2006 Joint COP's Summer Meeting
Portland, OR 97204
July 24-26, 2006

Minutes

Participants:

Jerry Arkin, (University of Georgia) David Boethel, (Louisiana State University) Dwayne Buxton, (ARS-Albany, GA) James Clark, (West Texas A&M University) Nancy Cox, (University of Kentucky) LeRoy Daugherty, (New Mexico State University) Tom Fretz, (ED-NERA) Mike Harrington, (ED-WAAESD) C.Y. Hu (University of Hawaii) Chavonda Jacobs-Young, (CSREES) Steve Jorgensen, (University of Missouri-Columbia, BHS Liaison) Stephen Kolison, (Tennessee State University) Daryl Lund, (ED-NCRA)

Marshall Martin, (Purdue University) Orlando McMeans, (West Virginia State University) Bruce McPheron (Penn State University) Ron Pardini, (University of Nevada) Alfred Parks (Prairie View A&M) Hunt Shipman, (Cornerstone Government Affairs) Steve Slack, (Ohio State University) Donald Snyder, (Utah State University) Lee Sommers (Colorado State University) Alton Thompson (NC A&T State University) Clarence Watson, (Oklahoma State University) Eric Young (ED-SAAESD)

Assignments and Actions:

Agenda Item 1.0: Approval of Agenda, Meeting Minutes and Interim Actions -
· 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

Agenda

Written Reports Only

Agenda Item: Approval of Agenda, Meeting Minutes and Interim Actions

Presenter: Al Parks

Background Information: Approval of Agenda, Interim Actions and ESCOP Executive Committee Minutes: Febraury 27, 2006

Interim Actions:

Action Requested: Approval of agenda, minutes and interim actions

Action Taken:

Agenda Item: ARS Report

Presenter: Dwayne Buxton

Background Information:

Click here for ARS PowerPoint presentation

In meeting discussion:

Action requested: For information only.

Agenda Item: Budget and Legislative Committee

Presenter: LeRoy Daugherty and Daryl Lund

Background Information:

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.

Agenda Item: Communications and Marketing Committee

Presenter: Jerry Arkin

Background Information:

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.

Actions Requested:

In meeting discussion:

Agenda Item: Science and Technology Committee

Presenters:Eric Young for Steve Puppeke

Background Information:

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.

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:

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)

Agenda Item: CSREES/SAES Hatch Task Force

Presenters: Colin Kaltenbach, Steve Slack, Mike Harrington, and Eric Young

Background Information:

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)

CSREES:
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

ESCOP:
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

Background:
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.

General Features
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:

Project Management:
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.

Agenda Item: CREATE 21

Presenter: Mike Harrington

Background Information:

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.

Participating States:
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.

Questions:

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?
A: No

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.

Other Comments:

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.

Over-all Feedback:

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

Agenda Item: NCFAR Dues for ESCOP

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.

Agenda Item: BAA Policy Board

Presenter: Nancy Cox

Background Information:

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.

· Letter from NERA to PBD regarding assessment for CREATE-21 requesting the PBD to consider adding by-law section on assessments.

· New Dean and Directors Orientation, December 11-13, 2006 in Washington, DC

Agenda Item: Farm Bill Committee

Presenter: Daryl Lund

Background Information:

Click here for Farm Bill Committee report

Action Requested: For information only.

Agenda Item: Partnership Working Group

Presenters:Al Parks, Bruce McPheron, Steve Slack, and Eric Young

Background Information:

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.

Agenda Item: National Germplasm Coordinating Committee

Presenters: Lee Sommers and Tom Frez

Background Information:

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

@ http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/nera/).

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:

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:

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:

Action Requested: For infomation only.

Agenda Item: NRSP Review Committee

Presenters: Lee Sommers and Mike Harrington

Background Information:

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.

Budget Requests:
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:

Action Requested: For Information only.

Agenda Item: Experiment Station Section Meeting Agenda

Presenters: Mike Harrington

Background Information:

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.

Initial Business:
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

Committee Reports
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

Agency Updates
CSREES Update - Larry Miller
NRI Program Update - Anna Palmisano

Other
Nominations Committee Report - Lee Sommers
Resolutions Committee Report -
Final remarks, Changing of the Guard, Announcements - Al Parks

In meeting discussion:

Action Taken: Motion to make recommendation at joint ECOP/ESCOP session to disband Task Force (Sommers/Snyder) - approved.

Agenda Item: SAES/ARD Workshop

Presenters: Ron Pardini and Mike Harrington

Background Information:

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:

Action Requested: For information only.

Agenda Item: Nominating Committee

Presenter:

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.

Agenda Item: Chairs Report

Presenters: Al Parks, ESCOP Chair and Larry Cote, ECOP Chair

In meeting discussion:

· Al Parks - ESCOP Report

· Larry - ECOP Report

Agenda Item: ECOP/ESCOP Formula Funds Task Force Report

Presenter: Tom Fretz for Wendy Wintersteen

Background Information:

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 following:

• Formulate potential strategies for supporting the case for maintenance and/or increases to the Federal Formula Fund portfolio and development of white papers, etc, for possible use by the system to support continuation of Federal Formula funds. In addition, the task force sought to evaluate the information gained by a recent ECOP survey and the ESCOP the Counterfactual Studies and to incorporate these findings into white papers that would be of value to the system as we make our case to policy and decision-makers on the relative impacts of Federal Formula Funds in meeting the nations needs to support a healthy and viable food and agricultural system, and to
• Advise ECOP and ESCOP on matters/issues related to Federal Formula Funds, including the development of white papers in support of continuation of Federal Formula or base funds to support LGU programs.

• Overview: the USDA and Land -Grant University System Partnership to Support Cooperative Extension and Life-long Learning
• Estimated Leverage of Federal Formula Funds
• Talking Points in Support of Formula Funds
• The Case for Formula Funds in the USDA and the Land Grant University Partnership
• Overview: The USDA and Land-Grant University System Partnership to Support Agricultural Research

• Determinants of the Demand for State Agricultural Experiment Station Resources: A Demand System Approach
• New Econometrics Evidence on Agricultural Total Factor Productivity Determinants: Impact of Funding Composition
• Agricultural Productivity, Demand for Experiment Station Resources and Impacts of Research on Productivity
• The Impact of U.S. Formula Funding on Agricultural Productivity: A Counterfactual Study
• Implications and Use of the Counterfactual Study: Result and Conclusions
• Views on Federal Formula Funds Smith-Lever 3(b)&(c) and 3(d) lines
• Economic Impacts of Agricultural Research and Extension

• A Nation at Risk!
• The Hatch Act
• A Drift Toward Elitism by the 'Peoples' Universities
• The Land Grant Tradition
• Honoring the Land Grant Covenant
• The Land Mission: Is it Obsolete?
• State Funding Issues: An Overview
• Adapting Justin Morrill's Vision to a New Century: The Imperative of Change for Land Grant Universities
• The Public University, Intellectual Property and Agricultural Research and Development
• Where are Land Grant Universities Headed?