Time |
Agenda # |
Agenda Item - Presenter |
|
1:45 |
|
Call to order - Ron Pardini (Chair) |
|
1:50 |
Approval of Agenda, Minutes,
and Interim Actions – Ron Pardini |
|
|
1:55 |
25 x 25 Initiative - Duane Acker |
|
|
2:05 |
3 |
CSREES Update – Dan Kugler |
|
2:20 |
BAA-Policy Board of Directors Update – Nancy Cox |
|
|
2:30 |
5 |
CREATE-21 Status Report – Steve Slack |
|
2:45 |
Budget and Legislative Committee – LeRoy Daugherty/ |
|
|
2:55 |
Science and Technology Committee: NRI Priorities – Eric Young |
|
|
3:15 |
NRSP Review Committee and Unintended Consequences – Mike Harrington |
|
|
3:25 |
9 |
Strategic Marketing Plan– Jerry Arkin/Tom Fretz |
|
|
|
Break |
|
3:40 |
Institutionalizing Impact Statements for Multistate Activities – Ron
Pardini |
|
|
3:55 |
Structure of ESS Annual Meeting – Mike Harrington/Eric Young |
|
|
4:05 |
New Deans/Directors Workshop - Eric Young |
|
|
4:15 |
13 |
A National Partnership Workshop ala Baltimore 2001 - All |
|
4:25 |
2007 ESS Annual Meeting and Workshop – Bruce McPheron |
|
|
4:30 |
15 |
Other Business |
|
4:45 |
|
Adjourn – Ron Pardini |
Participants
|
Hector Steven Slack, Patrick Sgbokwe, Joe Collett, Bruce McPheron, Marshall Martin, Hunt Shipman, Cornerstone Government Affairs Sukant Misra, LeRoy Daugherty, David Boethel, |
Eric Young, SAAESD Susan Barefoot, Ralph Otto, CSREES Dan Kugler, CSREES Al Parks, Nancy Cox, Stephen Kolison, Ron Pardini, Mike Harrington, WAAESD |
Assignments and
Actions:
Item 4: A motion (D Boethel/B McPheron) was passed to appoint a liaison the ECOP Communications and Marketing Task Force. This will be communicated to the Tom Fretz and Gerry Arkin.
Item 7: The NRI recommendations report was approved. Eric Young to communicate the report to Anna Palmisano with cc’s to Colien Hefferan, Gale Buchanan and all AES Directors.
Item 10: Postponed for a Chair’s Advisory call
Item 11: An ad hoc committee consisting of the ESCOP Chair and Chair-elect, the EDs, a representative from each region will develop a new plan for the ESS Annual Meeting and Workshop.
Agenda Briefs |
Item: Approval of Agenda, Meeting Minutes and Interim Actions
Background Information: Approval of Agenda, 2006 Joint COPs Summer Meeting Minutes and Interim Actions
Agenda
Interim Actions
Action Requested: Approval of agenda, minutes and interim actions
Action Taken: Agenda and interim actions were approved. It was decided that the appropriate ESCOP committee should approved its respective minutes. Thus the minutes of the meeting held at the 2006 Joint COPs meeting should be approved by the full ESCOP Committee.
Item: 25 x 25 Initiative
Presenter: Duane Acker
Background Information:
Click here
for the 25 x 25
In meeting discussion:
·
The
25x25 Initiative has no specific plans for the Energy Title of the Farm Bill
but various commodity groups are looking at this section.
·
ESCOP
can assist is a variety of ways including being aware of and possibly endorsing
the effort and assisting in identifying and addressing the researchable
problems.
·
The
25X25 website has a variety of resources relating to the initiative. There is a sign-up to receive electronic
update and top also endorse the effort.
There is also much background information including a recent study by
researchers the
Action Requested: For information only.
Item: CSREES Update
Presenter: Dan Kugler
Background Information:
In meeting discussion:
·
Dan
Kugler briefly discussed the CSREES Report to the partnership that was
distributed at the BAA meeting.
·
Directors
should be aware of CSREES priorities in the 2008 budget as highlighted in
Colien Hefferan’s “Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Agency Estimates” memo of July 11,
2006. Click
here for this memo.
·
McIntire
Stennis funds will be administered via Grants.Gov this year. This is a federal mandate for all government
payments, suggesting that Hatch and Smith Lever funds will transition to this
system in the future.
·
Ralph
Otto will be the new CSREES Associate Administrator.
Action Requested: For information only
Item: BAA-Policy Board of Directors Update
Presenter: Nancy Cox
Background Information:
The BAA Policy Board of Directors will meet prior to the ESCOP meeting in
In meeting discussion:
Action Requested: For information only
Item: CREATE-21 Status Report
Presenter: Steve Slack
Background Information:
In meeting discussion:
· The latest draft legislative language was discussed by the joint C-21 and Farm Bill Committee.
· There has been a harmonization with Bill Danforth to bring together the NIFA and C-21 proposal into a single effort. The C-21 proposal has always been “NIFA and more”.
· Questions from ESCOP:
o What are the positions of ARS and CREES, etc on this proposal?
o How was the % split between grant categories “open access and capacity” developed? Aren’t the set aside capacity funds too high?
o How vulnerable are the Hatch and other authorities?
o What is the timeline?
o How would a worst case scenario budget cut be handled, across the board?
o If the FY 2007 budget is the baseline shouldn’t there be language which relates to this funding level
· Susan Barefoot suggested language that would require that efforts be made to preserve capacity funds in the event of a budget cut. This recommended change will be communicated to the C-21 committee by Steve Slack.
· The next iteration of the draft language will be available on the C-21 website during the week of November 20. (http://www.create-21.org)
· The timeline is to have the draft language completed before Christmas.
·
Any questions should be addressed to
Action Requested: For information only
Item: Budget and Legislative Committee
Presenter: LeRoy Daugherty and
Background Information:
FY 07
The House has changed and Nancy Polosi (CA) will be the new Speaker, and David
Obey (WI) the new chair of the House Appropriations Committee. LeRoy will
deliver other news gathered from Cornerstone Government Affairs (CGA) on
Saturday.
FY 08
The BAC will have met Saturday at the NASULGC meeting. LeRoy will give an oral
update.
FY 09
At the Fall annual meeting of ESS we had three breakout groups discuss the ESS
budget priorities for FY 09. The B/L Comm. will formulate the input into a
recommendation that will be shared with the ESS membership. Most likely a
Zoomerang survey will be used to arrive at priorities around the issues. The
priorities for ESS need to be transmitted to the BAC in Spring 2007. One of the
more intriguing ideas presented at the ESS Fall workshop is to target any
increase in formula-distributed funds (FDF) to specific important issues (like
bioenergy, water resources, etc.). It was also suggested that we might catalyze
the addition of FDF by pledging to redirect or direct more current FDF to the
same issue (for example, 25% of all FDF would go to a specific topic/issue).
Farm Bill/CREATE 21
The Farm Bill and CREATE 21 Committees have been merged because the next step
(after the vote showed a strong majority in moving CREATE 21 forward to the
next step) is to consider legislative language for the family to consider.
Since the CREATE 21 initiative is so inclusive, the Farm Bill language requests
that the Farm Bill Committee received have been forwarded to CGA so they are
also considered in the Farm Bill Language for CREATE 21.
CGA has developed, and the CREATE 21/Farm Bill Committee has approved, a
legislative timeline in discussing CREATE 21 with CoFARM, CAST, NAREEEAB, REE
agencies staffers, congressmen, CropLife America, NCFAR, etc. CREATE 21-Farm
Bill Committee will meet Saturday in
In preparation for launching CREATE 21 and Farm Bill Language, CGA has created the following Executive Summary.
CREATE-21: Executive Summary
1. Situational Analysis
2. The CREATE-21 Proposal
3. Reorganization within USDA
4. The Case for Reorganization
5. Enhanced Funding Authorized
6. The Case for Enhanced Funding
CREATE-21 must be enacted in order to:
7. Relationship between CREATE-21 and NIFA
For additional information: WWW.CREATE-21.ORG
In meeting discussion:
·
The
Cornerstone group provided an overview of what has transpired as a result of
the election and what may be expected with the changes in Congress and in
particular with key committees.
·
There
will likely be a continuing resolution at least until December 4. It is
unlikely that a forma budget would be forthcoming until after the new Congress
takes office. It is anticipated that
there will be a $160 B supplemental budget request to replace/repair various
DOD items that have been ruined in the
·
There
will be a Zoomerang survey to refine the budget priorities developed in the
breakout sessions at the ESS meeting in
·
Some
consideration should be given to targeting increases in formula funds to
specific initiatives.
·
It
should be recognized that at least $250,000-500,000/state would be needed to
address a particular issue.
·
There
may be some problems with certain states meeting matching requirements if there
were new funds.
·
Earmarks
o
The 1998
AREERA legislation set the 3yr limit for special grants but this has been
ignored.
o
There
has been very direct communication about the 3 yr limit for special grants from
a variety of quarters.
o
The
Democrats ran of a “fiscal responsibility” plank so we should expect to see
increasing scrutiny of special grants.
Action Requested: For information only
Item: Science and Technology Committee: NRI Priorities
Presenter: Eric Young
Background Information:
The Science & Technology Committee conducted a NRI priority setting
session at the recent SAES/ARD Workshop in
In meeting discussion:
· The results of the NRI priorities recommendations were reported.
· The report was approved and is to be sent to Anna Palmisano with cc’s to Colien Hefferan, Gale Buchanan and all AES Directors.
Action Requested: Approval of draft NRI
recommendations.
Item: NRSP Review Committee and Unintended Consequences
Presenter: Mike Harrington
Background Information:
In 2001 a special task force, comprised of members from the AES system and CSREES, was created to review the structure of the NRSP program to make recommendations as to how the program should be structured and managed.
Following broad input from the Directors as well as assistance from CSREES, the current system for managing the NRSP portfolio was implemented in 2003. Included were the establishment of the NRSP Review Committee (NRSP-RC) and first specific guidelines for the NRSP program. The Committee and Guidelines have now been in operation for several years and it may be time to review the outcomes to determine with the policies and procedures are meeting the needs of the system.
Several underlying issues came out of the planning process including the need to approve NRSPs at the national level rather than in the regions, the need to reduce spending on existing NRSPs and the need to articulate a process by which NRSPs could be initiated. However, it is clear that status as an "NRSP" facilitates contributions form from variety agencies such that experiment station dollars are heavily leveraged
With these factors in mind there has been a clear message to the existing NRSP Committees that budgets would be decreased over a period of time to perhaps some minimal level. Unfortunately there may be some unintended consequences of this policy which may result in the loss of certain activities (e.g. NRSP 5 which provides critical virus free tree fruit germplasm and NRSP-6 which maintains and characterizes potato germplasm).
Another operational function of the NRSP-RC is to make recommendations on the disposition of NRSPs and also on funding. These recommendations currently require a 2/3 majority vote of the Directors to overturn the committee's decision.
Important Questions:
In meeting discussion:
· There were no changes recommended to the rules for the NRSP-RC; however, before a vote is taken in the future any extenuating circumstances will be discussed in the ESS Meeting.
· It was recognized that the plant germplasm resources are crucial to the long term well being of the American agriculture system.
· There needs to be a harmonization between the NRSP Review Committee and the National Plant Germplasm Task Force. The latter will likely be bringing forward a recommendation to combine the regional trusts and the NRSPs into a single off the top assessment.
· Should there be a special vote on emergency funding for NRSP 5?
· Inquiries are to be made of NRSP-5 to determine how dire the situation is. If the program is going to be shut down, then there should be a vote among the ESS to determine if a special allocation of off the top Hatch funding should be directed to support for NRSP 5.
· There is also growing concern about NRSP-6 due to reductions in funding from U-WI and ARS.
Action Requested: Discussion
Item: Strategic Marketing Plan
Presenter: Jerry Arkin / Tom Fretz
Background Information:
Action Requested:
Item: Institutionalizing Impact Statements for Multistate Activities
Presenter: Ron Pardini
Background Information:
The Multi-State Research Program is important to the SAES research program and has made significant contributions to the agricultural, nutritional and natural resource communities among others. The successes of the multistate program are not optimally captured in the impact preparation process, and vary between regions. I offer for discussion the process from NCRA for discussion and consideration for adoption (or an acceptable variation) by ESCOP. The links to the NCRA approach follow: http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/impactstatementinfo.htm and http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/impactstatements.htm.
In meeting discussion:
· Postponed due to lack of time.
Action Requested: Discussion and possible adoption
Item: Structure of ESS Annual Meeting
Presenter: Mike Harrington and Eric Young
Background Information:
The Experiment Station Section holds its annual meeting and workshop each September. The purpose of the Section meeting is to inform the Directors of the current status of a variety of activities, to stimulate discussion of pressing issues and to install new officers as required by the Rules of Operation. In general the Section meeting is well attended, but there have been increasing concerns about the structure of the meeting. Many standing Committee reports might be provided in written format as part of a consent agenda rather than as oral reports, possibly freeing time in the Section meeting for additional discussion items. The down side of this might be that some Directors would not be informed of potentially important activities. There is also need to allow time for Directors to address on-going business at their home institutions.
Clearly, there are several items of business that would benefit from broad discussion such as federal budget and NRI priority setting, the NRSP Review Committee report, changes in federal fiscal management and reporting requirements and special task force reports. The schedule should be arranged such that these types of activities receive sufficient time to allow full discussion. The federal budget and NRI priority discussion should be preceded by on-line surveys with the results being reported such that a final set of recommendations could be put forth for broad discussion within the group.
There
have been some preliminary discussions about how workshops could be made more
useful in helping Directors address management of Experiment Stations. One
suggestion is to have "Best Practices" discussions; possible topics
might include management issues of off campus facilities, personnel, budget
allocation, hiring, germplasm release policies, etc. The concept would be to
have each session commence with brief (10 min) explanations of one or two case
studies by directors that have dealt with the issue and implemented a solution.
Case studies would be followed by open facilitated discussion about other
directors' experiences with this issue, including current situation, successes
and failures, new ideas, barriers, etc. These sessions would be 45-60 minutes
and be followed by a 45-minute break to allow for immediate casual
conversations and contacts between directors.
Some balance is needed to assure that the Directors are informed on the Section
and ESCOP activities, that Section business is completed and that most efficient
use of time and resources results.
Action
Requested: Discussion
In meeting discussion:
·
There was limited discussion due to time
constraints, but additional attention will be given in the November 28, 2006
Chair’s Advisory Call.
Item: New Deans/Directors Workshop
Presenter: Eric Young
Background Information:
The
New Dean and Directors Orientation Workshop will be held on December 12-14 in
Action Requested: For information only
In meeting discussion
Item: A National Partnership Workshop ala Baltimore 2001
Presenter: All
Background Information:
Action Requested:
In meeting discussion:
Item: 2007 ESS Annual Meeting and Workshop
Presenter:
Bruce McPheron
Background Information:
The 2007 ESS Annual Meeting and Workshop will be held September 16-19, 2007 at the Sheraton Society
Hill,
Action Requested: For information only