1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. - Multistate Research Committee Meeting (STEW214A)
7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. - Reception at Dean Lechtenberg's Home (no
formal dinner planned)
7:00
a.m. - 8:00 a.m. - Registration
and Continental Breakfast (West Faculty Lounge)
8:00
a.m. - 8:30 a.m. - Welcome, Vic Lechtenberg (West Faculty
Lounge)
1.0 Call to Order and Introductions – Phil Larsen
Attendance: S. Pueppke (IL), R. Woodson and M. Martin (IN), W. Wintersteen (IA), F. Chumley (KS), J.I. Gray (MI), P. Larsen and B. Stromberg (MN), K. Grafton and V. Clark Johnson (ND), S. Slack and D. Benfield (OH), N. Betts (NE), M. Dentine (WI), D. Lund and N. Nelson (NCRA), T. Nelson (USDA-ARS), M.A. Rozum and G. Cunningham (CSREES).
2.0 Approval of the March 2002 Minutes – Phil Larsen (Available at: http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/march2003.htm) Approved
3.0 Adoption of Agenda – Phil Larsen
4.0 Executive Committee Report and Interim Actions of the Chair – Phil Larsen
5.0 Executive Director's Report - Daryl Lund
5.1 Activities Since the March Meeting
5.3 NIMSS Update
5.4 Update on Impact statements and BAC
5.5 Strategic Plan
5.6 March 2004 Joint Meetings - North Central and Southern Regions
5.7 Wording Change to the Multistate Research Guidelines Regarding Adding Participants to a Project
6.0 ESCOP Report
6.1 ESCOP Activities – Ian Gray
6.2 Budget and Legislative Committee - Daryl Lund for Darrell Nelson
6.3 NIAS Report – Daryl Lund for Darrell Nelson
7.0 Multistate Research Committee Report – Margaret Dentine
8.0 NASULGC Presidents Food and Society Initiative – Daryl Lund
9.0 Dairy Research and Education Consortium – Phil Larsen and Wendy Wintersteen
10.0 Desirability and Need to do Multidisciplinary Research; What are the Rewards? (Informal Discussion) - Steve Pueppke
11.0 Update from each SAES on budgets (since the March meeting)
We will once again go round robin for comments about the current budget situation in your state affecting the AES budget. We won't record any minutes of this part of the meeting and you don't need to bring anything in writing. However, so that we are all commenting on the same basis, please consider organizing your thoughts around the questions found in the agenda brief. Also, see the Hatch Appropriations Analysis on NCRA homepage (http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/hatchanalysis.xls).
12.0 ARS Report – Terry Nelson (There will be a 2% cut to ARS.)
13.0 CSREES Report – Gary Cunningham
14.0 Nominations Committee Report – Bert Stromberg (Approved – see brief)
15.0 Resolutions – Marshall Martin (Approved – see brief)
16.0 Announcements
· All COPs Meeting – Jersey City, NJ – July 21-23, 2003
· SAES/ARD Fall Workshop: – Deerborn, MI – September 22-24, 2003. The program is in place and with registration in the ESCOP workroom (http://www.escop.msstate.edu/draftdoc.htm).
· NASULGC Meeting – New Orleans – November 16-18, 2003
17.0 Summary and Review of Assignments – Phil Larsen
Agenda Briefs
Agenda Item 4.0 - Executive Committee Report and Interim Actions of the Chair – Phil Larsen
The
Executive Committee facilitated a session with NCRA representatives from member
states at the March meeting to provide input for the annual performance review
for our Executive Director, Dr. Daryl Lund.
The responses were summarized in a letter to Dr. Margaret Dentine at the
University of Wisconsin. The collective
opinion of the voting NCRA members was that Dr. Lund is providing excellent
leadership for NCRA.
The Executive Committee met via
teleconference April 14, 2003. It
was decided that NCRA will meet jointly with the Southern Division at a site to
be determined in Alabama [likely Orange Beach or Mobile] for the 2004 Spring
meeting. A joint planning committee has
been appointed. Wendy Wintersteen,
Marshall Martin, Daryl Lund and Nikki Nelson will serve on the planning
committee. The theme for the meeting is to be decided following the September
ESS/AHS meeting.
The Executive Committee endorsed a plan to
meet jointly with the NC Extension Directors from 11:00 to Noon at the July
Mini-Landgrant meeting to discuss the Federal Plan of Work process.
NCRA desires to establish a strong
interactive working relationship with 1994 Land Grant institutions and has
invited a representative of Tribal Colleges to attend NCRA meetings. To help facilitate attendance of a Tribal
College representative at NCRA meetings, the Executive Committee elected to
provide $500 to assist with travel expenses at the March and July, 2003 NCRA
meetings. Since Tribal Colleges do not
have adequate funds to support travel of a Tribal College representative to
these meetings, the Executive Committee requests the support of NCRA to provide
up to $500 in travel support for future meetings.
Action requested: Approval of request to provide
up to $500 per NCRA meeting from NCRA funds to partially cover travel expenses
of a Tribal College representative.
Action taken: There was discussion about who would determine the one representative
from the tribal colleges to receive the $500 travel advance, concluding that
this would be decided among the tribal colleges themselves. This is an invitation or the “beginning of a
conversation” with the tribal colleges.
Action approved.
Agenda Item 5.0 - Executive Director’s Report – Daryl Lund
5.1 ED
Activities Since the March 2003 Meeting
5.1.1
Follow-up from March Meeting
·
Assessment
Invoices from NASULGC: I generated a memo for the NCRA chair to send to Bobby
Moser, Chair of the BAA Policy Board re: providing more detail on the
utilization of the assessment by function (T/R/E) and by activity (staff
support, advocacy, etc.). Response: There will be changes in the information
next year.
·
Leveraging
MRP Funds: The EDs suggest that the SAES-422 have space to report the pending
grants/contracts and funded grants/contracts during the past year that
primarily support the objectives of the MRP and were generated directly from
activity of the MRP. See MRC Item 7.15.
5.1.2
Events Attended
·
NC Extension: I attended the May 6 meeting of the NC Extension Directors in
Chicago. I briefly reviewed the portfolio of the NCRA. They would like to be notified
of projects in the multistate research portfolio as they are generated. My
email to the Extension Directors contained the following: "So that there
is no misunderstanding, this only allows you (sic Extension Directors) to put
extension participants into projects (across all four regions) and puts you on
the automatic mailing list to receive notices of new projects soliciting
participants. It does not authorize you to require that Experiment Station
Directors pay for the expenses associated with that participant's activity in
the project even though the participant may have some AES research appointment.
If you need further explanation, please call Nikki or me."
·
National Multistate Coordinating Committee: The NMCC meeting was held
at UMd Eastern Shore April 22 - 24. We welcomed Tom Fretz into the group as the
ED for the NE Region. We agreed on: (1) language for adding/deleting a
participant from an MRP (to be presented as part of the MRC report), and (2)
requesting information on leveraging MRP funds. Gary Cunningham reported that
the OGC of USDA should have finished their review of the MRF Guidelines by the
end of June.
·
Food and Society Initiative: The NASULGC Presidents'
F/S Initiative on food and health was the subject of a National Academies of
Science workshop June 9. I chaired the afternoon breakout session. A report
identifying research gaps in the food, agriculture and health connection will
be generated within two months. Jack Marburger (Director OSTP) and Joe Jen
(Deputy Undersecretary for REE) will both be champions for a research
initiative. Tommy Thompson attended the cocktail reception and also supported
further research in this area.
·
Woodroof Lecture: I was the 2003 Woodroof Lecturer at the
University of Georgia (March 27).
·
NASULGC-ICA Meeting: The purpose of the NASULGC-ICA Initiative
is to enhance cooperation in research and education between US and European
universities. As co-chair of the Research Committee, I attended the meeting in
Beauvais, FR Mar 31 - Apr 4. I presented one paper on the Food and Society
Initiative and another one on appropriate content of a website promoting
cooperative research.
·
Sigma Xi: As a member of the Sigma Xi Lectureship Committee I attended the
annual lectureship selection meeting (Apr 11- 12).
·
WFLO: I attended and reported to the membership the activities of the
Scientific Advisory Council (I chair it) of the World Food Logistics
Organization (Tucson Apr 26 - May 1).
·
BAA Farm Bill Committee: I have been appointed to the BAA Farm Bill
Committee Steering Committee.
·
BAA BAC: I attended the BAC June 3 - 4. The report of the BAC is in a separate
agenda brief.
5.2.1
NCRA
Office: The office continues to be very efficient (in Daryl’s opinion). Nikki
is an outstanding administrative assistant and is showing strong leadership
skills in NIMSS and data mining. She is enrolled in Economics 101 this summer.
5.2.2
Homepage
Updates (Nicole Nelson and Daryl Lund):
·
In
addition to the Administrative Advisor Virtual Handbook, we have now
posted a Committee Chair Virtual Handbook on the NCRA Homepage (www.wisc.edu/ncra). Both virtual handbooks contain the latest NCRA information, as
well as administrative procedural instructions for NIMSS and the NCRA Office. They are an invaluable source of information
regarding most aspects of multistate research.
·
For
those committees writing new or renewal projects for 2004, we have now included
a new link on the homepage: the NCRA New and Renewal Project Approval Process. By clicking on this link, you can choose to
view the project creation/renewal timeline, or view step-by-step instructions
for NIMSS entry and proposal review.
·
Station
directors should now be aware of the Appendix E Requirements for Each
Project Type and Region in the US.
We have posted these requirements on the homepage, making them easier to
locate.
·
Indirect Cost: Daryl Lund generated a
white paper on the history of the cap on indirect cost on USDA competitive
grants (http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/IDChistory.htm).
·
Hatch Allocation in the NC Region: We developed a survey of the NC states asking for the distribution of
the Hatch resources. The results are reported on the NCRA homepage (http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/hatchanalysis.xls).
·
NCRA Operating Procedures (Standing Committees): Guidelines were generated for the MRC and the Nominating Committee
and are posted on the homepage (http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/committees.htm).
If changes need to be made or more
information needs to be added to any of the links, please contact Nicole Nelson
in the NCRA Office (nnelson@cals.wisc.edu).
·
AA
Training: Nikki organized several sessions for training AAs, administrative
assistants in SAES offices, and chairs of MRP/Committees.
·
NIMSS:
There was one teleconference to assess status and prioritize development of
NIMSS. The NIMSS job jar is posted on the NCRA homepage (http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/NIMSSjobjar.htm)
·
NC
Extension/ARS Directors: Please refer to brief 5.1.2. The NCRA office is currently in the process of authorizing
Extension and ARS Directors to input their own project participants into the
NIMSS system.
5.4
Update on Impact Statements and BAC
·
We
have reviewed the NCRA strategic plan relative to the ESCOP Road Map, the
CSREES/GPRA Goals and the USDA 2002 - 2007 Strategic Plan. The recommendations
have been presented to the MRC for their subsequent analysis. Please see this website: www.wisc.edu/ncra/strategicplan.htm for the initial mapping and
objectives of the above goals/priorities.
5.6 March
2004 Joint Meetings - North Central and Southern Regions
·
The
joint Planning Committee for the Spring 04 meeting between NCRA (represented by
Wendy Wintersteen, Marshall Martin, Daryl Lund and Nicole Nelson) and SAAESD
held a teleconference June 18. Please review the possible agenda and venue
recommendations. NCRA will share the results of its discussions with the
Planning Committee so the next steps can be taken."
1.
Date: March 28-31, 2004
Location Preferred by Committee:
Perdido Beach Resort in Orange Beach, AL
(See hotel website at: http://www.perdidobeachresort.com/ )
Group rate: approximately $110
Proximity to airport: 45 miles from Pensacola, FL airport (shuttle - $45 one
way)
2.
Optional Location: Adams Mark, Mobile, AL
Group rate: $92
Proximity to airport: 14 miles from Mobile, AL airport (shuttle - $19 one way)
3.
General Schedule: Several meeting schedule scenarios were discussed:
a.
Sunday – MRC-NCRA meet all day (OR
meet earlier at another location)
Sunday evening – Reception for all
Monday morning – Joint meeting and lunch
Monday afternoon – Separate meetings
Monday all day – Guest activities
Monday evening – Joint dinner (all) – or “on your own” for local
restaurants
Tuesday morning – Separate meetings
Tuesday afternoon – Joint agricultural-related tour (includes guests if
desired)
Tuesday evening – Joint dinner (all)
Wednesday morning – Separate meetings (no lunch – adjourn by noon)
b.
Monday all day – MRC-NCRA meet (8-10 members)
Monday all day – SAAESD meet
Monday all day – SAAESD and MRC-NCRA guest tour (and NCRA guests if arrive
on Sunday)
Monday evening – Reception/Dinner (all) – or “on your own” for local
restaurants
Tuesday morning – Joint meeting
Tuesday afternoon – Joint agricultural-related tour (includes guests if desired)
Tuesday evening – Joint dinner (all)
Wednesday morning – Separate meetings (SAAESD adjourns at noon)
Wednesday afternoon – NCRA meets (adjourns at 5:00)
4.
Ideas for topics for Joint
Meeting
a.
Reports common to both groups: CSREES, ARS, ESCOP Committees, Rural
Development Centers, etc.
b.
Plan of Work process – follow-up
c.
Discussion topic of common interest with up-front prep work by a
committee
(Example: Intellectual Property was theme of 2003 SAAESD meeting)
d.
Cooperative agreements between stations – what works, what doesn’t,
process, etc.
e.
Host institution present research highlight (30-45 minutes)
f.
Guidelines for transgenic crops and/or food animals – perspective of
directors, federal regulators, etc.
5.
Ideas for member and guest
activities:
(Alabama hosts say, “We feel confident that we can certainly provide all the
entertainment and interest that your group can imagine. Bring your
spouses and children. Make it a family vacation on the most beautiful
gulf in the world.)
a.
Resort
and nearby activities for tennis, world class golf, fishing, etc. -
b.
Day
trips to:
Historic Mobile - Azalea Season
Mobile Bay and Docks
Fort Conte
USS Alabama
Oakleigh Plantation - (Historic Home Tour)
Gulf Coast Exploreum Science Center
Bellingrath Gardens (perfect time of the year for spring blooms)
Dolphin Island - New Research Lab
Air Museum
Wonderful Shopping Centers (includes nearby outlet mall)
A host of agricultural sites in Baldwin County, Alabama.
Actions Taken: Decisions about the content and logistics of the March 2004 meeting
will be left up to the planning committee.
The MRC will meet at an earlier date, possibly O’Hare.
Background Information:
The other regions are taking "official" action and we
probably should also. Here is the statement that the EDs have agreed to:
"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."
Here is the section of the
multistate guidelines where this statement should replace some language and be
inserted (page 11 of the Multistate Research Guidelines):
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. The request
is forwarded to the AA who will consult with the technical committee to arrange
for implementation. The AA working with the ED's office of the sponsoring
regional association and CSREES will arrange for completing the necessary
documentation.
The modified section should
then read:
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 the above modification to the Multistate Guidelines.
Action Taken:
Approved.
6.1 ESCOP Activities – Ian
Gray
There were no face-to-face
meetings of ESCOP since the meeting March 3-4, 2003. There have been two
Chair's Advisory Committee teleconferences (April 7 and June 2). The
following actions have been taken:
6.1.1 NRSP Guidelines: The Guidelines are in the process of being
implemented. CSREES has determined that these guidelines are part of the
NRSP review process and are therefore not rules. This is significant
because it means they can be modified by action of the ESS without requiring
review by the USDA Office of General Counsel (provided the proposed changes do
not violate the Multistate Research Fund Rules that are now being considered by
the OGC). To initiate the implementation, Scott Angle, ESCOP Chair,
appointed the National Advisory Committee (NAC) (Cathy Roheim (RI)
SAES-Northeast Region; Gary Lemme (MI) SAES-North Central Region; Charles
Scifres (TX) SAES-Southern Region; Lee Sommers (CO) SAES-Western Region; Al
Parks (TX) ARD; (tba) ECOP; Larry Miller CSREES; Don Latham (Latham Seeds)
Stakeholder Representative; (tba) Regional Executive Director, Executive
Vice-Chair; (tba) Regional Executive Director). A teleconference is being
organized for the committee at the end of July. Since the Federal Government
is sensitive about the word "Advisory", it is suggested that the name
of the NAC be changed. The proposed name is "NRSP Review
Committee."
Action: Request is made to approve changing the name of the
Committee. This will be voted on at the ESS meeting in September. Approved.
6.1.2 NIMSS and NRSP-1: Scott Angle asked NRSP-1 to include
NIMSS in its thinking as NRSP-1 prepares for project renewal. NIMSS needs
to be linked integrally with the research data management and reporting system
under the purview of NRSP-1.
6.1.3 Assessments: Scott Angle expressed disappointment to
the BAA Policy Board about the accompanying information that went to Deans with
the assessments. Couples with the letter that NCRA Chair Phil Larsen sent
to Bobby Moser, there were promises that the communication system would have
major changes next year.
6.1.4 Science Roadmap: There is a need to develop a marketing
plan around the Science Roadmap. A half-day session will be devoted to
strategic planning around the Science Roadmap at the Fall Workshop. Also
the Communications and Marketing Committee will develop some marketing plans
following the workshop.
6.1.5 IRS Lobbying Penalty: Mort Neufville informed ECOP,
ESCOP and the Board on Human Sciences that expenditures in 2002 on lobbying
through NASULGC exceeded the maximum allowed based on NASULGC income and that
there was a penalty due IRS of ca. $28K. NASULGC proposed that the
penalty be distributed to the three units according to contribution.
ESCOP has made the argument that because our absolute expenditures were $35K
less that in 2001, the penalty could not have been due to ESCOP activities
(through AESOP Enterprises). However, the argument failed on the basis
that ESCOP had been warned that penalties could occur and that NASULGC had
prior permission to pay penalties out of assessed funds of ESCOP and
ECOP. ESCOP has advised the BAA Policy Board that it recommends that a
policy be put in place along with a management plan by NASULGC to assure that
such occurrences do not happen in the future.
6.1.6 Civil Rights Review: CSREES has submitted proposed
guidelines for conducting civil rights reviews of SAES projects and CES
programs. ESCOP had previously had a committee working with CSREES during
the development of the guidelines. Scott Angle appointed a committee to
review the guidelines and develop a response to CSREES on the proposed new
guidelines. The primary concerns from the SAES viewpoint is that most of
our projects are already covered under existing regulations on EEO and
Affirmative Action within our university administrative structures and that
many of our projects are not directly delivered to stakeholders (as CES
programs are). By the time you read this report the response of ESCOP to
the proposed guidelines will have been sent to CSREES and you will have a copy
of it. The ESCOP Committee is Scott Angle, Mike Harrington, Daryl Lund,
Darrell Nelson, Lee Sommers, Eric Young, Nancy Cox, and Paul Rasmussen (chair).
6.2 – Budget
and Legislative Committee – Daryl Lund for Darrell Nelson
Although the ESCOP Budget
and Legislative Committee has not met face-to-face in some time, action is
proceeding.
6.2.1 BAA Farm Bill
Committee - ESCOP made recommendations
for participants in the 5 subcommittees of the BAA Farm Bill Committee chaired
by Jeff Armstrong. Daryl Lund has been appointed to the Steering Committee. The
other recommendations are: Conservation - Henry Vaux (CA, henry.vaux@ucop.edu);
Rural Development - Alfred Parks (Prairie View A&M, alfred_parks@pvamu.edu);
Energy - Kevin Kephart (SD, kkephart@abs.sdstate.edu); Research and Education -
Bill Brown (LA, bbrown@agctr.lsu.edu); Forestry - Bruce Wiersma (ME,
wiersma@apollo.umenfa.maine.edu). The subcommittees will be working on
the five most important titles of the farm bill.
6.2.2 FY 04 budget - By now you have all seen the House mark up of the
Agriculture Appropriations bill. Although there was a 4.8% cut in ag approps,
the research, extension and education parts (CSREES) was cut only 1.6%. The Hatch
line went up 0.65% (basically returning the appropriation to the FY 03
prerecission level) and the NRI was reduced ca. $16M to offset the new
integrated program money ($16M) for homeland security. The Senate will get at
their work after the July 4th recess. Action is requested by the BRT that you
may wish to contact your House members prior to introduction of the House
approps bill to the floor. Continuing to contact your Senators may also be
helpful for the Senate approps. Regarding FY 04 budget in the Department
of Homeland Security, the BRT had submitted a placeholder statement with the
House staff for $10M for the System. ESCOP submitted a request for $4.8M
for NIAS. ECOP and ACOP were also invited to submit suggestions for the
$10M. The House Approps recent action did not include this $10M but did
include $14M to be spent between DHS and USDA to assess the need for research
in agrosecurity.
6.2.3 FY 05 budget - The BAC met June 3 and 4 to set priorities for
the FY 05 budget recommendations. Colien Hefferan indicated the
priorities for CSREES are (1) equity in capacity, (2) plant and animal disease,
(3) homeland security, (4) functional genomics (rice), and (6) human health,
especially youth and obesity. After considerable discussion and the realization
that the BAC has been pushing the NRI for the last 10 years without much
success, the BAC agreed unanimously that the FY 05 budget request will be based
around two themes - (1) obesity and nutrition and (2) homeland security
(especially natural resources and plants and animals). Both fit the priorities
of ESCOP. These two themes will be supported by two initiatives: (1) an
increase in base funding (amount to be determined at July meeting) and (2)
capacity building in minority serving institutions. ECOP priorities (Improved
Nutrition and Physical Activity Act (IMPACT) To Prevent and Decrease Childhood
Obesity and Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences at the NSF
Children's Research Initiative & Human and Social Dynamics) can be
found at http://www.nasulgc.org/CFERR/BOHS.htm. They have also identified
EFNEP as a priority (found at the BoHS homepage within NASULGC's
homepage). The BRT will prepare a request for impact statements in
support of these two themes. The impact statements should identify what
is now being done in the area and what would be done if more resources were
available.
6.2.4 Next Steps: The BAC will meet July 19 and 20 prior to
the All COPs meeting in Jersey City, NJ. At that meeting specific
recommendations will be hammered out for the FY 05 request for base funds and
for capacity building. Also, the BRT will present their guidance on the
development of impact statements in support of the FY 05 budget.
6.3 - NIAS
Report – Daryl Lund for Darrell Nelson
The ESCOP Task Force on Homeland
Security officially launched the National Institute for Agricultural Security
(NIAS) during the first week of February, 2003. The NIAS Executive Board of Directors convened, officers were
chosen and a part-time Executive Director was appointed (President, DC Coston;
Vice President, Dave Thawley; Treasurer, Scot Angel; Secretary, Mike Harrington;
Executive Director, Terry Nipp). The
Board of Directors developed a plan of activities and a set of priorities for
the year.
Management
·
NIAS is incorporated as
a nonprofit organization in the state of Maryland. A Federal ID number has been obtained and a petition for
nonprofit status has been submitted to the IRS.
·
The Articles of
Incorporation and the Bylaws have been tentatively approved by the Board of
Directors and will be updated and provided to the Experiment Station Directors
and Administrators at the September 2003 meetings.
·
Residual ESCOP funds
were transferred to the University of Maryland and the NIAS Treasurer.
Activities
·
A web site for NIAS has
been developed.
·
Occasional NIAS News
Updates have been provided to the SAES Directors and Administrators on
biosecurity and pertinent homeland security developments.
·
Several discussions have
occurred with Stan Johnson and Ian Maw, respectively regarding ECOP and ACOP
interests in homeland security issues.
·
Terry Nipp has briefed
Congressional staff, OMB, OSTP, and federal agency personnel at USDA, DHS, and
DOD regarding NIAS.
·
NIAS developed proposals
for a series of workshops to develop technical working papers for the SAES
Directors and Administrators, and to develop working guidelines for site
security assessments at the Experiment Stations.
·
Terry Nipp and DC Coston
are in ongoing discussions with the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of
Terrorism regarding possible joint activities.
·
NIAS has worked with the
ANSR Institute for Homeland Security to develop proposals for joint activities.
·
NIAS is cosponsoring an International Forum on Accidental Release or
Deliberate Use of Biological Agents Affecting Food and Agriculture, hosted by
the Texas A&M University System Integrative Center for Homeland
Security.
Funding
·
Terry Nipp worked with
Daryl Lund to provide the ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee with
information about NIAS and biosecurity research issues, which were used to
develop ESCOP budget requests regarding homeland security issues.
·
Terry Nipp and Mike Harrington
met with members of the Blue Ribbon Team to brief them about NIAS activities.
All:
You are all familiar with the NASULGC Presidents' Initiative on Food and
Health. The culmination of that activity was the National Academies of
Science Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources sponsorship of a day long
workshop on the integration of food and health held June 9 in Wash DC. A
report will be issued by the Academy in August. The report will be the
springboard to bring the research agenda to the attention of OSTP, PCAST, and
the federal research establishment (NIH, NSF, USDA, DOD, etc.).
In the meantime, Sam Smith, Executive Director of this Kellogg
Foundation-sponsored project, has prepared this summary of activities on the
initiative to date. This is the first time that the Presidents have been
so integrally involved in bringing attention to problems we are all interested
in. You might mention it to your president the next time you sit next to
him at an event.
By Samuel H. Smith, Executive Director,
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Committee
on Food and Society
and President Emeritus, Washington State University.
The Board of Agriculture and
Natural Resources of the National Academies hosted a very successful workshop
on this topic. As this was a logical
next step in a process initiated in January of 2000, we thought it might be
helpful for us to provide a summary of our endeavors and describe our
interpretation of the outcome of the workshop.
This is not an official summary, the National Academies will publish a
full report on the workshop.
There is a rapidly mounting
public awareness that how and what we eat significantly influences our health
and longevity.
On a daily basis, our news
media reminds us that our nation’s eating patterns are changing, resulting in
more obesity, increased number of individuals with diabetes, enhanced severity
of chronic diseases, and numerous other negative or destructive
consequences. We are also reminded that
we live in a world where our nation must be concerned with food safety and
bio-security.
It has become increasingly
clear that we as a nation must define this emerging problem by understanding
what we do know about the interaction of food and health and identify the
research gaps. Further, we must
establish a national agenda and a mechanism to address this issue.
In January of 2000, the W.K.
Kellogg Foundation initiated a partnership with the National Association of
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) to assess what are the
primary issues involving our nations food system. The goal was to determine what our nation’s research, extension
and education system should concentrate upon to assure our nation a healthy and
safe food supply.
Over two years were spent in
fact-finding and opinion gathering to understand our nation’s current food
system and the effects it is having upon our citizens. We looked at a wide range of issues and
narrowed them down to a short list of potential priorities, which were tested
in a series of regional stakeholder meetings in Ohio, Georgia, Texas and
California.
Following our stakeholders
meetings it became very clear that the issues around Food and Health should
receive our highest priority. The
problems are immediate and with recent scientific advances there are opportunities
for solutions. Further, these problems
of food and health appear to be addressable using our nation’s existing
research and education systems.
As we were examining the
issues of food and health, we also developed a matrix showing which federal
agencies contained budgeted programs addressing specific issues. We found a large number of programs
addressing these issues with what appeared to be little interagency or
organizational coordination or cooperation.
The programs often stated they were cooperative with others but their
funding records did not confirm their statements.
We visited with the
leadership of several of the relevant federal agencies and confirmed their
interest in research and educational programs in the area of food and
health. We asked what we could do to
assist their efforts and enhance the probabilities of success through greater
cooperation throughout the research and educational community.
Fortunately, throughout the
duration of this endeavor, we have received the encouragement of Dr. John
Marburger, Director of the Federal Office of Science and Technology
Policy. He suggested that we might want
to seek the help of our National Academies to convene a gathering that would
bring together scientists, educators, stakeholders and agency leaders to
discuss how we could enhance progress by all working together. The question was simple, could greater
progress be made through synergy while avoiding duplication.
We approached the National
Academies, Board of Agriculture and Natural Resources and asked if they would convene
what was to become the National Workshop on June 9, 2003 titled “Exploring a
Vision: Integrating Knowledge for Food and Health”.
This workshop brought
together 95 listed attendees to identify areas of research and education gaps
in our current system, explore areas of opportunity for collaboration and
discuss potential actions that could improve integration of agricultural and
health sciences to effectively address our nations concerns with food and
health.
The tone for the workshop
was set by the keynote address of Dr. John Marburger on “Meeting the Nation’s
Food and Health Challenges”.
Dr. Marburger’s address was
followed by two panels discussing “Integrative Research Infrastructure for
Food, Agriculture and Health” and “ Challenges Faced and Met in Research on
Food and Health”. This first panel
discussed integrated programs that have successfully addressed specific issues
of food and health. The second panel
discussed where we are making progress and identified opportunities for greater
accomplishments.
We then heard from leaders
of the two federal agencies most clearly involved in research and educational
programs of Food and Health. Dr. Joseph
J. Jen, Undersecretary, US Department of Agriculture spoke on “The Changing
Landscapes of the Food and Fiber System:
Responses to the Public Health Challenge”. Dr. Van S. Hubbard, Director, National Institutes of Health,
Division of Nutrition Research Coordination addressed “Incentives for
Multidisciplinary Sciences”. They both
described the excellence of their programs and encouraged an enhanced national
cooperative approach to dealing with the significant impact of how food is
influencing our health and longevity.
Before I describe what I perceived
to be the outcome of the discussions in this workshop, let me state that we
were indeed fortunate to have Secretary Tommy G. Thompson, US Department of
Health and Human Services deliver the final address. In his presentation “Science to Improve Public Health and the
Food System: Bridging the Divide,” he also confirmed the critical nature of the
issues of food and health and further urged a multi-agency approach to seeking
solutions.
The discussions all appeared
to be quite focused and there was a strong endorsement of the need for a
National Agenda to address the critical problems of food negatively affecting
the health of Americans. Consistent
with our own fact-finding, the participants clearly identified the problem
areas of food affecting obesity, diabetes, chronic disease as well as food
safety and bio-security. But what was
of particular interest is that there seemed to be agreement or consensus that a
coordinated “truly cooperative” approach could successfully have an impact on
addressing these major problems.
I used the term “truly
cooperative” approach because it appeared that while there was wide spread
agreement that although these were federal agencies with good faith attempts at
cooperation, there was not a “truly cooperative” multi-agency approach to these
national problems.
It was suggested that two
approaches at the federal level would enable greater progress and would
accomplish the integration of the scientific disciplines that we are already
seeing at the level of the “bench scientist”.
First, it was suggested that
perhaps the Office of Science and Technology Policy could bring together the
relevant agencies and have them enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to
work cooperatively on the opportunities identified in the area of food and
health. These MOA’s have been found to
be effective in bringing about productive and cooperative efforts.
Second, it was further
suggested that at the highest possible level in our Federal Government, Food
and Health be declared a national priority, a national agenda established and a
multi-agency task force or initiative be put in place.
Agenda Item
11.0 - Update from each SAES on budgets (since the March meeting)
Please use the following as your
reporting format:
1.
The
FY 04 state appropriation as a % of the FY 03 appropriation. You may also
want to describe the net effect of the last three years (FY 02, FY 03, and FY
04).
2.
The
relative change in the research, extension and academic program budgets (ie. x%
decrease in research, y% decrease in extension and z% decrease in academic
programs).
3.
General
description of distribution of budget change by: (a) category (ie. faculty,
support staff, operating budget), and (b) discipline (ie. across the board or
targeted)
4.
Elimination
of programs, departments or centers (identify them)
Also, please refer to the
budget summary below by Henry Bahn:
State Land
Grant Institution Budget Profiles:
Overview
and Expectations of Deans and Directors
for State
Funding
Summary
The nation’s land grant university system, like the entire public
higher education community,
is struggling with a continuing – and worsening – funding crisis. The economic recession and the weak recovery
have severely strained state tax revenue and state budgets, resulting in level
appropriations, and more often reductions, to most land grant colleges of
agriculture. The following information
summarizes informal conversations with deans and directors at sixty-two 1862
and 1890 land grant institutions from around the nation. The conversations took place throughout
December, 2002.
Both Agricultural Experiment Stations and Cooperative Extension
Services are increasingly pressured to cover their personnel and operating
costs. Program reductions, faculty and
staff reductions, facilities closings, tuition increases and curricular
adjustments are the principle means of dealing with budget shortfalls.
Institutions are increasingly dependent on extramural competitive grant
funding and industry to support their research, teaching and extension.
The 1890 and territorial land grant institutions face a very serious
risk of not being able to fully meet the required federal match, multiplying
the negative impact of their reduced non-federal appropriations.
Deans and directors expect the funding pressure to continue, and
worsen, over the next several years.
Continued funding shortfalls will lead to more extensive actions –
program eliminations, facility closings, hiring freezes, reductions in force,
layoffs, accelerated retirement, department consolidations or eliminations,
curriculum adjustments and tuition increases.
These drastic actions constrain an institution’s ability to accomplish
its land grant mission, and recovery can take years.
Budget Deficits Widespread
For states reporting percentages, state budget reductions averaged 8.45
percent, ranging from 1
percent to 19 percent. College
of agriculture budget reductions were generally split about
evenly between the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) and Agricultural
Experiment Station
(AES). Most states predict the
same or worse for the coming fiscal year and beyond; land grant
administrators generally anticipate reductions in the 10 percent to 15
percent range.
None of the institutions contacted have declared financial exigency as
of this time. Doing so
unleashes a series of seniority and related work rules that
administrators find restrictive
and inflexible, especially for AES and CES, both of which have a high
proportion of funding
dedicated to salaries (CES is typically more than 90 per cent, AES is
typically in the mid to high
80 percent range). Declaring
financial exigency also has a negative impact on faculty and staff
morale and can lead to legal action from affected faculty and staff
members.
Matching Federal Funds
None of the 1862 land grant institutions expect to have any
difficulty in meeting the 1:1 required match for federal funds. Historically, their state appropriations
have generally exceeded federal appropriations by 4- to 7-fold, so most
administrators feel confident that a sufficient cushion exists to continue to
meet the match in the foreseeable future.
The Historically Black (1890) land grant institutions face a far
different story. Most of their
non-federal matches are made at or close to the required .6:1 level; some
institutions must struggle to do so.
Many of the 1890 administrators face the very serious risk of not being
able to fully meet the required federal match, effectively doubling the
negative impact of their reduced state appropriations.
None of the responding territorial land grant institutions
expect to be able to meet the required federal match.
Program Adjustments
Most states are committed to maintaining a broad programmatic balance
for higher education, research and extension, and are reluctant to eliminate
programs, opting instead for reducing the scale of existing programs, most
often across the board.
Program adjustments were largely executed at the academic department
level. Adjustments reported at various
institutions included eliminated disciplinary departments, and eliminated or
redirected curricula. A number of
program mergers and consolidations have occurred. One state combined seven programs into four; several others
merged two or more programs; another state moved programs out of the original
college into another college or school.
Several states have combined CES middle management positions, or
combined CES programs or geographic areas to reduce administrative costs. Only one state completely eliminated one CES
program.
Institutions are increasingly dependent on competitive extramural
funding for AES, and increasingly, for CES.
The modest size of CSREES grant awards and the 14 percent indirect cost
limit, place deans and directors at a competitive and comparative disadvantage
with university administration vis à vis
other federal research and competitive grant funds. Most states depend on extramural funding (several very heavily),
and on the returns to intellectual capital, to help offset reduced
appropriations. Most expect this trend
to continue.
Facilities Management
Eight institutions reported closing one research station facility
either on or off campus. Several have closed
multiple facilities, and one state opened a new off-campus research/extension
facility. Closing county CES offices is
not at this time seen as a politically viable option for most states.
The 1890 institutions typically have much more modest facilities and
are thus very reluctant to close them, although one did close its dairy. Two other 1890 institutions are conducting
program and facility reviews to make facilities closure recommendations.
A number of states have generous bond-funded or privately-funded
building programs in progress, while some simultaneously have had maintenance
and operations funds reduced for existing facilities.
Managing Human Resources
Faculty and staff position attrition is the preferred manner of dealing
with reducing personnel costs. A number
of states have already made substantial faculty position cuts over the past
decade, sometimes with the permanent loss of the affected faculty lines.
Most institutions contacted have either a formal, informal, or “soft”
hiring freeze in place. Open positions
average about 10 percent of faculty lines, ranging from 4 percent to 20
percent. When possible, institutions
are selectively filling priority positions with approval from the dean or a
higher authority. In other cases, faculty
positions are not being filled unless they can be paid for by special funds
such as competitive grants, outside contracts, etc.
Layoffs have already occurred in 13 of the states contacted. Most have thus far restricted this action to
support staff, but several have resorted to professional staff layoffs, as
well. About a third of the institutions
stated that layoffs are inevitable if, as expected, funding problems continue.
Early retirement programs have been met with limited success. Deans noted that early retirement is costly
and often does not generate immediate savings, is not a very strategic
management tool, and can be detrimental to morale, especially if the faculty
lines are lost. One state has depended
very heavily on early retirements for 165 faculty members and 70 support
staff. Eight other states are
aggressively using early retirement to generate 10 to 60 faculty
retirements. A number of states have taken
advantage of federal retirement for eligible CES Schedule A faculty. Like layoffs, early retirement programs are
considered to be an inevitable “next step” if state funding continues to be
problematic.
State and county support for, and appreciation of, CES is reported to
be exceptionally strong. In some
states, the counties are financially supporting CES. In one state, the counties picked up a 2 percent salary increase
for CES. Many states report strong
political, if not fiscal, support for CES.
Tuition and Fees
Tuition increases average nearly 10 per cent, with the largest
proportionate increases in the
Central Plains, reporting increases of 18 percent to 25 percent,
although most are still regionally
competitive. States in the
Northeast have historically maintained high tuition rates and thus are
reluctant to make substantial increases.
Tuition increases have been generally accepted by students and parents
as appropriate and inevitable; undergraduate enrollment applications are thus
far unaffected, and enrollment continues to increase at most 1862 institutions. In most states, student applications and
enrollment are at or near all time highs, with little or no negative response
to increased tuition. In some other
states, the governor or the legislature is reluctant to increase tuition;
however, regent’s boards and university presidents are expected to increase the
pressure for tuition increases as the funding crisis continues.
The 1890 land grant institutions face a much more difficult challenge
regarding tuition. With a majority of their
undergraduate students receiving financial aid (as high as 90 percent), the
1890 administrators cannot easily increase the tuition and fees burden on their
students. Despite these institutions
largely holding their own on tuition costs, a number of them have reported
slight drops in both student applications and undergraduate enrollment.
Near-Term Expectations
Most consulting deans and directors expect their state budget and
funding problems to continue
for the next two years.
Many stated that the “easier” of the difficult adjustments already have
been made.
Continuation will lead to much more extensive and drastic actions –
program eliminations, more
facility closings, hiring freezes, reductions in force, layoffs,
accelerated retirement, department
consolidations or eliminations, curriculum adjustments and tuition
increases, and the increasing
probability that financial exigency will ultimately be declared.
Agenda
Item 14.0 – Nominations – Bert Stromberg
|
Committee |
Previous AA |
New AA |
|
NC94 |
F.
Chumley (KS) |
F.
Chumley (KS) |
|
NC227 |
D.
Vanderholm (NE) |
F.
Chumley (KS) |
|
NC1007 |
M.
Johnson (KS) |
B.
Stromberg (MN) |
|
NC1008 |
M.
Dentine (WI) |
M.
Dentine (WI) |
|
NC1011 |
J.
Bokemeier (MI) |
J.
Bokemeier (MI) |
|
NCA6 |
D.
Vanderholm (NE) |
E.
Aberle (WI) |
|
NCA16 |
D.
Vanderholm (NE) |
W.
Wintersteen (IA) |
|
NCA22 |
R.
Dowdy (NE) |
D.
Savaiano (IN) |
|
NCR3 |
B.
Lowery (WI) |
G. Miller (IA) |
|
NCR13 |
K.
McSweeney (WI) |
K.
McSweeney (WI) |
|
NCR22 |
E.
Ashworth (IN) |
E.
Ashworth (IN) |
|
NCR42 |
R. Easter (IL) |
N. Merchen (IL) |
|
NCR65 |
D.
Andrews (OH) |
M.
Delong (MN) |
|
NCR148 |
G. Chippendale (MO) |
D.
Hogg (WI) |
|
NCR174 |
D. Nelson (NE) |
E. Nater (MN) |
|
NCR180 |
G. Hoffman (NE) |
K.C.
Ting (OH) |
|
NCR184 |
R.
Rowe (OH) |
R.
Rowe (OH) |
|
NCR189 |
W.
Ravlin(OH) |
W.
Ravlin(OH) |
|
NCR197 |
D.
Vanderholm (NE) |
M.
Martin (IN) |
|
NCT193 |
D.
Vanderholm (NE) |
R.
Turco (IN) |
|
NCT194 (was NC221) |
E.
Hoiberg (IA) |
E.
Hoiberg (IA) |
|
NCT195 (was NC224) |
D.
Savaiano (IN) |
M.
Martin (IN) |
|
NCT197 |
NA |
J.I.
Gray (MI) |
|
NCT198 (was NCR134) |
M. Nolan (MO) |
W.
Wintersteen (IA) |
|
Other Committees |
Outgoing |
Incoming |
|
MRC |
Virginia Clark Johnson (ND) |
F. Chumley (KS) |
|
Gary Lemme (MI) |
K. Grafton (ND) |
|
|
Rural
Development Center |
P. Jensen (ND) |
W. Wintersteen (IA) |
|
J.
Bokemeier (MI) |
J.
Bokemeier (MI) |
|
|
Nominating
Committee |
M. Kostelnik (MO) |
N. Betts (NE) |
Resolution
for Dale H. Vanderholm
WHEREAS, Dale H. Vanderholm will
retire on June 30, 2003 from his position as Associate Dean and Associate
Director of the Agricultural Research Division, University of Nebraska; and
WHEREAS, Dale has had a distinguished
academic career at Iowa State University from 1967 to 1973 and the University
of Illinois from 1973 to 1981 and has excelled in research administration at
the University of Illinois (1981-1983) and the University of Nebraska
(1983-2003); and
WHEREAS, Dr. Vanderholm has made
numerous contributions to the discipline of Agricultural Engineering as a whole
and to the American Society of Agricultural Engineers in particular through
chairing important committees and serving on the Board of Directors; and
WHEREAS, Dale has served as President
of the Agricultural Research Institute, as a member of the Board of Directors
and Chair of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP, and as chair and member of several Great
Plains Agricultural Council committees; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Vanderholm has served as
a member and Chair of the Committee of Nine, as a member of the Experiment
Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP), and as a member of
numerous ESCOP committees; and
WHEREAS, Dale has been a member of
the North Central Regional Association (NCRA) for 22 years and has served as
Administrative Advisor for numerous NC projects, NCR committees, NCA
committees, and NCS-5 , has provided leadership for a number NCRA standing and
ad hoc committees, and served with distinction as Chair of Regional Research
Committee and the Association; and
WHEREAS, Dale has been heavily
involved in interacting with Nebraska stakeholders including service on the
Nebraska Crop Improvement Association Board of Directors, and ex officio member of five commodity
boards,
THEREFORE, the North Central Regional
Association both commends and thanks Dale H. Vanderholm for his outstanding
service to the Association, the Land-Grant Mission, the people of the North
Central Region, and the nation.
Presented July 10, 2003
NCRA meeting, West
Lafayette, Indiana
A
Resolution Honoring
Dean of the College of Agriculture and
Director of K-State Research and Extension, Kansas State University
Whereas, Marc A. Johnson worked
tirelessly to ensure that Teaching in the College of Agriculture at Kansas
State University was viewed and rewarded as the equal of Research and Extension
efforts, and
Whereas, Marc A. Johnson stressed
the importance of cutting-edge Research in keeping the Science of Kansas State
University’s Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service
at the forefront of Land Grant Universities nationwide, and
Whereas, Marc A. Johnson worked long and hard to strengthen the statewide presence of the Kansas Cooperative Extension Service and touted the importance of Extension to audiences both on- and off-campus, and
Whereas, Marc A. Johnson was very
interested in the International aspect of education and relationships at Kansas
State University, to the extent that he created a travel scholarship for
students, participated in international exchanges with other universities,
provided leadership to the MidAmerica International Agricultural Consortium,
and supported efforts to create a new International Grains Program Executive
Conference Center, and provided leadership to the U.S.-Israel Binational
Agricultural Research and Development Fund, and
Whereas, Marc A. Johnson hired a
world-wide communications consulting firm, Fleishman-Hillard, to create a
marketing and communications plan that led to the merger of the Kansas State
Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service into an
entity called the Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and
Cooperative Extension Service, or K-State Research and Extension for short, and
Whereas, Marc A. Johnson excelled at
providing vision to the Kansas State University College of Agriculture and
K-State Research and Extension through cooperating with sustainable agriculture
groups, environmental entities, alternative farm organizations, and other state
or federal agencies before most internal and external audiences were prepared
for or convinced such cooperation would be advisable, and
Whereas, Marc A. Johnson worked
untiringly to create centers of excellence at Kansas State University in the
areas of Biotechnology, Environmental Science, Food Science, Community Health,
and Value-Added Processing which allow the creation of teams across departments
and colleges, thus enhancing a spirit of cooperation among teaching, research,
and extension both on- and off-campus, and
Whereas Marc A. Johnson has shown
unwavering commitment to the Land Grant University Ideal and provided long,
dedicated service to the North Central Regional Association of State
Agricultural Experiment Station Directors,
Be it now resolved that the
North Central Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station
Directors expresses its sincerest appreciation and deepest thanks to Marc A. Johnson
and wishes him well in his new role as Vice Provost for Agriculture and
Outreach, and Dean of the College of Agricultural Sciences at Colorado State
University.
Presented July 10, 2003
NCRA meeting, West Lafayette, Indiana