|
Agenda Item # |
|
Draft Agenda |
|
|
1:00
pm |
Call
to Order – Bruce McPheron |
|
|
1:05
pm |
Introductions
- All |
|
1.0 |
1:10
pm |
Approval
of Agenda – Bruce McPheron |
|
2.0 |
1:15
pm |
Approval
of Minutes (July 25-26, 2007) – Bruce McPheron |
|
3.0 |
1:20
pm |
Interim
Actions of the Chair – Bruce McPheron |
|
4.0 |
1:25
pm |
CSREES
Update – Colien Hefferan |
|
5.0 |
1:35
pm |
BAA
– Policy Board of Directors Update – Nancy Cox/Eric Young |
|
6:0 |
1:45
pm |
Cornerstone
Update – Jim Richards |
|
7.0 |
1:55
pm |
Budget
and Legislative Committee – David Boethel and Mike Harrington |
|
8.0 |
2:10
pm |
Communications
and Marketing Committee – Jerry Arkin/Arlen Leholm |
|
9.0 |
2:25
pm |
Science
and Technology Committee – Greg Bohach/Dan Rossi |
|
10.0 |
2:40
pm |
Multi-state
Awards Program – ED’s |
|
11.0 |
2:50
pm |
Final
Discussion of N-CFAR Membership |
|
|
3:00
pm |
Break |
|
12.0 |
3:15
pm |
REE
Energy Strategic Plan – Joe Dunn |
|
13.0 |
3:45
pm |
National
Vegetable Crops Initiative – ED’s |
|
14.0 |
4:00
pm |
Potential candidates for next REE Under-Secretary –
All |
|
15.0 |
4:20 pm |
Planning for the 2008 ESS/SAES/ARD Workshop – Steve
Pueppke |
|
16.0 |
4:35 pm |
ARD and AEA June Symposium – Carolyn Brooks |
|
17.0 |
4:40 pm |
Other Business |
|
|
5:00 pm |
Adjourn – Bruce McPheron |
|
Agenda Item # |
Agenda Briefs |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1.0 |
Approval of Agenda – Bruce McPheron Posted at http://www.nera.umd.edu/escop/ESCOPAgendaBriefs3-4-2008.htm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2.0 |
Approval of Minutes (July 25-26, 2007) – Bruce McPheron Posted at http://escop.ncsu.edu/meetattach/301_S07ESCOPMin.pdf |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3.0 |
Interim Actions of the Chair – Bruce McPheron Background Information:
For information only. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
4.0 |
CSREES Update – Colien Hefferan |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.0 |
BAA – Policy Board of Directors Update – Nancy Cox/Eric Young Background Information: A brief report will be given on the BAA Policy Board of Director's activities, including an update on the two new task forces that are being established. Please see below for more details on these task forces: System Integration Task Force and Emerging Issues & Future Directions Task Force. The next PBD meeting will be in Memphis on March 11-12. I.
System
Integration Task Force Charge The PBD Task Force has the responsibility of developing and implementing a plan that addresses PBD Goal 4 on System Integration, which is “Enhance integration of goals and activities among BAA members and between the BAA and other groups within NASULGC’s structure to gain synergy from collaborative action.” As part of the charge, the Task Force is expected to give attention to the following Actions and Principles as it develops a plan of work. Actions The Task Force is asked to undertake the following actions, among others, to benefit the goal:
Principles Effective integration is sought to help assure that the
land grant system and its federal partners effectively engage the public in
the discovery, dissemination and application of knowledge to address societal
issues. In developing an action
agenda, the Task Force should be guided by the following principles:
Membership
§ Administrative Heads § Academic Programs § Extension § Experiment Station § International Programs § CSREES
II. Emerging Issues & Future
Directions Task Force Charge: The PBD Task Force has the responsibility of developing and implementing a plan that addresses PBD Goal 1 on Emerging Issues and Future Directions which is to “Identify emerging local, regional, national, and global issues and facilitate strategic discussions and actions that will impact and guide future directions for the System*.” As a part of the charge, the Task Force is expected to give attention to the following Actions and Principles as it develops a plan of work. Actions: The Task Force is asked to undertake the following actions, among others, to benefit the goal: · Coordinate, possibly through a professional facilitator, System-wide futuring efforts to help guide future directions for the System. · Engage future thinkers and planners from outside the System, consult futuring literature and connect these resources with the System to expand thinking. · Provide a forum to engage the System, external partners and stakeholders in strategic dialogue to develop recommendations on policy and System-wide approaches for action to address emerging issues. · Work with CSREES to conduct broad-based stakeholder listening session to identify emerging issues that require System-wide planning to address most effectively. · Coordinate, possibly through a professional facilitator, System-wide issues-based strategic planning to assist the System in proactively addressing significant issues and opportunities as they emerge. · Develop strategies to communicate the efforts on emerging issues and future directions with the System. Principles: Effective examination is sought of emerging issues and social, political and economic change that are expected to affect land-grant universities in the decades to come. In developing an action agenda, the Task Force should be guided by the following principles: · The land-grant universities operate in an environment of national, state, Tribal and local community that is complex and dynamic. · The land-grant universities operate in an increasingly diverse global community. · Changes in communications technology are greatly impacting the teaching, research and outreach functions of land-grant universities. · Similarly, communications technology provides new venues which can facilitate active, continuous review of futures and planning. · The system of land-grant universities is in itself a diverse set of institutions with diverse functions. · The speed of change is increasing. · Discussions should be open and participatory. Results should be published. · A wide range of discussants should be sought for futuring conversations. *”System” refers to those functions of the land-grant universities that operate under NASULGC’s Board on Agriculture Assembly and its federal partner USDA/CSREES. For information
only. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6:0 |
Cornerstone Update – Jim Richards |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.0 |
Budget and Legislative Committee – David Boethel and Mike Harrington Background
Information: FY
08 Budget While the final FY 2008 budget numbers are known,
CSREES has not yet released final allocation figures. To this date, distributions have been made
on historical FY ’06 figures which has caused some difficulty for programs
that were not in the FY ’06 budget, e.g. NRSP-7. Budget Comparison:
President’s
FY 09 Budget
BAC
Action on FY’09 Budget Proposal The BAC met in
Complete details of the BAC positions can be found
at: http://www.nasulgc-bac.com/documents/FY2009/KB/The_Numbers.pdf As in the past, a series of 2-sided documents have
been developed in support of “Targeted Enhancements”. (See: http://www.nasulgc-bac.com/kb.htm) ESCOP
Priorities FY 2010 The
Budget and Legislative Committee has completed the priority setting process
for the ’10 budget cycle. The process employed by the ESCOP Budget and Legislative
Committee to obtain input is working effectively. Using FY 2009, as a starting point break
out discussions were held at the ESS Annual Meeting to identify new/emerging
issues. This was followed up by an
on-line survey to which there were 62 responses. Overarching Priorities:
Relative Research
Priorities
For information only. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
8.0 |
Communications and Marketing Committee – Jerry Arkin/Arlen Leholm Background
Information: Why Despite the vital work and exciting
discoveries at the State Agricultural Experiment Stations (AES) and
Cooperative Extension Services (CES), federal funding for their programs has not
increased, in real terms, over the past 30 years. To remedy this situation, the System
Communication and Marketing Implementation Committee recommended a marketing
(educational) campaign aimed at key federal officials. Who is
involved? In the fall of 2007, the
System Communication and Marketing Implementation Committee was formed to
provide a coordinated and targeted educational effort to increase awareness
of AES and CES. The System
Implementation Committee is made up of two deans from the Strategy How
do we build upon existing efforts to get better recognition of AES and CES
and turn that into strategic support for our programs? The System
Communication and Marketing Implementation Committee believes that earlier
and repeated use of the media to educate and attract major congressional
sponsors for our programs is the best way to go forward. We have to build
support in home districts and states of our congressional champions and
convert that locally-based support into explanations of and publicity for the
national AES and CES system. The System Communication and Marketing Implementation Committee has
identified 13 members of the House and 15 members of the Senate (the members
of the House and Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittees) that will be
the focus of this educational campaign. Marketing efforts will strategically
target the right issue with the right appropriation champion. Cornerstone
and the Podesta Group The Podesta Group has been
hired to launch the educational campaign.
Cornerstone will coordinate closely with the Podesta Group in this
effort. Cornerstone is our advocacy
firm and Podesta is the marketing/public relations firm. There is no
duplication of effort between Podesta and Cornerstone. Budget The
Experiment Station Section has approved a three year annual assessment at the
$300,000 level for this effort which will become available on July 1, 2008
and, an additional $75,000 is available immediately. ECOP has discussed a $100,000 per year investment
for three years in the System Marketing Plan.
This investment is based on the condition that the overall contract
with Podesta and Cornerstone for the System Marketing Plan not exceed
$300,000 per year. ECOP will meet on
March 13th to finalize their recommendation and plan for next
steps. As is required by policy, an
institution-by-institution Cooperative Extension Section electronic vote
would take place this spring to complete the process. Extension will make the investment in the
System Marketing plan from their existing funds. No more than $240,000
will be available for this effort during the first 12 months of the campaign
for the Podesta Group and $60,000 will be available for Cornerstone’s
coordination efforts. A formal contract will be completed soon with the
Podesta Group and Cornerstone. For information only. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
9.0 |
Science and Technology Committee – Greg Bohach/Dan Rossi Background
Information: The ESCOP Science and Technology Committee met on
September 17, 2007 in The Committee reviewed the issue of NRI priorities and noted that the NRI leadership indicated that the ESS recommendations were included in planning along with input from other stakeholder groups. At the time of the meeting, the Committee did not have the information to compare our recommendation to the actual RFP’s. The issue of a maximum percentage for NRI integrated
awards was discussed. It was noted
that each funding agency has a different definition of “integrated.” It was suggested that we invite
representatives of the NRI, NSF and NIH to our next meeting to discuss their
agency’s intent relative to integrated programs. Therefore, the next meeting should be in
the The Committee reviewed its charge. It was decided that the current charge was no longer relevant and a subcommittee was assigned to draft a new charge. Dan Rossi volunteered to prepare a draft and send it to Greg for comment. The new charge will be discussed at the next meeting of the Committee. The Committee discussed the next version of the Farm Bill. This committee decided that we need to look at interpretations and impacts of the new Farm Bill to the land-grant system. It was suggested that perhaps the Social Science Subcommittee could initiate such an analysis. The potential role of the Committee in strategic planning was addressed. There is a need for stakeholder engagement in strategic planning. The Committee discussed the need for a content analysis of the research and extension issues raised in the Farm Bill listening sessions. It was noted that perhaps agricultural communicators could be engaged to conduct the content analysis. Two other issues were discussed. Relative to renewable fuels and bio-fuels, it was noted that the social science side is not receiving the attention it should. It was further noted that there was a need for research in this area to integrate across disciplines including engineering, bio-physical sciences, and social science as well as across functional areas. The second issue was research supported by check-off dollars. It was felt that many times those funds come along with restrictions on academic freedom. NECC 63 works with the commodity promotion programs and it might be good to engage them in this discussion. The Science and Technology Committee is scheduled to meet
on Thursday, March 27, 2008 in · A review of 2008 NRI RFP and a discussion of a process for establishing ESS priorities for the 2010 NRI. · Discussion of integrated requirements. · A process and criteria for evaluating CSREES stakeholder input following a discussion of this topic at the March 6 meeting of the Social Science Subcommittee (SSSC). · A process for evaluating the implications of the Farm Bill on the Land Grant System again following a discussion at the SSSC meeting. · A process for reviewing and selecting multistate research awards for recommendation to ESCOP and the ESS. · Discussion of the role of the Land Grant System in proactive science education (for issues including but not limited to cloned meat, BST milk, raw milk, and nanotechnology). · Review of draft committee charge. Action Requested: For discussion and feedback. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
10.0 |
Multi-state Awards Program – ED’s ·
Description
and Nomination Form in PDF Action Requested: For discussion. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
11.0 |
Final Discussion of N-CFAR Membership |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Break |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
12.0 |
REE Energy Strategic Plan – Joe Dunn USDA/REE
Energy Research, Education, and Extension Strategy PowerPoint Presentation in PDF [large file 2.70MB] |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
13.0 |
National Vegetable Crops Initiative – ED’s |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
14.0 |
Potential candidates for next REE
Under-Secretary – All |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
15.0 |
Planning for the 2008 ESS/SAES/ARD Workshop
– Steve Pueppke |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
16.0 |
ARD and AEA June Symposium – Carolyn Brooks |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
17.0 |
Other Business |