One Hundred Sixty-Third Meeting
March 12-14, 2002
Baltimore, Maryland

Tuesday, March 12, 2002 (8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.)
Multistate Research Committee Meeting

Wednesday, March 13, 2002 (8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.)
1.0 Call to Order and Introductions - Ian Gray
Present: Steve Pueppke, University of Illinois; Marshall Martin, Purdue University; Wendy Wintersteen, Iowa State University, Jan Bokemeier, Ian Gray, Gary Lemme, Doreen Woodward, Michigan State University; Sarah Greening, Philip Larsen, Bert Stromberg, University of Minnesota; John Gardner, Tom Payne, University of Missouri; David Jackson, Dale Vanderholm, University of Nebraska; Virginia Clark Johnson, Jim Venette, North Dakota State University; Dave Benfield, Bill Ravlin, Steven Slack, Ohio State University; Kevin Kephart, South Dakota State University; Margaret Dentine, Kevin McSweeney, University of Wisconsin; Darrell Cole, ARS-Peoria, Illinois; Dan Holder, Terry Meisenbach, Mary Ann Rozum, CSREES; Terry Nipp, AESOP Enterprises, Ltd.; Ted Bauer, NRSP-1/CRIS Office; Robert Holm, NRSP-4/IR-4; Madelyn Alt, Daryl Lund, Executive Director's Office

2.0 Approval of the September 2001 Minutes - Ian Gray
(Available at: http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/sept2001min.htm)
The minutes were approved as submitted.

3.0 Adoption of Agenda - Ian Gray
Added: 13.1 - Center for Rural Development Update - Handout
17.0 - Security on Campuses - All
18.0 - Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations - Wendy Wintersteen

4.0 Executive Committee Report and Interim Actions of the Chair - Ian Gray

5.0 Executive Director
=s Report - Daryl Lund
5.1 Activities since September 2001
5.2 NIMSS Update

Travel for Meetings - Daryl Lund
6.1 Travel to NC Regional Meetings
6.2 Calendar for ESCOP and Directors' Meetings

7.0 Attendance at NCRA Meetings - Daryl Lund

8.0 The Sun Grant Initiative - Kevin Kephart

9.0 ESCOP Report
9.1 ESCOP Activities - Virginia Clark
9.2 FY 02 Budget and Legislative Subcommittee
9.3 Farm Bill Task Force

10.0 Multistate Research Committee
10.1 Robert Holm, NRSP-4 Update
10.2 MRC Report - Gary Lemme

Executive Session (5:00 p.m.)
Executive Director's Office FY 03 Budget - Ian Gray and Margaret Dentine, UW-Madison Representative

Dinner - On Your Own

Wednesday, March 13 (7:45 p.m. - ?)
11.0 Indirect Cost Recovery ad hoc Committee Report and Program - Steve Slack
· Intellectual Property (IP) Issues and Agriculture - Jay Kesan, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
· Case Study of IP and Commodity Groups - Ian Gray/Gary Lemme
· Brief Report from each Station on Status of IP Discussions (refer to Agenda Brief)
· Open Discussion and Next Step

Thursday, March 14 (8:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon)

12.0 Report from each AES on Budget Conditions and the Opportunity for Partnerships with other AESs or Units for Budget Reduction and Efficiency - Ian Gray

13.0 ARS Report - Darrell F. Cole, Associate Area Director

13.1 Center for Rural Development Update - Handout

14.0 AESOP Update - Terry Nipp (Wednesday, March 13 at 1:00 p.m.)

15.0 CSREES Report - David Holder/Dan Kugler/Terry Meisenbach/Mary Ann Rozum

16.0 Nominations Committee Report - Phil Larsen and Marjorie Kostelnik

17.0 Security on Campuses - All

18.0 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations - Wendy Wintersteen

19.0 Resolutions - tba

20.0 Summary and Review of Assignments - Ian Gray

21.0 Announcements
· North Central Region Summer Meeting - Fond du Lac Reservation - Duluth, Minnesota - July 9-11, 2002
· All COPS/ESCOP Meeting - Salt Lake City, Utah - July 22-24, 2002
· Research Center Administrators Society [http://www.rcas.msstate.edu/index.html]- September 8-11, 2002
· NCRA Regional Meetings/Experiment Station Section Meeting/SAES/ARD Directors' Workshop - Baltimore, Maryland - September 23-25, 2002
· NASULGC Meeting - Chicago, Illinois - November 10-12, 2002

Agenda Brief: 4.0
Presenter: Ian Gray
Title: Executive Committee Report and Interim Actions of the Chair - Ian Gray

The business of the Executive Committee was conducted through email and two teleconferences (January 24, 2002 and February 20, 2002). The following actions were taken:

1. Appointment of NC representative to the Board of Directors of the North Central Regional Aquaculture Center: Ted Batterson, Center Director at MSU, asked NCRA for a representative to serve a four-year term on the Board of Directors. Previous representatives were from Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois(through 2001, Richard Warner). Ted suggested someone from a state with a very active aquaculture program. After consultation, the NCRA Executive Committee appointed Jack Jones, Chair of the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at University of Missouri (John R. Jones, Ph.D., 1974, Iowa State University, Research: Limnology, (573) 882-3543, JonesJ@missouri.edu) to a four-year term.
2. Multiple Activity Programs: Colin Kaltenbach, Chair of the ESCOP-ECOP MAPs (Multiple Activity Programs) Task Force, presented their report in which they suggested the following: "The Task Force is recommending that this information be passed to the various regions with a request that the regional associations (Extension and Research) consider, modify as appropriate, and adopt the concept of MAPS". To that end, I wrote to Larry Tidemann, chair of the NC Extension Directors, suggesting that we have a joint meeting of the research directors and extension directors at the Summer 2002 meeting in Fond du Lac to discuss MAPs and other issues of mutual concern. Further discussions are progressing.
3. CSREES Grantsmanship Workshop 2002: CSREES conducts a grantsmanship workshop each year. It is hosted by one of the regions and is jointly sponsored by Research and Extension. This past fall it was hosted by Cornell University Research and Extension and was held in Syracuse. In the grand rotation of regions, it is now the North Central's turn to host the workshop. Criteria for location include easy airport access. The two-day workshop attracted over 200 attendees to Syracuse. I have contacted Carl O'Connor, NC Extension Directors, to discuss possible locations. Further discussions are progressing.
4. Summer Joint Meeting: The Summer Joint Meeting Planning Committee, chaired by Fred Cholick, asked for a representative from the NCRA. Starting last year our member of the committee is a person from the station at the next host institution for the summer meeting. The host institution for Summer 2003 is Purdue University. Consequently, upon the advice of Randy Woodson, I appointed Marshall Martin, newly appointed Associate Director of AES at Purdue, as our representative. Our ED is also participating in the Planning Committee.
5. N-CFAR membership: The Executive Committee approved another year's membership in the National Coalition for Food and Agriculture Research. We are contributing as an Affiliate Member at $1,000.

Action Requested:
Information only.
Action Taken:

Agenda Brief: 5.1
Presenter: Daryl Lund
Title: Activities since September 2001

· Participated at NASULGC Meetings - November 11-14. 2001
· Participated at National Multistate Research Committee Meeting - December 3-5, 2002
· Participated in CAC phone calls
· Participated in ESCOP Committee phone calls
· Participated in NCRA Executive Committee phone calls
· Participated in ESCOP Budget and Legislative Subcommittee phone calls
· Participated in North Central Regional Association Summer Meeting Planning Committee phone call

Projects Terminating in 2003:

Midterm Reviews Due in 2003 (NC terminates 2005; NCR terminates 2005):

Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken. A white paper on Homeland Security, written by David MacKenzie, will be posted on the ESCOP web site
http://www.escop.msstate.edu/ when released.

Agenda Brief: 5.2
Presenter: Daryl Lund
Title: NIMSS Update

The National Information Management and Support System (NIMSS) is now in operation. A reference/user manual was completed at the end of January. After the March NCRA meeting, our office will work with the NERA office for training of the NIMSS system. When training is completed in our office, we will then hold conference calls to have regional training on the system.

Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: None.

Agenda Brief: 6.1
Presenter: Daryl Lund
Title: Travel to NC Regional Meetings

Our office received an e-mail from a director regarding participation at regional meetings. The director indicated that a key member of the committee (outside the North Central region) was not allowed to attend the annual meeting (the director was not sure if it was budgetary or safety reasons). The director was concerned that if multistate research is to be successful, directors need to encourage participants to participate at the meetings.

Action Requested: Encourage participants to attend meetings.
Action Taken: When sending a meeting authorization, the administrative advisor should stress that attendance is important and that one representative should be able to attend the meeting.

Agenda Brief: 6.2
Presenter: Daryl Lund
Title: Calendar for ESCOP and Directors' Meeting

At the ESCOP Executive Committee meeting in Coeur d'Alene a special committee consisting of the five EDs (Daryl Lund, David Mackenzie, Sam Donald, Tom Helms, and Mike Harrington) and the five regional chairs (Ian Gray, Mark Mount, Carolyn Brooks, Vance Watson and Jim Jacobs) was appointed to determine if the calendar of meetings could be more rational resulting in reduction of cost and time. A conference call was held January 14, 2002, with the following results.

The attached calendar was generated by the analysis of meetings which a significant number of directors attend. Analysis of attendees at the various meetings results in the following conclusions: (1) Directors who serve on the ESCOP Executive Committee attend two Executive Committee meetings plus five additional meetings either regionally or nationally. (2) All directors attend five meetings either regionally or nationally (four if the region does not hold a summer meeting).

Although it is not readily apparent how the number of meetings can be reduced, the following situations were analyzed:

1. Videoconferencing: Consideration of tele- or videoconferencing was analyzed by Mike Harrington with the following report from Mike.

Web-Based Video ConferencingMike Harrington February 2002
Each participant needs a desk-top system consisting of a camera and associated hardware and software. Depending on the source, these units cost about $500 each. Each participant then connects with a distant participant or to a central server which manages the group conference. At present this technology is generally limited to smaller groups except as noted below. There is limited support for Mac users due to the camera limitations. In addition, older Macs may not have the necessary speed or RAM capabilities to support video conferencing. Web access, server quality and speed at the particular institution have a big impact on the quality of conferencing.

Minimum desktop system requirements: 500 MHz Pentium III or better recommended, 64 MB RAM, CD-ROM Drive for software installation, High Speed Network / Internet access for video conferencing, available PCI slot, and Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, NT 4.0, XP.

Current Status
1. Hosted Conferences
There are companies that "host" conferences usually involving an annual contract with the major cost factors being number of minutes required and band-width. Costs are about $.30 min./participant plus the contract cost. Most companies of this type push files (e.g. Power Point, Excel, etc.) to participants via the web while hosting the phone-audio link for the meeting. I have not yet located a company that provides an "as needed" service such as ESCOP might need for the executive committee meeting. The technology for larger "see you, see-me" conferences via the web is in beta tests and should be more widely available in the near future.

2. Dedicated Server
Financial Services, Inc. (www.vidnet.org
) is marketing a dedicated server that is configured to manage web video conferences. The one system costs about $3,500, plus a user license which is dependent on the number of participants desired (25 pax = $20,000, 50 pax = $35,000, etc). There is considerable up-front cost and a location as well as an upkeep plan would be needed.

Final Thoughts
For the time being, we appear to be slightly ahead of the curve in using this technology for a 30-person meeting. Certainly, this technology would have broad use for focused meetings such as special committees or task forces. While there is a considerable savings in not attending a meeting, one possible unanticipated cost may be the loss of the face to face interactions that result in value added benefits to the system.

In the future, it may make sense for "the system" to develop a contract with a company for conference time on a monthly basis rather than ESCOP doing this alone. Such a contract should be of general use with "the system" including the BAA, Policy Board, Budget and Advocacy Committee, Farm Bill Task Force, other COPs, etc.

2. Summer mini-land grant meeting and summer all COPs meeting: A consideration was made of having a common venue for the summer mini-land grant meeting and the national all COPs meeting. Such a meeting could be organized as follows:

Timetable for Mini Land-Grant and All COPs Meeting
Day 1: Joint session of COPs organized by one of the COPs (in rotation)
Day 2: Individual COPs meetings
Day 3: Regional mini land-grant meeting joint session
Day 4: Individual regional association meetings for R/E/A/I/Deans/CARET
Day 5: As above to Noon
The drawbacks to this proposal are: (1) not all the regions are now meeting as a mini-land grant in the summer, (2) the meeting would be very large requiring a large number of meeting rooms, (3) CARET members do not now attend the all COPs meeting (except for those who serve as liaison to standing committees), and (4) this scheme does not reduce the time commitment for meetings. Furthermore, it is the regional AHS who organize the regional mini-land grant meetings.

3. Eliminating the ESCOP meeting in February: This meeting is generally held immediately after the President releases his budget. Thus, the agenda for this meeting has traditionally been the ESCOP response to the President's budget. This year the timing is coincident so that many of the directors may accompany their CARET members for the Hill visits and assist in hosting their booths at the Hill exhibits. One consideration is to authorize the ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee to make the response of ESCOP to the President's budget. Due to timing, that was done this year. On the other hand, this is a very important response and having input from the entire membership is valuable. The ESCOP membership should consider the timing of this meeting.

Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: None.

Meeting Calendar
Month Meeting Description ESCOP Executive Committee ESCOP Membership Regional Directors All Directors Length of Meeting Venue
February/March ESCOP Meeting .

. . 2 days Usually with CARET
March/April Regional Association Meetings . .

. 2 days Regional Office plans
April/May ESCOP Executive Committee

. . . 1-1/2 days ESCOP Chair plans; could use video conferencing
July ESCOP Executive Committee

Regional mini-land-grant





as needed

2 days

3 days
Joint with all COPS meeting

AHS member in host state arranges

Rotates among COPS and AHS
September ESCOP Executive Committee

Experiment Station Section

SAES/ARD Workshop

Regional Association
x (?) .



as needed

½ day

1-1/2 days

½ day
Joint with SAES/ARD Workshop

Joint with SAES/ARD Workshop

Joint with SAES/ARD Workshop

Joint with SAES/ARD Workshop
November NASULGC Annual Meeting

ESCOP Executive Committee


. . Optional 2-1/2 days

½ day

at NASULGC meeting site

Agenda Brief: 7.0
Presenter: Daryl Lund
Title: Attendance at NCRA Meetings

A reminder that the NCRA Executive Committee requests that directors from each station make a commitment that at least one representative be present for the entire meeting (see Agenda Brief 17.0 from the July 1995 meeting).

Action Requested: Reminder of representation.
Action Taken: Directors are encouraged to have at least one representative from your station stay for the entire NCRA meeting.

Agenda Brief: 8.0
Presenter: Kevin Kephart
Title: Sun Grant Initiative

Many people have recognized that agriculture has a role to play in solving some of the nation's projected energy problems. A concept named the Sun Grant Initiative has been developed to broaden the role that land grant universities play in their unique approach to higher education. The Sun Grant Initiative will expand the activities of land grant universities to include renewable energy and biobased industries. South Dakota State University and the office of US Senator Tom Daschle developed the initial concept of this initiative. A network of five land-grant universities serving as regional Sun Grant centers has been proposed. The universities include South Dakota State University, Oklahoma State University, the University of Tennessee - Knoxville, Cornell University, and Oregon State University. With leadership from USDA-CSREES, the regional centers will emphasize integrated research, Extension, and educational programs on renewable energy and biobased industries based in rural communities. Each center will receive base Federal funding for their central roles in research, Extension, and higher education. In addition to the five centers, significant resources and expertise exists at other land grant institutions throughout the nation. The Sun Grant centers will engage with them as a synergistic mechanism for technology transfer and higher education for the benefit of a rural biobased economy. These programs will embrace the multistate, multi-function, multi-disciplinary integrated approach that is at the heart of the land-grant method of addressing problems. Moreover, the centers will interface their activities with DOE research laboratories. A planning grant (earmark) has been funded with the objective to develop an administrative plan for implementation of the Sun Grant Initiative. The mission of the Sun Grant Initiative will be to (1) enhance national energy security through development, distribution and implementation of biobased energy technologies, (2) promote diversification and environmental sustainability of America's agriculture through land-grant based research, Extension, and education programs in renewable energy and biobased products, and (3) promote opportunities for biobased economic diversification in rural communities.

The Sun Grant regions will be organizing planning conferences during late spring or early summer of 2002. Planning for the north region is underway and will likely be held in Brookings, South Dakota.

Action Requested: Information.
Action Taken: Dr. Kephart explained and handed out a brochure describing the SUN Grant Initiative (a copy can be obtained from Dr. Kephart's office or the Executive Director's Office). Drs. Dentine, Larsen and Wintersteen volunteered to help Dr. Kephart in this initiative for the North Central Region.

Agenda Brief: 9.1
Presenter: Virginia Clark Johnson
Title: ESCOP Activities

ESCOP met March 4-5, 2002 in Washington, D.C. Discussions of the ESCOP meeting were:

· ESCOP is appointing a committee to examine the committees' structures and charges, especially relative to the new Board on Agriculture Assembly (BAA).
· Discussed the Science Roadmap (also on NASULGC web site: http://www.nasulgc.org/)
· Vision for 21st Century (an extension publication) should be on campuses. Also should be posted on the NASULGC web page in the near future
· Reorganization of CSREES

Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: None.

Agenda Brief: 9.2
Presenter: Daryl Lund
Title: FY 02 Budget and Legislative Committee

· The ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee has two areas of responsibility: budget (handled by Richard Jones) and legislative (handled by Darrell Nelson).
· Agrosecurity is an important issue. Five issues to be concentrated on are:
*Prepare to respond to emergency outbreaks ($49 million)
*Prepare to counteract terrorism ($30 million)
*Build secure communities ($45 million)
*Address immediate security needs ($80 million)
*Educate scientists, teachers and specialists ($8 million)
· The budget committee has not gone into further detail than what the Budget Advocacy of the Board on Agriculture has already done.
· Want to start engaging people to start thinking about the FY 04 budget. It will be important to pick a topic and stay with it.

Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: Tom Payne supports that ESCOP stay with agrosecurity until FY 04.

Agenda Brief: 9.3
Presenter: Daryl Lund
Title: Farm Bill Task Force

· Thank you to the states that responded to the e-mail from AESOP "News from the Hill" regarding the section language on the Farm Bill.
· Currently the Farm Bill is in conference.

Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: None.

Agenda Brief: 10.1
Presenter: Robert Holm
Title: NRSP-4/IR-1

Dr. Robert Holm gave a brief presentation on the operation of NRSP-4, "A National Agricultural Program to Clear Pest Control Agents for Minor Uses".

Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: None.

Agenda Brief: 11.0
Presenter: Directors from Individual States
Title: Indirect Cost Recovery ad hoc Committee Report and Program

Intellectual Property Discussion


1. The University of Illinois has two campus-level offices that deal with intellectual property. The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) deals with IP and technology on the front end (when funding agreements are drawn up, for example), and the Office of Technology Management (OTM) deals with the same issues on the back end (when we are considering patenting or licensing our technologies, for example). If we want to sign a grant or contract that has any sort of special IP implications (for example, a company wants to fund research with the understanding that it captures all of the IP), we work with OTA to draft up the written agreement, which is signed before the research begins.2. Although there is a lot of flex in our system, a couple of broad principles apply. One is that we want to capture our fair share of IP. Another is that we'd like to commercialize as much of it as possible in Illinois and more specifically in our own Research Park. A third is the implicit relationship between indirect cost recovery and IP. The more that the funding organization wishes to fund indirect costs, the more we are willing to share IP with them. 3. I am not sure how to respond to your question about constraints, but anecdotally, I could identify several. One is that we're at least partially bound by our land grant history of giving everything away. Many of our faculty think that it's just bad to protect IP--for philosophical reasons, and because it limits free scientific discourse. Another is that Illinois is still fairly unsophisticated in working out IP agreements. Both our own faculty and potential private partners know that the transaction costs are high. A third is that our ag stakeholders misunderstand IP and always have the knee jerk reaction that it is bad. This causes them to behave in ways that arguably cloud the real IP issues--and make IP negotiations more difficult than they need to be.

Intellectual Property Rights Management
All IP at Purdue University is managed by the Office of Technology Commercialization within the Purdue Research Foundation, with the exception of new varieties, which are released by the Experiment Station and marketed through the Purdue Agricultural Alumni Seed Foundation. In this case, most new varieties are protected by "trade secrets" and licensed to seed companies. The Indiana Crop Improvement Association serves to "certify" the seed and collect the royalties, that come back to the Experiment Station to support plant breeding.

To establish any special arrangements involving IP, funding organizations usually begin in the Experiment Station. Ultimately, agreements are hammered out in OTC. In almost all cases, Purdue retains the ownership of IP, but agrees to license to other parties based on their contribution to the research. In general, Purdue does not approve sharing of royalty streams, but their have been exceptions the resulted from up front negotiations. Commodity groups (check off programs, etc) rarely get special treatment, as they do not pay indirect costs. However, we have special MOU's with the Mint Industry Research Council and the Indiana Soybean Board, that provide these organizations "first rights" to license technology resulting from projects they have funded. In both of these cases, the organizations have agreed to pay some IDC on grants (10-15%). In one recent patent involving the Indiana Soybean Board, we have agreed after the fact to share royalties based on negotiated co-ownership of the IP.

Regarding IDC, the University has become more accepting of funding from organizations (foundations and commodity groups) that have a clear policy statement indicating they do not pay IDC. However, these funds will not be accepted if the organization claims ownership of resulting IP. Rights of IP can only be included in funding contracts when IDC is paid, and then it is only first rights to negotiate a license.

Intellectual Property Policies
Process for establishing Intellectual Property Relationships1
The Iowa State University Research Foundation (ISURF) owns and manages certain intellectual property for Iowa State University. ISURF enters into formal relationships with private companies by way of license agreements. A license is an agreement whereby the university or ISURF retains ownership of certain intellectual property, and the private company is granted permission or rights to make, use and/or sell a certain product, design, process, or service or to perform other specified actions that utilize the intellectual property. A license may extend for a few years or for the life of the intellectual property rights involved.

Private companies make an up-front payment upon issuance of the license (issue fee), and ongoing payment linked to actual sales of the products or services (royalty fee).

Terms and conditions for licensing agreements are negotiated on a case-by-case basis by Office of Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer (OIPTT). No two licensing agreements are exactly alike.

Commodity Board Agreements
Recently, OIPTT negotiated funding agreements with the Iowa Corn Promotion Board (ICPB) and the Iowa Soybean Association (ISA). In both agreements, ownership of patents and copyrights stays with Iowa State University. In addition, ISU is the sole licensor for plant varieties and germplasm.

Both the ICPB and the ISA have the option of obtaining a royalty-bearing license to practice or use the discoveries resulting from the funding agreement. This option must be exercised within 6 months of receiving an invention disclosure. Only exclusive licenses will allow the right to sublicense.

A number of additional issues are addressed in the funding agreement with the ISA. First, if ISURF chooses not to file for patent protection, the ISA may do so in the name of the ISURF at its own expense.

Second, if ISU through ISURF licenses the discovery to a third party, and the ISA has not exercised its option to a royalty bearing license, for any discovery solely funded by the ISA, the ISA will receive 33 1/3% of the net royalties (gross royalties less patent and patent administration expenses). For any discovery funded by the ISA and other parties, a proportion of the 33 1/3% will be provided to the ISA in direct proportion to the funding provided by ISA.

1Intellectual Property Handbook - Benefiting Society and Iowa State Innovations. Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc., Office of Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer, Iowa State University. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~isurf/

Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station

Intellectual Property Rights Survey
· Process for establishing IPR relationships
MSU retains ownership of all intellectual property (IP) but licenses the rights to IP to optimize the benefit of the IP for society and MSU. If IP is derived from ag commodity group supported project, a five-person commercialization advisory committee composed of MAES, inventor, sponsor, MSU Office of IP, and Michigan Department of Agriculture recommends a commercialization plan to MSU. Commodity groups are given the first right to license IP from sponsored project and last option of matching any outside proposal to license.

· Guidelines for sharing IPR with non-university entities including commodity groups
50% of the royalties returned to the academic unit from IP developed by a commodity group sponsored contract is set aside in a dedicated fund by MAES to support research of mutual interest to MAES and the sponsoring commodity group.

· Constraints to sharing IPR followed by MSU
MSU does not generally share IPR with a research sponsor but outlines licensing options to the sponsor at the time of acceptance of the research contract.

This Agreement is between Michigan State University ("University"), an institute of higher education of the State of Michigan, having its principal place of business in East Lansing Michigan, 48824 and the (Commodity), having its principal place of business at (address), Michigan (zip). The University and (Commodity) may each be referred to as a "party" and may collectively be referred to as the "parties".

WHEREAS, the University's Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station ("MAES") was founded to discover new knowledge and develop new technologies to address the challenges facing Michigan agriculture for the benefit of the agricultural industries of Michigan;

WHEREAS, MAES generates knowledge through strategic research to enhance agriculture, natural resources, families, and communities in Michigan.

WHEREAS, Michigan producers and processors of agricultural commodities have joined together to form agricultural commodity groups, some of which groups are formally regulated through Michigan Public Act 232, 114, 29 and 291 while others are affiliated with national organizations or are locally organized.

WHEREAS, Michigan agricultural commodity groups through self-imposed assessments to their members, raise funds, some of which are dedicated for research by MAES and other University scientists for the benefit of Michigan agriculture;

WHEREAS, the unique partnership between MAES and Michigan agricultural commodity groups are a living testament to the University's land-grant philosophy; and

WHEREAS, the parties wish to cooperate and coordinate research on problems and projects of mutual interest related to (commodity);

NOW, THEREFORE the parties mutually agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1 - Definitions
1. "Project" means any University research and/or development project related to (commodity) that is agreed to in writing by the parties and that meets the following condition: (Commodity's) accumulated contribution, over a 3-year period, equals or exceeds a threshold value of $5,000 for each new or renewed Project.
2. Commodity acronym, if appropriate) means (Commodity), a quasi-state agency created by MI P.A. 29, 1970 as amended, to foster and develop the Michigan (commodity) industry through research, promotion and education.
3. "Invention" means any invention or discovery, whether or not patentable, which is made in whole or in part by a University employee in the course of a Project.
4. "(Commodity) Funds" include any monies paid by (Commodity acronym) to the University to support a Project. (Commodity) Funds do not include any license fees or royalties paid by (Commodity) to the University to license any Inventions.
5. "Affiliates" means the (Commodity and any other titles associated with such commodity). Any one of these entities may be referred to as an "Affiliate."

ARTICLE 2 - Term
1. This Agreement is intended to cover all existing and future Project(s), except as the parties may otherwise agree in writing.
2. This Agreement is effective on January 1, 2002 and terminates on June 30, 2005 unless extended by written agreement of the parties.

ARTICLE 3 - Intellectual Property Rights and Duties
1. University and (Commodity) agree to discuss the management of Inventions that arise from any Project or noncompetitive publicly funded research activities directly related to said Project. Such discussions will be undertaken by a Commercialization Advisory Committee ("CAC") consisting of five (5) members as follows:

University Members:
Assistant Vice President for Intellectual Property or his/her designee
Director of the MAES or his/her designee
University Inventor. In cases where there are multiple University inventors, one shall be chosen by the group to represent them.

Non-University Members
(Commodity) Chairperson or his/her designee
Michigan Department of Agriculture Director or his/her designee.

2. The CAC will discuss the technology transfer and commercialization strategy for any Invention and make a recommendation to the University's Vice-President for Research and Graduate Studies (VPRGS) within three (3) months after formal disclosure of the Invention to University's Office of Intellectual Property. The VPRGS will consider the CAC's recommendation, but retains the final authority in deciding how best to manage, protect and license the Invention. The VPRGS will discuss his/her decision with the CAC if he/she makes a decision counter to the recommendations submitted by the CAC.

3. University may elect to file and prosecute an application for a patent or Plant Variety Protection (PVP) certificate, in which case University will maintain any resulting patent and/or PVP certificate at the University's expense. All resulting patents and PVP certificates shall be the property of University.

4. In the event that University decides, in its discretion, to apply for a patent or a PVP certificate on an Invention, it will take such steps as are necessary to make the application in a timely manner in accordance with applicable laws, rules, or regulations.

5. (Commodity) will be given the first opportunity to license an Invention, and University will give reasonable consideration to any request by (Commodity) to be considered for such a license. In its discretion, and with respect to each Invention, (Commodity) may assign this right to be considered for a license to one of its Affiliates. However, University is under no obligation to license any Invention to (Commodity) or to any of the Affiliates. University's acceptance of such request shall be based on (Commodity's) or the designated Affiliate's ability to show that it has the intention and the ability to develop and commercialize the Invention in timely fashion, in order to bring it into public use at least on a par with any third party licensing opportunities available to the University. It is understood that University may not be able to accept such a request if University is under a prior obligation to license the Invention to a third party. If University and (Commodity) (or the designated Affiliate) enter good faith negotiations but are unable to agree on the terms of a License Agreement for the Invention within 6 months after doing so, then the University shall be free to offer a license to third parties. However, the University may not offer a license on more favorable terms to third parties without first offering a license on such terms to (Commodity) (or the designated Affiliate).

6. Any license of an Invention to (Commodity) (or a designated Affiliate) shall have reasonable terms to be negotiated by the parties in good faith and in timely fashion. The University shall be represented in the negotiation by its Assistant Vice President for Intellectual Property or his/her designee. Said terms shall be embodied in a separate document (the "License Agreement"), and shall include:

a. payment by the licensee of all expenses for the filing and prosecution of patent or PVP certificate applications, and for the maintenance of patent or PVP certificates;
b. an initial licensing fee in an amount sufficient at least to reimburse any prior patent expenses paid by the University;
c. an annual running royalty to be paid to University;
d. a diligence obligation for any exclusive license, including reasonable minimum annual royalties and/or commercialization milestones ;
e. a reserved royalty-free non-exclusive right of the University and (Commodity) to use the Invention for their own internal non-commercial research, testing and educational purposes.

7. If the University licenses an Invention to (Commodity) or any third party, then in consideration of (Commodity's) research support, University will establish a dedicated University research fund to support MAES research projects in areas of mutual interest to (Commodity) and MAES. This dedicated research fund will be funded from the specific royalties obtained from each such license, taking into account University policies on royalty distribution. The source of such a dedicated research fund will be fifty percent (50%) of the University's Academic Unit's share of any incoming royalties under each license. Any and all future dedicated research funds will be managed by MAES in conjunction with the relevant University academic unit(s). MAES agrees to direct resources from these dedicated research funds in an amount up to 20 times the total accumulated (Commodity) financial support of the research project responsible for generating the licensed Invention toward research directly impacting the Michigan (commodity) industry. MAES will consult with (Commodity) and the relevant University academic units before allocating additional research funds toward plant breeding and genetics research.

8. If (Commodity) wishes to sponsor a Project that utilizes intellectual property belonging to any third party, then the University will attempt to negotiate any necessary license from the relevant third party. (Commodity) will provide the University with its good faith assistance in securing such a license, if necessary. The parties recognize that there is no certainty that any license will be granted by a third party.

ARTICLE 4 - Publications
1. (Commodity) recognizes that, under University policy, the results of any Project may be published, and University personnel will have the right to present at symposia, national or regional meetings and to publish in journals or otherwise of their own choosing. However, (Commodity) will be furnished copies of any proposed Project related publication or presentation thirty (30) days in advance of submission of such publication or presentation to a third party. (Commodity) will have thirty (30) days after receipt of said information to suggest that patent or PVP certificate protection be sought for the subject matter of the proposed publication. In the event that (Commodity) makes such a suggestion, then University may delay publication or presentation for a maximum of an additional thirty (30) days from the date of such a suggestion in order to file patent or PVP certificate application(s) with the appropriate government offices.

2. If University elects not to publish the results of a Project, then (Commodity) may, with the written perission of the University, publish such results. In such case, University will be given an opportunity to review the proposed publication and it shall not be published until approved by University in writing.

3. Publication by either of the parties shall give proper credit to the other party, unless one of the parties requests otherwise.

ARTICLE 5 - Records and Reports
1. University will require University personnel conducting research under a Project to keep complete and systematic written records of all work performed and data developed thereunder. All such records shall be made available for inspection be an authorized representative of (Commodity) at any reasonable time during University's regular working hours, and copies of all or any part of such records shall be furnished to (Commodity) upon request for its internal use, provided that (Commodity) agrees to any measures necessary to protect the patentability of yet-unpublished work.

2. During the term of any Project, (Commodity's) representatives may consult informally with University's representatives regarding said Project, both personally and by e-mail and telephone. University shall make periodic reports to (Commodity) of the research conducted under a Project and the results thereof including a description of all Inventions, if any, and the filing of all patent and PVP applications for such Inventions, and shall keep (Commodity) informed of the status of said applications.

3. Such reports can include periodic visits by (Commodity's) representatives to consult University's personnel at mutually agreed upon times and places. Such reports can also include periodic visits by appropriate University representatives to consult (Commodity's) personnel at mutually agreed upon times and places. Reasonable travel expenses for any such visits, outside of Michigan, shall be at (Commodity's) expense.

4. At the conclusion of each 12 month period of a Project, University shall submit to (Commodity) a written report summarizing the research performed in that 12 month period. University shall also submit a comprehensive written final report summarizing all research results of a Project within 120 days after termination of said Project.

ARTICLE 6 - Confidentiality
1. Disclosures of details of a patentable invention to (Commodity) may jeopardize future patent actions. Accordingly in the event that the University and (Commodity) wish to discuss such information, (Commodity) shall be obligated to maintain such information as confidential for three (3) years from the date of disclosure. Information shall be deemed confidential if it is marked confidential or stated in writing to be confidential. The above obligations of confidentiality shall not apply to:

a. information which is provably in the possession of (Commodity) prior to receipt hereunder; or
b. information which is now or later becomes generally available to the public without breach hereof; or
c. information received from a third party having the right to disclose such information without restriction; or
d. information which the disclosing party gives written permission to publish or use;
e. information which is required to be disclosed by law or court order.

ARTICLE 7 - Project Continuation and Outside Funding
1. If (Commodity) elects not to support a Project beyond the original period set forth in any written research agreement, it is understood that University shall have the right to seek funding from third parties.

2. In the event research from a prior project is continued following receipt of third party funding and discontinuation of (Commodity) funding, University shall have no obligation to (Commodity) with regard to the subject matter of inventions or discoveries made in whole or in part by University employees in the course of such continued research.

3. In the event that a third party wishes to provide funding for a Project, the University, (Commodity), and the third party will in good faith negotiate their rights to any Inventions before such third party funding is accepted.

ARTICLE 8 - Funding
· (Commodity) Funds paid to University in an amount to be negotiated for each Project will become property of University. (Commodity) Funds paid to University will be expended for a Project in a manner to be determined by University, for example, for salaries, wages, travel, equipment, supplies, overhead, etc., as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the Project. (Commodity) Funds paid to University for purchasing equipment and supplies will be applied so that title to all equipment and supplies will be in University's name.

· University will render to (Commodity) an accounting of (Commodity) Funds at (Commodity's) request, but no more often than quarterly.

ARTICLE 9 - Miscellaneous
1. This Agreement shall in all events and for all purposes be governed by and construed in accordance with, the law of the State of Michigan, without regard to any choice of law principle that would dictate the application of the law of another jurisdiction.

2. This Agreement shall not be assigned by either patty without the prior written consent of the parties hereto.

3. This Agreement may be changed only by writing signed by the parties expressly referencing the term(s) to be changed.

4. In the performance of any Project(s) hereunder, the parties shall be deemed to be and shall be independent and, as such, shall not be entitled to any benefits applicable to employees of the other party. Neither party is authorized or empowered to act as an agent for the other for any purpose and shall not on behalf of the other enter into any contract, warranty, or representation as to any matter. Neither party shall be bound by the acts of the other.

5. Each party assumes any and all risks of personal injury and property damage attributable to the negligent acts or omissions of that party and the officers, employees, and agents thereof.

6. Neither party will use the name of the other party in any publicity, advertising or news release without the prior written approval of an authorized representative of the other party.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, each of the parties to this (Commodity) Project Master Agreement have caused it to be duly executed on its behalf.


By: ____________________

Name: ____________________

Title: ____________________



By: ____________________

Name: ____________________

Title: ____________________



Guidelines for MAES and MSUE Research Sponsored by Michigan Commodity Groups
Indirect Costs/Overhead Rates/Facility Charges and Administrative Cost Rates and Intellectual Property Guideline

Michigan State University, being a land grant university, has a unique relationship with the agricultural industries of Michigan. The agricultural commodity groups of Michigan have been a strong partner and supporter throughout the history of Michigan State University. They have been a positive voice to the Michigan Legislature, Michigan State University Board of Trustees, and Michigan's congressional delegation on behalf of Michigan State University and its research/extension programs. Many of the agricultural commodity groups are organized under Michigan Public Act 232 and administered through the Michigan Department of Agriculture; while other groups are more loosely organized. The common thread among these organizations is their active engagement with MSU on research and educational programs that benefit the well being of their industry and members. These linkages are inherent in the founding principles of Michigan State University and are at the core of the land grant philosophy. In recognition of special partnerships that exist between Michigan State University and Michigan agricultural commodity groups; the University has traditionally and will in the future develop administrative policies and guidelines that foster the continuation of this mutually beneficial partnership.

Committee Recommendations
1. Standard Michigan State University indirect costs/overhead rates/facility charges and administrative cost rate policies will be waived for research contracts and grants from recognized agricultural commodity groups.

· A list of Michigan commodity groups will be developed. Indirect costs will be waived on any grants and contracts from organizations on this list.
· The list of Michigan agricultural commodity groups will be updated by the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station and delivered to the MSU Provost and President annually for their approval.
· Transmittal sheets will be completed for all contracts and grants received from Michigan agricultural commodity groups.

Rationale: Michigan producers and processors of agricultural commodities have banded together to leverage their limited funds coming from self-imposed assessments for the good of Michigan agriculture. The active partnership represented by the communications, contracts, gifts, and grants from these organizations and Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station (MAES) researchers and Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) educators are a cornerstone of the Land Grant University.

2. Direct costs of research and extension projects must be recognized by MAES
researchers/MSUE educators and Michigan agricultural commodity groups.

· No MSUE or MAES-funded department will levy an off-the-top surcharge or tax from research/extension contracts, grants, and gifts sponsored by Michigan agricultural commodity groups granted an indirect cost waiver by the MSU Contracts and Grants Administration.
· Researchers/educators shall include the direct costs of activities in their proposals submitted to commodity groups for funding. Direct costs should be addressed through requested financial support from the commodity group and approved internal match funding.

Rationale: We recognize that there are costs associated with maintaining facilities and managing accounts associated with commodity-sponsored research above and beyond normal operations. The long-term availability of these facilities and services for continued research activities requires that all direct project costs be addressed in the funding proposal. However, it is not appropriate for departments to collect indirect costs from contracts and grants from Michigan agricultural commodity groups when the MSU has waived these costs. Departmental surcharges jeopardize the University waiver of indirect costs of commodity group grants and contracts.

3. All "Testing" activities not sponsored by Michigan agricultural commodity groups are subject to an indirect cost rate of not less than 15% total direct costs (TDC).
MAES researchers and MSUE educators are expected to use an indirect cost rate not less than 15% TDC on all proposals and accompanying transmittal forms associated with industry testing of all products, materials, and processes.
· Department Chairpersons will ensure that industry contracts and grants that involve testing activities comply with an indirect cost rate of not less than 15% of total direct costs.
· No MSUE or MAES-funded department will levy an off-the-top surcharge or tax from testing contracts granted a reduced indirect cost rate by the MSU Contracts and Grants Administration.
· The approval for using the "testing" indirect cost rate will be determined by the Department Chairperson, MAES &/or MSUE, and MSU Contracts and Grants Administration with appropriate input from the principal investigator and the Office of Intellectual Property.

Rationale: Testing activities benefit Michigan agriculture but do not commonly result in the development of intellectual property. New knowledge gained from testing activities is commonly related to the effectiveness of the tested products under Michigan conditions. Verification of a product's effectiveness or utility by MSU will financially benefit the sponsoring organization/company either through product registration or increased sales. Thus, it is appropriate that non-commodity organizations sponsoring testing activities contribute to the current indirect costs/overhead rates/facility charges and administrative cost rate indirect/overhead/facility and administrative charges associated with the sponsored activity. However, the benefit to Michigan producers and businesses is recognized through the reduced indirect cost recovery rate.

4. All sponsored research and extension activities not funded by Michigan agricultural commodity groups will comply with approved MSU indirect costs/overhead rates/facility charges and administrative cost policies.
· MAES researchers and MSUE educators will use the current indirect cost recovery rate on research/extension proposals to sponsoring organizations and on accompanying transmittal forms.
· Department Chairpersons will ensure that contracts and grants that involve research activities comply with current MSU indirect cost rates.

Rationale: Research-extension contracts and grants initiated by MAES researchers and MSUE educators, are subject to current MSU Contract and Grant Administration policies. It is unethical and totally unacceptable for faculty members to conspire with funding organizations to avoid paying indirect costs.

5. A standard master agreement on intellectual property rights and policies will be developed between by MSU and all Michigan agricultural commodity groups seeking a waiver of MSU Indirect Costs/Overhead Rates/Facility Charges and Administrative Cost Rates.
· The Office of Intellectual Property and MAES will develop a boiler plate agreement that will be easily adapted for any Michigan agricultural commodity group funding research/extension activities that addresses intellectual property rights and policies to ensure uniform treatment of all commodity groups.
· A Commercialization Advisory Committee (CAC) composed of a representative of the MSU Office of Intellectual Property, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station (MAES), the MAES researcher or MSUE educator involved in the invention, a Michigan Department of Agriculture official and a representative from the Michigan commodity group involved in sponsoring the relevant research/extension activity will be established. The CAC will make licensing recommendations to the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies.
· Royalties and licensing fees generated froth intellectual property derived from commodity group-funded research activities must comply with MSU policies. However, MSU recognizes the unique partnership that exists between agricultural commodity groups and MAES through the establishment of a fund dedicated to furthering research of mutual interest to the commodity group and the University from fifty percent of the royalties returned to the Department(s) and/or College(s). The rights of third parties sponsoring research with commodity groups will be respected through current MSU intellectual property policies but will not exclude the rights of sponsoring commodity groups.
· All Michigan agricultural commodity groups will be invited to an open discussion of intellectual property rights and policies with MSU officials to finalize the development of a standard agreement with all commodity groups who have not currently reached an intellectual property agreement with MSU.

Rationale: Commodity groups and MSU jointly sponsor research for the benefit of Michigan agriculture. Indirect costs are being waived for commodity groups. Normally the waiving of indirect costs result in the loss of rights to intellectual property developed from sponsored research. However, the unique relationship between MSU and commodity groups justifies a unique approach of utilizing royalties and licensing fees to further research of mutual interest. An agreement on the dedication of fees from the MSU Foundation and originating Department/College to establish an endowed research fund is desirable.

Process followed for establishing IPR relationships at your university.
1. Disclosure of the invention. 2. Patents and Technology Marketing [PTM] evaluates the invention. 3. PTM decides whether to file a patent application. 4. PTM files a patent application. 5. PTM licenses the invention. 6. University distributes royalties and revenue according to Bayh-Dole Act and University Intellectual Property policy. Any income will be divided as follows: 1] 33-1/3% to the creator; 2] 33-1/3% to the Office of the VP for Research; and 3] 8% to the creator's college; and 4] 25-1/3% to the department or unit that supported the creation of the intellectual property.

Guidelines for sharing of IPR with non-university entities including commodity groups.
University has first rights to acquire title to any invention that results from the use of University resources or University-administered funds. This policy applies to all inventions related to the inventor's work assignment. IP rights for non-federal sponsors are negotiated at the time of award

Constraints to sharing IPR followed by your university.
Seeking a patent does not prevent publication and in most cases does not delay publishing. University will not accept any award that prohibits publishing.


(1) The process followed for establishing IPR relationships at your university
The University of Missouri s Office of Technology and Special Projects (OTSP) oversees all intellectual property management issues for the University of Missouri System. In the event that new intellectual property results from the research support provided by a commodity group, OTSP will obtain the invention disclosure from its employees who may have conceived of or first reduced the invention to practice and will work with its collaborating partners to determine inventorship of any inventions. OSTP s website, with details, is found at

(2) Generally recognized guidelines for sharing of IPR with non-university entities including commodity groups
OTSP will work with the University s collaborating partners, including commodity groups to execute agreements that define, among other things, ownership of the invention(s), who will take the lead in patenting and licensing the invention(s), and the equitable sharing of revenue that results from the successful licensing and commercialization of the invention(s). Revenues from commercialization of such inventions are shared equitability based on the collaborators relative contributions.

(3) Constraints to sharing IPR followed by your university.
Requests from any collaborator including commodity groups to pre-negotiate licenses and licensing terms prior to creation of intellectual property is a major constraint to sharing IPR.

Intellectual Property Rights and Commodity Groups
For intellectual property resulting from research sponsored by one of the state commodity checkoff boards, in accordance with Board of Regents policy, ownership of the intellectual property will always remain with the Board of Regents of the University. The contracts with commodity boards vary somewhat, but nearly all have provisions whereby the University must report to the commodity board a patent or other intellectual property and any licensing arrangements resulting from research they sponsored. Nearly all of the contracts with the commodity boards have a provision whereby royalties from the licensing of intellectual property resulting from commodity board sponsored activity must be shared or returned to the commodity board. The arrangements on this can also vary, but the normal arrangement is for the share of the funds which goes to the commodity board to be placed in a separate fund to support high priority University research directed at that commodity. The management of the funds would be by a joint committee of the University and commodity industry members. Up until now, the University of Nebraska has not licensed any intellectual property which would be subject to these provisions from checkoff commodity boards. We have a licensing agreement in the turf grass whereby a long-term research sponsor is receiving 50% of the royalties. In that instance, the royalties are not returned by the sponsor to the University for additional research.

Licensing agreements are handled through the Office for Technology Licensing (URL: http://techpartners.osu.edu/tp_otl.html ) at the Ohio State University. OSU faculty and research scientists must submit disclosures of discoveries, inventions, designs, works of authorship, and any other intellectual property to The Ohio State University, Office for Technology Licensing (OTL). All such inventions conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the course of the project by OSU faculty and research scientists will be owned by The Ohio State University. OTL will notify any partners of any such invention and will make the invention available for the commercial licensing upon reasonable terms and conditions. In consideration for the research funding provided, OSU may agree to pay royalty income received by OSU from licensees or sub-licensees to the inventions developed (5% has been the guideline where appropriate). Germplasm development and variety releases are handled though OTL, but OTL is sole licensor.

Major constraint is that IPR can be extremely complex and there are not consistent or recognized models for us to follow.

South Dakota:
All IPR decisions on our campus are handled through the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, not AES. As it stands now, each IP situation is handled on a case-by-case basis. Royalties and rights to IP are shared with non-university entities and the discussions have focused on the proportion of investment each of the players has into the IP. I've not seen any boiler plate language.

UW-Madison does not claim rights to intellectual property generated during research by its faculty, staff or students, unless funding agreements specify or restrict ownership rights. Federal law (the Bayh Dole Act) requires that inventions resulting from federally funded projects must be disclosed to the University. At the UW-Madison, inventions are disclosed to the University Industry Relations Office (UIR). These include potentially patentable inventions as well as copyrighted software or other material. UIR does an equity review of funding during the inventive period and is the designated office for reporting invention disclosures made with federal funding to the primary federal funding agency.

If the equity review shows that federal funding supported the work, in part or in whole, the invention disclosure is sent to the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF). WARF is an independent non-profit organization that is the designee of UW-Madison for patenting and licensing. If WARF elects not to proceed with the filing of a patent application, the PI may petition the federal agency for ownership of the invention. If WARF elects to proceed with the filing of a patent application and the patent is issued, it is assigned to WARF. WARF licenses the patent and is also able to take an equity position in start-up companies (usually in lieu of up-front licensing fees) to which WARF licenses intellectual property.

If an industry or other non-federal organization sponsors research at the UW-Madison, intellectual property developed with this funding source that is also done in laboratories with concurrent federal funding for the same or different projects is also managed by WARF. In the absence of federal funding, the principle investigator is at liberty to negotiate his/her own intellectual property disposition. Because WARF is such an advocate for protecting inventor's intellectual property rights and handling licensing, infringement issues, etc., the University encourages the inventor to bring all inventions to WARF for patenting and licensing.

WARF may negotiate a first right of refusal to license the intellectual property to the sponsor (usually non-exclusive licenses). Rights to inventions that arise as a result of research supported by industry consortia or other organizations such as commodity groups are handled in the same way as agreements with single organizations. Agreements are negotiated before the onset of research funding and intellectual property developed with this funding is handled by WARF if there is concurrent federal funding.

More information on WARF can be obtained at the website:
Additional information on UW-Madison's handling of intellectual property http://www.rsp.wisc.edu/chap1/redbook.pdf

Agenda Brief: 12.0
Presenter: Directors from Individual States
Title: AES Report on Budget Conditions

· Illinois is a very integrated system
· 1.25% recission in the current fiscal year - face 4% next year
· No salaries are on Hatch
· Directed to spend $117 m to redirect the farm facilities
· Asking sustainability questions about the facilities
· Trying to push not building all the facilities in Illinois
· The customer has needs and need to listen to them - will determine what they do in the state
· Looked at what they call the "green industry" - this is as big as corn and soybean in Illinois
· Suffer a little in ag to get the faculty's attention - some faculty can get more sources from other sources than ag - transaction costs - what is the benefit with joining with others? Need to have significant sources behind them, otherwise faculty won't look at them.

· Have several things happening at the state level
· The surplus has been dwindling
· About two years ago the supreme court said that property tax was unconstitutional
· Legislatures have tax reform; not sure what legislature is going to do - think it will be flat
· Have about $90 m that are frozen - variety of funds (special grants, 21st Century Fund; tobacco settlement)
· Several building constructions on campus now which are supported by private funds
· Traditional ag field days are in decline by attendance
· Applications and admissions are up

· Within a 24 month period, the station will loose 19% - quite unhappy - relatively in a bad place
· Have had some opportunities to compete within the system
· The Plant Sciences Institute - funding is stable
· Will be forced to sell/trade the land of a few of the large farms - no political connections
· Will try and not shut down any farms that would have farmer implications
· Would like to do more sharing with other institutions; hard to give up someone's time to share with someone else

· Have been successful in the `90s - animal initiative brought in money; included 22 new faculty members, post docs
· The animal initiative personnel are pulling from the system and is causing some problems
· Plant Initiative - $1.6 m at the time; was designed so that only 25% of the monies go to permanent faculty
· The provost has been pulling back 1% over the last 10 years - this is the herd management plan; if successful, can receive more than 1%
· This year it will be another 5% increase - there will be no reductions/recessions with the understanding that tuition will not exceed ____%
· Were able to cover last years' deficit; this year won't be able to
· It is best that legislatures talk to faculty; the experiment station and extension do play a role
· The state legislatures term are limited - there will be a bigger emphasis in attracting urban legislatures into their programs
· Trying to get funds in an urban experiment station in Detroit
· Have a new dean - very active in getting a strategic plan in process
· The research agenda in the experiment station are going to be land use and environment issues; profitable agriculture with respect to value added; working with vet medicine; food health; family community vitality
· Will be difficult to carry on programs that are "more traditional"
· Need to take a positive attitude to the budget cuts - time to refocus
· Need to look forward and make change and prepare for the future
· Coalition set up - "family and communities together" - have over 300 people working on this program

· Extension service is getting hammered in the legislature
· Trying to gear back so they have a number of extension specialists on campus that they can support
· Major concern in legislature is that extension service is too broad - too many social issues. Focus should be on agriculture
· The university will take about a $25 m cut next year - around a 5% cut
· Have Incentive Management Growth - target year was about 1997
· The mind set is to take advantage of IMG - emphasizing recruitment; stimulating good teaching; investment in recruiters to help generate more students
· Incentive is to encourage recruitment of good students and teach courses that are attractive to students
· Emphasis on tuition, ICR and grants;
· Bioterrorism is very much of a part of their lives in Minnesota; motivated to look at biosecurity issues on campus
· Have been doing sharing of programs with ND, SD, IA
· Been involved with prioritization process - if taking cuts, need to focus on where to invest the resources (bottoms up process - started with faculty/department heads - revitalizing rural communities, promoting safe and healthy foods; enhancing ag systems)
· Looking to consolidate livestock
· Have a 7,500 acre of land that the university owns; suffers from great potential; might look at some collaborative efforts

· Governor announced 10% base cut for higher education; of the 10% base cut, maybe ½ might be made up of tuition increases
· Hoping for 8% - will have frozen positions to deal with this
· Lot of building going on
· Focus is both private and life sciences
· Governor released tobacco money for life sciences; allowed major institutions to compete
· It is a redirecting and refocusing time
· Life sciences in Missouri - it is ag, human, medical, pharmaceutical, environmental work
· Extension - belongs to the system - could be a real crises soon - could be eliminated
· About 90 of 300 extension people are agriculture

· Very integrated system
· Feel they have been treated fairly in the process of budget cuts
· Had to come up with about 1.75 reduction; in the next biennium, the institute would be about 2.5% reduction - faculty taking lower salary wages
· Tuition increases
· Will lose roughly 10 FTEs; lose more in support staff positions
· Will close some livestock facilities around the state and will try to consolidate where there is some duplication
· When they have opportunities to cooperate with other institutions, they do - Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming
· Midwest Poultry Consortium has been a good model for them
· May face more challenges in the coming year - could have an additional 1 to 3% in the coming year

North Dakota
· Will end up with 4.5% increase in salaries
· Were treated well with legislatures - operating funds - core budget; have legislatures on a committee that has been carrying the message
· Have problem with faculty salary compression
· Looking at new innovation and outreach
· Have shared positions with Minnesota in extension and research; shared REC director with Montana; mutual agreements so equipment can be interchanged within the units
· Just received a gift for 14 acres
· Rural population is dropping; need to recruit out of state to keep programs going
· Working hard to put a "research" golf course on campus
· Trying to get other colleges involved with their outreach programs

· Both Experiment and Extension have direct budget line within the state
· Dealing with budget woes
· Took a 6% recession from the governor's office - didn't effect the base
· Have a process called rebasing - the university will be setting bench marks
· Integrated cost recovery
· Have facilities issues (aging); have a planning process to look at this; this may offer the opportunity to talk to neighboring states

South Dakota
· Flat for many years - on state side, they are a line item
· Not experiencing any cuts despite some deficits at the state level
· Entire state budget is smaller than some universities
· Projecting next year with a reduced return
· State has a contingency fund that they can dip into
· Salaries - legislature approved 3% salary increase; board of regents wants to add 1%; been paying out of the salary enhancement program
· Need to pay for promotions within their existing budget
· Have a change in retirement policy - additional percent tacked on state retirement
· Have personnel on Hatch money for part of their salaries
· Only money lost was two years ago; legislature had questions on food issues and biotechnology; gave $100,000 to the station; this went out competitively to the faculty; this year it was taken away
· Earmarks are new to them
· SUN grant initiative is top priority
· Deans and directors from ND, SD, Wyoming and Montana want to work together (demographics and geography)
· Seeing a consolidation of grains

· Do not have line items for Extension or the Experiment Station
· Take regular cut - 1% reduction this year; base next year; planning for 3 to 5% cut - probably 2 to 4% at the college level
· Will handle cut in hiring; downsizing in positions
· The centers and programs will face reductions
· Areas of growth include some land use planning; nutrient management, IPM and green industry
· Very heavily weighted with basic scientists
· Cluster hiring - the mechanism by which it was done is causing problems

Agenda Brief: 13.0
Presenter: Darrell Cole
Title: AES Report on Budget Conditions

· Discussed the ARS budget situation. (A copy of the USDA/ARS budget is available from the Executive Director's office.)
· ARS is trying to fill vacancies as soon as possible
· Because of security reasons, ARS is currently not allowed to hire foreign personnel (hoping this is a temporary basis). This will have impacts on the programs.
· Biosecurity and the physical security is consuming the agency.

Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken. None.

Agenda Brief: 13.1
Presenter: Wendy Wintersteen (for Cornelia Flora)
Title: North Central Regional Center for Rural Development

At the March 1995 NCRA meeting, the AES Directors approved $24,000 annually for three years for the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development. This agreement was renewed in 1998 for an additional five years.

This support has allowed the NCRCRD to do additional programming in the region and to leverage funds from outside the system. Although it is not a large amount of money by some standards, it has been critical to the success of NCRCRD. Reports of Center activities have been provided to the AES directors in the form of an agenda brief for the NCRA meetings.

Additional materials in the form of program and progress reports will provide more detailed information on the activities of the NCRCRD.

Action Requested: Requesting continued funding.
Action Taken: The NCRA Directors approved this request.

NCRCRD Progress Report

On-going research and integrated projects:

1. Comparative Rural Development Policies and Population Retention (Dickerson State University)
2. Charting the Course for Rural and Community Prosperity (CSREES)
3. Analysis of Community-Based Leadership Development for Poverty Reduction (Northwest Area Foundation)
4. Building Capacity for Community-Based Strategic Development in Forest-Based Communities (USDA/Forest Service)
5. Monitoring and Analyzing the EZ/EC Place-Based Poverty Reduction (USDA/Rural Development)
6. Native American Business Owners, Tribal Sovereignty, and e-Commerce: An Assessment of Opportunities for Training and Technical Assistance (CSREES)
7. Community-Based Natural Resource Management (EPA/USAID)
8. Community Systems for Integrating Crops and Livestock for a More Sustainable Agriculture (USDA/IFAFS, with University of Maine and Michigan State University)
9. Rural Communities and the Geography of Rural Financial Institutions (NRI/Iowa State University)
10. Analysis of the Context, Process, and Outcomes of Wireless Access for Excluded Communities Teamed with Land Grant Partners (NSF/University of Nebraska)
11. Research and integrated projects in the development stage

1. Understanding and Serving Spanish-Speaking Populations in the North Central Region (multiple funding sources identified)
2. Partnering with Rural Community Colleges for Rural Development and Educational Access (CREES/Ford Foundation)
3. Agro-ecosystem Based Training for Leadership for Sustainable Agriculture in Rural Communities (SARE)
4. Prairie Savannah Restoration for Ecosystem and Community Health (NSF/NOAA)
5. Community-Based Preparedness for Terrorism and Bioterrorism (CSREES)

These activities are carried out in collaboration with our colleagues in the region in extension and research across social, behavioral science and biological sciences. The funding we get from the Experiment Stations allows us to be flexible and proactive to develop research and integrated projects around emerging regional issues using cutting edge science and state of the art outreach methodologies.

Agenda Brief: 14.0
Presenter: Terry Nipp
Title: AESOP Update

Terry Nipp attended the meeting and made the following comments:

Farm Bill
· The House and Senate are in conference negotiations
· The delay of the final text of the Farm Bill (manager's amendment turned out to be more than 400 pages) which added to the delay
· There is funding for IFAS
· The issue of the 25% on the multis has not been resolved
· Did establish a new granting system for equipment

Board on Agriculture Assembly
· Will be using the budget documents for testimony

· If there are particular issues that states need help with, please be in contact with AESOP

· AESOP is working with Extension on the Conservation Title; providing education on nutrient management education
· Expect ag environment issues to be on the table after the Farm Bill
· Dr. Jen is trying to get USDA back in the lead in biotechnology
· Looking at the energy legislation bill; the SUN Grant Initiative is included
· If anyone has suggestions for new ideas, please be in contact with AESOP
· Continue to read "News from the Hill"

Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: None.

Agenda Brief: 15.0
Presenter: Dan Kugler
Title: CSREES Update

Dan Kugler handed out a flow chart of CSREES with the new reorganization. Note that GPRA and Multistate Research will be handled through Dr. Gary Cunningham's office.

Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: None.

Agenda Brief: 16.0
Presenter: Phil Larsen
Title: Nominations Committee

.  Past AA New AA
NC-1005 J. I. Gray, MO K. Kephart, SD
NC-213 S. Slack, OH W. Ravlin, OH
NC-229 K. Kephart, SD D. A. Benfield, OH

ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee
Kevin Kephart (will replace Fred Cholick), South Dakota

ESCOP Partnership
Margaret Dentine, Wisconsin

ESCOP Advocacy and Marketing
Wendy Wintersteen, Iowa

ESCOP Planning Committee
Marjorie Kostelnik, Nebraska

Multistate Research Committee (2003)
Marshall Martin, Indiana
Wendy Wintersteen, Iowa

Action Requested: Approval of the nominations.
Action Taken: The nominations report was approved as submitted.

Agenda Brief: 17.0
Presenter: Individual Station Directors
Title: Security on Campuses

Each station representative indicated what they were doing for security on their campus. Some suggestions were:

· Need to be careful when dealing with the press.
· At one state, the campus police department has a full-time person for bioterrorism that meets periodically to increase campus and public security.
· Keep labs locked.
· Need to have departmental training - what to do if you see anything/anyone suspicious; how to handle harassment telephone calls; how to handle media calls.
· Need to remove phone numbers; photos of personnel and equipment and locations of field trials from web sites.
· One campus established a web site with background information for the media.
· One campus has been working with the Department of Agriculture, Farm Bureau and has done training with Extension agents; have had some federal and state briefings.
· Campus police have changed their routes by going to out-of-the-way places; custodial has also had some training.
· Among our region, there has been communication between the police departments.
· Need to keep research backup at a different physical location.

Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: If you have additional suggestions, please share with station directors.

Agenda Brief: 18.0
Presenter: Wendy Wintersteen
Title: Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO)

Dr. Wintersteen gave an update about CAFO in Iowa:

· People are split regarding the large feeding operations
· Iowa will be building a consortium and targeting specific issues
· Need to keep the communication going, in particular to public health

Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: None.


WHEREAS George Ham retired from his position as Associate Director for Research, the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, a position he has held since 1989; and Kansas State University; and,

WHEREAS, George had a distinguished career of over 13 years as a Department of Soil Science faculty member at the University of Minnesota and he served 9 plus years as Head of the Department of Agronomy at Kansas State University; and

WHEREAS, George had a productive career as a soil microbiologist, making presentations throughout the world and training numerous graduate students, and producing a multitude of peer-reviewed publications and abstracts, and

WHEREAS, he served as chair of the North Central Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors and served on numerous NCRA committees: and

WHEREAS, he served as the administrative advisor to numerous North central committees and projects; and

WHEREAS, he provided excellent leadership as the first chair of the ESCOP Science and Technology Committee and he served other ESCOP assignments; and

WHEREAS, George served on the board of directors of numerous organizations including the American Society of Agronomy and the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST); and

WHEREAS, he has received numerous awards recognizing his contributions including Fellow of the American Society of Agronomy, the Soil Science Society of America, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science; and

THEREFORE, the North Central Regional Association both commends and thanks George Ham for his outstanding service to the Association, the Land-Grant Mission and the people of the North Central Region. We wish George and his wife, Alice, a long and enjoyable retirement.

Presented March 14, 2002


A resolution to honor Richard Ross, former dean of Iowa State University's College of Agriculture

Be it resolved:

· in recognition of his service, from 2000 to 2002, as dean of the College of Agriculture at Iowa State University and director of the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, as well as his seven-year tenure as dean of Iowa State's College of Veterinary Medicine;

· in recognition of his leadership in engaging the College in efforts to make agriculture competitive; to enhance natural resources; to improve economic vitality, especially in rural communities; and in espousing a broad view of all that agriculture stands for;

· in support of his continuing commitment as an Iowa State distinguished faculty member in advancing research, teaching, extension and international programs

· we extend to Richard Ross our highest appreciation and our best wishes for the future.

Presented March 14, 2002

Agenda Brief: 20.0
Presenter: Ian Gray
Title: Summary and Review of Assignments - Ian Gray

· Drs. Dentine, Larsen and Wintersteen will help Dr. Kephart with the SUN Grant Initiative in the North Central Region.