Tuesday, March 12, 2002 (8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.)
Multistate Research Committee Meeting
Wednesday, March 13, 2002 (8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.)
1.0 Call to Order and Introductions - Ian Gray
Present: Steve Pueppke, University of Illinois; Marshall
Martin, Purdue University; Wendy Wintersteen, Iowa State University,
Jan Bokemeier, Ian Gray, Gary Lemme, Doreen Woodward, Michigan
State University; Sarah Greening, Philip Larsen, Bert Stromberg,
University of Minnesota; John Gardner, Tom Payne, University of
Missouri; David Jackson, Dale Vanderholm, University of Nebraska;
Virginia Clark Johnson, Jim Venette, North Dakota State University;
Dave Benfield, Bill Ravlin, Steven Slack, Ohio State University;
Kevin Kephart, South Dakota State University; Margaret Dentine,
Kevin McSweeney, University of Wisconsin; Darrell Cole, ARS-Peoria,
Illinois; Dan Holder, Terry Meisenbach, Mary Ann Rozum, CSREES;
Terry Nipp, AESOP Enterprises, Ltd.; Ted Bauer, NRSP-1/CRIS Office;
Robert Holm, NRSP-4/IR-4; Madelyn Alt, Daryl Lund, Executive Director's
Office
2.0 Approval of the September 2001 Minutes - Ian Gray
(Available at: http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/sept2001min.htm)
The minutes were approved as submitted.
3.0 Adoption of Agenda - Ian Gray
Added: 13.1 - Center for Rural Development Update - Handout
17.0 - Security on Campuses - All
18.0 - Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations - Wendy Wintersteen
4.0 Executive Committee Report and Interim
Actions of the Chair - Ian Gray
5.0 Executive Director =s Report - Daryl Lund
5.1 Activities since September 2001
5.2 NIMSS Update
6.0 Travel for Meetings - Daryl Lund
6.1 Travel to NC Regional Meetings
6.2 Calendar for ESCOP and Directors' Meetings
7.0 Attendance at NCRA Meetings - Daryl Lund
8.0 The Sun Grant Initiative - Kevin Kephart
9.0 ESCOP Report
9.1 ESCOP Activities - Virginia Clark
9.2 FY 02 Budget and Legislative Subcommittee
9.3 Farm Bill Task Force
10.0 Multistate Research Committee
10.1 Robert Holm, NRSP-4 Update
10.2 MRC Report - Gary Lemme
Executive Session (5:00 p.m.)
Executive Director's Office FY 03 Budget - Ian Gray and Margaret
Dentine, UW-Madison Representative
Dinner - On Your Own
Wednesday, March 13 (7:45 p.m. - ?)
11.0 Indirect Cost Recovery ad hoc Committee
Report and Program - Steve Slack
· Intellectual Property (IP) Issues and Agriculture - Jay
Kesan, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
· Case Study of IP and Commodity Groups - Ian Gray/Gary
Lemme
· Brief Report from each Station on Status of IP Discussions
(refer to Agenda Brief)
· Open Discussion and Next Step
Thursday, March 14 (8:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon)
12.0 Report from each AES on Budget Conditions
and the Opportunity for Partnerships with other AESs or Units
for Budget Reduction and Efficiency - Ian Gray
13.0 ARS Report - Darrell F. Cole, Associate
Area Director
13.1 Center for Rural Development Update -
Handout
14.0 AESOP Update - Terry Nipp (Wednesday,
March 13 at 1:00 p.m.)
15.0 CSREES Report - David Holder/Dan Kugler/Terry
Meisenbach/Mary Ann Rozum
16.0 Nominations Committee Report - Phil Larsen
and Marjorie Kostelnik
17.0 Security on Campuses - All
18.0 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
- Wendy Wintersteen
19.0 Resolutions - tba
20.0 Summary and
Review of Assignments - Ian Gray
21.0 Announcements
· North Central Region Summer Meeting - Fond du Lac Reservation
- Duluth, Minnesota - July 9-11, 2002
· All COPS/ESCOP Meeting - Salt Lake City, Utah - July
22-24, 2002
· Research Center Administrators Society [http://www.rcas.msstate.edu/index.html]-
September 8-11, 2002
· NCRA Regional Meetings/Experiment Station Section Meeting/SAES/ARD
Directors' Workshop - Baltimore, Maryland - September 23-25, 2002
· NASULGC Meeting - Chicago, Illinois - November 10-12,
2002
| NC-168 NC-174 NC-189 NC-213 NC-221 NC-222 |
NC-223 NC-224 NC-503 NCR-188 NCR-190 NCT-186 |
NCT-190 NRSP-1 NRSP-5 NRSP-8 |
| NC-129 NC-131 NC-136 |
NC-202 NC-205 NC-230 |
NCR-52 |
Meeting Calendar
| Month | Meeting Description | ESCOP Executive Committee | ESCOP Membership | Regional Directors | All Directors | Length of Meeting | Venue |
| February/March | ESCOP Meeting | . |
|
. | . | 2 days | Usually with CARET |
| March/April | Regional Association Meetings | . | . |
|
. | 2 days | Regional Office plans |
| April/May | ESCOP Executive Committee |
|
. | . | . | 1-1/2 days | ESCOP Chair plans; could use video conferencing |
| July | ESCOP Executive Committee Regional mini-land-grant All COPS |
|
. |
|
x |
as needed 2 days 3 days |
Joint with all COPS
meeting AHS member in host state arranges Rotates among COPS and AHS |
| September | ESCOP Executive Committee Experiment Station Section SAES/ARD Workshop Regional Association |
x (?) | . | x |
x x |
as needed ½ day 1-1/2 days ½ day |
Joint with SAES/ARD
Workshop Joint with SAES/ARD Workshop Joint with SAES/ARD Workshop Joint with SAES/ARD Workshop |
| November | NASULGC Annual Meeting ESCOP Executive Committee |
x |
. | . | Optional | 2-1/2 days ½ day |
NASULGC at NASULGC meeting site |
Agenda Brief: 7.0
Presenter: Daryl Lund
Title: Attendance at NCRA Meetings
A reminder that the NCRA Executive Committee requests that directors
from each station make a commitment that at least one representative
be present for the entire meeting (see Agenda Brief 17.0 from
the July 1995 meeting).
Action Requested: Reminder of representation.
Action Taken: Directors are encouraged to have at least
one representative from your station stay for the entire NCRA
meeting.
Agenda Brief: 8.0
Presenter: Kevin Kephart
Title: Sun Grant Initiative
Many people have recognized that agriculture has a role to play
in solving some of the nation's projected energy problems. A concept
named the Sun Grant Initiative has been developed to broaden the
role that land grant universities play in their unique approach
to higher education. The Sun Grant Initiative will expand the
activities of land grant universities to include renewable energy
and biobased industries. South Dakota State University and the
office of US Senator Tom Daschle developed the initial concept
of this initiative. A network of five land-grant universities
serving as regional Sun Grant centers has been proposed. The universities
include South Dakota State University, Oklahoma State University,
the University of Tennessee - Knoxville, Cornell University, and
Oregon State University. With leadership from USDA-CSREES, the
regional centers will emphasize integrated research, Extension,
and educational programs on renewable energy and biobased industries
based in rural communities. Each center will receive base Federal
funding for their central roles in research, Extension, and higher
education. In addition to the five centers, significant resources
and expertise exists at other land grant institutions throughout
the nation. The Sun Grant centers will engage with them as a synergistic
mechanism for technology transfer and higher education for the
benefit of a rural biobased economy. These programs will embrace
the multistate, multi-function, multi-disciplinary integrated
approach that is at the heart of the land-grant method of addressing
problems. Moreover, the centers will interface their activities
with DOE research laboratories. A planning grant (earmark) has
been funded with the objective to develop an administrative plan
for implementation of the Sun Grant Initiative. The mission of
the Sun Grant Initiative will be to (1) enhance national energy
security through development, distribution and implementation
of biobased energy technologies, (2) promote diversification and
environmental sustainability of America's agriculture through
land-grant based research, Extension, and education programs in
renewable energy and biobased products, and (3) promote opportunities
for biobased economic diversification in rural communities.
The Sun Grant regions will be organizing planning conferences
during late spring or early summer of 2002. Planning for the north
region is underway and will likely be held in Brookings, South
Dakota.
Action Requested: Information.
Action Taken: Dr. Kephart explained and handed out a brochure
describing the SUN Grant Initiative (a copy can be obtained from
Dr. Kephart's office or the Executive Director's Office). Drs.
Dentine, Larsen and Wintersteen volunteered to help Dr. Kephart
in this initiative for the North Central Region.
Agenda
Brief: 9.1
Presenter: Virginia Clark Johnson
Title: ESCOP Activities
ESCOP met March 4-5, 2002 in Washington, D.C. Discussions of the
ESCOP meeting were:
· ESCOP is appointing a committee to examine the committees'
structures and charges, especially relative to the new Board on
Agriculture Assembly (BAA).
· Discussed the Science Roadmap (also on NASULGC web site:
http://www.nasulgc.org/)
· Vision for 21st Century (an extension publication) should
be on campuses. Also should be posted on the NASULGC web page
in the near future
· Reorganization of CSREES
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: None.
Agenda
Brief: 9.2
Presenter: Daryl Lund
Title: FY 02 Budget and Legislative Committee
· The ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee has two areas
of responsibility: budget (handled by Richard Jones) and legislative
(handled by Darrell Nelson).
· Agrosecurity is an important issue. Five issues to be
concentrated on are:
*Prepare to respond to emergency outbreaks ($49 million)
*Prepare to counteract terrorism ($30 million)
*Build secure communities ($45 million)
*Address immediate security needs ($80 million)
*Educate scientists, teachers and specialists ($8 million)
· The budget committee has not gone into further detail
than what the Budget Advocacy of the Board on Agriculture has
already done.
· Want to start engaging people to start thinking about
the FY 04 budget. It will be important to pick a topic and stay
with it.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: Tom Payne supports that ESCOP stay with agrosecurity
until FY 04.
Agenda
Brief: 9.3
Presenter: Daryl Lund
Title: Farm Bill Task Force
· Thank you to the states that responded to the e-mail
from AESOP "News from the Hill" regarding the section
language on the Farm Bill.
· Currently the Farm Bill is in conference.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: None.
Agenda Brief:
10.1
Presenter: Robert Holm
Title: NRSP-4/IR-1
Dr. Robert Holm gave a brief presentation on the operation of
NRSP-4, "A National Agricultural Program to Clear Pest Control
Agents for Minor Uses".
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: None.
Agenda Brief:
11.0
Presenter: Directors from Individual States
Title: Indirect Cost Recovery ad hoc Committee Report and
Program
Intellectual Property Discussion
Illinois
1. The University of Illinois has two campus-level offices that
deal with intellectual property. The Office of Technology Assessment
(OTA) deals with IP and technology on the front end (when funding
agreements are drawn up, for example), and the Office of Technology
Management (OTM) deals with the same issues on the back end (when
we are considering patenting or licensing our technologies, for
example). If we want to sign a grant or contract that has any
sort of special IP implications (for example, a company wants
to fund research with the understanding that it captures all of
the IP), we work with OTA to draft up the written agreement, which
is signed before the research begins.2. Although there is a lot
of flex in our system, a couple of broad principles apply. One
is that we want to capture our fair share of IP. Another is that
we'd like to commercialize as much of it as possible in Illinois
and more specifically in our own Research Park. A third is the
implicit relationship between indirect cost recovery and IP. The
more that the funding organization wishes to fund indirect costs,
the more we are willing to share IP with them. 3. I am not sure
how to respond to your question about constraints, but anecdotally,
I could identify several. One is that we're at least partially
bound by our land grant history of giving everything away. Many
of our faculty think that it's just bad to protect IP--for philosophical
reasons, and because it limits free scientific discourse. Another
is that Illinois is still fairly unsophisticated in working out
IP agreements. Both our own faculty and potential private partners
know that the transaction costs are high. A third is that our
ag stakeholders misunderstand IP and always have the knee jerk
reaction that it is bad. This causes them to behave in ways that
arguably cloud the real IP issues--and make IP negotiations more
difficult than they need to be.
Indiana:
Intellectual Property Rights Management
All IP at Purdue University is managed by the Office of Technology
Commercialization within the Purdue Research Foundation, with
the exception of new varieties, which are released by the Experiment
Station and marketed through the Purdue Agricultural Alumni Seed
Foundation. In this case, most new varieties are protected by
"trade secrets" and licensed to seed companies. The
Indiana Crop Improvement Association serves to "certify"
the seed and collect the royalties, that come back to the Experiment
Station to support plant breeding.
To establish any special arrangements involving IP, funding organizations
usually begin in the Experiment Station. Ultimately, agreements
are hammered out in OTC. In almost all cases, Purdue retains the
ownership of IP, but agrees to license to other parties based
on their contribution to the research. In general, Purdue does
not approve sharing of royalty streams, but their have been exceptions
the resulted from up front negotiations. Commodity groups (check
off programs, etc) rarely get special treatment, as they do not
pay indirect costs. However, we have special MOU's with the Mint
Industry Research Council and the Indiana Soybean Board, that
provide these organizations "first rights" to license
technology resulting from projects they have funded. In both of
these cases, the organizations have agreed to pay some IDC on
grants (10-15%). In one recent patent involving the Indiana Soybean
Board, we have agreed after the fact to share royalties based
on negotiated co-ownership of the IP.
Regarding IDC, the University has become more accepting of funding
from organizations (foundations and commodity groups) that have
a clear policy statement indicating they do not pay IDC. However,
these funds will not be accepted if the organization claims ownership
of resulting IP. Rights of IP can only be included in funding
contracts when IDC is paid, and then it is only first rights to
negotiate a license.
Iowa:
Intellectual Property Policies
Process for establishing Intellectual Property Relationships1
The Iowa State University Research Foundation (ISURF) owns and
manages certain intellectual property for Iowa State University.
ISURF enters into formal relationships with private companies
by way of license agreements. A license is an agreement whereby
the university or ISURF retains ownership of certain intellectual
property, and the private company is granted permission or rights
to make, use and/or sell a certain product, design, process, or
service or to perform other specified actions that utilize the
intellectual property. A license may extend for a few years or
for the life of the intellectual property rights involved.
Private companies make an up-front payment upon issuance of the
license (issue fee), and ongoing payment linked to actual sales
of the products or services (royalty fee).
Terms and conditions for licensing agreements are negotiated on
a case-by-case basis by Office of Intellectual Property and Technology
Transfer (OIPTT). No two licensing agreements are exactly alike.
Commodity Board Agreements
Recently, OIPTT negotiated funding agreements with the Iowa Corn
Promotion Board (ICPB) and the Iowa Soybean Association (ISA).
In both agreements, ownership of patents and copyrights stays
with Iowa State University. In addition, ISU is the sole licensor
for plant varieties and germplasm.
Both the ICPB and the ISA have the option of obtaining a royalty-bearing
license to practice or use the discoveries resulting from the
funding agreement. This option must be exercised within 6 months
of receiving an invention disclosure. Only exclusive licenses
will allow the right to sublicense.
A number of additional issues are addressed in the funding agreement
with the ISA. First, if ISURF chooses not to file for patent protection,
the ISA may do so in the name of the ISURF at its own expense.
Second, if ISU through ISURF licenses the discovery to a third
party, and the ISA has not exercised its option to a royalty bearing
license, for any discovery solely funded by the ISA, the ISA will
receive 33 1/3% of the net royalties (gross royalties less patent
and patent administration expenses). For any discovery funded
by the ISA and other parties, a proportion of the 33 1/3% will
be provided to the ISA in direct proportion to the funding provided
by ISA.
1Intellectual Property Handbook - Benefiting Society
and Iowa State Innovations. Iowa State University Research
Foundation, Inc., Office of Intellectual Property and Technology
Transfer, Iowa State University. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~isurf/
Michigan
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station
(http://www.msu.edu/unit/oip/)
Intellectual Property Rights Survey
· Process for establishing IPR relationships
MSU retains ownership of all intellectual property (IP) but licenses
the rights to IP to optimize the benefit of the IP for society
and MSU. If IP is derived from ag commodity group supported project,
a five-person commercialization advisory committee composed of
MAES, inventor, sponsor, MSU Office of IP, and Michigan Department
of Agriculture recommends a commercialization plan to MSU. Commodity
groups are given the first right to license IP from sponsored
project and last option of matching any outside proposal to license.
· Guidelines for sharing IPR with non-university entities
including commodity groups
50% of the royalties returned to the academic unit from IP developed
by a commodity group sponsored contract is set aside in a dedicated
fund by MAES to support research of mutual interest to MAES and
the sponsoring commodity group.
· Constraints to sharing IPR followed by MSU
MSU does not generally share IPR with a research sponsor but outlines
licensing options to the sponsor at the time of acceptance of
the research contract.
COMMODITY PROJECT MASTER AGREEMENT
This Agreement is between Michigan State University ("University"),
an institute of higher education of the State of Michigan, having
its principal place of business in East Lansing Michigan, 48824
and the (Commodity), having its principal place of business at
(address), Michigan (zip). The University and (Commodity) may
each be referred to as a "party" and may collectively
be referred to as the "parties".
WHEREAS, the University's Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station
("MAES") was founded to discover new knowledge and develop
new technologies to address the challenges facing Michigan agriculture
for the benefit of the agricultural industries of Michigan;
WHEREAS, MAES generates knowledge through strategic research to
enhance agriculture, natural resources, families, and communities
in Michigan.
WHEREAS, Michigan producers and processors of agricultural commodities
have joined together to form agricultural commodity groups, some
of which groups are formally regulated through Michigan Public
Act 232, 114, 29 and 291 while others are affiliated with national
organizations or are locally organized.
WHEREAS, Michigan agricultural commodity groups through self-imposed
assessments to their members, raise funds, some of which are dedicated
for research by MAES and other University scientists for the benefit
of Michigan agriculture;
WHEREAS, the unique partnership between MAES and Michigan agricultural
commodity groups are a living testament to the University's land-grant
philosophy; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to cooperate and coordinate research
on problems and projects of mutual interest related to (commodity);
NOW, THEREFORE the parties mutually agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1 - Definitions
1. "Project" means any University research and/or development
project related to (commodity) that is agreed to in writing by
the parties and that meets the following condition: (Commodity's)
accumulated contribution, over a 3-year period, equals or exceeds
a threshold value of $5,000 for each new or renewed Project.
2. Commodity acronym, if appropriate) means (Commodity), a quasi-state
agency created by MI P.A. 29, 1970 as amended, to foster and develop
the Michigan (commodity) industry through research, promotion
and education.
3. "Invention" means any invention or discovery, whether
or not patentable, which is made in whole or in part by a University
employee in the course of a Project.
4. "(Commodity) Funds" include any monies paid by (Commodity
acronym) to the University to support a Project. (Commodity) Funds
do not include any license fees or royalties paid by (Commodity)
to the University to license any Inventions.
5. "Affiliates" means the (Commodity and any other titles
associated with such commodity). Any one of these entities may
be referred to as an "Affiliate."
ARTICLE 2 - Term
1. This Agreement is intended to cover all existing and future
Project(s), except as the parties may otherwise agree in writing.
2. This Agreement is effective on January 1, 2002 and terminates
on June 30, 2005 unless extended by written agreement of the parties.
ARTICLE 3 - Intellectual Property Rights and Duties
1. University and (Commodity) agree to discuss the management
of Inventions that arise from any Project or noncompetitive publicly
funded research activities directly related to said Project. Such
discussions will be undertaken by a Commercialization Advisory
Committee ("CAC") consisting of five (5) members as
follows:
University Members:
Assistant Vice President for Intellectual Property or his/her
designee
Director of the MAES or his/her designee
University Inventor. In cases where there are multiple University
inventors, one shall be chosen by the group to represent them.
Non-University Members
(Commodity) Chairperson or his/her designee
Michigan Department of Agriculture Director or his/her designee.
2. The CAC will discuss the technology transfer and commercialization
strategy for any Invention and make a recommendation to the University's
Vice-President for Research and Graduate Studies (VPRGS) within
three (3) months after formal disclosure of the Invention to University's
Office of Intellectual Property. The VPRGS will consider the CAC's
recommendation, but retains the final authority in deciding how
best to manage, protect and license the Invention. The VPRGS will
discuss his/her decision with the CAC if he/she makes a decision
counter to the recommendations submitted by the CAC.
3. University may elect to file and prosecute an application for
a patent or Plant Variety Protection (PVP) certificate, in which
case University will maintain any resulting patent and/or PVP
certificate at the University's expense. All resulting patents
and PVP certificates shall be the property of University.
4. In the event that University decides, in its discretion, to
apply for a patent or a PVP certificate on an Invention, it will
take such steps as are necessary to make the application in a
timely manner in accordance with applicable laws, rules, or regulations.
5. (Commodity) will be given the first opportunity to license
an Invention, and University will give reasonable consideration
to any request by (Commodity) to be considered for such a license.
In its discretion, and with respect to each Invention, (Commodity)
may assign this right to be considered for a license to one of
its Affiliates. However, University is under no obligation to
license any Invention to (Commodity) or to any of the Affiliates.
University's acceptance of such request shall be based on (Commodity's)
or the designated Affiliate's ability to show that it has the
intention and the ability to develop and commercialize the Invention
in timely fashion, in order to bring it into public use at least
on a par with any third party licensing opportunities available
to the University. It is understood that University may not be
able to accept such a request if University is under a prior obligation
to license the Invention to a third party. If University and (Commodity)
(or the designated Affiliate) enter good faith negotiations but
are unable to agree on the terms of a License Agreement for the
Invention within 6 months after doing so, then the University
shall be free to offer a license to third parties. However, the
University may not offer a license on more favorable terms to
third parties without first offering a license on such terms to
(Commodity) (or the designated Affiliate).
6. Any license of an Invention to (Commodity) (or a designated
Affiliate) shall have reasonable terms to be negotiated by the
parties in good faith and in timely fashion. The University shall
be represented in the negotiation by its Assistant Vice President
for Intellectual Property or his/her designee. Said terms shall
be embodied in a separate document (the "License Agreement"),
and shall include:
a. payment by the licensee of all expenses for the filing and
prosecution of patent or PVP certificate applications, and for
the maintenance of patent or PVP certificates;
b. an initial licensing fee in an amount sufficient at least to
reimburse any prior patent expenses paid by the University;
c. an annual running royalty to be paid to University;
d. a diligence obligation for any exclusive license, including
reasonable minimum annual royalties and/or commercialization milestones
;
e. a reserved royalty-free non-exclusive right of the University
and (Commodity) to use the Invention for their own internal non-commercial
research, testing and educational purposes.
7. If the University licenses an Invention to (Commodity) or any
third party, then in consideration of (Commodity's) research support,
University will establish a dedicated University research fund
to support MAES research projects in areas of mutual interest
to (Commodity) and MAES. This dedicated research fund will be
funded from the specific royalties obtained from each such license,
taking into account University policies on royalty distribution.
The source of such a dedicated research fund will be fifty percent
(50%) of the University's Academic Unit's share of any incoming
royalties under each license. Any and all future dedicated research
funds will be managed by MAES in conjunction with the relevant
University academic unit(s). MAES agrees to direct resources from
these dedicated research funds in an amount up to 20 times the
total accumulated (Commodity) financial support of the research
project responsible for generating the licensed Invention toward
research directly impacting the Michigan (commodity) industry.
MAES will consult with (Commodity) and the relevant University
academic units before allocating additional research funds toward
plant breeding and genetics research.
8. If (Commodity) wishes to sponsor a Project that utilizes intellectual
property belonging to any third party, then the University will
attempt to negotiate any necessary license from the relevant third
party. (Commodity) will provide the University with its good faith
assistance in securing such a license, if necessary. The parties
recognize that there is no certainty that any license will be
granted by a third party.
ARTICLE 4 - Publications
1. (Commodity) recognizes that, under University policy, the results
of any Project may be published, and University personnel will
have the right to present at symposia, national or regional meetings
and to publish in journals or otherwise of their own choosing.
However, (Commodity) will be furnished copies of any proposed
Project related publication or presentation thirty (30) days in
advance of submission of such publication or presentation to a
third party. (Commodity) will have thirty (30) days after receipt
of said information to suggest that patent or PVP certificate
protection be sought for the subject matter of the proposed publication.
In the event that (Commodity) makes such a suggestion, then University
may delay publication or presentation for a maximum of an additional
thirty (30) days from the date of such a suggestion in order to
file patent or PVP certificate application(s) with the appropriate
government offices.
2. If University elects not to publish the results of a Project,
then (Commodity) may, with the written perission of the University,
publish such results. In such case, University will be given an
opportunity to review the proposed publication and it shall not
be published until approved by University in writing.
3. Publication by either of the parties shall give proper credit
to the other party, unless one of the parties requests otherwise.
ARTICLE 5 - Records and Reports
1. University will require University personnel conducting research
under a Project to keep complete and systematic written records
of all work performed and data developed thereunder. All such
records shall be made available for inspection be an authorized
representative of (Commodity) at any reasonable time during University's
regular working hours, and copies of all or any part of such records
shall be furnished to (Commodity) upon request for its internal
use, provided that (Commodity) agrees to any measures necessary
to protect the patentability of yet-unpublished work.
2. During the term of any Project, (Commodity's) representatives
may consult informally with University's representatives regarding
said Project, both personally and by e-mail and telephone. University
shall make periodic reports to (Commodity) of the research conducted
under a Project and the results thereof including a description
of all Inventions, if any, and the filing of all patent and PVP
applications for such Inventions, and shall keep (Commodity) informed
of the status of said applications.
3. Such reports can include periodic visits by (Commodity's) representatives
to consult University's personnel at mutually agreed upon times
and places. Such reports can also include periodic visits by appropriate
University representatives to consult (Commodity's) personnel
at mutually agreed upon times and places. Reasonable travel expenses
for any such visits, outside of Michigan, shall be at (Commodity's)
expense.
4. At the conclusion of each 12 month period of a Project, University
shall submit to (Commodity) a written report summarizing the research
performed in that 12 month period. University shall also submit
a comprehensive written final report summarizing all research
results of a Project within 120 days after termination of said
Project.
ARTICLE 6 - Confidentiality
1. Disclosures of details of a patentable invention to (Commodity)
may jeopardize future patent actions. Accordingly in the event
that the University and (Commodity) wish to discuss such information,
(Commodity) shall be obligated to maintain such information as
confidential for three (3) years from the date of disclosure.
Information shall be deemed confidential if it is marked confidential
or stated in writing to be confidential. The above obligations
of confidentiality shall not apply to:
a. information which is provably in the possession of (Commodity)
prior to receipt hereunder; or
b. information which is now or later becomes generally available
to the public without breach hereof; or
c. information received from a third party having the right to
disclose such information without restriction; or
d. information which the disclosing party gives written permission
to publish or use;
e. information which is required to be disclosed by law or court
order.
ARTICLE 7 - Project Continuation and Outside Funding
1. If (Commodity) elects not to support a Project beyond the original
period set forth in any written research agreement, it is understood
that University shall have the right to seek funding from third
parties.
2. In the event research from a prior project is continued following
receipt of third party funding and discontinuation of (Commodity)
funding, University shall have no obligation to (Commodity) with
regard to the subject matter of inventions or discoveries made
in whole or in part by University employees in the course of such
continued research.
3. In the event that a third party wishes to provide funding for
a Project, the University, (Commodity), and the third party will
in good faith negotiate their rights to any Inventions before
such third party funding is accepted.
ARTICLE 8 - Funding
· (Commodity) Funds paid to University in an amount to
be negotiated for each Project will become property of University.
(Commodity) Funds paid to University will be expended for a Project
in a manner to be determined by University, for example, for salaries,
wages, travel, equipment, supplies, overhead, etc., as may be
reasonably necessary to carry out the Project. (Commodity) Funds
paid to University for purchasing equipment and supplies will
be applied so that title to all equipment and supplies will be
in University's name.
· University will render to (Commodity) an accounting of
(Commodity) Funds at (Commodity's) request, but no more often
than quarterly.
ARTICLE 9 - Miscellaneous
1. This Agreement shall in all events and for all purposes be
governed by and construed in accordance with, the law of the State
of Michigan, without regard to any choice of law principle that
would dictate the application of the law of another jurisdiction.
2. This Agreement shall not be assigned by either patty without
the prior written consent of the parties hereto.
3. This Agreement may be changed only by writing signed by the
parties expressly referencing the term(s) to be changed.
4. In the performance of any Project(s) hereunder, the parties
shall be deemed to be and shall be independent and, as such, shall
not be entitled to any benefits applicable to employees of the
other party. Neither party is authorized or empowered to act as
an agent for the other for any purpose and shall not on behalf
of the other enter into any contract, warranty, or representation
as to any matter. Neither party shall be bound by the acts of
the other.
5. Each party assumes any and all risks of personal injury and
property damage attributable to the negligent acts or omissions
of that party and the officers, employees, and agents thereof.
6. Neither party will use the name of the other party in any publicity,
advertising or news release without the prior written approval
of an authorized representative of the other party.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, each of the parties to this (Commodity) Project
Master Agreement have caused it to be duly executed on its behalf.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By: ____________________
Name: ____________________
Title: ____________________
Date:____________________
(Commodity)
By: ____________________
Name: ____________________
Title: ____________________
Date:____________________
03/08/2001
Guidelines for MAES and MSUE Research Sponsored by Michigan
Commodity Groups
Indirect Costs/Overhead Rates/Facility Charges and Administrative
Cost Rates and Intellectual Property Guideline
Preface:
Michigan State University, being a land grant university, has
a unique relationship with the agricultural industries of Michigan.
The agricultural commodity groups of Michigan have been a strong
partner and supporter throughout the history of Michigan State
University. They have been a positive voice to the Michigan Legislature,
Michigan State University Board of Trustees, and Michigan's congressional
delegation on behalf of Michigan State University and its research/extension
programs. Many of the agricultural commodity groups are organized
under Michigan Public Act 232 and administered through the Michigan
Department of Agriculture; while other groups are more loosely
organized. The common thread among these organizations is their
active engagement with MSU on research and educational programs
that benefit the well being of their industry and members. These
linkages are inherent in the founding principles of Michigan State
University and are at the core of the land grant philosophy. In
recognition of special partnerships that exist between Michigan
State University and Michigan agricultural commodity groups; the
University has traditionally and will in the future develop administrative
policies and guidelines that foster the continuation of this mutually
beneficial partnership.
Committee Recommendations
1. Standard Michigan State University indirect costs/overhead
rates/facility charges and administrative cost rate policies will
be waived for research contracts and grants from recognized agricultural
commodity groups.
Actions:
· A list of Michigan commodity groups will be developed.
Indirect costs will be waived on any grants and contracts from
organizations on this list.
· The list of Michigan agricultural commodity groups will
be updated by the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station and
delivered to the MSU Provost and President annually for their
approval.
· Transmittal sheets will be completed for all contracts
and grants received from Michigan agricultural commodity groups.
Rationale: Michigan producers and processors of agricultural commodities
have banded together to leverage their limited funds coming from
self-imposed assessments for the good of Michigan agriculture.
The active partnership represented by the communications, contracts,
gifts, and grants from these organizations and Michigan Agricultural
Experiment Station (MAES) researchers and Michigan State University
Extension (MSUE) educators are a cornerstone of the Land Grant
University.
2. Direct costs of research and extension projects must be
recognized by MAES
researchers/MSUE educators and Michigan agricultural commodity
groups.
Actions:
· No MSUE or MAES-funded department will levy an off-the-top
surcharge or tax from research/extension contracts, grants, and
gifts sponsored by Michigan agricultural commodity groups granted
an indirect cost waiver by the MSU Contracts and Grants Administration.
· Researchers/educators shall include the direct costs
of activities in their proposals submitted to commodity groups
for funding. Direct costs should be addressed through requested
financial support from the commodity group and approved internal
match funding.
Rationale: We recognize that there are costs associated with maintaining
facilities and managing accounts associated with commodity-sponsored
research above and beyond normal operations. The long-term availability
of these facilities and services for continued research activities
requires that all direct project costs be addressed in the funding
proposal. However, it is not appropriate for departments to collect
indirect costs from contracts and grants from Michigan agricultural
commodity groups when the MSU has waived these costs. Departmental
surcharges jeopardize the University waiver of indirect costs
of commodity group grants and contracts.
3. All "Testing" activities not sponsored by Michigan
agricultural commodity groups are subject to an indirect cost
rate of not less than 15% total direct costs (TDC).
Actions:
MAES researchers and MSUE educators are expected to use an indirect
cost rate not less than 15% TDC on all proposals and accompanying
transmittal forms associated with industry testing of all products,
materials, and processes.
· Department Chairpersons will ensure that industry contracts
and grants that involve testing activities comply with an indirect
cost rate of not less than 15% of total direct costs.
· No MSUE or MAES-funded department will levy an off-the-top
surcharge or tax from testing contracts granted a reduced indirect
cost rate by the MSU Contracts and Grants Administration.
· The approval for using the "testing" indirect
cost rate will be determined by the Department Chairperson, MAES
&/or MSUE, and MSU Contracts and Grants Administration with
appropriate input from the principal investigator and the Office
of Intellectual Property.
Rationale: Testing activities benefit Michigan agriculture but
do not commonly result in the development of intellectual property.
New knowledge gained from testing activities is commonly related
to the effectiveness of the tested products under Michigan conditions.
Verification of a product's effectiveness or utility by MSU will
financially benefit the sponsoring organization/company either
through product registration or increased sales. Thus, it is appropriate
that non-commodity organizations sponsoring testing activities
contribute to the current indirect costs/overhead rates/facility
charges and administrative cost rate indirect/overhead/facility
and administrative charges associated with the sponsored activity.
However, the benefit to Michigan producers and businesses is recognized
through the reduced indirect cost recovery rate.
4. All sponsored research and extension activities not funded
by Michigan agricultural commodity groups will comply with approved
MSU indirect costs/overhead rates/facility charges and administrative
cost policies.
Actions:
· MAES researchers and MSUE educators will use the current
indirect cost recovery rate on research/extension proposals to
sponsoring organizations and on accompanying transmittal forms.
· Department Chairpersons will ensure that contracts and
grants that involve research activities comply with current MSU
indirect cost rates.
Rationale: Research-extension contracts and grants initiated by
MAES researchers and MSUE educators, are subject to current MSU
Contract and Grant Administration policies. It is unethical and
totally unacceptable for faculty members to conspire with funding
organizations to avoid paying indirect costs.
5. A standard master agreement on intellectual property rights
and policies will be developed between by MSU and all Michigan
agricultural commodity groups seeking a waiver of MSU Indirect
Costs/Overhead Rates/Facility Charges and Administrative Cost
Rates.
Actions:
· The Office of Intellectual Property and MAES will develop
a boiler plate agreement that will be easily adapted for any Michigan
agricultural commodity group funding research/extension activities
that addresses intellectual property rights and policies to ensure
uniform treatment of all commodity groups.
· A Commercialization Advisory Committee (CAC) composed
of a representative of the MSU Office of Intellectual Property,
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station (MAES), the MAES researcher
or MSUE educator involved in the invention, a Michigan Department
of Agriculture official and a representative from the Michigan
commodity group involved in sponsoring the relevant research/extension
activity will be established. The CAC will make licensing recommendations
to the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies.
· Royalties and licensing fees generated froth intellectual
property derived from commodity group-funded research activities
must comply with MSU policies. However, MSU recognizes the unique
partnership that exists between agricultural commodity groups
and MAES through the establishment of a fund dedicated to furthering
research of mutual interest to the commodity group and the University
from fifty percent of the royalties returned to the Department(s)
and/or College(s). The rights of third parties sponsoring research
with commodity groups will be respected through current MSU intellectual
property policies but will not exclude the rights of sponsoring
commodity groups.
· All Michigan agricultural commodity groups will be invited
to an open discussion of intellectual property rights and policies
with MSU officials to finalize the development of a standard agreement
with all commodity groups who have not currently reached an intellectual
property agreement with MSU.
Rationale: Commodity groups and MSU jointly sponsor research for
the benefit of Michigan agriculture. Indirect costs are being
waived for commodity groups. Normally the waiving of indirect
costs result in the loss of rights to intellectual property developed
from sponsored research. However, the unique relationship between
MSU and commodity groups justifies a unique approach of utilizing
royalties and licensing fees to further research of mutual interest.
An agreement on the dedication of fees from the MSU Foundation
and originating Department/College to establish an endowed research
fund is desirable.
Minnesota:
Process followed for establishing IPR relationships at your
university.
1. Disclosure of the invention. 2. Patents and Technology Marketing
[PTM] evaluates the invention. 3. PTM decides whether to file
a patent application. 4. PTM files a patent application. 5. PTM
licenses the invention. 6. University distributes royalties and
revenue according to Bayh-Dole Act and University Intellectual
Property policy. Any income will be divided as follows: 1] 33-1/3%
to the creator; 2] 33-1/3% to the Office of the VP for Research;
and 3] 8% to the creator's college; and 4] 25-1/3% to the department
or unit that supported the creation of the intellectual property.
Guidelines for sharing of IPR with non-university entities including
commodity groups.
University has first rights to acquire title to any invention
that results from the use of University resources or University-administered
funds. This policy applies to all inventions related to the inventor's
work assignment. IP rights for non-federal sponsors are negotiated
at the time of award
Constraints to sharing IPR followed by your university.
Seeking a patent does not prevent publication and in most
cases does not delay publishing. University will not accept any
award that prohibits publishing.
Websites:
http://www1.umn.edu/regents/policies/academic/IntellectualProperty.pdf.
http://www.ptm.umn.edu
Missouri:
(1) The process followed for establishing IPR relationships at
your university
The University of Missouri s Office of Technology and Special
Projects (OTSP) oversees all intellectual property management
issues for the University of Missouri System. In the event that
new intellectual property results from the research support provided
by a commodity group, OTSP will obtain the invention disclosure
from its employees who may have conceived of or first reduced
the invention to practice and will work with its collaborating
partners to determine inventorship of any inventions. OSTP s website,
with details, is found at http://www.research.missouri.edu/otsp/index.html
(2) Generally recognized guidelines for sharing of IPR with non-university
entities including commodity groups
OTSP will work with the University s collaborating partners, including
commodity groups to execute agreements that define, among other
things, ownership of the invention(s), who will take the lead
in patenting and licensing the invention(s), and the equitable
sharing of revenue that results from the successful licensing
and commercialization of the invention(s). Revenues from commercialization
of such inventions are shared equitability based on the collaborators
relative contributions.
(3) Constraints to sharing IPR followed by your university.
Requests from any collaborator including commodity groups to pre-negotiate
licenses and licensing terms prior to creation of intellectual
property is a major constraint to sharing IPR.
Nebraska:
Intellectual Property Rights and Commodity Groups
For intellectual property resulting from research sponsored by
one of the state commodity checkoff boards, in accordance with
Board of Regents policy, ownership of the intellectual property
will always remain with the Board of Regents of the University.
The contracts with commodity boards vary somewhat, but nearly
all have provisions whereby the University must report to the
commodity board a patent or other intellectual property and any
licensing arrangements resulting from research they sponsored.
Nearly all of the contracts with the commodity boards have a provision
whereby royalties from the licensing of intellectual property
resulting from commodity board sponsored activity must be shared
or returned to the commodity board. The arrangements on this can
also vary, but the normal arrangement is for the share of the
funds which goes to the commodity board to be placed in a separate
fund to support high priority University research directed at
that commodity. The management of the funds would be by a joint
committee of the University and commodity industry members. Up
until now, the University of Nebraska has not licensed any intellectual
property which would be subject to these provisions from checkoff
commodity boards. We have a licensing agreement in the turf grass
whereby a long-term research sponsor is receiving 50% of the royalties.
In that instance, the royalties are not returned by the sponsor
to the University for additional research.
Ohio:
Licensing agreements are handled through the Office for Technology
Licensing (URL: http://techpartners.osu.edu/tp_otl.html ) at the
Ohio State University. OSU faculty and research scientists must
submit disclosures of discoveries, inventions, designs, works
of authorship, and any other intellectual property to The Ohio
State University, Office for Technology Licensing (OTL). All such
inventions conceived or first actually reduced to practice in
the course of the project by OSU faculty and research scientists
will be owned by The Ohio State University. OTL will notify any
partners of any such invention and will make the invention available
for the commercial licensing upon reasonable terms and conditions.
In consideration for the research funding provided, OSU may agree
to pay royalty income received by OSU from licensees or sub-licensees
to the inventions developed (5% has been the guideline where appropriate).
Germplasm development and variety releases are handled though
OTL, but OTL is sole licensor.
Major constraint is that IPR can be extremely complex and there
are not consistent or recognized models for us to follow.
South Dakota:
All IPR decisions on our campus are handled through the Office
of Research and Sponsored Programs, not AES. As it stands now,
each IP situation is handled on a case-by-case basis. Royalties
and rights to IP are shared with non-university entities and the
discussions have focused on the proportion of investment each
of the players has into the IP. I've not seen any boiler plate
language.
Wisconsin:
UW-Madison does not claim rights to intellectual property generated
during research by its faculty, staff or students, unless funding
agreements specify or restrict ownership rights. Federal law (the
Bayh Dole Act) requires that inventions resulting from federally
funded projects must be disclosed to the University. At the UW-Madison,
inventions are disclosed to the University Industry Relations
Office (UIR). These include potentially patentable inventions
as well as copyrighted software or other material. UIR does an
equity review of funding during the inventive period and is the
designated office for reporting invention disclosures made with
federal funding to the primary federal funding agency.
If the equity review shows that federal funding supported the
work, in part or in whole, the invention disclosure is sent to
the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF). WARF is an independent
non-profit organization that is the designee of UW-Madison for
patenting and licensing. If WARF elects not to proceed with the
filing of a patent application, the PI may petition the federal
agency for ownership of the invention. If WARF elects to proceed
with the filing of a patent application and the patent is issued,
it is assigned to WARF. WARF licenses the patent and is also able
to take an equity position in start-up companies (usually in lieu
of up-front licensing fees) to which WARF licenses intellectual
property.
If an industry or other non-federal organization sponsors research
at the UW-Madison, intellectual property developed with this funding
source that is also done in laboratories with concurrent federal
funding for the same or different projects is also managed by
WARF. In the absence of federal funding, the principle investigator
is at liberty to negotiate his/her own intellectual property disposition.
Because WARF is such an advocate for protecting inventor's intellectual
property rights and handling licensing, infringement issues, etc.,
the University encourages the inventor to bring all inventions
to WARF for patenting and licensing.
WARF may negotiate a first right of refusal to license the intellectual
property to the sponsor (usually non-exclusive licenses). Rights
to inventions that arise as a result of research supported by
industry consortia or other organizations such as commodity groups
are handled in the same way as agreements with single organizations.
Agreements are negotiated before the onset of research funding
and intellectual property developed with this funding is handled
by WARF if there is concurrent federal funding.
More information on WARF can be obtained at the website: http://www.warf.ws/index.jsp
Additional information
on UW-Madison's handling of intellectual property
http://www.rsp.wisc.edu/chap1/redbook.pdf
Agenda
Brief: 12.0
Presenter: Directors from Individual States
Title: AES Report on Budget Conditions
Illinois
· Illinois is a very integrated system
· 1.25% recission in the current fiscal year - face 4%
next year
· No salaries are on Hatch
· Directed to spend $117 m to redirect the farm facilities
· Asking sustainability questions about the facilities
· Trying to push not building all the facilities in Illinois
· The customer has needs and need to listen to them - will
determine what they do in the state
· Looked at what they call the "green industry"
- this is as big as corn and soybean in Illinois
· Suffer a little in ag to get the faculty's attention
- some faculty can get more sources from other sources than ag
- transaction costs - what is the benefit with joining with others?
Need to have significant sources behind them, otherwise faculty
won't look at them.
Indiana
· Have several things happening at the state level
· The surplus has been dwindling
· About two years ago the supreme court said that property
tax was unconstitutional
· Legislatures have tax reform; not sure what legislature
is going to do - think it will be flat
· Have about $90 m that are frozen - variety of funds (special
grants, 21st Century Fund; tobacco settlement)
· Several building constructions on campus now which are
supported by private funds
· Traditional ag field days are in decline by attendance
· Applications and admissions are up
Iowa
· Within a 24 month period, the station will loose 19%
- quite unhappy - relatively in a bad place
· Have had some opportunities to compete within the system
· The Plant Sciences Institute - funding is stable
· Will be forced to sell/trade the land of a few of the
large farms - no political connections
· Will try and not shut down any farms that would have
farmer implications
· Would like to do more sharing with other institutions;
hard to give up someone's time to share with someone else
Michigan
· Have been successful in the `90s - animal initiative
brought in money; included 22 new faculty members, post docs
· The animal initiative personnel are pulling from the
system and is causing some problems
· Plant Initiative - $1.6 m at the time; was designed so
that only 25% of the monies go to permanent faculty
· The provost has been pulling back 1% over the last 10
years - this is the herd management plan; if successful, can receive
more than 1%
· This year it will be another 5% increase - there will
be no reductions/recessions with the understanding that tuition
will not exceed ____%
· Were able to cover last years' deficit; this year won't
be able to
· It is best that legislatures talk to faculty; the experiment
station and extension do play a role
· The state legislatures term are limited - there will
be a bigger emphasis in attracting urban legislatures into their
programs
· Trying to get funds in an urban experiment station in
Detroit
· Have a new dean - very active in getting a strategic
plan in process
· The research agenda in the experiment station are going
to be land use and environment issues; profitable agriculture
with respect to value added; working with vet medicine; food health;
family community vitality
· Will be difficult to carry on programs that are "more
traditional"
· Need to take a positive attitude to the budget cuts -
time to refocus
· Need to look forward and make change and prepare for
the future
· Coalition set up - "family and communities together"
- have over 300 people working on this program
Minnesota
· Extension service is getting hammered in the legislature
· Trying to gear back so they have a number of extension
specialists on campus that they can support
· Major concern in legislature is that extension service
is too broad - too many social issues. Focus should be on agriculture
· The university will take about a $25 m cut next year
- around a 5% cut
· Have Incentive Management Growth - target year was about
1997
· The mind set is to take advantage of IMG - emphasizing
recruitment; stimulating good teaching; investment in recruiters
to help generate more students
· Incentive is to encourage recruitment of good students
and teach courses that are attractive to students
· Emphasis on tuition, ICR and grants;
· Bioterrorism is very much of a part of their lives in
Minnesota; motivated to look at biosecurity issues on campus
· Have been doing sharing of programs with ND, SD, IA
· Been involved with prioritization process - if taking
cuts, need to focus on where to invest the resources (bottoms
up process - started with faculty/department heads - revitalizing
rural communities, promoting safe and healthy foods; enhancing
ag systems)
· Looking to consolidate livestock
· Have a 7,500 acre of land that the university owns; suffers
from great potential; might look at some collaborative efforts
Missouri
· Governor announced 10% base cut for higher education;
of the 10% base cut, maybe ½ might be made up of tuition
increases
· Hoping for 8% - will have frozen positions to deal with
this
· Lot of building going on
· Focus is both private and life sciences
· Governor released tobacco money for life sciences; allowed
major institutions to compete
· It is a redirecting and refocusing time
· Life sciences in Missouri - it is ag, human, medical,
pharmaceutical, environmental work
· Extension - belongs to the system - could be a real crises
soon - could be eliminated
· About 90 of 300 extension people are agriculture
Nebraska
· Very integrated system
· Feel they have been treated fairly in the process of
budget cuts
· Had to come up with about 1.75 reduction; in the next
biennium, the institute would be about 2.5% reduction - faculty
taking lower salary wages
· Tuition increases
· Will lose roughly 10 FTEs; lose more in support staff
positions
· Will close some livestock facilities around the state
and will try to consolidate where there is some duplication
· When they have opportunities to cooperate with other
institutions, they do - Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming
· Midwest Poultry Consortium has been a good model for
them
· May face more challenges in the coming year - could have
an additional 1 to 3% in the coming year
North Dakota
· Will end up with 4.5% increase in salaries
· Were treated well with legislatures - operating funds
- core budget; have legislatures on a committee that has been
carrying the message
· Have problem with faculty salary compression
· Looking at new innovation and outreach
· Have shared positions with Minnesota in extension and
research; shared REC director with Montana; mutual agreements
so equipment can be interchanged within the units
· Just received a gift for 14 acres
· Rural population is dropping; need to recruit out of
state to keep programs going
· Working hard to put a "research" golf course
on campus
· Trying to get other colleges involved with their outreach
programs
Ohio
· Both Experiment and Extension have direct budget line
within the state
· Dealing with budget woes
· Took a 6% recession from the governor's office - didn't
effect the base
· Have a process called rebasing - the university will
be setting bench marks
· Integrated cost recovery
· Have facilities issues (aging); have a planning process
to look at this; this may offer the opportunity to talk to neighboring
states
South Dakota
· Flat for many years - on state side, they are a line
item
· Not experiencing any cuts despite some deficits at the
state level
· Entire state budget is smaller than some universities
· Projecting next year with a reduced return
· State has a contingency fund that they can dip into
· Salaries - legislature approved 3% salary increase; board
of regents wants to add 1%; been paying out of the salary enhancement
program
· Need to pay for promotions within their existing budget
· Have a change in retirement policy - additional percent
tacked on state retirement
· Have personnel on Hatch money for part of their salaries
· Only money lost was two years ago; legislature had questions
on food issues and biotechnology; gave $100,000 to the station;
this went out competitively to the faculty; this year it was taken
away
· Earmarks are new to them
· SUN grant initiative is top priority
· Deans and directors from ND, SD, Wyoming and Montana
want to work together (demographics and geography)
· Seeing a consolidation of grains
Wisconsin
· Do not have line items for Extension or the Experiment
Station
· Take regular cut - 1% reduction this year; base next
year; planning for 3 to 5% cut - probably 2 to 4% at the college
level
· Will handle cut in hiring; downsizing in positions
· The centers and programs will face reductions
· Areas of growth include some land use planning; nutrient
management, IPM and green industry
· Very heavily weighted with basic scientists
· Cluster hiring - the mechanism by which it was done is
causing problems
Agenda
Brief: 13.0
Presenter: Darrell Cole
Title: AES Report on Budget Conditions
· Discussed the ARS budget situation. (A copy of the USDA/ARS
budget is available from the Executive Director's office.)
· ARS is trying to fill vacancies as soon as possible
· Because of security reasons, ARS is currently not allowed
to hire foreign personnel (hoping this is a temporary basis).
This will have impacts on the programs.
· Biosecurity and the physical security is consuming the
agency.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken. None.
Agenda
Brief: 13.1
Presenter: Wendy Wintersteen (for Cornelia Flora)
Title: North Central Regional Center for Rural Development
At the March 1995 NCRA meeting, the AES Directors approved $24,000
annually for three years for the North Central Regional Center
for Rural Development. This agreement was renewed in 1998 for
an additional five years.
This support has allowed the NCRCRD to do additional programming
in the region and to leverage funds from outside the system. Although
it is not a large amount of money by some standards, it has been
critical to the success of NCRCRD. Reports of Center activities
have been provided to the AES directors in the form of an agenda
brief for the NCRA meetings.
Additional materials in the form of program and progress reports
will provide more detailed information on the activities of the
NCRCRD.
Action Requested: Requesting continued funding.
Action Taken: The NCRA Directors approved this request.
NCRCRD Progress Report
On-going research and integrated projects:
1. Comparative Rural Development Policies and Population Retention
(Dickerson State University)
2. Charting the Course for Rural and Community Prosperity (CSREES)
3. Analysis of Community-Based Leadership Development for Poverty
Reduction (Northwest Area Foundation)
4. Building Capacity for Community-Based Strategic Development
in Forest-Based Communities (USDA/Forest Service)
5. Monitoring and Analyzing the EZ/EC Place-Based Poverty Reduction
(USDA/Rural Development)
6. Native American Business Owners, Tribal Sovereignty, and e-Commerce:
An Assessment of Opportunities for Training and Technical Assistance
(CSREES)
7. Community-Based Natural Resource Management (EPA/USAID)
8. Community Systems for Integrating Crops and Livestock for a
More Sustainable Agriculture (USDA/IFAFS, with University of Maine
and Michigan State University)
9. Rural Communities and the Geography of Rural Financial Institutions
(NRI/Iowa State University)
10. Analysis of the Context, Process, and Outcomes of Wireless
Access for Excluded Communities Teamed with Land Grant Partners
(NSF/University of Nebraska)
11. Research and integrated projects in the development stage
1. Understanding and Serving Spanish-Speaking Populations in the
North Central Region (multiple funding sources identified)
2. Partnering with Rural Community Colleges for Rural Development
and Educational Access (CREES/Ford Foundation)
3. Agro-ecosystem Based Training for Leadership for Sustainable
Agriculture in Rural Communities (SARE)
4. Prairie Savannah Restoration for Ecosystem and Community Health
(NSF/NOAA)
5. Community-Based Preparedness for Terrorism and Bioterrorism
(CSREES)
These activities are carried out in collaboration with our colleagues
in the region in extension and research across social, behavioral
science and biological sciences. The funding we get from the Experiment
Stations allows us to be flexible and proactive to develop research
and integrated projects around emerging regional issues using
cutting edge science and state of the art outreach methodologies.
Agenda Brief:
14.0
Presenter: Terry Nipp
Title: AESOP Update
Terry Nipp attended the meeting and made the following comments:
Farm Bill
· The House and Senate are in conference negotiations
· The delay of the final text of the Farm Bill (manager's
amendment turned out to be more than 400 pages) which added to
the delay
· There is funding for IFAS
· The issue of the 25% on the multis has not been resolved
· Did establish a new granting system for equipment
Board on Agriculture Assembly
· Will be using the budget documents for testimony
Biosecurity
· If there are particular issues that states need help
with, please be in contact with AESOP
· AESOP is working with Extension on the Conservation Title;
providing education on nutrient management education
· Expect ag environment issues to be on the table after
the Farm Bill
· Dr. Jen is trying to get USDA back in the lead in biotechnology
· Looking at the energy legislation bill; the SUN Grant
Initiative is included
· If anyone has suggestions for new ideas, please be in
contact with AESOP
· Continue to read "News from the Hill"
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: None.
Agenda Brief:
15.0
Presenter: Dan Kugler
Title: CSREES Update
Dan Kugler handed out a flow chart of CSREES with the new reorganization.
Note that GPRA and Multistate Research will be handled through
Dr. Gary Cunningham's office.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: None.
Agenda Brief:
16.0
Presenter: Phil Larsen
Title: Nominations Committee
| . | Past AA | New AA |
| NC-1005 | J. I. Gray, MO | K. Kephart, SD |
| NC-213 | S. Slack, OH | W. Ravlin, OH |
| NC-229 | K. Kephart, SD | D. A. Benfield, OH |
WHEREAS George Ham retired from his position as Associate
Director for Research, the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station,
a position he has held since 1989; and Kansas State University;
and,
WHEREAS, George had a distinguished career of over 13 years
as a Department of Soil Science faculty member at the University
of Minnesota and he served 9 plus years as Head of the Department
of Agronomy at Kansas State University; and
WHEREAS, George had a productive career as a soil microbiologist,
making presentations throughout the world and training numerous
graduate students, and producing a multitude of peer-reviewed
publications and abstracts, and
WHEREAS, he served as chair of the North Central Regional
Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors
and served on numerous NCRA committees: and
WHEREAS, he served as the administrative advisor to numerous
North central committees and projects; and
WHEREAS, he provided excellent leadership as the first
chair of the ESCOP Science and Technology Committee and he served
other ESCOP assignments; and
WHEREAS, George served on the board of directors of numerous
organizations including the American Society of Agronomy and the
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST); and
WHEREAS, he has received numerous awards recognizing his
contributions including Fellow of the American Society of Agronomy,
the Soil Science Society of America, and the American Association
for the Advancement of Science; and
THEREFORE, the North Central Regional Association both
commends and thanks George Ham for his outstanding service to
the Association, the Land-Grant Mission and the people of the
North Central Region. We wish George and his wife, Alice, a long
and enjoyable retirement.
Presented March 14, 2002
A resolution to honor Richard Ross, former dean of Iowa State
University's College of Agriculture
Be it resolved:
· in recognition of his service, from 2000 to 2002, as
dean of the College of Agriculture at Iowa State University and
director of the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment
Station, as well as his seven-year tenure as dean of Iowa State's
College of Veterinary Medicine;
· in recognition of his leadership in engaging the College
in efforts to make agriculture competitive; to enhance natural
resources; to improve economic vitality, especially in rural communities;
and in espousing a broad view of all that agriculture stands for;
· in support of his continuing commitment as an Iowa State
distinguished faculty member in advancing research, teaching,
extension and international programs
· we extend to Richard Ross our highest appreciation and
our best wishes for the future.
Presented March 14, 2002
Agenda Brief: 20.0
Presenter: Ian Gray
Title: Summary and Review of Assignments - Ian Gray
· Drs. Dentine, Larsen and Wintersteen will help Dr. Kephart
with the SUN Grant Initiative in the North Central Region.