North Central Regional Association


State Agriculture Experiment Station Directors


189th Meeting

3 to 6 pm, Monday, September 27, 2010

Hilton Downtown Nashville

Room: McKissack 2




Last update: 10/04/2010



Agenda Item



3:00 pm


Call to Order

Doug Buhler, NCRA 2010 Chair



Adoption of the Agenda

Doug Buhler



Approval of the July 2010 Minutes

Doug Buhler



Executive Committee Report & Interim Actions of the Chair

Doug Buhler

3:05 pm


Executive Director's Report

5.1 Marketing Update


5.2 Changes to NIFA Accounting Rules for Multistate Projects.  For details please visit:


5.3 NCERA209's conversion to NCDC224 and NC_temp1188


5.4 Other Topics


  • NC Intellectual Property Committee (NCDC225)


Arlen Leholm

Joe Colletti


Bill Ravlin


Arlen Leholm

3:25 pm


Battelle Study Update Doug Buhler, Susan Fritz, Marc Linit

3:35 pm


Finalizing the new NCDC-Proposal Committee

Marc Linit, Doug Buhler

3:50 pm 8.0

Nominations Committee Report

8.1 Concurrence of Doug Buhler to serve as 2011 NCRA Chair


8.2 New NRSP Review Committee Representative


8.3 How to improve replacement of retiring AAs


Doug Buhler, Sarah Greening
4:00 pm 9.0 Rural Development Center Update Doug Buhler
4:10 pm 10.0 ARS Update JL Willett
4:25 pm 11.0 NIFA Update Meryl Broussard
4:40 pm 12.0 ESCOP Science and Technology Committee Update Bill Ravlin, Jozef Kokini
5:00 pm 13.0 Plan for Regional Sharing of Faculty Across State Lines: To be discussed further for MI's 2011 NC Mini-Land Grant Meeting, June 20-22. Doug Buhler, Marc Linit, All
5:20 pm 14.0 Resolutions Marc Linit
5:25 pm 15.0 Other Announcements All



Future Meetings (

  • November 14-16, 2010,APLU Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX

  • Joint CARET/AHS Meeting, February 27 - March 2, 2011

  • April 4-6, 2011, NCRA Spring Meeting, Embassy Suites Downtown, Indianapolis, IN

  • 2011 Mini-Land Grant Meeting, Michigan (probably near Detroit), June 20 - 22 Michigan

  • 2012 Mini-Land Grant Joint Meeting with NE Region

Arlen Leholm

5:30 pm 16.0 Special Invited Speaker: Trends in Bio Energy Research Steve Long, UIUC Energy Biosciences Institute Deputy Director

6:00 pm




Item 5.0: Executive Director's Report

Item 5.1:  ESCOP System Marketing Committee Update (Copy of Agenda Brief for ESS Business Meeting)

Presenters: Arlen Leholm, Bill Ravlin



(1)    The ESCOP System Communication and Marketing effort started its third year of operation in April of 2010.  At the July 2010 ESCOP meeting in Seattle, ESCOP voted unanimously to recommend to the Experiment Station Section that the ESCOP System Communication and Marketing effort be approved for a new three-year contract. The new $300,000 per year, three-year contract, with annual review, with The Podesta Group and Cornerstone, would become effective in April, 2011.  The assessment would continue as part of the APLU assessments in January, 2011.  The strategy for this effort was revised at the February 2010 ESCOP meeting (see below).

(2) Well placed OP ED articles are a key part of the System Communication and Marketing Committee strategy to better market the great research work of the Agricultural Experiment Stations in an effort to creatively make the case for more federal investments in capacity and competitive programs.  Here are links to the successful media placements the Podesta Group and Cornerstone were able to secure through our marketing campaign: 




See for example: Earmarks may fund vital research and Cost of cuts at land grant universities. Al Levine, Dean at Minnesota, is the author of the Politico placement and Mark R. McLellan, Dean and Director at Florida, is the author of the Farm Press placement.


Key to the success of the OP ED strategy is the willingness of ESS members to write OP EDs and the key contacts that the Podesta Group and Cornerstone have in placing the OP EDs in major media outlets. About 1 in 3 articles are able to be placed in these key media markets. A great deal of effort is involved in the placement of each article.

Another important component of this campaign is working at the local level to highlight for key Members of Congress and Congressional staff the innovative work that individual institutions are doing through competitive and capacity funded programs.  If you plan to host members and staff from your Congressional delegation in the near or distant future, please take a look at the attached document and contact John Scofield at the Podesta Group. This part of the campaign takes on special significance with the anticipated changes to appropriation committees after the fall elections. 


Best Practices for Congressional Visits document

(4) ESCOP System Communication and Marketing Plan: Evaluation and Metrics. A metrics document listing major accomplishments is in the link below:

(5) At the Joint COPs meeting John Scofield of the Podesta Group and Hunt Shipman of Cornerstone described key communications and marketing opportunities for the future.  An example includes the relevant op ed placement during Child Obesity Awareness Month in September.

ESCOP Actions on System Committee Recommendations from February 22 Meeting in Washington, DC

The System Communication and Marketing Committee met on Sunday February 21 in Washington DC during the CARET meetings.
The context for this meeting:  The February 21 meeting was a time for ESCOP to "reset its marketing efforts". The System Committee has functioned since January 2008. ESCOP voted in the fall of 2007 to assess itself $300,000 per year for three years. A contract with the Podesta Group and Cornerstone was put in place in April of 2008. Year three of this effort started in April of 2010. 
ESCOP discussed how/where to focus its Marketing Strategy for the most impact and how to organize the System Committee for year three without Extension's involvement.
The core strategy for the first two years of the communication and marketing effort has included:

Recommendations from the System Communication and Marketing Committee:

Restructuring Recommendations for System Committee

On February 22, ESCOP approved the recommendations of the System Communication and Marketing Committee and, additionally: 

Continuing Members
Gerald Arkin, Associate Director, University of Georgia, and Committee Chair
Wendy Wintersteen, Dean and Director, Iowa State University
Al Levine, Dean, University of Minnesota
Ian Maw, VP, Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources, APLU
Arlen Leholm, Carolyn Brooks and Mike Harrington, ED staff to committee

New Members:
Stephen Herbert, Director, Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station
Michael Hoffmann, Director, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station
Nancy Cox, Associate Dean for Research; Director Animal Physiology, University of Kentucky
Mark Hussey, Vice Chancellor and Dean of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Texas A&M
Makola Abdullah at Florida A&M University
Marvin Burns at Langston University. 

Returning Members:
Bill Ravlin, Associate Director, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University
Mary Duryea, Associate Dean for Research and Associate Director Reforestation and Urban Forestry, University of Florida
Ron Pardini, Associate Director & Interim Dean, College of Agriculture, Biotech & Natural Resources, University of Nevada

Colin Kaltenbach, Vice Dean, College of Agriculture-Life Sciences and Director of Experiment Station, University of Arizona


Wendy Wintersteen's presentation in support of the marketing effort (shown during 9/28/2010 ESS business meeting):


Action Items (ESS Meeting Only):


ESS approval to continue the ESCOP System Communication and Marketing effort beyond the first year three-year contract. The new $300,000 per year, three-year contract, with annual review, with The Podesta Group and Cornerstone, will become effective in April, 2011.  The assessment would continue as part of the APLU assessments in January, 2011.

A vote to continue the ESCOP System Communication and Marketing effort will take place during the ESS/ARD Business meeting September 28

                     Action Requested: None; for NCRA information only.


Item 5.2: Changes to NIFA Accounting Rules for Multistate Projects

Presenters: Joe Colletti, Arlen Leholm

September 22, 2010


TO:         NC Experiment Station Directors


FR:          Arlen Leholm in coordination with Robin Shepard


SUBJECT:             Interim Administrative Guidance for Multistate Extension Activities and

Integrated Research and Extension Activities.


*Later portions of this memo include next steps and approaches.


The Interim Administrative Guidance has been related to NIFA pertaining to Multistate Extension Activities and Integrated Research and Extension Activities.  On September 1st NIFA staff facilitated a conference call that was attended by some of you, and/or your State’s Business/Fiscal Officer regarding the proposed changes. Joe Colletti bought attention to the significance of this issue.

 One of the most critical issues is in reference to commingling of funds.  In the new drawdown system (ASAP), the states will receive their allocations each fiscal year, in a unique federal account.  [The following points below represent comments from Dan Malacara (Wisconsin) and Brian McClain (Ohio State).]

 The Interim guidance states, 

"Form NIFA–REPT (Rev. 07/2010), Supplement to the Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results, Multistate Extension Activities and Integrated Activities, will be due on April 1st each year and must be submitted as a summary of the multistate extension planned programs or activities that have been used to satisfy the requirements of AREERA section 105.  

The form has been designed so that each institution will submit only one form with attached brief summaries for each fiscal year. The form allows for the reporting on all three AREERA requirements: Hatch integrated; Smith-Lever multistate; and Smith-Lever integrated and includes a certification statement. One form should be submitted for each fiscal year; and current fiscal year funds should not be commingled with funds from prior fiscal years.

 If institutions carrying over AREERA multistate and integrated requirements from a previous fiscal year and both requirements are satisfied in a later fiscal year, the Form NIFA–REPT (Rev. 07/2010) should be marked ‘‘Final’’ for that fiscal year. If you are carrying over these AREERA requirements into the next fiscal year, the Form NIFA–REPT (Rev. 07/2010) should be marked ‘‘Interim’’ for that fiscal year in which the funds were first allocated."

 Critical issues exist with the commingling reference in the guidance that targets annual reporting of expenditure activity to NIFA and/or the internal management of the funds at individual institutions.

 If the interpretation is that we must create new fund numbers in our accounting system for every individual fiscal year, the impact is substantial. We will literally have to process hundreds of payroll transactions twice per year, once at the beginning of the federal fiscal year and again at the beginning of our state fiscal year to satisfy that expectation.  

In response to this concern, several financial officers discussed with Ellen Danus (NIFA) that it would be beneficial if future AREERA Guidance and A-133 AREERA Audit Guidance language specifically deleted the commingling language and stated acceptance of (shadow-type) spreadsheet systems to track AREERA expenditures by fiscal year.   Danus stated these comments would be very important to share with the agency as part of the federal comment period that ends October 12th.   Danus further stated that more letters on the topic would be more beneficial than just a few. 

We will have an opportunity to discuss this issue during our NCRA meeting in Nashville. It is recommended that each state consider writing an individual comment letter addressing the follow issues (and others were appropriate).  

·         We recognize the need to report current federal fiscal year expenditures and related ARRERA activities against the current federal fiscal year allocation.  The NIFA-REPT form, as well as forms SF269's, SF425's and ASAP drawdown system will reflect this expectation.  We respectfully request accounting for AREERA expenditures continue through spreadsheets and databases, that track activity.  This manual accounting does reconcile back to main accounting systems, and it allows us to track AREERA expenditures by fiscal year and content area. 

·         We do not believe it was intentional for the guidance to substantially change current accounting practices of our universities.  Should the guidance be interpreted to mean we are required to establish unique accounts within the main accounting system, it would be an administrative burden; requiring substantial additional staff time to create and close out accounts two times for each state fiscal year. 

·         It is important that the A-133 Smith-Lever and Hatch Act Audit Supplements reflect the flexibility of the states to continue to manually track AREERA expenditures; and have those systems be a part of an AREERA audit. 

 * The above bulleted points were developed by the Financial/Business Officers in our region.

As a reminder, you may want to follow up directly with your Finance/Business Officer about additional comments and concerns to include in a state letter of your own

Action Requested:  Experiment Stations should respond to NIFA about this issue by October 12, 2010.

Item 5.3:  NCERA209's Conversion to NCDC224 and NC_temp1188.

Presenter: Bill Ravlin

NCERA209 was terminated due to a complete change in the project's objectives.  The group formed NCDC224 as the writing committee and recently submitted a new NCERA proposal (NC_temp1188) for review this cycle by the NCRA.


Item 5.4: Other Topics

Presenter: Arlen Leholm

Action requested:  None; for information only.

Back to Top

Item 6.0: Battelle Study Update

Presenter: Doug Buhler


The Battelle Study will go forward.  A one day fly-in meeting is scheduled for 11/12/2010 from 12 to 3 pm in Chicago.


Action requested:  None; for information only.


Item 7.0: Finalizing the New NCDC-Proposal Committee

Presenter: Marc Linit, Doug Buhler


Updates to NCRA Expectations Document:




Committee Types and Descriptions


Multistate Research Projects (NC-type Projects): The membership of a Multistate Research Project is called the technical committee, and is made up of SAES scientists, an AA, CSREES representative, other public and private sector scientists, and as applicable, extension specialists and/or extension agents. This type of activity involves cooperative, jointly planned research employing multidisciplinary approaches in which a SAES, working with other SAESs, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), or a college or university, cooperates to solve problems that concern more than one state and usually more than one region. In addition, the following must be demonstrated in the project proposal:


1. The objectives are clearly focused.


2. Each participant listed has direct involvement in the accomplishment of the stated objectives.


3. The project is multistate and multidisciplinary


4. The project proposal has been peer-reviewed.


5. The proposed project is oriented toward accomplishment of specific outcomes and impacts and based on priorities developed from stakeholder input.


6. There is a clear intent to leverage multistate funds with extramural grant activities.


7. The project is responsive to CSREES goals.


NC Projects: The "engine" of the multistate research program is the collection of supported, technical committees. In the North Central Region, these are referred to as NC committees and the associated projects as NC projects. The guidelines and criteria for NC projects are described in the Prioritization Process document (NCRA Guidelines Appendix A-1). Projects are reviewed, in most cases, every five years with a midterm review within the third year of existence. SAES-422 Annual Reports are due within 60 days of an annual meeting.



Multistate Research Coordinating Committees (CC) and Education/Extension and Research Activity (ERA): The membership of a CC or an ERA is made up of an AA, CSREES representative, scientists, and as applicable, extension specialists and/or extension agents. A CC or ERA provides opportunity for scientists, specialists, and others to work cooperatively to solve problems that concern more than one state, share research data, and coordinate research and other types of activities. This is presently one of the most common mechanisms for functionally integrated activities such as the regional IPM programs. These activities are reviewed and approved by the sponsoring regional association. The steps for development and approval of Multistate Research CCs and ERAs are described in Appendix N of the NCRA Guidelines.


NCCC Committees: In the NCRA, CCs are referred to as NCCC Committees and provide a mechanism for addressing critical regional issues where multistate coordination or information exchange is appropriate within a function (i.e. research, education or extension); have expected outcomes; convey knowledge; and are peer reviewed. These activities are reviewed and approved by the sponsoring regional association. The duration of the committee can be up to five years. Membership of the committee is comprised of scientists appointed by participating state research and extension directors, as appropriate. There is one voting member per SAES, but participation by others is an option of each director. Meetings are held annually, with provisions for interim meetings upon authorization by the administrative advisor. SAES-422 Annual Reports are due within 60 days of an annual meeting.


NCERA Committees: In the NCRA, ERAs are referred to as NCERA Committees and serve to integrate education (academic and/or extension) and research on a particular topic where multistate coordination or information exchange is appropriate; have expected outcomes; convey knowledge; and are peer reviewed. The duration of the committee can be up to five years. Membership of the committee is comprised of scientists appointed by participating state research and extension directors, as appropriate. There is one voting member per SAES, but participation by others is an option of each director. Meetings are held annually, with provisions for interim meetings upon authorization by the administrative advisor. SAES-422 Annual Reports are due within 60 days of an annual meeting.


National Research Support Projects (NRSP): NRSPs are made up of four AAs (one appointed from each SAES regional association), a CSREES representative, and scientists from SAES and elsewhere, as appropriate. This type of activity focuses on the development of enabling technologies, support activities (such as to collect, assemble, store, and distribute materials, resources and information), or the sharing of facilities needed to accomplish high priority research, but which is not of itself primarily research. NRSPs are eligible for off-the-top funding. SAES-422 Annual Reports are due within 60 days of an annual meeting. Specific guidelines for NRSPs have been adopted and may be found at the following website:


Development Committees (NCDC):

NCDC - Regular:  Scientist from two or more states may initiate a proposal for a development committee with concurrence of two or more SAES directors. The duration of the committee is one to two years. These committees generally are charged to prepare a justification and a proposal outline for a new multistate activity. Membership of the committee is comprised of an AA appointed by the chair of the regional association and scientists appointed by participating state research and extension directors, as appropriate. SAES-422 Annual Reports are due within 60 days of an annual meeting.


NCDC – Proposal:  An NCDC-Proposal serves as a platform for development of a multi-state or regional competitive grant proposal for submission to AFRI, NSF, NIH or other programs.  Establishment of the committee needs the concurrence of three or more SAES directors and has duration of not more than two years.  Membership of the committee is comprised of an AA, preferably the director from the lead institution on the proposal team, and scientists who intend to collaborate on development of the competitive grant proposal. The committee must have representation from three or more states working collaboratively of the grant proposal.  The expected outcome is a grant proposal submitted to a regional or national competitive program involving collaboration among three or more states with a minimum budget of $1M per year.  Should the committee not reach consensus on the development of a regional proposal, a summary report of activities is expected in lieu of the proposal.  The committee chair is expected to submit a copy of the submitted proposal or the summary of activities to the MRC within 30 days after the grant program due date.  A proposal submission or summary report would terminate the committee.  Committee activities could be extended beyond the normal two-year period if the submitted proposal was not funded but received good reviews and encouragement for resubmission.  Grant proposals and their reviews should be submitted to the MRC for renewal consideration.

Meetings will be held as needed to support the development of the proposal.  The NCRA office would assist the committee in scheduling meetings, conference calls, etc.  A host institution would take responsibility for local arrangements of meetings.  Each state AES represented on the committee is expected to cover the travel cost of its representative(s) to the committee meeting.  Costs associated with travel to committee meetings, meeting support and proposal are allowable multi-state Hatch expenditures.

Rapid Response Research Activity: The purpose of rapid response research (Series-500/ NC-500) activities is to provide a mechanism to assure responsiveness to acute crises, emergencies, and opportunities using the multistate research approach and MRF. Activities may range from formally organized research on targeted objectives to very informal research coordination or information exchange activity, depending on the circumstances. To create a rapid response activity, directors from two or more SAES must agree to form the activity. The proposal is a report of intent which is submitted to the regional association's chair (usually through the ED's office). The Chair of the regional association approves the project and serves as the AA to the project or assigns that responsibility to another director. Neither CSREES nor regional association approval is required. If CSREES does not respond within five working days, the project will be approved. It would not require review by either the appropriate North Central Administrative Committee (NCAC, a committee of department heads/chairs) or the NCRA. The technical committee for a Rapid Response Research activity is made up of an AA, CSREES representative, research scientists, and as applicable, extension specialists and/or extension agents. These activities have two years from the date of initiation to convert to an association sanctioned activity; thus, the technical committee has the option, at a later date, to obtain approval as a multistate research project or other multistate research activity, through normal procedures. SAES-422 Annual Reports are due within 60 days of an annual meeting.


Expectations for Successful NCRA Projects

In recent years, MRC deliberations have placed a greater emphasis on accountability. The “bar has been raised” on several different levels. Each year, the MRC members can plainly see the committees that stand out as “model projects.”


• When the MRC approves a proposal, it typically has higher writing quality as compared to those that require revision or that the MRC denies. These proposals clearly and concisely state the importance of the research. The committee must address ALL PROPOSAL SECTIONS!


• The Multistate Research Committee requires that projects submit SAES-422 Annual Reports within 60 days of the annual meeting. The AA may not authorize subsequent annual meetings without this annual report.  In lieu of the SAES-422, NCDC - Proposal Projects are required to submit a copy of the completed grant proposal submitted as an outcome of their effort.  If no proposal was submitted the committee chair is to submit a summary of activities.  Either the proposal or the summary of activities is to be submitted to the MRC within 30 days of the grant program due date.


• On a national level, the MRC examines internal and external indicators of interaction and linkage among participants and stakeholders. The MRC identifies linkages by asking the following questions:


o        Is there evidence of the interaction among committee participants and with other projects/agencies? A list of relevant joint publications, grant proposals, conferences organized, and meetings can serve to illustrate the degree to which interaction occurs.


o        Is there evidence of delivering accomplishments to peer groups, stakeholders, clientele, and other multistate activities? For example, committee results delivered at workshops, scientific conferences, and publications.


o        Is there evidence of collaboration (collective interactive activity) among the committee members? Evidence for collaborative activities could include attendance at multistate meetings and demonstrated accomplishments resulting from meetings and planning activities.


o        Has the committee moved beyond a collection of individual activities and ideas to some collective, integrated activity? Provide evidence of synergy, collaborative output via joint publicity, specific coordinated activity, etc.


• Committees must demonstrate why a multistate project will succeed where an individual project cannot.


• Proposals must clearly state the role of each participating station.


• Other factors taken into account by the MRC:


1. Outputs: Defined products (tangible or intangible) delivered by a research project. Examples of outputs are reports, data, information, observations, publications, and patents


2. Impacts: Actual or intended potential long-term outcomes and impacts. Committees should build information around the activity's milestones, as identified in the original proposal. The report should also reflect on the items that stakeholders want to know, or want to see. List any grants, contracts, and/or other resources obtained by one or more project members as a result of the project's activities. Include the recipients, funding source, amount awarded and term if applicable. If the committee is filing an annual report, the impacts will cover only the current year of the project; for termination reports, list impacts from the entire span of the project. To aid in understanding the “accomplishment” description, the MRC offers these additional definitions:


Additional Definitions of "Impact":

·         “The economic, social, health or environmental consequences derived as benefits for the intended users. These are usually quantitatively measured either directly or indirectly as indicators of benefits.” Source: National Multistate Guidelines – Glossary. For example, “NC1007 research on food animal diarrheal diseases has improved understanding of the pathogenic mechanisms used by these pathogens. This allows for novel intervention strategy development to reduce individual animal infections and to control environmental contamination.” Source: NC1007 Impact Nugget.


·         “The quantifiable difference a land-grant program makes in the quality of life for its clients and general citizenry.’ Supplementing that brief statement is also the definition of an impact statement: “A brief document that describes the social, environmental, and/or economic difference that your research, teaching, or extension efforts have made on the public. Specifically, it states your accomplishments and the payoff to society.” Source: National Impact Statement Writing Team


·         Activities: Organized and specific functions or duties carried out by individuals or teams using scientific methods to reveal new knowledge and develop new understanding.


·         Milestones: Key intermediate targets necessary for achieving and/or delivering the outputs of a project, within an agreed timeframe. Milestones are useful for managing complex projects. For example, a milestone for a biotechnology project might be "To reduce our genetic transformation procedures to practice by December 2010."


·         Indicators: Qualitative surrogate observations or indirect measures of quantitative performance measures which permit monitoring the achievement of outcomes when direct measurement of performance is difficult, too costly, or not possible. An indicator of cultivar adoption might be seed certification records, rather than actual land area planted to that cultivar. Has the committee made quantitative impacts?


3. Progress since the midterm review based on outputs, impacts and milestones.


4. Objectives: Clear, concise, attainable one-sentence statements for each researchable objective arranged in a logical sequence. Include only objectives on which the committee can make significant progress during the life of the project with the resources committed. Do not specify the exchange of information, the coordination of research, the development of standardized techniques, or joint publication as objectives, as these are to be organized under other types of activities.


5. Timelines and benchmarks to gauge success must be evident in the proposal.


6. Participation: Proposal must include participants with sufficient expertise and geographical distribution to adequately address the objectives.


7. Outreach/Technology Transfer: Proposals must document stakeholder involvement.


8. The committee must write a title clearly, concisely and in lay language.


9. The committee must demonstrate a complete CRIS search to ensure no overlap with other committees both regionally and nationally.



Action Requested:  Approval of the new NCDC-Proposal committee type, addition of the new committee type into the Expectations document and the NCRA Multistate Research Guidelines


Action Taken: Approved NCDC-Proposal Committee.  This committee type will be reviewed and changed as needed by the NCRA.


Back to Top

Item 8.0: Nominations Committee Report

Presenters:  Doug Buhler and Sarah Greening

    Item 8.1: (Action Item) Concurrence of Doug Buhler as 2011 NCRA Chair to replace John Kirby, see new FY 2011 Officer List:




2011 Officers and Committee Members

(Fiscal Year 2011 begins October 1, 2010)



D. Buhler, MI, Chair (10-11) (


Executive Committee:

D. Buhler, MI, Chair (09-11) (

M. Linit, MO, Chair-Elect (12) (

D. Benfield, OH, MRC Chair (11) (

A. Leholm, NCRA, Exec. Vice Chair (Perm) (


Multistate Research Committee (3-year term):

D. Benfield, OH, Chair (11) (

J. Kokini, IL, (12) (

M. Schmitt, MN, (13) (

E. Minton, KS (14) (

 A. Leholm, Ex-Officio (


Resolutions Committee (3-year term):

M. Linit, MO, (09-11)


Nominating Committee (2-year term):

Sarah Greening, MN, (09-11) (

Doug Buhler, MI, (09-11) (


Committee on Legislation and Policy
S. Pueppke, NC Representative, MI (
A. Leholm, Ex officio, (


Rural Development Center Board (2-year term):

J. Baker, MI (perm, MSU rep), (

S. Fritz, NE, (10-12) (

J. Kokini, IL, (10-12) (


NRSP Review Committee Representative (NCRA):

A. Ponce de Leon, MN (


ESCOP (3-year term):

D. Buhler, MI, Chair (10-11) (

M. Linit, MO, NCRA Chair-Elect (12) (

D. Buhler, MI, NCRA Past Chair (10) (

A. Leholm, NCRA (Perm Alt) (


ESCOP Executive Committee:

D. Buhler, MI, NCRA Current/Past Chair (10) (

A. Leholm, NCRA (Perm Alt) (


ESCOP Chair's Advisory Committee:

A. Leholm, NCRA (Perm Alt) (


ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee:

S. Slack, OH (

J. Kirby, SD (


ESCOP Communications and Marketing Committee:

W. Wintersteen, IA (

W. Ravlin, IN (

A. Leholm, NCRA (Perm Alt) (


ESCOP Science and Technology Committee:

F.W. Ravlin, OH (

J. Kokini, IL (

A. Ponce de Leon, MN (


ESCOP Science and Technology Committee Social Science Sub-Committee:

C. Sigurdson, IN ( - Ag Communication

L. Nichols, SD ( - Human Sciences

F. Larry Leistritz, ND ( - Ag Econ

L. Busch, MI ( - Rural Sociology

R. Birkenholz, OH ( - Ag Education


ESCOP NIMSS Oversight Committee:

J. Colletti, IA (

F.W. Ravlin, OH (


North Central Bioeconomy Consortium

NCBEC Vice President, J. Colletti (


    Item 8.2Abel Ponce de Leon has kindly agreed to take over as NC rep to the NRSP Review Committee.


    Item 8.3:  Effective Replacement of Retiring AAs


            Number of AAs per State:   


            IL: 3

            IN: 10

            IA: 14

            KS: 6

            MI: 18

            MN: 13

            MO: 1

            NE: 5

            ND: 4

            OH: 17

            SD: 6

            WI: 7

            NCRA Office: 1 perm, 3 temp/vacant AA spots


            How other regions fill AA roles:

WAAESD (from communication with Harriet Sykes):  MRC and directors make suggestions.  For positions filled by department heads/chairs, the director also serves as a co-AA.  They also have a problem filling vacant AA positions.

SAAESD (from Donna Pearce):   Existing directors in that field are assigned when possible.  If not, new directors are assigned vacant projects.  This region does not have a problem with vacant AA positions.

NERA (from NERA Guidelines): Committees may be established and administrative advisors and other designees appointed at the will of the Northeastern Regional Association. Administrative Advisors to Multistate Research Projects and Multistate Coordinating Committees shall be named from among the membership of the Northeastern Regional Association.  This statement is from the NERA guidelines, but Rubie Mize has indicated in previous communications that AA positions are assigned to the retiring AA's station director.


Action requested:  Discuss and decide on a procedure for filling open AA roles and better balance the responsibilities throughout the region.  Please send Doug and Sarah ideas.  They will create a suggested formula for approval at a future meeting.


Back to Top

Item 9.0:  Michigan Rural Development Center Update

Presenter: Doug Buhler for John Baker


All year-one goals are on track with the exception of finding a permanent Center director.  Scott Loveridge was interviewed and approved.  We are still waiting to finalize his role.


Action requested: None; for information only.

Item 10.0: ARS Update

Presenter: J.L. Willett

***OSU ARS would like to thank the OSU staff for all their help and support following the Wooster tornado***

ARS report to NCRA Fall Meeting, September 27, 2010

 Midwest Area Office

Area Director: Larry Chandler

Associate AD: Harry Danforth

Assistant AD: JL Willett


o       ILLINOIS

o       National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria

o       Bacterial Food Borne Pathogens and Mycotoxins

o       Acting Research Leader Ken Bischoff,

o       Selection in approval process

o       Bio-Oils Research Unit

o       Acting Research Leader Mike Cotta

o       Vacancy announcement open through Oct. 27, 2010

o       Crop Bioprotection Research Unit

o       Acting Research Leader Mark Jackson

o       Interviews scheduled early October

o       Plant Polymer Research Unit

o       Acting Research Leader Sean Liu

o       Interviews scheduled in October


o       IOWA

o       National Animal Disease Center, Ames

o       Ruminant Diseases and Immunology Research Unit

o       Acting Research Leader Julia Ridpath

o       Vacancy announcement open through Sept. 30, 2010



o       Dairy Forage Research Center, Madison

o       New Research Unit Environmentally Integrated Dairy Management


Northern Plains Area Office 

Area Director:  Will Blackburn

Associate AD:  Michael (Mickey) McGuire 

·         NORTH  DAKOTA

o       Fargo: 

o       Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center

·         Animal Metabolism Agricultural Chemical Research Unit,

o       New Research Leader, David Smith.

o       Grand Forks

o       Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center,

·         Micronutrient absorption And Metabolism Research Unit,

o       New Research Leader, Matthew Picklo.

o       Mandan

o       Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, Natural Resources Management Research Unit,

·         Acting RL, David Archer. 

·         New RL Matt Sanderson selected; will start in November 

·         SOUTH DAKOTA

o       Brookings

o       North Central Agricultural Research Laboratory, Integrated Cropping Systems Research Unit,

·         Acting Research Leader, Walter Riedell.

·         New RL Sharon Papiernik selected, will start in September.

·         KANSAS

o       Manhattan:  New Center Name: Center for Grain and Animal Health Research

o       Arthropod Borne Animal Disease Research Unit (Laramie, WY).

·          Program and all Personnel have moved to Manhattan.

·         New RL selected; start date pending approval by undersecretary.


·         NEBRASKA

o       Clay Center

o       Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research.  New Center Director, E. John Pollak. 

·         Animal Health Research Unit,

o       Acting Research Leader, E. John Pollak

·         Environmental Management Research Unit,

o       New Research Leader, David Parker. 

·         Nutrition Research Unit,

o       New Research Leader, Harvey Freetly.


Action requested: None; for information only.


Back to Top

Item 11.0: NIFA Update


Meryl Broussard was unable to attend.

Catherine Woteki, Ph.D., Nominated for USDA Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics

Action requested: None; for information only.


Item 12.0: ESCOP Science and Technology Committee

Presenter: Bill Ravlin, Jozef Kokini


Action Taken: None; for information only.


Back to Top

Item 14.0: Resolutions

Presenter: Marc Linit, 2010 Resolutions Committee Chair



A Resolution of Appreciation to

Dr. John Kirby

Director of the South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station and Associate Dean of the

College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences at South Dakota State University



WHEREAS, John  Kirby has accepted a new position as Dean of the College of the Environment and Life Sciences and Director of the Agriculture Experiment Station at the University of Rhode Island; and


WHEREAS, John has had career experiences ranging from Airborne Voice Processing Specialist and Transportation Officer in the United States Air Force, to Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station in South Dakota; and


WHEREAS, Dr. Kirby received his B.A. and M.S. degrees in biology from the University of Nebraska-Omaha and completed his Ph.D. studies in 1990 at Oregon State University and did post-doctoral studies at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois; and


WHEREAS, Dr. Kirby held an appointment at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago and then moved to the University of Arkansas where he was director of the Campus Cell and Molecular Biology Program and the Campus DNA Sequencing and Gene Expression Laboratory; and


WHEREAS, John has served as a member of 42 Ph.D. and 25 M.S. committees including chair of four Ph.D. and six MS students and he has published frequently and impacted the knowledge base in several disciplines; and


WHEREAS,  John Kirby provided leadership to a phenomenal increase in the number and size of federally awarded competitive grants during his watch as Director of the South Dakota Experiment Station; and 


FURTHER, John contributed a witty sense of humor along with his keen mind to many North Central Multistate Projects; and  


THEREFORE, the NCRA hereby expresses its appreciation, respect and sincere thanks to John Kirby for his dedication, leadership, and his impact on advancing Agricultural and Life Sciences in South Dakota and throughout the USA.



Action Requested:  Acceptance of this resolution

Action Taken: Resolution accepted



Back to Top