Tuesday, March 16, 1999 - 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Regional Research Committee (Working lunch) - Colin Scanes

6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. - Welcoming Reception for NCRA, Embassy Suites

Dinner on your own

Wednesday, March 17, 1999 - 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

North Central Regional Association (*Agenda Brief Attached)

1.0 Call to Order and Introductions - Fred Cholick
Present: Madelyn Alt, Mike Brugger, Jack Burns, Michael Chippendale, Fred A. Cholick, Virginia Clark, Karen Craig, Marilyn DeLong, Margaret Dentine, Richard Dunkle, Cornelia Flora, Ian Gray, George Ham, Adrianna Hewings, Patricia Jensen, Marc Johnson, Kevin Kephart, Gerald Klonglan, Phil Larsen, Richard Lower, Thomas Omara-Alwala, Carol Meeks, L. R. "Skip" Nault, Darrell Nelson, Eldon Ortman, Tom Payne, Steve Pueppke, Bill Ravlin, Sally Rockey, Eric E. Roos, Colin Scanes, Ken Schneeberger, Dale Vanderholm, Randy Woodson

8:10 a.m. 2.0 Approval of the September 1998 Minutes - Fred Cholick
(Available at: http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/sepmin.htm)
The minutes were approved as submitted.

8:12 a.m. 3.0 Adoption of Agenda - Fred Cholick
No additions/changes were made to the agenda.
8:15 a.m. 4.0* Executive Committee Report and Interim Actions of the Chair - Fred Cholick
8:20 a.m. 5.0* Executive Director's Report - Richard Lower
8:25 a.m. 6.0* ESCOP Report - Dale Vanderholm
8:35 a.m. 6.1* Status of ESCOP Activities, i.e., Reorganization, Committee Activities, Report of February ESCOP Meeting - Darrell Nelson
8:45 a.m. 6.2* Pest Management Strategies Subcommittee/NC PIAP- Eldon Ortman
8:55 a.m. 6.3* Image Enhancement - Eldon Ortman
9:05 a.m. 6.4* GPRA/POW - Darrell Nelson
9:15 a.m. 6.5* SARE - Darrell Nelson
9:25 a.m. 6.6* FY 00 Budget, Legislative, Advocacy and Marketing - Tom Payne/
Richard Lower - BRING YOUR COPY OF FY 00 BUDGET WITH YOU
9:45 a.m. Break10:15 a.m. 6.6a Teleconference with Terry Nipp for Budget Update and AESOP Update
10:45 a.m. 6.6 Continued FY 00 Budget, Legislative, Advocacy and Marketing - Tom Payne/Richard Lower
11:00 a.m. 6.7* Plans for ESS, SAES/ARD Directors' Workshop, Fall NCRA and ESCOP Executive Committee Meetings - Richard Lower
11:10 a.m. 7.0* Rural Development Center - Cornelia Flora
11:25 a.m. 8.0* NCS-3/IPM Grant Awards for FY 99 - Eldon Ortman
12:00 noon Lunch
1:00 p.m. 9.0 University/Industry Relationship - J. O. Burns, University of Missouri-Columbia
30 minutes presentation/30 minutes questions and answers
2:00 p.m. 10.0* Germplasm Releases and Related Activities at the North Central Stations - Eldon Ortman; George Ham (Survey); National Soybean Uniform Test - Colin Scanes
3:30 p.m. Break
3:45 p.m. 11.0* Administrative Advisors' Workshop - Colin Scanes
5:30 p.m. Executive Session - Executive Director's Office FY 00 Budget - Fred Cholick and Margaret Dentine, UW-Madison Representative

Dinner - On Your Own

Thursday, March 18, 1999 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon
8:00 a.m. 12.0 Regional Research Committee
12.1* RRC Report - Colin Scanes
10:00 a.m. Break
10:15 a.m. 13.0* Discussion on Plan(s) of Work - All
14.0 Agency Reports
10:50 a.m. 14.1 CSREES - Sally Rockey
11:00 a.m. 14.2 ARS - Richard Dunkle/Will Blackburn
11:10 a.m. 14.3 1890s - Thomas R. Omara-Alwala
11:20 a.m. 15.0 Plans for July NCRA Meeting - Fred Cholick/Richard Lower
11:25 a.m. 16.0 Nominations Committee Report - Gerald Klonglan
11:35 a.m. 17.0 Resolutions Committee - Marilyn DeLong
11:40 a.m. 18.0 Announcements
·ESCOP Executive Committee Meeting - San Antonio, Texas - April 13-14, 1999
·NCRA and Joint Summer Meeting - East Lansing, Michigan - July 13-15, 1999
·ESCOP/ECOP/ACOP Meeting - Lake of the Ozarks, Missouri - July 20-22, 1999
·ESS Fall Meeting - Memphis, Tennessee - September 28, 1999
·SAES/ARD Directors' Workshop - Memphis, Tennessee - September 28-30, 1999
·NCRA Fall Meeting - Memphis, Tennessee - September 30, 1999
·ESCOP Executive Committee Fall Meeting - Memphis, Tennessee - September 30, 1999
·NASULGC - November 8-10, 1999 - San Francisco, California
11:45 a.m. 19.0 Summary and Review of Assignments - Fred Cholick

Meeting Date: March 17, 1999
Agenda Item No: 4.0
Presenter: Fred Cholick
Agenda Item Title: NCRA Chair's Report
Background Information:

Since being Chair of NCRA, I have taken part in the following:

· Participated in the Regional Research Committee (plus others) meeting in October 1998.
· Sent a resolution letter to Dr. Roger Mitchell after the September 1998 NCRA meeting.
· Participated in NCRA Executive Committee phone calls.
· Sent letters to the NCA Committees regarding midterm reviews and reviewing the priority process.
· Participated at the recent ESCOP meeting in February 1999.
· After discussions with Drs. Chicoine and Gray about the summer meeting for 1999, it was decided that the planned reunion for experiment station directors will be scheduled at Ames, Iowa in July of 2000.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

Meeting Date: March 17, 1999
Agenda Item No: 5.0
Presenter: Richard Lower
Agenda Item Title: Executive Director's Report
Background Information:

The Executive Director attended the following meetings since our annual fall meeting in Kansas City, Kansas on September 22, 1998:

· National Genetic Resources Advisory Council, September 28-30, 1998-Washington, DC
· International Centers Week, USAID, October, 24-26, 1998-Washington, DC
· Board on Agriculture FY 00 Budget Committee, October 26-27, 1998-Washington, D.C.
· NCRA Regional Research Committee, October 29, 1998-Chicago, IL
· NASULGC/ESS/ESCOP Executive Committee, November 15-16, 1998-Atlanta, GA
· International Cucurbitaceae 98 Conference, Invited paper on Plant Breeding Trends in the 21st Century, December 2-3, 1998-Asilomar, CA
· Board of Directors Meeting at the AVRDC, December 6-11, 1998-Taiwan
· ECOP/ESCOP/CSREES Plan of Work Discussions, December 17,1998-Washington DC
· ECOP/ESCOP/CSREES Plan of Work Discussion, January 25, 1999-Dallas, TX
· Vegetable Processing Industry Meeting, Invited paper on Future Trends in Agricultural Research, February 8-10, 1999-Puerto Rico
· ESCOP February 15-17, 1999-Washington, DC
· Genomics and Budget Planning at AESOP/USDA-ARS/CSREES and USAID March 2, 1999-Washington, DC.

The NCRA office continues to be involved in numerous teleconferences and meetings related to NCRA, ESCOP and CSREES activities including Restructuring of ESCOP, Plan of Work, planning for ESCOP and NCR meetings, and development of the September SAES/ARD Directors' Workshop. The ED is participating on several committees including NGRAC; BOA, ECOP and ESCOP FY 00 Budget; and Plan of Work Partnering.

Projects to Terminate September 30, 2000:

NC-129 NC-131 NC-136 NC-202 NC-205 NC-218 NCR-3 NCR-9

NCR-13 NCR-25 NCR-31 NCR-42 NCR-46 NCR-52 NCR-57

NCR-59 NCR-97 NCR-137 NCR-148 NCR-189 NCT-174

Projects for Midterm Review September 30, 2000 (NC terminates 2002; NCR terminates 2001):

NC-62 NC-113 NC-119 NC-140 NC-142 NC-167 NC-168 NC-170 NC-185 NC-209

NC-210 NCR-21 NCR-22 NCR-65 NCR-87 NCR-89 NCR-101 NCR-125 NCR-167 NCR-168

NCR-170 NCR-179 NCR-180 NCR-183 NCR-192 NCR-193

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: If a project is up for a midterm review or revision, please make sure the appropriate NCA committee(s) get the information in a timely manner.

Meeting Date: March 17-18, 1999
Agenda Item: 6.0
Presenter: Dale Vanderholm
Agenda Item Title: ESCOP Report
Background Information:

The regular meeting of ESCOP was held on February 16-17, 1999 at NASULGC Headquarters in Washington, D.C. The meeting was chaired by Darrell Nelson. Major topics included the following:

1. ESCOP Committee reorganization
Following a decision to reorganize the ESCOP Committees in 1998, Chair Nelson has made all the appointments to the ESCOP Committees and a listing is on the ESCOP web site. Initial meetings of the ESCOP core committees on (a. Budget, Legislative, Advocacy and Marketing, b. Science and Technology, c. Partnerships, d. Planning) are just being held. Evaluations of the function and need for previous subcommittees is underway. The Illinois CFAR model as a means of developing stronger advocacy was discussed and a consensus developed to study this further as a model for ESCOP.

2. As a result of discussion of the potential of a formal marketing effort by ESCOP at the September 1998 meeting, a presentation and discussion on developing a mass media marketing program was held. The decision was made to move forward with the Phase I marketing plan with R. J. & Company, Marietta, Georgia, with the understanding that there were funds already available in the NASULGC budget to cover the cost of Phase I activity.

3. A report on SUNEI was given by Dr. Chuck Krueger. Linkages with other federal agencies continue to be developed and funding opportunities are evolving from these. In many cases, it would be possible to leverage more funds for joint competitive funding programs from other agencies if there were cost share monies available from USDA. Ways to develop funding for this in the USDA budget in future years will be explored.

4. There was extensive discussion on Plan of Work (POW) requirements. CSREES will be sponsoring a national video conference to provide details on current POW requirements. It will not be handled as a formal rule making process and the guidelines will not be published in the Federal Register. There was discussion of how the current regional research system will evolve into the multi-state research program. There was strong support to not make major changes immediately but rather to identify the best parts of how the regional research program is working now and adapt these to develop the new multi-state system.


5. The ESCOP-ECOP contract with Terry Nipp and AESOP has been finalized for the coming year. AESOP will continue to work heavily with the federal budget advocacy and national science policy agenda.


Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

Meeting Date: March 16-18, 1999
Agenda Item: 6.1
Presenter: Darrell W. Nelson
Agenda Item Title: Status of ESCOP Activities
Background Information:

The ESCOP reorganization is complete with the appointment of members to the five core committees and several administrative subcommittees. The core committees have started to organize their activities for the year. One of the major task of core committees is to evaluate the need for subcommittees and to make the appointments to continuing and new subcommittees. The core committee chairs have been appointed to the ESCOP Executive Committee. The ESCOP web site gives a listing of the membership for all committees.

ESCOP met in Washington, D.C. on February 16-17. Considerable discussion at the meeting centered on the Board on Agriculture FY 2000 budget recommendation. AESOP Enterprises has worked with the BOA Budget Committee to craft an innovative budget that captures the funding increases contained in the President's FY 2000 budget proposal but increases rather than decreases base funding levels. Additional information regarding the FY 2000 budget will be presented at this meeting.

Decisions made during the ESCOP meeting included the following:

· Colin Kaltenbach will lead an effort to explore the implementation of a national level CFAR activity that would support increases in the CSREES budget.
· ESCOP authorized Phase I of a national marketing effort to identify effective positioning statements that could be used to support agricultural research and extension in the national media. We are seeking a partnership from ECOP.
· ESCOP passed a resolution supporting the continuation of USAID cooperative research grants that linked IARCs and land grant university researchers.
· A consensus position was established that "multi-state" research funds should remain separate from the Hatch Act allocation to agricultural experiment stations.
· An ad hoc committee was established to examine the status of regional research projects and committees in relation to the AREERA legislation. This committee will also evaluate the future of NRPs and NRSPs.
· ESCOP will prepare a letter protesting the changes contained in Executive Memorandum A-110 regarding freedom of information for all federally-funded research projects.
· AESOP Enterprises will become more active in the social engagement of Congressional staff. Experiment stations will be asked to be more aggressive in inviting staffers to view the results of federally-funded research.
· One of the Regional Research Committee Chairs will draft a "white paper" outlining the need and usefulness of regional associations, regional offices and executive directors.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None. ESCOP will be in contact with ECOP to see if there is interest in the marketing initiative. Directors need to be proactive regarding the A110 bill. It may be beneficial for directors to visit with their congressional as well as staffers.

Meeting Date: March 17-18, 1999
Agenda Item: 6.2
Presenter: Eldon E. Ortman
Agenda Item Title: Pest Management Strategies

The National IPM committee representing Extension and Research, held a meeting in Washington, D.C. on December 7-8, 1998. This report reflects primarily the discussions of that meeting.

Significant interaction continues with NASS to use and further develop surveys to assess the level of IPM implementation. The Pest Management Practices Summary for the 1997 field season was published in August 1998 by NASS and can be viewed on the web site at nass@nass.usda.gov. In general the adoption of IPM in vegetables and fruit is considerably higher than in grain crops. NASS is planning a survey on the 75% goal 2000. States have the opportunity to collaborate with NASS to create state specific questions.

The USDA-IPM budget elements were reviewed. The President's budget recently released identifies several increases related to IPM, however level funding is proposed for the regional grants program. FQPA is a primary budget driver given the potential pesticide use decisions by EPA and the need for alternative controls.

Information presented by personal USDA and EPA identified additional potential sources of funding to address pest management programs, for example, Environmental Stewardship Program, 319 Projects, etc.

The Office of Pest Management Policy (Al Jennings and Theresa Murtaugh) reviewed the primary activities of the Office. Among their highest priorities are working with EPA to enhance the quality of risk assessment. Crop Profiles generated via Pesticide Assessment and Grant Programs are proving very useful. An idea, a concept that was discussed was that of Virtual Centers for IPM. There is a need on the part of the Office and other entities to have the ability to rapidly respond to issues. In order to accomplish this based on the "issue of the moment" there is a need to have the capacity to identify and access expertise and information in a very short
time frame. This concept will be explored with the states.

The Pest Management Alternatives Grant Program did a first ever two-stage review of proposals. There was an initial stakeholder/relevancy review followed by a technical peer panel. Panelist from both groups found the two-state review to be positive. CSREES also viewed it as a positive development. This is one way to achieve stakeholder involvement as identified in AREERA. Discussion involved ways to measure performance and impact of IPM adoption. A set of indicators has been developed by the regional committees and is expected to be finalized in the next few months. This has the potential to lead to enhanced accomplishment reporting.

Regional activities: Each of the Regions has a joint Research/Extension Committee. Meetings of these committees are scheduled during the next two months. Grant programs in each region are in "final stages" with proposals due and peer panel meetings scheduled.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: CSREES indicated that the impact statements resulting from NC-205 have been very helpful while meeting with staffers/congressional people. NC-205 will continue its activity but will move to other commodities. The lead needs to come from the North Central Region. The NC-205 project gave the region credibility.

Meeting Date: March 17, 1999

Agenda Item Number: 6.3

Presenter: Eldon Ortman

Agenda Item Title: Image Enhancement

Background Information:

Impact statements have been requested at each land grant institution. These have been entered in a database accessible at the institutions. Writers at each institution are reviewing, editing and rewriting in preparation for "publication." A writing team is meeting in Washington, D.C., on February 23-25, 1999 to develop a set of National Impact Statements.

As a part of the Washington, D.C. activity, the writing team will also develop a template for regional research impact. The template will be in the form of minimally one impact statement for a regional research project from each region. NC-205, "Ecology and Management of European Corn Borer and Other Stalk-Boring Lepidoptera," was identified as the project from the North Central Region.

Action Necessary: Critique the handouts presented at the meeting and respond to Dr. Ortman by April 15. (Note: A copy of the handouts presented at the meeting are available in the ED's office upon request.)

Action Taken: The multi-state impact statements should become part of the package that is used when visiting congressional representatives and staffers in Washington.

Meeting Date: March 16-18, 1999
Agenda Item: 6.4
Presenter: Darrell W. Nelson
Agenda Item Title: GPRA/POW
Background Information:

In theory, the annual report for each AES GPRA plan was due in CSREES on February 1, 1999. Since GPRA has now been interpreted as a requirement of CSREES rather than of land grant universities, Acting Administrator Colien Hefferan indicated that the annual GPRA report was not required. To the contrary, George Cooper has indicated to me that the annual GPRA report for 1998 remains a requirement. Five North Central Region AESs have submitted their GPRA reports. The reports have varied in length from 12 to 200 pages. In the future, the annual report on the state Plan of Work will serve as the input for the CSREES GPRA report.

Dr. Hefferan reported that the guidelines for development of Plans of Work will not be published in the Federal Register. The guidelines will be disseminated to the land grant system as soon as clearance is obtained from the USDA General Counsel Office. SAESs will have the opportunity to provide input on the guidelines before they are formally issued as policy. Colien believes that the Plans of Work will be due in CSREES on July 1, 1999. CSREES will have until October 1, 1999 to decide if Plans of Work are adequate. Formula funds cannot be released until the Plans of Work are approved. Not all programs/projects need to be covered in the Plans of Work since we can reference projects currently in the CRIS system in the narrative of the Plan. About one day at the Administrative Officers Conference will be devoted to the nuts and bolts of the Plans of Work.

A Plans of Work conference was held in Dallas on January 25, 1999 that involved representatives of ESS, ES, CSREES, and NASULGC. The primary focus of the meeting was on how states could fulfill their obligations for submission of a plan. Several states have agreed to put their draft plans on their web sites for use by others currently developing plans. The Utah State draft plan is currently on the ESCOP web site.

Additional items needing discussion at the NCRA meeting include: format and content of the POWs; mechanisms for planning and reporting multi-state, multi-disciplinary and multi-functional programs; the need for a POW to document the Regional Research Program; accountability and other related items.

Action Requested: Begin work on the Plan of Work in the near future. Agree to put your draft Plan of Work on your web site.

Action Taken: After a lengthy discussion, the directors motioned to write a letter to CSREES requesting the POW deadline be delayed until March so that the AD-421 deadline and the POW deadline coincide (this is so directors need to get information from the PIs only once). The motion was seconded; and carried. Dr. Cholick will write a letter to the CSREES Administrator regarding the motion.

Meeting Date: March 17-18, 1999
Agenda Item: 6.5

Presenter: Darrell Nelson

Agenda Item Title: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)

The SARE program received level funding for FY-99 ($8 million for the research and education program and $3.3 million for the Professional Development Program). The USDA National Commission on Small Farms (1998) had encouraged increased funding for the SARE program as a vehicle to promote sustainable agriculture.

NCR SARE continues to emphasize marketing themes (e.g. consumer-producer relationships, producer cooperatives). Ten grants for special marketing projects were awarded, including such projects as development of a tomato cooperative in Kansas, educating consumers about sustainable agriculture in Wisconsin and urban/rural partnerships in Ohio. A special marketing conference will be held this November in Lincoln, NE.

The NCR developed SARE's first granting program exclusively for farmers and ranchers in 1992. In January 1998, researchers from Michigan State University began mailing a survey to producer grant recipients and applicants. After professional follow-ups, phone calls and site visits, nearly 600 farmers and ranchers voiced opinions about their views on sustainability, the Producer Grant Program application and award process, impacts of producer grants, outreach activities resulting from producer grants, information sources on sustainable agriculture and opinions of the Producer Grant Program. Findings will be incorporated into the Producer Grant Program. A new partnership with the National Agroforestry Center will support increased emphasis in agroforestry projects.

Eighty new grants were awarded in 1998 at a total of more than $2 million. We awarded 24 Research and Education Grants (including 2 planning grants) totaling more than $1.1 million, 10 Professional Development Program Grant awards totaling nearly $400,000, and 46 new Producer Grant awards totaling more than $220,000. The Research and Education Grant Programs list of projects includes our 10 marketing initiatives and studies and education in biological control of bacterial diseases, soil quality and cover crops, farm mentorships, youth involvement in water quality issues, agroforestry and management-intensive grazing, and holistic management principles, among other topics. Regional farmers and ranchers will be exploring a host of issues, such as a honey bee mite control, sustainable hog production, marketing organic livestock, alternative nitrogen sources, and composting, to name a few. We also continued our relationship with our 1994 Land Grant colleges through grant awards and other initiatives.

In addition to competitive grants, NCR SARE provided support and materials to each NCR land-grant university for state initiatives in sustainable agriculture, including meetings, newsletters, workshops and websites. An educational needs assessment survey of regional leaders in the Natural Resources Conservation Service and Cooperative Extension was conducted. Responses to the survey were used to determine PDP grant priority areas, and to hire a new PDP Coordinator, responsible for networking and sharing information with our regional educators.
We also continue to offer services and communication vehicles such as our new newsletter/fact series, our Website, the NCR SARE speakers bureau, a listserve, and our traveling display.

* PRODUCER GRANT PROGRAM

FY-98 Producer Grant Applications Funded by State
IL	IN	IA	KS	MI	MN	MO	NE	ND	OH	SD	WI	Other	Total
4	1	7	6	6	4	6	2	1	3	3	3	0	46

The number of applications received was reported at the July, 1998 NCRA meeting.

* RESEARCH AND EDUCATION COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM

FY-99 Preproposals Received by State (Research and Education/Demonstration)
IL	IN	IA	KS	MI	MN	MO	NE	ND	OH	SD	WI	Other	Total
10	3	15	7	10	24	7	17	6	13	3	26	1	142

FY-99 Preproposals Invited to Submit Full Proposals by State (Research and Education/ Demonstration)
IL	IN	IA	KS	MI	MN	MO	NE	ND	OH	SD	WI	Other	Total
1	1	1	3	1	9	2	7	3	5	1	7	1	42

FY-99 Proposals Received by State (Research and Education/Demonstration)
IL	IN	IA	KS	MI	MN	MO	NE	ND	OH	SD	WI	Other	Total
1	1	1	3	1	8	1	7	2	5	2	7	1	40

The Technical Committee met on March 3-4 and the Administrative Council will make funding recommendations March 29-31.

· PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

FY-99 Proposals Received by State (Professional Development Program)
IL	IN	IA	KS	MI	MN	MO	NE	ND	OH	SD	WI	Other	Total
2	2	3	2	5	5	3	6	2	5	3	2	2	42

Funding recommendations will be made by the Administrative Council March 29-31.

FY-99 Requests for Qualifications for the PDP Coordinator Received by State
IL	IN	IA	KS	MI	MN	MO	NE	ND	OH	SD	WI	Other	Total
0	0	3	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	10	1	0	42

Selection of the new PDP Regional Coordinator should be completed by April 1.

A:\99nrcaagbr.wpd

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

Meeting Date: March 17-18, 1999
Agenda Item: 6.6
Presenter: Tom Payne
Agenda Item Title: FY 00 Budget, Legislative, Advocacy and Marketing

The ESCOP FY 00 Budget, Legislative, Advocacy and Marketing Committee worked closely with the BOA Committee to develop the NASULGC budget recommendations. The budget document was shared with CARET representatives at their annual meeting in Washington, DC on February 28, 1999. The budget emphasized the items that SAES directors had given high priority and included increases in base funding and other selected parts of the research portfolio. The document distributed at CARET will be sent to all Deans and Directors either by hard copy or electronically. In order to facilitate the discussions about budget you should bring your copy to the NCRA meeting.

An update on budget committee activities and the projected roles for advocacy and marketing will be discussed.

Action Requested: Bring your budget to the meeting for discussion.

Action Taken: There was discussion about the budget process. It is important to provide the staffers within your state the right information; follow-up letters could be detrimental; need to be careful when choosing to write letters and to whom they go to. When writing letters to congressional staff, please copy AESOP Enterprises to keep them apprised.

Meeting Date: March 17-18, 1999
Agenda Item: 6.6a
Presenter: Terry Nipp
Agenda Item Title: AESOP and Budget Update

Dr. Nipp indicated:

· There were many complaints talking about funding mechanisms; but not issues to be addressed.
· During the House and Agriculture Appropriations Committee hearings, Drs. Gonzalez, Hefferan, Horn Kennedy, and Offutt testified and it was very clear that the members took a strong message that we need to build on the base funds.
· Need to integrate national representation of groups and identify priorities to make sure the issues are throughout the groups.
· There were extensive sessions with CARET and administrative heads.
· Need to be careful with the message that we support competitive grants and also have infrastructure needs.
· The budget will not be any worse for agriculture than anyone else. Getting good responses from what has been proposed and a willingness to take care of R&E.
· $120m for mandatory funds is coming out of AREERA legislation from last year. $30m from the Fund for Rural America.
· There were two problems - source of funding was mandatory and too much latitude was given to the Secretary of Agriculture. We don't get shorter term world problems that are long-term problems.
· Terry's staff will be engaging in more social events with congressional staff and facilitate university interaction.
· There is an ad hoc group of university presidents looking to see what can be done in agriculture research in the funding process - agricultural science has not kept up with this.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

Meeting Date: March 17-18, 1999
Agenda Item: 6.7
Presenter: Richard Lower
Agenda Item Title: September 1999 ESS, SAES-ARD Directors' Workshop Regional Associations and ESCOP Executive Committee Meetings
Background Information:

The ESS Meeting, the SAES-ARD Directors' Workshop and regional association meetings are scheduled for September 28-30, 1999, in Memphis, Tennessee at the Memphis Marriott Downtown. A tentative schedule is as follows:

Tuesday, September 28
8:00 a.m. - noon -- ESS Meeting
12:00 -1:00 p.m. -- Lunch for all participants 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. -- SAES-ARD Workshop
6:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. -- Dinner with a speaker (? new CSREES Administrator?)

Wednesday, September 29
8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. -- SAES-ARD Workshop continues

Thursday, September 30
8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.-- SAES-ARD Workshop wrap up
10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. -- Regional Association Meetings (working lunch served) 2:00 p.m. - 4:30&nbspp.m. -- ESCOP Executive Committee meeting

Continental breakfasts and lunches each day and dinner Tuesday night will be included in the registration fee. We have a negotiated lodging rate with the hotel for $105/night and are guaranteeing 100 rooms each night (9/27, 9/28, and 9/29). The hotel is offering a cut off date of September 6.

SAES/ARD Suggested Topics for September 1999 Workshop:

· RESEARCH PARTNERING
REE Undersecretary
ARS Administrator
CSREES Administrator

* Sharing the load. Suggest research subjects for potential cooperative projects. We need a strong lead-in message or statement that highlights successes and missed opportunities for conducting research in the sciences that support agriculture; food, fiber, health, energy, environment, quality of life, etc.
* What have we learned? How can we improve future support? Will joint planning at the REE level be helpful?
* Discussion groups (directors) could review comments, make points/counterpoints, and suggest follow-up actions for ESCOP to communicate to REE.

· EXTENSION AND RESEARCH PARTNERING
* Review of interactions and opportunities mandated by AREERA

* State Perspectives (R&E Directors)
* Regional or Multi-state Perspectives (Regional Research Chairs)
* National Perspectives (ESCOP Chairs (Past, Present and Elect) and Core Committee Chairs)

This would be a "live" performance discussing what is happening at the various levels, why, and what we might gain from the activities. A strong lead-in statement about the positives and negatives of the GPRA process and its linkages and relationships to the POW process. Can or have we learned anything from two years of reporting with little or no response to the documents sent in response to the GPRA. Can POW be productive or is it ill-fated? Planning vs. reporting.

· Stakeholder Partnering
* Science Roadmap/Science Summit (relationship to NASULGC Century III program?)
* Sending the right message about: 1) The role of Land Grants and what they have accomplished, 2) What needs to be done now and in the near future, and 3) A plan for support.
* NASULGC
* AESOP
* CONGRESS
* CARET
* Discussion groups (directors) could review comments, make points/counterpoints, and suggest follow-up actions for ESCOP.

Action Requested: Would appreciate any suggestions on the agenda; how to make the workshop better; how to restructure the workshop.

Action Taken: Please respond to the Executive Director's office no later than March 31.

Meeting Date: March 17-18, 1999
Agenda Item: 7.0
Presenter: Cornelia Flora
Agenda Item Title: Center for Rural Development

Objective
With the 1996 FAIR Act and the declines in the farm economy in the Midwest, rural development is needed to generate alternatives for rural people and build on the agriculture and natural resource base when appropriate. The NCRCRD facilitates rural communities to generate adequate incomes for all residents, to be ecologically sound and to improve the quality of life. Our major tools for doing so are through applied research and outreach across disciplines, across states, linking the private and public sectors.

Program
The NCRCRD is governed by volunteer board of directors that initiated four key programs to combine regional resources to meet regional challenges in terms of research and extension. We work with Land Grant scientists and extension personnel as partners in our programs.

Regional Support Systems for Rural Entrepreneurs: The Case of Food Products
· Coordinating the food technology centers at Land Grant Universities to meet the needs of micro food entrepreneurs
· Linking nonprofit organizations who work with micro food entrepreneurs with the technical expertise in food processing and product development available in Land Grant Universities
· Setting up easy electronic communication so that micro food entrepreneurs may more easily access regional food technology resources
· Creating new partner organizations with sustainable agriculture groups and small farmers to provide quality ingredients to micro food processors
· Developing opportunities for flexible food manufacturing networks
· Integrating community development extension within the region with Industrial Extension and NIST.

The Impact of Value Added Agriculture on Rural Communities and Regional Economies
· Examined local impacts of value added agriculture and concluded that under the current contractual arrangements, large farmers do better than small farmers in such commodities as corn. (Research).
· Found that in the case of completely vertically integrated pork production, the economic benefits of more jobs, high town land values, and higher retail sales are offset by the public costs of increased and more diverse school enrollment, higher crime and civil suits, lower per capita income, increased safe water violations. (Research).
· Identified necessary social factors for the success of alternative value added agricultural enterprises in rural areas. (Research)
Regional Issues in Welfare Reform
· Identified, catalogued and shared across the country existing Cooperative Extension efforts in community-based programs in workforce preparation, including welfare to work, work to work, and school to work.
· Facilitated research design and training for a regional research project on the impacts of welfare reform on households in rural areas. (Research)

New Economic Opportunities for Rural America
· Initiated a research effort to find out what happens when you combine a new frontier of agricultural technology with a new frontier of telecommunications and information technology. (Research)

Program Area #1: Improving Economic Competitiveness, Diversity and Adaptability of Small and/or Rural Communities
· Supported development of a research-based action program on quality jobs in rural areas.
· Identified labor force retention as a major constraint in value-added rural enterprises and worked with state programs to help communities and firms retain workers. (Research)
· Enhanced home-based businesses through training extension personnel in the region to work with this growing economic group.

Program Area #2: Linking Natural Resource Industries, including Agriculture, with Community and Environmental Resources
· Stimulating the creation of an urban-based food system that enhances both the consumption and income generation opportunities of low-income residents in rural and urban areas in the Kansas City area. The Missouri legislature followed on with $300,000 to support the project.
· Identified community-based indicators of ecosystem health. (Research)
· Found key social variables critical in conservation buffers to enhance biodiversity and water quality. (Research)

Program Area #3: Increasing Community Capacity to Deal with Change
· Forged linkages between rural and urban grass roots leaders through AStrengthening the Rural-Urban Connection@ recently launched with the Heartland Center for Leadership Development.
· Created a community process for measuring success in community building efforts. (Research)
· Designed a community-based process for dealing with key rural issues, including economic development and land use issues

Program Area #4: Increasing Social Viability through Enhancing the Self-reliance of Families and Communities
· Evaluated the first three years of the rural Enterprise Zone (EZ)/ Empower Community(EC) Initiative as a locality-based program to reduce rural poverty and increase community empowerment (Research)
· Found the new, comprehensive approach embodied in the EZ/EC Initiative shows promise as a way to help overcome persistent poverty in rural areas and to empower local residents. (Research)
· Identified the importance of widespread participation for achieving community goals. (Research)
· Provided each EZ and EC with the tools necessary for them to do continuous evaluation of their work.

Program Area #5: Facilitating Development of Policies that Enhance the Well Being of Rural People and Small Towns
· Analyzed ways to increase the autonomy of local areas to set their own agendas for a sustainable future and mobilize resources to build toward those futures. Referred to as the New Governance, it requires important changes and challenges in public administration and new public private partnerships, in contrast to the old governance of stovepipe agencies and top down agenda setting. (Research)

FY 2000 Requests and Justification

The USDA CSREES funding provides the core operations budget for the Regional Rural Development Centers (RRDCs). The NCRCRD receives 1/5 of the total funds appropriated under extension, minus deductions for the SBIR, which have reduced the amount to each RRDC $5,512 for this year. The NCRCRD receives 1/5 of the total funds appropriated for research (minus $100,000). This amount is constant from last year.

Grants/Contracts FY 95 $1,577,967
FY 96 695,965
FY 97 330,528
FY 98 307,930 + $402,200 in kind from partners
FY 99 264,000+ $561,400 in kind from partners

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

Meeting Date: March 17, 1999
Agenda Item No: 8.0
Presenter: Eldon Ortman
Agenda Item Title: NCS-3/ IPM Grant Awards for FY99
Background Information:

The NC-IPM proposals address the development of improved pest management systems for horticultural and agronomic crops. A primary emphasis is to develop solutions to problems that might be missed by implementation of FQPA. These types of projects will be funded in regional research ($400,000), research/extension ($400,000), and extension $70,000). Number of proposals received: 41 research, 10 research/extension, and 6 extension.

The Peer Panel will meet in Kansas City, MO on March 18-19, 1999 to review the proposals.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

Meeting Date: March 17-18, 1999
Agenda Item: 9.0
Presenter: Jack O. Burns
Agenda Item Title: University/Industry Relationship

Dr. Jack Burns, University of Missouri-Columbia gave a 30-minute presentation regarding university/industry relationships followed by a 30-minute question and answer session. The overheads used follows:

A NEW ERA OF UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIPS
Jack O. Burns
Vice Provost for Research
University of Missouri-Columbia

Why Partnerships Now? -- Industry
Companies dramatically scaled back basic research in past decade.
· Cost of basic research is high.
· Diverse number of technologies needed to develop new product.
· University technologies are untapped storehouses with great diversity, innovation, and costs subsidized by federal grants (Bahy-Dole Act).

Why Partnerships Now? Universities
Today, there are 75 world-class research universities versus 5 in 1945.
· Research funds from federal govt. have diminished over past 15 yrs.
· Few funds available to develop "raw" potential technologies from the lab to the marketplace.
· Universities lack experience in assessing & marketing their own technologies.
· Agriculture scientists have long tradition of working with industry since Hatch Act of 1887.

We must learn how to overcome the culture clash between universities and industry to effectively unlock new technologies "stored" in university laboratories.

Expectations from Industry
· Shorten the time it takes to commercialize a university technology.
· It is development, not research, that venture firms are interested in.
· Tangible deliverables.
· Managed like a business (results oriented).
· Relationship is short-term.
· Technology must be proprietary (may not e able to publish results).
· Funding is small ($25K - $100K).
· Timing is critical, no turn-over in personnel.
· Failure is not rewarded.

Expectations from Universities
· Ownership of Intellectual Property (IP).
· Minimize publication delays and no publications bars.
· Control of patent prosecution and protection.
· Mutual trust in negotiations & protection.
· Basic research & publications, not technology development, drives tenure & promotion.
· Preserve core values of institution: teaching, research & public service.

University Problems to Overcome
· Universities used to dealing with large, not small business.
· Universities have inflated value of their technologies.
· Universities are inflexible.
· Unsophisticated IP personnel.
· Universities are slow.
· Industry money viewed as corrupting by some faculty.
· Conflict of Interest & Conflict of Commitment.

Some New Approaches in Missouri
Office of Technology & Special Grants
· Educate faculty & students on basics involving university-industry relations.
· Assist faculty in creating start-up companies (venture capital, business plans, CEOs).
· Assist in writing large interdisciplinary proposals, SBIR/STTR proposals, contracts.
· Rewards stem from doing more good "deals" with industry (e.g., licenses).
· Master Agreements with companies & commodity groups.
· New Incubator facility in research park.

Some New Approaches in Missouri
Proposed Early Capital Seed Fund
· $40M fund from tax credits, managed out of innovation centers in Kansas City, Columbia, Rolla, and St. Louis.
· Lure professionally-managed venture capital & angel networks to Missouri.
Mission Enhancement
· 100 new entrepreneurial faculty to create strong, diverse research programs.
· One area is Life Sciences (crop genomics, agroforestry, radiopharmaceuticals).

Some New Approaches in Missouri
New Partnerships - Donald Danforth Plant Science Center
· Principal Goal: Feeding the world in the 21st century through advances in plant biology & biotechnology
· Unique partnership between universities including MU, Washington U., U. Illinois, Purdue, Missouri Botanical Garden, Monsanto Company.
· $150M endowment from Danforth Foundation, Missouri tax credits, and Monsanto.

Michael Farady's response to Mr. Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer, who asked about the practical use for electricity in the early 19th century: "Difficult to say, but one day, Sir, you may tax it."

Meeting Date: March 17-18, 1999
Agenda Item: 10.0
Presenter: George Ham
Agenda Item Title: Germplasm/Variety Release Policies and Procedures

We are planning to have a discussion on crop variety releases in the NC Region at the March NCRA Meeting. I need two pieces of information from each AES. First, please complete this survey and second, share any written guidelines or policy statements you have so we can make them available as part of an NCRA handout at our March meeting.

Please respond to the following questions by March 10, 1999, so I can summarize them.

1. What crops do you maintain breeding programs for?

2. Does your AES release varieties? How do you release? Do you PVP? Do you enter into an agreement with a public marketing agency or a private entity? Do you charge royalties in state and/or out of state? How are royalties shared on your campus. i.e., who gets what portion and how can it be used?

3. For germplasm, do you execute a material transfer agreement with each seed lot sent? If you will send a copy of this form, I will bring copies to the NCRA to share with the NC Directors for discussion purposes at the NCRA Meeting?

4. Do you treat genetically engineered germplasm or varieties differently than those developed via traditional techniques? If so, please tell us how.

5. Are you prepared to police/protect AES releases? Do you use molecular marker or other technology to prove ownership?

6. Does your College or AES maintain Crop Improvement Association and Foundation seed programs?

7. If you have guidelines/policies for releasing varieties/germplasm, would you please send the web site address or share a hard paper copy with me now and bring 30 copies to the NCRA meeting.

8. Has your AES patented any germplasm?

9. Who makes the decisions on the release and type of protection for germplasm and varieties? Does the AES maintain control of these processes?

10. What other issues should be placed on the agenda?

Thanks for your response.

Action Requested: Review station's report and forward any changes to Dr. Ham.

Action Taken: There was discussion about states' variety release policies. Issues to be addressed are: 1) how do we handle cooperator's procedure (if cooperating with another state); what are the public and private roles; are we converging at looking at the same? Is there anything we won't do for money? All states have different policies; need to accept the differences. As a "system" need to know how to take care of "orphan crops" - varietal improvements that industry will not address.

Examples of MTAs should be forwarded to the Executive Director's office by March 31.

The final draft of the questionnaire is available on the NCRA web page. An executive summary will be done on the questionnaire.

The national survey recently done should be published in September 1999.

Meeting Date: March 17-18, 1999
Agenda Item: 10.0
Presenter: Colin Scanes
Agenda Item Title National Soybean Uniform Test

The soybean breeders throughout the United States have agreed to market their general use varieties without going through the Foundation Seed Associations. As this is a departure from the well established procedure, it is critical to discuss this issue at the North Central Directors meeting in March.

Action Required:

____ approve recommendation of soybean breeders

____ disapprove recommendation of soybean breeders

Action Taken: A vote was taken and there were 10 yes votes and 2 no votes.

Meeting Date: March 17-18, 1999
Agenda Item: 11.0
Presenter: Colin Scanes
Agenda Item Title: Administrative Advisor's Workshop

Overview of Regional/Multistate Project System - Eldon Ortman

Responsibilities of Administrative Advisors - Virginia Clark

How Does the Administrative Advisor Provide Value-added to the Projects and the System - Colin Scanes

Pitfalls to the Duties of an Administrative Advisor - George Ham

Taking a Proactive Versus Reactive Role - Fred Cholick

Meeting Date: March 17-18, 1999
Agenda Item: 13.0
Presenter: Fred Cholick
Agenda Item Title: Plan(s) of Work

An opening statement about the status of the Plan of Work process will be presented (guidelines, timetable, players, state and regional formats, etc.).

Each station should be prepared to give a two-three minute statement about how it plans to respond to the Plan of Work. We need to share views about the POW process in each of our states. This is a good time to learn from each other and gain an appreciation for the different types of responses. Updates should include scope and depth of reporting, timing, level of interaction with CES and the effect that POW will have on your state's cooperative research programs.

Action Required: Information only.

Action Taken: Each state explained the process they are using for the POW. It appeared that many states are using existing data but broadened it to bring in another group. Each state should report the time and effort the POW process is taking.

Meeting Date: March 17-18, 1999
Agenda Item: 14.1
Presenter: Sally Rockey
Agenda Item Title: CSREES Update

The POW will be published in the Federal Register and have a 30-day comment period. This is not a rule. At the administrators' meeting in Salt Lake City in April, this will be an opportunity to train the fiscal officers and be able to answer any questions. The POW is designed to be flexible. Staff from CSREES will review the POW and will provide feedback. The Special Grant Rule will require each institution to respond on how they will accomplish any special competitive grant program.

Search for the new administrator - the interviews were finished this week. Dr. Gonzalez is interested in filling the position quickly and hopefully an announcement can be made within a month.

A110 circular. This may have major impact on how you do business. Any data that you do on policy (raw data, published data) may be released; this could impact researchers under a request to release data. Please forward a letter to OMB regarding your concern to this. CSREES is in the process of writing a letter and will be forwarded electronically to the states.
Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.