1.0 Call to Order and Introductions - Virginia Clark Johnson
Present: Steve Pueppke-Illinois; Darrell Nelson, Dale Vanderholm-Nebraska;
Virginia Clark Johnson, Jim Venette-North Dakota; John Allred,
Steve Slack-Ohio; Margaret Dentine-Wisconsin; Daryl Lund-NCRA
Office
2.0 Approval of the July 2001 Minutes - Virginia Clark Johnson
(Available at: http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/july2001minutes.htm)
Moved and seconded to approve without changes. To be voted on
by email ballot.
3.0 Adoption of Agenda - Virginia Clark
Adopted by consent.
4.0 Executive Committee Report and Interim
Actions of the Chair - Virginia Clark Johnson
5.0 Executive Director =s Report - Daryl Lund
5.1 NCRA Rules of Operation
5.2 NIMSS Update
5.3 New NRSP Proposal, "National Agricultural
and Natural Resources Data Support System"
5.4 Integrated Activities
6.0 ESCOP Report
6.1 ESCOP Activities - Tom Payne
6.2 FY 02 Budget and Legislative Subcommittee
- Tom Payne
6.3 Farm Bill Task Force - Tom Payne
7.0 Report on Indirect Cost Survey - Steve
Slack
8.0 Nominations Committee Report - Dale Vanderholm/Margaret
Dentine
9.0 Resolutions - Daryl Lund
10.0 Announcements
· NASULGC Meeting - Washington, DC - November 11-13, 2001
· NCRA Meeting - Baltimore, Maryland - March12-14,2002
· North Central Region Summer Meeting - Fond du Lac Reservation
- Duluth, Minnesota - July 9-11, 2002
11.0 Summary and Review of Assignments - Virginia
Clark Johnson
Agenda
Item: 4.0
Agenda Item Title: Executive Committee Report and Interim
Actions of the Chair
Presenter: Virginia Clark Johnson
Since the July 2001 meeting, I have taken part in the following:
· Communicated with AES Directors, Deans, and State Department
of Agriculture Secretaries regarding the formation of a liaison
with MASDA in Kansas and South Dakota.
· Responded to requests and correspondence related to NCRA.
· Projects have been submitted to Washington for their
concurrence.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: As reported in the agenda brief.
Agenda
Item: 5.0
Agenda Item Title: Executive Director's Report
Presenter: Daryl Lund
The following are the activities that I have been participating
in since July 2001:
Activities Directed Nationally
· ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee
Assisted chair and chair-designate in keeping the committee informed
about the FY 02 federal budget and the Farm Bill.
· Multiple Activity Programs (MAPs)
Assisted in identifying ESCOP representatives to an ad hoc joint
ESCOP/ECOP Committee on MAPs.
· ESCOP Science and Technology Committee
Continued development of the Science Roadmap for Challenge Area
6 (Strengthening communities and families) and Challenge Area
7 (Insure improved food safety and health through agricultural
and food systems). Assisted in analysis of CRIS system for current
investment in these areas and projected needs over the next 5
- 10 year period.
· ESCOP Chair's Advisory Committee
Participated in monthly conference calls.
· SAES/ARD Workshop
Continued direct leadership in organizing the program for this
annual event.
· New Research Administrators' Orientation
Organized the program for a research administrators' orientation
to be held the day before the annual workshop (first one since
1996).
Activities Directed Regionally
· Summer Joint Meeting
Co-organized and co-chaired afternoon priority setting session
at the mini-land grant summer meeting in Madison.
· ad hoc Indirect Cost Recovery Committee
Assisted Steve Slack, chair of the committee, in designing a survey
instrument for the North Central directors on indirect cost recovery.
Conducted and analyzed the results of the survey. Shared the results
with the ad hoc committee for next steps.
· Integrated Multistate Activities
Examined the North Central Region protocol for identifying and
supporting integrated (Research and Extension, primarily), multistate
activities. Initiated discussions with individual directors to
get a sense of regional interest.
· National Information Management Support System
Monitored progress on the NIMSS. Supported Madelyn in getting
SAES 422 Annual Report and project proposal for all projects ready
for insertion in the NIMSS. Supported Madelyn in traveling to
Baltimore to meet with NIMSS designers and other regional office
administrative assistants.
Other
· Responded to questions regarding national and regional
issues.
Activities Directed Professionally
· International Union of Food Science and Technology
Chair, Task Force on Distance Education, with an annual plan of
work including a proposal for the role of DE/DL in food science
and technology in Eastern, Central and Southern Africa (ECSA)
· Institute of Food Technologists
Chair, Task Force on Identifying Research Agenda for Food Science
and Technology, with a proposal to create and support Gordon-type
conferences for prioritizing needs.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: None.
Agenda
Item: 5.1
Agenda Item Title: NCRA Rules of Operation
Presenter: Daryl Lund
After the July 2001 meeting of the
Multistate Research Committee and the NCRA, minor changes were
made to the Rules of Operation changing the membership of the
Multistate Research Committee. These rules were sent to the directors
on August 3, 2001 for review of the changes and asking
the directors if they agreed or disagreed with the changes (with
one vote per station). Out of the 12 states, we received 10 states
that agreed with the changes (two states did not respond). The
rules indicate that the quorum must be a minimum of seven SAES
members. These changes will be made effective and posted on the
web after the NCRA meeting on September 27.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: Final reading with no changes.
Agenda
Item: 5.2
Agenda Item Title: NIMSS Update
Presenter: Daryl Lund
The NCRA approved the National Information Management and Support
System (NIMSS) at the March 2001 NCRA meeting. This program is
being created/programmed through the NERA Executive Director's
Office. At the Orientation for New SAES and ARD Research Administrators
and at the SAES/ARD Directors' Workshop this program will be demonstrated
and discussed. On August 28-29, the associations' administrative
assistants met at the NERA's office to have a hands-on-training
with the program. At this meeting, there was much discussion about
the various needs of the regions (e.g., the North Central Region
uses different review forms for multistate projects). It was agreed
at the end of this meeting, that the programmer was going to make
the suggested changes so that the program was a national program,
but with the uniqueness of each region. Madelyn feels that once
these changes have been made, the program will be very useful
to all regions. At this time, we have not seen what the programmer
has done with the suggested changes.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: Madelyn will send out notice to Stations
when it is appropriate to utilize the NIMSS system. Madelyn will
provide training to appropriate persons in the Stations. Darrell
Nelson inquired about the use of review forms for NCA-1 which
he now advises. Daryl Lund advised him to utilize the current
method of conducting reviews (until he hears differently from
Madelyn). It is anticipated that the data for all NC projects
will be in the NIMSS system by the end of October.
Agenda
Item: 5.3
Agenda Item Title: New NRSP Proposal, National Agricultural
and Natural Resources Data Support System
Presenter: Daryl Lund
Project Number: tba
Requested Duration: From October 1, 2002 to September 30,
2007.
Title: National Agricultural and Natural Resources Data
Support System1
Statement of Issue and Justification: The activities of
the State Agricultural Experiment Station (SAES) Directors necessitate
having timely and efficient access to a wide variety of data from
numerous sources including CRIS, NASS, EPA, U. S. Census Bureau,
and others. The National Agricultural and Natural Resources Data
Support System will employ advanced data management approaches
such as geographic information systems, relational databases,
visual management techniques, and other techniques to integrate
these data into an information system to support the engagement,
planning, and communication efforts of the SAES Directors. This
system will provide Directors the ability to organize the myriad
data for their individual states, regions or the nation into visual
formats for communicating with a wide variety of clientele including
Congressional Members, commodity organizations, CARET and other
stakeholder groups, and institutional administrators. The National
Agricultural and Natural Resources Data Support System will bring
to bear a powerful set of tools, techniques, and technologies
that will enhance the endeavors of the SAES Directors.
Objectives:
1. Support the SAES Directors individually and collectively in
the location and utilization of extant program data (data mining)
and in the development of timely reports and analyses consistent
with decision-making timeframes.
____________
1A similar system, the Southern Regional Data Support
System, has been in operation at the Mississippi State University
Social Science Research Center under sponsorship of the Southern
Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors since
1996.
2. Provide access to and use of a wide range of extant data maintained
by the Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State University.
[Examples of current resources available include: CRIS data from
1970 - 2000; Agricultural Census data; NASS Crop Estimates; U.
S Census data from inception to the most recent census; EPA data
files; Consumer Expenditure Survey Data; Economic Census; County
Business Patterns.]
3. Prepare visual presentations and analyses that are useful for
the examination of multidisciplinary problems as they relate to
national, regional and local experiment station issues. Utilize
the data support system to spatially depict data using the capabilities
of the Visual Management approach.
4. Utilize the data support system to enhance decision-making,
planning and communication capabilities of the SAES Directors.
Expected Outcomes and Impacts:
Products: A wide variety of types of products available
from the Data Support System include, but are not limited to:
(1) reports patented to the needs of individual Directors, Multistate
Research Technical Committees, Coordinating Committees, and ESCOP;
(2) analyses of fiscal and human resources in relation to measures
in the Agricultural Censuses by agricultural commodity or natural
resource within states, and within or across regions; (3) analyses
of scientific capacity by commodity, field of science, or other
factors within geographic or ecological zones, Congressional districts,
states, regions, etc.; (4) visual time-series animations of U.
S. population growth, movement, and other changes; and (5) visual
time-series animations of agricultural data (production, land
in farms, size, crops).
Impacts: The major impacts to accrue from this effort are
improved capacities and capabilities for Directors to communicate
research efforts and outcomes in visual formats.
Internal and External Linkages: tba
Educational Plan: The lead Administrative Adviser with
assistance from the project staff will present an annual report
to the Experiment Station Section. Presentations to other groups
will be made as time and resources allow. The project staff will
prepare an annual report of accomplishments which details activities
for the year, new or novel data sources, new technologies available,
etc.
Governance: Oversight for the project will be provided
by the four regional Administrative Advisers with the lead Administrative
Adviser serving as chairperson. The four SAES regional Association
Executive Directors and Administrative Advisers will serve as
an advisory committee for the project. This advisory committee
shall meet at least once annually. Information and project requests
to the project will be received and prioritized by the advisory
committee in consultation with the project lead.
|
|
|||||
| . | FY 03 | FY 04 | FY 05 | FY 06 | FY 07 |
| Personnel Services | . | . | . | . | . |
| Project Leader (0.50 FTE) | 25,000 | 26,250 | 27,563 | 28,941 | 30,388 |
| Research Analyst(s) (1.00 FTE) | 28,000 | 28,500 | 29,000 | 29,500 | 30,000 |
| Fringe Benefits (25%) | 13,250 | 13,688 | 14,141 | 14,610 | 15,097 |
| Subtotal Pers. Services | 66,250 | 68,438 | 70,703 | 73,051 | 75,485 |
| Operating | . | . | . | . | . |
| Supplies | 2,500 | 2,500 | 2,500 | 2,500 | 2,500 |
| Contractual Services (incl. software, computer maintenance, etc.) | 10,250 | 10,250 | 10,250 | 10,250 | 10,250 |
| Subtotal Operating | 12,750 | 12,750 | 12,750 | 12,750 | 12,750 |
| Equipment2 | 17,500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Travel | 3,500 | 4,000 | 4,250 | 4,500 | 4,750 |
| Total | 100,000 | 85,188 | 87,703 | 90,301 | 92,985 |
Click on any of the
documents below to view them over the Internet
1. Select Slides from 2000 Presentation to Southern Association
of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors
2. Current Research Information System (CRIS): Analysis of State
and Federal Research Capacity Report
3. Analysis of NSF R&D Expenditures and CRIS Research Expenditures
for NSF's Top 50 Institutions, 1999
4. Current Research Information System (CRIS): 1862 SAES and 1890
ARD Expenditures, 1970-1997 Report
5. Select Slides from 1998 Presentation to Southern Association
of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors
6. Animated U.S. County Map: Time Series of Soybean Yield 1972
– 1999 (2 Mb Flash Movie)
7. Animated U.S. County Map: Time Series of Corn Production 1972
– 1999 (7 Mb Flash Movie)
For Additional Information Please visit: http://www.ssrc.msstate.edu/monitorlab/
or
http://www.ssrc.msstate.edu
Navigate to Laboratories and select Monitor Lab
Action Requested: Regional Approval on the NRSP
Action Taken: Tom Helms discussed the preproposal with
the attendees. He pointed out that the mechanism of using NRSP
as the vehicle for funding such a contract was not decided upon.
He suggested that there should be an advisory committee with representation
from each region to develop a full proposal. Discussants suggested
that a contract with support through the Regional Director's Office
would a better mechanism since it would allow a one-year contract
in order to evaluate the utility of having access to the Social
Science Research Center. Furthermore, there are several such centers
which could offer this service and perhaps a competitive bid process
should be used. From the description of the service this is administrative
support for research and not research per se. It could also be
also tied directly to NRSP-1. This raised the possibility that
NRSP-1 should perhaps be supported through the Regional Offices
rather than through an NRSP. It was further suggested that an
advisory committee would need to set the guidelines for priority
on requests to the Center. It was recommended that Daryl should
prepare a ballot for the Region which reflects the discussion
at this meeting. Results of the ballot will be presented to Tom
Helms.
Agenda
Item: 5.4
Agenda Item Title: Integrated Activities
Presenter: Daryl Lund
Daryl Lund reviewed his discussions with several individuals on
the status of formal integrated (research and extension), regional
activities. The Southern and Western Regions have formal procedures
for recognizing and approving integrated, multistate activities
and the Northeastern Region is in the process of developing formal
procedures and protocols. The North Central has no formal procedures
and protocols although a majority of NC projects include extension
activities. There have been several attempts to have discussions
with Extension counterparts to determine their degree of interest.
Daryl will develop further information and bring the discussion
to the Multistate Research Committee at the March meeting of the
MRC.
Agenda
Item: 6.1
Agenda Item Title: ESCOP Activities
Presenter: Tom Payne
Please refer to the ESCOP web page: ( http://www.escop.msstate.edu/minutes/exec5-01.htm ) for the May 1-2, 2001 ESCOP Executive Committee
Meeting minutes which will provide you with an update on ESCOP
activities.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: As reported in the agenda brief.
Agenda
Item: 6.2
Agenda Item Title: FY 02 Budget and Legislative Committee
Presenter: Tom Payne
Fiscal Year 2002 Budget:
House
The House Agriculture Appropriations Committee Budget for CSREES
in FY 2002 included discretionary funding totaling $993,936,000.
This represents an increase of $124,264,000 over the FY 2002 President's
Budget Request of $869,672,000 and an increase of $7,432,000 over
the FY 2001 post-rescission amount of $986,504,000. The FY 2002
Budget will fund most programs, including formula programs, at
the FY 2001 level. Funding is also provided for earmarked Special
Research Grants, Extension and Research Federal Administration
projects and grants, Critical Agricultural Materials, Supplemental
and Alternative Crops, Farm Safety, and Rural Health and Safety.
Language is included in the bill that prohibits use of funds to
carry out the Fund for Rural America and the Initiative for Future
Agricultural and Food Systems.
Senate
The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Committee Budget for CSREES
in FY 2002 totaled $1,026,068. This represents an increase of
$156, 396,000 over the FY 2002 President's Budget request of $869,672,000,
an increase of $32,132,000 over the FY 2002 House Bill of $993,936,000,
and an increase of $39,564,000 over the FY 2001 appropriated post
rescission amount of $968,504,000. The FY 2002 Budget will fund
most formula programs and most other research, education, and
extension programs at the FY 2001 post rescission level. An increase
to $137 million over the FY 2001 level is proposed for the National
Research Initiative. Increases are also proposed for IR-4, Minor
Crop Pest Management Special Research Grant, Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Extension Programs, Rural Development Centers Special
Research Grant and Smith Lever 3(d), Renewable Resources Extension
Act, 1890 Facilities, and the Organic Transition Program. Funds
are also provided for earmarked Special Research Grants, and Federal
Administration research grants and extension projects.
Language is included which prohibits the use of FY 2002 funds
to carry out the Initiative for Future Agricultural and Food Systems
but allows for the use of FY 2001 funds for this program in FY
2002. The Senate also prohibits the use of funds to carry out
the Fund for Rural America but makes funds available for the purpose
of administering and conducting oversight of grant awards and
obligations incurred through FY 2001.
Congressional Action
On May 16, the leadership of the Land Grant President's Food and
Society Initiative sent a letter to the Chairmen of the House
Budget and Appropriations Committees requesting that they provide
adequate funding to the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee
to support funding for research, extension and education through
USDA/CSREES. A similar letter in support of agricultural research,
extension and education was send by the National Coalition for
Agricultural Research. A Dear Colleague letter was circulated
in the House that called for a doubling of funding for research,
extension, and education. The letter was authored by Reps. Dooley
and Pickering and signed by 49 members, including 29 authorizers
on the Agriculture Committee. The Dear Colleague letter was delivered
to the full House Appropriations Committee.
On June 13, the House Full Appropriations Committee approved the
Agriculture Appropriations Bill. Essentially, special grants were
reestablished without harming any of our national programs. Several
specific funding lines saw modest increases, including sustainable
agriculture and the rural development centers. An amendment to
expand the Northeast Dairy Compact was withdrawn and an amendment
addressing agro terrorism did not pass. An amendment to fund USDA
promotion of biofuels was also voted down. Rep. Meek made an appeal
to the committee to increase funding for land grant universities.
After the July 4th recess, the House passed the Agriculture Appropriations
Bill on the floor. None of the amendments adversely affected the
CSREES accounts. Congresswoman Eva Clayton had prepared several
amendments; one was to increase 1890 formula funds, using the
NRI as an offset. Clayton withdrew the amendment after Agriculture
Appropriations Chairman Bonilla (R-TX) provided assurances that
he would work with her on this issue through the conference process.
Letters were requested from Deans and Directors in key states
to support the IFAFS/FRA programs, to increase the formula funds
and to increase the NRI. Letters were gathered and delivered to
Senator Kohl (D-WI) and Senator Cochran (R-MS). Discussions continued
with the National C-FAR group. The Senate held a markup of the
FY 2002 Agriculture Appropriations Bill on July 18. No date has
been set for Senate floor action yet.
NASULGC Budget Development: The Board on Agriculture
Budget Committee developed simplified documents to present the
budget request. A one-page document was developed and made available
at the CARET meetings. This document identifies the total increase
that is proposed for USDA/CSREES. Four critical issue areas that
warrant increased expenditures are identified as follows: Revitalizing
Communities; Dependable Food Supply; Educated Workforce; and Environmental
Balance. In addition to the single, one-page brief, individual
single page briefs were developed for each of the four areas,
however, without a budget figure for each. The approach is similar
to that used by NSF, i.e., one budget figure and several targeted
areas for the new funding. The goal is to develop teams of CARET
members working with a "champion" in the House or Senate
to promote one of the four targeted areas. The March CARET meeting
was a workshop to develop the approach and identify people to
make up the teams. The following team leaders have been committed:
Revitalizing Communities - Tom Payne; Dependable Food Supply -
Ed Hiler and Reg Gomes; Educated Workforce - Larry Cote; Environmental
Balance - Bobby Moser.
During the recent ESCOP Executive Committee meeting, David MacKenzie
noted the need for an accountability mechanism. Discussions regarding
budget activities resulted in the need for a strategy for moving
forward and recognition that timeliness is critical. It was also
stressed that increases must be targeted. To facilitate this direction,
the following proposal was presented by Colin Kaltenbach and approved:
Formula Funds Accountability
Issue: Develop a method to expend new formula funds (Hatch,
Smith-Lever, and 1890 R/E funds) which clearly demonstrates the
following characteristics:
· Financial tracking on budgeting and expenditures
· Stakeholder input
· Integrated activities
· Potentially multi-state
Proposal: Develop Hatch MAP (Multiple Activity Program)
in each of the four program areas identified by the budget committee.
· Environmental Balance
· Secure and Dependable Food Supply
· Community Opportunities
· Invest in an Educated Work Force
Who: ESCOP Task Force on New Formula Fund Programs composed
of one representative of each region plus the five Executive Directors
(ED), utilizing Multistate Research Committee (MRC) chairs for
input. The Task Force process would be as follows:
1. Each ED developed the concept of a MAP in each of the four
areas (total of 20 MAPs);
2. Task Force reviewed and modified the 20 descriptions (using
the MRCs);
3. Task Force shared with ESCOP and Extension Directors for potential
adoption as framework;
4. The MAPs will be used to demonstrate how new Hatch and 1890
research money would be spent.
The Farm Bill Task Force Report: The Task Force has been appointed
by Tom Fretz, Maryland, and is similar to the 1998 group but with
an expanded charge. The decision was made to look broadly on the
total portfolio and not just the Research and Education Title.
The Task Force decided to review the existing Farm Bill and look
at opportunities for our system and handle technical corrections
through the appropriate mechanisms.
A working group, which is a subset of the Task Force, was asked
to develop a "white paper" to serve as a starting point
for our deliberations.
Stan Johnson, Iowa, led the working group and developed a paper,
which attempts to put in perspective the various titles in the
existing bill and the respective funding mechanisms. At present,
the final draft of the white paper has undergone an extensive
number of reviews. Key leaders have been contacted to flesh out
and provide details on each of the titles in the white paper.
Milo Shult, Arkansas, on behalf of the Board on Agriculture, put
together a "white paper" which was presented at the
CFERR session during the NASULGC Annual Meeting. The most recent
draft of the "white paper" will be distributed during
the ESCOP July meeting.
David Chicoine testified at a Senate Agriculture Committee on
the Research/Extension Title on behalf of the Board on Agriculture.
Sam Curl testified before the House Agriculture Conservation Subcommittee
when they held a hearing on the research, extension, and education
title. The turnover in the leadership in the Senate has confused
the timing of the Farm Bill debates. It is expected that the Senate
may start drafting in the Fall. The House has proceeded with developing
a bill, with will likely be marked up on July 26th and reported
out of Committee by August 2nd. Because of the accelerated schedule
in the House, AESOP has developed draft legislative language based
on the priorities identified in developing the "white papers."
This language has been discussed with Congressional staff and
discussed at the recent Western and North Central regional meetings.
ESCOP was represented by Dr. Charles Scifres at the public workshop
on May 22-23, 2001 hosted by the Board on Agriculture and Natural
Resources of the NRC. A committee chaired by Frank Loew "conducted
Opportunities in Agriculture, a study to evaluate the quality,
relevance and effectiveness of the research, education, and extension
activities of the ARS, CSREES, ERS and NAS."
House
In the first outline of House Farm Bill, the House extended the
authorization of the IFAFS program at $94 million a year, which
is lower than the current level of $120 million a year. In the
second draft, the House increased IFAF Funding to $120 million
a year. In the Committee mark-up, Congressman Dooley (D-CA) and
Congressman Osborne (R-NB) offered amendments to bill to increase
funding for research, extension and education. By the end of these
efforts, IFAFS was increased to $140 million a year. The Fund
for Rural America was not reauthorized. A number of provisions
proposed by the NASULGC Farm Bill Task Force were included in
the language passed by the House Committee. The House planned
to take the Farm Bill to the floor the week of September 10th,
but the attacks in New York and Washington have pre-empted these
discussions. There were already questions being raised as to whether
the Farm Bill could be passed on the Floor and there is increasing
speculation that the bill will be deferred until next year.
Senate
Senate Agriculture Committee staff began working on drafting Farm
Bill language over the August recess. AESOP has met with majority
and minority staff to review our Task Force proposals. Again,
recent events may delay action in the Senate. Plans for moving
the Farm Bill forward, or not, may become more clear in the coming
several weeks.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: As reported in the agenda brief..
Agenda
Item: 6.3
Agenda Item Title: Farm Bill Task Force
Presenter: Tom Payne
Please refer to "Agenda Item 6.2: FY02 Budget and Legislative
Committee" for the Farm Bill Task Force report.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: As reported in the agenda brief.
Agenda
Item: 7.0
Agenda Item Title: Survey on Indirect Costs in the NCRA
Experiment Stations
Presenter: Steven Slack
Background:
At the summer meeting, it was agreed that a committee consisting
of Steven Slack, Randy Woodson, Wendy Wintersteen, and Phil Larsen
would put together a survey on indirect costs and report back
at the Coeur d'Alene meeting. A survey was developed and distributed
to all 12 NCRA institutions. Results will be shared and discussed
at the meeting. Survey development, distribution and data collection
were handled through the NCRA office.
Action requested: Mostly informational. Two possible actions
are 1) Advocate that the IDC on USDA grants should be the same
as for other federal agencies and 2) Decide on whether or not
further discussions on guidelines on IPR with commodity groups
are warranted.Action Taken: Steve Slack reviewed the IDC
Survey. Tom Helms is organizing a session for Monday at the NASULGC
meeting on Intellectual Property and Commodity Groups. It was
suggested that this topic be considered as a topic for the March
NCRA meeting. Furthermore, the ad hoc Committee on IDC should
consider Steve Pueppke's offer to assist because of UIUC's project
by a Professor in the Law School on intellectual property in agriculture.
Margaret Dentine inquired if others were in the process of negotiating
contracts with the ARS Midwest Office for scientists on campus.
Apparently there are issues now arising on tuition for graduate
students. Margaret will keep others informed of their situation.
Daryl was authorized to share the survey results with the other
EDs.
1. Current indirect cost rate for funds from the following
sources:
| . | (A) | (B) | (C) | (D) | (E) | (F) | (G) | (H) | (I) | (J) | (K) | (L) | Medium | Mean |
| NIH (MTDC)a | 45.5 | 45 | 53 | 48 | 45 | 46.5 | 48.5 | 47 | 46 | 50 | 41 | 42.5 | 45.5 | 46.50 |
| NSF (MTDC) | 45.5 | 45 | 53 | 48 | 45 | 46.5 | 48.5 | 46 | 46 | 50 | 41 | 42.5 | 45.5 | 46.42 |
| DOE (MTDC) | 45.5 | 45 | 53 | 48 | 45 | 46.5 | 48.5 | 46 | 46 | 50 | 41 | 42.5 | 45.5 | 46.42 |
| DOD (MTDC) | 45.5 | 45 | 53 | 48 | 45 | 46.5 | 48.5 | 46 | 46 | 50 | n/a | 42.5 | 45.5 | 46.91 |
| EPA (MTDC) | 45.5 | 45 | 53 | 48 | 45 | 46.5 | 48.5 | 46 | 46 | 50 | 41 | 42.5 | 45.5 | 46.42 |
| NRI (TFFA)b, c | 19.0 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19.0 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19.0 | 19.0 | 19.00 |
| IFAFS (TFFA)b, c | 19.0 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19.0 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19.0 | 19.0 | 19.00 |
| Industry Contracts | 45.5 | 45 | 53 | 48 (15% for testing activities) | 45 | 46.5 | 0 | 46 | 0 to 46 | 50 | 41 | 42.5 | 45.5 | 42.38 |
| Foundation Contracts | 45.5 | 45 | 10 | 0-48 | 45 | 46.5 | 0 | 46 | 0 | Sponsor Guidelines | n/a | 0 | . | . |
| Gifts | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | n/a | 0 | . | . |
| Commodity Groups | 45.5 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 47 | 0 | Sponsor Guidelines | n/a | 0 | . | . |
| State Agencies | 0-15% | Varies - 23.5 max. | 10 | 20 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 47 | 0 to 10 | Sponsor Guidelines | . | Varies | . | . |
| Other | . | . | . | . | . | 46.5 | . | . | City & County govt. 0 to10%; Comm. groups 0 to 10% | 0 | n/a | ARS - 0-10 | . | . |
| . | Past Advisor | New Advisor |
| NC-503 | G. Ham, KS | F. Chumley, KS |
| NC-1003 | C. Gustafson, ND | J. Venette, ND |
| NCR-9 | C. Gustafson, ND | J. Venette, ND |
| NCR-170 | C. Gustafson, ND | J. Venette, ND |
| NCT-188 | J. Gray, MI | J. A. Schmitz, NE |
| NCT-190 | C. Gustafson, ND | M. Dentine, WI/J. Venette, ND |
| NRSP-6 | R. Lower, WI | P. Ludden, WI |