One Hundred Sixty-Seventh Meeting
July 9-10, 2003
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN


Wednesday, July 9, 2003

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)



Thursday, July 10, 2003

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)

8:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. – NCRA Meeting

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

5.2   NCRA Office Update

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   NCRA Office Update

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). 



5.3   NIMSS Update

·           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


5.5   Strategic Plan


·           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. 


5.7   Wording Change to the Multistate Research Guidelines Regarding Adding Participants to a Project (Contained in the MRC Report, item 7.0)


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. 



Agenda Item 6.0

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.




·           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.




·           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. 



·           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.

Agenda Item 8.0 - NASULGC Presidents Food and Society Initiative – Daryl Lund


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. 



Exploring a Vision:  Integrating Knowledge for Food and Health

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




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



Previous AA

New AA


F. Chumley (KS)

F. Chumley (KS)


D. Vanderholm (NE)

F. Chumley (KS)


M. Johnson (KS)

B. Stromberg (MN)


M. Dentine (WI)

M. Dentine (WI)


J. Bokemeier (MI)

J. Bokemeier (MI)


D. Vanderholm (NE)

E. Aberle (WI)


D. Vanderholm (NE)

W. Wintersteen (IA)


R. Dowdy (NE)

D. Savaiano (IN)


B. Lowery (WI)

G. Miller (IA)


K. McSweeney (WI)

K. McSweeney (WI)


E. Ashworth (IN)

E. Ashworth (IN)


R. Easter (IL)

N. Merchen (IL)


D. Andrews (OH)

M. Delong (MN)


G. Chippendale (MO)

D. Hogg (WI)


D. Nelson (NE)

E. Nater (MN)


G. Hoffman (NE)

K.C. Ting (OH)


R. Rowe (OH)

R. Rowe (OH)


W. Ravlin(OH)

W. Ravlin(OH)


D. Vanderholm (NE)

M. Martin (IN)


D. Vanderholm (NE)

R. Turco (IN)

NCT194 (was NC221)

E. Hoiberg (IA)

E. Hoiberg (IA)

NCT195 (was NC224)

D. Savaiano (IN)

M. Martin (IN)



J.I. Gray (MI)

NCT198 (was NCR134)

M. Nolan (MO)

W. Wintersteen (IA)


Other Committees




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)




Agenda Item 15.0 – Resolutions – Marshall Martin


Resolution for Dale H. Vanderholm

University of Nebraska



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

Dr. Marc A. Johnson

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