|
Approved Agenda |
|
Approved 2002 ESS
Meeting Minutes |
|
Approved interim action of ESCOP Chair |
|
Approval of authorization of expenditure of up to $100,000
in support of NIAS and, if other income is raised, the additional income
will be used to offset $100,000. |
|
Approved support of NIMSS at $30,000 |
|
Approved support of NIMSS at $30,000 |
|
Approved change of name of Advocacy and Marketing Committee
to Communications and Marketing. |
|
Approved changes to the Guidelines for Multistate Research
Activities |
|
Elected D. C. Coston as Chair-Elect of ESCOP for 2004 |
|
Approved resolutions for departing directors, for Dr. Scott
Angle, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Charles J. Scifres,
Anna Marie Rasberry |
|
Adjourned the meeting |
Monday, September 22, 2003
|
|
|
01:30 |
Call to order- Scott Angle |
|
|
Approval of Agenda and 2002 ESS
Meeting Minutes |
|
|
Interim Action - Scott Angle |
|
01:35 |
USDA-NRI Update - Brad Fenwick, Chief Science Advisor, CSREES
Competitive Programs |
|
01:55 |
CSREES Update - Gary Cunningham
|
|
02:15 |
BAA-PB
Update - Colin Kaltenbach |
|
|
(ESS meeting in recess) |
|
02:25 |
(Reconvene ESS meeting) |
|
02:25 |
NIAS
Update and Business Meeting - D. C. Coston |
|
03:05 |
Break |
|
03:20 |
Recommendations from the NIAS BOD - D. C. Coston |
|
03:30 |
NIMSS Update - Daryl Lund |
|
03:40 |
ESS Assessment - Scott Angle |
|
04:05 |
NRSP Oversight Committee- Gary
Lemme |
|
04:15 |
ESCOP
Budget and Legislative Committee - Richard Jones |
|
04:30 |
ESCOP Advocacy and Marketing Committee
- Tom Fretz |
|
04:40 |
ESCOP
Science and Technology Committee - Nancy Cox |
|
04:50 |
Partnerships
Committee - D. C. Coston |
|
05:00 |
Planning
Committee - Virginia Clark Johnson |
|
05:10 |
Proposed Changes to the ESS Rules of Operation - H. Michael
Harrington |
|
05:20 |
Proposed
changes to the Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities - H. Michael
Harrington |
|
05:30 |
Nominations Committee Report - Richard Heimsch |
|
05:40 |
Resolutions Committee Report - Colin Kaltenbach |
|
05:50 |
Passing the Gavel - Scott Angle |
|
05:55 |
Final remarks/ announcements - Ian Gray |
|
06:00 |
|
|
Item:
Call to order; Approval of Agenda and 2002 ESS Meeting Minutes; Interim
Action |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Item: USDA-NRI Upddate |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Item: CSREES Update |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lobbying: In response to the recent fine assessed by the IRS the Board
took the following actions: Will now require any Section wishing to implement additional advocacy
efforts to consult with the Policy Board of Directors and the Budget and
Advocacy Committee (BAC) before initiating negotiations with any advocacy
firm(s); the Policy Board of Directors will coordinate informationwith the
BAC Will request that all Sections report on all outside advocacy activity
when reporting to the Policy Board of Directors * Agreed that language should be placed in all future contracts with
advocacy firms about how they report their time and the Policy Board of
Directors will establish an upper limit to avoid having to pay another excise
penalty tax to the Internal Revenue Service for exceeding the limit on
lobbying Budget: Chairman Moser will request that BAC Chairman Tom Payne and
Advocacy Chairman Fred Cholick inform the Policy Board of Directors' of the
Budget and Advocacy Committee's strategy on advocacy for foreign operations
budgets or other international opportunities. Future Meetings: The PBD requests that the section hosting future Joint
AHS/COPs meetings report to the Policy Board of Directors on the agenda for
the meeting and to reserve one hour of the joint session for reports to be
presented by the Policy Board of Directors, Budget and Advocacy Committee,
the advocacy organization, and (when needed) the Farm Bill Committee Reports: All representatives to the BAA-PBD have been asked to submit
Section Update reports to the PBD that are consistent with BAA Strategic Plan
(i.e., we need to consider working toward the goals of the plan and report
accordingly) Election: Kirklyn M. Kerr, Dean and Director, University of Connecticut
was designated as Chair Elect of the Policy Board of Directors replacing
James J. Zuiches who has stepped down from his AHS position at Washington
State University; Neal Van Alfen, University of California, was elected as
the AHS alternate Respectfully submitted, Colin Kaltenbach Action requested: For information |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Item: Recommendations from
the NIAS BOD Current
balance 79,454
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Item: NIMSS Upddate Agenda Brief: NIMSS Report-NIMSS Oversight Committee September 15, 2003 Server
space rental and
consultations
2,000 Equipment
and
materials
6,800 (includes
new computers, software upgrade and books) Travel
2,100 Communications (ISP,
phone)
3,300 Training
(staff
development)
200
|
|
November 1, 2002 |
Completed? |
|
NCRA volunteers to update NIMSS User Manual
and add to main menu |
Yes |
|
Western Region volunteers to create System
Administrator Manual |
Mike
and Harriet aiming to complete this by 10/1/03. |
|
Character limit increased by 10% |
Yes |
|
Add "Approved Pending" notation to
identify project status. The System Administrators will change the status. |
Yes |
|
Termination Report added to main menu.
(Final version not approved by CSREES) |
Yes |
|
Add "browse" function to the
SAES-422 form to upload files. |
Yes |
|
Increase publications section to 50,000
characters |
Yes |
|
Future Versions: Appendix E will include
"save as working copy" so that participant can put in his/her own
participation. |
Part
of future reconstruction (9/4/03) |
|
Future Versions: Cut-off date will not allow
participants to be entered after a certain date. This will ensure that participants
are not entered after the review has been submitted for review. |
Yes |
|
Identifying a "guest members" in
Appendix E. This will allow more people associated with committees to be
contacted using NIMSS. |
8/03 |
|
Have stations make their own changes to
mis-spelled participants, missing emails, etc. |
Yes |
|
Allow ARS Regional Directors and Extension
/Academic Program Directors (who request it) to authorize their own
participants. |
Yes |
|
Arrange Annual Meetings by Date or Project
Number |
Yes |
|
Designate which AA represents Research and
Extension entities for SERAs. |
Yes |
|
Add "Tech Committee Comments" and
"MRC Comments" to main menu. |
Yes |
|
In the System Administrator menu, for the
"list of participants not yet approved," add the date that the
participant was originally added so we know how long he/she has been
pending. |
Yes |
|
Add AA listserve to contact all AAs for a
region through NIMSS |
Desirable,
but not urgent (5/13/03)(9/4/03) |
|
Correct system so that the server does not
lose information. (The short forms have been added as a possible solution,
but there are still problems) |
Yes |
|
December 19, 2002 |
Complete? |
|
Include a link on the Appendix E form to
the Appendix E Regional Requirement Matrix. Participants need to be made
aware to which region his/her project belongs. This will be printed in the
NIMSS manual as well. |
Yes |
|
The
System Administrator menu will now show the password for each project. The System
Admin can then "lock" a proposal once it is submitted as final. |
Yes |
|
All
NRSP advisors will be posted on NRSP projects with an * next to the lead
advisor. |
Yes |
|
Automatic
notification sent to Susan Offutt, Administrator/Director of USDA's
Economic Research Service, for each project as it is approved by CSREES or
by a regional association. |
Yes |
|
February 7, 2003 |
Complete? |
|
Make new templates for NRSP proposal information
(ie. budget tables, etc.) |
Desirable, begin to
consider (5/13) |
|
May 13, 2003 |
Complete? |
|
Finalize
Termination Reports vs. SAES-422 forms |
Yes
|
|
NCRA
will draft memo to Gary Cunningham requesting that CSREES revise the
participation memos sent to stations. |
Yes |
|
HTML
User Manual dropped. PDF version to remain. |
5/03
|
|
Change
Appendix E wording in desired locations. |
Yes |
|
Staff
backup and NIMSS funding to be discussed at summer ESCOP meeting. |
7/03 |
|
Add
Extension Directors listserve to NIMSS e-mailings – HIGH PRIORITY. |
7/03 |
|
Allow
AAs to make changes to participant email addresses |
8/03 |
|
Change
NIMSS so that submission letter can be sent out while project status is set
at “AP.” |
8/03 |
|
Southern
region volunteers to draft memos inviting participation and notifying peer
reviewers. Participation memos will be similar to meeting
authorization functions in NIMSS. |
7-8/03 |
|
Check
into how SY information in NIMSS will fit with CRIS. NIMSS SY
information will be changed to allow two decimal places. |
Yes |
|
Change
the archive function available to System Admins so that a project
automatically archives to the year in which it terminated. |
8/03 |
|
Email
distribution of termination reports – who receives notification that a
report has been submitted? |
Same as Annual Report |
|
When
using "Search Participants by Extension Program," NIMSS is generating
a list of participants, most of who show no Extension program or FTE when
you look at the individual project's Appendix Es. |
8/03 |
|
Allow users to change their own email
addresses in the user profiles. Natalie has been toying with the idea
of after a user registers, they would get a confirmation number sent by
email to them, and in order for them to use NIMSS they would have to
confirm that they own the email address. Each time they change
their email they would need to go thru the same process. |
Part of
reconstructions. AAs can change participant emails. |
|
Set
up Extension Director/ARS Director authorization codes. |
Yes
|
Item: ESS Assessment
Presenter: Scott Angle
The ESS voted to assess itself a total of $100,000 for 2003 with funds
earmarked as follows: $50,000 advocacy contingency, $30,000 NIMSS, and
$20,000 communications and marketing. Implementation of the assessment
resulted in actual billing of $97,779. As of September 10, 2003 collections
totaled $93,334 with $4445 uncollected. The uncollected funds are from
four unpaid entities that have not yet paid any part of the assessment.
At least one of those indicated that they had not received the initial
billing.
The accompanying spread sheet
shows a detailed accounting of the current
financial status of the advocacy account held at NASULGC as of September 10,
2003.
At the Summer ESCOP meeting the mater of assessments was discussed and it
was recommended that some level of assessment should be continued.
The ESS must decide its position on a possible assessment and the amount
so that this action can be communicated to the Policy Board and to NASULGC.
The motion was made and seconded to support NIMSS at $30,000.
The motion was made and seconded to allow the use of residual funds at
NASULGC to support NIMSS at $30,000.
Action requested: Discussion and action on the ESS assessment for 2004.
Action taken: Approved support of NIMSS at $30,000
Approved to allow the use of residual funds at NASULGC to support NIMSS at
$30,000
Item: NRSP Oversight Committee
Presenter: Gary Lemme
Additional Documentation:
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu:8050/escop/nrsp-eval-report.pdf
Report of NRSPRC to ESS 9/22/03
ATTENDEES: Gary Lemme, Daryl Lund, Don Latham, Al Parks, Bill Brown,
Keith
Cooper, Eric Young. Guests: Mike Harrington, Tom Fretz, Nicole Nelson
1. Criteria for evaluation
a. Gatekeeper Criteria
(prerequisites)
i. Mission
ii. National Issue
b. Rationale Criteria (20
points each)
i. Priority Established by
ESCOP/ESS
ii. Relevance to Stakeholders
c. Implementation Criteria (15
points each)
i. Management and Business Plan
ii. Objectives and projected
outcomes
iii. Integration
iv. Outreach, Communications,
and Assessment
2. Timeline for Renewal of NRSP 1, 4, and 7
a. Established a timeline for
completion of review by the CSREES
review team and regional associations
b. Established a process for
final recommendation to ESS in Sept 04
3. Timeline for review of remaining 4-year budgets for
NRSPS 3, 5, and 8.
a. Ask each regional
association chair to communicate to the lead AA
and NRSPRC and budget concerns on NRSP 3, 5, or 8 that
were
identified in the regional review in Spring 2003. Respond by
November 1 to the lead AA and NRSPRC.
b. Ask lead AA to submit to the
NRSPRC a management and
business plan for the remaining four-year budgets by
January 15.
c. Established a process for
four-year budget recommendation to ESS
in Sept 04
4. Recommendations for additional NRSPs to be considered for support.
a. Ask ESCOP to charge the
science and technology committee to
identify appropriate subject matter for NRSP projects.
b. Ask regional association
representatives to NRSPRC to engage
regional association to
consider potential subjects for NRSPs
5. Nicole Nelson will contact the lead AA of NRSP7 for follow-up regarding
renewal intentions
6. NRSP6 scheduled for 2006 termination
7. ESCOP approved at the July meeting the NRSPRC recommendation that
ESCOP fund the expenses associated with stakeholder participation in
NRSPRC.
|
Name |
Association |
Calendar Start Date |
Calendar End Date |
|
Keith Cooper |
NERA |
2003 |
2004 |
|
Gary Lemme |
NCRA |
2003 |
2005 |
|
Bill Brown |
SAAESD |
2003 |
2006 |
|
Lee Sommers |
WAAESD |
2003 |
2004 |
|
Al Parks |
ARD |
2003 |
2005 |
|
Richard Wootton |
ECOP |
2003 |
2006 |
|
Larry Miller |
CSREES |
2003 |
2004 |
|
Don Latham |
CARET |
2003 |
2005 |
|
Daryl Lund |
NCRA |
2003 |
2005 |
|
Eric Young |
SAAESD |
2003 |
2006 |
Action Requested: For information
Presenter: Richard Jones
Additional Documentation:
BLCommAgendaBrief09222003.htm
FFY 04 See the analyses below prepared by the BRT.
FFY 05
At the July meeting of the BAC, the overall themes supporting the FFY 05
budget were established. The four themes the BAC/BRT will use in support of
the USDA/CSREES budget are: (1) HEALTHY SOCIETY: Understanding the links
between human health and nutrition, with a particular emphasis on the problem
of obesity, (2) NATURAL RESOURCES SECURITY: Protecting natural resources from
natural or introduced threats, (3) ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP: Enhancing
environmental stewardship through new agricultural technologies and
approaches, and (4) PRODUCT-BASED AGRICULTURE: Helping American agriculture
transform itself from a primarily commodity-based to a product-based system.
In addition, the BAC/BRT will develop appropriate initiatives for funding
from the Department of Homeland Security. The exact nature of these
initiatives will become more defined as DHS gets its priorities established.
The BAC/BRT has begun to identify teams to serve as resources when the BRT
writers begin the process of putting together the one-pagers in support of
the budget recommendations for USDA, DHS and other federal agencies (the
documents, for example, used by the CARET delegates in March).
The time frame for writing the support documents is between the NASULGC
meeting and December 10 with final copy coming immediately after the
President releases his FY 05 budget (early February).
To assist the resource teams and the writers, at the appropriate time the
B/L Committee will request that the NIAS prepare a document in anticipation
of a homeland security initiative by working with Academic Programs,
Extension and International Programs to identify funding needs.
To support the themes identified by BAC/BRT within the USDA CSREES budget,
the B/L Committee is encouraging each Agricultural Experiment Station to
prepare statements that identify impacts and research needs (i.e. what would
you do within the project if additional resources were available). In
addition, the Committee has asked the Executive Directors to generate
statements that support the themes using the multistate research portfolio.
The EDs are using the following process: (1) Each ED will categorize the
multistate research portfolio of research projects and information exchange
groups/coordinating committees into the four themes and agrosecurity, (2) The
EDs will select several projects from each theme and each region to develop
impact and research needs statements, (3) Working with the project members,
1-2 pagers of impact and research needs will be generated for the selected
projects, and (4) The impact and research needs statements will be available
to the writing and resources teams for possible use in support of the FY 05
budget request from BAA.
Although still under discussion, it is suggested that each impact and
research needs statement follow a consistent outline such as:
Theme: the title of one of the four themes or agrosecurity that this
project impacts Issue: Statement of the problem being addressed by the
project Resolution: Statement of how this project is contributing to a
solution to the problem Impact: Statement of the impact of this project
(impact, not just outputs and outcomes) Research Needs: Statement of the
research needs that could be addressed with more resources (not necessarily
USDA funds) Finally, using this same information, the writers may also
develop support documents for use with federal funding agencies outside USDA
and DHS (for example, DHHS, DOD, DOE, EPA, NASA, NOAA, etc.). FFY 06
The B/L Committee will be seeking input into the priorities for the FFY 06
budget. The Committee will be assessing how the Agriculture Science Roadmap
can be utilized in this process.
Action requested: For information
Item:
ESCOP Advocacy and Marketing Committee
Presenter: Tom Fretz
The ESCOP Advocacy and Marketing Committee Chair-Elect nominee has declined
to accept the position. The committee needs a new leader and has not
met for one year.
Action requested: For information
Item: ESCOP Science and Technology Committee
Presenter: Nancy Cox
The Science and Technology Committee met March 3, 2003 and had a
conference call on June 16, 2003 and have the following actions to report.
1. Progress of all standing committees has been reviewed.
2. Supported the Social Science Subcommite's recommendation to name
Stephan Goetz from Pennsylvania State University as chair and recommended
that the Chair of ESCOP support re-filling of the John Michael position with
CSREES. The CSREES representatives to the Science and Technology Committee
encouraged the development of a vision for a new position
3. Received a report from Eldon Ortman from the Integrated Pest Management
Subcommittee on the extensive evaluation of the IPM program conducted in
response to GAO. Supported Eldon's recommendation that ESCOP appoint Dr.
Frank Zalom as cochair representing ESCOP
4. Ag Biotech Implementation Task Force and suggest re-focusing this Task
Force after it completes its current activity, a large survey of land-grant
faculty on attitudes toward biotechnology.
5. The Food Safety Committee had been inactive for about one year, and Jim
Denton of Arkansas recently agreed to serve as chair. We will need to consult
with ECOP on progress and direction, as this is a joint committee.
6. A committee was appointed, chaired by Dan Rossi, to review the National
Academies report, Frontiers in Agricultural Research. This committee's report
is below. Action Required: Discussion and endorsement as appropriate.
Draft
A Response to the National Academy of Science 2002 Report
Frontiers in Agricultural Research: Food, Health, Environment, and
Communities
Prepared by:
ESCOP Science and Technology Committee
August 28, 2003
The ESCOP Science and Technology Committee has prepared a series of
responses to the specific recommendations of the NAS report. The Committee
highly recommends that, prior to forwarding a formal response to the report,
ESCOP coordinates its response with any being prepared by ECOP.
General Comments
We commend the authors for an insightful and comprehensive report and are
in general agreement with the vision statement and recommendations. Their
vision for agricultural research is as follows:
Agricultural research will support agriculture as a positive economic,
social, and environmental force and will help the sector to fulfill
ever-evolving demands. These include further gains in food and fiber
production and such other benefits as enhanced public health, environmental
services, rural amenities, and community well being. USDA's REE agencies will
provide leadership in fostering this concept. Agricultural research will be
anticipatory, strategic, collaborative, cost-effective, and accountable to a
broad client base. Agricultural research will engage relevant biophysical and
socioeconomic disciplines in a systems approach to address new priorities.
Even though the report primarily addresses the role of USDA REE agencies,
its recommendations have important implications that cut across the entire
public agricultural research system including the land grant institutions. In
addition, while we interact primarily with one REE agency, CSREES, we are
intent on enhancing our relationships and partnerships with all REE agencies.
Recognizing the need for planning that is both strategic and anticipatory
relative to stakeholder needs, ESCOP formulated a "Science Roadmap for
Agriculture." The Roadmap was developed with the support from a task
force of nationally recognized scholars that charted the major directions of
agricultural science over the next 10 to 20 years. The task force assessed
the scientific feasibility of meeting the needs of diverse groups of
stakeholders ranging from the food production and processing sectors to
consumers and the general public. This effort included prioritizing
stakeholder needs; determining the scientific feasibility of solving the most
important needs with current scientific methods and tools; and predicting the
positive impacts of successful research outcomes.
RECOMMENDATION 1: REE should provide leadership for the agricultural
community in exploring research frontiers in food, health, environment, and
communities. REE should build on its historical strengths and become a
scientific leader in using new technologies and emerging scientific paradigms
to pursue strategic, long-term research goals. A greater emphasis on
multidisciplinary work that engages all relevant disciplines will be needed
to address many new research frontiers.
We agree that REE should provide leadership but we believe that such
leadership should be in close collaboration with the land grant system. This
leadership should also provide better linkages to other federal agencies
supporting research in order to leverage limited resources. It is also
important to note that any expansion of the research mission should be
accompanied by an influx of new resources. It is critical that we enlarge the
"pie" rather than just reallocate existing resources. Just
reallocating existing funds will reintroduce previous conflicting views and
disputes that will likely inflame traditional constituencies that have
provided political support for public funding of agricultural research.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The REE agencies need to identify clearly their unique
positions relative to the other components of the agricultural research
system, identify high-impact activities through which targeted funding and
resources could generate substantial and measurable progress toward meeting
national needs, and coordinate planning and research support across the
agencies to minimize unnecessary duplication and maximize effectiveness.
Those efforts should be informed by a clear articulation of the national
priorities for research and education and a system for anticipating,
reporting on, and identifying strategies to address emerging research needs.
ESCOP supports this recommendation but wants to emphasize the need to
maintain a balance between short-term research needs and longer term needs.
It is critical that REE continues to support long-term basic research and
research and educational infrastructure that are supported through base
funds.
RECOMMENDATION 3; The REE agencies should direct new and existing
resources that currently support agricultural productivity research toward
new research opportunities in health, environment, and communities.
It is important to recognize that reallocation of resources has and will
continue to occur to new and emerging issues and needs. However, any
reallocation of existing resources is not easy and reintroduces previous
frictions not only between the research and extension leadership but also
among our various clientele groups. The political support for public funding
of agricultural research has historically been based in the agricultural
community. Any discussion of reallocation of existing resources raises
questions of political legitimacy and efficiency. The real issue is one of
securing new resources perhaps through partnerships both with other federal
agencies and with new constituent support groups.
RECOMMENDATION 4: To ensure that research funds are used to advance
science in new directions and to address emerging and emergency issues in a
timely and responsible fashion, the committee recommends the following:
1. Total Competitive grants should be substantially increased to and
sustained at 20-30% of the total portfolio.
ESCOP agrees with an increase in the availability of competitive funding
for agricultural research but this increase must come through new funding and
not through reallocating the existing portfolio. The availability of base
funds maintains flexibility and enhances the competitiveness of institutions
in attracting support for those issues of importance to the publics they
support. Base funds serve as the "glue" that binds the state and
federal institutions into a national system capable of addressing the complex
problems of economic viability of agriculture, a safe and secure food system,
a sustainable environment and natural resource base, and human and community
development. These funds support the research and educational infrastructure
and are necessary to maintain state and local funding support. Competitive
funding then serves to add value and expands the capacity of the system to
address emerging issues.
2. Action agencies should receive or control discretionary funds to be
used to meet critical programmatic needs complementary to those currently
served by REE agencies. The agencies could thereby fund intramural USDA
scientists, other agency scientists, or university researchers competitively
on the basis of the researchers' availability and match of expertise to
agency needs.
We support increased discretion over the use of resources by USDA action
agencies. It is important to note that the agricultural research system is
much broader than just the REE and requires a solid foundation in of
biological, physical and social sciences. The overall system, which has been
primarily supported by base funds, is best capable of dealing with
emergencies. Competitive programs are less flexible, less timely, and less
responsive in dealing effectively with emergencies. New funds should be made
available to address crisis management and homeland security issues. These
funds are needed to increase the capacity of the system to address the
environmental, community and family dimensions of crisis management.
3. The REE agencies should pursue complementary research activities and
tap broader expertise by dedicating a higher percentage of new funds to
cooperative arrangements, to be awarded on a competitive basis for large
awards, with academic or other public-sector researchers.
CSREES has administered a number of very successful grant programs
focusing on the integration of research and outreach across disciplinary
areas and across institutions. These programs have been highly effective in
mobilizing multidisciplinary, multi-institutional expertise to address
clientele identified needs. The agricultural research and extension system
demonstrated an excellent ability to respond to large-scale proposals
involving a broad spectrum of individuals. This ability to respond is in
large part due to the base funded infrastructure which can utilize these
types of funds to complement and enhance existing programs. ESCOP strongly
recommends that these programs receive funding. The previous success of these
programs proves that they can tap into knowledge base that exists within the
system to effectively provide a response structure capable of addressing
events before they occur.
4. Congress should increase REE budgetary flexibility to move resources
toward emerging and emergency needs.
It is important that agricultural research and extension system be
involved in decisions to direct resources toward emerging and emergency
needs, not just the REE administration. ESCOP and ECOP committee structures
can effectively work in an advisory role to support REE leadership if
additional flexibility is provided.
RECOMMENDATION 5: To provide a forum for shared learning across agencies,
REE should conduct a national summit every 2-3 years that would engage the
four REE agencies and a broad representation of stakeholders at the local,
national, and regional levels. The summit could assess national research
needs and inform stakeholders how their input is used in agency
decision-making.
It should be noted that broad-spectrum national summits are not the only
method for capturing stakeholder input and are not without problems. They
tend to end up in "free-for-alls". Those individuals or groups who
make the most noise receive the most attention. It is very difficult to add
the appropriate weights to the information collected in order to extrapolate
findings. Individual institutions within the research and extension system
already collect detailed information with broad constituency support. This
information should be used along with any collected through national level
forums.
RECOMMENDATION 6: REE should provide national leadership in developing
intellectual property policy for agricultural research. REE should address
the potential consequences of public-private collaboration with appropriate
policies, practices, and organizational arrangements that
· Promote the greatest public benefit from agricultural research.
· Protect the public investment in research.
· Prevent diversion of public resources away from research that can be
carried out only in the public sector.
· Pursue strategic private-sector collaboration necessary to achieve public
goals.
To achieve these objectives, REE should establish ways to measure the
effectiveness of technology generation and transfer through private-sector
collaboration.
ESCOP applauds the goals of this recommendation and particularly that of
stressing the importance of focusing on public goods research. However, the
structure of intellectual property rights is much more complicated than
suggested here. While there may be certain basic principles where there may
be consensus, each institution will determine its own intellectual property
policy. Public rights laws are a politically determined issue and it is not
likely that much impact will result from efforts in this area. Institutions
generally do not look to USDA leadership in this area and any actions could
lead to a gridlock between the individual state institutions and the USDA. We
also want to recognize the current attempts to develop public/private
partnerships relative to intellectual property rights led by the Rockefeller
and Pew Foundations.
RECOMMENDATION 7: The REE intramural research system should strengthen
quality control for poor research performance. Mechanisms used in other
federal intramural research agencies, including the redirection of human or
financial resources when quality is poor, could be implemented.
ESCOP supports in principle any efforts to strengthen quality control in
research management and to scrutinize alternative internal mechanisms.
RECOMMENDATION 8: REE agencies should develop and adopt ways of measuring
the national, long-term impacts of their research on the environment, human
health, and communities. The tools should include measures and indicators
that are influenced by agricultural research or that can be attributed to
research outcomes, including how research supports the needs of action
agencies. REE should strive to achieve greater transparency in communicating
these impacts through timely electronic publishing of peer-reviewed results
and through greater efforts to interpret these results for a general
audience.
There is a clear need to initiate a national effort to establish a system
of stakeholder accepted indicators to measure impacts of research on the
environment, human health, and communities. However, it is recognized that
such an effort will be a long and difficult process, and will require many
years and many resources to be successful.
RECOMMENDATION 9: There is a national need for a high-level leader to
represent food and agricultural research and to promote opportunities for the
research system. Such a leader should be vested with the authority to develop
the food and agricultural research agenda, redirect funds to emerging issues
and emergency needs, integrate the efforts of the individual agencies, and
facilitate collaboration and coordination with scientists outside USDA and
elsewhere in the federally supported research system. The leader should be
selected on the basis of outstanding scientific and administrative accomplishments
and must command the respect of the agricultural community and the broad
scientific community.
ESCOP agrees with the intent of this recommendation and believes it is of
utmost importance. However, it is not sure of how it may be best accomplished.
Strengthening of the undersecretary’s position is a possible option. It is
clear that this individual needs to be someone at the political level of the
White House. It is also important to give the system a stake in this process.
RECOMMENDATION 10: REE should increase the hiring of scientists in
research fields that have the greatest opportunities to address societal
goals. Those include integrative environmental science, ecology, economics,
and sociology; human genetics (including statistical human genetics) and
bioinformatics; and human nutrition, public health, and food safety. REE
agencies should continue to develop new methods for recruiting and retaining
women and members of ethnic minorities.
ESCOP strongly supports this recommendation. As noted previously, ESCOP
has formulated a “Science Roadmap for Agriculture” to define the needs and
set the priorities for research and education at both the regional and
national levels. The Roadmap sets forth seven challenges, each with
under-girding goals on which the agricultural science research community must
focus. These challenges relate to developing new products and markets,
climate change, the environment and natural resources, profitability and
competitiveness, families and communities, and food safety and health.
RECOMMENDATION 11: REE should undertake an analysis of the data
development, management, and dissemination needed to support environmental
and nutrition policy analysis. REE should work with other USDA mission areas
to conduct an inventory of available social, economic, biologic, chemical,
and physical datasets and to take stock of the data needs of the future. REE
should take the initiative in coordinating with other USDA agencies and with
other federal agencies to identify where and how data can be more efficiently
and effectively used and shared. REE should put into place structures and
systems to support data management and dissemination across its agencies.
There is a clear and immediate need to assess and to address data needs
and availability but such an effort needs to be supported by the Secretary of
Agriculture. REE is already moving in this area with its REEIS project and
other agencies such as the National Forest Service and NRCS are also taking
steps. It is logical that the REE take the lead in a more comprehensive
effort.
RECOMMENDATION 12: The committee recommends that REE use objective
criteria to decide which USDA facilities merit investment of budget resources
for repair, modernization, or security improvement and which should be
consolidated or closed because they are incapable of cost-effectively
contributing to the REE research strategy without renovation. These criteria
should be established in the public interest and mutually agreed on by key
members of Congress and state and local legislators, as articulated in the
principles and recommendations of the 1999 Report of the Strategic Planning
Task Force on USDA Research Facilities. The closing, consolidation, or
renovation of facilities should be implemented.
ESCOP supports this recommendation in principle but also acknowledges the
political sensitivities associated with these types of decisions. Because of
the strong collaborations and partnerships between REE facilities and
personnel and those in land grant institutions, it also recommends the
reinstatement of USDA funding for facilities at State Agricultural Experiment
Stations. There is a need for investment in facilities throughout the public
agricultural research system.
In closing, ESCOP is ready and anxious to work with REE as it implements
many of these recommendations. We are convinced that if we partner in their
implementation, the result will be a strengthening of the productive and
synergistic collaborations that already exist.
Action Requested: For information
Item: Partnerships Committee
Presenter: D. C. Coston
The committee was constituted to work jointly with CSREES and ECOP to
facilitate a better working relationship with USDA which culminated in the
Baltimore partnership meeting. With this activity, a major recommendation of
creating a follow-on working group consisting on representative from CSREES
and all of the COPs as well as the administrative heads was realized.
The ESCOP Committee has not held a regular meeting in the past year but
committee leadership has focused on the Partnership Working Group. The PWG
appears to be functioning well having developed a general set of operational
guidelines. The PWG was instrumental in organizing the plenary session on
Effective Teams for the 2003 Joint COPS meeting. In discussion with CSREES,
the PWG has obtained promises that the family will participate with agency
personnel in the drafting of white paper documents. This will assure that
white papers are both timely and address matters of high importance. The PWG
met after the Joint COPS meeting in Jersey City and will also meet in New
Orleans at the NASULGC annual meeting.
Lee Sommers will become chair of this committee in September. The
Committee will hold a conference call to determine future activities and will
also be seeking input from Directors on the future role and mission of the
group.
Action requested: For information
Item: Planning Committee
Presenter: Virginia Clark Johnson
The focus of the Planning Committee, since the July report, has been on
finalizing plans for the Tuesday afternoon session at the Fall Workshop. The
session will focus on planning for management to meet the challenges
identified in the Science Roadmap. The areas of management to be discussed
include: structure/organization; personnel/expertise;
infrastructure/facilities; and funding/support). A summary of the strategies
will be provided on the web shortly after the session.
No further information has been available about joint planning efforts
with ECOP, or the futuring workshop.
Action requested: For information
Item: Proposed Changes to the
ESS Rules of Operation
Presenter: H. Michael Harrington
Additional Documentation:
ESS_Rules_Proposed_Modifications.pdf
The following are changes proposed to the ESS Rules of Operation:
Change name of Advocacy and Marketing Committee to
Communications and Marketing.
Action requested: Approval
of change of name of Advocacy and Marketing Committee to Communications and
Marketing.
Action taken: Approved
Add the NRSP Review Committee to ESCOP committee list.
Action requested: Approval
of addition of NRSP Review Committee to ESCOP committee list.
Action taken: Approved
Authorize the ESCOP Chair to expend up to $5,000 with
approval of ESCOP Executive Committee.
Action requested: Approval
of authorization of ESCOP Chair to expend up to $5,000 with approval of ESCOP
Executive Committee.
Action taken: Approved
Presenter: H. Michael Harrington
Background:
The Executive Directors developed language reflecting the wisdom of the directors
regarding the addition of participants to existing multistate projects. This
language and action is taken to clearly indicate that Directors approve
participation and to facilitate orderly incorporation of new participants.
The North Central, Western, Northeast and Southern Associations have
approved this change. On approval by the ESS, this statement will replace
previous language and be inserted on page 11 of the Guidelines to read as
follows (new language in italics).
Requests to join an on-going multistate research project must originate
with the administrator of the proposed member's institution; in the case of a
SAES that would be the director; for ARS that might be a laboratory director;
for a private laboratory that might be the scientist's supervisor. This
correspondence must include the information required in Appendix E. It
is the responsibility of each Experiment Station Director to monitor their
faculty members' participation in multistate projects. Although it is
preferred that all participants be involved prior to the writing stage of new
projects, it will occasionally be necessary to add a participant to an active
project. After an Experiment Station Director approves a faculty member to
join a project, it is the responsibility of the AA to facilitate
incorporation of the new member into that project. If a concern arises
regarding a member's participation in a project, the AA should discuss this
concern with the member. If the concern is not resolved, the AA should
discuss the member's participation with that member's Experiment Station
Director. It is the responsibility of that Director to take whatever action
is appropriate relative to that member's future participation.
Action requested: Approval of changes to
the Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities
Action taken: Approved
Item:
Nominations Committee Report
Presenter: Richard Heimsch
The Nominations Committee recommends that D. C. Coston (OK) be selected
as Chair-Elect of ESCOP for 2004.
Action requested: Election of D. C. Coston as Chair-Elect of ESCOP for
2004.
Action taken: Approved
Item:
Resolutions Committee Report
Presenter: Colin Kaltenbach
Resolution of Appreciation to Agricultural Experiment Station Administrators
who left their positions and responsibilities in the 2002-2003 year.
WHEREAS, the following have served as Administrators of their respective
State Agricultural Experiment Station, and
WHEREAS, they have actively participated and served in various capacities
at the state, regional and national level on behalf of the Agricultural
Experiment Station system, Now, therefore be it
RESOLVED that the State Experiment Station Directors at their annual
meeting on September 22, 2003 recognize the contributions and service
toward strengthening the State Agricultural Experiment Station System,
and wish them success and happiness in all their future endeavors.
|
North Central Region: |
1890 Research Directors: |
Action Requested: Approval.
Action Taken: Approved
Resolution of appreciation for Dr. Scott Angle
WHEREAS, Dr. Scott Angle, Chairman of the Experiment Station Committee on
Organization and Policy and Experiment Station Section, has provided selfless
and committed leadership and keen oversight to enhance the system, and
WHEREAS, under Dr. Angle's leadership and support, the activities of
ESCOP committees have been greatly enhanced and have achieved significant accomplishments,
and
WHEREAS, Dr. Angle has provided outstanding leadership in the area of
agrosecurity, and
WHEREAS, Dr. Angle has provided outstanding leadership in building
interrelationships with ECOP, ACOP, ICOP, NASULGC, and CSREES/USDA, and
WHEREAS, Dr. Angle has been efficient and timely in the conduct of ESCOP
business, therefore
LET IT BE KNOWN, that the Experiment Station Committee on Organization
and Policy and the Experiment Station Section recognize Dr. Angle's
invaluable contribution and service to the national agricultural research
system, and
THEREFORE, on this day of September 22, 2003, the Experiment Station
Section and the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy
resolves to extend their sincere gratitude for his commitment, service, and
leadership for help in making the system more effective in addressing current
and future needs, challenges and opportunities in agricultural research.
Action Requested: Approval.
Action Taken: Approved
Resolution of appreciation to the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station
WHEREAS The Agricultural Experiment Station Section met in Dearborn
Michigan, September 21-24 2003; and
WHEREAS those attending were educated and stimulated by the meetings;
and
WHEREAS the location for the meeting was outstanding and the
accommodations were both compatible and conducive to effective interaction
resulting in a successful meeting; therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Agricultural Experiment Station Section
expresses its appreciation to Dr. J. Ian Gray, his colleagues and staff for
arranging the facilities and coordinating the meeting and ; and be it further
RESOLVED, That an original of this resolution be provided to Dr.
Gray and that a copy be filed as part of the official minutes of this
meeting.
Action Requested: Approval.
Action Taken: Approved
Resolution in Memory of Charles J. Scifres
WHEREAS, Dr. Charles Scifres served the Agricultural Experiment Station
Section of NASULGC with great distinction and in an exemplary manner from
1990 until the time of his death on July 28, 2003; and
WHEREAS, he provided superior leadership to the Section and ESCOP having
served in numerous capacities including the Chair; and
WHEREAS, he provided great vision and leadership on a range of issues
important to the Section; and
WHEREAS, all members of the Section were greatly saddened by his untimely
death; now therefore, be it
RESOLVED that the Experiment Station members extend our deepest
sympathy to the Scifres family and to recognize him with a moment of silence
at the September meeting of the Section; and be it further
RESOLVED that the Section forward a copy of this resolution to the
Scifres family in recognition of his service to higher education and his
leadership to the Section.
Action Requested: Approval
Action Taken: Approved
Resolution of Appreciation to Anna Marie Rasberry
WHEREAS, Anna Marie Rasberry will be retiring at the end of
September after many years of outstanding and faithful service to SAAESD,
ESCOP, and the land grant system; and
WHEREAS, she has managed the ESCOP web site for over seven years; and.
WHEREAS, she supported the ESCOP Chair through two consecutive terms; and
WHEREAS, she has contributed to improvement of ESCOP processes,
functions, and information management in an untiring, patient, cheerful, and
thoughtful manner; now therefore be it
RESOLVED that the Experiment Station Section at its annual meeting on
September 22, 2003 express their thanks for her many contributions to the
State Agricultural Experiment Station System, and wish her success and
happiness in all future endeavors.
Action Requested: Approval.
Action Taken: Approved
Item:
Passing the Gavel
Presenter: Scott Angle
Angle presented the gavel and ESCOP responsibilities for 2004 to Ian
Gray.
Action Requested: For information
Item:
Final remarks/announcements
Presenter: Ian Gray
Gray thanked Angle for his efforts for 2003.
Action Requested: For information
Item: Adjourn
Presenter: Ian Gray
The motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.
Action Requested: Approval
Action Taken: Approved