned for the 4th of July recess, but it is anticipated that the Senate will take up the Agriculture Appropriations Bill when they return on July 12th.
More detailed information on House and Senate action on the CSREES appropriation is available on the CSREES Budget Home Page at: http://www.reeusda.gov/budget/webfund.htm. CSREES Contact: Christina Buch (tbuch@reeuda.gov)
NAREEE ADVISORY BOARD ACTIONS
Advisory Board Schedules Northeast Listening Session: The National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board will hold a Northeast regional listening session, July 12, at the Joint Northeast Region Sections Conference in Portsmouth, NH. The listening session will engage small farmers, producers, and academia from the Northeast in panel sessions on agricultural research and education priorities and other issues of significant concern to the Northeast Region. Findings from the listening session will be presented to the full Advisory Board. Time will be available at the end of the listening session for open discussion and audience participation. The session is open to the public. Advisory Contact: Debbie Hanfman (dhantman@reeusda.gov)
TRIBAL COLLEGE REGIONAL WORKSHOPS
CSREES is sponsoring three regional workshops on establishment of tribal college working groups around issues important to these institutions. The purposes of the working groups will be to improve coordination of success stories and program techniques that are making a positive difference in the lives of Native American people, and improve effectiveness in establishing regional and multi-institutional partnerships. The Southwest regional workshop was held in Albuquerque, NM, June 7-8. The North Central regional workshop will be in St. Paul, MN, August 3-4, and the Northwest regional workshop in Pablo, MT, August 25-26. General topics at the workshops will include program successes and needs, linking programs across tribal colleges, tapping into USDA/CSREES national program leaders, using program evaluations, and building partnerships that serve the needs of Tribal Colleges. The specific topics at the workshops will vary between regions as determined by regional planning committees from the Tribal Colleges.
CSREES Contacts: Joan Gill (jgill@reeusda.gov) or Kevin Bacon (kbacon@reeusda.gov)
UPDATE Unified Federal Policy
In follow-up to the June 7, Special Alert, BLM and the Forest Service (FS) have posted detailed materials, including the text of the proposed draft strategy, for a unified policy to manage federal lands and resources through a watershed approach. Keep in mind this proposed draft may not be the version that will published in the Federal Register for public comment in early August. A unique pre-Federal Register preview period was requested by BLM and FS to allow consultation with states and counties and discussion with tribes. FS and BLM have held a series of headquarters briefings for Congress, organizations representing state governors, county officials, tribal governments and various interested stakeholder groups. Once the draft is published in the Federal Register, a formal public comment period of 90 days begins. There will be a series of national listening sessions, similar to what was done with the AFO draft strategy. To view materials and the current draft, see http://www.blm.gov and click on water or see http://www.fs/fed.us/clean/unified. CSREES Contact: Ralph Otto (rotto@reeusda.gov)
EPA RENEWABLE ENERGY WEBSITE
EPA has a new web site with information about the pollution prevention benefits of using renewable energy--solar, wind, biomass, hydro and geothermal energy. It also advises consumers how to obtain electricity from green power marketers and utilities providing green pricing options. The url is http://www.epa.gov/solar
CSREES PERSONNEL UPDATE
Dr. Robert Koopman, Deputy Administrator for Economic and Community Systems, has left CSREES to join the International Trade Commission as its Chief Economist.
Dr. Daniel Kugler, Section Leader for Processing, Engineering, and Technology in the Plant and Animal Systems unit of CSREES, has been named as interim Deputy Administrator, CSREES/ECS.
Dr. Berlie Schmidt is retiring at the end of July. Dr. Schmidt has had a distinguished career both on Land Grant campuses and in Washington, and his professional and courteous demeanor will be greatly missed. Although Berlie is an exceptional scholar and research administrator, he will be remembered most for setting high standards as a gentleman and friend. We wish Berlie and his family many, many years of enjoyable retirement.
Boyd Post and Wayne Murphey, recent NRE retirees, are both back on a part-time basis. Wayne is assisting with wood utilization grants, and selected program reviews; Boyd is serving as Forest Biologist and has been tending to McIntire-Stennis projects in the absence of a full-time forest biology NPL (this position is expected to be occupied in early July 1999; see paragraph below on Catalino Blanche).
Strickland is New Water Quality Leader. Tim Strickland, ORE soils/microbiology/water quality NPL, has assumed leadership for the NRE/CSREES water quality program. Strickland is a former program director for the NRI Competitive Grants Program Agricultural Systems program. He completed his Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of Georgia. He has been program director for the NRICGP programs on ecosystems, water quality, soils and soil biology, and the Joint Program on Terrestrial Ecology and Climate Change sponsored by the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Science Foundation. He has provided liaison to the Research, Education, and Economics Mission Area of USDA as a special assistant for Science and Technology and to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Blanche Is New Forest Biology NPL. Catalina Blanche is the new national program leader for forest biology. Blanche was a research forester and agroforestry program leader at the Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center in Booneville, AK. Previously, he was the associate director of the Urban Forestry Program at Southern University and A&M College. His PhD and Post Doctoral work were done at Mississippi State University.
The Science and Education Resources Development (SERD) unit welcomed new leadership on two fronts. In November, Dr. Hiram Larew joined CSREES-SERD as the new Director of International Programs and in May, Dr. Henry Bahn was appointed Director of Higher Education Programs.
CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES EDUCATION AND RESEARCH NETWORK -(CYFERNet) UPDATE
As part of the Children, Youth, and Families at Risk (CYFAR) national Initiative, CSREES has supported a multi-university, multi-disciplinary network of support and technical assistance to community based State Strengthening programs. As the CYFAR Initiative transitions into base programming, CSREES will continue to provide support and technical assistance through the Children, Youth, and Families Education and Research Network (CYFERNet). CYFERNet is organized into three components addressing:
CYFERNet Editors are responsible
for integrating the resources of the original five networks into the new
Web structure and will set up editorial boards to identify and review additional
resources for inclusion on the CYFERNet Web site. The CYFERNet editors
are:
Lesia Oesterreich from Iowa (Child)
- loesterr@iastate.edu
Bill Evans from Nevada (Youth) -
evans@scs.unr.edu
June Mead from New York (Parent/Family)
- jm62@cornell.edu
Susan Jakes from North Carolina
(Community) - susanjakes@ncsu.edu
NATIONAL INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL
On February 3, 1999, the President signed Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species (copy enclosed). The order establishes an Invasive Species Council co-chaired by our Departments, and including Federal agency head membership from State, Defense, Treasury, Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The inaugural meeting of the Council on July 22, 1999, from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the International Trade Center, Polaris Suite, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC.
Executive Order 13112 directs the Council to provide national leadership on invasive species and, in particular, to (1 ) oversee implementation of the order and see that Federal agency activities concerning invasive species are coordinated, complementary; cost-efficient, and effective; (2) encourage planning and action in cooperation with stakeholders; (3) develop recommendations for international cooperation in addressing invasive species, (4) develop, in consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality, guidance to Federal agencies under NEPA on prevention and control of invasive species, including the procurement, use, and maintenance of native species, (5) facilitate development of a coordinated network among agencies to document, evaluate, and monitor impacts from invasive species on the economy, the environment, and human health; (6) facilitate establishment of a coordinated, up-to-date Internet-based network facilitating access to and exchange of invasive species information; and (7) prepare and issue a national Invasive Species Management Plan by August, 2000.
We expect the first meeting to set a course for action to address these issues through consideration of the items set forth in the enclosed draft agenda. Secretary Babbitt, Department of the Interior; Secretary Glickman, Department of Agriculture; and Secretary Daley, Department of Commerce will provide opening remarks.
RELEASE OF RESEARCH DATA
Last fall one of the provisions in the FY99 Omnibus Appropriations Act directed OMB to revise Circular A- 1 10 - Uniform Administration Requirements for Grants and Agreements - to require researchers to make "all data" produced under a Federal award available to the public through the procedures established under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The proposed revision of A-110 was published in the Federal Register on February 4, 1999, with 60-day public comment period.
The revision limited the scope of the provision to apply only to data relating to published research findings that are used by the Federal Government in developing policy or rules.
OMB received over 9,000 public comments during the 60-day comment period about the proposed revision, which expressed substantive concerns on both sides of the issue.
It looks as if OMB will decide to publish a second notice of proposed revision with a 30-day public comment period.
As part of a second notice OMB would propose the kind of data to be released in the event of a FOIA request. They would also propose the form of the data to be released --- e.g., where confidential or proprietary information is involved - and the circumstances under which the date would be required.
It appears that OMB does understand the importance of the confidentiality of research data and will place limit on what's made available through FOIA requests.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
The USDA has decided to establish an Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology (ACAB). A notice was placed in the Federal Register on June 7, 1999, requesting nominations for qualified persons to serve as members of the ACAB.
You may remember that the USDA had an Office of Agricultural Biotechnology with an ABRA Agricultural Biotechnology Research Advisory Committee, that office and committee was discounted in 1996.
It is proposed that the new committee will have a broader scope giving consideration to such things as trade issues; effects of industry concentration and consolidation on farmers; intellectual property rights and grower autonomy; effect of biotechnology on small farmers; ways to maximize or encourage potential benefits of biotechnology in different agricultural sectors; and USDA's role in assuring that farmers have an array of choices for future agricultural technologies and practices.
The ACAB will consist of 25 members of whom no more than five will be Federal employees. We anticipate that members will be appointed shortly. The deadline for receiving nominations was July 7, 1999.
SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM
SERD provided leadership to help establish a new agriculture science exhibit at the Walt Disney EPCOT Center in Orlando, Florida. The exhibit, entitled "A-Maize Your Friends," tells the story of scientists unlocking the treasures inside each kernel of corn to discover a whole new world of products used every day. Opened on June 7, the exhibit will be in place through September 7, 1999. Disney is considering extending the exhibit through October 2000. CSREES and ARS provided contributions to the exhibit.
RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS INFORMATION SYSTEM (REEIS)
SERD genuinely appreciates the outstanding leadership efforts of Dr. Milo Shult, University of Arkansas, as chair of the REEIS National Steering Committee, and were very pleased with the participation at the Committee's June meeting of Dr. Walt Walla, University of Kentucky; Dr. Carl O'Connor, University of Wisconsin; and Dr. Howard Ladewig, Texas A&M, who represented extension interests in the development of reporting systems for REEIS. Also presenting was Mr. John Clemens, Clemson University, who demonstrated for the Committee the Clemson University Activities Information Management System (CO-AIMS).
Having completed a comprehensive needs assessment and documentation of system requirements, REEIS has moved from its early planning stage to preliminary design efforts. The first REEIS proof-of-concept prototype was demonstrated to the REEIS National Steering Committee at its fourth meting on June 8-9, 1999, in Washington, D.C. Successive iterations of the prototype incorporating reviewer feedback are currently undergoing evaluation. Also completed were a comprehensive review of information technology system available for use in developing REEIS and a preliminary data dictionary for five REEIS core databases. Soon to be launched is a survey of Federal agency information systems having attributes similar to those being considered for the REEIS design. Current plans are to engage Research, Education, and Economics (REE) agencies in a data modeling effort which will lay the underlying foundation for the design and development of REEIS and guide system implementation.
CRIS ENHANCEMENT
The national initiative to enhance the Current Research Information System (CRIS) has made exceptional progress during the past three years. Dr. Colin Kaltenbach (AZ) chaired the initiative and was assisted by USDA and university managers and scientists who developed recommendations to make the system more accessible and user friendly while yielding timely and relevant information. The implementation planning process engaged the Executive Directors, members of NRSP-1, numerous CSREES National Program Leaders, and program managers from USDA agencies. This team reviewed, "fine tuned," and re-tested the proposed taxonomy while continually stressing programmatic relevance. The enhanced CRIS classification, which replaces the existing classification system, is more current and user friendly and meets the expanding needs of USDA agencies, OMB, Congress, participating institutions, and other stakeholders. The revised classification system was tested several times by the Implementation Team, a sample of universities, program leaders, and the CRIS staff. Computer assistance and tutorial was developed to help facilitate use of the new CRIS classification system and is accessible through the CRIS home page. http://cristel.nal.usda.gov:8080. Contact: Larry Miller (lmiller@reeusda.gov)
SERD RESTRUCTURING
Having experienced notable program growth in the past few years, SERD's Higher Education Programs (HEP) realigned its staffing structure in order to streamline operations and enhance customer service. The new structure consist of three (3) teams: K-12 Education, headed by Dr. Kevin Bacon; Undergraduate Education, led by Dr. Jeffrey Gilmore; and Graduate Education, led by Dr. Howard Sandberg.
MARK YOUR CALENDAR
Future of American Agriculture"
The National Symposium on the Future of American Agriculture will be held August 25-27, at the Georgia Center for Continuing Education in Athens, GA. Hosted by the University of Georgia, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, the symposium will bring together experts from the Nation's leading agricultural colleges to identify and discuss the problems and challenges facing U. S. agriculture in the 2 18t Century. The results of this symposium could assist Congress in evaluating policy decisions for the next farm bill, and hopefully provide a basis for potential funding requests for research, teaching and extension programs that Congress may wish to introduce. For more information, see http://www.gactr.uga.edu or call 1-800-884-1381.
"National Extension Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Conference"
"Leading the Way Toward Sustainability: Extension in the New Millennium," the Ninth National Extension Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Conference will be held September 29-October 2, in Portland, ME. More information as it becomes available.
"Small Farm Conference"
The Second National Small Farm Conference will be held October 12-15, at the Regal Riverfront Hotel, in St. Louis, MO. For more information, see http://www.luce.lincolnu.edu/nsfc/
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: Dr. Laughlin indicated a representative from the air quality task force came forth with a proposal to ARS and CSREES to have each agency put $10 m in their budget for air quality. A meeting is scheduled in September to discuss this. The Science and Technology Committee has been working on water quality but can expand to air quality. Dr. Knipling indicated that this task force has existed since 1996. There are some CSREES special grants. May need to partner with the Department of Defense. This is also an opportunity to partner with other agencies. The program in nutritional research in CSREES is not strong. There is an opportunity to have it strengthened. CSREES is looking for an IPA. Suggested names would be appreciated. Twenty-two nominees have been submitted for the Hatch Memorial Lecture.
Meeting Date: July 22, 1999
Agenda Item No: 8.2
Presenter: Edward Knipling
Agenda Item Title: ARS Report
Background Information:
The following overheads were used by Dr. Knipling:
Agricultural Research Service Report to ESCOP
Topics
Program Bldgs. & Facilities
Current (FY 1999) 785.5 56.4
Proposed (FY 2000) 836.9 44.5
House Action 823.4 0
Senate Action 809.5 53.0
Conference Action ? ?
--
ARS Budget
Proposed FY 2000 Program Emphasis
Areas
ARS Representatives to ESCOP Committees
Scientific Peer Review
DNA Sequencers
Action Taken: None.
Meeting Date: July 20-22,
1999
Agenda Item: 9.0
Presenter: Terry Nipp
Agenda Item Title: Budget
and Washington, DC Update
Dr. Nipp gave an update on the budget scene and Washington, DC activities.
Action Taken: Chair Nelson indicated that ESCOP will address AESOP's concerns.
ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF
Meeting Date: July 22, 1999
Agenda Item No: 10.0
Presenter: Richard Lower
Agenda Item Title: Rules
of Operation Update
Background Information:
Changes in the Rules of Operation have been made in italics and bold. Since there were no changes in the appendix, this is not attached.
RULES OF OPERATION
FOR
EXPERIMENT STATION SECTION
BOARD ON AGRICULTURE
National Association of State
Universities
and
Land-Grant Colleges
Adopted November, 1998*
-----
*Developed from a merger of the "By-Laws of Experiment Station Section, Division of Agriculture" and "Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP), Purposes, Organization and Procedures"
-----
ARTICLE I - NAME
The name of this organization shall be the Experiment Station Section (ESS) (herein after called the Section), an entity of the Board on Agriculture (BOA) of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC). The Section is established in accordance with the constitution and rules of operation of NASULGC.
ARTICLE II - PURPOSE
The Section shall represent the Directors of Agricultural Experiment Stations associated with the 1862 Land-Grant Universities, including the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station at New Haven, and the directors of the Agricultural Research Stations at the 1890 Land-Grant Universities, including Tuskegee University, in their collective dealings with other units of NASULGC, agencies of the federal government, farm organizations, commodity and agricultural business groups, and the public. For purposes of these Rules of Operation, the title, Director, refers to the Chief Operating Officer of the experiment station and his/her associate or assistant directors. The will of the Section's majority for issues that are ratified by, reported to, or recommended to NASULGC, shall be conveyed to the BOA (and through the BOA chair to other officers or committees of NASULGC, as appropriate) by the Section chair. The Section shall conduct its affairs in accordance with the Rules of Operation with one vote for each member.
ARTICLE III - ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION
The individual members of the Section comprise the legislative body of the Section. An annual Section Business meeting shall be held in the fall, usually in the month of September. Interim business is handled by the five regional associations and by the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP).
State Agricultural Experiment Station (SAES) directors are organized into four geographically based associations. A fifth association is made up of the directors of the Agricultural Research Stations (ARD) of the 1890 Land-Grant Universities. These five regional associations arrange for and conduct their business independently, including the collection and disbursement of funds for purposes agreed to among the members of each association. Such funds are used for relevant association purposes, such as the employment of an Executive Director, for authorized travel of members on regional association business, and for other special purposes. These associations are autonomous, and their funds are not the responsibility of the Section, the BOA, or NASULGC, either as to program content or accountability.
The five associations elect members to ESCOP, make recommendations to ESCOP and to the Section, and respond to proposals from ESCOP and the Section.
ARTICLE IV - MEMBERSHIP
The voting membership of the Section shall consist of one representative from each of the 1862 and 1890 universities of the dues-paying member institutions of NASULGC. The Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES), United States Department of Agriculture (or his/her designee), the five EDs, and the Director of Federal Relations for Agriculture for NASULGC shall be ex-officio, non-voting members of the Section.
ARTICLE V - OFFICERS
A. The officers of the Section shall be: a chair, who also serves as chair of ESCOP, and a chair-elect, each serving one-year terms; and a representative from the Section to the Executive Committee of NASULGC appointed for a three-year term (as per the rotation in the Rules of Operation of BOA). The Section chair represents the Section to the Executive Committee of the Board on Agriculture. The one-year terms of the chair and the chair-elect shall expire at the close of the Section's business meeting. The BOA Executive Committee representative's three-year term expires at the close of the annual meeting of NASULGC in the last year of his/her term.
B. Elections. Each year at the annual business meeting of the Section, a chair-elect shall be elected. The BOA Executive Committee representative shall be elected at an annual Section meeting every third year, at the end of the term of the current representative.
Nominations for chair-elect and representative to the BOA Executive Committee shall be made to the Section for their consideration, drawing nominations from the current membership of the regional associations. Nominations of other candidates from the Section's membership may be made by Section members-at-large from the floor.
C. Duties. The chair, as the chief executive officer of the Section, assigns duties and directs the activities of all standing and technical subcommittees, appoints ad hoc committees, and communicates with the chair of the BOA, or through the chair of the BOA to other officers or committees of NASULGC. The chair is also responsible for final approval of all meeting agenda and presides at the business meetings.
The chair-elect shall serve in the absence of the chair. The chair-elect is also responsible for planning the program of the annual Section meeting. The chair-elect shall undertake such other duties as the Section chair shall direct, and shall become Section chair for the remainder of the term, should the chair resign or otherwise be unable to serve. The chair-elect shall recommend to the chair committee slates for the coming year, and notify all committee appointees prior to the annual meeting, so that the committees may meet immediately after the business meeting of the Section.
All Section officers are responsible for maintaining and then transferring to their successors complete sets of official documents and records of a continuing and directive nature. A permanent copy of all such documents also shall be made available to the NASULGC office as the official Section record.
D. Executive Committee. ESCOP serves as the executive committee of the Section (see Article VII).
ARTICLE VI - AFFILIATED GROUPS
The Section provides for interaction with other groups involved in research that is similar or complementary to the research done within the SAESs (1862) and the Agricultural Research Stations (1890) through their affiliation with the Section. Presently established affiliated groups are Board on Human Sciences, the National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges (NAPFSC), and the Board on Veterinary Medicine. NAPFSC, which includes institutions that are not members of NASULGC, is presently affiliated with the Section under a memorandum of agreement.
Other groups may become affiliated with the Section upon mutual agreement among the group or groups and the Section.
ARTICLE VII - ESCOP
ESCOP is the executive committee of the Section empowered to formulate policy and to act in behalf of the Section, subject to the will of the Section as expressed at business meetings of the Section, or through referenda conducted during the interim between business meetings. ESCOP handles continuing business and attends to organization and policy matters, oftentimes through relationships within NASULGC, with agencies of the federal government, and with farm organizations, commodity and agri-business groups that are referred to it by the Section or by the regional associations.
ESCOP shall handle continuing business, and organization and policy issues that are generated within ESCOP, or referred to ESCOP by the Section, BOA, NASULGC, or the regional associations. These issues may involve relationships within NASULGC, or with agencies of the federal government, farm organizations, or commodity and agribusiness groups.
The voting members of ESCOP shall include the chair of ESCOP (who also serves as the chair of the Section), the chair-elect of ESCOP (who also serves as the chair-elect of the Section), the immediate past chair of ESCOP, three members elected from each of the five regional associations (i.e., 15 representatives) each serving a three-year term on a staggered basis and the chairs of the ESCOP Core Committees. In addition, voting representatives (one each) shall come from the NASULGC Boards on Human Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, and one representative shall come from the NAPFSC. Each of these representatives shall serve at the pleasure of their respective associations.
Nonvoting ex-officio members and nonvoting liaison representatives are:
Ex-Officio Members
Administrator, CSREES
Chair, Budget, Legislative,
Advocacy and Marketing Committee
Chair, ESCOP Planning
Committee
Section representative to the BOA
Director of Federal Relations for
Agriculture for NASULGC
Executive Directors of the Five
Regions
Liaison Representatives (one
representative from each)
Extension Committee on Organization
and Policy (ECOP)
Academic Programs Committee on Organization
and Policy (ACOP)
International Committee on Organization
and Policy (ICOP)
Council for Agricultural Research,
Extension and Teaching (CARET)
The Officers of ESCOP shall be the chair, the immediate past chair, the executive vice-chair, and the chair-elect. The ED representing the geographic region of the ESCOP chair serves as executive vice-chair, with the prior approval and agreement of that regional association.
The positions of the Section chair and of the ESCOP chair shall be held by the same person. The positions of the Section chair-elect and of the ESCOP chair-elect shall be held by the same person.
The Duties of ESCOP Officers are:
Chair: The chair provides leadership, direction, and counsel for all activities of ESCOP in its collective relationships with: other units of NASULGC; organizations contracted to act in behalf of ESCOP (i.e., AESOP Enterprises, Ltd.); the regional associations; agencies of the federal government; farm organizations; commodity and agricultural business groups; and the public. The chair initiates action on issues of importance referred to ESCOP by the regional associations, and he/she chairs meetings of ESCOP, the ESCOP Executive Committee, and the ESCOP Chair's Advisory Subcommittee. The chair approves agendas for these meetings, assigns duties, and coordinates the activities of this committee and subcommittee. The chair, with the assistance of the executive vice chair, prepares a list of all committees and subcommittees at the close of the annual fall meeting and prepares and distributes minutes of all meetings. The chair also is responsible for maintaining communications between ESCOP and other units of NASULGC, and represents ESCOP to the BOA.
Executive Vice-Chair: The executive vice-chair performs those responsibilities delegated by the chair. Those duties have customarily included staff support service in such activities as (1) development of agendas and minutes of meetings, policy option statements, and drafts of testimony; (2) follow-up on ESCOP Committee activities and initiatives; (3) identification of possible nominees for various ESCOP Committees; and (4) continuing liaison with agencies of the federal government, farm organizations, commodity and agricultural business groups, and the public.
The executive vice-chair provides direct and continual support to the chair, monitors day-to-day activities which affect ESCOP, notifies the chair when ESCOP attention or action is appropriate, makes facility arrangements for meetings of ESCOP, and assures that the documents and materials required to conduct the business of ESCOP are available to the chair, and others as appropriate.
Chair-Elect: The ESCOP chair-elect shall serve as chair in the absence of the chair, and becomes the chair for the remainder of the term, should the chair resign or otherwise be unable to serve. The chair-elect shall assist the chair in preparation of meeting agenda, and undertake such other duties as the chair shall direct. The chair-elect is also responsible for obtaining an annual report from each committee chair.
Past Chair: The ESCOP past chair provides advice to the chair and other ESCOP officers, and chairs the ESCOP Nominations Subcommittee.
Records Maintenance and Transfer:
All officers are responsible for maintaining and transferring to their successors complete sets of official documents of a continuing and directive nature.
Meeting Times:
Three (3) meetings are scheduled for ESCOP each calendar year. They are the winter (February), summer (July) and fall (September) meetings. The fall meeting is held in conjunction with the Section Business meeting usually in September.
The chair of ESCOP has the authority to cancel trimester meetings, based on his/her best judgement. The ESCOP chair is empowered to call special meetings to consider emergency or extraordinary issues. However, issues which require action between regular meetings of ESCOP normally are handled by the Executive Committee, which may meet twice each year; once in April and once in November.
Meeting Agenda:
In advance of each meeting, the chair of ESCOP shall request members to submit items for the agenda, including any actions from the regional associations that are referred to ESCOP. The chair shall distribute the agenda to all members at least one (1) week prior to the ESCOP meeting. This may be accomplished electronically.
The chair shall actively encourage new directors to attend the September Section Business meeting.
Procedures Relative to Actions of ESCOP:
By mutual consent of its members, certain selected actions of ESCOP are handled by seeking formal approval of the NASULGC organization. Other actions are taken directly. Points of departure or issues of difference with NASULGC shall be resolved by referring to the NASULGC Rules of Operation.
Actions Requiring NASULGC Approval:
The development of the formal BOA budget request for the Section and other nonfederal affiliated research units, and entitling legislation relative to that budget, are matters requiring formal action of NASULGC. This is because the recommendations will later be considered for formal support by NASULGC. Other issues requiring formal NASULGC approval may arise from time to time. Procedures for seeking NASULGC approval are:
ESCOP's functions are accomplished principally through the work of its committees and subcommittees. To provide continuity to the committees, a committee chair and a committee chair-designate, each for two-year terms, are appointed via the ESCOP nominations process. Furthermore, to provide staff support to core committees, each is assigned an executive director from one of the five regional associations to serve as an executive vice-chair. However, this designation does not preclude an executive director from serving as a core committee's chair-designate or chair. Each core committee is authorized to form subcommittees. Such subcommittees should be appointed by the core committee's chair. Subcommittees elect their own chair. Subcommittees are temporary and function for defined periods of time, working with specific charges, and reporting to its sponsoring core committee.
ESCOP HAS FIVE CORE COMMITTEES:
ESCOP COMMITTEE I. BUDGET, LEGISLATIVE, ADVOCACY AND MARKETINGCOMMITTEE
The ESCOP Committee on Budget, Legislative, Advocacy and Marketing is charged with developing annual justifications for the federal budget process, in consultation with the BOA, AESOP Enterprises, Ltd. and others; recommending appropriate science and technology programs that are linked to multi-state and national research initiatives; providing guidance in the assessment of impacts resulting from SAES system; and leading ESCOP's advocacy efforts.
The membership of this committee is as follows:
The ESCOP Committee on Science and
Technology is charged with organizing the collection of national research
projects into a cohesive portfolio of research programs that support sustained
federal appropriations for SAES research endeavors. In this process, the
committee will link regional and national multi-state, multi-functional
and multi-disciplinary activities. Additionally, coordination of regional
and national research programs with national initiatives such as CROPS
99 and FAIR 2002 is expected.
The membership of this committee
is as follows:
The ESCOP Committee on Partnerships is charged with creating greater opportunities for agricultural research partnerships between land-grant universities and other public and private sector groups in order to address priorities and areas of focus. This is accomplished through sustained dialogue, formal and informal networks and collaboration arrangements. Traditional and nontraditional partners who have the potential for supporting the section's broad research agenda will be engaged. Emphasis should be focused on opportunities for multi-state, multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional collaborations.
The membership of this committee is as follows:
The ESCOP Committee on Planning is charged to create a forum within the land-grant university community, its partners, and stakeholders to solicit information on research issues and priorities, and incorporate them into ESS's ongoing strategic planning process. Concomitantly, the committee should develop recommendations for new research initiatives, and strategies for implementing strategic plans in ways that benefit multi-state, multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary approaches. The committee should also recommend ways to support the development of impact statements derived from the implementation of the ESS strategic plan.
The membership of this committee is as follows:
The ESCOP Executive Committee is charged to assist the chair on actions needed between regular meetings of ESCOP, including, but not limited to handling the continuing business of ESCOP and ESS; attending to all organization and policy matters with NASULGC, agencies of the federal government, farm (commodity and agribusiness) organizations and groups; assessing the goals and purposes of the organization on a continuing basis; recommending changes in the structure and organization of ESCOP to meet society's needs and the needs of the section; assuring that appropriate lines of communication are identified and effectively implemented and maintained; identifying expertise among stakeholders and within the section for possible service in various roles (e.g., advisory groups).
The membership of this committee is as follows:
The Chair's Advisory Subcommittee
meets frequently with the ESCOP chair to offer advice and counsel on current
and future problems and opportunities. The subcommittee meets at the request
of the ESCOP chair. Members are: the ESCOP chair, the ESCOP chair-elect,
the ESCOP past chair, the Executive Directors of the five regional associations,
the chairs of the ESCOP
Budget, Legislative, Advocacy
and Marketing Committee Core Committees and the President
of AESOP Enterprises, Ltd., or his/her nominee.
The Nominations Subcommittee shall annually submit nominations for the chair and chair-elect from the present membership of ESCOP. All nominations shall be submitted and the election held during the last meeting of ESCOP, prior to the annual Section meeting held in the fall. The terms of office shall commence and expire at the close of the regular Section business meeting. These terms of office shall be for one year, except that the chair and the chair-elect may be elected to serve a second term. The Nominations Subcommittee also submits nominations for ESCOP Committee chairs to be appointed at the time of the annual Section meeting. The chairs of ESCOP Committees are to be selected on the basis of their ability and willingness to serve, without regard to rotation by region, or by seniority of service on the subcommittee. Nominations Subcommittee members are: the chair, who is the immediate past chair of ESCOP plus five senior representatives of the regional associations, all appointed by the chair of ESCOP.
The Resolutions Subcommittee prepares and introduces proposed resolutions to ESCOP and the Section. Members of the subcommittee are a chair and three additional ESCOP members, appointed for one-year terms by the chair of ESCOP.
ESCOP-ACOP Leadership Development Subcommittee has the responsibility of conducting leadership development programs designed for scientists in the system who have potential for and interest in positions of leadership. This subcommittee also looks for opportunities to merge ESCOP-ACOP leadership development activities with others. Members are appointed by the chair of ESCOP.
ESCOP PUBLICATIONS
Proposals to prepare publications by ESCOP, its committees and subcommittees, or any special group representing ESCOP, should be submitted to the chair of ESCOP and be approved by ESCOP in advance of preparation. The procedures for undertaking an ESCOP publication are outlined in Appendix A.
ESCOP COMMITTEE REPORTS
In order to facilitate ESCOP committee reports and requests for approval for planning activities, the following annual timetable is established:
AUGUST 1 ESCOP chair-elect requests an annual report from each committee chair. The reports will include:
SEPTEMBER 1 Committee reports are made available to Section members for the fall meeting of the Section.
The annual committee reports shall include (as applicable to each committee) information on: (1) the committee's previous year actions and activities, including those of any subcommittee of the committee; (2) the committee's plans for the next year, vis-a-vis the committee's charge; (3) specific requests for ESCOP or Section approval of committee actions or recommendations; and (4) suggestions concerning the committee's future. These reports will be recorded in the ESCOP minutes.
ESCOP REPRESENTATION TO OTHER GROUPS
ESCOP provides representatives to a variety of other committees, agencies, associations, and organizations. Representatives are appointed by the chair of ESCOP. These appointments include: ICOP (R-2), ECOP (R-4), ACOP (R-5), CARET (R-6), National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program Steering Committee (R-7), AOSCA Advisory Committee (R-8), USDA Plant Variety Protection Advisory Board (R-9), NACD Conservation, Research and Technology Committee (R-11), NAPFSC Executive Committee (R-12), NAPFSC Research Committee (R-13), ECOP Strategic Planning (R-17), Food and Agricultural Education Information System (FAEIS) Advisory Council (R-19), USDA Gypsy Moth Working Group (R-20), Planning Committee for Lay Leaders Seminar (R-21), National Pesticide Information Retrieval System (NPIRS) Advisory Council (R-22), National Extension Leadership Development Program (R-23), National Genetic Resources Program (R-24), National Cattlemen's Association (R-25), NASULGC Board on Agriculture (ESCOP Liaison) (R-26), Grazing Lands Conservation Task Force (R-27).
ARTICLE VIII - QUORUM
For purposes of doing business of the Section or of ESCOP, a quorum shall consist of a majority of the duly constituted voting membership at any officially called meeting for which written notice and agenda are sent out at least one week in advance of the meeting. A simple majority resolves all issues except amendments to the Rules of Operation and on questions on financial assessments, which shall require a two-thirds majority of those voting.
ARTICLE IX - PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY
The emphasis in all Section and ESCOP meetings shall be on orderly process to achieve an objective decision by those present and voting. Should there be a parliamentary challenge it shall be answered by referring to the most current edition of Roberts' Rules of Order.
ARTICLE X - AMENDMENT TO RULES OF OPERATION
These rules of operation may be amended at any business meeting of the Section provided the proposed amendment has been mailed, electronically or hard copy, to all members at least one month in advance of the annual meeting, and the question is passed by a two-thirds majority of the voting members present at the meeting.
ARTICLE XI - ASSESSMENTS
Assessments that are invoiced through NASULGC shall annually be a singular annual request, and an orderly process conducted in accordance with the following schedule:
Action Taken: The changes were approved. Will be put on the web for approval at the Experiment Station Section meeting in September.
7/99
ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF
Meeting Date: July 22, 1999
Agenda Item No: 10.1
Presenter: Dan Rossi
Agenda Item Title: Nominations
Report
Background Information:
Chair: Richard Jones
Chair-Elect: McArthur Floyd
There was no action on the membership
of the Core Committees (two-year terms).
Executive Vice Chair: Tom Helms
(during Jones era)
Executive Vice Chair: Sam Donald
(during Floyd era)
Action Requested: Approval of membership.
Action Taken: Action will be taken at the Experiment Station Section meeting in September.
ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF
Meeting Date: July 20 and
22, 1999
Agenda Item: 11.1
Presenter: Darrell W. Nelson
Agenda Item Title: Global
Consortium of Agricultural Universities Meeting.
July 22-24, 1999 - Amsterdam
Background Information:
The NASULGC Board on Agriculture (BOA) is participating in the Global Consortium of Agricultural Universities (GCAU) meeting on July 22-24, 1999 in Amsterdam. Following the GCAU meeting, BOA representatives will meet with the European Inter-University Council on Agriculture (ICA) to discuss topics of mutual interest and develop plans for joint activities in future years. ESCOP will be represented at the meetings by Darrell Nelson and Richard Jones.
Action Required: Information only.
Action Taken: None.
Meeting Date: July 20 and
22, 1999
Agenda Item: 11.1a
Presenter: David R. MacKenzie
Agenda Item Title: GCAU Potential
Follow-up
Background Information:
An international conference entitled "Leadership for Higher Education in Agriculture" is to be held in Amsterdam July 22 to 24, 1999. The conference is being sponsored by the Global Consortium of Agricultural Universities (GCAU). The purpose of the conference is to examine case studies of institutional reform. An additional expectation from individuals planning to attend the conference is for the creation of networks of potential collaborators.
To follow on this theme I have been in contact with my European counterpart, Dr Willem van Vuure, who is the administrator of European Community's collaborative research projects. We are both interested in exploring opportunities for a post conference follow-up. The following is a portion of text from a June 10 e-mail message from Willem which stated:
I recently discussed the outcome of our talks in Beijing with respect to US-European partnership [with my boss Cees Karssen]. Your clarification about the linkage of NERA and four other U.S. regional networks, being parts of the Land Grant System, and the genuine university character of the networks, was very helpful. Cees agrees with our conclusion that it would be worthwhile that you and your 4 colleagues from the other networks will come to Europe to discuss mutual cooperation. This would be in the context of ICA, the Inter-University Council of Agriculture and Related Universities in Europe. Your group could perhaps first come to Wageningen, and visit also some other European universities. We could jointly develop a visiting program. The suggested period is either in the middle of October or late November/early December. Please let me know what your preferences are. (original text edited by DRM)
I am seeking input on approaches and expressions of interests in following up on this activity.
Action Requested: An endorsement by ESCOP to organize a series of exchanges over the next few years exploring the establishment of stronger research ties with EC institution networks and with the GCAU.
Action Taken: All regions have expressed interest to start working with their European counterparts.
ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF
Meeting Date: July 22, 1999
Agenda Item: 11.2
Presenter: Thomas J. Helms
and Richard L. Lower
Agenda Item Title: September
1999 ESS, SAES-ARD Directors' Workshop Regional Associations and ESCOP
Executive Committee Meetings
Background Information:
The ESS Meeting, the SAES-ARD Directors' Workshop and regional association meetings are scheduled for September 28-30, 1999, in Memphis, Tennessee at the Memphis Marriott Downtown. A tentative schedule is as follows:
Tuesday, September 28
8:00 a.m. - noon -- ESS Meeting
12:00 -1:00 p.m. -- Lunch for all
participants 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. -- SAES-ARD Workshop
6:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. -- Dinner
with a speaker (? new CSREES Administrator?)
Wednesday, September 29
8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. -- SAES-ARD
Workshop continues
Thursday, September 30
8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.-- SAES-ARD
Workshop wrap up
10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. -- Regional
Association Meetings (working lunch served) 2:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. -- ESCOP
Executive Committee meeting
Continental breakfasts and lunches each day and dinner Tuesday night will be included in the registration fee. We have a negotiated lodging rate with the hotel for $105/night and are guaranteeing 100 rooms each night (9/27, 9/28, and 9/29). The hotel is offering a cut off date of September 6.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: None.
ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF
Meeting Date: July 20 and
22, 1999
Agenda Item: 12.0
Presenter: Darrell W. Nelson
Agenda Item Title: Review
and Wrap-up
2 We do not recommend the changing of names of the regional association or state memberships in the regional associations, as this does not appear to be the intention of Congress.
3 The suggestion here is to use a pre-proposal step to look at "goodness of fit" to the purposes and priorities of Multistate research activities. Priorities evaluation might include: the topic's importance; stakeholder need; technical feasibility; and likely impacts. Statements on meeting the purposes of multistate research might include the intended degree of multi-disciplinarity, the extent of functional integration, the number of participating institutions, and other measures. Once a pre-proposal has been approved for development the full proposal would set out the plan of activities, outputs, outcomes and milestones over the project's intended duration.
4 Opinions differ on whether to recommend voluntary reporting or required reporting of a project's meeting minutes and annual reports via a project's home page. This might be best left to the decision of the regional association, or simply not addressed by these processes. Nevertheless, strong arguments for reducing the burdens of project reporting have been considered sympathetically by this Task Force.
5 "The Guidelines for State Plans of Work for Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds" [FR Vol. 64 No.74 page 19247, April 19, 1999] states that "Merit Review. Effective October 1, 1999, each 1862 land-grant institution and 1890 land-grant institution must establish a process for merit review in order to obtain agricultural research or extension formula funds." Merit review is defined on page 19246 as " an evaluation whereby the quality and relevance to program goals are assessed."
6 "The Guidelines for State Plans of Work for Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds" [FR Vol. 64 No.74 page 19247, April 19, 1999] states that "Scientific Peer Review. A scientific peer review is required for all research funded under the Hatch Act of 1887 Multistate Research Fund. For such research, this scientific peer review will satisfy the merit review requirements specified above." Scientific peer review is defined on page 19246 as " an evaluation performed by experts with scientific knowledge and technical skills to conduct the proposed work whereby the technical quality and relevance to program goals are assessed."
7 Note: One AD-421 would be submitted by the Multistate Project, thus relieving each individual Experiment Station from this annual task.
[END]