In Attendance:
Bruce McPheron, Chair
Gerald Arkin, Communications and Marketing Committee
Susan Barefoot, SAAESD
Antoinette A. Betschart, USDA-ARS
David Boethel, Budget and Legislative Committee
Greg Bohach, Science and Technology Committee
Carolyn Brooks, ARD
Nancy Cox, BAA Policy Board
John Ducote, NCRA
Joe Dunn, USDA
Mike Harrington, SAAESD
Colien Hefferan, USDA-CSREES
Stan Johnson, USDA
Arlen Leholm, NCRA
Ron Pardini, WAAESD
Alfred Parks, ARD
Steven Pueppke, NCRA
Daniel Rossi, NERA
Hunt Shipman, Cornerstone
Steve Slack, NCRA
James Wade, NASULGC
Clarence Watson, SAAESD
Eric Young, SAAESD
Rubie Mize, NERA [Recorder]
|
|
ACTION ITEMS |
|
1.0 |
Approved the agenda posted at http://www.nera.umd.edu/2007ESSMeeting/2007ESSAgenda.htm |
|
2.0 |
Approved the 2006 ESS Minutes posted at http://www.nera.umd.edu/2007ESSMeeting/2006ESSmin.htm |
|
5.0 |
BAA – Policy Board of Directors Update – Nancy Cox/Eric Young ·
Steve Slack and Susan
barefoot are the ESCOP representatives to the BAA-PBD System Integration Task
Force. ·
ESCOP still needs to
assign reps. for the Emerging Issues and Future Directions Task Force. |
|
10.0 |
Multi-state Awards Program – ED’s A motion was made, seconded and approved that the awardees, aside from receiving the award at the NASULGC Annual Meeting, will also be honored as follows:
|
|
11.0 |
Final Discussion of N-CFAR Membership ·
ESCOP will pay its
membership dues for 2007 and 2008. |
Minutes
|
|
Notes |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1.0 |
Approval of Agenda – Bruce McPheron Posted at http://www.nera.umd.edu/escop/ESCOPAgendaBriefs3-4-2008.htm The ARD and AEA June Symposium report by
Carolyn Brooks was moved up in the agenda. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2.0 |
Approval of Minutes (July 25-26, 2007) – Bruce McPheron Posted at http://escop.ncsu.edu/meetattach/301_S07ESCOPMin.pdf |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3.0 |
Interim Actions of the Chair – Bruce McPheron Background Information:
For information only. Notes: Attendance of ESCOP Chair Bruce McPheron to the ECOP
Meeting was well received. His counterpart,
Elbert Dickey, will be invited to the ESS Meeting in Sept. at |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
16.0 |
ARD and AEA June Symposium – Carolyn Brooks Notes: The
1890 Land Grant Conference will be held in Go to http://www.aea-ard.org/
for complete info. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
4.0 |
CSREES Update – Colien Hefferan Notes: C. Hefferan briefly noted the
highlights in the FY2009 President’s budget that were outlined in her
memo. She received the letter sent by
Chair McPheron on behalf of the station directors. She recognized that the challenge with
formula funds and earmarks in the President’s budget may continue even with
the change of administration. It is
necessary to “think of new ways” of finding a replacement for formula funds
and earmarks in the long term. 406
funds will be moved to NRI where it can grow.
Anna Palmisano had returned to the Dept. of Energy. Deb Sheely will
take the lead on competitive programs.
Dr.
Hefferan’s FY09 budget memo and table. The members voiced concern over new agency instruction that all
grants should now be submitted through e-grants, including formula. The process will be complicated for
institutions whose office of sponsored programs or office of research handles
e-grant submissions. Another
unintended consequence is the university collecting indirect cost. C. Hefferan noted that money could not be
moved without using e-grant. This will
take effect in 2008, but for FY2009 funds.
She will discuss concerns with
agency staff. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.0 |
BAA – Policy Board of Directors Update – Nancy Cox/Eric Young Background Information: A brief report will be given on the BAA Policy Board of Director's activities, including an update on the two new task forces that are being established. Please see below for more details on these task forces: System Integration Task Force and Emerging Issues & Future Directions Task Force. The next PBD meeting will be in Memphis on March 11-12. I.
System
Integration Task Force Charge The PBD Task Force has the responsibility of developing and implementing a plan that addresses PBD Goal 4 on System Integration, which is “Enhance integration of goals and activities among BAA members and between the BAA and other groups within NASULGC’s structure to gain synergy from collaborative action.” As part of the charge, the Task Force is expected to give attention to the following Actions and Principles as it develops a plan of work. Actions The Task Force is asked to undertake the following actions, among others, to benefit the goal:
Principles Effective integration is sought to help assure that the
land grant system and its federal partners effectively engage the public in
the discovery, dissemination and application of knowledge to address societal
issues. In developing an action
agenda, the Task Force should be guided by the following principles:
Membership
§ Administrative Heads § Academic Programs § Extension § Experiment Station § International Programs § CSREES
II. Emerging Issues & Future
Directions Task Force Charge: The PBD Task Force has the responsibility of developing and implementing a plan that addresses PBD Goal 1 on Emerging Issues and Future Directions which is to “Identify emerging local, regional, national, and global issues and facilitate strategic discussions and actions that will impact and guide future directions for the System*.” As a part of the charge, the Task Force is expected to give attention to the following Actions and Principles as it develops a plan of work. Actions: The Task Force is asked to undertake the following actions, among others, to benefit the goal: · Coordinate, possibly through a professional facilitator, System-wide futuring efforts to help guide future directions for the System. · Engage future thinkers and planners from outside the System, consult futuring literature and connect these resources with the System to expand thinking. · Provide a forum to engage the System, external partners and stakeholders in strategic dialogue to develop recommendations on policy and System-wide approaches for action to address emerging issues. · Work with CSREES to conduct broad-based stakeholder listening session to identify emerging issues that require System-wide planning to address most effectively. · Coordinate, possibly through a professional facilitator, System-wide issues-based strategic planning to assist the System in proactively addressing significant issues and opportunities as they emerge. · Develop strategies to communicate the efforts on emerging issues and future directions with the System. Principles: Effective examination is sought of emerging issues and social, political and economic change that are expected to affect land-grant universities in the decades to come. In developing an action agenda, the Task Force should be guided by the following principles: · The land-grant universities operate in an environment of national, state, Tribal and local community that is complex and dynamic. · The land-grant universities operate in an increasingly diverse global community. · Changes in communications technology are greatly impacting the teaching, research and outreach functions of land-grant universities. · Similarly, communications technology provides new venues which can facilitate active, continuous review of futures and planning. · The system of land-grant universities is in itself a diverse set of institutions with diverse functions. · The speed of change is increasing. · Discussions should be open and participatory. Results should be published. · A wide range of discussants should be sought for futuring conversations. *”System” refers to those functions of the land-grant universities that operate under NASULGC’s Board on Agriculture Assembly and its federal partner USDA/CSREES. For information
only. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6:0 |
Cornerstone Update – Hunt Shipman Notes: The Farm Bill is currently in
conference. As in the
past, the financial side of the bill will be dictated by the state of the
economy. The House and Senate have
different levels of spending with different offsets. Reforms on payment eligibility criteria and commodity support
may not be viable options. Success on
the research title is foreseen but the dollar amount will be the big
issue. Is reauthorizing the 2002 Farm Bill an option? If this happens, it might be extended for
five and not just a year, and IFAFS will get less, not more. NASULGC President, Dr. McPherson, is
working with university presidents to obtain support for IFAFS in the new
Farm Bill. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.0 |
Budget and Legislative Committee – David Boethel and Mike Harrington Background
Information: FY
08 Budget While the final FY 2008 budget numbers are known,
CSREES has not yet released final allocation figures. To this date, distributions have been made
on historical FY ’06 figures which has caused some difficulty for programs
that were not in the FY ’06 budget, e.g. NRSP-7. Budget Comparison:
President’s
FY 09 Budget
BAC
Action on FY’09 Budget Proposal The BAC met in
Complete details of the BAC positions can be found
at: http://www.nasulgc-bac.com/documents/FY2009/KB/The_Numbers.pdf As in the past, a series of 2-sided documents have
been developed in support of “Targeted Enhancements”. (See: http://www.nasulgc-bac.com/kb.htm) ESCOP
Priorities FY 2010 The
Budget and Legislative Committee has completed the priority setting process
for the ’10 budget cycle. The process employed by the ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee
to obtain input is working effectively.
Using FY 2009, as a starting point break out discussions were held at
the ESS Annual Meeting to identify new/emerging issues. This was followed up by an on-line survey
to which there were 62 responses. Overarching Priorities:
Relative Research
Priorities
For information only. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
8.0 |
Communications and Marketing Committee – Jerry Arkin/Arlen Leholm Background Information:
Why Despite the vital work and exciting
discoveries at the State Agricultural Experiment Stations (AES) and
Cooperative Extension Services (CES), federal funding for their programs has
not increased, in real terms, over the past 30 years. To remedy this situation, the System
Communication and Marketing Implementation Committee recommended a marketing
(educational) campaign aimed at key federal officials. Who is
involved? In the fall of 2007, the
System Communication and Marketing Implementation Committee was formed to
provide a coordinated and targeted educational effort to increase awareness
of AES and CES. The System
Implementation Committee is made up of two deans from the Strategy How
do we build upon existing efforts to get better recognition of AES and CES
and turn that into strategic support for our programs? The System
Communication and Marketing Implementation Committee believes that earlier
and repeated use of the media to educate and attract major congressional
sponsors for our programs is the best way to go forward. We have to build
support in home districts and states of our congressional champions and
convert that locally-based support into explanations of and publicity for the
national AES and CES system. The System Communication and Marketing Implementation Committee has
identified 13 members of the House and 15 members of the Senate (the members
of the House and Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittees) that will
be the focus of this educational campaign. Marketing efforts will
strategically target the right issue with the right appropriation champion. Cornerstone
and the Podesta Group The Podesta Group has been
hired to launch the educational campaign.
Cornerstone will coordinate closely with the Podesta Group in this
effort. Cornerstone is our advocacy
firm and Podesta is the marketing/public relations firm. There is no
duplication of effort between Podesta and Cornerstone. Budget The
Experiment Station Section has approved a three year annual assessment at the
$300,000 level for this effort which will become available on July 1, 2008
and, an additional $75,000 is available immediately. ECOP has discussed a $100,000 per year investment
for three years in the System Marketing Plan.
This investment is based on the condition that the overall contract
with Podesta and Cornerstone for the System Marketing Plan not exceed
$300,000 per year. ECOP will meet on
March 13th to finalize their recommendation and plan for next
steps. As is required by policy, an
institution-by-institution Cooperative Extension Section electronic vote
would take place this spring to complete the process. Extension will make the investment in the
System Marketing plan from their existing funds. No more than $240,000
will be available for this effort during the first 12 months of the campaign
for the Podesta Group and $60,000 will be available for Cornerstone’s
coordination efforts. A formal contract will be completed soon with the
Podesta Group and Cornerstone. For information only. Notes:
Gerry Arkin was
commended for his leadership on this committee. “How will the
program work effectively?” Extension’s
contribution signals their commitment, but what are their expectations. Extension’s interest is in “branding” and
they will still move ahead with their study.
Extension’s expectation is flexible, and there is clear understanding
that this will serve the system and is geared towards educating the public
and to improve public relations, and is not
an advocacy exercise. The
delineation should be clear. The newly
formed System Implementation Committee is drafting the contract and the scope
of work for Podesta and Cornerstone.
Both documents should be finalized soon. “A proof of concept” is
important on the first phase, before future funding can be discussed. There will be a yearly evaluation and
expected deliverables. This is a remarkable step
for the system getting on board with the program. Liaison with extension has been phenomenal
and they have been involved throughout the process. CSREES database will be
mined and used for reports. With the
quality of expertise hired and the system’s involvement, it is highly likely
that this campaign will be a success. Members of the System Implementation Committee are: ·
Bruce McPheron ·
Carolyn Brooks ·
Douglas Steele ·
Elbert Dickey ·
Gerald Arkin ·
James Wade ·
Jimmy Cheek ·
Leon Slaughter ·
Wendy Wintersteen ·
Bob Haggerty ·
Arlen Leholm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
9.0 |
Science and Technology Committee – Greg Bohach/Dan Rossi Background
Information: The ESCOP Science and Technology Committee met on
September 17, 2007 in The Committee reviewed the issue of NRI priorities and noted that the NRI leadership indicated that the ESS recommendations were included in planning along with input from other stakeholder groups. At the time of the meeting, the Committee did not have the information to compare our recommendation to the actual RFP’s. The issue of a maximum percentage for NRI integrated
awards was discussed. It was noted
that each funding agency has a different definition of “integrated.” It was suggested that we invite
representatives of the NRI, NSF and NIH to our next meeting to discuss their
agency’s intent relative to integrated programs. Therefore, the next meeting should be in
the The Committee reviewed its charge. It was decided that the current charge was no longer relevant and a subcommittee was assigned to draft a new charge. Dan Rossi volunteered to prepare a draft and send it to Greg for comment. The new charge will be discussed at the next meeting of the Committee. The Committee discussed the next version of the Farm Bill. This committee decided that we need to look at interpretations and impacts of the new Farm Bill to the land-grant system. It was suggested that perhaps the Social Science Subcommittee could initiate such an analysis. The potential role of the Committee in strategic planning was addressed. There is a need for stakeholder engagement in strategic planning. The Committee discussed the need for a content analysis of the research and extension issues raised in the Farm Bill listening sessions. It was noted that perhaps agricultural communicators could be engaged to conduct the content analysis. Two other issues were discussed. Relative to renewable fuels and bio-fuels, it was noted that the social science side is not receiving the attention it should. It was further noted that there was a need for research in this area to integrate across disciplines including engineering, bio-physical sciences, and social science as well as across functional areas. The second issue was research supported by check-off dollars. It was felt that many times those funds come along with restrictions on academic freedom. NECC 63 works with the commodity promotion programs and it might be good to engage them in this discussion. The Science and Technology Committee is scheduled to meet
on Thursday, March 27, 2008 in · A review of 2008 NRI RFP and a discussion of a process for establishing ESS priorities for the 2010 NRI. · Discussion of integrated requirements. · A process and criteria for evaluating CSREES stakeholder input following a discussion of this topic at the March 6 meeting of the Social Science Subcommittee (SSSC). · A process for evaluating the implications of the Farm Bill on the Land Grant System again following a discussion at the SSSC meeting. · A process for reviewing and selecting multistate research awards for recommendation to ESCOP and the ESS. · Discussion of the role of the Land Grant System in proactive science education (for issues including but not limited to cloned meat, BST milk, raw milk, and nanotechnology). · Review of draft committee charge. Action Requested: For discussion and feedback. Notes: The committee was seeking feedback on the
process by which NRI priorities are determined. This will be discussed in detail at the
forthcoming meeting in Chair McPheron suggested that the committee may also want to look into the development of education materials, e.g. labeling of milk. We have factual information backed by science. “We’ve done the science, and there’s no problem.” The social science aspect of our research seems to be ignored. Study of social implications is now being included in some RFAs, e.g. nanotechnology. “We deliver science-based solutions, but we should also think about how people view us, and how we get incorporated in their daily lives.” A suggestion was made to partner with Public Scientific Literacy. There can be some interesting opportunities on this issue. The issue on research supported by check-off dollars and the restrictions on intellectual property that goes along with it maybe a good topic for a future “Best Practices” session at an ESS meeting. Views will be presented by universities that accept and those that don’t. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
10.0 |
Multi-state Awards Program – ED’s ·
Description
and Nomination Form in PDF Action Requested: For discussion. Notes: The deadline for the multistate research awards was Feb. 28. All regions are expected to submit a nomination to be reviewed by this committee. The winner will be announced at the ESS Meeting in September. However, decision has to be made before July 1 when NASULGC submits the materials for printing of the annual meeting program. A motion was made, seconded and approved that the awardees, aside from receiving the award at the NASULGC Annual Meeting, will also be honored as follows: · Each technical committee member and/or scientists will receive a letter from the ESCOP Chair, copied to their respective deans, area directors and supervisors. · There will be a link from the ESCOP webpage to the nomination documents. · CSREES will provide a plaque to be displayed at the agency with the name of the winning project added each year. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
11.0 |
Final Discussion of N-CFAR Membership A decision was made that ESCOP will pay its membership dues for 2007
and 2008. There is merit in the
educational activities of N-CFAR that are now more stakeholder-oriented. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Break |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
12.0 |
REE Energy Strategic Plan – Joe Dunn USDA/REE
Energy Research, Education, and Extension Strategy PowerPoint Presentation in PDF [large file 2.70MB] Notes: Bio Energy Awareness Days
[BEAD II] will be held on June 17-22 in USDA
Letter to the Deans re-BEAD II The
USDA Energy Grand Challenge Competition |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
13.0 |
National Vegetable Crops Initiative – ED’s Notes: There will be a strategic
planning meeting on May 12-13 in |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
14.0 |
Potential candidates for next REE
Under-Secretary – All Notes:
Suggestions should be given to Nancy Cox or
Eric Young in the next 3-4 days. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
15.0 |
Planning for the 2008 ESS/SAES/ARD Workshop
– Steve Pueppke Notes: The
venue is the Grand Traverse Resort in |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
17.0 |
Other Business ·
Steve
Slack announced that the National Agricultural Biotechnology Council’s 20th
Annual Conference will be held on June 3-5 at the Hyatt Regency in http://www.oardc.osu.edu/nabc20/ ·
The next
ESCOP Meeting will be in conjunction with the Joint COPs Meeting to be held
on July 21-23, in |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Chair McPheron adjourned the meeting at
4:40 pm. |