NCRA Meeting Minutes
September 25, 2006
8am-10am
Harrah's Hotel and Casino
Room: Tahoe B

Time Item Topic Presenter
8:00 1.0 Call to Order Marshall Martin
  2.0 Adoption of the Agenda - Approved Marshall Martin
  3.0 Approval of the July 2005 Minutes (http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/july2006.htm) - Approved Marshall Martin
8:05 4.0 Executive Committee Report
4.1 Status of Executive Director's position
Marshall Martin,
Forrest Chumley
8:10 5.0 Executive Director's Report Daryl Lund
8:30 6.0 MRC Report Forrest Chumley
8:35 7.0 Nominations Report David Benfield

8:40
8:50
9:05
8.0 Other Reports
8.1 National Berry Crop Initiative
8.2 Energy Consortium
8.3 Bio Economy Consortium

Doug Buhler
Jim Fischer, Daryl Lund
Stan Johnson, Daryl Lund
9:20 9.0 Program and Budget Updates by Station All
9:40 10.0 Resolutions Marshall Martin
9:45 11.0 Announcements All
9:50 12.0 Upcoming Meetings
  • NASULGC Annual Meeting: Hilton Americas, Houston, TX - November 12-14, 2006
  • Joint Spring NCRA/WAAESD Meeting: Hilton Waikoloa Village, HI - March 19-21, 2007
  • Mini Land Grant Meeting and NCRA Summer Meeting: Nebraska (TBA) - July 2007
  • NCRA Fall Meeting, ESS/ARD Meeting and Workshop: Philadelphia, PA (TBA) - September 16-19, 2007
NCRA Executive Committee
  13.0 Summary and Review of Assignments Marshall Martin
10:00 Adjourn

Click here for ESS meeting and ESS/SAES/ARD Workshop agendas

Attendees: Mary Ann Lila (Illinois); Sonny Ramaswamy, Marshall Martin (Indiana); Joe Colletti (Iowa); Steve Pueppke, Doug Buhler, John Baker (Michigan); Sarah Greening (Minnesota); Marc Linit (Missouri); Gary Cunningham, Nancy Miller (Nebraska); Ken Grafton (North Dakota); Steven Slack, Dave Benfield (Ohio); John Kirby (South Dakota); Richard Straub (Wisconsin); Colien Hefferan (CSREES); Stan Johnson (Nevada); Nicole Nelson, Daryl Lund (NCRA)


Agenda Briefs

4.0 Executive Committee Report
Presenter: Marshall Martin

4.1 Status of Executive Director's position
Presenter: Forrest Chumley

Background: Forrest Chumley, chair of the Search Committee, explained that the job posting had been circulated and generated four strong applicants.  The Committee pared the list down to three well-qualified finalists who will be interviewed in Chicago October 17. 

The Committee will meet with each candidate individually, where he will be asked to provide a 15-20 minute presentation along with his answers to  interviewer questions.  Based on the  in-person interviews, the Committee will rank the finalists and notify the NC SAES directors.  The directors will then have a chance to vote via email ballot following a conference call on which everyone will be asked to participate. 

Daryl Lund has volunteered to stay on as a consultant if necessary to ensure a smooth transition.  Nicole Nelson has informally agreed to stay on through June 2007. 

Action Requested: None, for information only. 

Action Taken: None


5.0 Executive Director's Report
Presenter: Daryl Lund

5.1: CREATE-21/Farm Bill

CREATE-21 along with the Farm Bill are moving forward together. 

5.2: Farm Bill Support Payments

Proposal
Research/Extension Fund in Title 1
in the New Farm Bill 

There is good reason to believe that the subsidies established in Title 1 of the current and previous farm bills will be restructured and reduced in the upcoming farm bill. Reasons include the proposals on the table for the current round of the WTO negotiations, pressure on the federal budget, pressures for inclusion ofnon program commodities, evidence that the subsidies are going to large producers in disproportionate amounts, a disconnect between crop subsidies and rural development and the general feeling that subsidies of the type crop agriculture has experienced have done little to increase farm income or promote food security.

As these issues coalesce, it is likely that subsidies will be reduced and perhaps changed in terms of the way they are delivered. Some argue that the budget previously devoted to agricultural subsidies should be allocated to conservation programs. Others argue for rural development as an area that the subsidies should be transferred too. Still others argue for using the subsidies to promote the development of a more specialized agriculture that focuses on crop traits and the value of preserving them. Finally, some argue for added investments in research and the transfer of the subsidy funds to the research and education component of the budget.

This proposal is for a different way of utilizing the funds that may come available as a result of reductions in subsidies of they type historically delivered through Title 1. It is for the creation of a research subtitle in Title 1. There are at least three main supporting points. First, the subsidy funds that may come available would stay in Title 1 and under control of the "producers". Second, the sub title could be flexible and in fact address any of the broader agricultural issues listed above. And, third there is substantial evidence of the return on investments in research and Extension to agriculture.

Possible Mechanics of the Research and Extension Sub Title

These are but suggestions on how such a sub title could be established. It goes without saying that the subtitle would require action by the Congress in rewriting Title 1. Elements of the subtitle proposed are as follows:

  1. Creation of the sub title within Title 1, maintaining the control of it with the commodity associations.

  2. Retaining some of the subsidy allocations lost by making a political pact with the universities, private research and education firms, NGOs and the broad processing and distribution group interested in commodity agriculture.

  3. With the subsidy funding retained that would have been lost due to pressures of the WTO and others, create the funding for the new subtitle.

  4. Note that this subtitle could exist in parallel with payments of the type we now have by giving a priority to the commodity payments if there are low prices.

  5. Have the Congress appoint a group of producers form the commodity associations to set the priorities for the subtitle fund.

  6. Given these priorities, appoint the USDA to administer the fund.

  7. Make the fund open to all researchers and Extension or agricultural support groups, private and public.

  8. Revisit the fund on a semi annual basis to determine if the allocations are consistent with the directives of the priorities of the producers.

  9. Evaluate the fund on an annual basis to determine if the results of the allocations are adding to the returns of the producers.

Advantages of the New Fund

There are several advantages to the creation of the new research and Extension fund. The first is that it would serve as a nice complement to the NRJ, which is managed by the USDA with the input of peer review. The NRI has over the years become a research fund that allocates to projects that have longer run payoffs than would likely be the case for the new sub title fund. It is likely that the producers would focus more on production and more on projects that have a shorter term payoff.

Second, this fund could be WTO neutral and as such could preserve the role of the producers in directing the allocations. It would also give a different flavor to Title 1, making it as a whole more green light in terms of WTO criterion. As well, the fact that the sub title is new and could be the focus of a number of groups may mean that more of the funds that might be lost could be saved for use under producer digression.

Third, the funding level could be kept in Title 1 and not shifted to other titles. This would give the producers an opportunity to change the parameters governing the allocation of the fund based on information obtained from its operation. As well, the parameters could change with for example more emphasis on environment. Producers could if they desired change allocation to reflect this change in priorities.

Next Steps

This proposal is by design general. The idea is to present an idea to the commodity associations and to other groups that would benefit from the development of such a sub title in Title 1. We have not discussed how the producer group that makes the priorities for the allocation of the fund would be formed, the target in terms of the total fund available, the priorities for allocation among the private and public sector, and many other factors. These will come from discussions with the commodity associations and others. Thus the first step is to discuss the proposal with the commodity associations or perhaps with the National C FARE organization, and if there is interest develop a group that could work with the Congress and others in setting the stage for the creation of the sub title and its operation.

5.3: Logic Model

Work continues on refining the logic model that some of you may be using to develop your annual report.  Remember, it is not mandatory to use this but is given only as a guideline if you choose to use it.  It eventually will be on the CSREES website.

Bob MacDonald, CSREES Planning and Accountability, has modified the logic model based on your earlier comments. Please get your comments back to Bob. 

Comments on Logic Model versions 1.0, 1.1
Response is captured in version 1.2

 Comment 1: “what we invest in” but rather “what we invest”.  

“In all of the information I’ve seen about logic models, the inputs are not referred to as ‘what we invest in’ but rather ‘what we invest’.  I would be interested in seeing where they came up with that wording.  The way I understand logic models, the term “what we invest in” would really be referring to “activities”—what the program does with the resources.  When I think of what we invest in, I think of what we are doing with the resources (aka inputs), not the resources invested.” 

Response: CSREES agrees and has struck the word “in.” 

Comments about “External Factors Box”  

Comment 2a: External Factors and direct effects 

“I’m also curious about the definition of “external factors” and the part about “direct effect”.  The way I understood external factors is that they might also have an indirect effect on the outcomes/success/ impact of a project.  I agree that they are things the program developer/researcher can’t control but most of the information I’ve read about logic models includes “external factors” that could also be “indirect”.  One way I’ve seen external factors defined is resources or barriers that enable or limit program effectiveness (WK Kellogg Foundation Logic Model Development Guide, January 2004). Maybe I just interpret “direct effect” differently than the people who wrote this definition.  In fact, in the Kellogg Logic Model Development Guide, funding is specifically listed as a factor…” 

Response: CSREES agrees and has struck the word “direct.” 

Comment 2b: External Factors and not being allowed to use funding as a justification 

“I think it is interesting that the instructions in the External Factors section specifically indicate that "...funding should not be considered one of these variables...", when funding is likely to be the most influential "External Factor" for many of the CSREES programs and projects using this logic model format.  I'm not sure how to resolve this problem, but it seems funny to tell people that they can't take into consideration one of the most important factors that could influence the success of the program or project.  Why not let them?” 

Response: CSREES realizes that funding is usually an external factor and has struck the sentence. 

Comment 3:  Model illustrative but if content is to represent Extension programs than it is way too narrow …[It] needs to include more family, youth and community. 

Response: This model is to reflect research, education, and extension and the examples are but just a few that are possible for each of these.  However, CSREES has added some examples representative of Extension programs to make the representation more balanced. 

Comment 4: This proposed logic model appears to be an attempt to incorporate the research into the logic model component of the Federal planning and reporting system. 

While the change in the model's structure is only slight and, in my opinion, doesn't represent or add anything new that couldn't be represented using the existing Wisconsin model, this slight change will result in some major efforts by those of us individuals who have developed curricula, presentations, Websites, and other educational materials using the base structure of the Wisconsin logic model. 

Response: The commenter is right on target – this logic model is an attempt to be inclusive of research, education, and extension.  In a dialog with the research community, this subtle rework of the Wisconsin Extension model (incidentally, the types of outcomes come from Wisconsin Extension documents) significantly lowered barriers to understanding of what is desired for each box.   

The purpose of this model is to frame consistent documentation of outputs and outcomes for research, education, and extension in reports submitted to CSREES, so that we can best use the information for program leadership, evaluation, and budget support.  This model is solely intended as a guide to all for what CSREES is looking for in the boxes termed outputs, outcomes, and the different flavors of outcomes.  The universities are free to use whatever they wish for logic models for their purposes; this is not intended to drive a fundamental discussion on what is best or proper.  Therefore, this should not be driving a restructuring of curricula, etc., unless it is seen as a broader improvement to the model. 

This comment also indicates that perhaps the purpose is the model is not self-evident.  The model has been re-titled to better indicate this purpose. 

Comment 5:  The phrase “Train students” is used, if we are talking about education, this should be “Teach students.” 

Response: CSREES agrees and corrected the example. 

Comment 6:  “Conduct workshops” is only one of many education methods, therefore be better if “Plan, implement and evaluate (non-formal) educational programs.” 

Response: CSREES has modified the example with the more inclusive language, “conduct non-formal education.” 

Comment 7: There is no mention of the activities to assess the outcomes of CSREES effort or be accountable to the stakeholders.” “…Historically fallen in the lap of the extension educators.” 

  -- One solution is to clearly identify the outcome assessment and accountability in the activities section of the logic model. 

Response: CSREES views planning and evaluation is important to the proper design, development, and implementation of any program.  However, CSREES believes this to be external to the model itself; ideally, strategic planning really should occur prior to the model and evaluation should occur throughout. 

5.4: Academic Summit Zoomerang Survey

A Zoomerang Survey regarding the Academic Summit has been distributed.  Please take the time to tell us how you support undergraduate research.  The encourage all Academic Program Deans to fill this out as well.  The data will be available by both nation and region.  The Executive Directors will attend the Academic Summit. 

Action Requested: None, for information only. 

Action Taken: None.


6.0 MRC Report
Presenter: Forrest Chumley

The MRC received the following NCDC Requests supported by two or more station directors. 

Action Requested: None, for information only. 

Action Taken: None


7.0 Nominations Report
Presenter: David Benfield

Committees/Years

Title

Past

New

NCCC/ERA
Committees

 

 

 

NCCC22

MWPS: Research and Extension Educational Materials

Ed Ashworth, IN

Ron Perry, MI

NCDC
Committees

 

 

 

NCDC209 BioEnergy and BioProducts Daryl Lund, NCRA Richard Straub, WI
NCDC210 Health and Survival of Honey Bee Colonies

Dave Hogg, WI

Sonny Ramaswamy, IN

NCDC211 Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) N/A John Kirby, SD

NCDC212

Metric Definition of the Physical Component of Dairy Diets N/A TBA

NRSP
Committees

 

 

 

NRSP3

The National Atmospheric Deposition Programs - Long-Monitoring Program in Support of Research on Effects of Atmospheric Deposition

Steve Pueppke, MI

Mary Ann Lila, IL

Other NCRA
Nominations

 

 

 

2007-2008

NCRA Chair-elect

Forrest Chumley, KS

Ken Grafton, ND

2007-2008 NCRA Chair Marshall Martin, IN Forrest Chumley, KS
2007-2008 NCRA Past Chair Steve Slack, OH Marshall Martin, IN

2007-2010

MRC Members to replace (3-year term):

Forrest Chumley, KS

Marc Linit, MO

Ken Grafton, ND

John Kirby, SD

2007-2010

Resolutions Committee Member (3-year term)

Marshall Martin, IN

Mary Ann Lila, IL

Action Requested: Approval of the nominations above. 

Action Taken: Approved


8.0 Other Reports

8.1 National Berry Crops Initiative
Presenter: Doug Buhler

Background: Up until now, the NBCI has held teleconferences as well as a few meetings.  The Initiative has brought together various berry crop industries to develop a coordinated focus.  The group has now put together a formal association/organization, including drafting of bylaws.  Contact Doug if you'd like a copy of the latest bylaws.  They have also discussed how to generate funds.  There seems to be many energetic participants.  Doug will provide another update during our Spring meeting. 

Daryl Lund added that Tom Bewick (CSREES) is developing a similar initiative for vegetable crops. 

Action Requested: None, for information only. 

Action Taken: None. 

 

8.2 Energy Consortium
Presenters: Jim Fischer, Daryl Lund

EERE/NASULGC Partnership
Issues for Discussion with
David Rodgers
8-30-06

1.        Increase communication, coordination and planning
2.
        Make a plan to have another Steering Committee meeting on a schedule of perhaps 2 per year
3.
        The need to get the steering committee rooted with the program directors, with a chair that is not political. It took political effort to start it but what we need now is different.
4.
        In short, take the steering committee to a different level of work--more operational and devoted to spreading the cooperation beyond the pilot program.
5.
        Develop an agenda for the next meeting and assign responsibility--perhaps from DOE it could be new team members

a.        Review the past two years of operation briefly, and discuss the way the new management from the DOE will want to operate.
b.
        Discuss the projects that are coming this year, and make agreed upon changes.
c.
        Develop a method for working with ASERTTI and other organizations making them a part of the project

6.        Possibility of presenting NASULGC partnership as a “topical discussion” at Senior Staff Meeting.

 

Summary of Meeting 

o         In the BA program an RFP was sent out inviting state energy offices to partner with universities
o
         Kentucky responded and LA responded after much coaching of the State energy office.
o
         All in all, slim pick’ns

o         Industry already has it IACs
o
         Some work with IACs and NSF IGERT is underway

o         Building program is engaged but needs help
o
         Patrice’s shop should get involved
o
         Andy would likely support eExtension

o         4 H project
o
         Building programs
o
         University-Lab interactions
o
         What comes next?
o
         This could be input for Executive Steering Committee

o         This could be the formal umbrella we work under
o
         Regional Centers

  • How much can the universities leverage?

  • If we have a plan, Karsner will call Foundations ($5M/center) to gain support

o         Success stories
o
         Where they want to go
o
         Launch an awards program for green buildings?
o
         Become a partner in adoption of green technology?

 

H.R.6
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

SEC. 917. ADVANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER CENTERS.

(a) Grants- Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act , the Secretary shall make grants to nonprofit institutions, State and local governments, or universities (or consortia thereof), to establish a geographically dispersed network of Advanced Energy Efficiency Technology Transfer Centers, to be located in areas the Secretary determines have the greatest need of the services of such Centers. In establishing the network, the Secretary shall consider the special needs and opportunities for increased energy efficiency for manufactured and site-built housing.
(b) Activities-

(1) IN GENERAL- Each Center shall operate a program to encourage demonstration and commercial application of advanced energy methods and technologies through education and outreach to building and industrial professionals, and to other individuals and organizations with an interest in efficient energy use.
(2) ADVISORY PANEL- Each Center shall establish an advisory panel to advise the Center on how best to accomplish the activities under paragraph (1).

(c) Application- A person seeking a grant under this section shall submit to the Secretary an application in such form and containing such information as the Secretary may require. The Secretary may award a grant under this section to an entity already in existence if the entity is otherwise eligible under this section.
(d) Selection Criteria- The Secretary shall award grants under this section on the basis of
the following criteria, at a minimum:

(1) The ability of the applicant to carry out the activities described in subsection (b)(1).
(2) The extent to which the applicant will coordinate the activities of the Center with other entities, such as State and local governments, utilities, and educational and research institutions.

(e) Cost-Sharing- In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall require cost-sharing in accordance with the requirements of section 988 for commercial application activities.
(f) Advisory Committee- The Secretary shall establish an advisory committee to advise the Secretary on the establishment of Centers under this section. The advisory committee shall be composed of individuals with expertise in the area of advanced energy methods and technologies, including at least one representative from--

(1) State or local energy offices;
(2) energy professionals;
(3) trade or professional associations;
(4) architects, engineers, or construction professionals;
(5) manufacturers;
(6) the research community; and
(7) nonprofit energy or environmental organizations.

(g) Definitions- For purposes of this section:

(1) ADVANCED ENERGY METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIES- The term `advanced energy methods and technologies' means all methods and technologies that promote energy efficiency and conservation, including distributed generation technologies, and life-cycle analysis of energy use.
(2) CENTER- The term `Center' means an Advanced
Energy Technology Transfer Center established pursuant to this section.
(3) DISTRIBUTED GENERATION- The term `distributed generation' means an electric power generation facility that is designed to serve retail electric consumers at or near the facility site.

(h) Authorization of Appropriations- In addition to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated in section 911, there are authorized to be appropriated for the program under this section such sums as may be appropriated.

Subtitle B--Distributed Energy and Electric Energy Systems

Action Requested: None, for information only. 

Action Taken: None.

 

8.3 Bio Economy Consortium
Presenters: Stan Johnson, Daryl Lund

BUSINESS PLAN
BIO ECONOMY CONSORTIUM

Draft 8/22/06

General Organizational Terms

The BIO ECONOMY CONSORTIUM (BEC) exists to support the development of the bio industry in the United States.  It is a federation of governmental and non governmental, state level organizations that have a common purpose but operate under different structures.  The federation will initially support collaboration and cooperation across in the 12 state Midwestern Region in achieving the bio economy goals of the member organizations.  Members of the BEC include State Departments of Agriculture, State Cooperative Extension Services, Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Stations, and Industry and Non Governmental Organizations.  The objective is to add to the opportunities for sharing and collaboration designed to move the BEC ahead nationally and internationally.  The BEC will be like other industry organizations and feature three types of activities advocacy, communication, and education.

The BEC is organized to represent the interests of its member organizations.  The Industry and Non Governmental members are invited to join the BEC on an open basis.  That is, there may be multiple members from this group within states or that have a multi state scope of organization.  Individual farmers and industry people are encouraged to belong to their state level organizations as a means of supporting their interests of the BEC and growing the bio economy.

The BEC will meet two times annually to develop the plans for coming next months and longer term plans and to review the accomplishments since the last meeting.  These plans will include working with Federal Agencies and State Governments to develop programs to support the industry and developing new programs that are industry-based to grow and develop the bio economy. At the first of these meetings the membership will include a composition of representatives from these organizations that is developed as follows.  At this first meeting this decision on organization and representation will be reviewed and amended as the BEC feels appropriate.

State Secretaries of Agriculture---One member selected by each Secretary that elects to affiliate.
State Extension Directors---One member selected by each state that elects to affiliate
State Directors of Experiment Stations---One member selected by each state that elects to affiliate.
State Industry Associations---One member selected by each of the Industry Associations that elect to affiliate.
Multi State Organizations---One member each selected by the multi groups that elect to affiliate.

The representatives will elect a president, vice president and secretary/treasure.  The terms shall be one year, with the past president serving on added year to assure the necessary transition

Each of the organizations electing to be members of the BEC shall pay annual dues of $2000.  In addition the organizing members shall pay an up front fee of $2000 each, which will be matched by the Energy Foundation as a way to get the organization started on a sound footing.

Activities of the BEC

The activities of the BEC are organized by function building on the traditional strength of the member organizations.  This will be reflected in the assignment of  tasks to the groups listed above as making up the BEC.

Advocacy:

This would be the primary responsibility of the Industry Associations and the Multi State Organizations.  The plan would be to decide upon two to three initiatives for the BEC to pursue during the six months interim with the state or federal officials.  Examples would be the preferential purchase agreements for states, changes in state incentive systems derived from the “listing” (see below), advisory proposals to the DOE and USDA for modifying or altering their programs directed to the industry.  It will be important for the Industry Associations and Multi State Organizations to take the lead here since the other members might find the advocacy inconsistent with the terms of reference for their organizations.

Communication:

Here the efforts of the State Secretaries of Agriculture and the Experiment Station Directors could contribute.  “Listings” of state level incentives for developing the bio economy could be developed and updated as new provisions emerged. The State Secretaries of Agriculture could take responsibility for this function of the BEC.  These provisions could be posted on a web page for the BEC to make them available to as wide an audience as possible.  The Experiment Station Directors could develop a listing of major bio economy research projects at their institutions to be available, again on the web and updated annually.  Both of these listings would be of value to the state organizations for planning and for encouraging participation. In addition, this group could make recommendations on the types of incentives and research that are needed to develop and grow the bio economy.

Education:

The State Directors of Extension could take the lead in developing educational programs for the general public and for potential investors in the bio economy.  Of course, these programs would have to be developed in coordination with other organizations that see among their functions education the public or more specialized groups on the bio economy.  The Extension Education programs could be conducted cooperatively with the other members of the BEC, and with these other organizations.  The idea would be to develop the content for the education programs and then to distribute it to the states with the necessary training.  Coordinating the delivery of the educational programs could be advantageous to the BEC in gaining recognition for its programs.  It is apparent that the public and potential industry participants are generally not well educated about the bio economy and its future

Other Ideas:

The BEC is a voluntary association, and will depend upon its members to carry out much of its work.  The BEC will invest resources in projects or activities as opportunities evolve and as resources allow and priorities dictate.  Types of projects or activities that the BEC may be able to develop and complete include;

Time Table for Organization:

The time table for organization will have a target of the first meeting of the BEC to be at the beginning of 2007.  The plan is to take 6 months to get the BEC organized and functioning.  It is anticipated that at the first meeting of the BEC, there will be added structure to these terms of organization, decisions about the officers and plans for the development of the “activities” of the BEC and the development of the web page.  As the above comments have anticipated the major communication device of the BEC will be a web page that is updated often and with information of value to the members. At the first meeting, there will as well likely be a decision to employ some person or firm to manage the activities of the BEC and its web page.

Action Requested: None, for information only. 

Action Taken: Steve Pueppke suggested supporting this via NCRA mechanisms.  Daryl will work with Stan Johnson and Arlen Leholm to draft a proposal. 


10.0 Resolutions
Presenter: Marshall Martin

Resolution of Appreciation to
Dr. Daryl B. Lund
Executive Director
North Central Regional Association

WHEREAS Dr. Daryl B. Lund earned distinction as an accomplished researcher and professor of Food Science at University of Wisconsin, as evidenced by numerous prestigious positions held, professional memberships and awards received; and 

WHEREAS Dr. Lund rose through the ranks to chair the Food Science Department at both the University of Wisconsin and Rutgers University Cook College, which led to his becoming Executive Dean and Director of Cook College and then Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University; and

WHEREAS Dr. Lund has mentored 19 MS students, 13 Ph.D. students, published 89 peer-reviewed papers, 81 non-peer-reviewed papers, 17 book chapters and co-edited five books, coauthored two textbooks and obtained one US patent. 

WHEREAS Dr. Lund has skillfully and faithfully served as Executive Director of the North Central Regional Association (NCRA) of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors since 2001; and

WHEREAS Dr. Lund, as NCRA Executive Director, has fostered collaborative and improved relationships with USDA, government agencies, private interest groups, and the academic community; and 

WHEREAS Dr. Lund, as NCRA Executive Director, has successfully guided all four regional SAES director associations through several challenging budget situations as Executive Vice-Chair of the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP) Budget and Legislative Committee; and 

WHEREAS Dr. Lund, as NCRA Executive Director, greatly relieved the workload of North Central Directors by assuming ever-increasing responsibilities at the regional office, including oversight and full integration of the National Information Management and Support System; and

WHEREAS Dr. Lund, as NCRA Executive Director, made time to warmly welcome, guide, and mentor new directors to the Association; and

WHEREAS Dr. Lund, as NCRA Executive Director, has demonstrated exceptional leadership abilities in working with, obtaining the consensus of, and at times pacified 12 independent directors of the North Central region; and

THEREFORE the North Central Regional Association both commends and thanks Daryl B Lund for his outstanding service to the Association, to the Land-Grant mission, and the people of the North Central Region.


12.0 Upcoming Meetings

12.1 NCRA Spring Meeting - Hilton Waikoloa Village, HI - March 19-21, 2007
Presenter: 2007 NCRA Executive Committee

Background: Mike Harrington would like for us to consider suggestions as to how best to integrate the NCRA program with the Western folks and would like input from the AES Directors.

Travel Planning: Kona International Airport (the Big Island) is the nearest airport to the hotel.  Rooms have been reserved at the special rate two days before and two days after the event for those wishing to make it a longer trip.  Refer to http://www.hiltonwaikoloavillage.com/ for more information.

Action Requested: Brainstorm/suggest common topics of discussion between the two regions. 

Action Taken: The NCRA will send a request to all NCRA directors asking for input.