MINUTES

Agenda
North Central Regional Association of
State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors
One Hundred Fifty-Ninth Meeting
September 28, 2000
New Orleans, Louisiana


1.0 Call to Order and Introductions - Virginia Clark*
Present: Eldon Ortman, Indiana; Gerald Klonglan, Iowa; George Ham, Kansas; Jan Bokemeier, Ian Gray, Gary Lemme, Doreen Woodward, Michigan; Sarah Greening, Philip Larsen, Al Sullivan, Minnesota; Mike Chippendale, Missouri; Darrell Nelson, Dale Vanderholm, Nebraska; Virginia Clark, Cole Gustafson, North Dakota; John Allred, Steve Slack, Ohio; Fred Cholick, South Dakota; Margaret Dentine, Wisconsin; Colien Hefferan, USDA/CSREES; Daryl Lund, New York/Wisconsin; Madelyn Alt, Richard Lower, Executive Director's Office

2.0 Approval of July 2000 Minutes -Virginia Clark
Available at: http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/july2000.htm
The minutes were approved as submitted.

3.0 Adoption of Agenda - Virginia Clark
No additions were added to the agenda.

4.0 Executive Committee Report and Interim Actions of the Chair - Virginia Clark for Tom Payne

5.0 Executive Director's Report - Richard Lower

6.0 ESCOP Report - Fred Cholick

7.0 Multistate Research Committee - Virginia Clark
7.1 National Guidelines/Manual

8.0 Approval of Amended NCRA Rules of Operation - Virginia Clark
Available at: http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/ncrarules.htm

9.0 Regional IPM Development - Eldon Ortman

10.0 Umbrella Project Update - Gerald Klonglan

11.0 Nominations Committee Report - Dale Vanderholm/Margaret Dentine

12.0 Resolutions Committee - Cole Gustafson

13.0 Announcements

14.0 Summary and Review of Assignments - Virginia Clark

* Tom Payne will be participating in the BOA meeting in Washington, D.C.; Virginia Clark will begin her role as Chair of the NCRA.


Agenda Item: 4.0
Presenter: Virginia Clark for Tom Payne
Agenda Item Title: Executive Committee Report and Interim Actions of the Chair
Background Information:

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: No action necessary. A discussion was held on why Form 1022 is required at CSREES at the end of September listing regional projects and projected spending. Colien Hefferan will follow-through on this since the directors feel CSREES receives this information later in the year.




Agenda Item: 5.0
Presenter: Richard Lower
Agenda Item Title: Executive Director's Report
Background Information:

The Executive Director (ED) attended the following:
The ED will also attend the following:
The NCRA office has spent considerable time and effort on the following committee activities: the Science and Technology and Budget and Legislative Core Committees, the ad hoc committee on multistate research guidelines, the development of NRSP guidelines and Plan of Work related questions. The office has also organized and conducted numerous teleconferences since the July meeting. Our new, approved NC projects have all been authorized by CSREES. The NC-502 project on a new soy pest has been forwarded to CSREES and considered authorized as the five working day response period has passed and we have not heard from CSREES.

Action Requested: We encourage you to review the NERA website for paperless management [http://www.agnr.umd.edu/userforms/nera/index.html]. It is under construction, but serves as the model for multistate research and is likely to be accepted by other regions.

Action Taken: Information only.

Colien Hefferan indicated:

Agenda Item: 6.0
Presenter: Fred A. Cholick
Agenda Item Title: ESCOP Report
Background Information:

ESCOP and a joint meeting of ESCOP/ECOP/ACOP/ICOP/AHS was held August 7-9, 2000, in Denver, CO. A complete agenda and minutes for the ESCOP meeting can be found at www.escop.msstate.edu/minutes/min8-00.htm, which is with the ESCOP Workroom.

· ESCOP Core Committees

Advocacy and Marketing Develop a joint ESCOP-ECOP effort to address the problems of lack of identity, lack of advocacy, and lack of support. Strategy: engage a multiplicity of agencies to broaden and increase support. Next steps are to develop a plan, build a strategy, and implement the plan.

Budget and Legislative Continue to work toward a limited number of focused issues and target funding. Working with the BOA Budget Committee on development of 2002 budget and finalize the 2001 budget with an emphasis on retaining the IFAFS funding. (Issues are to be clarified during workshop.)

Science and Technology This committee has continued to make progress on numerous issues including: Food Safety jointly with ECOP, Farm Crisis and Rural Development, Social Sciences, Genome Initiative and Agricultural Biotechnology (GMO).

Partnership ESCOP/ECOP/CSREES continue to have open dialogue with the primary goal to improve understanding of function and roles among the groups and define successful partnership strategies. The committee is planning joint ESCOP/ECOP/CSREES national conference tentatively set for February 2001 in Baltimore.

Planning The planning session for the workshop was the primary activity with the session concentrating on research practices for 2005-2010.

· ESCOP/ACOP leadership is a critical leadership development program and it is important that ESCOP remain engaged. I would encourage director to volunteer to provide coordination for the committee.
· In the joint meeting, Dr. Sam Smith addressed "The University/NASULGC Community Working Toward Enhanced Support: the Food and Society Initiative." This initiative has as its goal to double funding for agricultural research, Extension, and teaching. Also in the joint meeting the administrative heads taskforce on the structure of the Board on Agriculture was present the outline of the presentation follows.


ADMINISTRATIVE HEADS
Report of the Task Force
on the
Structure of the Board on Agriculture
September, 2000

BOA Structure Task Force
· Appointed by AHS, January, 2000
· Co-Chairs Ed Hiler & Reg Gomes
· Task Force included AHS, ESS, CES, APS, IAS
· Draft developed at Chicago "Fly-in" meeting in June
· Draft modified at Denver "Fly-in" in August BOA Structure Task Force
CHARGE
· To identify critical strengths & weaknesses of our current structure/system in the Board on Agriculture
· To identify alternatives to build on strengths and overcome weaknesses
· To present to AHS a structure/system to accomplish the Board's core purpose & functions Vision
· Create a more effective Board on Agriculture structure to perform better and accomplish our important objectives
· Acknowledge the Board as an essential element of a national forum to serve public good and national interest

The Current Structure

STRENGTHS
· The Board is the recognized budget driving unit for this section of NASULGC
· Inclusive representation of all functions and all geographic regions
· Lay Leaders' support our CARET organization
· Provides a mechanism for engagement with federal agencies

The Current Structure

STRENGTHS
· Fiscal structure in place to raise & distribute funds with commitment from organizations
· Members of the Board have a willingness to work together
· Respected organization in our universities for our influence
· "Perception" of unity

The Current Structure

WHAT CAN WE IMPROVE?
· Our articulation of role/purpose of Board on Agriculture and its specific goals & objectives - including written relationships to sections
· Develop a consistent message, integration and unity across our various units
· Develop a more coordinated voice for system to increase our overall effectiveness

The Current Structure

WHAT CAN WE IMPROVE?
· Clarify policy development so we have a clear system to resolve conflict & differences
· Develop a clear concept of what we expect from our people, including benchmarks
· Clarify reporting relationships
· Improved representation and influence in Washington

What would be key elements of a new structure?
· Clear charge & transparent process with vision & goals
· Ability to identify key issues and develop goals
· Strong leadership at Board level
· Clear accountability
· Effective executive staff support
· Flexibility in organization beyond USDA formula

Goals of a New Structure

A NEW STRUCTURE MUST..
· operate as a unified, integrated, coordinated system
· synthesize & consolidate key issues/concerns
· respond to address critical common goals and emerging issues be the "voice" for a national strategy in agriculture/natural resources
· create effective linkages
· make roles & decision-making clear

Proposed BOA Structure


BOARD ON AGRICULTURE ASSEMBLY
Policy Board of Directors/AHS/CARET
Board on Agriculture


Current :
· Each member institution may have up to five representatives (AHS, APS, CES, ESS, IAS)
· Each representative has "one vote"

Proposed Assembly
:
· Each member institution may have up to five representatives (AHS, APS, CES, ESS, IAS)
· Each member institution has one vote

BOA Leadership & Decision-making
· Current Executive Committee:
· 26 voting members: AHS(4), APS(3), ESS(3), CES(3), IAS(3), Budget Com.(2), AASCAR, BVM, BOF, BHS, 1890RD, 1890EA & 1994
· 3 non-voting members: NASULGC CEO, BNR & BOOA

BOA Leadership & Decision-making Proposal

POLICY BOARD
(Chicago Proposal)
· Nine members: 5 AHS, 1 APS, 1 CES, 1 ESS, 1 IAS

POLICY BOARD
(Denver Proposal)
· Nine members: 2 AHS (serve as Chair/Vice Chair), 1 APS, 1 CES, 1 IAS, 1 ESS, 1 1890, 1 1994, 1 NASULGC non-land grant
· Two year terms

BOA Leadership & Decision-making Proposal
POLICY BOARD
· National election, rather than regional progression
· Liaisons as appropriate (e.g. Forestry, Human Sciences, Veterinary Medicine)

Proposed BOA Structure
STAFF
· "Mirrors" organizational structure
· Executive staff person works with Policy Board of Directors and heads staff team
· Appropriate staff support for section leaders

ROLE OF POLICY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
· Provide leadership for overall direction and coordination of BOA activities
· Appoint standing committees, including budget committee
· Hire & supervise staff - including executive staff and lobbying organizations
· Coordinate efforts of sections
· Coordinate and direct efforts of CARET

AESOP has a web site [www.aesopent.homestead.com/index.html] that is excellent and very helpful. It contains a tremendous amount of information; suggest that you visit and bookmark this site.

Action Requested: Information Only

Action Taken (ESCOP):
· Develop a permanent Food Safety Subcommittee.
· Status of ESCOP's Science Roadmap Committee was referred to the Chair's Advisory Committee.
· Endorsed a "think tank" approach to determine the direction for the Agriculture and Environment Initiative. Keep the existing relationship with CSREES and building on the SUNEI success.
· Endorsed the national stakeholder-drive C-FAR concept.
· ESCOP approved the plan to approve NRSP budgets for the life of the activity at its inception with no consideration given to Hatch fluctuations.

Action Taken (Joint ESCOP/ECOP):
· Accepted and sanction the "Strategies for Enhanced Engagement" prepared by the Joint ESCOP/ECOP Planning Committee.
· Endorsed the formation of a joint task force to determine how best to proceed with the Environmental Initiative.
· ECOP expressed its intention to be full and equal partners with ESCOP on the newly reorganized Advocacy and Marketing Committee.



To: wr.gomes@ucop.edu
cc: e-hiler@tamu.edu

Subject: ESCOP Feedback on the AHS Task Force Report

During the past several weeks, I have received considerable feedback on the draft AHS Task Force Report. Listed below is my attempt to summarize the feedback.

· Having the 1890s appoint a rep to the Policy Board and having them as equal partners in ESCOP and ECOP is double representation.
· The proposed voting rights structure reduces the voice of the COPs in the Board on Agriculture. A better rationale is required before this proposals is accepted.
· The costs of the proposed plan is not presented but need to be considered. When will a budget for the proposal be presented?
· Better define the responsibilities and duties of the executive staff person working for the Policy Board. How will this person relate to the regional Executive Directors?
· One of the statements in the report is "clarify policy development so that we have a clear system to resolve conflict and differences". This refer to BOA policy or also policy at levels of the sections and COPs.
· Another statement is "develop a clear concept of what we expect from our people, including benchmarks". Are "our people" the NASULGC staffers paid from assessments?
· There is a need to better define the phrase "reporting relationships - - - within NASULGC structure.
· The reports suggests that the BOA entities should work to support funding beyond the USDA formula funds. Everyone agrees with this and ESCOP and ECOP having been working with a number of agencies other than USDA on funding initiatives. The ESCOP/CSREES funded SUNEI program is a good example of this.
· The NASULGC staffing associated with the proposal should be described in more detail.
· There needs to be an explicit statement regarding assessments for the advocacy organizations. Which entity or entities will pay the assessments?
· How will the current role of the COPs be affected by the proposed plan? Will the Policy Board be responsible for leadership training programs, workshops, outreach to partners, national issue task forces, etc?
· Election of members to the Policy Board should be explained.
· The task force proposal should be integrated with the Tom Payne plan.

Hopefully, these issues will be of some help as you revise the proposal. It is clear that many ESCOP members have concerned about the lack of details in the plan and are unsure of the meaning of some phrases used in the report. I encourage you to present a plan to the Board on Agriculture that is as specific as possible. There will be a tendency for many BOA members to vote against the proposal unless important structural and policy issues are well defined. My feedback indicates that most AES Directors feel that the Experiment Station Section, ESCOP and the Regional Associations are well organized, effectively administered and have produced positive impacts. There is no doubt that significant costs are involved in the Section activities but most AES Directors seem to believe that the benefits outweigh the costs.

Darrell W. Nelson
Dean and Director

Enhancing the Board on Agriculture Budget Development and Advocacy

To enhance NASULGC's Board on Agriculture (BOA) budget development and advocacy process and success, it is important to establish a clear unifying structure to bring members of the "family" together to provide "one voice." Presently, the BOA Budget Committee (BABC) and CARET operate separately, although there are linkages. They have the same goal of budget development and advocacy. An Advocacy Organization that provides a complete package of executive and operational staff support exclusively to the BABC and to CARET would be extremely valuable and would be more efficient and more effective.

It is proposed that: 1) the BABC be re-named the Budget and Advocacy Committee (BAC); and 2) the BAC and CARET be established as a budget development and advocacy unit of the BOA Policy Board of Directors, on behalf of the BOA Assembly, with executive and operational staff support out-sourced to an Advocacy Organization.

The following specifics are recommended:

· The BOA Assembly Policy Board of Directors appoint the BAC and that the BAC be comprised of the membership as designated in Figure 1. Appointments will draw on nominations submitted by the prospective membership entities following an appropriate procedure.
· The chair of the BAC be appointed by the Policy Board of Directors and be a member of AHS (as is the current chair of the BABC).
· The BAC shall recommend to the Policy Board of Directors the contract-for-services for an out-sourced Advocacy Organization. The Policy Board of Directors will execute the contract on behalf of the BOA Assembly.
· Staff support for the BAC and CARET meetings, events, document development, and database development and maintenance would be provided by the Advocacy Organization and thus so specified in the contract.

· The Policy Board of Directors will delegate to the BAC the sole responsibilities for budget development and advocacy planning and execution for all federal government legislative and agency activities and the responsibilities of performance evaluation of the Advocacy Organization, as set forth in the terms of the contract.
· Per delegation by the Policy Board of Directors in the terms of the contract, the Chair of the BAC will provide direct policy and operational supervision and communications with the Advocacy Organization on behalf of the membership of the BAC.
· The cost of out-sourcing to the Advocacy Organization shall be determined through a rolling 3-year business plan and an annual operating business plan and budget developed in concert with the BAC and recommended by the BAC to the Policy Board of Directors for adoption per the terms of the contract (see Figure 2.)
· To fund the budget, appropriate equitable assessments shall be levied by the Policy Board of Directors implementing an assessments protocol developed and adopted by the Board at the time of the execution of the contract with the Advocacy Organization (see Figure 2.)
· NASULGC will provide fiscal and accounting support services and be the "banker" for the functions of the BAC.

The recommended restructuring will establish a unified budget development and advocacy organization and eliminate any confusion about responsibilities and lines of authority for these very important activities. Furthermore, this approach will pre-empt any questions about lobbying activities by non-profit organizations. Most importantly, this will allow for a new and more tightly integrated and effective array of budget development and advocacy activities.


NOTE: Figures 1 and 2 will be handed out at the NCRA meeting. These are available upon request from the Executive Director's Office.

9/10/00


Report of the AHS Task Force on the
Structure of the Board on Agriculture
Draft - September 2000

The Board on Agriculture (BOA) Structure Task Force was appointed by AHS Chair David Chicoine in January, 2000 following a AHS Fyi-In in Dallas, Texas. Ed Hiler and Reg Gomes chaired the Task Force. The Task Force, which included representatives from AHS, ESS, CES, APS, and IAS appointed by the respective sections' leaders, developed a set of recommendations at a Chicago one-day meeting in June. These recommendations were reviewed, discussed and modified by AHS at a Denver Fly-In meeting in August. The ESS, CES, APS and IAS representatives participated at Denver. This report sets for the background, findings and recommendations of the Structure Task Force. The last section of the report includes the recommendations of the AHS Task Force on Advocacy and Budget chaired by Tom Payne.

BACKGROUND

The BOA Structure Task Force's charge was to identify critical strengths and weaknesses of the current structure of the Board on Agriculture; to identify alternatives to build on strengths and to overcome weaknesses; and to present recommendations, if any, for change to AHS on the structure to best accomplish the BOA's core purpose and functions.

The goal of the Task Force was to review and make recommends on the structure of the BOA so as to increase its performance, to more effectively and efficiently accomplish important collective system-wide objectives and to reinforce and enhance the BOA and it's operations as essential elements of a national forum to serve the public good and the national interest.

FINDINGS
The Task Force acknowledged several strengths of the current structure:

· The Board is the recognized budget driving unit for this section of NASULGC;
· There is inclusive representation of all functions and all geographic regions;
· There is excellent lay leaders' support through our CARET organization;
· There is a mechanism for engagement with federal agencies;
· There is a fiscal structure in place to raise and distribute funds with commitment from the members of the Board;
· Members of the Board have a willingness to work together;
· The Board is a respected organization within NASULGC member universities; and
· There is a "perception" of unity.

With acknowledgment of the many strengths of the current structure, the Task Force concluded there were improvements that were possible in the current structure and operations. Those areas included:
· Better articulation of role and purpose of BOA and its specific goals and objectives. The Task Force suggests including written relationships to sections;
· Development of a consistent message, integration and unity across the various units;
· Development of a more coordinated voice for system to increase overall effectiveness;
· Clarification of policy development procedures to clarify a system to resolve conflict and differences;
· Development of a clear concept of what is expected from staff and support systems, including documented and communicated benchmarks for performance review;
· Clarification of reporting relationships; and
· Improvement in representation and influence in Washington.

Recommendations for structural change should incorporate these key elements:
· A clear charge & transparent process with vision and goals;
· An ability to identify key issues and develop goals;
· Strong leadership at the Board level;
· Clear accountability at all levels;
· Effective executive, organizational and operational staff support; and
· Flexibility in the organization to reach beyond USDA in federal budget advocacy.

The BOA structure must support the operations of an efficient, unified, integrated, coordinated system. The structure must have the ability to synthesize and consolidate key issues and quickly and efficiently identify and address concerns and resolve internal conflicts and manage external conflicts. It must be able to be proactive and aggressively address critical common goals and emerging issues. The structure must be the "voice" for a national strategy in the science and education of the food, agriculture and natural resources systems. It must create more effective linkages and make roles and decision-making clearer.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. BOARD ON AGRICULTURE ASSEMBLY
Currently, each member institution may have up to five representatives (AHS, APS, CES, ESS, IAS) in the Board on Agriculture each enfranchised to vote. In the proposed structure: 1) each member institution retains the right to name up to five representatives; and 2) each member institution would have one vote. The Board on Agriculture is proposed to be renamed the Board on Agriculture Assembly.

2. EXECUTIVE STRUCTURE
Currently there are twenty-six voting member on the BOA Executive Committee: AHS(4), APS(3), ESS(3), CES(3), IAS(3), Budget Com.(2), AASCAR, BVM, BOF, BHS, 1890RD, 1890EA & 1994. There are three non-voting members: NASULGC CEO, BNR & BOOA.

It is proposed the Executive Committee be succeeded by the Policy Board of Directors. The Task Force's recommendation on the composition of the Policy Board developed at its Chicago meeting was modified after the discussion at the full meeting of the AHS in Denver. The Policy Board of Directors' composition under the two options that were discussed extensively are:
· The original recommendation of the Task Force was that the Policy Board include nine directors: 5 AHS, 1 APS, 1 CES, 1 ESS, 1 IAS.
· The modification at the Denver AHS Fly-In is that the Policy Board would include nine directors: 2 AHS (serve as Chair and Chair-elect), 1 APS, 1 CES, 1 IAS, 1 ESS, 1 1890, 1 1994, and I NASULGC non-land grant member. Directors would serve staggered multiple- year, perhaps two-year, terms and would be limited to two terms. Annually, the Board would elect a vice chair from their membership. The chair and chair elect would be two-year terms.

Policy Board Directors would be elected by a national election by the institutional voting members of the Assembly, rather than the regional progression protocol now followed with the BOA Executive Committee, from nominations set forth by the respective sections and entities (2 nominations for each open directorship.) The Policy Board would determine appropriate liaisons with other entities in NASULGC (e.g., Forestry, Human Sciences, Veterinary Medicine).

The proposed executive structure composition for the Policy Board is the composition set forth by AHS after the Task Force's recommendations were reviewed, discussed and modified at the Denver meeting.

3. Staff
Support staff would mirror the organizational structure. An executive staff person would work with the Policy Board of Directors and head a staff team. There would be appropriate staff support for sections and the leaders of the sections as determined by the Policy Board. Funds for staff also would be determined by the Policy Board as would mechanisms for securing needed funds.

4. ROLE OF POLICY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The role of the Policy Board of Directors is to:
· Provide leadership for overall direction and coordination of BOA activities;
· Appoint standing committees, including budget committee;
· Set policy and provide general oversight on the activities of the Budget Committee and BOA advocacy efforts (see last section); and
·
Coordinate and direct efforts of CARET or delegate these responsibilities.

5. COMPOSITION OF THE AGRICULTURAL HEADS SECTION (AHS)
It is recommended that the CEO of institutions that are members of the proposed Board on Agricultural Assembly designate, at their discretion, up to two individuals to the AHS. This will permit CEOs the opportunity to have the diversity of organizational structures in member institutions reflected in the membership of the AHS from their institutions. For example, a CEO could designate both a vice president for extension and a dean of agriculture to AHS, if they choose.

ENHANCING BUDGET DEVELOPMENT AND ADVOCACY
(Recommendations from the Budget Development and Advocacy AHS Task Force, Tom Payne, Chair)

To enhance the BOA budget development and advocacy process and success, it is important to establish a clear unifying structure to bring members of the "family" together to provide "one voice." Presently, the BOA Budget Committee (BABC) and CARET operate separately, although there are linkages. They have the same goal of budget development and advocacy. Currently, staff support is a blend of NASULGC and out-sourced advocacy organization services. An Advocacy Organization that provides a complete package of executive and operational staff support exclusively to the BABC and to CARET would be valuable and would be more efficient and more effective.

It is proposed that: 1) the BABC be re-named the Budget and Advocacy Committee (BAC); and 2) the BAC and CARET be established as a budget development and advocacy unit of the BOA Policy Board of Directors, on behalf of the BOA Assembly, with executive and operational staff support out-sourced to an Advocacy Organization.

The following specifics are recommended:
· The BOA Assembly Policy Board of Directors appoint the BAC and that the BAC be comprised of the membership as designated in Figure 1. Appointments will draw on nominations submitted by the prospective membership entities following an appropriate procedure.
· The chair, serving a two year term, of the BAC be appointed by the Policy Board of Directors and be a member of AHS (as is the chair of the current BABC).
· The BAC shall recommend to the Policy Board of Directors the contract-for-services with an out-sourced Advocacy Organization. The Policy Board of Directors will execute the contract on behalf of the BOA Assembly.
· Staff support for the BAC and CARET meetings, events, document development and database development and maintenance would be provided by the Advocacy Organization and thus so specified in the contract.
· The Policy Board of Directors will delegate to the BAC the sole responsibilities for budget development and advocacy planning and execution for all federal government legislative and agency activities and the responsibilities of performance evaluation of the Advocacy Organization, as set forth in the terms of the contract.
· Per the delegation by the Policy Board of Directors in the terms of the contract, the Chair of the BAC will provide direct policy and operational supervision and communications with the Advocacy Organization on behalf of the membership of the BAC.
· The cost of out-sourcing to the Advocacy Organization shall be determined through a rolling 3-year business plan and an annual operating business plan and budget developed in concert with the BAC and recommended by the BAC to the Policy Board of Directors for adoption per the terms of the contract (see Figure 2.)
· To fund the budget, appropriate equitable assessments shall be levied by the Policy Board of Directors implementing an assessments protocol developed and adopted by the Board at the time of the execution of the contract with the Advocacy Organization (see Figure 2.)
· NASULGC will provide fiscal and accounting support services and be the "banker" for the functions of the BAC.

The recommended restructuring will establish a unified budget development and advocacy organization and eliminate any confusion about responsibilities and lines of authority for these very important activities. Furthermore, this approach will pre-empt any questions about lobbying activities by non-profit organizations. Most importantly, this will allow for a new and more tightly integrated and effective array of budget development and advocacy activities.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: Gary Lemme will be the leader next year on the ESCOP/ACOP Leadership Committee. Dr. Cholick encourages everyone to continue to view AESOP's web site.

After considerable discussion about the AHS/BOA structure, the following motion was passed: "The NCRA will write a letter to Pat Jensen indicating that answers be provided by November 1 to the questions in the letter (attached)."

The following motion was also passed: "A letter should be written to Marc Johnson asking how the $10 million figure arrived from the assessments." These letters will be written by Tom Payne


Agenda Item: 7.0
Presenter: Virginia Clark
Agenda Item Title: Multistate Research Committee

A new project, NCT-185, "Effects of Landscape Composition on White-Tailed Deer Population Characteristics and Distributions in Agro-Forest Systems: A Regional Analysis" has been approved.

The National Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities was approved at the Experiment Station Section meeting on September 26, 2000.

A committee of NCRA representatives will meet on October 3 to update the regional manual to correlate with the national manual.

Action Requested.
Information only.

Action Taken:
None.


Agenda Item: 8.0
Presenter: Virginia Clark
Agenda Item Title: Amended Rules of Operation

The Rules of Operation were amended and approved. They are available at: http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/ncrarules.htm




Agenda Item: 9.0
Presenter: Eldon Ortman
Agenda Item Title: Regional IPM Development
Background Information:

The pest management area has been undergoing considerable change over the past year or so, both nationally and regionally. The attachments address much of the change and the opportunity for development of strengthened linkages, along with increased efficiency and more effective regional and national operation. A briefing of the changes and opportunities will be followed by a discussion and recommendation for the potential realignment of pest management activities within the North Central Region.

An update on this years regional IPM project reviews will also be given.

Action Requested: Consideration and agreement on alignment/adjustment of NCRA pest management activities.

Action Taken: Dr. Ortman will be stepping down as the IPM program leader. Ortman thinks it would make sense to have the coordinator/leader of the IPM program be located at either Michigan State or Illinois since they are area leaders (they operate as one center).

A motion was passed that indicated: "The NCRA endorse the concept of a establishing a facilitator using 89106 and extension federal dollars". This is not region money, but federal/CSREES money. We are only a facilitator of the money - the vehicle to help the matter.



To: National IPM Committee Members

From: Frank Zalom and Eldon Ortman, Co-chairs

Re: Fall meeting

We are planning to have the Fall ECOP/ESCOP National IPM Committee meeting on October 18-19, 2000 at the USDA Waterfront Building in Washington, DC. Please put these dates on your calendars. Arrangements for hotel accommodations are pending, and we will contact you again regarding these arrangements when they are firm .

Although some of you are affiliated with the new USDA Pest Management Centers, others of you might be interested in learning more about them and how several of the issues we discussed last year are of common interest. Therefore, we are inviting the USDA Pest Management Center Directors to attend this meeting as well.

Below is a draft agenda for this meeting. Please review it and let either of us know your suggested changes so that they can be incorporated.

_______

Draft Agenda:

October 18, afternoon:

· Introductions
· Update of last year's report of our committee concerning USDA pest management programs.
· Review of CSREES pest management portfolio and RFP process for next year.
· Pest Management Centers - short and long range plans (the Center Directors will be present)

October 19, morning through maybe 3:30pm:

· Preparing for the next administration/new budget strategy (Zane Helsel, discussion leader); USDA legislative contact (Mike Fitzner to invite)
· Publications to promote IPM
· Public outreach documents (audience(s) and logistics?) Academic review article(s) on IPM (Bioscience or other?)
· Regional Grants Programs updates
· Regional IPM Coordinating Committee updates

Thanks!

Cc: M. Fitzner
D. Kopp

D R A F T
Job Announcement
North Central Region, U.S.A.
IPM Facilitator

JOB TITLE: Regional IPM Facilitator

JOB DESCRIPTION: A 12-month academic professional, non-tenure track position with indirect responsibility to the North Central Region Extension IPM Coordinators and the NCS-3 Technical Research Committee on IPM and direct responsibility to the administrative advisers for North Central Region, USDA-CSREES, extension and research IPM programs.

DUTIES: The responsibilities of the facilitator will include: 1) planning, compilation, and dissemination of regional IPM reports as needed, 2) serving as the North Central IPM Grants Manager which includes developing, revising, and disseminating the regional request for proposals, 3) coordinating the annual North Central IPM Competitive Grants proposal review process, 4) assisting annually the North Central Extension IPM Coordinators to fulfill reporting requirements, 5) providing leadership for the coordination of an annual regional IPM meeting (NCS-3 Committee/Extension IPM Coordinators) with stakeholders, 6) providing leadership for the creation and maintenance of North Central Region IPM information on the world wide web, 7) alerting North Central Region IPM personnel of important national IPM programmatic developments, 8) cooperating closely with director of a proposed North Central Regional Pest Management Center, and 9) maintaining dialogue and communication with IPM facilitators and personnel in proposed pest management centers in other regions of the U.S.A.

EDUCATION: M.S. degree required, Ph.D. degree preferred in a pest management or related discipline (entomology, plant pathology, weed science) with evidence of strong communication, computer, and organizational skills.

SALARY: Commensurate with education and experience.
STARTING DATE: January 1, 2001 or when a suitable candidate is available.
CLOSING DATE: For full consideration, applications will be accepted starting October 1, 2000 and continuously reviewed until the position is filled.

APPLICATIONS: Interested persons should assemble an application packet consisting of an introductory cover letter, a curriculum vitae, and a statement of professional goals. The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of three references should be included with the application materials. The packet should be sent to: Dr. Eldon E. Ortman, Agricultural Research Programs, Purdue University, 1140 Agricultural Administration Bldg., West Lafayette, IN 47907-1140.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael E. Gray, NCS-3 Chair, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1102 S. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801. Telephone: (217) 333-6652, email: m-gray4@uiuc.edu.

North Central Region Pest Management Center

The USDA has placed a high priority on the establishment of Pest Management Centers as a means of strengthening its connection with regional and state research, education and extension programs, and agricultural stakeholders throughout the United States. When fully implemented, Pest Management Centers will identify, prioritize and coordinate a variety of risk management programs on a regional basis as recommended by broad based stakeholder and interest groups.

In the North Central Region, Michigan State University (MSU) and the University of Illinois will lead a multi-state coalition. The North Central Pest Management Center, over three years, will establish, coordinate and provide subcontract management with institutions for a multistate information gathering network; strengthen the connection of public risk management programs; respond to information needs of public and private sectors; and facilitate the identification of a framework for agroecologically based pest management Centers.

The Center will be directed through a regional Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is comprised of regional representatives from the USDA Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and former Pesticide Impact Assessment programs, Experiment Station and Extension Directors representatives, the two Co-PIs for the Center, and two Advisory committee members.

There will also be an Advisory Committee to the Center including representatives from commodity groups, universities, agencies and interest groups. This Center Advisory Committee will provide input on critical pest control needs and issues at the regional level. This information will be shared with USDA and other organizations which can provide research and/or funding opportunities to address critical issues. The stakeholders on the committees will also be encouraged to serve as a conduit to provide information about current pest management techniques. This information can then be used by various agencies in making informed regulatory decisions.

MSU is requesting proposals to establish this network within the region. Areas of emphasis for these proposals include:
1. Establish, coordinate and provide a network that produces information such as pesticide use and usage, pest management practices, production and revision of crop profiles and pest management strategic plans.
2. Strengthen the connection between pest management programs and with stakeholders.
3. Respond to information needs of public and private sectors.

All the information needed to apply can be found at the following web site:
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet/centers/nc/rfp92000.html. Ten copies of the proposals are to be sent to Dr. Larry Olsen, 18B Food Safety and Toxicology Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 by November 10.



E-mail from Larry Olsen
September 15, 2000

Colleagues,

Four Regional Pest Management Centers have been funded by USDA as a means of strengthening its connection with production agriculture, research, and extension programs, and agricultural stakeholders throughout the United States.

USDA Deputy Rominger emphasized that the efforts are true cooperative partnerships that will heavily involve colleges, universities, and crop production experts within the region. The Centers will focus their efforts on pest management issues that are common to agricultural production within a region and across state boundaries.

In the North Central Region, Michigan State University and the University of Illinois will lead a multi-state coalition. The North Central Region Pest Management Center, over three years, will establish, coordinate and provide subcontract management with institutions for a multistate information gathering network; strengthen the connection of public risk management programs; respond to information needs of public and private sectors; and facilitate the identification of a framework for agroecologically based pest management Centers.

Michigan State University is, with this announcement, Requesting Proposals to establish this network within the 12 north central states. All the information needed to apply can be found at the following web site:

http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet/centers/nc/rfp92000.html.

Proposals are to be sent to Dr. Larry Olsen, 18B Food Safety and Toxicology Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 by November 10.

Please pass this announcement along to persons at your university or college that may be interested in applying for these funds.




I. NC-502 Soybean Aphid: A New Pest of Soybean Production

II. Duration: September 1, 2000-August 31, 2002

III. Justification and Issue:
In August 2000, a new soybean pest was confirmed to be present in fields of northern Illinois and Wisconsin. The soybean aphid (Aphis glycines) is a native of Asia and has never before been found in the United States. Unusual populations of aphids were first noticed by researchers in Wisconsin, and it was thought that the infestations were limited to this state. Soon similarly infested plants were found in Illinois and some Michigan soybean fields. Currently this aphid has been found in several other NC states. Based on the wide distribution of the pest, it is likely that the aphid was introduced several years ago.

Introduction of a new pest on a key midwestern commodity raises a whole series of questions. Farmers want to know if it poses a direct threat, not only for this year's crop but for the future. The aphid can transmit viruses harmful to soybean, but to what extent this will occur in the United States is unknown. Given that the aphid has likely been in the Midwest for a few years, it probably overwintered successfully on its primary host, buckthorn. However, it is not known which species of buckthorn, the native or exotic, weedy species, may serve as hosts for the invading pest. Entomologists do not know the extent of the infestation or whether natural enemies are capable of controlling soybean aphid populations in the United States. Plant pathologists do not know the potential threat posed from aphid vectors and plant disease. These and other questions can best be answered by a coordinated, multistate research and outreach activity.

IV. Type of Activities:
With an invading pest there is a tremendous need for information on the biology of the pest in its new environment, its distribution across the soybean production, etc. This project will focus on identifying information needs and coordinating research across states. Activities will involve scientists not only from states known to have the soybean aphid, but also from states likely to be infested in the future. Coordination is critical, because there is great pressure in each state for action. It is important to capture the broad expertise in the region. This can best be accomplished through a NC-500 series project. Initial objectives are given in the following statement. It is expected that the initial meeting of the group in early October will further elaborate these objectives and potentially propose additional objectives.

V. Objectives:
1. Document distribution and develop standardized sampling protocols.
2. Identify potential impact of aphid injury to soybean.
3. Identify and evaluate tactics for aphid control.
4. Identify potential role of aphid as vector of soybean diseases.
5. Identify and prioritize information and research needs. Add specificity to objectives 1-4.

VI. Expected Outputs and Outcomes
The initial output will be a map identifying confirmed presence and distribution of the soybean aphid. A second probable outcome would be a pest management and control advisory for the 2001 production season. Finally, there would be a prioritized list of information and research needs with a potential list of collaborators.

VII. Participating States
Entomologists and plant pathologists from Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan are committed to the project. This project is open to scientists from other states and agencies. An invitation to participate will be broadly distributed.

VIII. Signature

R. Lower for Tom Payne, Chair, NCRA

Potential Participants:

Illinois
Dave Voegtlin, INES, aphid systematics and biology
David Onstad, NRES, INHS, NSRL, population modeling
Charlie Helm, INHS, soybean entomology, surveys
Kevin Steffey, Crop Science, extension IPM
Lee Solter, INHS, NSRL, insect pathology
Glen Hartman, USDA-ARS, NSRL, soybean pathologist

INES - Illinois Natural History Survey
NSRL - National Soybean Research Laboratory
USDA-ARS - US Department of Agriculture
NRES and Crop Science are University of Illinois departments

Wisconsin
Dave Hogg, Department of Entomology: aphid ecology & management
John Wedberg, Department of Entomology: aphid management, extension
Craig Grau, Department of Plant Pathology: soybean viruses, extension
Tom German, Department of Entomology: vector biology, virology
Jeff Wyman, Department of Entomology: aphid biology & management

Indiana
Robert O'Neil, Department of Entomology


Agenda Item: 10.0
Presenter: Gerald Klonglan
Agenda Item Title: Umbrella Project Update
Background Information:

At the summer NCRA meeting we spent time discussing the umbrella project concept. The Executive Director was asked to continue the discussions with some of the North Central Regional SAESs and he did so, mainly with the Iowa and Missouri stations. Both stations are interested in the umbrella project as a mechanism for streamlining the Hatch project operations. As an example, if a station has 50-100 Hatch projects turning over every year and they could be combined into 10 projects then the number of peer reviews and subsequent reviews and reports would be lessened considerably. Another motivation for umbrella projects is the interest in building and linking broader programs (issue based rather than departmental based) than what was in the present portfolios. Other examples could be cited. Following a teleconference between the directors of these stations, their staff and the Executive Director, it was agreed that the Iowa station would prepare a brief update on its continued interest in and further development of the umbrella projects. We think that raising awareness of the umbrella project concept might be helpful to the NCRA.

ISU has met with CSREES staff and will be meeting again to further examine the potential role of umbrella projects in responding to Plan of Work requirements, in managing the Hatch portfolio, in joint integrated projects with CES, in multistate projects and related activities. In addition the upside and downside of umbrella projects will be noted.

Action Requested:
For discussion.

Action Take:
After discussion, it was decided that this issue needs to be explored more in depth. A committee of Jerry Klonglan, Mike Chippendale, Doreen Woodward and Cole Gustafson (chair) will lead a discussion/provide leadership at the March 2001 meeting. Note: A copy of the handout from Jerry Klonglan is available upon request from the Executive Director's office.

Agenda Item: 11.0
Presenter: Dale Vanderholm
Agenda Item Title: Nominations Committee Report
Background Information:


Administrative Advisor Changes
 

Past AA

New AA  
NCT-180 C. Meeks, IA M. Winter, IA  
NCA-2 G. Buening, MO D. Reynolds, IA  
NRSP-7   G. Buening, MO   J. Tracy, WI 
NCT-185 New Project   J. I. Gray, MI  
     

ESCOP Committee Representatives

Science and Technology Committee

R. Woodson, Chair (replaces G. Ham)
M. Dentine, WI
S. Pueppke, IL


Resolution of Appreciation to

Dr. Richard L. Lower

WHEREAS Dr. Richard L. Lower earned distinction as an accomplished researcher and professor of Horticulture at North Carolina State University, as evidenced by numerous prestigious positions held and awards received; and eventually rose through the ranks to serve as department chair, and assistant, associate, and executive director of the Research Division of the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences at University of Wisconsin; and

WHEREAS Dr. Lower has skillfully and faithfully served as Executive Director of the North Central Regional Association (NCRA) of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors since 1994; and

WHEREAS Dr. Lower, as ED/NCRA, has fostered collaborative and improved relationships with USDA, government agencies, private interest groups, and the academic community; and

WHEREAS Dr. Lower, as ED/NCRA, greatly relieved the workload of North Central Directors by assuming ever-increasing responsibilities at the regional office; and

WHEREAS Dr. Lower, as ED/NCRA, made time to warmly welcome, guide, and mentor new directors to the Association; and

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

WHEREAS Dr. Lower, as ED/NCRA, had an exceptional eye for talent and professional skills proceeded to hire and retain the top administrative assistant in the system, and

WHEREAS Dr. Lower, as ED/NCRA, has established the North Central Regional Association as the premier association of state agricultural experiment station directors;

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

Presented September 28, 2000


Agenda Item: 14.0
Presenter: Virginia Clark
Agenda Item Title: Summary of Meeting

The following are actions from the meeting:

· A committee was formed to discuss the "umbrella project concept" and will report at the March 2001 meeting.
· Letters on behalf of the NCRA will be written regarding the $10 million assessment and to receive information from the AHS.
· A meeting will be held on October 3 to prepare a supplement to the national manual for the NCRA.