ESCOP MEETING

• Agenda Item 1. - Vote: Approved agenda with the following additional items: AHS Structure Task Force (Item #39); AHS Articulation Task Force (Item #40); AHS Budget and Advocacy Task Force (Item #3a); Coalition for Sustaining America's Nonfederal Forests (Item #41); Plan of Work Advisory Committee (Item #21a); and Social Science Subcommittee (Item #27a). Minutes and interim actions were approved.
• Agenda Item 6. -
  • Refer reconstitution of Food Safety Subcommittee and Science Roadmap Subcommittee to the Chair's Advisory Committee.
  • Refer Food Safety Task Force's "Action Steps" to the joint ECOP-ESCOP Planning Committee.
• Agenda Item 7. -
  • Mike Burke is to give David MacKenzie a contact name for UIC.
  • Refer reformation of Ag Biotech Task Force to a Subcommittee to the Chair's Advisory Committee.
• Agenda Item 8. -
  • Vote: ESCOP endorsed a task force to be the "think-tank" to determine the direction for the Agriculture and Environment Initiative (SUNEI replacement). [ESCOP members named: Jerry Arkin, Lee Sommers, Eldon Ortman]
  • Vote: Endorsed resolution of appreciation for Jerry Arkin's leadership of SUNEI.
• Agenda Item 18. - Vote: ESCOP endorsed national, stakeholder driven, C-FAR concept.
• Agenda Item 19. - Vote: Accepted proposed By-Laws changes for presentation to ESS in September for final vote.
• Agenda Item 20. - Vote: Approved new procedure for NRSP budget requests.
• Agenda Item 22. - Vote: Approved reformation/reactivation of ESCOP Research Coordinating Committee.
• Agenda Item 35. - Vote: Accepted slate of officers for presentation at ESS meeting.
• Agenda Item 39. - Vote: Approved ad-hoc response team for AHS Restructure activity. [Members named: Dick Heimsch, Ronnie Coffman, Charley Scifres, McArthur Floyd]

Background: Items for consideration are:

1) Additions to and approval of the agenda;

2) Minutes from the previous meeting on February 15-16, 2000 (See http://www.escop.msstate.edu/minutes/min2-00.htm).

3) Interim actions taken by the Chair and Executive Vice-Chair are as follows:

• February 3, 2000 - An e-mail was sent to 1862 State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors and 1890 Research Directors, requesting names of nominees to ECOP/ESCOP Food Safety Subcommittee
• February 7, 2000 - An e-mail was sent to ESCOP Chair’s Advisory Committee and Dr. Rodney Foil, confirming February 9 conference call to discuss Section 401.
• February 18, 2000 - Thank you letters were sent to members of the Agricultural Biotechnology Task Force.
• March 9, 2000 - An e-mail was sent to Dr. Ken Frey, confirming assistance from ESCOP for implementing the activities identified in Priority II-Public-private sector cooperation on plant breeding R & D.
• March 15, 2000 - A letter was sent from Donald M. Edwards, Chair, ACOP, and Richard L. Jones, Chair, ESCOP, to Directors, Deans and Administrators to recruit candidates for Class 10 of ESCOP/ACOP Leadership Development Program.
• March 17, 2000 - An e-mail was sent from Dan Godfrey, Chair, ECOP, and Richard Jones, Chair, ESCOP to nominees of the ECOP/ESCOP Food Safety Subcommittee, requesting they serve on the subcommittee.
• March 21, 2000 - An e-mail was sent from Dan Godfrey, Chair, ECOP, and Richard Jones, Chair, ESCOP, to Food Safety Subcommittee Members to report that Daryl Lund will serve as Chair and Dave MacKenzie will serve as Vice-Chair of the Food Safety Subcommittee.
• March 22, 2000 - A letter was sent to nominees of the Genomics Initiative Steering Committee, requesting they serve as members of the Steering Committee.
• April 6, 2000 - An e-mail was sent to Dan Godfrey concerning replacing the Farm Crisis Task Force.
• May 5, 2000 - An e-mail was sent to Charles W. Laughlin, requesting revision of CSREES allocation process for total Hatch funds allocated to each individual Agricultural Experiment Station.
• May 15, 2000 - An e-mail was sent to 1862 State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors and 1890 Research Directors, requesting nominations to ECOP/ESCOP Farm Crisis and Rural Communities Task Force.
• May 19, 2000 - An e-mail was sent to Dr. LeRoy A. Daugherty, thanking him for his willingness to serve as a member of the ESCOP/ACOP Leadership Development Program Advisory Committee.
• May 19, 2000 - An e-mail was sent to Dr. Anthony M. Shelton, thanking him for his willingness to serve as a member of the ESCOP/ACOP Leadership Development Program Advisory Committee.
• May 22, 2000 - An e-mail was sent to Dr. Robert Tynan, USDA/FSIS Hearing Clerk, with comments from joint ESCOP/ESCOP Food Safety Task Force to the January 2000 draft of the Preliminary Food Safety Strategic Plan.
• May 26, 2000 - An e-mail was sent to Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA, nominating Dr. Eldon E. Ortman for membership on the EPA-USDA Committee to Advise on Reassesment and Transition.
• May 26, 2000 - An e-mail was sent to Mr. Ron Warfield, President, Illinois Farm Bureau, expressing cooperation and support for a stakeholder driven, national C-FAR type initiative.
• June 14, 2000 - An e-mail was sent to Dr. Charles Laughlin, concerning talking points on the three CSREES-related GMO Task Force recommendations.
• June 23, 2000 - An e-mail was sent to Dr. Ian L. Maw, requesting his participation as a panelist on the BOA Program Session on November 13.
• June 23, 2000 - An e-mail was sent to Dr. Jim Mortensen, requesting his participation as a panelist on the BOA Program Session on November 13.
• June 23, 2000 - Letters were sent to the Joint ESCOP-ECOP Task Force on Food Safety, in appreciation for their service as members of the task force.
• June 13, 2000 - A fax was sent to Dr. Mort Neufville, as approval by ESCOP for additional funding from reserve funds held at NASULGC to cover additional expenses at July 19 Fly-In, Washington, DC.
• July 6, 2000 - Letters of appreciation were sent to the members of the Food Safety Task Force.
• July 12, 2000 - An e-mail was sent from Richard Jones, Chair, ESCOP, and Daniel Godfrey, Chair, ECOP to nominees of ECOP/ESCOP Rural Communities and Farm Crisis Task Force, requesting they serve on the task force.
• July 19, 2000 - An e-mail was sent to Dr. Mort Neufville, recommending Drs. Daryl Lund and Gerald Klonglan serve on the Human Subjects in Research Committee. (Note: Dr. Lund was selected to serve on the committee).
• July 21, 2000 - An e-mail was sent to ESCOP Social Science Subcommittee members, requesting that they serve on the subcommittee.
• July 26, 2000 - Appointed the "Value-Added Ad-hoc Task Force" comprised of Charles Scifres (Chair), John Nye, Richard Heimsch, Eldon Ortman, and Sunil Pancholy.

Action Requested: Approval of agenda, minutes, and interim actions.

Action Taken: Minutes and interim actions were approved. Agenda was approved with the following additional items:

• AHS Structure Task Force (Item #38a)
• AHS Budget and Advocacy Task Force (Item #3a)
• Coalition for Sustaining America's Nonfederal Forests (Item #38b)
• Plan of Work Task Force (Item #21a)
• Social Science Subcommittee (Item #27a)

Background: The Marketing and Advocacy Committee met in Memphis on April 27, 2000. There was considerable discussion as to what should be done, how it should be done, when it should be done and who should do it. The discussion ended with the conclusion that any concerted effort should include the Extension community and that if we went too far before getting them involved they would feel that were not really interested in getting them involved but would only be asking them to bless what we developed. Accordingly, we have contacted ESCOP Chair Jones who in turn has ECOP to name representatives to this effort. We are waiting for their reply as this is written.

Meanwhile we did develop the following basic outline for further discussion:

The Land -Grant University System faces multiple challenges including changing expectations, a changing landscape, increased complexity and insufficient fund support. The Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy recently appointed a Advocacy and Marketing Committee to develop strategies for meeting our challenges and moving forward. During the initial meeting of this group it became evident immediately that our community must move forward in unison for any strategy to be effective.

Following is a suggested beginning of topics for consideration by our partners to develop a unified strategy.

PROBLEM: Lack of identity, lack of advocacy and lack of support

GOAL: A billion more by 2004

STRATEGY: Engage a multiplicity of agencies to broaden and increase our support

INTERNAL STRATEGY: Engage our Land-Grant partners in an advocacy and marketing effort

HOW DOES AN ENGAGED UNIVERSITY ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING ISSUES?

• Visibility
• Recognition
• Application
• Support
• Partnerships

NEXT STEPS:

• Develop a plan
• Build a strategy
• Implement the plan

TIME FRAME: To be determined

Action Requested: For information.

Additional discussion: Representatives from ECOP have been assigned to the joint ESCOP-ECOP Marketing and Advocacy Committee, with assignment indicated as temporary. ESCOP desires that this activity be an ongoing effort and requests additional conversation on this issue at the Joint ESCOP-ECOP Executive Committee. (Note: During the Executive Committee meeting, David Foster distributed a handout reporting on this activity. Tentative designees from ECOP are: David Foster, Henry Brooks, Larry Cote, Mike Tate, and Wendy Wintersteen. ECOP Executive Committee expressed intent that ECOP would be a full, equal partner in this new effort. David MacKenzie will be setting up a conference call of the group.)

Background:

• If you have been following AESOP’s News from the Hill, you know the status of the budget.
• We are in the process of updating the membership of the ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee (originally the membership was for two years).
• Gale Buchanan is the Chair of the Board on Agriculture Budget FY 02 Committee and will continue through the FY 03 budget; John Nye is Vice-Chair and will become chair for FY 04 and 05.
• Bob Moser remains chair until the close of the FY 01 budget.
• The role of CFERR in the BOA budget activities is unclear.
• We must give serious consideration to the development of multi-agency requests. Procedure for accomplishing this is under review.
• Budget process would gain significantly by limiting the number of lines, i.e., special grant activities.
• Formula funds will continue to be a high priority.
• Considerable support for limiting new initiatives to those that have a strong legislative champion to make it happen.
• Schedule for FY 02 budget activities is tight and has much earlier deadlines than normal. The penultimate budget will be due by December 1, 2000.
• Gale Buchanan, Fred Cholick, Bob Moser and myself make up an ad hoc committee to develop recommendations for a structure including AESOP, CARET, the BOA budget committee, etc., to better serve the budget effort. The recommendation is being developed and will be presented at a meeting of the AHS in Denver before the joint meeting in August.
• Participated in the Washington, D.C. fly-in on July 20. Met with Senator Cochran who expressed strong support for the IFAFS, NRI and FRA. Also met with Senator Bond urging his support.

Action Requested: For information.

Background: To enhance NASULGC's Board on Agriculture (BOA) budget development and advocacy, it is important to establish a unifying structure to bring members of the "family" together to provide "one voice." Presently, the BOA Budget Committee (BABC) and CARET operate separately, although there are linkages, and they have the same goal of budget support. An Advocacy Organization can provide staff support exclusively to the BABC and would be valuable to CARET advocacy efforts as well.

To provide a more efficient, effective and unified budget effort, it is proposed for the BABC (suggested new name Budget and Advocacy Committee) and CARET to be established as a budget development advocacy unit with staff support out-sourced to an Advocacy Organization.

The following specifics are proposed:

• Staff support for BOA Budget and Advocacy Committee (BABAC) and CARET meetings, events, document development, and database development and maintenance would be provided by the Advocacy Organization.
• The annual plan of work and budget for the Advocacy Organization would be developed by the BABAC representing the member organizations (Figure 1) (available from ESCOP office of record). Once developed, the Advocacy Organization would be responsible to the Chair of BABAC for its activities and accomplishment, as delegated by the Chair of the BOA.
• The Advocacy Organization would be responsible to the Chair of the BABAC for budget development, implementation and advocacy, which would include CARET.
• The costs of out-sourcing to the Advocacy Organization for these services would be covered by a combination of the assessments for CARET and the Advocacy Organization, with NASULGC serving as the banker (Figure 2) (available from ESCOP office of record). An assessment of costs and subscriber contributions would be carried out to determine a more equitable sharing of costs among the organizations represented by the BABAC.

This restructuring will establish a unified budget development and advocacy organization and help eliminate confusion about who is responsible for these important activities. Furthermore, this approach would pre-empt any questions about lobbying activities by non-profit organization. Most importantly, this would allow for a new and more tightly integrated array of advocacy activities.

Action Requested: For information.

Background:

1. As requested during ESCOP's February meeting, the Science and Technology chair made contacts relative to naming an ESCOP representative to the Council on Research Policy and Graduate Education (CRPGE). It was determined that CRPGE does not want a representative from ESCOP.
2. Follow up on joint ESCOP/ECOP Food Safety Task Force report. This committee was commended for their speed and quality of their report. David McKenzie is working with the Task Force to prioritize their recommended action items. The priorities should be ready for presentation at the ESCOP meeting in August.
3. The Farm Crisis and Rural Development Task Force has been formed. Lou Swanson, Colorado State University, will chair the Task Force and Robert Heil will serve as vice-chair. There will be one representative from Research and Extension from each of the five regions plus CSREES representatives, Virginia Clark will represent the ESCOP Planning Committee, and the four Regional Rural Development Center Directors will serve as ad hoc members. A report will be presented on Wednesday morning by Chair Lou Swanson.
4. The ESCOP Social Sciences Subcommittee has developed a broad initiative for their activities. Activities such as the Farm Crisis and Rural Development Task Force will be specific items for major input from the Social Science Subcommittee.

Action Requested: For information.

Additional information/discussion:

• Subcommittees have been updated on the web.
• Priorities from the February ESCOP meeting have been addressed. After the September workshop, priorities may be updated and needs defined for additional task forces.
• Science and Technology Committee will meet in New Orleans and regions were asked to get appointments up-to-date.
• ESCOP heartily expressed appreciation via a round of applause, to George Ham for his leadership of this Core Committee.

Background: A short, initial meeting of the ESCOP Genomics Initiative Steering Committee was held in Memphis on April 26, 2000. It was established early that we are talking about a functional genomics or genomics and proteomics or some such program–i.e we have moved past "genomics" per se. The exact, "catchy title", is to be determined.

It was decided that there should be a working document that would lay out proposed principles (there was considerable discussion as to what some of the principles should be but a general consensus was that it should focus on new foods and health–i.e. try to get in front of the pack a bit for a change). This resulted in a white paper entitled " Functional Foods--The application of agricultural, medical and behavioral sciences for improving human health" which can be found at http://www.escop.msstate.edu/committee/funcfood.pdf. Secondly, it was decided that we needed to organize a workshop to review the document, redirect as necessary and fill the gaps . This was originally going to be held in late August in an attempt to influence the FY 2001 budget.

Reality has prevailed and we are currently working on a subsequent plan that calls for at least three roundtable discussion efforts--one with agency heads and other agency administrators, a second with industry leaders and a third with the greater scientific community. At least the first two conferences would be very structured and rather small with the purpose of enlisting the aid and support of key individuals, specific agencies and selected industrial firms.

The conferences will be held late fall through early spring 2001.The committee is currently working with the Georgetown Nutrition and Food Policy Institute, the AAAS, the NAS/NRC and Sparks, Inc. as possible collaborators and facilitators for the proposed discussions. Initial meetings have also been held or scheduled with individuals in OSTP, OMB NIH and NSF.

The committee is also working with Sam Smith to assure compatibility and a strong working relationship with the NASULGC led, Kellogg funded initiative to increase federal agriculture funding.

Action Requested: For information.

Background: The Joint ESCOP/ECOP Food Safety Task Force completed its two-charge assignment in June 2000: (1) prepare comments on the Preliminary Food Safety Strategic Plan of January 2000, and (2) report on the Land Grant University activities that could be undertaken to implement that strategic plan. Charge 1 was completed last February and Charge 2 was completed in June. All Directors of Cooperative Extension and State Agricultural Experiment Stations received notification of the report's availability on the ESCOP homepage at http://www.escop.msstate.edu/committee/foodrpt.pdf. As a follow up, the leadership of ESCOP asked the committee to indicate relative priority for the actions which the Task Force identified. Response to this request will be presented.

Action Requested: For information.

Additional Information/Discussion: Dr. Lund presented an overview of the 51 recommendations and subsequent action steps outlined by the Task Force. These are as follows:

• Priority on Importance and Impact for
  • Science
    1. With USDA, FDA and stakeholders, address knowledge gaps on food-borne hazards, source of hazards, detection and control measures, and continue HACCP development; and
    2. Emerging agents of food-borne illness: pathogen identification, etiology of the pathogen
  • Risk Analysis and Management
    1. Partner with federal agencies to understand biological, behavioral, and economic assessments of food safety risks;
    2. Seek more funding for risk analysis and management;
    3. Utilize behavioral scientists to further understand barriers to safe food handling by consumers; and
    4. Support establishment of national scientific food safety databases.
  • Education and Communication
    1. With FDA, expand connectivity and access to food safety information from all sources; and
    2. Maintain and support the "train-the-trainer" approach through CES.
• Action Steps
  1. Make permanent a Food Safety Task Force (FSTF)
  2. ESCOP leadership (with selected members of FSTF) and industry representatives review Section 401 and 406 descriptions with USDA/CSREES and FDA.
  3. Develop a white paper (scientific road map) for emerging food-borne illness agents.
  4. ESCOP/ECOP leaders partner with USDA Office of Risk Management.
  5. ESCOP/ECOP/CSREES leaders explore partnering with JIFSAN and National Food Safety Alliance for leadership in food safety.
  6. ECOP engage in discussions with FDA on education and communication.

Action Taken: It was agreed that in response to Action Step #1 above, a permanent Food Safety Subcommittee will be formed, with new chair and vice-chair identified on the next Chair's Advisory Committee conference call. Action Step #3 should be an assignment of the new subcommittee when organized. It was further agreed that other action steps should be a part of the joint ECOP-ESCOP Planning Committee discussions for consideration. A question related to the status of ESCOP's Science Roadmap Committee was referred to the Chair's Advisory Committee.

Background: In the May 24th CAC conference call several items were assigned to the Vice Chair of the joint ECOP-ESCOP Task Force on Agricultural Biotechnology, for follow-up. Progress on those assignments follows.

• Ranking of Ag Biotech Task Force recommendations- Completed.
• Draft correspondence for the initiation of discussion/visit with Dr. Laughlin on selected topics- Completed, with talking points as well (these were some topic areas in need of research attention).
• Identification of public sector research opportunities - To be discussed during the August meeting.
• Organize a meeting with Washington, DC-based science attaches and representatives from SAES- To be initiated, with Terry Nipp.
• Interaction with Congress on regulatory harmonization and alternative approaches in product labeling, as one hearing. Logical partners are NRC, NABC, etc.- Being studied with Terry Nipp et al.
• Plan a meeting with NABC to focus on the issues of consumer acceptance of the products of agricultural biotechnology. Contact was made with Steve Pueppke (NABC), and Prof. Mark Sagoff (Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at the University of Maryland). Dr Sagoff has an expression of interest from NIH for funding the topic, and he will be visiting USDA/CSREES to get their support (a condition set by NIH).

Action Requested: For information and discussion.

Additional Information/Discussion:

• A need still exists for discussion about private/public sector research opportunities. A possible juncture for such discussion was suggested as the University-Industry Consortium which will meet October 30-31 at Triangle Park. Mike Burke will give David MacKenzie a contact name.
• NABC would like to have either Dr. MacKenzie or Dr. Lund give a presentation at their meeting in New Orleans preceding the SAES/ARD Workshop.
• A suggestion to change the Task Force to a subcommittee was referred to the Chair's Advisory Committee. It was suggested that a strategy was needed for implementation of the new subcommittee.

Background: There have been two major activities.

1. Improvement of Partnerships

   A task force among CSREES, ECOP, and ESCOP has begun to function. The primary goal is to improve understanding of func tion and rolls among the groups and, more importantly, to define successful partnership strategies for the future. A meeting of this task force will be occurring just prior to the Denver meeting. The focus of that meeting will be planning for a national conference tentatively set for February 2001, during which the Experiment Station and Extension communities will meet with CSREES to look at issues and opportunities. The Partnerships Committee will report on the deliberations of the task force.

2. SUNEI

   The Partnerships Committee was asked to make recommendations to ESCOP on the future of the SUNEI initiative. Recently, the staff member working in the SUNEI office took another position; therefore, there is an opportunity for a full exploration of ideas. We have asked Dr. Gerald Arkin, Chair of the SUNEI Steering Committee, to work with the group in more completely examining options for SUNEI and, if possible, to get these recommendations to the Partnerships Committee prior to the meeting of ESCOP in August. If the recommendations are available, the Partnerships Committee will provide them at the Denver ESCOP meeting.

Action Requested: For information.

Additional information/discussion: An agenda brief from the Environmenal Affairs Subcommittee regarding the future of SUNEI was distributed which detailed three formal options below for consideration. Support documents included a thought-piece by AESOP entitled "Agriculture and the Environment."

1. Reform SUNEI into a statutory network of institutions to seek funding for environmental issues. On behalf of Jerry Arkin, David MacKenzie elaborated on the proposal entitled "A Statutory Entity for Agriculture and the Environment."
2. Form an environmental "Think-Tank" to 1) facilitate communication with policy-makers on the types of research and outreach projects that would address policy-relevant questions; 2) provide national insights into environmental research and extension outcomes; 3) plan the next generation of large-scale research and extension activities; and 4) have on-hand a portfolio of "next generation" funding proposals for agency and congressional support.
3. Terminate SUNEI activities, returning the existing balance of funds to the contributing SAES, and discontinue any future assessments for this initiative.

Action Taken: A motion/second by Drs. Cholick and Nelson in support of option #2 carried, which endorsed a task force to be the "think-tank" to determine the direction for the Agriculture and Environment Initiative, keeping the existing relationship with CSREES and building on SUNEI success. It was further endorsed that existing funds, plus the already approved next round of assessments be made available to support the initiative as determined by the task force. Also noted was a need to offer support of this task force and available funding to ECOP in support of their initiative. This concept will be presented during the Joint ECOP-ESCOP Executive Committee for ECOP's consideration. The ESCOP-ECOP endorsements will be presented at the Experiment Station Section meeting for vote.

An additional motion/second by Drs. Coston/Scifres carried unanimously resolving that the Chair of ESCOP send a letter to Dr. Jerry Arkin expressing appreciation for Dr. Arkin's time and commitment, which directly contributed to the success of SUNEI.

Background: The ESCOP Planning Committee met in Baltimore, MD on May 18, 2000. Minutes from this meeting are available on the Committee's web site at the following URL: http://www.escop.msstate.edu/committee/plan00.htm#Action. Format for the budget priority setting session at the SAES Workshop on Sep. 26-28, 2000 in New Orleans was discussed. This year's session will concentrate on projected research priorities for 2005-2010. Mark Drabenstott and a colleague will begin the session with presentations on future economic, social and technological changes impacting agriculture. Directors will then develop a list of projected research priorities for 2005-2010, using a facilitated small group format, that will be used by the ESCOP Budget & Legislative Committee in formulating future budget requests.

The ECOP-SPC and ESCOP-PC Joint Planning Committee met on May 19, 2000 and minutes from this meeting are also available at the web site above. The Committee began developing the ECOP and ESCOP joint response to the studies and reports on the future of the land grant university system. The working title of the response is "Strategies for Enhanced Engagement" and will include the intent of the document, a statement of research and extension philosophy on engagement, a summary of salient points from the documents reviewed, examples of current successes at engagement within the land grant system, and objectives and recommendations for future action. A draft response document will be presented at the joint meeting of ECOP and ESCOP Executive Committees in August.

The next meeting of the ESCOP-PC and the ECOP-SPC/ESCOP-PC Joint Planning Committee will be October 4-6 in Mystic, CT.

Action Requested: For information.

Background: 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 leadership training to nine classes of approximately 75 members each.

Description of the Program:
Length – 3 phases over 12-month period – July to June

Phase 1 – Leadership Training, Indianapolis, Indiana
September – Consulting firm conducts intensive training in leadership skills, utilizing methods, such as case studies, team efforts, and 360-degree assessment. The latter uses data collected prior to Phase 1 from the class member’s supervisor, subordinates, peers, and self and then peer coaching during Phase 1.

Phase 2 – Internship at the Home Institution
Late September to June – Orientation to the organization’s structure and function with the assistance of a mentor (dean, director, or designee). Most class members do a project in order to utilize leadership skills gained during Phase 1. Also, this is a project that belongs to the class member. Effective mentoring is the key to a successful Phase 2 project.

Phase 3 – Washington, D.C.
June – Discussions of congressional function and federal policy by representatives from governmental agencies, including USDA, and the U.S. congress orient class members to this arena. Experts in the area of leadership and public policy and visits to congressional offices from the class member’s district/state complete the experience. Plans are to collaborate with the National Extension Leadership Development Program (NELD) during the Phase 3 workshop for Class 10.

Current Class - Class 10 – total – 79 (73% male, 27% female)

Represents:
- 41 colleges and universities plus USDA/CSREES (includes 2 Historically Black Colleges)
- 34 states, District of Columbia, Guam, and Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands

Application Process

Who - Emerging leaders in academic programs and experiment stations of NASULGC institutions and USDA/CSREES are nominated by their deans/directors for participation.
When – Application deadline – April 15, 2001 for Class 11
Cost – Registration fee of approximately $2000 plus travel, hotel, meals for Phases 1 and 3
Information/application – Website at http://www.escop.msstate.edu/committee/leadership/leadership.htm (printed application forms will no longer be available)

Challenges

1. Program Coordinator

   This is a 2-year position that is assumed by an existing member of the Advisory Committee who was appointed to the Committee with the knowledge that he/she would be the Program Coordinator. The position rotates from an ESCOP appointee to an ACOP appointee, etc. After the second year, the Coordinator has not been available to a significant extent to ease the transition for the next Coordinator. Consequently, the first year for the new Coordinator is difficult. Rather than progress during year 1, the key is survival.

   Change for next Coordinator (3-year appointment):
   Year 1 - Incoming Coordinator : Learn about the program by working with the Program Coordinator on all aspects of the program.
   Year 2 - Program Coordinator: Coordinate all aspects of the program and orient the next Incoming Coordinator.
   Year 3 - Past Coordinator: Provide formal consultation to the Program Coordinator. Specific responsibility for one aspect of the program, such as program evaluation.

   Another change that will take place is that specific responsibilities will be assigned to members of the Advisory Committee so that the Committee functions as a team to provide leadership to the program.

   Recommendation: The individual who will serve as Incoming Coordinator/Coordinator/Past Coordinator beginning in September 2000 has not been appointed by ESCOP. One is needed as soon as possible.

2. Financial Management

   A self-supporting program, registration fees pay all costs of the program including charges by the consulting firm (Triangle Associates) for Phase 1, printing and copying program materials, postage, cost of the program assistant for on-site management of Phase 3, and some but not all travel costs for Coordinator. The program is solvent at the present time although flexibility in programming is limited. Originally, an administrative assistant was paid by program funds. However, those funds have not existed for at least three years.

   Recommendation: Identify potential new sources of funding for the program and continue to conserve resources when possible.

   Program funds are handled through the fiscal office of the institution of the Program Coordinator. Thus, a commitment to Triangle Associates for more than two years cannot be made because funds are transferred to another institution every two years. Also, use of funds is dictated by policies of each institution. At the present time, State of Texas law and Texas A&M regulations control use of funds. This has resulted, for example, in being required to use the Texas A&M University Printing Center rather than being able to find a lower cost vendor. Also, approval of contracts with Triangle Associates required several months as they were reviewed at all levels of the Texas A&M University System..

   Recommendation: Managing fiscal affairs for the program through one central location that is maintained for a period of years would prevent some of these problems. This option should be considered.

3. Program Completion Rate

   Beginning with Class 8, the number of class members that did not participate in Phase 3 of the program began to increase. Since completion of the program requires attendance and participation in both Phase 1 and Phase 3, the 13 members of Class 9 who did not attend the workshop in Washington, D.C., in June 1999 did not graduate. However, two of those individuals attended Phase 3 in June 2000 so they completed the program. Currently, the completion rate for Class 9 is 86%. although three more who had planned to attend Phase 3 last June will be invited to attend Phase 3 in June 2001.

   Of the 79 members of Class 9, only 59 attended the Phase 3 workshop in June 2000. The remaining 20 will be invited to attend Phase 3 in June 2001. Currently, the graduation rate for Class 9 is 75%.

   Recommendation: Class members should be encouraged to complete the program so that they are graduates rather than participants. Evidence exists that those class members who did not have a successful Phase 2 experience did not attend Phase 3. Also, Phase 3 will be evaluated during an upcoming retreat of the Advisory Committee.

4. Program Evaluation

   Although nine classes have graduated, evaluation has been restricted to the a program evaluation instrument that was distributed during Phase 3 in June 2000 for the first time and anecdotes of success of graduates. A formal evaluation of the program is needed. Program funds are not available to support such an evaluation at this time. Preliminary plans to conduct a rapid evaluation with the assistance of Triangle Associates were cancelled because of concerns of conflict of interest.

   Recommendation: Identify sources of funding and develop a call for proposals for evaluation of the program.

Conclusion: Information available indicates that this is an excellent program that meets the goals of the 1991 creators. Data are needed to assess long term value of the program to class members. Current problems involve transition of leadership of the program (Coordinator position) and funding, its availability and site of management. A retreat of the Advisory Committee will take place on August 21 in Washington, D.C., during which all aspects of the program will be reviewed.

Action Requested: For information.

Additional information/discussion:

• New ESCOP representatives on the Advisory Committee are Tony Shelton and LeRoy Daughtery. An ESCOP coodinator to replace Dr. Kubena has not been identified. [Note: Subsequent to the meeting, Gary Lemme agreed to serve as coordinator.]
• Ideas are needed for a new location for Phase I Leadership Training, traditionally located in Indianapolis in September. Expense for the current location is prohibitive.
• New funding sources are needed.
• Identification of ways to measure and thus ensure success are needed.
• Terry Nipp suggested that a Phase 4, graduate level program to work 3-6 months in CSREES and/or AESOP, might be a good addition to the program.

Background: NAPFSC members have been involved in three primary and several other activities during the past several months.

1. NAPFSC members have been providing information to Congress regarding McIntire-Stennis, RREA, and NRI funding.
2. The NAPFSC Executive Committee has been working with the USDA Forest Service on workforce planning. Over the next five years about 42% of Forest Service employees will become eligible to retire and the FS is developing plans for its future workforce. In cooperation with the FS, workforce planning will be the featured topic for NAPFSC workshops to be held in conjunction with the National Assembly in November.
3. A national coalition for research, education, and outreach on non-federal forest lands, spearheaded by NAPFSC as an outgrowth of the February 1999 Summit on Non-Federal Forest Lands has completed a plan for implementing a program to increase research, education, and outreach activities focused on these lands.
4. The NAPFSC Executive Committee has begun a process to explore diversifying NAPFSC through inclusion of new members.
5. The NAPFSC President along with colleagues from the Society of American Foresters, forest industry, and others testified in the House regarding Forest Service research planning, organization, and needs.
6. Meetings were held with CSREES Administrator Laughlin, Forest Service administrators, and others regarding funding of forestry research and Extension.
7. NAPFSC members participated in the Dean’s Tour sponsored by the USDA Forest Service and the American Forest and Paper Association in McCall, Idaho in August.

Action Requested: For information.

Agenda Item 12.
NASULGC Board on Veterinary Medicine

[No report submitted.]

Background: The Board on Human Sciences (BoHS) completed our third Project Inventory of research in human sciences unites. The inventory was published by NASULGC in 1999 and is currently being placed on the BoHS webpage. Users will be able to access the information by institution, subject matter area, and investigator. A fourth project inventory will be conducted this fiscal year, with information being gathered on line.

Another Board activity is benchmarking of institutions. Data on funding and citations will be used in the benchmarking effort led by a task force and the Research Committee.

BoHS has identified six priority areas for Federal relations and funding in the near future. These are:

1. Food safety
2. Early childhood care and education
3. Nutrition and health
4. Juvenile violence and prevention
5. Welfare reform to work transition

Action Requested: For information.

Background: A presentation, "Graduate Enrollments in the U.S.," showed interesting changes over time in enrollment by degree program, by discipline area, by location (international vs. domestic), by gender and origin, and by minorities vs. non-minority women and men. Additionally, typical graduate student costs were displayed. (Copy of handout available on request).

Action Requested: For information.

Background: A handout was distributed (copy available on request) which provides updates of various ECOP committees and functions. The verbal report emphasized the Kellogg Commission's "21st Century Report" and Extension's plans to position itself in the context of principles set forth in the report.

Action Requested: For information.

Background: CARET will be changing to a new meeting schedule beginning this fall in order to be more effective in advocating for the Land Grant system. The CARET executive committee is tentatively planning to meet in Washington during September in order to be timelier in our lobbying efforts. Since commitments have already been made, the full CARET will meet as scheduled this November in conjunction with the NASULGC in San Antonio. In future years CARET will not be meeting at the NASULGC fall meeting. CARET's annual meeting will probably be changed to the March meetings, which will continue.

AHS has formed an AD HOC committee to look at the structure of CARET and how we can be more targeted in our lobbying efforts. They plan to meet with the executive committees of the COPS August 6 in Denver to review this issue and also the most effective use of liaisons to the COPS.

Effective with the 2000 CARET budget, office operations charged by NASULGC will change from 15% of assessments and carryover to 17% of assessments only.

Action Requested: For information.

Additional information/discussion: Christine Perry, Missouri, will replace Don Latham as CARET's liaison to ESCOP in November.

Background: In addition to an update of budget actions, Dr. Nipp will be presenting information on AESOP's new land-grant workroom located on the web at http://www.aesopent.homestead.com/index.html.

Action Requested: For information.

Additional information/discussion: The following was shared:
FY2002 Budget Timeline (tentative):
SAES Priority setting
9/28 - BOA Budget Committee
10/1-11/3 - Comunications Committee creates documents
11/11 - BOA Budget Committee review
Dec/Jan - Finalize documents and issues
Mid Feb/early March - Final printing after President's budget comes out.

Background: As chair of the A&M Committee, I have been working with a loose coalition of individuals (from the Land-Grant community and stakeholders) who have been trying to develop an initiative that would essentially duplicate the Illinois C-FAR at the national level. There have now been three meetings plus a couple of conference calls. I am pleased to report that the process is moving forward. A two page position paper has been developed (see below), a board of directors (stakeholders only) has been appointed, a small grant has been obtained and efforts are being made for additional funding, several political bases have been touched and there appears to be sufficient interest to move this forward. Terry Wolf, an Illinois farmer and current chair of the Illinois C-FAR program has agreed to chair the new effort. Joe Coffey has agreed to be the principal staff person. They have been invited to make a presentation to the Commodity Round Table which has been scheduled for September 20th. If the presentation is well received by this group it I believe this effort will be off and running. ESCOP, AHS and ECOP are all being asked to endorse the following paper describing the National CFAR effort.

Synopsis: This is the plan for a broadly based stakeholder coalition of food and agriculture organizations with the dual goals 1) to increase and enhance U.S. food and agriculture research and 2) to expand meaningful participation by stakeholders in priority setting, funding, and accountability. To accomplish these goals, the Coalition on Food and Agricultural Research, patterned after the successful Illinois Council for Food and Agricultural Research (C-FAR), has been organized and launched. Endorsements from major national food and agricultural organizations are expected to be made soon. The objective is secure $1 billion of additional federal funds each year for the next five years to support research and related outreach programs that will lead to profitable, consumer sensitive, and environmentally sound food and agriculture systems in the nation. It is emphasized that this is to be net additional funding. The objective is to complement and enhance, not compete with the existing portfolio of federal programs of food and agricultural research.

Justification: Food is fundamental to life and health. Publicly supported food and agriculture research was a major contributor to the advancement of the U.S. during the 20th century. In addition, U.S. food and agriculture research contributed to the Green Revolution that saved a billion people from starvation around the globe. Promising research breakthroughs in genetics, nutrition, information technology, food production and safety and ecosystems hold great potential for even greater strides in the 21st century. Despite the U.S. being the best fed nation with the lowest share of income spent on food, many critical national food, agriculture and resource challenges remain. Some $100 billion of annual health costs are linked to poor diets and foodborne pathogens. Annually, more than one in four persons in the U.S. have a food-borne illness. Agriculture’s continued abundance and competitiveness in the global food system depends on increased research. Many complex resource and environmental challenges remain to be resolved. The public has a rising expectations for a clean and healthy environment. Although scores of scientific studies show that each dollar spent on agriculture research pays back $8 in public benefits and has an annualized return above 35%, federal support of agriculture research, after adjusting for inflation, has been flat for two decades. These benefits are proportionately greater for the disadvantaged, who spend a much larger proportion of their incomes on food. In those same two decades, while USDA food and agriculture research funding was flat, federal support of health research, measured in constant dollars, has more than doubled. Today, the federal budget of the National Institutes of Health is nearly $19 billion, 10 times that of food and agriculture research at USDA. To put the relative under-funding of federal food and agriculture research in perspective, the average family in 1998 spent $4,810 on food, over 2.5 times the $1,903 spent on health care. By any comparison, whether in terms of payback, future potential, or importance to the average family, food and agriculture research is woefully under-funded. A major opportunity for enhancing the nation’s health and wealth is being short-changed.

Strategy: The basic strategy is for the Coalition of broadly based national coalition of food and agricultural organizations to develop a legislative proposal and to marshal support and endorsement of the candidates for the U.S. President, Vice President, Senate and House of Representatives. Funding from foundations and membership fees from each coalition member organization will be used to establish and operate a non-profit organization to carry out the plans of the national coalition. Structure: It is anticipated that the proposal will be formulated into legislation. It is emphasized that this is to be a new organization, with new funding and meaningful stakeholder involvement. It is designed to complement not compete with the existing portfolio of federal programs of food and agricultural research. Several structures and mechanisms are being considered including a national institute of food and agriculture research, but the main focus is on enhanced food and agriculture research and meaningful stakeholder involvement. The bottomline is these funds should be given an organizational structure to enable it to compete effectively for resources and to participate directly in high-level priority setting.

Timetable: The importance of advancing agricultural research is urgent. Hence, the Coalition is being launched immediately so that bipartisan support can be obtained during the upcoming presidential and congressional campaigns with the goal of getting the proposal funded in 2001, a year in advance of the major farm bill. This timetable avoids the problem encountered during the 1996 farm bill, when the agriculture research title was postponed for a year. No additional funding has yet been spent for research. Immediate initiation is also necessary to speed the research on longer-term solutions to the present farm crisis situation, to address the increasing public concern about the safety of new genetically modified crops, and to accelerate research on the new transgenic plants and animals documented in the newly released National Research Council study, "Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation."

Distinguishing Features: The unique feature of this effort is that it is a national grassroots stakeholder led coalition patterned after the successful Illinois Council on Food and Agricultural Research (C-FAR). C-FAR is a non-profit organization founded in December 1993 by industry leaders to address the critical need for increased funding to support valuable research in food and agriculture. C-FAR's structure and processes are unique and effective. C-FAR provides input and helps to set priorities and direction for research efforts. One of the most significant characteristics of this proposal is the greatly improved communications between stakeholders and scientists and administrators. With valuable input provided by stakeholders, targeted and collaborative projects selected by an objective peer-review competitive process will be used to solve some of the most pressing problems facing the U.S. food and agriculture industry.

Current Status of the Proposal: The concept has been explored with a cross-section of leaders in farm organizations, farmer cooperatives, agribusiness, universities, farm organizations, and federal, state and international agencies. At the organizing meeting held in Chicago on June 29, 2000, a select group of national food and agricultural leaders has been selected to form a steering committee and a supporting advisory committee. Mr. Terry Wolf, a farmer from Homer, Illinois and the present chair of the Illinois C-FAR, has been selected as the interim chair of the steering committee. Further plans are expected to be released in the coming weeks.

Action Requested: For information.

Additional information/discussion:

• An updated handout on this effort was distributed (copy available on request).
• Important to realize this is stakeholder driven.
• Funding: $1 million over 5 years.
• Extension is being included.
• A tentative Board of Directors has been appointed.
• Farm Foundation seed money is being used during initial phase. Will need to find funding sources, maybe many smaller sources rather than one large source.
• How this activity will interface with NASULGC-led Food and Society Initiative needs to be considered.
• A similar activity, CoFarm, may join forces with the national C-FAR. Also contact has been made with Roger Beachy.
• A sense of urgency exists for this activity and perhaps it can't wait for the other initiative to get going.
• ESCOP supports this effort on 2 counts: 1) urgency, and 2) stakeholder driven.

Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Kaltenbach and Floyd, ESCOP unanimously endorsed the national, stakeholder-driven C-FAR concept.

Background: Suggested changes in the ESCOP Rules of Operation are available as a PDF file at: http://www.escop.msstate.edu/rules/rules8-00.pdf. Proposed deletions appear in red strikeout notation; and proposed additions/changes appear in bolded, capitalized italics.

Action Requested: For information and discussion.

Action Taken: A motion/second by Drs. Cholick/Scifres carried, in which changes were accepted for announcement to the ESS membership. Changes will be voted on at the annual section meeting, as the first item of business.

Background: Draft-Version 11- of the Multistate Research Guidelines was posted on the ESCOP Home Page on June 21, 2000. This version has undergone review by the Directors of the Western, North Central, and Northeastern Regional Associations at each of their respective summer meetings, and the Southern Region Association will review at its meeting in August. Following this review, final changes will be made to the guidelines which then will be presented at the AES Directors meeting in New Orleans in September for final approval and adoption.

Recommendation: A final draft version be presented to the AES Directors at their meeting in New Orleans in September for final approval and adoption.

Action Requested: For information.

Additional information/discussion: A major change in the budget process for NRSPs will be incurred with adoption of the new Guidelines. These changes were discussed in detail and the following handouts were distributed:

• Draft letter to NRSP Administrative Advisors
• Table of consensus for FY01 budget requests and regional letter to CSREES re consensus
• NRSP Proposed Budget Form

Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Coffman/Jacobs, ESCOP approved the plan to approve NRSP budgets for the life of the activity at its inception, with no consideration given to Hatch fluctuations. The approval will authorize the Executive Directors, on behalf of the ESS, to annually submit to CSREES, the budget for that given year. Federal law prohibits authorization of funds for more than one year at a time.

Background: George Cooper will provide an update of activities within the CSREES Partnership Office.

Action Requested: For information.

Additional information/discussion: Dr. Cooper reported that expectations regarding Plans of Work are being closed out, with reviews being conducted of the POW supplements that have been submitted.

Background: The Plan of Work Advisory Committee, chaired by Dr. Cholick, is a joint ESCOP-ECOP-CSREES committee charged with developing procedures that relate to the Plans of Work and Plans of Work Annual Reports that result in the development of useful outputs to assist in describing the impacts resulting from federal investments in research and education programs.

Action Requested: For information.

Background: During development of the "Guidelines for Multistate Research," the Executive Directors determined that a subcommittee was needed similar to the 1998 Research Coordinating Subcommittee. Committee membership included the Executive Directors, Myron Johnsrud, and George Cooper. The charge of this 1998 committee was as follows:

In conjunction with the federal partner a) maintain current reference documents regarding procedures and policies for regional research; b) make recommendations to ESCOP concerning the regional research portfolio relative to priorities; c) coordinate the review and approval process for National Research Support Projects (NRSP's) and National Research Projects (NRP's); d) make recommendations to ESCOP relative to policies needed to enhance regional research; and e) pursue mechanisms and make recommendations relative to increasing the efficiency, visibility, and opportunities for regional research management.

Reactivation of this subcommittee is requested with perhaps a slight variation in the purpose, membership, and title.

Action Requested: Approval.

Action Taken: On motion/second by Drs. Cholick/Scifres, reactivation of the committee was approved with membership to consist of the Executive Directors, one ECOP representative, and Dr. George Cooper. The new committee will redraft its charge as needed.

Background: As directed by the ESCOP Executive Committee during its recent meeting in Memphis, TN, a panel of Directors representing the five regional associations was asked to review a "Values Added" white paper drafted by the ED's. Using this draft, which was drafted for the dual purpose of enhancing the System's understanding of the roles of regional associations and the ESCOP organization, the panel was asked to develop a presentation for the AES Directors meeting in September that would address how ESCOP and the regional associationc can add more value to the system in the future, including how the ED's can contribute.

Action Requested: For information.

Additional information/discussion: A 1 1/2 hour session at the SAES/ARD Workshop in September will be used to finalize the Value-Added document which would spawn a series of activities which might require on-going needs. The document will be posted on the ESCOP website for review prior to September. Final copy will be sent to ECOP, ACOP, ICOP, and AHS to facilitate understanding of roles, etc. of ESCOP and the regional Executive Directors.

Background:

MULTICULTURAL SCHOLARS PROGRAM ANNOUNCED

The Higher Education Programs FY 2000/2001 Multicultural Scholars Program proposal deadline is August 15, 2000. Under a competitive process, this program provides up to $100,000 per eligible institution to recruit underrepresented scholars to meet national needs for training food and agricultural scientists and professionals.

Eligible U.S. colleges and universities must offer baccalaureate degree programs in at least one discipline of the food and agricultural sciences or a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM) degree. Scholarship grants are made directly to institutions, where recipients are selected and awarded scholarships. The application kit (including the program announcement, instructions, and all forms) may be downloaded at http://faeis.tamu.edu/hep/files/fy00grantschedule.htm.

Contact: P. Gregory Smith (gsmith@reeusda.gov)

SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM NOW ACCEPTING PROPOSALS

The FY 2001 USDA/CSREES Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants program is currently open for proposals. The program description and application materials are available at http://www.reeusda.gov/sbir. The submission deadline for proposals is August 31, 2000.

The SBIR program competitively awards grants to qualified small, U.S.-owned businesses for innovative research on important problems facing American agriculture and/or rural America that could lead to significant public benefit. Initially, small businesses apply for a 6-month Phase I grant for up to $70,000 to conduct a technical feasibility study on a new scientific or technological concept that has the potential to lead to a new or improved product or service.

The SBIR program has proven to be an effective means of promoting technology transfer and the commercialization of important new technologies. Research is supported over the full range of agriculture and includes the following topic areas:

• Forests and related resources
• Plant production and protection
• Animal production and protection
• Air, water, and soils
• Food science and nutrition
• Rural and community development
• Aquaculture
• Industrial applications
• Marketing and trade

More detail on the grant process is available in the Federal Register, pages 36268-69, June 7, CSREES (http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a000607c.html).

Contact: Charles Cleland (ccleland@reeusda.gov)

HISTORIC RESEARCH CENTER NAMED FOR HENRY A. WALLACE

Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman on June 6 renamed a major USDA research facility as the Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.

“Henry A. Wallace changed the face of American agriculture during his career as a scientist and as Secretary of Agriculture,” Glickman said. “Wallace was committed to the idea that science is our best hope for sustaining agriculture and preserving the environment.”

Wallace served as Secretary of Agriculture 1932-40, Vice President of the United States 1940-44, and Secretary of Commerce 1945-46. He also was a corn geneticist, an agricultural economist, and a vigorous advocate of soil conservation and ecology. Considered by many as one of the country’s greatest Secretaries of Agriculture, Wallace framed the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which stabilized farm prices and promoted soil conservation, helping America’s farmers survive the Great Depression.

The Rural Electrification Administration, food stamp program, the school lunch program, and the Food for Peace program were all established under his leadership. Wallace also created the emergency granary system, through which the federal government purchases surplus grain and stores it against future needs.

His scientific contributions were numerous, including the development of the first commercially viable hybrid corn strain. He founded the first and most successful hybrid seed corn company, which significantly increased hybrid corn yields. Wallace believed scientific research was the best way to advance agriculture and maintain the quality of soil and the environment as a whole. He directed a major expansion of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in the 1930 ’s. Today, the 6,500-acre scientific facility in Beltsville, MD is one of the largest agricultural research centers in the world.

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LIBRARY NAMED IN HONOR OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN

The building housing the National Agricultural Library in Beltsville, MD was named June 14 by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman as the Abraham Lincoln Building, in honor of the president who established the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln and Congress established the Department of Agriculture with a mandate to conduct experiments, gather seeds and plants, and collect information pertaining to agriculture,” said Glickman. “Today the National Agricultural Library is the public’s direct link to the world’s largest collection of agricultural information.”

Lincoln proposed and signed into law an act of Congress establishing “at the seat of Government of the United States a Department of Agriculture.” Lincoln also signed the Homestead Act, granting Western lands for settlement and agriculture; the Morrill Land Grant College Act, donating public land to the states to establish colleges of agriculture and the mechanical arts; and an act granting Western lands and making payments for construction of railroads, opening up new areas of the West to settlement.

The National Agricultural Library manages one of the largest and most accessible collections of information and databases about agriculture in the world. The library has more than 3.3 million items on 48 miles of shelves. Technology-based services provide immediate digital access to scientific literature, printed text, and images. The library’s collection and its leadership role in information services and technology applications combine to make it the country’s primary source for agricultural information. For more information, visit the library’s website at http://www.nal.usda.gov.

CURRENT STATUS OF INTEGRATED REE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAMS SECTION 406

The mail-in due date for proposals was June 6 and the bulk of them arrived in the Plant and Animal Systems and Water Quality units between June 9 and 14. By June 30, all proposals were coded, screened, and sent to reviewers.

Section 406 Proposals Received: 332

Plant and Animal Systems: 177
Food Safety: 115
Crops at Risk from FQPA: 21
Methyl Bromide Transitions: 15
Risk Mitigation Program: 21
Pest Management Centers: 5
Water Quality: 155

Program directors and panel managers have organized sound and diverse sets of panels for the various programs.

Section 406 panel meetings will take place in late July:

• Two food safety panels will be held in the River Inn, Georgetown, during the week of July 17.
• Four pest management panels will be in conference rooms in the Waterfront Centre during the week of July 17.
• Two water quality panels will be held in the Holiday Inn, Rosslyn, the first during the week of July 17 and the second during the week of July 24.

HIGHER EDUCATION CHALLENGE GRANTS PROGRAM

The Higher Education Challenge Grants Program enables colleges and universities to provide quality baccalaureate and first professional degree education to strengthen the nation’s food and agricultural scientific and professional work force. Projects address regional, state, national, or international needs; involve creative approaches to serve as models to others; facilitate better working relationships in the science and education community; and result in lasting benefits that transcend project duration and USDA support.

In FY 2000, $4.1 million was available to support projects that address the undergraduate or first professional level degree. A peer review panel of faculty members of land-grant and non land-grant institutions and USDA scientists evaluated one hundred-three proposals submitted in this 10th year of the program. Panelists represented business, agriculture, natural resources, forestry, veterinary medicine, family and consumer sciences, and allied disciplines. More than $4 million was distributed in 35 grants awarded to 27 lead institutions in 22 states; 6 were joint projects involving three or more institutions.

Contact: Jeff Gilmore (jgilmore@reeusda.gov)

HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS EDUCATION GRANTS PROGRAM

The Hispanic-Serving Institutions Education Grants Program promotes and strengthens Hispanic- Serving Institutions (HIS’s) educational programs that attract, retain, and graduate outstanding students to enhance the nation’s food and agricultural scientific and professional work force. Projects involve individual institutions, consortia, or cooperative initiatives between HIS’s or with other colleges and universities, units of government, or the private sector.

In FY 2000, $2.7 million was available to support projects in faculty preparation and enhancement for teaching; curricula design, materials development, and library resources; instruction delivery systems; scientific instrumentation for teaching; student experiential learning; and student recruitment and retention.

Twenty-one institutions from 7 states submitted proposals for this 4th year of the program. A peer review panel recommended support grants to 13 lead institutions. Twenty-one other entities (including land-grant institutions, other 4- and 2-year colleges, local school districts, state agencies, and private organizations and businesses) will be involved in the funded projects.

Contact: Jeff Gilmore (jgilmore@reeusda.gov)

CAPACITY BUILDING GRANTS PROGRAM

The peer review panel for the 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Programs evaluated 152 proposals. The top-ranking proposals that have been recommended by the panel of experts are undergoing programmatic and administrative review. CSREES anticipates awarding $8.6 million in grants to support about 45 teaching and research projects at the 16 1890 land-grant institutions and Tuskegee University. Awards will be announced in September.

Contact: Richard Hood (rhood@reeusda.gov)

PROGRAM EVALUATION FOR THE CAPACITY BUILDING GRANTS PROGRAM

CSREES’ Higher Education Programs (HEP) unit has entered into a cooperative agreement with Dr. Jennifer Presley of JBL Associates in Bethesda, MD, to conduct a program evaluation of the Capacity Building Grants Program. The goal of this evaluation is to assess progress that USDA and the 1890 universities have made in achieving the objectives of the Capacity Building Grants Program. Information provided by this study will document impacts and benefits of this program for USDA agencies, for the 1890 institutions, all states, and the nation.

Contact: Richard Hood (rhood@reeusda.gov)

NEW TRIBAL COLLEGES RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM

CSREES has announced a new Tribal Colleges Research Grants Program. This program presents an opportunity to conduct multi-state research that will enhance land-grant university partnerships and collaborative efforts. The authorizing legislation requires each 1994 Institution applicant to certify that the research to be conducted will be performed under a cooperative agreement with at least one 1862 or 1890 land grant institution. All 1890 land grant institutions are encouraged to collaborate with the Tribal Colleges in this innovative program. CSREES estimates that about $465,000 in FY 2000 and $930,000 in FY 2001 will be available for grants. The application deadline is July 10, 2000. For more information, visit the Higher Education Programs website at http://www.reeusda.gov/serd/hep/hep.htm.

1890 INSTITUTIONS SET MEETING WITH PACIFIC ISLAND LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONS

Representative academic deans, research administrators, and extension administrators of the 1890 land-grant institutions and Pacific Islands land-grant institutions will meet in Guam July 28-August 4, 2000. Officials from CSREES will also participate. The meeting will provide opportunities for institutional representatives to explore areas of mutual interest on the following topics: research and extension collaborations faculty and student development distance education and curriculum enhancement serving the needs of disadvantaged communities

AGRICULTURE IN THE CLASSROOM NATIONAL CONFERENCE

Nearly 400 classroom teachers and state Agriculture in the Classroom coordinators attended this year’s Agriculture in the Classroom (AITC) National Conference, held June 14-17 in Salt Lake City, UT. Participants attended workshops, farm tours, hands-on development sessions, and other activities to enhance the integration of agricultural topics into kindergarten, primary, and secondary education.

“This conference provided teachers, state AITC program leaders, hundreds of AITC volunteers and board members with new ideas, materials, and a renewed enthusiasm—all will taken back to the classroom,” said Debra Spielmaker, President of the National Agriculture in the Classroom Consortium, and Director of Utah Agriculture in the Classroom with the Utah State University Cooperative Extension. “ The educational tone of all the activities made the conference a worthwhile event for all interested in agricultural literacy.”

Three teachers were honored with the Excellence in Teaching about Agriculture Award. The winners were selected for their incorporation of agricultural concepts into their general curricula.

The awardees were:

Diane M. Lucas, Arrowhead Primary School, 3rd grade, Wadsworth, OH
Martha L. Deicher, Vista Square Elementary, grade level K-6, Jamul, CA
Betty Kobes, West Hancock Kanawha Elementary, Belmond, IA

A panel of experts in science food and agricultural sciences evaluated each teaching award nominee. The panel gave serious consideration to the significance of the nominations evaluating creativity and use of agricultural information, strength of the nomination letter, interdisciplinary approach, endorsements, advancement of educational standards, and student impact. The recipients each gave presentations to help strengthen other teachers’ involvement in agricultural literacy efforts.

Ag in the Classroom is a grassroots program coordinated by CSREES in cooperation with the National Consortium of education leaders.

Its goal is to help students become more aware of the role of agriculture in their society and their environment and to increase agricultural literacy. Individuals representing farm organizations, business, education, and government carry out the program in each state.

To learn more about Agriculture in the Classroom, log on to http://www.agclassroom.org

4-H STRATEGIC PLANNING

The 4-H Youth Development Base Program Strategic Team and the co-chairs of 12 “Discovery Teams” will meet in Spokane, WA, July 22-25 to continue a strategic planning process. A special website created to support the project has gathered input and shared resources discovered as well as providing a communications vehicle for each team. During the Spokane meeting, the first rough draft of the new 4-H strategic plan will be assembled, and then taken back to the nationwide system for feedback. Plans are for formal rollout of the completed strategic plan during the 4-H Centennial in 2002.

Contact: Allen Smith ()

EFNEP EVALUATION/REPORTING SYSTEM

Recent updates to the Evaluation/Reporting System (ERS4) have been placed on the website created to support the software (http://www.reeusda.gov/ers4/home.htm). These updates include software modifications and enhancements for the county level and state level software to correct minor “bugs” and add new features to reports, based on requests from users.

In addition, new behavior checklist questions are available for importing into the Master Question database, adding increased evaluation capabilities for improved measurement of program impact. Enhancements are planned for the system, including expanded capabilities for measuring impacts on youth participants and improvements in sharing of data between the ERS4 and the 4-H reporting system. In addition, work groups were solicited to identify improvements in the diagnostic reports and foods database.

Contact: Wells Willis (wwillis@reeusda.gov)

INITIATIVE FOR FUTURE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEMS (IFAFS) UPDATE

The nation’s agricultural and food scientists have responded enthusiastically to the research, education, and extension opportunities promised by the USDA’s new Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS). Under the terms of the authorizing legislation, proposals were requested in scientific areas such as genomics and bioinformatics, biotechnology, food safety, and human nutrition. Applications of science to improve natural resources management, find new uses for agricultural crops, and increase farm efficiency and profitability were also sought. Unlike some other grant programs, this Initiative focuses on near-term issues, and projects are encouraged to consider activities ranging from research through education and extension programs to impact farmers and consumers by the end of the five-year project lifetime.

More than 1,000 applications were received in response to a March 6 request for proposals. Interest in the Initiatives’ 15 program areas was uniformly high. During the month of July, panels of scientists, teachers, farmers, and consumer representatives will gather in Washington, DC to make recommendations on those select few that will receive funding. Even though about $113 million is expected to be available, requests exceeded $1.4 billion, which indicates that the acceptance rate will likely be less than 10%.

Proposals were received from all but one of the nation’s land-grant universities; 40 other institutions, ranging from Alfred University to Yale University; federal laboratories in the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and Energy, and the EPA; and about 50 different private organizations. Overall, interest was expressed from 49 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia.

CSREES expects to complete the grant awards process in early September.

Contact: Rodney Roil (rfoil@reeusda.gov)

RECENT CSREES STAFF APPOINTMENTS

David Morris has been named National Program Leader-Veterinary Clinical Medicine/Epidemiology in Plant and Animal Systems (PAS), effective July 17, 2000. Morris has been a private consultant in a food animal production medicine practice for beef cattle and swine operations in Fort Collins, CO. Prior to that, he was an Associate Professor at Colorado State University. He received his DVM from Ohio State University and his M.S. from Texas A&M University. Morris has developed and maintained a working identity with various Cooperative State Extension faculty in animal science and veterinary medicine university departments, as well as leaders in the American Association of Swine Practitioners, National Pork Producers Council, Society for Theriogenology, American Association of Bovine Practitioners, and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

Thomas Bewick has been named National Program Leader-Horticulture in Plant and Animal Systems (PAS), effective August 28, 2000. Bewick has been serving as Extension Professor and Director for the Cranberry Experiment Station at the University of Massachusetts. Prior to that, he was an Associate Professor at the University of Florida. He received his B.S. degree in olericulture at the University of California. Bewick has been involved in numerous professional and honorary societies such as the Weed Science Society of American, Southern Weed Science Society, American Society for Horticultural Science, and Northeast Weed Science Society.

Irma Lawrence has joined Higher Education Programs (HEP) as Education Research Specialist. She brings skills in data management, analysis, statistics, and evaluation. Lawrence holds an Ed.D. in curriculum and instruction, M.S. degrees in bilingual education and environmental pollution control, and a B.S. in biology. Prior to joining HEP, she was a senior researcher at CSR, Inc., working on a variety of education research projects. She can be reached at 202-720-2082; ilawrence@reeusda.gov.

Action Requested: For information.

Additional information/discussion: Dr. Laughlin expressed appreciation to the system for support and work on the 401 fund applications.

Background: During the April, 2000 ESCOP Executive Committee meeting, a resolution was approved, and subsequently sent to the CSREES Administrator, requesting CSREES "revise it allocation process so that the total of Hatch Funds allocated to each individual Agricultural Experiment Station remains the same and that twenty-five percent of this allocation be designated for use as Multistate Research Funds." The resolution further pointed out that "the effect of the current allocation process is that certain Experiment Stations are required to expend amounts for Multistate Research which greatly exceed twenty-five percent as stated in the AREERA of 1998."

Action Requested: For information.

Additional information/discussion: Dr. Hefferan distributed a comparison of the current method of Hatch distribution with one of many scenarios which the agency developed for consideration. (Copy available upon request). All options have differential effects of states. ESCOP will revisit the resolution, looking at alternatives that Dr. Hefferan's staff has prepared. It was agreed that ESCOP officially withdraws its resolution until a future date.

Background: ICOP of interest to ESCOP are as follows:

1. We continue to pursue funding for the GASEPA initiative through CSREES/USDA. Last year, GASEPA made it into the President's budget at a level of $1 million for a competitive grants program but was zeroed out by Congress. ICOP will work with AESOP Enterprises (Terry Nipp) to layout a road map for funding in the next budget round. We have started that process already.

2. The Board on Agriculture has engaged with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in the creation of a new body to be know as SPARE (= Strategic Partnership for Agricultural Research and Education). Two members of this six person group are to be nominated by the Chair of the BOA, Tom Fretz. He has nominated David Sammons (Purdue) and Emmanuel Acquah (University of Maryland - Eastern Shore) as the two Land Grant representatives on the committee. Other members will come from outside the Land Grant Community and from USAID. The function of this committee is to provide advice and counsel to USAID (through the Board on International Food and Agricultural Development = BIFAD of which it is a sub-committee) on such matters as priorities for agricultural efforts as part of the development assistance agenda, review of the CRSPs, new international agriculture research initiatives, etc. The first meeting of SPARE is likely to occur late in the summer or early fall. SPARE provides a direct line into the Agency for International Development for the entire higher education community.

3. The ICOP continues to work with Congress on passage of a rewrite of the Title XII legislation entitled: "Famine Prevention and Freedom from Hunger." This is a Title of the Foreign Assistance Act and places a special responsibility on the Land Grant Community and its allies in higher education to contribute to our national goals in the global arena to combat hunger and malnutrition through research and education initiatives. The new language has now passed the House of Representatives (as of July 24, 2000) and is before the Senate at this writing.

4. The International Agriculture theme for our program at the San Antonio NASULGC meetings will be: "How Do We Mobilize and Institutionalize the Globalization of our Universities?" Part of the discussion during this program will focus on successful models for this imperative. We invite all interested ESCOP members to attend this session on Tuesday afternoon, November 14.

Action Requested: For information.

Agenda Item 26.
ERS

[No report submitted.]

Background: The joint ECOP and ESCOP Rural Community and Farm Crisis Task Force has just begun its deliberations. This Task Force is charged with recommending specific action items to help the land-grant system address high priority research and education issues related to rural communities and the farm crisis. A framing assumption is that rural communities and the farm crisis are two separate issues, but they also clearly have more similarities than differences. Given the interrelatedness of these issues, it was determined that it is better for one group to address both issues rather than have each addressed separately. This Task Force is expected to develop a document that identifies high priority research and education action items leading to specific outcomes which will be attractive to funding agencies. To do this, the task force will seek to analyze the conditions influencing both rural communities and farmer caught in the current farm crisis very carefully and come up with something new and different that will improve the quality of life on farms and in rural communities in a significant, measurable way.

A guiding document is the presentation by Mark Drabenstott, Vice President and Director, Center of the Study of Rural America, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, at the 1999 Hatch Memorial Lecture "New Futures for Rural America: The Role for Land-Grant Universities" on November 8, 1999, at the NASULGC Meeting. Mark's lecture caught people's attention as he addressed challenges and "taking up the tasks that promise new futures for rural America." You may find his address of interest for your task as identified above.

The Task Force will have its first conference call during the week of the Denver meeting. The work of the Task Force will be presented at the ESCOP Social Science Committee during their September meeting and then to ESCOP’s Science and Technology Committee.

You may access the Drabanstott document at: http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/whatnew/hatch99.pdf.

Action Requested: For information.

Background: The ESCOP Social Science Subcommittee was officially formed in July. However, it had an initial meeting of its organizers in Washington, D.C. during May. The Subcommittee will have its first full meeting on September 14th and 15th in Washington D.C.

The Social Science Subcommittee grew out of the former ESCOP T-5 Social Science Subcommittee. This Subcommittee is composed of Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension faculty from around the nation. Disciplines included among the members are Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Communication, Agricultural Education, the Applied Human Sciences, and Rural Sociology.

Presently, the Subcommittee is working on two initiatives and will contribute to a third. The first is a social science biotechnology initiative. The social science faculties have a long commitment to understanding the social organization and application of biotechnologies. The recent Task Force report on biotechnologies includes some references to social science issues. The Social Science Subcommittee intends to develop an initiative on biotechnology that is both informed by the social sciences and that examines the benefits of multidisciplinary research between natural scientists and social scientists working on these issues.

The second initiative, which is under way, is the Rural Vitality Initiative (RVI). The following is the first draft of the Social Science Subcommittee’s statement on the intiative.

Social Science Subcommittee’s Rural Vitality Initiative The Rural Vitality Initiative (RVI) represents the collaboration of ECOP and ESCOP concerns for rural people and their communities. The Social Science Subcommittee of ESCOP’s Science and Technology Committee is in the process of proposing several programs the will be subsumed under the Rural Vitality Initiative. A high priority proposal will be a competitive grant program to create public-private partnerships to bring university-based expertise to bear on issues important to rural families, farms, and communities.

The Opportunities and Needs

Even though the 1990s were one of the longest periods of economic expansion in American history, the benefits have primarily accrued in urban areas. Significant portions of rural America continue to be plagued by persistent unemployment and poverty, low agriculture commodity prices, out-migration of the brightest youth, and insufficient social, economic, and physical infrastructure necessary for self-development. But government alone cannot solve these rural crises; families and communities in rural areas need access to state-of -the-art social science knowledge and information so that they can develop credible informed strategies for dealing with a complex set of issues affecting their quality of life.

This initiative recognizes a heightened bipartisan awareness in Congress and the Administration of citizens and communities left behind during this period of prosperity as well as new opportunities to build upon existing capacities of rural people and places. Although approaches to solutions may vary from one side of the political spectrum to the other, there is common interest as well as plans being brought forward to address the issues. For example, HR 815 American Community Renewal Act of 1999 sponsored by Congressman J.C. Watts and others, Congressman Archers efforts to reach agreement on community renewal, the recreation of the Congressional Rural Caucus, and the Clinton administration’s “Building Livable Communities” initiative.

The Issues

A broad set of issues affects the quality of life in rural America, including:

• Financial management and the ability to manage risk at the farm, ranch, and family level.
• Workforce quality and job development
• Access to, and utilization of, information technology (cross-cutting issues)
• The impacts of structural change in food/fiber systems
• Community capacity to deal with issues such as brain drain among youth, local services (health care, education, etc.), land use pressures, and others.

RVI in Operation

RVI will be based upon tapping the creative and innovative mix of ideas and information that can put rural people to work, address the needs of communities concerned about youth and families in crisis, and both build and expand on existing social capital in rural America. This proposed competitive grants program would be administered by a consortium of federal agencies and managed via USDA’s CSREES Competitive Grants Program. This competitively allocated pool of funds would be designed to support interdisciplinary and inter-institutional teams working on community and family issues in partnership with rural communities and institutions. The objective is to address a wide range of the challenges that rural families and communities face.

RVI projects will not be solely research or extension. Rather, they would be a seamless continuum of activity ranging from discovery to application. These projects will require collaborative partnerships of university faculty, community residents and leaders, and various governmental and non-governmental organizations. The processes for implementing RVI projects will employ participatory techniques more often associated with international, rather than domestic, development efforts. RVI will engage universities and communities in a real-time process of addressing complex problems so that science-based solutions can be identified, implemented and evaluated.

Work has begun on formulating the RVI to address key social and economic issues of rural America, potentially in collaboration with other efforts now being brought forward in Congress or by other groups. The ESCOP/ECOP Rural Communities and Farm Crisis Task Force has been formed to address both the discovery and dissemination phases of the initiative. The social science community is poised to move forward. The Land Grant Universities, through their social science capacity, has the resources and a track record for empowering citizens and communities to find solutions to their concerns.

At this time, RVI envisions a competitive grant program that will include university personnel, communities, and NGO’s. Projects that directly address rural community issues through a wide variety of meaningfully involved partners will receive funding priority. In the rhetoric of the Fund for Rural America, these projects will give emphasis to efforts where the rubber hits the road in rural development. Evaluation and accountability will be required, including provisions for evaluation funding for up to 5 years after the rest of the project concludes. Proposals for specific projects and centers will be considered.

Funding priority will go to projects with the following features:

• Research design/program goals demonstrably grounded in community-defined issues and needs;
• Address controversial topics and engage potentially contentious stakeholder groups, provided that the project 1) involves a team with appropriate conflict management experience and 2) develops a conflict management strategy that focuses on capacity building and leadership skills;
• Clearly defined public issue education and communication strategies;
• Decision-making authority vested in local groups (consistent with existing laws);
• Involves typically under-represented groups.

Action Requested: For information.

Background:

• ARD held its 12th Biennial Research Symposium in Washington, DC, April 19-21, 2000. This symposium gave research scientists and students an opportunity to present their research findings to their colleagues and others that made up the more than 500 participants. ARD would like to express its appreciation to our land-grant partners for their participation as speakers, judges, exhibitors, etc.

• ARD member institutions prepared and submitted several proposals for funding under the Section 401 Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. And several members of the 1890 family have been selected to serve as proposal reviewers and panel managers for the program.

• In FY 2000, eight of the ARD member institutions were not able to obtain the 30 percent state match; five of the eight requested a waiver. For FY 2001, the situation is not yet known.

• ARD will participate in the SAES/ARD Workshop in New Orleans, Louisiana, September 24-28, 2000.

• ARD representatives participated in the July 19, 2000 Washington, DC Fly-In seeking support for the FY 2001 Federal Budget.

• ARD's summer meeting is scheduled for Guam and Saipan, Pacific Islands July 28 - August 4, 2000. The intent is to explore opportunities for mutually beneficial and meaningful collaborations with the Pacific Islands land-grant institutions. (Information will be placed on a website for review).

Action Requested: For information.

Additional information/discussion: Announced that Carolyn Brooks will be incoming chair of ARD in November, 2000.

Background:

The NERA directors met in Basin Harbor, VT June 25 to 28, 2000. The theme of the meeting was the Land Grant University's tradition and mission.

At our NERA meeting the directors approved the most recent version of the National Multistate Research Guidelines. They also approved level funding for the NRSPs, reserving the right to revisit those decisions following the outcome of the FFY 2001 appropriations process.

The members had an on-line demonstration of the NERA paperless management system, which is now being implemented in anticipation of final approval of the National Guidelines. We have determined that, given the flexibility of on-line paperless management and the completeness of the National Guidelines, there is no need at this time for a NE supplement to the National Guidelines. We hope to have full implementation on the National Guidelines by October 1, 2000. This smooth and relatively quick transition was made possible by CSREES's generous extension of all pending NE projects, and the industrious efforts of Rubie Mize and Natalie Moy in developing the necessary 'Cold Fusion' software and the entry of the relevant documents.

I have been invited to participate in a CSREES Plan of Work Task Force that will be retrospectively assessing what we have learned, and how to improve the process.

The next meeting of the NERA directors will be in New Orleans on September 28, at the conclusion of the SAES Directors' Workshop. The new officer's for NERA, who will assume their duties at the end of that meeting, are:

Chair: Ronnie Coffman, New York/Cornell
Chair-elect: Mark Mount, Massachusetts
At-Large: Cameron Hackney, West Virginia
Past-Chair: John Nye, Delaware

Action Requested: For information.

Additional information/discussion: A new feature of NERA's annual meeting is that each station is asked to provide an update on activities, new research programs, etc., which facilitates communication and understanding among stations in the region. The reporting process consumes approximately an hour at the beginning of a meeting.

Background:

1. The NCRA held an excellent meeting in March. The meeting focused on review of the research portfolio and reports on activities. The July meeting was held in conjunction with the mini-LGU family where organization, advocacy, and integration were the central themes.

2. Dr. Daryl Lund, Cornell University, has accepted the Executive Director position for the NCRA effective January 8, 2001. Many thanks to Dr. Richard Lower for his outstanding leadership of NCRA.

3. The "Guidelines for Multistate Research" were approved in concept by the NCRA again at the July meeting. The NCRA will be developing a supplemental set of guidelines concentrating on the priorities established by the NCA (department heads and chairs) and directors.

4. NCRA continues to have dialogue within the region with regard to integrating Extension and research activities at the regional level. A two-hour joint meeting of the AES and CES Directors was held prior to the mini-LGU meeting.

5. Dr. Robert Holm provided an excellent presentation on the IR-4/NRSP-4 program and updated the directors on activities and accomplishments.

6. A discussion about security and biotechnology research on our campuses was held with the intent of exchanging approaches and ideas to assist each other. This was an excellent meeting and similar discussions should be continued.

7. We had considerable discussion about the status of the Plan of Work annual report and the relationship between programmatic accomplishment and auditable activities. Although no general conclusion was reached about content and format for the annual report, there were several different opinions and viewpoints with regard to this report.

Action Requested: For information.

Additional information/discussion: NERA officers for 2001:
Virginia Clark, Incoming Chair, NDSU
Ian Gray, Chair-Elect and MRC Chair, MSU
Tom Payne, Past Chair

Background:

• Newly elected officers include:
  William H. Brown (LA) - Chair-Elect 6/30/00 - 11/30/00 (Replaced John Beverly who retired 6/30/00.)
  M. Scott Smith (KY) - Chair-Elect (beginning 11/30/00)
  Nancy Cox (MS) - Executive Committee Member at Large (effective 5/00/00)

• Meetings - The Association's spring meeting hosted by the University of the Virgin Islands was a great success and included tours on the islands of St. John and St. Croix. On St. Croix, the tour included visits to the University's research projects involving Senepol cattle, hair sheep, horticultural crops, and aquaponics production of Tilapia and vegetable crops.

  The summer meeting will be held in Roanoke, Virginia on August 14-15 in conjunction with the Southern Land-Grant Conference.

• A new Southern Region Strategic Plan was approved at the spring meeting in May. Components of the plan are available on the homepage and include: 1) Mission and Vision Statements; 2) Operational Plan; and 3) Programmatic Plan which is organized by GPRA Goals. A companion piece to the Programmatic Plan is a spreadsheet showing all activities in which Southern Region members participate and is presented by GPRA goal and Southern Region priority area.

• An action item at the summer meeting is an anticipated approval of changes to the Association's By-Laws. One change brought about by this action would be reorganization of the Southern Region's ESCOP memberships to include the immediate past chair, chair, and chair-elect. (Currently the chair serves as the junior member of ESCOP.)

• A resolution adopted at the May meeting, with a charge to present it to ESCOP, involves support of an entity to increase federal funds. The resolution is as follows:

  Whereas, the critical need for research and education on existing and emerging agriculture, food, and environmental issues is increasing in importance at an unprecedented rate; and

  Whereas, major break-throughs in science are expanding new knowledge at an exponential rate in areas such as life sciences, electronic and satellite communications, and computer technology; and

  Whereas, federal support for increasing the knowledge base for these existing and emerging issues surrounding the national food system is level; and

  Whereas, agriculture is rapidly changing, expanding, and consolidating; and

  Whereas, numerous studies, workshops, and task forces have presented recommendations and action items for land-grant universities to undertake;

  Therefore, be it resolved that the Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors formulate a response to the recommendations of the appropriate studies, workshops, and task forces enumerating strategies and actions which move research in agricultural, food, and environmental sciences to the next level of excellence and relevance; and

  Further, be it resolved that on this tenth day of May, 2000, the Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors support a process that would result in an increased national focus, collaboration, and cohesive entity (e.g. institute, academy, etc.) that encompasses all aspects of agricultural research, extension, and academic programs.

Action Requested: For information.

Background: The Western Assoc. of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors (WAAESD) met July 16-19, 2000 in Lake Tahoe, NV as part of the Western Joint Summer Meeting. The meeting was hosted by the University of Nevada. Henry Vaux (CA), current WAAESD Chair, presided at the meeting. In addition to conducting the normal business of the association, i.e., the evaluation and approval of western multi-state research projects and coordinating committees, the association addressed several noteworthy issues and made decisions that stand as important actions for the future of WAAESD. These include:

• In WAAESD discussions and following consultations with the Western Administrative Heads, Extension and Academic Programs; the position responsibilities for the new WAAESD Executive Director were finalized in concept and approved by all participating organizations. In brief, the new WAAESD Executive Director will have primary responsibility for facilitating and coordinating regional/multi-state research and attending to other WAAESD functions, but will also have responsibility for coordinating and facilitating the integration of research, extension, and academic programs at the regional level and maintaining appropriate regional data-bases for these integrated activities. The approximate division of responsibility for the new Executive Director will be 80% research, 15% Extension, and 5% Academic Programs. The search committee is currently finalizing the ED position description to appropriately include the above range of responsibility. The final position description will be released/advertised soon with the anticipation that finalists for the position will be interviewed at the NASULGC Meeting in November.
• On a trial basis for the last two years, the Western Region has used a new, multifunctional committee (Regional Coordination and Implementation Committee, RCIC) to evaluate all coordinating committees in the region involving research, extension, and academics and coordinating committees that integrate across the three functions. The formal multi-state/regional research projects have been evaluated and approved by the WAAESD Research Implementation Committee, RIC. At the Lake Tahoe Meetings the state directors approved merging RCIC and RIC functions and responsibilities into a single committee that will have responsibility for all coordinating committees and multi-state/regional research project.
• The Western Deans and Directors received the initial report from the Interim Director of the Policy Analysis Center for Western Public Lands which was approved at last summer's joint meetings in Sun Valley, ID and recently funded by the Western States and organized in terms of the participating scientists/professionals and the appointment of a governing board.
• WAAESD received the report of their ad hoc committee on assessments that was established to review the members' attitudes and the costs incurred from the various regional and national assessments that the Western SAES pay. The committee found very strong support for the WAAESD assessment and a mixed and lower level of support for some of the SAES national assessments.
• The new slate of officers for WAAESD include:
  Jim Jacobs (WY) – Chair Elect
  LeRoy Daughtery (NM) – Vice Chair Elect
  Don Synder – Secretary Elect

Action Requested: For information.

Background: Dr. Blackburn, Northern Plains Area Director, Fort Collins, will present a report regarding ARS' activities.

Action Requested: For information.

Additional information/discussion: A powerpoint presentation (copy available on request) outlined discussion in the following areas:

• Status
  • Budget
  • Participation in ESCOP Committees
  • Peer Review of Research Projects
  • SY Recruitment
• Partnership with Land-Grant System
  • Some Examples
  • Survey - Northern Plains Area

Agenda Item 34.
NASULGC Report

[No report submitted.]

Background: The Nominating Committee will present nominations for the following assignments:

• ESCOP Chair-Elect
• Advocacy and Marketing Committee Chair-Elect
• Budget and Legislative Committee Chair-Elect
• Science and Technology Committee Chair-Elect

Action Requested: Election of Chair-Elect and approval of new committee assignments.

Action Taken: The following slate of officers was accepted on motion/second by Drs. Nelson/Coffman:

• Chair-Elect, ESCOP: Richard Heimsch, ID (confirmed)
• Chair-Elect, Budget and Legislative Committee: Fred Cholick, SD (confirmed)
• Chair-Elect, Science and Technology Committee: Nancy Cox, MS (confirmed)
• Chair-Elect, Advocacy and Marketing Committee: Gerald Klonglan, IA (pending)[Note: Subsequent discussion with Dr. Klonglan indicated he is not available to accept this assignment.]

The slate will be presented at the Section meeting for final approval.

Background: The annual Experiment Station Section (ESS) meeting will be held Tuesday morning (8-12), September 26, in New Orleans, in conjunction with the SAES/ARD Workshop and regional meetings. Tentative agenda items include:

• Approval of new Guidelines for Multistate Research - T. J. Helms
• Announcement of new Rules of Operation (Draft to be discussed in Denver with electronic vote prior to September meeting.) - Dick Lower
• AESOP Report - Terry Nipp
• Core Committee Chairs' Annual Reports
• AHS Restructure - Darrell Nelson
• Bioterrorism on campuses - Ian Gray will lead discussion
• NRSP budget presentations - T. J. Helms
• "Value-Added" Task Force report - Charles Scifres
• Space Grant/Land Grant Geospatial Technology Program - Chuck Krueger
• Announcement of new officers, committee assignments
• Resolutions Committee Report - McArthur Floyd

Action Requested: Submit additional agenda items to Dr. Floyd or Dr. Helms.

Background:

Background Information: Managing State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAES-1862) and Agricultural Research Stations (ARD-1890). A workshop that addresses current and future opportunities for all stations. We will have 30-minute breaks (coffee, tea and soft drinks), continental breakfasts, and lunches for the full-day sessions.

LUNCH 12:00 noon - 1:00 p.m.

SESSION I - TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26 1:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.

Moderator: Fred Cholick, Dean, South Dakota State University

Building Support for the Agriculture Budget – Vic Lechtenberg, Dean, Purdue University, Opening Statement and Moderator (1:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.) [20 minutes]

• The CFAR Process and How It Is Proceeding – Joe Coffey, National CFAR Coordinator [40 minutes]
• The Century III Process and How It Is Proceeding – Sam Smith, Chair of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges Board of Directors for 2000 [40 minutes]
• Panel Discussion: Speakers plus Colin Kaltenbach, Director, University of Arizona; Charles Laughlin, Administrator, CSREES; Terry Nipp, AESOP Enterprises; and Don Holt, Senior Associate Dean, University of Illinois [45 minutes]
• Questions and Answers

We need to know the direction these programs are going. Are they on a collision course? Is one program threatening to the other? How do they fit the "A Single Voice" philosophy? What is the role of the professional societies, CAST, NRI, Co-FARM, NASULGC, CARET and AESOP in the development and implementation of these programs? Can synergism be gained by merging the two programs at some time and place? Where should any new money for agricultural research, teaching and outreach be located? How should the money be distributed? What are the odds of success of either of these programs? Is there a better way? Questions and answers from the directors.

Break (3:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.)

Review of the ESCOP Core Committee Process (4:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.)

• Opening statement about the process and brief statements by the Core Committee chairs about what works and what doesn’t. How can the structure be improved? [Each speaker 10-15 minutes]
  • Budget and Legislative Committee - Tom Payne, University of Missouri
  • Advocacy and Marketing Committee - Colin Kaltenbach, University of Arizona
  • Science and Technology Committee - George Ham, Associate Director, Kansas State University
  • Partnership Committee - D. C. Coston, Associate Director, Oklahoma State University
  • Planning Committee - Eric Young, Assistant Director, North Carolina State University

• Questions and Answers

The ESCOP Core Committees have been in place for two years and it is appropriate to review the process and alter or amend it, if it can be improved. The informal communication process between chairs of the Core Committees has been very good, but there has been little oversight to the process. Are we happy with this or can we improve the mechanics of interaction?

SESSION II - TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26 (6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.)

Moderator: Gloria Wyche-Moore, Director, District of Columbia Experiment Station

Invocation and Comments - J. Patrick Jordan, Director, ARS, Mid South Area; Former CSREES Administrator

After Dinner Speaker - Don Latham, CARET Representative to ESCOP - "The Research System - A User's Perspective"

Social - Cash Bar (8:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m.)

SESSION III - WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 (8:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon)

Moderator: David G. Thawley, Dean and Director, University of Nevada

Building a Budget for the Out Years - 2005-2010

• The Social Economic and Technological Context that Agriculture Will Have to Live Within 10 to 15 Years (2010-2015). How We Can Best Help Agriculture Succeed in This Environment - Mark Drabenstott, Vice President and Director, Center for the Study of Rural America, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and Brian Staihr, Senior Economist, Center for the Study of Rural America, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City [60 minutes]
• Questions and Answers [10 minutes]
• Review of the Budget Building Process Utilized at the 1999 Workshop – Eric Young, Chair of Planning Core Committee and Tom Payne, Chair of ESCOP Budget and Legislative Core Committee [10 minutes]
• Review of the Budget Prioritization Process Findings in 1999 and Charge for This Session – Terry Nipp, Tom Payne and Eric Young [10 minutes]

Break (9:30 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. )

Breakout Group Discussions of Charge and Development of Responses (10:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon) (Groups of 10 to 12. Members of the Planning Committee will be recorders; Members of the Budget and Legislative Committee will be reporters.)

Lunch (12:00 noon - 1:30 p.m.)

SESSION IV - WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 (1:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.)

Moderator: Virginia Clark, Dean, College of Human Development and Education, North Dakota State University

Efficiencies and Effectiveness of Experiment Stations’ Organizations; Opportunities for the Future; Questions and Answers for All Directors (1:30 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.) John Nye, Dean, University of Delaware (Northeastern Region); Eldon Ortman, Associate Director, Purdue University (North Central Region); Charles Scifres, Dean, Associate Vice President for Agriculture, University of Arkansas (Southern Region); Richard Heimsch, Director, University of Idaho (Western Region); and Sunil Pancholy, Associate Director, Florida A & M University (Association of Research Directors-1890) [Each speaker 10-15 minutes]

• Questions and Answers

Break (3:00-3:30)

Understanding the new Multistate Research Manual and How to Use It - A National Perspective - T. J. Helms, Executive Director, Southern Region (3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.)

• Questions and Answers

Dinner - On Your Own (free evening)

Review of Breakout Groups’ Responses - Terry Nipp, Tom Payne and Eric Young (internal)

SESSION V - THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2000 (8:00 a.m.- 9:30 a.m.)

Moderator: Jacquelyn McCray, Research Director, University of Arkansas-Pine Bluff

Reconvene Session on Budget Building for 2010-2015 - Terry Nipp, Tom Payne, Eric Young (8:00 a.m. - 9:15 a.m.)

• Discussion of Findings - Questions and Answers

Synthesis (9:15 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.) McArthur Floyd, Chair-Elect, ESCOP, Alabama A&M University

Break (9:30 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.)

Regional Meetings (10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.) (Box lunch to be served)

Action Requested: For information.

Additional information/discussion: An updated draft of the Workshop schedule was distributed.

Background: Final discussions and assignments will precede adjournment.

Action Requested: For information.

Background: Due to his service as ESCOP's liaison to the AHS Task Force on the Structure of the Board on Agriculture (BOA), Dr. Nelson showed overheads of proposed changes to the BOA. (Copy available on request). Dr. Nelson asked for comments within 7-10 days as another round of discussions will be taking place soon to incorporate suggested changes.

Action Requested: For information.

Action Taken: A motion/second by Drs. Scifres/Cholick carried, authorizing formation of a task force to assist Dr. Nelson in development of an ESCOP response to the restructure proposal. Members appointed were: Ronnie Coffman, McArthur Floyd, Dick Heimsch, and Charley Scifres.

Background: The AHS organized a task force to study implications of the diversity among land-grant institutions and non-land-grant ASCAR institutions. Specifically, the task force will review 1) administrative structures, 2) cultural and political contexts, 3) human and fiscal resources, and 4) physical infrastructures. In addition, the task force will recommend strategies that will enable all institutions to full partner within the land-grant system and to collectively function most effectively within the AHS to give leadership to the system. Dr. Cholick serves as chair of the Task Force.

Action Requested: For information.

Background: Dr. Reid, Coalition Chair, will provide an update on activities of the Coalition and distribute recent publication entitled "A National Investment in Sustainable Forestry." The publication serves as a plan of action for the national initiative to conserve and sustain our nation's nonfederal forestlands, which consist of 488 million acres. Support of ESCOP is solicited.

Action Requested: For information.