In Attendance:
G. Bruce Wiersma, Chair (ME)
John Anderson (CT)
J. Scott Angle (MD)
Paul Backman (PA)
W. Ronnie Coffman (NYC)
Darrell Cole (ARS-BARC)
Jack Coster (WV)
Thomas Fretz (MD)
Frank Greene (ARS-NAA)
Robert Helgesen (MA)
Jim Hunter (NYG)
Rachel Johnson (VT)
Pat Logan (RI)
David R. MacKenzie (NERA)
Mark Mount (MA)
John Nye (DE)
Stephen Reiling (ME)
Daniel Rossi (NJ)
William Saylor (DE)
Robert Seem (NYG)
James Stewart (NH)
John Whitcomb (NY-C)
Gloria Wyche-Moore (DC)
George Cooper (USDA)
Ralph Otto (USDA)
Greg Perry
Robert Steele (PA)
Margaret Leinen (RI)
William Mautz (NH)
Rubie G. Mize (NERA-Recorder)
The meeting was called to order at 8:03am. Introductions were made around the table. Chair Wiersma recognized J. Stewart for his valuable contributions to NERA and presented him a plaque of appreciation. J. Stewart thanked everyone and wished them luck in the future.
Agenda Approval - B. Wiersma
Chair Wiersma asked that some changes be made in the agenda to include R. Otto before G. Cooper's report.
The motion to approve the revised agenda was seconded and accepted.
Interim Actions by the Chair - B. Wiersma
B. Wiersma attended the last ESCOP meeting, Feb. 16-17, in Washington, DC. He also met with D. MacKenzie to discuss NERA issues.
On the Governance Issue, the Administrative Heads are asking for more support from the Executive Director. B. Wiersma had talked to D. MacKenzie and T. Fretz. It is felt that there is a need to discuss this with the research directors. This will be the topic of the afternoon session with AHS.
The Executive Committee met in Washington, DC, in early March to look at the proposed NERA budget for FY99-00, and a decision was made to have an e-mail ballot. 14 out of the 15 members voted. The "yes" votes are: salary increase = 12; operation = 11; relocation = 12; and, paperless management = 5. Paperless management did not pass.
A discussion ensued as to what the consequences will be if the activities toward paperless management were stalled. D. MacKenzie explained that this initiative is in consonance with the implementation of the new Farm Bill. Lack of funding will delay the development of the document management system that is proposed to be handled mostly by the regional offices. Each region is now doing some kind of paperless management, but all are doing it differently. NERA has been working closely with CSREES and CRIS in designing the system. This will not be completed without the necessary financial support for its completion.
It was agreed that this activity will again be raised for budget consideration next year. Some directors felt that this issue should be resolved at this meeting, but there were other issues raised that may be relevant. Efforts to get the regions to agree on a standard system (including paperwork and procedure) are still on the table for discussion at ESCOP. The Chair also wants the Agency to provide the leadership on this issue. G. Cooper noted that the Agency is willing to assist to the extent that resources are available. The Agency would also like to see a standard format evolving from the regions. We will lose this opportunity to set up an acceptable system for the Northeast without the support for the paperless management activity. NERA web development and maintenance will also suffer as these are included in this project. There was strong agreement that this should be brought up again in the next meeting.
Consideration of Previous Minutes - B. Wiersma
There were no comments or changes to the draft minutes of the NERA meeting held on February 2-3, 1999, in Washington, DC. The motion to approve the minutes as posted on the NERA web page (http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/NERA/workshop/feb99min.html), was seconded and accepted.
Committee Reports:
NERA Executive Committee
The Executive Committee met on Sunday, July 11. The topics discussed were:
NE Regional Research Committee -
W. Saylor
W. Saylor distributed copies of the RRC
reports to be considered later.
NE Regional Priorities Committee - D. Rossi
The Association accepted the report at the February meeting that recommended "Establishing Decision Criteria for Evaluating Regional Agricultural Research Priorities." The criteria are: importance, stakeholder needs, scientific merits, and expected outcomes, to be used for new and revised projects. It appears that these can be utilized at a broader scale when requesting to write a proposal. The Committee has not met since February. B. Saylor noted that the criteria makes sense and should be used in standardizing and evaluating requests. D. Rossi added that this can be used as basis for accepting proposals.
D. MacKenzie passed around the portfolio of project summaries that will be used for the external review. These are also available on the NERA web page by clicking on the project numbers (http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/NERA/regpro.htm).
D. MacKenzie emphasized the move towards more outcome-based funding. He suggested restructuring the project outline format to reflect this and follow the format used in the project summaries and adding other requirements such as the CRIS search. Interdependency is just one test for collaboration, and may not be the single criterion in the future. What is needed is a formal process to report projects and coordinating committees that are already collaborating.
D. MacKenzie described that the Western region's approach to implementing the Farm Bill requirement for collaboration may be a good structure for the Northeast to follow. They have formed a separate committee made up of research, extension, academic and forestry folks. This will be the platform to develop integrated activities. This structure also strongly encourages extension involvement in research activities.
J. Hunter commented that he had seen good groups fall apart because of interdependence. Collaboration should be the trend, and projects that are not limited to the region, should be considered national. D. MacKenzie agreed and noted that over 65% of regional projects are truly national. Projects should be renamed to reflect the geographical scope.
J. Hunter added that scientists already know or are aware if similar projects exist. There is no need to make the search for duplication a burdensome requirement. D. MacKenzie will look into using a certification, instead of a CRIS search, to attest that there is no duplication.
D. MacKenzie proposed that Procedures section be done as an appendix, and that the Project Outline should focus on impacts, not activities. It was also recommended that the CRIS search be done away with.
J. Nye proposed that a different type of collaborative funding be designed. It should also be demonstrated that the project is able to attract funding from other resources. This should be included in the proposal. If there are no other sources, we should only fund those that are high in priority.
R. Johnson cited an example of a successful project in Vermont that is not supplemented by other sources, but can benefit from additional funding. It is competitively funded with a cap of $20,000 per PI, and only $60,000 is available to support three PIs.
NRSP-7, Animal Drugs for Minor Species and Uses - W. Saylor
NRSP-7 was established in 1982 as part of IR4. T. Fretz commented that work on this area needs to continue. It is important for sheep, llamas, etc. and other species that do not have off-the-top funding. It has a special grant of $550,000. There are numerous requests for testing of different drugs and species. 29 have been approved through FDA. Getting approval through a pharmaceutical company is very costly. This project allows this to be done at a fraction of the cost. The project works only on drugs that are already approved, and test them for minor use on species.
NERCRD Report - W. Saylor
W. Saylor distributed copies of the report
to the directors.
Meeting with CARET
Chair Wiersma welcomed the CARET representatives and introductions were made around the table. The CARET representatives were Karl Girton (PA), Sam Minor (PA), and Boyd Mathews (WV).
K. Girton explained that the purpose of their visit is to listen to issues that are relevant and appropriate for CARET members to be familiar with. What should CARET be doing on behalf of the Northeast LGUs?
D. MacKenzie expressed his gratitude to S. Minor for putting together an excellent panel for yesterday's Listening Session. The feedback had been very positive. A summary will be made as part of the report that the directors can refer to in their Plans of Work. K. Girton noted that the Listening Session provided CARET an opportunity to play a role. He supports the idea of having a mechanism for NE stakeholders to have a formal listening session. This should be clearly developed.
S. Minor is the national chair of CARET. CARET representatives are appointed by the Deans. There could be up to three CARET reps per state. The primary role is to support the land-grant universities to search for funding for research, extension and teaching, and broadly to support the land-grants. CARET reps work as volunteers. Currently, there are two liaisons in the Board on Agriculture Budget Committee for 2000 and 2001, and also to the COPs, and to the Board of Agriculture. There are three CARET members who happen to serve in the President's Advisory Board. The bulk of CARET's activities in support for the budget for the SAES, LGU, etc. happen at the February meeting, but they also meet with local staff throughout the year. CARET is searching for ways on how these activities could be better coordinated with the sections, and how they could better serve the system.
CARET is about 25 years old. Their national meeting precedes the annual NASULGC meeting.
The members meet individually with their state senators, and sometimes on the Hill. The biggest challenge they are facing is the degree of receptivity or importance the legislators put on agriculture, and how to make the agriculture story relevant to urban legislators. It is easy to get them interested if you can make it relevant, on a topic like safe food, or youth at risk.
J. Hunter expressed pessimism, in the near term, that we can educate the staffers as to the implications of agriculture in the rural and urban areas, if their view is strictly related to production agriculture.
S. Minor replied that there is fairly good acceptance of the broader meaning of agriculture. He has interacted with legislators who are strong supporters of agriculture. However, we do not have strong relationship with the leadership of key committees. There is a need to build on those. There is serious concern for NASULGC wanting to walk away from the term "agriculture."
K. Girton emphasized the need for greater vigor in telling our story. The President’s budget proposed a reduction in the ag lines. It is a victory if the reduction amounts only to 2% instead of the proposed 15% cut.
What about the OMB? S. Minor noted that AESOP is trying to engage Noah Engleberg of OMB into a dialogue. Noah is not supportive of base funding, but is trying to understand it. CARET will also meet with him soon.
R. Coffman raised his concern that we are moving towards a system whereby 3-4 companies driven by shareholder values will have more influence over the global food system. Would it be relevant to tell Congress that this is the body that controls the food system? Is this a good strategy to use when talking to these folks? Fear and greed are prime motivators. It should be the public's concern that a few companies are taking over the food system. There is an array of options to package this message, but it should be effective and should go to the budget committee.
It was noted that our concern as research directors should be for the vulnerability of the producers rather than funding for research? We are establishing collaborations with corporations and companies, and research results are passed on to consumers in terms of productivity.
R. Coffman replied that we should not be receiving resources to be equal partners with private companies. It is important to maintain the public sector that looks after the public interest.
P. Backman queried whether we should diversify where we can access funds. How do we go about lobbying with other departments? S. Minor said that NASULGC's Peter Magrath formed an ad hoc committee (Vanderhoff from UC Davis is chairing this committee) to investigate additional resources outside of USDA.
What about support for base funding? Should we invest our capital in defending current resistance to formula funding? Historically, CARET has been told that capacity brought by the formula fund to the system is significant. CARET got off track 10 years ago and decided it has role to play that was very broad. CARET was just recently revitalized and it came back to the original charter relative to the federal fund for research, extension and teaching. The principle goal is to search for dollars. CARET members cannot effectively convey the message if they don’t have a clear understanding of the system. The Chair of CARET gives testimonies in both houses of Congress and had, historically, a creditable reputation in Congress. Being a CARET member is a lot of work, but it is hard to identify anything in the farm that did not evolve from the land-grant system. There is a feeling that there is tremendous need to come together for a more focussed effort for the LGU system. This can be done much more effectively locally than national.
Chair Wiersma expressed his appreciation
for what CARET does for the system and thanked the CARET representatives
on behalf of NERA.
CSREES Report – R. Otto
R. Otto reported that there were recent changes in CSREES personnel. Mitch Geasler retired on July 2nd. R. Otto has been assigned by the agency to coordinate the Plans of Work. POWs are due on July 15. He assured the directors that his team would be flexible and reasonable in reviewing the POWs. POW guidelines are available on the web.
The final rule on Special Research Grants were made on June 25. It was shortened from 5 to 3 years and sets parameters for peer and merit review. The guidelines are also available on the CSREES web site.
A clarification was sought regarding the duplication of the peer review. What is the correct interpretation? R. Otto replied that it is adequate to certify that peer review has been conducted. The certification will not be challenged. However, there is no written guarantee that the auditor will not come and ask again. G. Cooper noted that this is correct and that all that is needed is to re-certify the review.
A scientist certifies that an internal review of the project was conducted before obtaining funding. What is the chance that a federal audit will require proof that there is in fact an internal review of the project? An Affirmative Action review was done in Connecticut, so there is possibility that this may happen. There is a need to obtain documentation from CSREES that this requirement is satisfied according to what was required in the guidelines. G. Cooper replied that once CSREES accepts the document, then that should be clear that requirements were completed, but the agency cannot provide documentation.
Are there situations where both types of reviews have to be done? R. Otto noted that the expectation is to have two reviews for special grants that are competitive. The confusion is because it is competitive. He will raise the issue with the Miley Gonzalez. D. Cole added that this also true for NRI grants, not only special grants.
As to the question about the 25% integrated
activities effort required in POW, R. Otto replied that a most general
type of description would suffice. The intent of Congress is to increase
collaboration. He advised on taking advantage of existing collaborations.
His team will not look for formal memoranda between institutions. It would
be ideal if there are formal contracts, but if you mention other institutions,
make sure that these institutions also mention you in their POWs. He foresaw
that after the experience of the first year, there will be more detailed
POW guidelines.
CSREES Partnership Liaison Report - G. Cooper
G. Cooper distributed his report to the directors. The highlights are the relocation of CSREES to the Waterfront Centre. He will share with the directors if there are any changes on the budget discussions. There is a Future of American Agriculture conference and encouraged all to participate. The new Administrator, C. Laughlin, has assumed his position (on June 21st 1999). He was previously Dean of Agriculture at the University of Hawaii before joining USDA-CSREES, and is very familiar with the LGU system.
Chair Wiersma thanked and expressed his
appreciation to the federal partners who were present at this meeting:
G. Cooper, R. Otto, D. Cole, F. Greene, and Jennifer Y. Molen (Special
Assistant to Dr. Miley Gonzalez).
NE Aquaculture Center – P. Logan
P. Logan offered suggestions on better ways for NERA to use the Center. It is truly a regional collaboration supporting the aquaculture industry. The emphasis has been on stakeholder input. It has a 34-member Board, and a large technical committee. NERA and NEED are also represented. D. MacKenzie was part of the recent external review. There are opportunities to improve the quality of proposals submitted. It may be better to consolidate the process, and focus on programs rather than a project-driven approach. A strategic planning process is underway. NERA could better use the Center if we are able to couple regional projects with NRAC activities. Some interesting projects we could work on are:
D. MacKenzie noted that he was impressed with the accomplishments of the Center, even with its limited resources. The NERA directors should find a way to claim credit for the center's accomplishments, especially under the new requirements for 25% integrated activities.
F. Greene cited that a facility will be
opened in West Virginia and they will participate and collaborate with
the Center's activities.
Restructuring Regional Governance (with AHS) - B. Wiersma & T. Fretz
The members of the Northeast Administrative Heads Section joined the NERA directors.
Do we now have the right organization to support the Farm Bill? The purpose of the paper that was distributed earlier is to set up the options that are available to restructure the organization. In studying these options, it should be noted that the representatives from the North Central region had indicated some interest in having their representative in the Washington, DC area. The Commissioners of Agriculture in the Northeast also wants to form an alliance with NERA. How can we better organize ourselves to better serve the region?
The issues involved are:
Darrell Cole provided a report he just
received regarding ARS. The Facilities Task Force proposed closing ARS
locations including the Beltsville facility. He urged the directors to
rebut if they have a chance to do so. ARS have closed 80 locations and
now have only 103.
Issues to Action – Greg Perry
G. Perry distributed copies of the Issues
to Action Report that was commissioned by NASULGC. 11 institutional issues
came up. The purpose of the study is to document historical trends in teaching,
research, and extension, and the changes made since the 1996 Issues to
Action conference report.
Executive Director’s Report - D. MacKenzie
D. MacKenzie highlighted some points in the Job Jar report:
On the NE External Review:
Negotiations are underway with the prospective panel members. The draft report should be available at the September meeting in Memphis, TN. The proposed members are Neal Jorgenson (Chair), Cornelia Flora, Melinda McClanahan, Karl Girton, Ralph Otto, and Merle Pierson. The draft TOR was shared with the directors and some comments were given. The questions will be rearranged as suggested. The members of the Executive Committee will attend the first day of the Review to set the stage for review and to answer questions from the panel. The NERA-OED will provide staff support to the review.
It maybe also be useful to include all the projects in other regions that the Northeast SAES are participating in. This will give them a broader picture of the states' participation in multi-state research.
G. Cooper queried how we can engage the other regions to have a similar review. Sharing the results of this review may help them appreciate the value of the review and entice them to conduct their own review.
G. Cooper encouraged the group to make themselves available in case the panel has some questions. This will be an interesting exercise because it is the first of its kind. How do we document in meaningful ways the achievements of these multi-state projects? Is there a leveraging effect?
P. Logan noted that one value this exercise
could have is to project 10-20 years out how we can address the important
problems. Can we build in some futuring into the exercise?
On the Paperless Management System:
D. MacKenzie noted that NERA has made good progress on this activity. All the NE projects have been summarized into the web-format. An on-line review of proposals has also been installed.
There are still a number of issues that
need to be resolved with the other regions, such as naming and numbering
of projects. This has been put on hold because we need agreement with the
other regions. South and West use one letter, and keeping the old number
makes it appear that we are just continuing the same project. R. Heil of
the Western region recommended adding a letter to indicate national scope.
On the Implementation of the Farm Bill:
D. MacKenzie shared the report that he will be delivering at the forthcoming ESCOP meeting as Chair of the Farm Bill Implementation Task Force. The multi-state portfolio needs to be organized and the issues to be addressed are:
We should come up with a logical framework that will lead us to the goals. If we can get agreement in getting these terms defined then we can have a framework on how to report against the goals. D. MacKenzie requested the group to express their opinions so he can raise it at the ESCOP meeting next week.
J. Nye commented that there should be a
compromise and a sense of flexibility. If the project fits a category,
then we should just be able to classify it as that.
On the Meeting with European Counterparts:
D. MacKenzie met with his European counterpart
Wilhelm Van Vuere at a recent meeting in China. There is a meeting that
will be held in Amsterdam in July, in cooperation with NASULGC. A late
fall or early winter with European research directors and the NE region'd
directors may be a possibility. There is opportunity for partnership here
because they also have multi-state projects that are funded by the European
Community. Campus visits were also offered by Van Vuere . D. MacKenzie
will explore with the other Executive Directors the possibility of doing
it on a national level. He will continue pursuing this activity with Van
Vuere, and will keep the directors updated.
On the NE Food Safety Project:
The SAFER (Safe Agriculture
and Food Through Education and Research) Executive
Committee met and agreed to continue the project. D. MacKenzie is now in
the process of recruiting a new Food Safety Coordinator part-time, possibly
on graduate assistantship. The funds available are not sufficient to support
a full time employee.
Others:
D. MacKenzie noted that the Practitioners Guide to Implementing the 1998 Farm Bill that he and Dr. Haggett co-wrote is now available on-line. J. Nye and D. Rossi thanked him and Dr. Haggett for putting this manual together.
D. MacKenzie is also planning to visit
the SAES to prepare for the next Office of the Executive Director's strategic
plan. Questions he will be asking the directors during these visits were
distributed.
Regional Governance - Tom Fretz
There was extensive discussion on the Regional Governance white paper that was distributed earlier. T. Fretz had a chance to get some feedback from Extension. Extension's perception of the Governance issues is quite serious. They feel that this is a conspiracy to change the whole governance set-up. They indicated that AHS should not make decisions that will affect those Extension Directors that are not falling under the AHS, but rather under Provosts or VPs. We need to make sure that those not falling under the AHS are well represented in the discussions.
It was decided that the incoming AHS Chair,
Bob Steele (PA), will invite the members of the Executive Committees of
the sections (AHS, NEED, NERA and possibly APS) to meet and discuss the
governance issues. CARET will not be included in this meeting.
Update on Plan of Work Requirements - D. MacKenzie
D. MacKenzie gave a brief report on the
POW requirements. There were only a few questions, as most issues had been
addressed in the earlier discussions.
ESCOP Meeting Updates and Committee Reports
Core Committee I. Budget, Legislative, Advocacy, and Marketing - R. Coffman/W. Saylor
W. Saylor had joined two committee meetings to discuss the FY2000 and FY2001 budgets. He also distributed a CFAR activity report. CFAR is close to reaching the $12 million mark. It was noted that this particular model is driven by interests outside the station, mainly by stakeholders. A recommendation has been made that Joe Coffey lead the initiative.
B. Wiersma noted that in Maine they worked with stakeholders and were able to change the legislators' attitude to R&D, and resulted in a million dollars added to MAES, and more funding for an agricultural science-related building. It was a positive experience to have stakeholders heavily involved in the institution's activities.
The difference with CFAR is the notion that the stakeholders dictate where they want the money spent. S. Reiling added that in Maine the stakeholders give them advise on where to spend, and are useful in helping them make that kind of decision.
D. MacKenzie queried if there is an effort to integrate this report with that of Vanderhoff's? There is none, was the response. T. Fretz noted that the Board of Agriculture wrote a position paper, but it is not highly specific. Joe Coffey’s name were mentioned on both reports.
E. Gouge noted that P. Magrath will meet with the Board on Agriculture in August to discuss the implementation of the Vanderhoff report.
Core Committee II. Science and Technology - P. Backman/G. Wyche-Moore
P. Backman reported that the committee got organized in the Spring. They met in early May. He distributed copies of the minutes and other information. The administrative advisors will implement guidelines on how impacts are to be measured. He enumerated the strategic target activities. The science quality assurance review will also fall to this committee. There is no representation of the social science area. The committee is still in its early stage and maybe next year there will be more substantial activities.
P. Backman also distributed reports on the NE Pasteur Consortium.
Core Committee III. Partnerships - D. MacKenzie/T. Fretz/J. Nye
D. MacKenzie reported that the committee had met twice. The target is narrow into one area: that is, improving relationships with CSREES and partnering with other federal agencies. Six program national leaders were put on the agenda to share with the group the activities in their respective departments. These sessions will be continued until the members are fully aware of their roles in the agencies. D.C. Coston is the chair and Lee Sommers is the chair-designate.
It is hard to partner with other agencies unless we share resources with them. D. MacKenzie had an interesting discussion initiated by Terry Nipp. What can we do with our appropriations in terms of matching funds by other agencies. Talking points relative to this were given to D. C. Coston. Can we use AREERA Section 406 authority for funding integrated activities, say with NASA, EPA , FDA, etc.? This may require congressional action, but Terry can help put the language together.
J. Nye noted that soon there may be a request to broaden the partnership, and to have extension representation. The OMB representative was of the opinion that the Administration is moving towards more competitive funding. Why are we complaining if there’s more money? This brings us back to the CFAR discussion; that funds will come differently than we might expect. If other agencies come in, distribution of funds will look differently.
Core Committee IV. Planning - J. Coster/J. Stewart
The Committee met for the first time April 29, in Washington, DC. The meeting was preceded by a conference call, and discussions revolved around explaining the "charge" to the Committee, and its relationship with other committees. The Committee is responsible for short-term and long-term planning. Planning will be done with ECOP. The goal is to develop common standards for the Plan of Work. There was a joint planning activity with ECOP, but that meeting was cancelled and moved to the end of September. The Committee will be working on setting initiatives in the long term vs. budget development. At present, we don’t have a quick way of giving initiatives to the budget committee. We need a process for developing priorities, getting it known to the community, discuss this at September meetings, and then move it to the Budget Committee. The priority setting process draft should be ready and in place for FY2002 budget planning. There will be a joint ESCOP/ECOP Planning Committees' meeting in Sept. after the ESS meetings. There is no fixed agenda, but hopefully both can work together and come up with a set of recommendations for joint ECOP/ESCOP activities.
Core Committee V. Executive - D. Rossi/J. Angle/D. MacKenzie
D. Rossi reported that the ESCOP Executive Committee met on April 13-14. They had a fairly narrow agenda, but the topics were expansive.
ESCOP Organization - The core committees are beginning to function and interact with other committees. Communication needs to be improved through the sharing of meeting minutes. The ESCOP incoming chair was assigned responsibilities as coordinator of the core committees. The core committee chairs will be included into the Chair’s Advisory Committee, as well as the national program leaders.
The administrative support for ESCOP as the chairmanship rotates among regions is a continuing concern.
Plan of Work - The Farm Bill Implementation Task Force identified issues and options that are available. The Task Force had ECOP and CSREES representation, but ECOP refused to join. We need to have retrospective analysis of the POW guidelines as we go through it in the future. LGUs should be involved in reviewing the POWs. D. Lund is discussing this with C. Hefferan. Resurrecting the NRSP on economic analysis of research investments may not be a bad idea, and might involve the expertise we have in our system. CSREES will play an important role on how to improve the process of reporting. There was also a proposal to authorize national research projects to reflect the national scope of the projects. If three out of five regions are involved, then it should be considered national.
The ESCOP Executive Committee also is concerned about the relationship with NASULGC. Attempts were made to have direct communication with P. Magrath.
AESOP is in the process of entering into a new contract, and is now doing background work. How are funds used that are committed already? They are also looking into the roles of ECOP, AESOP and NASULGC. ECOP's use of AESOP outside joint activities will also be reviewed. One of the issues raised is the marketing plan. We may be able to tap into resources available at AESOP. How can we act jointly, but also independently, ESCOP vs. NASULGC, and AHS, and AESOP? There are communication and coordination issues that need to be resolved. ESCOP is meeting next week in Missouri. There is a joint meeting planned there. Following the July meeting is to be one in September, and the theme of that meeting is "Partnership". Some regional associations will also meet at thjat time. J. Angle will represent NERA next week ay ESCOP.
D. MacKenzie reported that the marketing
proposal needs to have gotten into the first phase, i.e., exploring what
our clients really want. Funding for the activity was to have been from
a joint NASULGC account with ECOP. ECOP did not express any interest in
the marketing activity, and so we were not able to continue this ESCOP
initiative.
Consideration of NE RRC Report - W. Saylor (report was distributed earlier)
W. Saylor thanked the members of his group: G. Wyche-Moore, R. Seem and M. Mount. All proposals are now put online. He encouraged the directors to take advantage of this system. Unfortunately, R. Mize reported that we did not receive any feedback through the on-line review. This is an excellent way to save on photocopying costs. And the portfolio of project summaries, now available on the web, is a very useful tool.
W. Saylor enumerated the recommendations contained in the report.
NE-009's request is $155,000. The FY1999 funding is $139,000. The Committee recommended 145,000, a 4% increase over current level of funding.
The NE-059's request for the NE Rural Development Center would be a 7% increase over the FY1999 level. $42,252 is the current level of NERA’s contribution. The Committee recommended no increase. D. Rossi raised an interesting question whether this can be used for the 25% integrated activities under the POW. Faculty that receives grants through the Center can probably be reported under the POW.
NE-127 would like to re-publish the techniques manual in the web. This is widely used by nutritionists, engineers, and others. The intention is to do the conversion by chapter and see how far the fund can go. Some of the techniques need to be animated. $3,500 was requested to begin this activity.
G. Cooper stated that there will eventually be two allocations, and the stations will track the 25% for the integrated activities. Guidelines will be forthcoming on how to manage the two pools of money.
Regarding off-the-top funding for NRSPs, R. Coffman explained that the "tricky" wording approach was used in the past because we were unsure of the amounts. When this is expressed at the national level the Northeast is put at a disadvantage because we don’t have a firm numerical commitment (in dollars). Do we just allocate across the board or are there NRSPs that are more important to us. Or are there ones that no longer need to be funded? Should we fund the one that is actually based in the region higher? RRC will wait until Congress makes the appropriations and see in terms of real dollars how much will be available. Guidance will be needed from the directors on the level funding.
Note: The tricky wording used earlier to authorize increases across the board, but the distribution was actually decided by the other regions. Last year, the Southern region was not happy with the outcome, and C. Hefferan had to set aside $50,000 in escrow, to await resolution of regional differences. Three NRSPs got increased. We want this year to be in a position to make firm recommendations. G. Cooper expressed support for this approach. D. MacKenzie suggested a thorough discussion on the NRSPs at the ESS meeting in September, and have the voting directors decide on each one of them, case by case In a more visionary way, there should be approval of an NRSP budget for five years, and not require approval every year. This is a model that all the regions seems to be in agreement with, but is yet to be implemented
The new assignments of Administrative Advisors are subject to their willingness to serve. Some of the proposed replacement have not been contacted.
The motion to accept the RRC Report subject
to the confirmation and acceptance of the proposed Advisors, was seconded
and approved.
Wednesday, July 14:
Regional Framework and Plan of Work Discussions - D. Rossi/W. Saylor
The purpose of coming up with a regional framework that could be standardized on the national level is to have a basic structure that will allow reporting of research activities that will lead to the national goals. USDA will report based on these goals and the only system that will enable the stations to report, using the CRIS data, is by using the RPA classifications. The problem is that Extension does not track data using the CRIS system, and may be using a totally different system.
R. Otto stated that a common taxonomy may start to emerge after the POWs are submitted. G. Cooper added that some states are already developing a common taxonomy to enable research and extension to plan and report together.
It appears based on the discussions that a national standard-approach to a framework and POW reporting is not reachable in the near future. The director level may not be the right arena to discuss standardization. There is so much deep rooted cultural differences that constantly appear as barriers to reaching any kind of agreement between extension and research directors. CSREES may have to come up with the reporting guidelines based on the submissions they receive. R. Otto expects a wide variety of formats in these first submissions. The Western approach is acceptable to the Northeast, but may not be accepted by the other regions.
D. MacKenzie volunteered to draft a manual incorporating all the suggestions given:
The nominees proposed for the year 2000 were as follows:
NERA Chair - John Nye (DE)
Vice Chair - W. Ronnie Coffman (NY-C)
Officer-at-Large - Mark Mount (MA)
NERRC Chair - Robert Seem (NY-G)
NERRC New Member - Paul Backman (PA) until
2002
NeRPC - All members are to be reappointed.
J. Stewart (NH) will be leaving the committee.
NE Academic Programs Section Committee
Liaison - Gloria Wyche-Moore (DC)
NE Aquaculture Center Liaison (additional
representative) - Pat Logan (RI)
NEPIAP - reappoint all current members
NESARE - reappoint J. Angle (MD)
Resolutions Committee - reappoint J. Hunter
(NY-G)
The above appointees will assume responsibilities for their respective positions after the NERA meeting on September 30, 1999, in Memphis, TN.
The motion to accept the above nominations was seconded and accepted.
Resolutions Committee Report - J. Hunter
J. Hunter read the resolutions as follows:
Resolution of Appreciation to James A. Stewart
WHEREAS, Dr. James A. Stewart distinguished himself as Associate Dean for Research of the College of Life Sciences and Agriculture, and Associate Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of New Hampshire, and
WHEREAS, Dr. Stewart has contributed in many ways to the Northeast Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors including serving as Secretary, Vice Chair and Chair of the Association, Chair of the Regional Research Committee, and administrative advisor for several regional research projects, and
WHEREAS, Dr. Stewart has fulfilled significant responsibilities to the Northeast and the Nation by serving on the Executive Committee of the Northeast Pesticide Impact Assessment Program, the Board of Directors of the Northeast Regional Aquaculture Center, the New England Council of Presidents Commission on Biotechnology, and as a member of the Experiment Station’s Committee on Organization and Policy,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Northeast Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire on July 14, 1999, express sincere appreciation for Dr. Stewart’s many contributions, and wish him much success and happiness in his future professional activities.
Resolution of Appreciation to Rosemary R. Haggett
WHEREAS, Dr. Rosemary R. Haggett distinguished herself as Director of the West Virginia Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station and Dean of the West Virginia College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Consumer Sciences since 1994, and
WHEREAS, Dr. Haggett was an active participant in meetings of the Northeast Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors, including serving as Chair of the organization, and
WHEREAS, Dr. Haggett served in several leadership capacities as a member of the Cooperative State Research Service of the USDA that strengthened the partnership with State Agricultural Experiment Stations, and she also provided grantsmanship workshops to help faculty in Land-Grant Universities in the Northeast and throughout the nation,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Northeast Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire on July 14, 1999, express sincere appreciation for Dr. Haggett’s many contributions, her collegial spirit that added greatly to many meetings of the Northeast Regional Association, and wish her much success in her new assignment as Associate Provost for Academic Programs at West Virginia University.
Resolution of Appreciation to the Summer Meeting Host
WHEREAS, the Northeast Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors participated in an interesting and productive meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire on July 13-14, 1999, and
WHEREAS, the Directors also were involved in a joint meeting with the deans of colleges, leaders of extension and academic programs, and CARET representatives from the Northeast Region on July 12-13, 1999, and
WHEREAS, the Northeast Experiment Station Directors enjoyed the amenities of historic Portsmouth and the beautiful coastal scenery of New Hampshire,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Directors acknowledge their sincere appreciation to Dean William Mautz, Dr. James Stewart and their associates at the University of New Hampshire for their efforts in making the 1999 summer meeting a successful and enjoyable experience.
The motion to accept the above resolutions
was seconded, and unanimously accepted.
Future Meeting Plans - B. Wiersma/C. Donnelly (Summer 2000 Host)
The next NERA meeting will be in conjunction with the national SAES Workshop to be held on September 27 to 30, in Memphis, Tennessee. The exact date for the NERA meeting will be announced to the directors via e-mail after the ESCOP meeting next week.
The winter meeting with ESCOP will be tentatively scheduled on March 7-9, 2000. According to Eddie Gouge, NASULGC will hold its annual Science Exhibit at the Hill's Canon Caucus Room on March 7, 2-8:00pm. This can be the joint afternoon activity with extension. R. Mize will check with NEED if the proposed dates are acceptable.
The summer 2000 meeting will be hosted by the University of Vermont on June 25-28 at the Basin Harbor Club in Ferrisburg, VT. Brochures were distributed. Copies were also shared with NEED, APS and CARET members who were still around.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:15am.