1.0 Call to Order and Introductions - Virginia Clark*
Present: Eldon Ortman, Indiana; Gerald Klonglan, Iowa;
George Ham, Kansas; Jan Bokemeier, Ian Gray, Gary Lemme, Doreen
Woodward, Michigan; Sarah Greening, Philip Larsen, Al Sullivan,
Minnesota; Mike Chippendale, Missouri; Darrell Nelson, Dale Vanderholm,
Nebraska; Virginia Clark, Cole Gustafson, North Dakota; John Allred,
Steve Slack, Ohio; Fred Cholick, South Dakota; Margaret Dentine,
Wisconsin; Colien Hefferan, USDA/CSREES; Daryl Lund, New York/Wisconsin;
Madelyn Alt, Richard Lower, Executive Director's Office
2.0 Approval of July 2000 Minutes -Virginia Clark
Available at: http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/july2000.htm
The minutes were approved as submitted.
3.0 Adoption of Agenda - Virginia Clark
No additions were added to the agenda.
4.0 Executive Committee Report and
Interim Actions of the Chair - Virginia Clark for Tom Payne
5.0 Executive Director's Report - Richard
Lower
6.0 ESCOP Report - Fred Cholick
7.0 Multistate Research Committee - Virginia
Clark
7.1 National Guidelines/Manual
8.0 Approval of Amended NCRA Rules of
Operation - Virginia Clark
Available at: http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/ncrarules.htm
9.0 Regional IPM Development - Eldon
Ortman
10.0 Umbrella Project Update - Gerald
Klonglan
11.0 Nominations Committee Report -
Dale Vanderholm/Margaret Dentine
12.0 Resolutions Committee - Cole Gustafson
13.0 Announcements
14.0 Summary and Review of Assignments
- Virginia Clark
* Tom Payne will be participating in the BOA meeting in Washington,
D.C.; Virginia Clark will begin her role as Chair of the NCRA.
Agenda Item:
4.0
Presenter: Virginia Clark for Tom Payne
Agenda Item Title: Executive Committee Report and Interim
Actions of the Chair
Background Information:
BOA Structure Task Force
· Appointed by AHS, January, 2000
· Co-Chairs Ed Hiler & Reg Gomes
· Task Force included AHS, ESS, CES, APS, IAS
· Draft developed at Chicago "Fly-in" meeting
in June
· Draft modified at Denver "Fly-in" in August
BOA Structure Task Force
CHARGE
· To identify critical strengths & weaknesses of our
current structure/system in the Board on Agriculture
· To identify alternatives to build on strengths and overcome
weaknesses
· To present to AHS a structure/system to accomplish the
Board's core purpose & functions Vision
· Create a more effective Board on Agriculture structure
to perform better and accomplish our important objectives
· Acknowledge the Board as an essential element of a national
forum to serve public good and national interest
The Current Structure
STRENGTHS
· The Board is the recognized budget driving unit for this
section of NASULGC
· Inclusive representation of all functions and all geographic
regions
· Lay Leaders' support our CARET organization
· Provides a mechanism for engagement with federal agencies
The Current Structure
STRENGTHS
· Fiscal structure in place to raise & distribute funds
with commitment from organizations
· Members of the Board have a willingness to work together
· Respected organization in our universities for our influence
· "Perception" of unity
The Current Structure
WHAT CAN WE IMPROVE?
· Our articulation of role/purpose of Board on Agriculture
and its specific goals & objectives - including written relationships
to sections
· Develop a consistent message, integration and unity across
our various units
· Develop a more coordinated voice for system to increase
our overall effectiveness
The Current Structure
WHAT CAN WE IMPROVE?
· Clarify policy development so we have a clear system
to resolve conflict & differences
· Develop a clear concept of what we expect from our people,
including benchmarks
· Clarify reporting relationships
· Improved representation and influence in Washington
What would be key elements of a new structure?
· Clear charge & transparent process with vision &
goals
· Ability to identify key issues and develop goals
· Strong leadership at Board level
· Clear accountability
· Effective executive staff support
· Flexibility in organization beyond USDA formula
Goals of a New Structure
A NEW STRUCTURE MUST..
· operate as a unified, integrated, coordinated system
· synthesize & consolidate key issues/concerns
· respond to address critical common goals and emerging
issues be the "voice" for a national strategy in agriculture/natural
resources
· create effective linkages
· make roles & decision-making clear
Proposed BOA Structure
Current :
· Each member institution may have up to five representatives
(AHS, APS, CES, ESS, IAS)
· Each representative has "one vote"
Proposed Assembly:
· Each member institution may have up to five representatives
(AHS, APS, CES, ESS, IAS)
· Each member institution has one vote
BOA Leadership & Decision-making
· Current Executive Committee:
· 26 voting members: AHS(4), APS(3), ESS(3), CES(3), IAS(3),
Budget Com.(2), AASCAR, BVM, BOF, BHS, 1890RD, 1890EA & 1994
· 3 non-voting members: NASULGC CEO, BNR & BOOA
BOA Leadership & Decision-making Proposal
POLICY BOARD
(Chicago Proposal)
· Nine members: 5 AHS, 1 APS, 1 CES, 1 ESS, 1 IAS
POLICY BOARD
(Denver Proposal)
· Nine members: 2 AHS (serve as Chair/Vice Chair), 1 APS,
1 CES, 1 IAS, 1 ESS, 1 1890, 1 1994, 1 NASULGC non-land grant
· Two year terms
BOA Leadership & Decision-making Proposal
POLICY BOARD
· National election, rather than regional progression
· Liaisons as appropriate (e.g. Forestry, Human Sciences,
Veterinary Medicine)
Proposed BOA Structure
STAFF
· "Mirrors" organizational structure
· Executive staff person works with Policy Board of Directors
and heads staff team
· Appropriate staff support for section leaders
ROLE OF POLICY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
· Provide leadership for overall direction and coordination
of BOA activities
· Appoint standing committees, including budget committee
· Hire & supervise staff - including executive staff
and lobbying organizations
· Coordinate efforts of sections
· Coordinate and direct efforts of CARET
AESOP has a web site [www.aesopent.homestead.com/index.html] that
is excellent and very helpful. It contains a tremendous amount
of information; suggest that you visit and bookmark this site.
Action Requested: Information Only
Action Taken (ESCOP):
· Develop a permanent Food Safety Subcommittee.
· Status of ESCOP's Science Roadmap Committee was referred
to the Chair's Advisory Committee.
· Endorsed a "think tank" approach to determine
the direction for the Agriculture and Environment Initiative.
Keep the existing relationship with CSREES and building on the
SUNEI success.
· Endorsed the national stakeholder-drive C-FAR concept.
· ESCOP approved the plan to approve NRSP budgets for the
life of the activity at its inception with no consideration given
to Hatch fluctuations.
Action Taken (Joint ESCOP/ECOP):
· Accepted and sanction the "Strategies for Enhanced
Engagement" prepared by the Joint ESCOP/ECOP Planning Committee.
· Endorsed the formation of a joint task force to determine
how best to proceed with the Environmental Initiative.
· ECOP expressed its intention to be full and equal partners
with ESCOP on the newly reorganized Advocacy and Marketing Committee.
To: wr.gomes@ucop.edu
cc: e-hiler@tamu.edu
Subject: ESCOP Feedback on the AHS Task Force Report
During the past several weeks, I have received considerable feedback
on the draft AHS Task Force Report. Listed below is my attempt
to summarize the feedback.
· Having the 1890s appoint a rep to the Policy Board and
having them as equal partners in ESCOP and ECOP is double representation.
· The proposed voting rights structure reduces the voice
of the COPs in the Board on Agriculture. A better rationale is
required before this proposals is accepted.
· The costs of the proposed plan is not presented but need
to be considered. When will a budget for the proposal be presented?
· Better define the responsibilities and duties of the
executive staff person working for the Policy Board. How will
this person relate to the regional Executive Directors?
· One of the statements in the report is "clarify
policy development so that we have a clear system to resolve conflict
and differences". This refer to BOA policy or also policy
at levels of the sections and COPs.
· Another statement is "develop a clear concept of
what we expect from our people, including benchmarks". Are
"our people" the NASULGC staffers paid from assessments?
· There is a need to better define the phrase "reporting
relationships - - - within NASULGC structure.
· The reports suggests that the BOA entities should work
to support funding beyond the USDA formula funds. Everyone agrees
with this and ESCOP and ECOP having been working with a number
of agencies other than USDA on funding initiatives. The ESCOP/CSREES
funded SUNEI program is a good example of this.
· The NASULGC staffing associated with the proposal should
be described in more detail.
· There needs to be an explicit statement regarding assessments
for the advocacy organizations. Which entity or entities will
pay the assessments?
· How will the current role of the COPs be affected by
the proposed plan? Will the Policy Board be responsible for leadership
training programs, workshops, outreach to partners, national issue
task forces, etc?
· Election of members to the Policy Board should be explained.
· The task force proposal should be integrated with the
Tom Payne plan.
Hopefully, these issues will be of some help as you revise the
proposal. It is clear that many ESCOP members have concerned about
the lack of details in the plan and are unsure of the meaning
of some phrases used in the report. I encourage you to present
a plan to the Board on Agriculture that is as specific as possible.
There will be a tendency for many BOA members to vote against
the proposal unless important structural and policy issues are
well defined. My feedback indicates that most AES Directors feel
that the Experiment Station Section, ESCOP and the Regional Associations
are well organized, effectively administered and have produced
positive impacts. There is no doubt that significant costs are
involved in the Section activities but most AES Directors seem
to believe that the benefits outweigh the costs.
Darrell W. Nelson
Dean and Director
To enhance NASULGC's Board on Agriculture
(BOA) budget development and advocacy process and success, it
is important to establish a clear unifying structure to bring
members of the "family" together to provide "one
voice." Presently, the BOA Budget Committee (BABC) and CARET
operate separately, although there are linkages. They have the
same goal of budget development and advocacy. An Advocacy Organization
that provides a complete package of executive and operational
staff support exclusively to the BABC and to CARET would be extremely
valuable and would be more efficient and more effective.
It is proposed that: 1) the BABC be re-named the Budget and Advocacy
Committee (BAC); and 2) the BAC and CARET be established as a
budget development and advocacy unit of the BOA Policy Board of
Directors, on behalf of the BOA Assembly, with executive and operational
staff support out-sourced to an Advocacy Organization.
The following specifics are recommended:
· The BOA Assembly Policy Board of Directors appoint the
BAC and that the BAC be comprised of the membership as designated
in Figure 1. Appointments will draw on nominations submitted by
the prospective membership entities following an appropriate procedure.
· The chair of the BAC be appointed by the Policy Board
of Directors and be a member of AHS (as is the current chair of
the BABC).
· The BAC shall recommend to the Policy Board of Directors
the contract-for-services for an out-sourced Advocacy Organization.
The Policy Board of Directors will execute the contract on behalf
of the BOA Assembly.
· Staff support for the BAC and CARET meetings, events,
document development, and database development and maintenance
would be provided by the Advocacy Organization and thus so specified
in the contract.
· The Policy Board of Directors will delegate to the BAC
the sole responsibilities for budget development and advocacy
planning and execution for all federal government legislative
and agency activities and the responsibilities of performance
evaluation of the Advocacy Organization, as set forth in the terms
of the contract.
· Per delegation by the Policy Board of Directors in the
terms of the contract, the Chair of the BAC will provide direct
policy and operational supervision and communications with the
Advocacy Organization on behalf of the membership of the BAC.
· The cost of out-sourcing to the Advocacy Organization
shall be determined through a rolling 3-year business plan and
an annual operating business plan and budget developed in concert
with the BAC and recommended by the BAC to the Policy Board of
Directors for adoption per the terms of the contract (see Figure
2.)
· To fund the budget, appropriate equitable assessments
shall be levied by the Policy Board of Directors implementing
an assessments protocol developed and adopted by the Board at
the time of the execution of the contract with the Advocacy Organization
(see Figure 2.)
· NASULGC will provide fiscal and accounting support services
and be the "banker" for the functions of the BAC.
The recommended restructuring will establish a unified budget
development and advocacy organization and eliminate any confusion
about responsibilities and lines of authority for these very important
activities. Furthermore, this approach will pre-empt any questions
about lobbying activities by non-profit organizations. Most importantly,
this will allow for a new and more tightly integrated and effective
array of budget development and advocacy activities.
NOTE: Figures 1 and 2 will be handed out at the NCRA meeting.
These are available upon request from the Executive Director's
Office.
9/10/00
The Board on Agriculture (BOA) Structure
Task Force was appointed by AHS Chair David Chicoine in January,
2000 following a AHS Fyi-In in Dallas, Texas. Ed Hiler and Reg
Gomes chaired the Task Force. The Task Force, which included representatives
from AHS, ESS, CES, APS, and IAS appointed by the respective sections'
leaders, developed a set of recommendations at a Chicago one-day
meeting in June. These recommendations were reviewed, discussed
and modified by AHS at a Denver Fly-In meeting in August. The
ESS, CES, APS and IAS representatives participated at Denver.
This report sets for the background, findings and recommendations
of the Structure Task Force. The last section of the report includes
the recommendations of the AHS Task Force on Advocacy and Budget
chaired by Tom Payne.
BACKGROUND
The BOA Structure Task Force's charge was to identify critical
strengths and weaknesses of the current structure of the Board
on Agriculture; to identify alternatives to build on strengths
and to overcome weaknesses; and to present recommendations, if
any, for change to AHS on the structure to best accomplish the
BOA's core purpose and functions.
The goal of the Task Force was to review and make recommends on
the structure of the BOA so as to increase its performance, to
more effectively and efficiently accomplish important collective
system-wide objectives and to reinforce and enhance the BOA and
it's operations as essential elements of a national forum to serve
the public good and the national interest.
FINDINGS
The Task Force acknowledged several strengths of the current structure:
· The Board is the recognized budget driving unit for this
section of NASULGC;
· There is inclusive representation of all functions and
all geographic regions;
· There is excellent lay leaders' support through our CARET
organization;
· There is a mechanism for engagement with federal agencies;
· There is a fiscal structure in place to raise and distribute
funds with commitment from the members of the Board;
· Members of the Board have a willingness to work together;
· The Board is a respected organization within NASULGC
member universities; and
· There is a "perception" of unity.
With acknowledgment of the many strengths of the current structure,
the Task Force concluded there were improvements that were possible
in the current structure and operations. Those areas included:
· Better articulation of role and purpose of BOA and its
specific goals and objectives. The Task Force suggests including
written relationships to sections;
· Development of a consistent message, integration and
unity across the various units;
· Development of a more coordinated voice for system to
increase overall effectiveness;
· Clarification of policy development procedures to clarify
a system to resolve conflict and differences;
· Development of a clear concept of what is expected from
staff and support systems, including documented and communicated
benchmarks for performance review;
· Clarification of reporting relationships; and
· Improvement in representation and influence in Washington.
Recommendations for structural change should incorporate these
key elements:
· A clear charge & transparent process with vision
and goals;
· An ability to identify key issues and develop goals;
· Strong leadership at the Board level;
· Clear accountability at all levels;
· Effective executive, organizational and operational staff
support; and
· Flexibility in the organization to reach beyond USDA
in federal budget advocacy.
The BOA structure must support the operations of an efficient,
unified, integrated, coordinated system. The structure must have
the ability to synthesize and consolidate key issues and quickly
and efficiently identify and address concerns and resolve internal
conflicts and manage external conflicts. It must be able to be
proactive and aggressively address critical common goals and emerging
issues. The structure must be the "voice" for a national
strategy in the science and education of the food, agriculture
and natural resources systems. It must create more effective linkages
and make roles and decision-making clearer.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. BOARD ON AGRICULTURE ASSEMBLY
Currently, each member institution may have up to five representatives
(AHS, APS, CES, ESS, IAS) in the Board on Agriculture each enfranchised
to vote. In the proposed structure: 1) each member institution
retains the right to name up to five representatives; and 2) each
member institution would have one vote. The Board on Agriculture
is proposed to be renamed the Board on Agriculture Assembly.
2. EXECUTIVE STRUCTURE
Currently there are twenty-six voting member on the BOA Executive
Committee: AHS(4), APS(3), ESS(3), CES(3), IAS(3), Budget Com.(2),
AASCAR, BVM, BOF, BHS, 1890RD, 1890EA & 1994. There are three
non-voting members: NASULGC CEO, BNR & BOOA.
It is proposed the Executive Committee be succeeded by the Policy
Board of Directors. The Task Force's recommendation on the composition
of the Policy Board developed at its Chicago meeting was modified
after the discussion at the full meeting of the AHS in Denver.
The Policy Board of Directors' composition under the two options
that were discussed extensively are:
· The original recommendation of the Task Force was that
the Policy Board include nine directors: 5 AHS, 1 APS, 1 CES,
1 ESS, 1 IAS.
· The modification at the Denver AHS Fly-In is that the
Policy Board would include nine directors: 2 AHS (serve as Chair
and Chair-elect), 1 APS, 1 CES, 1 IAS, 1 ESS, 1 1890, 1 1994,
and I NASULGC non-land grant member. Directors would serve staggered
multiple- year, perhaps two-year, terms and would be limited to
two terms. Annually, the Board would elect a vice chair from their
membership. The chair and chair elect would be two-year terms.
Policy Board Directors would be elected by a national election
by the institutional voting members of the Assembly, rather than
the regional progression protocol now followed with the BOA Executive
Committee, from nominations set forth by the respective sections
and entities (2 nominations for each open directorship.)
The Policy Board would determine appropriate liaisons with other
entities in NASULGC (e.g., Forestry, Human Sciences, Veterinary
Medicine).
The proposed executive structure composition for the Policy Board
is the composition set forth by AHS after the Task Force's recommendations
were reviewed, discussed and modified at the Denver meeting.
3. Staff
Support staff would mirror the organizational structure. An executive
staff person would work with the Policy Board of Directors and
head a staff team. There would be appropriate staff support for
sections and the leaders of the sections as determined by the
Policy Board. Funds for staff also would be determined by the
Policy Board as would mechanisms for securing needed funds.
4. ROLE OF POLICY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The role of the Policy Board of Directors is to:
· Provide leadership for overall direction and coordination
of BOA activities;
· Appoint standing committees, including budget committee;
· Set policy and provide general oversight on the activities
of the Budget Committee and BOA advocacy efforts (see last section);
and
· Coordinate and direct efforts of CARET or delegate
these responsibilities.
5. COMPOSITION OF THE AGRICULTURAL HEADS SECTION (AHS)
It is recommended that the CEO of institutions that are members
of the proposed Board on Agricultural Assembly designate, at their
discretion, up to two individuals to the AHS. This will permit
CEOs the opportunity to have the diversity of organizational structures
in member institutions reflected in the membership of the AHS
from their institutions. For example, a CEO could designate both
a vice president for extension and a dean of agriculture to AHS,
if they choose.
ENHANCING BUDGET DEVELOPMENT AND ADVOCACY
(Recommendations from the Budget Development and Advocacy AHS
Task Force, Tom Payne, Chair)
To enhance the BOA budget development and advocacy process and
success, it is important to establish a clear unifying structure
to bring members of the "family" together to provide
"one voice." Presently, the BOA Budget Committee (BABC)
and CARET operate separately, although there are linkages. They
have the same goal of budget development and advocacy. Currently,
staff support is a blend of NASULGC and out-sourced advocacy organization
services. An Advocacy Organization that provides a complete package
of executive and operational staff support exclusively to the
BABC and to CARET would be valuable and would be more efficient
and more effective.
It is proposed that: 1) the BABC be re-named the Budget and Advocacy
Committee (BAC); and 2) the BAC and CARET be established as a
budget development and advocacy unit of the BOA Policy Board of
Directors, on behalf of the BOA Assembly, with executive and operational
staff support out-sourced to an Advocacy Organization.
The following specifics are recommended:
· The BOA Assembly Policy Board of Directors appoint the
BAC and that the BAC be comprised of the membership as designated
in Figure 1. Appointments will draw on nominations submitted by
the prospective membership entities following an appropriate procedure.
· The chair, serving a two year term, of the BAC be appointed
by the Policy Board of Directors and be a member of AHS (as is
the chair of the current BABC).
· The BAC shall recommend to the Policy Board of Directors
the contract-for-services with an out-sourced Advocacy Organization.
The Policy Board of Directors will execute the contract on behalf
of the BOA Assembly.
· Staff support for the BAC and CARET meetings, events,
document development and database development and maintenance
would be provided by the Advocacy Organization and thus so specified
in the contract.
· The Policy Board of Directors will delegate to the BAC
the sole responsibilities for budget development and advocacy
planning and execution for all federal government legislative
and agency activities and the responsibilities of performance
evaluation of the Advocacy Organization, as set forth in the terms
of the contract.
· Per the delegation by the Policy Board of Directors in
the terms of the contract, the Chair of the BAC will provide direct
policy and operational supervision and communications with the
Advocacy Organization on behalf of the membership of the BAC.
· The cost of out-sourcing to the Advocacy Organization
shall be determined through a rolling 3-year business plan and
an annual operating business plan and budget developed in concert
with the BAC and recommended by the BAC to the Policy Board of
Directors for adoption per the terms of the contract (see Figure
2.)
· To fund the budget, appropriate equitable assessments
shall be levied by the Policy Board of Directors implementing
an assessments protocol developed and adopted by the Board at
the time of the execution of the contract with the Advocacy Organization
(see Figure 2.)
· NASULGC will provide fiscal and accounting support services
and be the "banker" for the functions of the BAC.
The recommended restructuring will establish a unified budget
development and advocacy organization and eliminate any confusion
about responsibilities and lines of authority for these very important
activities. Furthermore, this approach will pre-empt any questions
about lobbying activities by non-profit organizations. Most importantly,
this will allow for a new and more tightly integrated and effective
array of budget development and advocacy activities.
Action Requested: Information only.
Action Taken: Gary Lemme will be the leader next year on
the ESCOP/ACOP Leadership Committee. Dr. Cholick encourages everyone
to continue to view AESOP's web site.
After considerable discussion about the AHS/BOA structure, the
following motion was passed: "The NCRA will write a letter
to Pat Jensen indicating that answers be provided by November
1 to the questions in the letter (attached)."
The following motion was also passed: "A letter should be
written to Marc Johnson asking how the $10 million figure arrived
from the assessments." These letters will be written by Tom
Payne
Agenda Item:
7.0
Presenter: Virginia Clark
Agenda Item Title: Multistate Research Committee
A new project, NCT-185, "Effects of Landscape Composition
on White-Tailed Deer Population Characteristics and Distributions
in Agro-Forest Systems: A Regional Analysis" has been approved.
The National Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities was
approved at the Experiment Station Section meeting on September
26, 2000.
A committee of NCRA representatives will meet on October 3 to
update the regional manual to correlate with the national manual.
Action Requested. Information only.
Action Taken: None.
Agenda Item:
8.0
Presenter: Virginia Clark
Agenda Item Title: Amended Rules of Operation
The Rules of Operation were amended and approved. They are available
at: http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/ncrarules.htm
Agenda
Item: 9.0
Presenter: Eldon Ortman
Agenda Item Title: Regional IPM Development
Background Information:
The pest management area has been undergoing considerable change
over the past year or so, both nationally and regionally. The
attachments address much of the change and the opportunity for
development of strengthened linkages, along with increased efficiency
and more effective regional and national operation. A briefing
of the changes and opportunities will be followed by a discussion
and recommendation for the potential realignment of pest management
activities within the North Central Region.
An update on this years regional IPM project reviews will also
be given.
Action Requested: Consideration and agreement on alignment/adjustment
of NCRA pest management activities.
Action Taken: Dr. Ortman will be stepping down as the IPM
program leader. Ortman thinks it would make sense to have the
coordinator/leader of the IPM program be located at either Michigan
State or Illinois since they are area leaders (they operate as
one center).
A motion was passed that indicated: "The NCRA endorse the
concept of a establishing a facilitator using 89106 and extension
federal dollars". This is not region money, but federal/CSREES
money. We are only a facilitator of the money - the vehicle to
help the matter.
JOB TITLE: Regional IPM Facilitator
JOB DESCRIPTION: A 12-month academic professional, non-tenure
track position with indirect responsibility to the North Central
Region Extension IPM Coordinators and the NCS-3 Technical Research
Committee on IPM and direct responsibility to the administrative
advisers for North Central Region, USDA-CSREES, extension and
research IPM programs.
DUTIES: The responsibilities of the facilitator will include:
1) planning, compilation, and dissemination of regional IPM reports
as needed, 2) serving as the North Central IPM Grants Manager
which includes developing, revising, and disseminating the regional
request for proposals, 3) coordinating the annual North Central
IPM Competitive Grants proposal review process, 4) assisting annually
the North Central Extension IPM Coordinators to fulfill reporting
requirements, 5) providing leadership for the coordination of
an annual regional IPM meeting (NCS-3 Committee/Extension IPM
Coordinators) with stakeholders, 6) providing leadership for the
creation and maintenance of North Central Region IPM information
on the world wide web, 7) alerting North Central Region IPM personnel
of important national IPM programmatic developments, 8) cooperating
closely with director of a proposed North Central Regional Pest
Management Center, and 9) maintaining dialogue and communication
with IPM facilitators and personnel in proposed pest management
centers in other regions of the U.S.A.
EDUCATION: M.S. degree required, Ph.D. degree preferred in a pest
management or related discipline (entomology, plant pathology,
weed science) with evidence of strong communication, computer,
and organizational skills.
SALARY: Commensurate with education and experience.
STARTING DATE: January 1, 2001 or when a suitable candidate is
available.
CLOSING DATE: For full consideration, applications will be accepted
starting October 1, 2000 and continuously reviewed until the position
is filled.
APPLICATIONS: Interested persons should assemble an application
packet consisting of an introductory cover letter, a curriculum
vitae, and a statement of professional goals. The names, addresses,
and telephone numbers of three references should be included with
the application materials. The packet should be sent to: Dr. Eldon
E. Ortman, Agricultural Research Programs, Purdue University,
1140 Agricultural Administration Bldg., West Lafayette, IN 47907-1140.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael E. Gray, NCS-3
Chair, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, 1102 S. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801. Telephone:
(217) 333-6652, email: m-gray4@uiuc.edu.
The USDA has placed a high priority
on the establishment of Pest Management Centers as a means of
strengthening its connection with regional and state research,
education and extension programs, and agricultural stakeholders
throughout the United States. When fully implemented, Pest Management
Centers will identify, prioritize and coordinate a variety of
risk management programs on a regional basis as recommended by
broad based stakeholder and interest groups.
In the North Central Region, Michigan State University (MSU) and
the University of Illinois will lead a multi-state coalition.
The North Central Pest Management Center, over three years, will
establish, coordinate and provide subcontract management with
institutions for a multistate information gathering network; strengthen
the connection of public risk management programs; respond to
information needs of public and private sectors; and facilitate
the identification of a framework for agroecologically based pest
management Centers.
The Center will be directed through a regional Steering Committee.
The Steering Committee is comprised of regional representatives
from the USDA Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and former Pesticide
Impact Assessment programs, Experiment Station and Extension Directors
representatives, the two Co-PIs for the Center, and two Advisory
committee members.
There will also be an Advisory Committee to the Center including
representatives from commodity groups, universities, agencies
and interest groups. This Center Advisory Committee will provide
input on critical pest control needs and issues at the regional
level. This information will be shared with USDA and other organizations
which can provide research and/or funding opportunities to address
critical issues. The stakeholders on the committees will also
be encouraged to serve as a conduit to provide information about
current pest management techniques. This information can then
be used by various agencies in making informed regulatory decisions.
MSU is requesting proposals to establish this network within the
region. Areas of emphasis for these proposals include:
1. Establish, coordinate and provide a network that produces information
such as pesticide use and usage, pest management practices, production
and revision of crop profiles and pest management strategic plans.
2. Strengthen the connection between pest management programs
and with stakeholders.
3. Respond to information needs of public and private sectors.
All the information needed to apply can be found at the following
web site:
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet/centers/nc/rfp92000.html.
Ten copies of the proposals are to be sent to Dr. Larry Olsen,
18B Food Safety and Toxicology Center, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI 48824 by November 10.
R. Lower for Tom Payne, Chair, NCRA
Potential Participants:
Illinois
Dave Voegtlin, INES, aphid systematics and biology
David Onstad, NRES, INHS, NSRL, population modeling
Charlie Helm, INHS, soybean entomology, surveys
Kevin Steffey, Crop Science, extension IPM
Lee Solter, INHS, NSRL, insect pathology
Glen Hartman, USDA-ARS, NSRL, soybean pathologist
INES - Illinois Natural History Survey
NSRL - National Soybean Research Laboratory
USDA-ARS - US Department of Agriculture
NRES and Crop Science are University of Illinois departments
Wisconsin
Dave Hogg, Department of Entomology: aphid ecology & management
John Wedberg, Department of Entomology: aphid management, extension
Craig Grau, Department of Plant Pathology: soybean viruses, extension
Tom German, Department of Entomology: vector biology, virology
Jeff Wyman, Department of Entomology: aphid biology & management
Indiana
Robert O'Neil, Department of Entomology
Agenda
Item: 10.0
Presenter: Gerald Klonglan
Agenda Item Title: Umbrella Project Update
Background Information:
At the summer NCRA meeting we spent time discussing the umbrella
project concept. The Executive Director was asked to continue
the discussions with some of the North Central Regional SAESs
and he did so, mainly with the Iowa and Missouri stations. Both
stations are interested in the umbrella project as a mechanism
for streamlining the Hatch project operations. As an example,
if a station has 50-100 Hatch projects turning over every year
and they could be combined into 10 projects then the number of
peer reviews and subsequent reviews and reports would be lessened
considerably. Another motivation for umbrella projects is the
interest in building and linking broader programs (issue based
rather than departmental based) than what was in the present portfolios.
Other examples could be cited. Following a teleconference between
the directors of these stations, their staff and the Executive
Director, it was agreed that the Iowa station would prepare a
brief update on its continued interest in and further development
of the umbrella projects. We think that raising awareness of the
umbrella project concept might be helpful to the NCRA.
ISU has met with CSREES staff and will be meeting again to further
examine the potential role of umbrella projects in responding
to Plan of Work requirements, in managing the Hatch portfolio,
in joint integrated projects with CES, in multistate projects
and related activities. In addition the upside and downside of
umbrella projects will be noted.
Action Requested: For discussion.
Action Take: After discussion, it was decided that this issue
needs to be explored more in depth. A committee of Jerry Klonglan,
Mike Chippendale, Doreen Woodward and Cole Gustafson (chair) will
lead a discussion/provide leadership at the March 2001 meeting.
Note: A copy of the handout from Jerry Klonglan is available
upon request from the Executive Director's office.
Agenda
Item: 11.0
Presenter: Dale Vanderholm
Agenda Item Title: Nominations Committee Report
Background Information:
|
|
|
|
| NCT-180 | C. Meeks, IA | M. Winter, IA |
| NCA-2 | G. Buening, MO | D. Reynolds, IA |
| NRSP-7 | G. Buening, MO | J. Tracy, WI |
| NCT-185 | New Project | J. I. Gray, MI |
ESCOP Committee Representatives
Science and Technology Committee
R. Woodson, Chair (replaces G. Ham)
M. Dentine, WI
S. Pueppke, IL
WHEREAS Dr. Richard L. Lower earned
distinction as an accomplished researcher and professor of Horticulture
at North Carolina State University, as evidenced by numerous prestigious
positions held and awards received; and eventually rose through
the ranks to serve as department chair, and assistant, associate,
and executive director of the Research Division of the College
of Agricultural and Life Sciences at University of Wisconsin;
and
WHEREAS Dr. Lower has skillfully and faithfully served as Executive
Director of the North Central Regional Association (NCRA) of State
Agricultural Experiment Station Directors since 1994; and
WHEREAS Dr. Lower, as ED/NCRA, has fostered collaborative and
improved relationships with USDA, government agencies, private
interest groups, and the academic community; and
WHEREAS Dr. Lower, as ED/NCRA, greatly relieved the workload of
North Central Directors by assuming ever-increasing responsibilities
at the regional office; and
WHEREAS Dr. Lower, as ED/NCRA, made time to warmly welcome, guide,
and mentor new directors to the Association; and
WHEREAS Dr. Lower, as ED/NCRA, has demonstrated exceptional leadership
abilities in working with, obtaining the consensus of, and at
times pacified 12 independent directors of the North Central region;
and
WHEREAS Dr. Lower, as ED/NCRA, had an exceptional eye for talent
and professional skills proceeded to hire and retain the top administrative
assistant in the system, and
WHEREAS Dr. Lower, as ED/NCRA, has established the North Central
Regional Association as the premier association of state agricultural
experiment station directors;
THEREFORE the North Central Regional Association both commends
and thanks Richard
L. Lower for his outstanding service to the Association,
to the Land-Grant mission, and the people of the North Central
Region.
Presented September
28, 2000