.

TELECONFERENCE MINUTES 11:00 a.m. – Noon ET, Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Presiding – Delbert Foster, Chair

(712) 432-0375; Pass code: 897682#

NEXT MEETING October 14-15, 2015 AS PART OF NEDA http://www.cvent.com/d/wrq424 - Late registration fee begins 9.24.15

Embassy Suites – Downtown, 610 N 7th Street, St. Louis, Missouri

Wednesday, 1-5 p.m.; Thursday, 8 a.m.-12 p.m.

Attachments: minutes of last meeting(URL), Advancing New Budget Initiatives (p.6), Policy

Board of Directors motion on new budget initiatives (p.9), Assessment Policies and Procedures

(p.10), ESCOP Diversity and Inclusion Committee (p.12), New Engagement Planning Team

Nominations (p.17), Summary Document on Account 5730 (p.20), Federal Register

Announcement on Nutrition Education (p.22), Private Resource Mobilization Report (URL),

NEDA 2015 Agenda (p. 23)

AGENDA

1. OPENING BUSINESS – Delbert Foster

a. Roll call (p.3)

b. Approve minutes from last meeting (URL)

Delbert Foster called the meeting to order. The roll was taken and a quorum established. (See attendance on p. _) Mark Latimore made a motion to approve the minutes of the July, 21-22, 2015 meeting. Chuck Hibberd seconded and the motion passed. There were no additions to the agenda.

2. APPROVE: BAA Document on Advancing New Budget Initiatives (p.6)

Delbert Foster: The purpose of the attached document is to outline the process for advancing new budget initiatives by the BAA Budget and Advocacy Committee. Chuck Hibberd made a motion to approve the document as presented. Jimmy Henning seconded and the motion passed.

3. APPROVE: Policy Board of Directors motion (p. 9)

Tim Cross: Tim is seeking ECOP’s approval to make the motion stated as attached and vote on behalf of ECOP at the Policy Board of Directors meeting in November as it relates to the BAA Document on Advancing New Budget Initiatives. Mary Jane Willis made a motion to approve the action as stated. Celvia Stovall seconded the motion and the motion passed.

4. APPROVE and ACTION: Assessment Policies and Procedures (p.10) – Chuck Hibberd

Chuck Hibberd: The document as it is presented has been approved by ECOP Exec and is brought forward to ECOP for further consideration and comment. It is important to note that consequences of nonpayment will be applied in the year following. For example, if is a university in the Cooperative Extension Section that does not pay the ECOP assessment 5710 (Office of Executive Director) and/or 5730 (ECOP Strategic Priorities and Operations), the

Extension Committee on Organization & Policy (ECOP) BEFORE U PRINT

27pages long

PAPERLESS – Open agenda on computer or device and use Navigation Tip. SEMI-PAPERLESS – Print ONLY pages 1 and 2 of this document and follow paperless instructions.

Navigation Tip – Use hyperlinks to browse to attachments or outside sources.

Use “back to agenda” link at the end of each report to return to agenda.

Navigation Tip – Use hyperlinks to browse to attachments or outside sources. Use “back to agenda” link at the end of each report to return to agenda.

ECOP September 2015 2 | P a g e

consequences will be applied in the next calendar year. Michelle Rodgers made a motion to amend this document as presented. Mary Jane Willis seconded the motion. The motion carried.

5. UPDATE: ECOP Executive Committee –

a. Appointments

Delbert Foster presented the following appointments on behalf of ECOP Executive Committee for approval by ECOP.

Mary Jane Willis made a motion to approve the list of appointments, i.-iv., as presented. Jimmy Henning seconded and the motion was approved. Jane Schuchardt will deliver messaging as appropriate on behalf of Delbert Foster, ECOP Chair.

i. National Impact Database Committee

Debby Lewis, Ohio State University

ii. ECOP Liaison to National Urban Extension Leaders

Chris Boerboom, North Dakota State University, with Bev Durgan University of Minnesota to be kept informed (since the 2017 National Urban Extension Conference will be in Minneapolis/St. Paul).

iii. ECOP National System Task Force

Mark Latimore-Fort Valley State University, Debby Sheely-University of Rhode Island, Chuck Hibberd-University of Nebraska who will convene group, Doug Steele-Texas A&M University, and Scott Reed-Oregon State University.

iv. NEDA 2016 Planning Team

Delbert Foster-South Carolina State University, Steve Bonanno-University of West Virginia, Bev Durgan-University of Minnesota, Tony Windham-University of Arkansas, Glen Whipple-University of Wyoming.

b. Recommendations for appointments/invitations made by others

i. ESCOP Diversity and Inclusion Committee (p.12)

Delbert Foster presented the names of Julie Middleton, University of Missouri, and Sarah Dayton, Cornell University, to be submitted to ESCOP for consideration according to the request attached to these minutes. Mary Jane made a motion to proceed as stated. Chuck Hibberd seconded the motion. The motion carried. Jane Schuchardt will correspond accordingly with ESCOP on behalf of Delbert Foster.

ii. APLU New Engagement (p.17)

Delbert Foster announced the five directors/administrators to be presented to the APLU (Peter McPherson) to be considered for the NEW Engagement Task Force. Michelle Rodgers was identified by ECOP in previous action and is willing to serve. Others have been recommended by regions as follows: Lou Swanson, Cathann Kress, Mark Latimore (stated his willingness), and Nick Place. Swanson, Kress and Place have not been asked if they will serve if selected. Not all will be selected.

ECOP September 2015 3 | P a g e

Jimmy Henning made a motion to present the list as stated above, pending willingness to serve, to Peter McPherson at the APLU for consideration for the NEW Engagement Task Force. Mark Latimore seconded and the motion passed.

c. Recommendation for Account 5730 Strategic Priorities and Operations (p.20)

Delbert Foster reported that the ECOP Executive Committee has assigned a task force to determine how ECOP Account 5730 (Strategic Priorities and Operations) will be handled in 2017. At current levels of spending, the account is not sustainable past 2016. Recommendations will be available to ECOP for consideration by its March 2016 meeting and, should there be a request for increase in assessment, this must go out for a vote to the Cooperative Extension Section about July-August 2016. Jimmy Henning has agreed to serve on the team and will also ask former ECOP chairs Daryl Buchholz and Doug Steele. Tim Cross is willing to serve. L. Washington will suggest a representative from 1890.

Mark Latimore made a motion to approve the committee, chaired by Jimmy Henning as presented above and an 1890 representative to be named by L. Washington Lyons. Michelle Rodgers seconded the motion. The motion carried.

d. Request for comment on nutrition education (p.22)

Delbert Foster: ECOP Exec is recommending response by a representative of each region in addition to comment from ECOP at the national level. Jane Schuchardt will provided bulleted talking points to Ann Vail (southern region), Kathleen Morgan (northeast region), and Dennis Saviano (north central region) for consideration, though unique comments are recommended. Contact names need to be identified from the western and 1890s regions. The deadline for comment is 10.26.15.

Jane Schuchardt will construct bulleted talking points to go with this communication. Delbert recommended communicating with all regions to provide comment. Lyla will identify a representative from the Western Region and L. Washington Lyons will determine an 1890 representative.

Mary Jane Willis made a motion to adopt the actions of the ECOP Executive Committee as provided above. Celvia Stovall seconded the motion. The motion carried.

6. UPDATE: Private Resource Development (URL) –

a. Changing Our World, Inc.

Michelle Rodgers: Susan Raymond of Changing Our World, Inc. will join meeting on October 15, 2015. ECOP is urged to review the report before this and be prepared for discussion and action. This has been a very worthwhile investment.

b. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) –

Michelle Rodgers: RWJF approved a planning grant. A leadership planning team, represented by directors/administrators, program leaders are at work and met face-to-face in early September. The group is moving ahead on a conceptual-fast track timeframe. Attention is focused on acquainting RWJF with Extension to understand the capacity Extension can provide

ECOP September 2015 4 | P a g e

transformational change across the country. ECOP thanks National 4-H Council for all that they are doing to make this possible.

7. UPDATE: USDA-NIFA –

No report.

8. UPDATE: NEDA 2015 (p. 23) –

Jimmy Henning: As of 9.18.15, registration for NEDA stands at 109 with director/administrator representation from 60 institutions.

Sandy Ruble will address unnecessary messaging from Cvent for NEDA and APLU Annual Meetings for those who are already registered.

9. UPDATE: ED/A Team Model Review – Mike O’Neill

Mike O’Neill: The New Director/Administrators Orientation at NEDA on October 12, 2015 will consist of a 4-person panel. Panel members were selected based on diverse amounts of federal funding. Each will respond to questions. Everyone’s participation and support is welcome.

The ED/A Team Model Review will be on the agenda for the October meeting.

10. UPDATE: NIFA-CES Retreat Follow-up –

Chuck Hibberd – Fred Schlutt and Chuck are trying to connect with Bob Holland to organize the next steps in this process. No report at this time.

11. EXECUTIVE SESSION – Delbert Foster and Jimmy Henning

No session was held.

ECOP September 2015 5 | P a g e

ECOP Membership

VOTING MEMBERS (8 or more establishes a quorum):

1890 Region Delbert Foster, South Carolina State University

Mark Latimore, Fort Valley State

Celvia Stovall, Alabama Cooperative Extension System

North Central Region Chris Boerboom, North Dakota State University

Beverly Durgan, University of Minnesota

Chuck Hibberd, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Northeast Region Michael O’Neill, University of Connecticut

Michelle Rodgers, University of Delaware

Mary Jane Willis, Rutgers University

Southern Region

Tim Cross, University of Tennessee

Jimmy Henning, University of Kentucky

James Trapp, Oklahoma State University

Western Region

Jon Boren, New Mexico State University

Scott Reed, Oregon State University

Fred Schlutt, University of Alaska Fairbanks

NON-VOTING MEMBERS:

Ex-Officio Members

o Dennis Calvin, Chair, eXtension Board of Directors

Tim Cross, University of Tennessee, ECOP Representative to Policy Board of Directors

o Chris Geith, CEO, eXtension Board of Directors

o Robert Holland, USDA-NIFA

o Rick Klemme, University of Wisconsin - Extension, Chair, ECOP Budget and Legislative Committee

Jane Schuchardt, ECOP Executive Director, Cooperative Extension

Liaisons

o Susan Crowell, Council for Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching

o Linda Kirk Fox, Board on Human Sciences

Andy Ferrin for Jennifer Sirangelo, National 4-H Council

o Clarence Watson, Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy

Executive Director and Administrator Team

Ron Brown, Southern Region

Nancy Bull, Northeast Region

Lyla Houglum, Western Region

L. Washington Lyons, 1890 Region

Sandy Ruble, DC Office

Jane Schuchardt, DC Office Robin Shepard, North Central Region

ECOP September 2015 6 | P a g e

Draft 091615

BAA Process for Advancing New Budget Initiatives

Over the last several years, considerable effort was invested in two budget initiatives: Crop

Protection/Pest Management and Water Security. The concept of addressing issues of great importance

as described in the Water Security Initiative gained broad support of the Board on Agricultural Assembly

(BAA), and at least some traction at U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute for Food and

Agriculture (USDA-NIFA). Several valuable lessons were learned through these processes including:

Communicating with a unified voice,

Engaging topical experts in developing white papers,

Vetting white papers at various levels including the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP), Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP), the Budget and Advocacy Committee (BAC), and the Policy Board of Directors (PBD),

Enumerating expected outcomes and impacts,

Articulating how the initiative adds value to the potential funding agency’s programs

Involving the Executive Directors and Administrators (EDAs) in facilitating initiative development from the beginning to end

At least two years of lead time are needed to get an initiative “in the queue” for consideration by a

federal agency. Every effort must be made to have federal partner(s) engaged in the white paper

development process. The process, from idea to white paper development and approval, must be

completed at least two years in advance of efforts to include in a federal budget request. In addition, it

is essential to define important components of the advocacy campaign in order to establish a generic

framework or checklist for future campaigns.

Finally, it is crucial that there is formal communication of the final initiative from the Policy Board of

Directors to the specific federal agency Director, other appropriate agency officials, as well as

distribution to BAA members and other partners.

Issue Identification/Workgroup Development Steps

1. Identify the big problem: What is the big issue of the day that can be addressed by the Land-grant University System using integrated approaches? (Ideally only one issue would be selected to avoid potential mixed messages.)

2. Vet idea with Sections, BAC, BAA, other Boards, and other groups as appropriate. 3. Vet idea with Cornerstone for feasibility. 4. BAC charges formation of workgroup (WG) with scope of work to include white paper

development. 5. Deans and AES/CES Directors and Administrators identify WG members who agree to

participate. 6. Workgroup is created with the assistance of the EDAs; current Section Chairs serve as co-chairs.

7. EDAs facilitate communication among partners and regions.

ECOP September 2015 7 | P a g e

Draft 091615

White Paper Development and Content

With the assistance of the EDAs and Section Chairs, the WG develops a white paper through an iterative

process. The white paper:

Clearly identifies the issue or situation and frames it in terms of its importance to a broad base of stakeholders nationwide.

Identifies the needs, goals, and objectives of the initiative.

Summarizes current efforts on the issue and identifies gaps.

Identifies expected outcomes and impacts that would result from implementation

Articulates tangible benefits to be realized by the public.

Specifies time frames for milestones.

Describes how conditions will change.

Indicates how the initiative will add value to the federal agency’s portfolio.

Articulates implications of failing to take action.

Identifies budget information/implications (a mix of capacity and competitive funding with a larger portion of the funds provided on a competitive basis in support of integrated activities).

Includes a logic model.

Includes an Executive Summary.

Approval/Endorsement Steps

Once the WG completes what it considers to be a final draft of a white paper, that document is

circulated and approved/endorsed as follows:

1. Endorsed by Section Budget and Legislative Committees 2. Endorsed by Board on Agriculture Assembly Committees

a. Budget and Advocacy Committee b. Committee of Legislation and Policy, if necessary

3. Endorsed by Policy Board of Directors

Internal Communications

Any initiative from parts of the system represented on the BAA Policy Board of Directors in which funds

or special requests are being made in which requestor is doing so as part of the Board on Agriculture

Assembly (BAA) shall be transmitted through the Chair of the BAA Policy Board of Directors with a

written letter of request being part of the formal process. This does not preclude meetings or other

communications by members to discuss and develop ideas and concepts before reaching the formal

request stage.

EDAs and university communications specialists work with kglobal and Cornerstone to develop

messages that will resonate with targeted individuals/groups. EDAs work with kglobal to develop

aesthetically pleasing one-page briefs that succinctly encapsulate and highlight the primary conclusions

of the white paper.

ECOP September 2015 8 | P a g e

Draft 091615

Communications to Federal Agency

After approvals, the Policy Board Chair formally distributes the white paper to the specific federal

agency Director (e.g. NIFA) and other appropriate agency officials and partners. This communication is

done by both electronic means with return receipt and registered mail.

The white paper is also distributed to all members of the BAA, Deans/Directors who, in turn, distribute

to their faculty/staff as appropriate.

Strategic Communications Campaign

A strategic communications campaign is developed and designed to generate support for the proposed

approach detailed in the white paper. A steering committee is authorized by the BAC and PBD and

identified by the Deans, AES, and CES Directors. The steering committee is responsible for coordination

of the strategic communications campaign, including responding to questions, communicating with the

interest groups, engaging in social media platforms, and providing news releases.

In partnership with Cornerstone, the Steering Committee will develop a timeframe for “the ask” and for

generating buy-in from appropriate individuals, groups, and organizations. Kglobal will be engaged to

develop a communications strategy that builds effective messaging by launching a media campaign,

coordinating the process, and reaching out to elected officials.

Design an effective communications strategy:

Consider who needs to be involved in the communications network and at what time or stage of the campaign. It is critical to communicate early on and involve federal agencies in the discussion (e.g., USDA-NIFA, NIH, etc.).

Identify the target audience(s).

Develop a complete inventory of stakeholders/coalition members (including affiliations and contact information).

Identify people/organizations that may not necessarily support the issue and work to gain their support.

Develop a broad and diverse cross-sector advocacy coalition that includes commodity groups, producers, industry, citizens, universities, NGOs, and politicians as appropriate.

Design a complete plan of action:

Develop a statement of vision/goal/strategies and actions for the campaign.

Create a campaign “brand” (name the issue) to help easily communicate to a broad audience (e.g., “We will cure cancer.”).

Identify specific milestones, outline a timeline for achieving milestones, and who is responsible for achieving them.

Develop a range of educational materials targeted at specific audiences. Create a mechanism to provide/receive feedback. Monitor progress and modify approach as needed. Back to agenda

ECOP September 2015 9 | P a g e

MOTION

Any initiative from parts of the system represented on the BAA Policy Board of Directors in

which funds or special requests are being made in which requestor is doing so as part of the Board on

Agriculture Assembly (BAA) shall be transmitted through the Chair of the BAA Policy Board of

Directors with a written letter of request being part of the formal process. This does not preclude

meetings or other communications by members to discuss and develop ideas and concepts before

reaching the formal request stage.

Back to agenda

ECOP September 2015 10 | P a g e

Purpose:

This outlines the policies and procedures related to nonpayment of assessments continuously

levied by the Cooperative Extension Section (CES) of the APLU Board on Agriculture

Assembly (BAA) – Office of the Executive Director (#5710) and Strategic Priorities and

Operations (#5730). The other account managed by ECOP for the Cooperative Extension Section

is SNAP-Ed (#5721), which is authorized through 2016. Separate policies apply to this account.

Background:

At its March 23, 2013 meeting in San Diego, the BAA Policy Board of Directors discussed the

non-payment of assessments and determined that institutions must pay all of the BAA and

CARET assessments in order to qualify for voting privileges in the BAA and each section is

responsible for the collection of its assessments. Further, it was noted that the APLU Vice

President for Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources will inform each section of who is current

in their assessments and sections will be responsible for taking any follow-up actions. The BAA

Rules of Operation as amended October 2008 in Article II, Section 2, indicate the consequences

of nonpayment of assessments “levied” by the BAA Policy Board of Directors. It is the

responsibility of each section to determine how nonpayment of assessments will be handled. The

CES Rules of Operation (Article III – Membership) reads: “The voting members of the Section

shall consist of one representative each from the dues paying member institutions of the APLU

….”

Procedures: Date Action

January APLU CFO sends assessment statements to universities

July (before Joint COPs meeting) Institutions not paying one or more BAA assessments,

including CES assessments, are contacted by the APLU VP

for Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources; Cooperative

Extension Office of the Executive Director is notified.

July-August ECOP and regional executive directors and administrators

are provided the list of institutions that have not paid.

ECOP members conduct a “courtesy director-to-director or

administrator-to-administrator conversation” with the

institutions to determine 1) if the assessment will be paid,

and 2) if not, the reason (e.g. no funds, insufficient value).

The approach is to be persuasive based on the value of

participation in and support for a national system.

Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP)

Cooperative Extension Section

Assessment Policies and Procedures

September 2015

ECOP September 2015 11 | P a g e

September 1st Results of contacts with institutions are reported to ECOP.

September-November Additional discussions take place as needed.

December 31st Payments due.

Policies:

Q – What happens when a university makes a request to APLU to have a particular account

removed from that institution’s statement?

A – Using the process described above, every attempt will be made by ECOP to encourage the

institution to pay. If payment is not received by December 31st of the year the assessment is

billed, the APLU CFO will be notified in writing by the Cooperative Extension Office of the

Executive Director to adjust the accounts receivable. APLU will not take accounts off the “Open

Item Report” without such notification.

Q – How will non-payment of assessments be communicated?

A – Public report of non-payment of assessments, such as at the APLU Annual Meeting, will not

be allowed for Cooperative Extension-levied accounts. This reporting will only be made known

to the relevant Extension Director/Administrator, ECOP and the regional executive directors and

administrator.

Q – What are the consequences of non-payment of one or more assessments?

A – A representative from an institution that has not paid one or more assessments cannot be on

ECOP or any of its committees, task forces, or work groups. Cooperative Extension excellence

and diversity awards will not be presented to employees of institutions where one or more

assessments has not paid in the previous year. To participate in the annual National Extension

Directors and Administrators Meeting and the Cooperative Extension Section Meeting, a non-

member rate which is $200 higher than the CES member rate, will be offered.

Prepared 9.14.13 by the ECOP Assessment Policy Work Group (Scott Reed, Chuck Hibberd and

Fred Schlutt); approved with revisions by ECOP 9.17.13.; revised 8.26.15 by Reed, Hibberd, and

Schlutt; approve by ECOP ????.

Back to agenda

ECOP September 2015 12 | P a g e

From: Jacobsen, Jeffrey [mailto:jjacobsn@anr.msu.edu]

Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 9:23 AM

To: Schuchardt, Jane <Jane.Schuchardt@extension.org>

Subject: CES Director/Administrator Member

Jane,

And the follow up email. The attachment provides some context to the topic and an early mission

for the group. As you can see from reading the Agenda Brief it is now out-of-date on several items,

including the timeline. Nevertheless, we would like to have an Extension Director/Administrator on

the group. Currently, I have representation from: Prairie View, Purdue, West Virginia, Florida,

Montana, Colorado State (maybe), Wisconsin and regional office representation from NC, NE, ARD

for the EDs and NC, W, NE for the ADs. There is no set profile (M/F, ethnicity, etc) for the

Director/Administrator, yet some geographic diversity and interest in the effort is a must. Please

read the Agenda Brief and associated data and contact me if you have any further questions. I am

now guessing that the effort would be over the next 6-12 months. The focus is on AES

leadership. Future efforts might be a bigger and more inclusive house, yet this is all that seems

manageable at this time. I have 4/16 slots remaining to be filled so the sooner the better in terms

of identifying a CES rep. As we discussed, if there is the flexibility on your end to identify 2 names

and allow a choice at the end to ensure geographic representation that would be great. I have

pending requests out to AHS, AP and the Diversity Admin to round out the group. Formally, Bob

Shulstad, ESS Chair, will make the appointments when all parties have been identified.

I understand that this will likely be formally discussed during the 9/16 call. As a point of

information, I did mention this to Robin Shepard recently as we were catching up on our

activities. THANKS!

jeff

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Jeff Jacobsen

NCRA Executive Director

517-884-7965 (O)

517-388-3794 (C)

jjacobsn@msu.edu

http://ncra.info

+++++++++++++++++++++++

ECOP September 2015 13 | P a g e

Item 12.0: Diversity in Research Leadership

Presenter: Jeff Jacobsen

Conversations about all facets of diversity and inclusion are increasingly common in public and

private sectors across local to global scales. Higher education institutions are no exception

with frequent initiatives directed at undergraduate students, and to a lesser extent, graduate

students. Faculty activities are also targeted to enhance the diversity in academic

departments and programs. These efforts are beginning to assist with the complex and

challenging activities to enhance diversity and inclusion. Many individual professionals support

practices and actions at a multitude of levels to advance the conversation and improve the

environment. Institutions may also have awareness activities, in-depth training and other

initiatives designed to improve individual perspectives and organizational development.

The five Executive Directors of the regional research associations have had preliminary

discussions and believe that some initial data collection with traditional diversity counts would

help inform our status across ESS and the allied organizations. We have collected preliminary

information on the administrators within Dean and Department units from our respective

regions from the web (with the recognized caveats), yet with the goal of a national snapshot.

In addition, we are collecting similar information from the most recent cohorts of the LEAD21

program. FSLI is also working on a diversity summary from their program to add to this effort.

We have identified gender and ethnicity across these administrative units to help inform our

discussions. As an additional perspective, one does not have to look beyond a routine ESCOP

meeting to sense that we could and should do more to mindfully participate in changing the

diversity and inclusion activities associated with research leadership.

As an element of the agricultural and natural resources research leadership infrastructure, we

pondered several questions:

Where are we positioned within ESS in terms of leadership diversity and its potential

pipeline?,

Are there actions and programmatic activities that might contribute to advancing this

contemporary issue?, and

What best practices could we adopt in our regional and national associations that

would complement other on-going efforts?

To explore, discuss and provide initial recommendations to ESCOP an Ad Hoc Committee could

be formed. The potential composition of this group: 5 AES directors, 1-2 college-level diversity

and inclusion administrators, 1 AHS, 1 allied leader, 1-2 Executive Directors and 1-2 Assistant

Directors. The charge would be to explore the topic of Diversity in Research Leadership,

provide ideas and actions for consideration and to supplement institutional, regional and

national diversity and inclusion efforts, all in the context of ESS. Preliminary information

would be presented during the November ESCOP meeting and final recommendations would

be provided to ESCOP in early 2016.

Action Requested: Discussion and Approval for Formation of Ad Hoc Committee

UNIT

ARD NC NE S W

National

Total

% of

Total ARD NC NE S W ARD NC NE S W

Dean***

Total F 14 12 13 12 22 73 23% 19% 16% 18% 16% 30% 26% 22% 26% 16% 26%

Total M 40 42 37 62 64 245 77% 16% 17% 15% 25% 26% 74% 78% 74% 84% 74%

White F 1 12 11 10 19 53 17% 2% 23% 21% 19% 36% 2% 22% 22% 14% 22%

Minority F 13 0 2 2 3 20 6% 65% 0% 10% 10% 15% 24% 0% 4% 3% 3%

White M 3 40 33 57 54 187 59% 2% 21% 18% 30% 29% 6% 74% 66% 77% 63%

Minority M 37 2 4 5 10 58 18% 64% 3% 7% 9% 17% 69% 4% 8% 7% 12%

Total Minorities 50 2 6 7 13 78 25% 64% 3% 8% 9% 17% 93% 4% 12% 9% 15%

Total White 4 52 44 67 73 240 75% 2% 22% 18% 28% 30% 7% 96% 88% 91% 85%

TOTAL 54 54 50 74 86 318

Dept****

Total F 13 28 26 20 38 125 23% 10% 22% 21% 16% 30% 52% 20% 23% 14% 29%

Total M 12 115 89 121 91 428 77% 3% 27% 21% 28% 21% 48% 80% 77% 86% 71%

White F 2 25 21 18 32 98 18% 2% 26% 21% 18% 33% 8% 17% 18% 13% 25%

Minority F 13 3 5 2 6 29 5% 45% 10% 17% 7% 21% 52% 2% 4% 1% 5%

White M 3 102 76 107 85 373 67% 1% 27% 20% 29% 23% 12% 71% 66% 76% 66%

Minority M 7 13 11 14 6 51 9% 14% 25% 22% 27% 12% 28% 9% 10% 10% 5%

Total Minorities 20 16 16 16 12 80 14% 25% 20% 20% 20% 15% 80% 11% 14% 11% 9%

Total White 5 127 97 125 117 471 85% 1% 27% 21% 27% 25% 20% 89% 84% 89% 91%

TOTAL 25 143 115 141 129 553

Dean & Dept

Total F 27 40 39 32 60 198 23% 14% 20% 20% 16% 30% 34% 20% 24% 15% 28%

Total M 52 157 126 183 155 673 77% 8% 23% 19% 27% 23% 66% 80% 76% 85% 72%

White F 3 37 32 28 51 151 17% 2% 25% 21% 19% 34% 4% 19% 19% 13% 24%

Minority F 26 3 7 4 9 49 6% 53% 6% 14% 8% 18% 33% 2% 4% 2% 4%

White M 6 142 109 164 139 560 64% 1% 25% 19% 29% 25% 8% 72% 66% 76% 65%

Minority M 44 15 15 19 16 109 13% 40% 14% 14% 17% 15% 56% 8% 9% 9% 7%

Total Minorities 70 18 22 23 25 158 18% 44% 11% 14% 15% 16% 89% 9% 13% 11% 12%

Total White 9 179 141 192 190 711 82% 1% 25% 20% 27% 27% 11% 91% 85% 89% 88%

GRAND TOTAL 79 197 165 215 215 871

* Within the Diversity by Region (columns 9-13), an individual category (row) will sum to 100% across the five regions in either the Dean, Dept or Dean+Dept groups.

*** Dean group includes all AES (research) administrators, top AHS, top CES and top AP, regardless of acting/interim status.

**** Department group includes all primary chairs/heads of degree granting units, regardless of acting/interim status.

Count by Region Diversity by Region* Diversity Within Region**

** Within the Diversity Within Region (columns 14-18), combinations of categories (Total F+ Total M; White F+Minority F+White M+Minority M; Total

Minorities+Total White) will sum to 100% within each region in either Dean, Dept, Dean+Dept groups.

ECOP September 2015 15 | P a g e

ECOP September 2015 16 | P a g e

Back to agenda

SUBJECT: New Engagement Planning Team Nominations

The planning team will be co-chaired by Roy Wilson, President, Wayne State University and Mark

Hussey, Vice Chancellor and Dean for Agriculture and Life Sciences, Texas A&M University. APLU is

seeking nominations for additional Planning Team members from the Council on Engagement and

Outreach (CEO), Commission on Innovation, Competitiveness, and Economic Prosperity (CICEP),

Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP), and Coalition of Urban Serving Universities

(USU). Nominations should be submitted to Jim Woodell (jwoodell@aplu.org) for CEO and CICEP, Jane

Schuchardt (jschuchardt@aplu.org) for ECOP, and Shari Garmise (sgarmise@aplu.org) by Friday,

September 25th. Nomination guidelines are included below.

Nomination Guidelines

- Each of the four groups (CEO, CICEP, ECOP, and USU) is invited to submit three to five names for nomination to the Planning Team.

- Consider diversity in nominating—both individual diversity and also institutional diversity (urban/rural, small/large, 1862/1890/1994, non-land-grant etc.); also include geographic diversity (e.g. region, multi-state, territories).

- Nominees need not be currently active in your group’s leadership—if your group would like to nominate someone that they think will speak to the issues well—someone who is a known thought leader, but that is not currently active in the group, that’s okay.

- Nominees should be willing to serve and provide national leadership the issues.

- Keep in mind that the final composition of the group will be determined by APLU, may not include all individuals nominated by CEO, CICEP, ECOP, and USU, and may include other individuals not specifically nominated. That is, APLU may need to reach beyond the nominations to achieve balance of perspectives and appropriate diversity. APLU will make final Planning Team selections by October 2.

ECOP Meeting September 2015 | 18 P a g e

APLU Task Force on “The New Engagement” Purpose and Charge for a Pre-Task Force Planning Team

Outreach starts with a solution, engagement ends with one.

Background APLU believes it is appropriate timing for public and land-grant universities to dramatically expand efforts of engagement with partners in the communities they serve—members of the public, community organizations, business and industry, state and local government, and others. Fifteen years into a new century, the Kellogg Commission report Returning to Our Roots: The Engaged Institution needs renewed attention to realize its full potential. With vexing national and global problems creating immense economic, environmental, social, and psychological consequences, single entities cannot find and mobilize solutions. Instead, engagement with multiple partners is critical, and public universities can and should be conveners for such efforts. Purpose APLU will convene a Planning Team to recommend a process for establishing and engaging APLU members and stakeholders in a Task Force on “The New Engagement” for public higher education. The eventual Task Force will be charged with envisioning a new, broadly inclusive definition for university engagement, and also charged with making recommendations for university actions to realize this vision. Included in this purpose is a plan to fully involve the expertise of Cooperative Extension across multiple university colleges and departments. Charge The Planning Team will:

Identify engagement- and Extension-related issues to be examined and addressed by the Task Force on The New Engagement

Prepare background materials for use by the Task Force on the New Engagement

Develop a charge for the Task Force on The New Engagement

Design a process and structure* for the Task Force that will help it to: o Summarize the current state of university engagement and identify gaps; o Recommend strategies to increase the effectiveness of university engagement

Organize a presentation for the APLU 2015 Annual Meeting to learn from university presidents, provosts, dean and others about the how to frame this project for maximum effectiveness.

*Note that the Planning Team may design two or three possible processes/structures, requiring different levels of resources, recognizing that support for a Task Force has not yet been identified. Timeline

August – September 2015 –Planning Team co-chairs and members identified and organizational meeting occurs.

September and October 2015– Efforts underway to address objectives.

November 2015 – Concept presentation and dialogue at APLU 2015 Annual Meeting.

November 2015 through March 2016 – Recommended issues, background materials, charge, and process developed, reviewed, and finalized.

ECOP Meeting September 2015 | 19 P a g e

November 2015 through January 2016 – Exploration of funding for Task Force on The New Engagement

February 2016 – Recommendations presented to APLU President and Board of Directors for approval and “green light” to proceed with Task Force (pending funding).

Planning Team Membership Co-Chairs

Roy Wilson, President, Wayne State University

Mark Hussey, Vice Chancellor and Dean of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Texas A&M University While the eventual Task Force will have representation from across many APLU Councils and Commissions, the Planning Team will represent four groups: the Council on Engagement and Outreach (CEO), the Commission on Innovation, Competitiveness, and Economic Prosperity (CICEP), the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP), and the Coalition of Urban Serving Universities (USU). Each of the above-named groups will be asked to nominate three to five individuals to represent the group in the planning team. APLU will select planning team members from among the nominations, and will finalize the group composition to include the broadest possible representation and diversity. Prepared by Jane Schuchardt, Executive Director, Cooperative Extension/ECOP; Jim Woodell, APLU Assistant Vice President for Innovation and Technology Policy; Peter McPherson, APLU President and CEO, and Ian Maw, APLU Vice President for Food, Environment and Natural Resources.

Back to Agenda

ECOP Meeting September 2015 | 20 P a g e

ECOP Meeting September 2015 | 21 P a g e

Back to agenda

ECOP Meeting September 2015 | 22 P a g e

From: Hubert, Vernie

Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 10:32 AM

To: Schuchardt, Jane <Jane.Schuchardt@extension.org>

Cc: Richards, Jim <jrichards@cgagroup.com>; Shipman, Hunt <hshipman@cgagroup.com>

Subject: FYI--Extension may be interested

USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion will work to “identify consumers’ understanding of

potential nutrition education messages and obtain their reaction to prototypes of nutrition education

products, including Internet based tools,” according to a notice set to be published in the Federal

Register.

Back to agenda

ECOP Meeting September 2015 | 23 P a g e

TBA

ECOP Meeting September 2015 | 24 P a g e

ECOP Meeting September 2015 | 25 P a g e

ECOP Meeting September 2015 | 26 P a g e

ECOP Meeting September 2015 | 27 P a g e

Back to agenda