One Hundred Sixty-Two Meeting
September 27, 2001
Couer d'Alene, Idaho

1.0 Call to Order and Introductions - Virginia Clark Johnson
Present: Steve Pueppke-Illinois; Darrell Nelson, Dale Vanderholm-Nebraska; Virginia Clark Johnson, Jim Venette-North Dakota; John Allred, Steve Slack-Ohio; Margaret Dentine-Wisconsin; Daryl Lund-NCRA Office

2.0 Approval of the July 2001 Minutes - Virginia Clark Johnson
(Available at: http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/july2001minutes.htm)
Moved and seconded to approve without changes. To be voted on by email ballot.

3.0 Adoption of Agenda - Virginia Clark
Adopted by consent.

4.0 Executive Committee Report and Interim Actions of the Chair - Virginia Clark Johnson

5.0 Executive Director
=s Report - Daryl Lund
5.1 NCRA Rules of Operation
5.2 NIMSS Update
5.3 New NRSP Proposal, "National Agricultural and Natural Resources Data Support System"
5.4 Integrated Activities

6.0 ESCOP Report
6.1 ESCOP Activities - Tom Payne
6.2 FY 02 Budget and Legislative Subcommittee - Tom Payne
6.3 Farm Bill Task Force - Tom Payne

7.0 Report on Indirect Cost Survey - Steve Slack

8.0 Nominations Committee Report - Dale Vanderholm/Margaret Dentine

9.0 Resolutions - Daryl Lund

10.0 Announcements
· NASULGC Meeting - Washington, DC - November 11-13, 2001
· NCRA Meeting - Baltimore, Maryland - March12-14,2002
· North Central Region Summer Meeting - Fond du Lac Reservation - Duluth, Minnesota - July 9-11, 2002

11.0 Summary and Review of Assignments - Virginia Clark Johnson

Agenda Item: 4.0
Agenda Item Title: Executive Committee Report and Interim Actions of the Chair
Presenter: Virginia Clark Johnson

Since the July 2001 meeting, I have taken part in the following:

· Communicated with AES Directors, Deans, and State Department of Agriculture Secretaries regarding the formation of a liaison with MASDA in Kansas and South Dakota.
· Responded to requests and correspondence related to NCRA.
· Projects have been submitted to Washington for their concurrence.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: As reported in the agenda brief.

Agenda Item: 5.0
Agenda Item Title: Executive Director's Report
Presenter: Daryl Lund

The following are the activities that I have been participating in since July 2001:

Activities Directed Nationally
· ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee
Assisted chair and chair-designate in keeping the committee informed about the FY 02 federal budget and the Farm Bill.

· Multiple Activity Programs (MAPs)
Assisted in identifying ESCOP representatives to an ad hoc joint ESCOP/ECOP Committee on MAPs.

· ESCOP Science and Technology Committee
Continued development of the Science Roadmap for Challenge Area 6 (Strengthening communities and families) and Challenge Area 7 (Insure improved food safety and health through agricultural and food systems). Assisted in analysis of CRIS system for current investment in these areas and projected needs over the next 5 - 10 year period.

· ESCOP Chair's Advisory Committee
Participated in monthly conference calls.

· SAES/ARD Workshop
Continued direct leadership in organizing the program for this annual event.

· New Research Administrators' Orientation
Organized the program for a research administrators' orientation to be held the day before the annual workshop (first one since 1996).

Activities Directed Regionally
· Summer Joint Meeting
Co-organized and co-chaired afternoon priority setting session at the mini-land grant summer meeting in Madison.

· ad hoc Indirect Cost Recovery Committee
Assisted Steve Slack, chair of the committee, in designing a survey instrument for the North Central directors on indirect cost recovery. Conducted and analyzed the results of the survey. Shared the results with the ad hoc committee for next steps.

· Integrated Multistate Activities
Examined the North Central Region protocol for identifying and supporting integrated (Research and Extension, primarily), multistate activities. Initiated discussions with individual directors to get a sense of regional interest.

· National Information Management Support System
Monitored progress on the NIMSS. Supported Madelyn in getting SAES 422 Annual Report and project proposal for all projects ready for insertion in the NIMSS. Supported Madelyn in traveling to Baltimore to meet with NIMSS designers and other regional office administrative assistants.

· Responded to questions regarding national and regional issues.

Activities Directed Professionally
· International Union of Food Science and Technology
Chair, Task Force on Distance Education, with an annual plan of work including a proposal for the role of DE/DL in food science and technology in Eastern, Central and Southern Africa (ECSA)

· Institute of Food Technologists
Chair, Task Force on Identifying Research Agenda for Food Science and Technology, with a proposal to create and support Gordon-type conferences for prioritizing needs.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

Agenda Item: 5.1
Agenda Item Title: NCRA Rules of Operation
Presenter: Daryl Lund

After the July 2001 meeting of the Multistate Research Committee and the NCRA, minor changes were made to the Rules of Operation changing the membership of the Multistate Research Committee. These rules were sent to the directors on August&nbsp3, 2001 for review of the changes and asking the directors if they agreed or disagreed with the changes (with one vote per station). Out of the 12 states, we received 10 states that agreed with the changes (two states did not respond). The rules indicate that the quorum must be a minimum of seven SAES members. These changes will be made effective and posted on the web after the NCRA meeting on September 27.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: Final reading with no changes.

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

The NCRA approved the National Information Management and Support System (NIMSS) at the March 2001 NCRA meeting. This program is being created/programmed through the NERA Executive Director's Office. At the Orientation for New SAES and ARD Research Administrators and at the SAES/ARD Directors' Workshop this program will be demonstrated and discussed. On August 28-29, the associations' administrative assistants met at the NERA's office to have a hands-on-training with the program. At this meeting, there was much discussion about the various needs of the regions (e.g., the North Central Region uses different review forms for multistate projects). It was agreed at the end of this meeting, that the programmer was going to make the suggested changes so that the program was a national program, but with the uniqueness of each region. Madelyn feels that once these changes have been made, the program will be very useful to all regions. At this time, we have not seen what the programmer has done with the suggested changes.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: Madelyn will send out notice to Stations when it is appropriate to utilize the NIMSS system. Madelyn will provide training to appropriate persons in the Stations. Darrell Nelson inquired about the use of review forms for NCA-1 which he now advises. Daryl Lund advised him to utilize the current method of conducting reviews (until he hears differently from Madelyn). It is anticipated that the data for all NC projects will be in the NIMSS system by the end of October.

Agenda Item: 5.3
Agenda Item Title: New NRSP Proposal, National Agricultural and Natural Resources Data Support System
Presenter: Daryl Lund



Proposed National Research Support Program (NRSP)

Project Number: tba
Requested Duration: From October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2007.
Title: National Agricultural and Natural Resources Data Support System1

Statement of Issue and Justification: The activities of the State Agricultural Experiment Station (SAES) Directors necessitate having timely and efficient access to a wide variety of data from numerous sources including CRIS, NASS, EPA, U. S. Census Bureau, and others. The National Agricultural and Natural Resources Data Support System will employ advanced data management approaches such as geographic information systems, relational databases, visual management techniques, and other techniques to integrate these data into an information system to support the engagement, planning, and communication efforts of the SAES Directors. This system will provide Directors the ability to organize the myriad data for their individual states, regions or the nation into visual formats for communicating with a wide variety of clientele including Congressional Members, commodity organizations, CARET and other stakeholder groups, and institutional administrators. The National Agricultural and Natural Resources Data Support System will bring to bear a powerful set of tools, techniques, and technologies that will enhance the endeavors of the SAES Directors.

1. Support the SAES Directors individually and collectively in the location and utilization of extant program data (data mining) and in the development of timely reports and analyses consistent with decision-making timeframes.

1A similar system, the Southern Regional Data Support System, has been in operation at the Mississippi State University Social Science Research Center under sponsorship of the Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors since 1996.

2. Provide access to and use of a wide range of extant data maintained by the Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State University. [Examples of current resources available include: CRIS data from 1970 - 2000; Agricultural Census data; NASS Crop Estimates; U. S Census data from inception to the most recent census; EPA data files; Consumer Expenditure Survey Data; Economic Census; County Business Patterns.]
3. Prepare visual presentations and analyses that are useful for the examination of multidisciplinary problems as they relate to national, regional and local experiment station issues. Utilize the data support system to spatially depict data using the capabilities of the Visual Management approach.
4. Utilize the data support system to enhance decision-making, planning and communication capabilities of the SAES Directors.

Expected Outcomes and Impacts
Products: A wide variety of types of products available from the Data Support System include, but are not limited to: (1) reports patented to the needs of individual Directors, Multistate Research Technical Committees, Coordinating Committees, and ESCOP; (2) analyses of fiscal and human resources in relation to measures in the Agricultural Censuses by agricultural commodity or natural resource within states, and within or across regions; (3) analyses of scientific capacity by commodity, field of science, or other factors within geographic or ecological zones, Congressional districts, states, regions, etc.; (4) visual time-series animations of U. S. population growth, movement, and other changes; and (5) visual time-series animations of agricultural data (production, land in farms, size, crops).

Impacts: The major impacts to accrue from this effort are improved capacities and capabilities for Directors to communicate research efforts and outcomes in visual formats.

Internal and External Linkages: tba

Educational Plan: The lead Administrative Adviser with assistance from the project staff will present an annual report to the Experiment Station Section. Presentations to other groups will be made as time and resources allow. The project staff will prepare an annual report of accomplishments which details activities for the year, new or novel data sources, new technologies available, etc.

Governance: Oversight for the project will be provided by the four regional Administrative Advisers with the lead Administrative Adviser serving as chairperson. The four SAES regional Association Executive Directors and Administrative Advisers will serve as an advisory committee for the project. This advisory committee shall meet at least once annually. Information and project requests to the project will be received and prioritized by the advisory committee in consultation with the project lead.

Five Year Budget Plan
. FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07
Personnel Services . . . . .
Project Leader (0.50 FTE) 25,000 26,250 27,563 28,941 30,388
Research Analyst(s) (1.00 FTE) 28,000 28,500 29,000 29,500 30,000
Fringe Benefits (25%) 13,250 13,688 14,141 14,610 15,097
Subtotal Pers. Services 66,250 68,438 70,703 73,051 75,485
Operating . . . . .
Supplies 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Contractual Services (incl. software, computer maintenance, etc.) 10,250 10,250 10,250 10,250 10,250
Subtotal Operating 12,750 12,750 12,750 12,750 12,750
Equipment2 17,500 0 0 0 0
Travel 3,500 4,000 4,250 4,500 4,750
Total 100,000 85,188 87,703 90,301 92,985

2Pentium based computer and ancillary hardware and software; printer etc., etc.



Click on any of the documents below to view them over the Internet

1. Select Slides from 2000 Presentation to Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors
2. Current Research Information System (CRIS): Analysis of State and Federal Research Capacity Report
3. Analysis of NSF R&D Expenditures and CRIS Research Expenditures for NSF's Top 50 Institutions, 1999
4. Current Research Information System (CRIS): 1862 SAES and 1890 ARD Expenditures, 1970-1997 Report
5. Select Slides from 1998 Presentation to Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors
6. Animated U.S. County Map: Time Series of Soybean Yield 1972 – 1999 (2 Mb Flash Movie)
7. Animated U.S. County Map: Time Series of Corn Production 1972 – 1999 (7 Mb Flash Movie)

For Additional Information Please visit:



Navigate to Laboratories and select Monitor Lab

Action Requested: Regional Approval on the NRSP

Action Taken: Tom Helms discussed the preproposal with the attendees. He pointed out that the mechanism of using NRSP as the vehicle for funding such a contract was not decided upon. He suggested that there should be an advisory committee with representation from each region to develop a full proposal. Discussants suggested that a contract with support through the Regional Director's Office would a better mechanism since it would allow a one-year contract in order to evaluate the utility of having access to the Social Science Research Center. Furthermore, there are several such centers which could offer this service and perhaps a competitive bid process should be used. From the description of the service this is administrative support for research and not research per se. It could also be also tied directly to NRSP-1. This raised the possibility that NRSP-1 should perhaps be supported through the Regional Offices rather than through an NRSP. It was further suggested that an advisory committee would need to set the guidelines for priority on requests to the Center. It was recommended that Daryl should prepare a ballot for the Region which reflects the discussion at this meeting. Results of the ballot will be presented to Tom Helms.

Agenda Item: 5.4
Agenda Item Title: Integrated Activities
Presenter: Daryl Lund

Daryl Lund reviewed his discussions with several individuals on the status of formal integrated (research and extension), regional activities. The Southern and Western Regions have formal procedures for recognizing and approving integrated, multistate activities and the Northeastern Region is in the process of developing formal procedures and protocols. The North Central has no formal procedures and protocols although a majority of NC projects include extension activities. There have been several attempts to have discussions with Extension counterparts to determine their degree of interest. Daryl will develop further information and bring the discussion to the Multistate Research Committee at the March meeting of the MRC.

Agenda Item: 6.1
Agenda Item Title: ESCOP Activities
Presenter: Tom Payne

Please refer to the ESCOP web page: (
http://www.escop.msstate.edu/minutes/exec5-01.htm ) for the May 1-2, 2001 ESCOP Executive Committee Meeting minutes which will provide you with an update on ESCOP activities.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: As reported in the agenda brief.

Agenda Item: 6.2
Agenda Item Title: FY 02 Budget and Legislative Committee
Presenter: Tom Payne

Fiscal Year 2002 Budget:


The House Agriculture Appropriations Committee Budget for CSREES in FY 2002 included discretionary funding totaling $993,936,000. This represents an increase of $124,264,000 over the FY 2002 President's Budget Request of $869,672,000 and an increase of $7,432,000 over the FY 2001 post-rescission amount of $986,504,000. The FY 2002 Budget will fund most programs, including formula programs, at the FY 2001 level. Funding is also provided for earmarked Special Research Grants, Extension and Research Federal Administration projects and grants, Critical Agricultural Materials, Supplemental and Alternative Crops, Farm Safety, and Rural Health and Safety.

Language is included in the bill that prohibits use of funds to carry out the Fund for Rural America and the Initiative for Future Agricultural and Food Systems.


The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Committee Budget for CSREES in FY 2002 totaled $1,026,068. This represents an increase of $156, 396,000 over the FY 2002 President's Budget request of $869,672,000, an increase of $32,132,000 over the FY 2002 House Bill of $993,936,000, and an increase of $39,564,000 over the FY 2001 appropriated post rescission amount of $968,504,000. The FY 2002 Budget will fund most formula programs and most other research, education, and extension programs at the FY 2001 post rescission level. An increase to $137 million over the FY 2001 level is proposed for the National Research Initiative. Increases are also proposed for IR-4, Minor Crop Pest Management Special Research Grant, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension Programs, Rural Development Centers Special Research Grant and Smith Lever 3(d), Renewable Resources Extension Act, 1890 Facilities, and the Organic Transition Program. Funds are also provided for earmarked Special Research Grants, and Federal Administration research grants and extension projects.

Language is included which prohibits the use of FY 2002 funds to carry out the Initiative for Future Agricultural and Food Systems but allows for the use of FY 2001 funds for this program in FY 2002. The Senate also prohibits the use of funds to carry out the Fund for Rural America but makes funds available for the purpose of administering and conducting oversight of grant awards and obligations incurred through FY 2001.

Congressional Action

On May 16, the leadership of the Land Grant President's Food and Society Initiative sent a letter to the Chairmen of the House Budget and Appropriations Committees requesting that they provide adequate funding to the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to support funding for research, extension and education through USDA/CSREES. A similar letter in support of agricultural research, extension and education was send by the National Coalition for Agricultural Research. A Dear Colleague letter was circulated in the House that called for a doubling of funding for research, extension, and education. The letter was authored by Reps. Dooley and Pickering and signed by 49 members, including 29 authorizers on the Agriculture Committee. The Dear Colleague letter was delivered to the full House Appropriations Committee.

On June 13, the House Full Appropriations Committee approved the Agriculture Appropriations Bill. Essentially, special grants were reestablished without harming any of our national programs. Several specific funding lines saw modest increases, including sustainable agriculture and the rural development centers. An amendment to expand the Northeast Dairy Compact was withdrawn and an amendment addressing agro terrorism did not pass. An amendment to fund USDA promotion of biofuels was also voted down. Rep. Meek made an appeal to the committee to increase funding for land grant universities.

After the July 4th recess, the House passed the Agriculture Appropriations Bill on the floor. None of the amendments adversely affected the CSREES accounts. Congresswoman Eva Clayton had prepared several amendments; one was to increase 1890 formula funds, using the NRI as an offset. Clayton withdrew the amendment after Agriculture Appropriations Chairman Bonilla (R-TX) provided assurances that he would work with her on this issue through the conference process.

Letters were requested from Deans and Directors in key states to support the IFAFS/FRA programs, to increase the formula funds and to increase the NRI. Letters were gathered and delivered to Senator Kohl (D-WI) and Senator Cochran (R-MS). Discussions continued with the National C-FAR group. The Senate held a markup of the FY 2002 Agriculture Appropriations Bill on July 18. No date has been set for Senate floor action yet.

NASULGC Budget Development: The Board on Agriculture Budget Committee developed simplified documents to present the budget request. A one-page document was developed and made available at the CARET meetings. This document identifies the total increase that is proposed for USDA/CSREES. Four critical issue areas that warrant increased expenditures are identified as follows: Revitalizing Communities; Dependable Food Supply; Educated Workforce; and Environmental Balance. In addition to the single, one-page brief, individual single page briefs were developed for each of the four areas, however, without a budget figure for each. The approach is similar to that used by NSF, i.e., one budget figure and several targeted areas for the new funding. The goal is to develop teams of CARET members working with a "champion" in the House or Senate to promote one of the four targeted areas. The March CARET meeting was a workshop to develop the approach and identify people to make up the teams. The following team leaders have been committed: Revitalizing Communities - Tom Payne; Dependable Food Supply&nbsp- Ed Hiler and Reg Gomes; Educated Workforce - Larry Cote; Environmental Balance - Bobby Moser.

During the recent ESCOP Executive Committee meeting, David MacKenzie noted the need for an accountability mechanism. Discussions regarding budget activities resulted in the need for a strategy for moving forward and recognition that timeliness is critical. It was also stressed that increases must be targeted. To facilitate this direction, the following proposal was presented by Colin Kaltenbach and approved:

Formula Funds Accountability

: Develop a method to expend new formula funds (Hatch, Smith-Lever, and 1890 R/E funds) which clearly demonstrates the following characteristics:

· Financial tracking on budgeting and expenditures
· Stakeholder input
· Integrated activities
· Potentially multi-state

Proposal: Develop Hatch MAP (Multiple Activity Program) in each of the four program areas identified by the budget committee.
· Environmental Balance
· Secure and Dependable Food Supply
· Community Opportunities
· Invest in an Educated Work Force

Who: ESCOP Task Force on New Formula Fund Programs composed of one representative of each region plus the five Executive Directors (ED), utilizing Multistate Research Committee (MRC) chairs for input. The Task Force process would be as follows:

1. Each ED developed the concept of a MAP in each of the four areas (total of 20 MAPs);
2. Task Force reviewed and modified the 20 descriptions (using the MRCs);
3. Task Force shared with ESCOP and Extension Directors for potential adoption as framework;
4. The MAPs will be used to demonstrate how new Hatch and 1890 research money would be spent.

The Farm Bill Task Force Report: The Task Force has been appointed by Tom Fretz, Maryland, and is similar to the 1998 group but with an expanded charge. The decision was made to look broadly on the total portfolio and not just the Research and Education Title. The Task Force decided to review the existing Farm Bill and look at opportunities for our system and handle technical corrections through the appropriate mechanisms.

A working group, which is a subset of the Task Force, was asked to develop a "white paper" to serve as a starting point for our deliberations.

Stan Johnson, Iowa, led the working group and developed a paper, which attempts to put in perspective the various titles in the existing bill and the respective funding mechanisms. At present, the final draft of the white paper has undergone an extensive number of reviews. Key leaders have been contacted to flesh out and provide details on each of the titles in the white paper.

Milo Shult, Arkansas, on behalf of the Board on Agriculture, put together a "white paper" which was presented at the CFERR session during the NASULGC Annual Meeting. The most recent draft of the "white paper" will be distributed during the ESCOP July meeting.

David Chicoine testified at a Senate Agriculture Committee on the Research/Extension Title on behalf of the Board on Agriculture. Sam Curl testified before the House Agriculture Conservation Subcommittee when they held a hearing on the research, extension, and education title. The turnover in the leadership in the Senate has confused the timing of the Farm Bill debates. It is expected that the Senate may start drafting in the Fall. The House has proceeded with developing a bill, with will likely be marked up on July 26th and reported out of Committee by August 2nd. Because of the accelerated schedule in the House, AESOP has developed draft legislative language based on the priorities identified in developing the "white papers." This language has been discussed with Congressional staff and discussed at the recent Western and North Central regional meetings. ESCOP was represented by Dr. Charles Scifres at the public workshop on May 22-23, 2001 hosted by the Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources of the NRC. A committee chaired by Frank Loew "conducted Opportunities in Agriculture, a study to evaluate the quality, relevance and effectiveness of the research, education, and extension activities of the ARS, CSREES, ERS and NAS."

In the first outline of House Farm Bill, the House extended the authorization of the IFAFS program at $94 million a year, which is lower than the current level of $120 million a year. In the second draft, the House increased IFAF Funding to $120 million a year. In the Committee mark-up, Congressman Dooley (D-CA) and Congressman Osborne (R-NB) offered amendments to bill to increase funding for research, extension and education. By the end of these efforts, IFAFS was increased to $140 million a year. The Fund for Rural America was not reauthorized. A number of provisions proposed by the NASULGC Farm Bill Task Force were included in the language passed by the House Committee. The House planned to take the Farm Bill to the floor the week of September 10th, but the attacks in New York and Washington have pre-empted these discussions. There were already questions being raised as to whether the Farm Bill could be passed on the Floor and there is increasing speculation that the bill will be deferred until next year.


Senate Agriculture Committee staff began working on drafting Farm Bill language over the August recess. AESOP has met with majority and minority staff to review our Task Force proposals. Again, recent events may delay action in the Senate. Plans for moving the Farm Bill forward, or not, may become more clear in the coming several weeks.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: As reported in the agenda brief..

Agenda Item: 6.3
Agenda Item Title: Farm Bill Task Force
Presenter: Tom Payne

Please refer to "Agenda Item 6.2: FY02 Budget and Legislative Committee" for the Farm Bill Task Force report.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: As reported in the agenda brief.

Agenda Item: 7.0
Agenda Item Title: Survey on Indirect Costs in the NCRA Experiment Stations
Presenter: Steven Slack

At the summer meeting, it was agreed that a committee consisting of Steven Slack, Randy Woodson, Wendy Wintersteen, and Phil Larsen would put together a survey on indirect costs and report back at the Coeur d'Alene meeting. A survey was developed and distributed to all 12 NCRA institutions. Results will be shared and discussed at the meeting. Survey development, distribution and data collection were handled through the NCRA office.

Action requested: Mostly informational. Two possible actions are 1) Advocate that the IDC on USDA grants should be the same as for other federal agencies and 2) Decide on whether or not further discussions on guidelines on IPR with commodity groups are warranted.Action Taken: Steve Slack reviewed the IDC Survey. Tom Helms is organizing a session for Monday at the NASULGC meeting on Intellectual Property and Commodity Groups. It was suggested that this topic be considered as a topic for the March NCRA meeting. Furthermore, the ad hoc Committee on IDC should consider Steve Pueppke's offer to assist because of UIUC's project by a Professor in the Law School on intellectual property in agriculture. Margaret Dentine inquired if others were in the process of negotiating contracts with the ARS Midwest Office for scientists on campus. Apparently there are issues now arising on tuition for graduate students. Margaret will keep others informed of their situation. Daryl was authorized to share the survey results with the other EDs.

Survey on Indirect Costs within
North Central Region Agricultural Experiment Stations

1. Current indirect cost rate for funds from the following sources:

. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) Medium Mean
NIH (MTDC)a 45.5 45 53 48 45 46.5 48.5 47 46 50 41 42.5 45.5 46.50
NSF (MTDC) 45.5 45 53 48 45 46.5 48.5 46 46 50 41 42.5 45.5 46.42
DOE (MTDC) 45.5 45 53 48 45 46.5 48.5 46 46 50 41 42.5 45.5 46.42
DOD (MTDC) 45.5 45 53 48 45 46.5 48.5 46 46 50 n/a 42.5 45.5 46.91
EPA (MTDC) 45.5 45 53 48 45 46.5 48.5 46 46 50 41 42.5 45.5 46.42
NRI (TFFA)b, c 19.0 19 19 19 19 19 19.0 19 19 19 19 19.0 19.0 19.00
IFAFS (TFFA)b, c 19.0 19 19 19 19 19 19.0 19 19 19 19 19.0 19.0 19.00
Industry Contracts 45.5 45 53 48 (15% for testing activities) 45 46.5 0 46 0 to 46 50 41 42.5 45.5 42.38
Foundation Contracts 45.5 45 10 0-48 45 46.5 0 46 0 Sponsor Guidelines n/a 0 . .
Gifts 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 n/a 0 . .
Commodity Groups 45.5 45 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 Sponsor Guidelines n/a 0 . .
State Agencies 0-15% Varies - 23.5 max. 10 20 10 0 0 47 0 to 10 Sponsor Guidelines . Varies . .
Other . . . . . 46.5 . . City & County govt. 0 to10%; Comm. groups 0 to 10% 0 n/a ARS - 0-10 . .

aMTDC - Modified Total Direct Costs - Consisting of all salaries and wages, fringe benefits, materials, supplies, services, travel and subgrants and subcontracts up to the first $25,000 of each subgrant or subcontract (regardless of the period covered by the subgrant or subcontract). Modified total direct costs shall exclude equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, tuition remission, rental costs of off-site facilities, scholarships, and fellowships as well as the portion of each subgrant and subcontract in excess of $25,000.

bTFFA - Total Federal Funds Available

cIf the indirect cost is calculated as a percentage of direct cost, then the nominal indirect cost rate is 23.45%.

Explanatory notes:
These are the nominal indirect cost rates associated with these sources of grants and gifts. For gifts, if there is a charge associated with handling the money as it is expended, record that as an indirect cost. If industry contracts have a differential indirect cost rate dependent on access to intellectual property, please specify both rates.

"A" - Note these are figured on slightly different basis. Off-campus rate is 26%.

"J" - The above rates are the University approved rates for on-campus research. If some or all of the project is to be conducted at an off-campus site in facilities not owned or leased and operated by the University or an affiliate, off-campus rates should be used. Off-campus rate is 26%. If sponsor regulations limit F&A cost reimbursement, the situation is discussed with Sponsored Program Services to see if the rate will be accepted or the department will be required to cost share.

"I" - If an individual or company gives a `gift' to the Foundation there is a 4% handling charge. If an individual or company gives an `unrestricted gift' that goes through our grants and contracts office, there is no charge. Currently we are working to define the appropriate indirect cost rate for public service. This discussion will clarify how certain public service industry grants are handled (insecticide efficacy trials, for example) as well as city and county governments and community groups.

2. The indirect cost rate for USDA competitive grants should be the same as for NIH, NSF and similar federal agencies
. Yes 10 No 1

"I" - However, we are concerned about charging the same indirect for extension and outreach and teaching programs.

"K" - Consensus not reached. The dean supports USDA competitive grant rate match to other federal agencies if there is additional money added to the program.

3. The indirect cost rate on USDA competitive grants should be changed to match other federal agency rates under the following conditions:

Regardless of level of total funding for the program - Yes 5 No 3

Only if there is additional money added to the program - Yes 6 No 2

"K" - Consensus not reached. The dean supports USDA competitive grant rate match to other federal agencies if there is additional money added to the program.

4. For grants which have less than full indirect costs, is there a charge to the college or Experiment Station for graduate student tuition and/or fees? Yes 3 No 9

If yes, please explain the specific details of the charges:

"A" - All grants, regardless of indirect costs, are charged 25% graduate tuition remission charges.

"E" - These are charged as a direct cost to the project.

"H" - If less than full ICR (47.5%), full tuition and fees will be charged.

"I" - However, the Experiment Station pays about $1 million dollars in various utility and administrative charges for on-campus programs. This charge does not include what we pay to manage our outlying research stations.

5. For support from commodity groups (state based or national), is there a special arrangement regarding intellectual property (e.g., shared ownership, right to use the information generated in state industries, etc.)?
Yes 5 No 7

If yes, please explain the specifics details of the arrangements:

"A" - But local interests are considered in patent licensing and variety distributions.

"B" - This varies slightly by each agency but generally speaking the ownership of any patents, other proprietary intellectual property of any nature, or copy rights resulting from information, processes or inventions developed as a result of the research or investigation which is the subject matter of an agreement shall be owned by the University. Also any funds generated shall be shared at a specified rate with the agency.

"D" - 50% royalty share to academic units placed in indicated research fund.

"E" - The university owns the intellectual property, but commodity groups can share in licensing income if they sponsored research resulting in intellectual property.

"F" - Currently, since check-offs do not pay overhead, there is no sharing of IP. Soybeans is seeking IP sharing.

"G" - No, but many of our commodity groups are currently discussing this issue with us.

"H" - There is no set policy but we have negotiated deals with two commodity groups recently and expect more in the future. Basic element is 5% of licensing income.

"I" - We are in the process of finalizing agreements with the Corn Promotion Board, the Soybean Promotion Board and the United Soybean Board. The agreements contain the following key points: 1) The university retains title to all discoveries. 2) Except for plant varieties and germplasm for which the University Research Foundation, Inc. shall be the sole licensor, the COMMODITY BOARD shall have the option of obtaining a royalty-bearing license to practice or use the discoveries resulting from this Agreement from XXXX. This option must be exercised by the COMMODITY BOARD in writing within sixty (60) days of receipt of an invention disclosure from XXXX. Only exclusive licenses will convey the right to sublicense and will require that the COMMODITY BOARD refund XXXX for all patent costs. In the event that the COMMODITY BOARD and the university mutually agree that it would be in their best interests for the university to grant an exclusive license to a third party for a specific discovery, the COMMODITY BOARD will assign its license rights to the university.

"J" - Intellectual property is handled the same as with other entities.

"L: - Sharing of intellectual property, varies among the groups from no sharing to negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

Agenda Item: 8.0
Agenda Item Title: Nominations Committee Report
Presenter: Dale Vanderholm and Margaret Dentine

NCRA Chair - Ian Gray
NCRA Chair-elect - Phil Larsen
Multistate Research Committee
Terms ending 2003
Gary Lemme (Chair 2001-2002)
Virginia Clark Johnson

Terms ending 2002
Ian Gray
Steve Pueppke

Terms ending 2004
Margaret Dentine

Nominating Committee
Term ending 2002
Phil Larsen (Chair 2001-2002)

Term ending 2004
Marjorie Kostelnik

ESCOP Planning Committee - John Gardner, MO
ESCOP Budget /Legislative Committee - Steve Slack
ESCOP Advocacy and Marketing Committee - Wendy Wintersteen

Administrative Advisor Changes

 . Past Advisor New Advisor
NC-503 G. Ham, KS F. Chumley, KS
NC-1003 C. Gustafson, ND J. Venette, ND
NCR-9 C. Gustafson, ND J. Venette, ND
NCR-170 C. Gustafson, ND J. Venette, ND
NCT-188 J. Gray, MI J. A. Schmitz, NE
NCT-190 C. Gustafson, ND M. Dentine, WI/J. Venette, ND
NRSP-6 R. Lower, WI P. Ludden, WI

Agenda Item: 9.0
Agenda Item Title: Resolutions
Presenter: Daryl Lund

A resolution was received from Kansas State University for Dr. George Ham prior to the meeting but will be presented at the March 2002 meeting.

Agenda Item: 11.0
Agenda Item Title: Summary and Review of Assignments
Presenter: Virginia Clark Johnson

1. An e-mail will be sent when the NIMSS is on-line and a training session will be held.
2. Daryl Lund will send out a ballot to the region regarding the NRSP proposal that was submitted and discussed by Tom Helms and also a vote for approving minutes and nominations as presented at this meeting as a quorum was not present.
3. Daryl Lund will provide more information regarding integrated activities to the Multistate Research Committee at its March 2002 meeting.
4. Indirect Cost Survey - Daryl Lund will share a copy of the survey with the other EDs. This will also be discussed further at the March 2002 meeting.