2006 Joint COP's Summer Meeting
Portland, OR 97204
July 24-26, 2006
Jerry Arkin, (University of Georgia)
Marshall Martin, (Purdue University)
Agenda Item 1.0: Approval of Agenda, Meeting Minutes and Interim
· ESCOP Executive Committee Meeting Minutes, February 27, 2006, approved (Slack/Pardini)
· Interim Actions approved (Sommers/McPheron)
Agenda Item 4.0: Communications and Marketing Committee -
· Tom Fretz will prepare memo for Al Parks to send from Communications and Marketing Committee to Policy Board Chair, with cc to Fred Cholick and Nancy Cox, requesting a review of the efficacy of this event.
· Approved a motion (Pardini/Synder) to have a vote at ESS meeting to approve $10,000 for expenses related to developing a strategic plan, including hiring a consultant. Jerry Arkin and Tom Fretz will develop and distribute this request to ESS members at least 30 days prior to meeting.
· Recommendation for a second partnership workshop similar to the one held in Baltimore in 2001 should be sent to Partnership Working Group co-chairs. Tom Fretz will prepare memo on this.
· In response to a proposal by the Committee, Daryl Lund indicated that his assistant, Nikki Nelsen, in the NCRA office could work on developing a pilot process generating a list of experts with media savvy on one or two current issues (such as obesity, BSE, avian influenza, etc.). Consensus to accept Daryl's offer.
Agenda Item 5.0: Science and Technology Committee
· Motion to approve moving forward with proposed NRI priority setting process - Approved (Martin/McPheron)
Agenda Item 7.0: CREATE -21
· Motion that ESCOP endorse the current CREATE-21 proposal (Slack/Pardini) - approved unanimously
Additional Agenda Item: NCFAR Dues
· Motion to pay the $1,000 NCFAR dues for 06/07 membership (Slack/Daughtery) -approved. Eric Young will prepare memo from Al Parks to NASULGC authorizing payment.
Agenda Item 8.0: BAA Policy Board
· Nancy Cox will ask Policy Board of Directors to consider putting a general statement in by-laws that says Policy Board of Directors can impose an assessment in special circumstances.
· Motion to have section session only during Tuesday evening dinner (Slack/Pardini) - approved Agenda Item 10.0: Partnership Working Group
· Al Parks' term ends in November, so ARD will appoint a replacement.
· Partnership working group should take under consideration a follow up meeting to the Baltimore Partnership Meeting of 5 years ago. Tom Fretz will prepare a memo on this.
Agenda Item 13.0: ESCOP/ECOP Formula Funds Task Force
· Motion to make recommendation at joint ECOP/ESCOP session to disband Task Force (Sommers/Snyder) - approved.
Agenda Item 15.0: Nominating Committee
· Motion to nominate LeRoy Daugherty and Nancy Cox for Policy Board of Directors representatives from ESS - approved. Eric Young will prepare memo for Al Parks transmitting these nominees to NASULGC for the ballot.
Joint ECOP/ESCOP Session
Agenda Item J2: ECOP/ESCOP Formula Funds Task Force Report
· Motion to disband Task Force since task is completed. Those present approved, ESCOP has already approved, ECOP will vote during their next Executive Committee call
|Tuesday, July 25|
|8:30 – 12:00||
|Call to Order and Introductions – Al Parks|
| Approval of the Agenda
Approval of ESCOP Executive Committee Minutes: February 27, 2006
Approval of Interim Actions
|ARS Report - Dwayne Buxton|
|Budget and Legislative Committee - LeRoy Daugherty/Daryl Lund|
|Communications and Marketing Committee - Jerry Arkin/Tom Fretz|
|Science and Technology Committee - Steve Puppeke/Eric Young|
|CSREES/SAES Hatch Task Force - Colin Kaltenbach, Steve Slack, Mike Harrington, Eric Young|
|CREATE 21 - Steve Slack, Daryl Lund, Mike Harrington|
1:30 - 5:30
||All COPs Joint Session|
|Wednesday, July 26|
7:00 - 8:15
|All COPs Joint Executive Committees' Breakfast Meeting|
8:30 - 10:00
|NCFAR Dues for ESCOP|
|BAA Policy Board - Nancy Cox|
|Farm Bill Committee - Daryl Lund|
|Partnership Working Group - Al Parks, Bruce McPheron, Steve Slack, Eric Young|
|National Germplasm Coordinating Committee - Lee Sommers/Tom Fretz|
|NRSP Review Committee - Lee Sommers/Mike Harrington|
|Experiment Station Section Meeting Agenda - Mike Harrington|
|SAES/ARD Workshop - Ron Pardini/Mike Harrington|
10:30 - 11:45
|Joint ECOP/ESCOP Meeting|
|Call to Order and Introductions
Larry Cote, ECOP Chair
Al Parks, ESCOP Chair
|Chairs Report (Roadmaps, CREATE-21, etc.)
Larry Cote, ECOP Chair
Al Parks, ESCOP Chair
|ECOP/ESCOP Formula Funds Task Force Report
Wendy Wintersteen, Co-chair, Iowa State University
|eXtension Governing Committee Update
Dan C. Cotton, Director, eXtension
Elbert Dickey, Chair, eXtension Governing Council
James Wade, Director, Outreach and Extension, NASULGC
Mike Harrington, Executive Director, Western Experiment Station Directors
Written Reports Only
ECOP - Elbert Dickey
ICOP - Edwin Price
CARET - Abbott Lee
CRPGE - Ronald Trewyn
AASCARR - James Clark
ARD - Stephen Kolison
NERA - Bruce McPheron
NCRA - Marshall Martin
SAAESD - David Boethel
WAAESD - Don Synder
Presenter: Al Parks
Background Information: Approval of Agenda, Interim Actions and ESCOP Executive Committee Minutes: Febraury 27, 2006
Action Requested: Approval of agenda, minutes and interim actions
Presenter: Dwayne Buxton
Click here for ARS PowerPoint presentation
In meeting discussion:
Action requested: For information only.
Presenter: LeRoy Daugherty and Daryl Lund
FY 07 Budget
The House has completed action on the Ag Appropriations Bill. Of the 20 lines in the BAC priorities list that fund our programs of interest in CSREES, 18 saw increases. Significant dollar increases occurred for Hatch $6.3M; Smith-Lever $8.4M; and NRI $8M. Total increases in CSREES for the BAC priorities are about $28.4M. Insular Affairs and Hispanic serving institutions saw some much needed increases.
The Senate Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for FY 2007 was reported out of full committee on June 22, 2006. The bill will be heard on the Senate floor at the end of June. The subcommittee allocation is approximately $388 million above House allocation. The budget action is posted on the following website: http://www.nasulgc-bac.com/
FY2007 will more than likely not be finalized until post election. With the Senate adding $4 billion for Ag related disaster funding last week it complicates things greatly and increases the chance that Agricultural Appropriations will be enacted post election, both for budgetary as well as political concerns.
***This is a follow up to information provided below on Senate Committee
action on the FY 2007 appropriation for CSREES.
Included on pages 18 and 19 of Senate Report 109-266, in the section for the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics, is the following language:
“Special Research, Education, and Extension Activities. --The Committee is aware of the need for special research, education, and extension activities which are made available on a discretionary basis under 7 U.S.C 450i(c) and similar authorities. These grants are necessary in order to conduct research to facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs in areas of food and agricultural sciences and to ensure that these activities are further assimilated into the food, agriculture, and rural sectors through higher education and extension programs. The Committee also believes that research, education, and extension activity funds made available on a discretionary basis should be sustained by additional funding from competitively-based or private ongoing sources.
The Committee expects that specially awarded grants should be used to meet specific research, education, and extension objectives rather that primarily to supplement other funding sources on an indefinite basis, The Committee expects that prior to the receipt of an award under 7 U.S.C. 450i(c), or grants made under the Research and Education or Extension Service Federal Administration headings of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the grantee must provide a report to the Committee that describes the specific objectives for which these funds will be used, methodologies to measure performance and determine when the objectives will be met, and the expected date of completion for the stated objective. If the report fails to identify a specific date for project completion, the Committee shall assume the objectives will be complete by the end of fiscal year 2007.
The Committee has, in the past, continued funding special research grants [SRGs], in excess of the 3-year time period contemplated in the authorizing statute (7 U.S.C 450i(c)). The Committee is concerned that this has lead to stagnation in research. Additionally, the Committee believes that without regular turnover of discretionary research, the ability to facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs in areas of the food and agricultural sciences of importance to the United States is compromised. Therefore, the Committee beginning in fiscal year 2008, will no longer fund SRGs for more than 3 years.”
FY 08 Budget
The ESS priorities for FY 08 budget has been forwarded to the BAC and are posted on the ESCOP web site. The BAC will begin discussion on FY 08 system priorities at its meeting in Portland in late July.
FY 09 Budget
ESS will have a breakout session at the SAES/ARD workshop to review, modify and establish FY 09 budget priorities.
In meeting discussion:
Action Requested: For Information only.
Presenter: Jerry Arkin
The ESCOP Communication and Marketing Committee has continued to meet throughout the year, most recently in a face-to-face meeting May 23, in Washington DC. The committee is buoyed by its successes, e.g., the Formula for Success bulletin that has been used so successfully by CARET and was highlighted at the Ag Science on the Hill Exhibit in 2005 and 2006, by continued efforts to focus attention on the improvement and efficient use of the impact statements as marketing tools, and in its efforts to assist with the identification of hot topics for development into impact statements. The ESCOP Communication and Marketing Committee has also sought to convey its thoughts and recommendations both to the AHS and to NASULGC regarding the Ag. Science on the Hill Exhibit in an effort to see the event have a greater impact.
Several suggestions regarding the Ag. Science on the Hill Exhibit were conveyed by memo from Dr. Arkin to ESCOP Chairman Parks, June 13, 2006. In addition, two white papers have been developed and are attached to the recommendations below.
1. The ESCOP Communication and Marketing Committee recommends that the ESCOP Chair convey our thoughts regarding the Ag. Science on the Hill Exhibit to both AHS and NASULGC regarding suggested changes, and to monitor changes.
2. The ESCOP Communication and Marketing Committee recommends the development of a Strategic Communication and Marketing Plan. We solicit an endorsement from ESCOP along with a request for $10K to assist with the initial planning activities and the development of a full proposal. The ESCOP Communication and Marketing Committee believes that this is an activity that will require professional assistance and has developed the concept and justification in the attached proposal. (See below the attached proposal for the Development of a Strategic Communication and Marketing Plan for ESCOP). We also refer ESCOP to the paper by the late David R. McKenzie 'Marketing the SAES: A Background Paper on Marketing Strategies for the State Agricultural Experiment Stations'.
3. The ESCOP Communication and Marketing Committee recommends that ESCOP endorse and support the concept of a Marketing Advisory Board to be established in the CSREES Communications unit, and that it be composed of members from within CSREES, the LGU community and the private sector.
4. The ESCOP Communication and Marketing Committee endorses the concept of holding a Second Partnership Workshop (Baltimore II) within the next 12-15 months and would recommend that this idea be conveyed to the leadership of CSREES. The committee is willing to work with CSREES on both the concept and agenda.
5. The ESCOP Communication and Marketing Committee suggests that efforts be made to restructure the way impact statements are collected and distributed. It is time to look seriously at pod-casting, web-streaming and a virtual magazine (Web-zine) for conveying system-wide impacts to reach larger audiences and audiences outside the norm.
6. The ESCOP Communication and Marketing Committee also recommends that ESCOP endorse the concept for the Development of an Experts Lists or an Experts Compendium (see attached White Paper below) and encourage several states to prototype this idea, before expanding this into a national effort.
Proposal for the Development of a Strategic Communication and Marketing Plan for ESCOP
Experts Lists or an Experts Compendium White Paper
In meeting discussion:
Presenters:Eric Young for Steve Puppeke
Science Roadmap for Agriculture Update
The Science & Technology Committee has developed a brochure that updates the Science Roadmap for Agriculture based on the survey of priorities that was completed in early 2005. The detailed survey report can be seen at http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/escop/Roadmap%20Survey%20Report.pdf
The URL for the Science Roadmap for Agriculture Update brochure has been distributed to Administrative Heads and directors of research, extension, academic programs, and international programs so that it can be printed on site to meet future needs. It is also available through a link on the ESCOP Infobook (http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/escop/infobook.htm). Hardcopies have been included in the packets of all attendees at the Joint COPs meeting and additional hardcopies have beed given to each research Executive Director for distribution to their region's directors.
Process for Determining ESS Priorities for the NRI
In response to ESCOP's charge, the Science & Technology Committee has developed a process to provide annual (or biannual) input on NRI priorities from the experiment station directors. The process will involve two steps, an initial on-line survey available to experiment station, extension, and academic program directors, followed by a session at the fall SAES/ARD Workshop composed primarily of experiment station directors. Also, the S&T committee decided that the updated challenges and objectives of the Science Roadmap for Agriculture should serve as the framework for our recommendations.
The initial input will be gained from an on-line survey by asking the following three questions relative to each Roadmap objective.
1. Should this objective be a high priority for NRI support in 2008 funding awards?
2. If NRI supports this objective in 2008, is it very important that proposals to address this objective be integrated as opposed to primarily research?
3. If NRI supports this objective in 2008, what are the most critical knowledge/technology gaps related to addressing this objective?
A subgroup (Nancy Cox, Lou Swanson, Bruce Gage, and Eric Young) has developed an on-line instrument to solicit this preliminary input. The draft instrument can be seen at http://ces.ca.uky.edu/escop/nri1.htm
The breakout groups at the SAES/ARD Workshop will use this input in September to further refine ESCOP's recommendation to CSREES relative to these three questions. In addition, the breakout groups will be asked to express an opinion on a few general questions related to NRI programs. Two currently planned questions are:
1. Assuming no additional funding, should the number of NRI programs be decreased, increased, or remain the same?
2. Assuming no additional funding, should the scope of each NRI program be broadened, narrowed, or remain the same?
The S&T committee will compile and summarize the output generated by the Workshop breakout groups and present the draft recommendations to the ESCOP Executive Committee at its meeting during the NASULGC conference in November. After revisions and approval, the final ESCOP recommendations on NRI priorities will be transmitted to CSREES in early January to feed into the NRI's RFA development, which begins in February.
Action Requested: Approval by ESCOP of the proposed process for determining the SAES/ARD directors' priorities for the NRI.
Action Taken: Motion to approve moving forward with proposed NRI priority setting process - Approved (Martin/McPheron)
Presenters: Colin Kaltenbach, Steve Slack, Mike Harrington, and Eric Young
ESCOP appointed a special task force AES Directors and EDs to work with representatives from CSREES to develop a draft plan which could be used to implement the President's budget proposal for a competitive multistate program. In addition there was a larger group of AES Directors (2 from each region, and the regional EDs that were used as a "sounding board". The executive group (Hatch Working Group) met twice in person and numerous times by teleconference and also communicated via email. Communications to the larger ESCOP group were provided via email updates and two conference calls were held to seek input.
Throughout the process it was stressed that ESCOP did not support the President's Budget nor did it support the distribution of Hatch any funds in a competitive manner.
Multistate Task Force Members
Co-Chairs Larry Miller, Associate Administrator, Colin Kaltenbach (AZ)
Mark Bailey, NPL, Thomas Bewick, NPL, Franklin E. Boteler, Deputy Administrator, Dennis Kopp, Assistant Administrator, Liaison (from/to the Mc-Stennis Working Group), Winston Sherman, Office of Extramural Programs, Susan Welsh, NPL
ARD: Carolyn Brooks (UMES-MD), Alton Thompson (NCA&T-NC) Sam Donald (ED)
NE: Bruce McPheron (PA), Richard Rhodes (RI), Tom Fretz (ED)
NC: Steve Slack (OH), Tom Payne (MO), Marshall Martin-alternate (IN) Daryl Lund (ED)
SAAESD: Greg Weideman (AR), Nancy Cox (KY), Eric Young (ED)
WAAESD: Colin Kaltenbach (AZ), Ron Pardini (NV), Mike Harrington (ED)
Bold denotes Hatch Implementation Team members
Discussions began with a review of all pertinent documents relating to the current multistate program, the Science Roadmap, and CSREES Strategic Plan as well as the current review practices in the multistate program. There was also agreement with a set of principles:
The working group developed two documents-a "Program Framework" that described and outlined the basics of the proposed program and a draft of a formal RFA that can be forwarded through the necessary legal steps within USDA for any competitive grants program. These documents were combined and are currently residing on the CSREES web site where they will remain for comment until such time as Congress determines that there will be a competitive Multi-State program.
Even though it is very doubtful that the FY 07 budget will have a competitive grants aspect for current Hatch funding there are current recommendations by the CREATE 21 Committee that includes a competitive program for "new" Hatch dollars. The program developed by the working group and adopted by the 15 member committee could form the basis of a competitive program for the "new" dollars.
Complete details of the program and a draft RFA can be reviewed at http://www.csrees.usda.gov/newsroom/news/csrees_news/06news/hatch_framework.pdf
Types of Hatch MRF Projects
Pre-submission Proposal Development and Coordination:
Post-submission Peer Review Process:
Allocating Hatch Multi-State Research Funds:
Final allocation of the Hatch MRF to the various SAESs will be recommended by the CSREES/SAES MRF Administrative Review Board (ARB). The ARB will be composed of eight (8) members.
The ARB will respect the rank ordering of proposals by the peer panels in
fulfilling the responsibilities below:
Once a project is approved for funding by the CSREES Administrator, an administrative advisor (AA) and a CSREES National Program Leader (NPL) will be formally assigned to the project. Annual progress reports will be submitted to the Current Research Information System (CRIS) or other reporting system as may be specified in accordance with appropriate schedules and reporting specifications as published in the relevant RFA and/or the Hatch MRF Allocation Terms and Conditions. In addition, reports of annual meetings shall also be reported using the format included in the relevant RFA and/or the appropriate Allocation Terms and Conditions.
Post Award Project Management:
Experiment Station Directors will be allowed flexibility to expend funds within an approved project for different purposes (e.g., salaries, infrastructure, graduate assistants, etc.) and to adjust funds between competitively approved projects primarily due to changes in participation (e.g., a change in scientists at a station, additions to a project, etc.) and to accommodate unique matching requirements.
Adjustments to participants to existing projects will require review by the existing multi-state committee and the approval of the Director of that SAES in which the new (or departing) participant resides. If Hatch MRF allocations need to be adjusted for the affected SAES, CSREES concurrence will be required. If such adjustments are required, those adjustments will be made in the following fiscal year allocation as recommended by the Review Board.
Other Program Criteria:
Criteria for identifying and handling conflicts of interests, and confidentiality issues will be published in the relevant RFA.
Action Requested: For infomation only.
Presenter: Mike Harrington
Conference call have been held with ESCOP (may 5) and the all SAES Directors (June 30) with most state participating. Shown below is a list of state that participated in the System-wide SAES Directors call and the comments that were made.
NE Region: MD, CT, Cornell AES, Tom Fretz; NC Region: MO, IA, KS, OH, MN, WI, IN, MI; Southern Region: VA, SC, TN, NC, LA, TX; Western Region: WA, OR, NM, NV, CO, MT, AK; CREATE-21: Fred Cholick, Jeff Armstrong, Jim Richards, Daryl Lund, Mike Harrington, Steve Slack
Fred Cholick reviewed the major features of the proposed model contained within the PowerPoint presentation. Some important agreements (shared prior to this call) have been made which differ from what is presented in the slides. There has been significant push back on the proviso that would place 50% of any new formula funding in competitive programs. Concerns from Extension include impact on state appropriated salary pools. Since SAES and Extension programs have similar within-state constraints, a uniform family response by CREATE-21 seems desirable. This issue will be an important item for further discussion given the position of the Administration, OMB, Congress and others on the importance of competitive programs.
Q: What is the nature of the envisioned proposal based funding mechanism
for formula funds and would it differ from the current POW?
A: Formula funds would be provided based on a proposal rather than the current POW. Stations would submit a proposal as to how resources would be spent over a specified time period. Some experiment stations currently require external reviews of proposals when submitted; a uniform accepted process could be developed.
Q: Could/would these proposals be peer-reviewed so that we are addressing
come of the concerns of the Administration, OMB and others?
A: This is an excellent recommendation. There is no reason why the formula fund proposals could not be peer-reviewed.
Q: Will the multistate research program change?
Q: Since the proposal involves ARS, CSREES and ERS, what conversations
have occurred with each?
A: A number of briefings have occurred with USDA leadership (Chuck Conners, Gale Buchanan), agency heads and senior agency leadership with positive feedback and suggestions. Many of these suggestions have been incorporated into the proposed model. There has been no formal endorsement which presumably would come from the Secretary of Agriculture.
Q: How does the CSREES-ESCOP Task Force that has developed the draft RFA
for a competitive multistate program relate to CREATE-21 activities?
A: There are several CREATE-21 members who also served on the CSREES-ESCOP Task Force. (Slack, Lund, Harrington,) The draft processes, procedures, RFA, etc. could be used to manage the proposed 50% of new formula funds that have been proposed to be placed in a competitive program(s). There have been very forth-right discussions with Colien Hefferan as to how we might work more closely together during the agency's budget development process.
Q: What are the next steps?
A: CREATE-21 is seeking input from all members of the "family" in call such as this, from joint summer meetings and also from the joint COPS meetings. A number of helpful suggestions have already been received. The Committee will assess all input and may modify the proposed model accordingly. A new PowerPoint describing the revised model will be available by second week in July. Based on feedback from the summer meetings and the COPs, a final proposal will be assembled and -presented for a BAA vote.
Q: Has there been any dialog with stakeholders, e.g. CARET, Farm Bureau,
commodity groups, etc.?
A: Yes. Briefings have been made to a variety of groups including the CARET Executive Committee, the National Association of State Directors of Agriculture, and certain commodity groups. The CARET Executive Committee has recently provided an endorsement of the proposal.
Q: What names are under consideration?
A: The National Institute for Food Agriculture and Community Systems has been suggested.
It may be important to somehow capture natural resources, environment, conservation, etc. in the title.
There should be a clear mechanism which preserves the small 1862's possibly exempting them from 50% requirement of formula funds into competitive programs. This is a moot point if this proviso isn't included in the final proposal.
Very positive and supportive
In meeting discussion:
Action Requested: For information only.
Action Taken: Motion that ESCOP endorse the current CREATE-21 proposal
(Slack/Pardini) - approved unanimously
Action Taken: Motion to pay the $1,000 NCFAR dues for 06/07 membership (Slack/Daughtery) -approved. Eric Young will prepare memo from Al Parks to NASULGC authorizing payment.
Presenter: Nancy Cox
The BAA Policy Board of Directors will meet prior to the ESCOP meeting in Portland on Monday, July 24 from 8:00 to 5:00. A brief report will be given on the discussions and decisions made at this meeting.
In meeting discussion:
· Farm Bill Committee report, 5 of 6 title subcommittees have submitted draft language, except conservation.
o Deadline for language is August 1
o Meeting in D.C. September 6&7
o Draft language for all titles will be distributed to BAA mid-September
· Letter from NERA to PBD regarding assessment for CREATE-21 requesting the PBD to consider adding by-law section on assessments.
o Policy Board of Directors decided not to change by-laws at this time.
o It was pointed out that a general statement on assessments would be helpful in the future if the need arises again.Action:
o Nancy Cox will ask Policy Board of Directors to consider putting a general statement in by-laws that says Policy Board of Directors can impose an assessment in special circumstances.
· New Dean and Directors Orientation, December 11-13, 2006 in Washington, DC
o Motion to have specific ESS session only during Tuesday evening dinner. (Slack/Pardini) - approved
Presenter: Daryl Lund
Click here for Farm Bill Committee report
Action Requested: For information only.
Presenters:Al Parks, Bruce McPheron, Steve Slack, and Eric Young
The Land Grant Partnership Working Group will meet prior to the ESCOP meeting in Portland on Monday, July 24 from 4:00 to 7:30 p.m. A brief report will be given on the discussions and decisions made at this meeting.
Action Taken: Al Parks' term ends in November so ARD will appoint a replacement.
Presenters: Lee Sommers and Tom Frez
The NPGCC was organized following the completion of the ESCOP Plant Germplasm Task Force and in response to one of the task force's recommendations - To provide a mechanism for enhancing SAES/ESCOP, USDA/ARS, and USDA/CSRES cooperation and communication in supporting the National Plant Germplasm System's (NPGS) efforts to conserve and provide plant genetic resources and associated information needed for current and future crop research and development that underpins the U.S. agricultural system. The NPGCC has defined the goals and objectives as the following: 1) To facilitate better coordination between ARS, CSREES and SAES on planning and assessment mechanisms for policy, organization, operations and support of the National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS), 2) To promote awareness and understanding of the NPGS across ARS, CSREES, and SAES and more broadly to the scientific community, and 3) To serve as a vehicle for improving communications and discussions about issues impacting the NPGS with ARS, SAES, and CSREES.
Following a series of conference calls, the NPGCC met face-to-face on June 2 in Ames, Iowa in conjunction with the Plant Genetic Resources Conference. The NPGCC chose to focus the June 2 meeting on the following tasks, 1) the development of the agenda for the upcoming Experiment Station Section (ESS) meetings, September 24-27 in Lake Tahoe, NV, 2) recommendations for the enhancement and improvement, and in particular, the development of new funding models for the 4 regional trust accounts and NRSP 6, and 3) how to broaden participation in the NPGCC with industry stakeholders.
Drs. Peter Bretting (ARS-National Program Staff) and Ann Marie Thro (CSREES) presented overviews of their respective agency commitments and programs in Plant Genetic Resources. Dr. Randy Woodson, chair of the Peer Assessment of 5-Year Performance of ARS National Program 301: Plant, Microbial and Insect Genetic Resources, Genomics and Genetic Improvement presented an overview and findings from the review. (For those with interest, PowerPoint presentations of each of the above presentations can be found on the NERA website
Recommendations and Actions Requested:
1. The NPGCC recommends that ESCOP support the recommendations in the Retrospective Review of ARS National Program 301 and send a letter of endorsement to the Administrator of ARS. Issues that we would encourage specific endorsement of and that impact the Experiment Station system and our faculty, include the following:
a. The NPGCC supports the recommendation that ARS develop a strategic plan for the Nation's germplasm collections that address customer needs. The NPGCC recommends that the development of any strategic plan for the Nation's plant germplasm collections be done in collaboration with the SAES's. Improved communication between ARS, CSREES and the SAES's is critical to the development of any strategic plan that will address these collections, their development, utilization and conservation in the future.
b. The NPGCC supports the recommendation that came forth in the Retrospective Review of ARS Program Area 301 that ARS assume a greater leadership strategy to safeguard the plant, microbe and insect collections.
c. The NPGCC endorses the recommendation from the retrospective report that ARS with its partners, CSREES and the SAES's develop and implement a strategy for conserving critical germplasm and genomic collections. Decisions made regarding specific germplasm and genomic collections should be made in collaboration with the SAES's. This may require the establishment of a new joint committee or task force that focuses its full effort on this matter.
d. The NPGCC supports the recommendation that ARS with its partners work toward a replacement for the GRIN system to ensure compatibility with other emerging genetic databases, and takes into account the needs for the users of the National Plant Germplasm System. We recommend that ARS establish a timetable and a task force to begin to evaluate the process of replacing the GRIN system with a more contemporary model.
2. The NPGCC recommends that a joint effort with CSREES and the SAES's be engaged to develop a public communications and marketing strategy to better address and publicize the inherent value to the nation and to the public and the value of these collections to our national security.
3. The NPGS is critically important to both the US and World Agriculture. The SAES contribution to the system is critical, but minimal in the overall scheme, yet public sector scientists, primarily within the Land Grant University's, are the largest single user of the materials in the collections (28% of the annual requests for germplasm come from the public sector). While we find that the present system of funding for the 4 regional research plant introduction stations via the regional trust accounts, and the use of NRSP off-the-top funding for NRSP-6 unusual, we believe that it is appropriate. In fact we suggest that the directors reconsider their present stance on reducing the funding for NRSP-6. After searching for an alternative to the present funding mechanism, the NPGCC would suggest that we retain the present system that recognizes the commitment of each region to one of the regional plant introduction stations, and the system as a whole to the NRSP-6. If an alternative is to be considered, the NPGCC would offer the following:
a. Development of a formulaic mechanism for funding the 4 regional centers and NRSP with a single annual off-the-top commitment. We would propose a system, yet to be determined, that would have two components, similar in fashion to the assessment that is used to support the Executive Directors offices in each of the regional research associations. That is, an equal dollar commitment from each station coupled with a percentage commitment based on the Hatch distribution. Details will need to be determined and a plan full developed. If the directors wish to consider such a proposal they should make their wishes known. This would also require that the 4 regional Germplasm centers plus NRSP-6 develop a unified 5-year budget for submission and consideration.
4. The NPGCC recommends that the NRI enhance and/or increase opportunities to accelerate research on the utilization of materials in the NPGS collections. This should translate to increased funding for genetic characterization and applied genomics for crop improvement.
In meeting discussion:
· Committee recommends developing a new single mechanism for funding the regional germplasm centers and NRSP-6.
· One possibility is using the existing NRSP system to do this.
· Directors will be asked their opinion on this at the germplasm session during the Workshop.
Action Requested: For infomation only.
Presenters: Lee Sommers and Mike Harrington
The NRSP Review Committee met via conference call on May 26, 2006
Attendance: Lee Sommers, Marshall Martin, Larry Miller, Don Latham, Keith Cooper,
Craig Nessler, Mike Harrington, Tom Fretz, Eric Young, James Wade.
A. NRSP1; Fretz commented that $32,500 of the cost of managing NIMSS is now included in the NRSP1 budget. However, the actual cost of NIMSS is $52,000 and the difference is absorbed by NERA. However, the NERA directors suggested that the NRSP1 budget be held at the FY06 level ($306,916). There will likely be a request next year for the NRSP1 budget to absorb the total cost of NIMSS. Martin moved and Latham seconded a motion to accept the budget request for NRSP1 at $315,524. The motion passed unanimously.
B. NRSP3; Cooper moved and Miller seconded a motion to accept the budget request for NRSP3 at $72,000. The motion passed unanimously.
C. NRSP4; Fretz and Cooper reported that the NERA suggestion of funding at $431,182 was to encourage funding from other sources than off-the-top.
Sommers commented that the NRSP Review Committee had agreed to keep NRSP4 and NRSP8 funds constant for the duration of their current projects. Nessler moved and Cooper seconded a motion to accept the budget request for NRSP4 at $481,182. The motion passed unanimously.
D. NRSP5; Cooper moved and Martin seconded a motion to accept the budget request for NRSP5 at $96,000. The motion passed unanimously.
E. NRSP6; There was discussion on the logic of funding an NRSP on potato germplasm when each of the regions has a regional trust to support plant genetic conservation. Miller moved and Cooper seconded a motion to accept the budget request for NRSP at $110,000. The motion passed unanimously.
F. NRSP7; No off-the-top funding is requested for NRSP7, thus no action was necessary.
G. NRSP8; Nessler moved and Cooper seconded a motion to accept the budget request for NRSP at $400,000. The motion passed unanimously.
Sommers reported that, with the reductions in off-the-top funding for the established NRSPs over the past three years, there has been a release of off-the- top funding of approximately $200,000 that could be used to start new NRSPs. This review process was established as a means to sunset off-the-top funding for some of the NRSPs and create a pool of funds that could be used to initiate one or more new NRSPs to address emerging issues.
Possible NRSP projects suggested included an NRSP4-like project on transgenic crops, a crop genome project similar to NRSP8, and a project related to ESCOP communication/marketing activities. Latham asked whether there is a program similar to NRSP8 for plants.
It was suggested that possible NRSP project topics be a discussion item at the regional association summer meetings and also at the ESCOP annual fall meeting.
In meeting discussion:
· NRSP-1 will request an increase next year to raise NIMSS budget to $50,000 to cover total cost.
Action Requested: For Information only.
Presenters: Mike Harrington
The ESS meeting is scheduled for 10:30 -5:00 pm to allow more time for discussion. The potential agenda items are show below. Mr. Dorr is confirmed for the specified time slot.
Call to order - Al Parks (Chair)
Approval of Agenda and 2005 ESS Meeting Minutes
Interim Actions - Al Parks
Special Guest Speakers:
11:30 - 12:15 The Honorable Thomas Dorr USDA, Under Secretary for Rural Development and Chair of the USDA Energy Council (Confirmed)
Dr. Gale Buchanan, Under Secretary for Research Education and Economics
General Discussion Items
CREATE-21 Discussion - Steve Slack, Daryl Lund, Mike Harrington
Proposed Changes to the MRF Guidelines - Daryl Lund
NIAS Update - Terry Nipp
Competitive Multistate Research - Where are we? - Colin Kaltenbach
Germplasm Task Force - Lee Sommers
NRSP Review Committee - Lee Sommers
NRSP Voting Results - Lee Sommers
ESCOP Standing Committees
CSREES Update - Larry Miller
NRI Program Update - Anna Palmisano
Nominations Committee Report - Lee Sommers
Resolutions Committee Report -
Final remarks, Changing of the Guard, Announcements - Al Parks
In meeting discussion:
· ESCOP members feel this Task Force has completed its task and should be disbanded.
· Should Task Force develop justification for formula funds based on criteria in 2003 OMB/OSTP memo?
o This needs to be done, but by a new group at appropriate time.
Action Taken: Motion to make recommendation at joint ECOP/ESCOP session to disband Task Force (Sommers/Snyder) - approved.
Presenters: Ron Pardini and Mike Harrington
2006 Experiment Station Section Meeting
The 2006 Experiment Station Section Meeting will take place Sunday, September 24 through Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at Harrah's Lake Tahoe in Nevada. Please make your hotel reservations directly by calling 1-800-455-4770 and using group code S09NAES to identify the group rate and block of rooms. The room rate for this block is $109.00, plus 10% occupancy tax. This block of rooms with the special rate will only be held until 8/25/06.
The registration form is available at: http://www.ag.unr.edu/naes/ess2006.htm
August 28 is the deadline for registration (without late fees).
Flight reservations can be made for flights into Reno/Tahoe International Airport. The meeting location is approximately an hour's drive from the airport.
A Draft Agenda is attached.
We look forward to seeing you in Nevada.
In meeting discussion:
· Gale Buchanan cannot attend meeting.
· May add agenda item on National Specialty Crops Initiative.
Action Requested: For information only.
Action Taken: Motion to nominate LeRoy Daugherty and Nancy Cox for Policy Board of Directors representatives from ESS - approved. Eric Young will prepare memo for Al Parks transmitting these nominees to NASULGC for the ballot.
Presenters: Al Parks, ESCOP Chair and Larry Cote, ECOP Chair
In meeting discussion:
· Al Parks - ESCOP Report
o Science Roadmap update published.
o ESCOP endorses moving forward with CREATE-21.
o Support Partnership Working Group considering having another partnership meeting similar to the one in Baltimore in 2001.
· Larry - ECOP Report
o Joint COPs breakfast meeting will be just for the officers of the various COPs, except the executive committee may attend from the host for next year's meeting.
o Formed a new Task Force on extension communication and marketing with a few directors and the majority communications and marketing experts.
o Benchmarking Excellence in Extension Task Force report has been delivered to ECOP.
o Approved a motion to support proceeding with CREATE-21.
o National Leadership Advisory Committee has major input into ECOP's goals and agenda.
Presenter: Tom Fretz for Wendy Wintersteen
The ECOP/ESCOP Ad Hoc Task Force was created by joint actions of ECOP and
ESCOP in the fall of 2004 to address the need for and the relevance of federal
formula funds (to include: Hatch, Smith-Lever, Evans-Allen and McIntire-Stennis)
as a component piece of the LGU portfolio. The charge to the task force included
The task force has met monthly since late 1994 through a series of regularly scheduled conference calls and face-to-face meetings in Washington DC.
The outcomes of the task force can be found on at the following urls:
Over the course of the past two years, 5 white papers have been prepared
and are posted at the url below:
In addition, a series of studies were commissioned by ESCOP - The Counterfactual
Studies - that relate to the impacts of formula or base funds on the state
agricultural experiment station system. Papers completed from the Counterfactual
Studies can be found in pdf format at the url below:
A number of other papers that provide further support for the concept of
the Federal Formula funds and/or the Land Grant Experience can be found
at the urls below:
Some of this same material is posted on the ESCOP website at:
In addition, the ECOP/ESCOP Ad Hoc Task Force with the assistance of the department of Agricultural Communications at Iowa State University prepared an exhibit for the 2006 Agricultural Science on the Hill Exhibit "Funding the Partnership - Fueling our Success" which examined the leverage and value-adding aspects of research and extension activities funded with Federal Formula funds
Actions Requested: The Task Force has completed the work that it was commissioned to do, and we respectively recommend that the Ad Hoc Task Force be thanked for its efforts and disbanded. The Task Force encourages ECOP and ESCOP to submit the Task Force findings to the BAC with a strong statement of support for formula funding. If there are new or continuing needs for discussion regarding the future of formula or base funds as the system looks to CREATE 21 or other models for reorganization, a new ad hoc task force should be established with clear goals, anticipated outcomes and a timeline for completing its work.
Presenters: Dan C. Cotton, Director, eXtension and Elbert Dickey, Chair, eXtension Governing Council
Click here for eXtension PowerPoint presentation
In meeting discussion:
· For access to all information on eXtension go to http://www.about.extension.org
· Updates were given on the five projects on-going under this collaboration, currently in the second year of a three-year agreement.