Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Embassy Suites by Hilton Downtown, Portland, Oregon

October 3, 2018 3:30 - 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time

Presiding – Chuck Hibberd, Chair Purpose: Conduct business requiring immediate attention when ECOP is not in formal session; set goals and develop action plans; appoint task forces, innovation teams, and think tanks as needed; recommend action to ECOP as appropriate; track outcomes and indicators of success. Attachments: Minutes for 9/13/18 minutes (URL), CES Strategic Agenda (4-5), Finance Update (6) and Draft of 2019 ECOP Budget (URL), JCEP request (7-9), BoHS Rules of Operation-Liaisons (10), Notes for Listening Session dated 9/27/18 (11-12), Notes for National Academy of Sciences – Proposed Extension Study (13).

OPENING BUSINESS

Chuck Hibberd: Attendance is recorded on p.3. A quorum was present. Ed Jones made a motion to approve the minutes of September 13 meeting. Fred Schlutt seconded. Motion passed. There were no additions to agenda. The Finance Update p. 6 and updated 2019 Proposed Budget were received as information.

I. Business Requiring Immediate Attention – Set Goals and Action Plans (Who, What, When, How):

A. BoHS proposal to Support SNAP-Ed Professional Development Team –

Chuck Hibberd/Jo Britt-Rankin: The Board on Human Sciences has endorsed a position sponsored by the SNAP-Ed Program Development Team for a one-year position to help with the transition of Extension nutrition Education (EFNEP/SNAP-Ed). Eight states do not participate. Request could go to NIFA for direct support, to Congress for support from the Farm Bill itself, increased SNAP-Ed assessment or direct support from CES/BoHS. Estimate cost – up to $100,000.

Motion: Ed Jones made a motion that ECOP affirms in principle this model to put the position in place and pursue funding. Mark Latimore seconded. Discussion: Talent to do the job is key. Expenses are included. Motion passed.

B. eXtension Leadership Committee –

Chuck Hibberd/Jason Henderson/Barbara Petty/Chris Geith: Analogous to 4-H Leadership Committee operations/MOU, the relationship with eXtension Foundation is similar; particularly around innovation, capacity-building, adds value to the National System. The eXtension Board, pledges to help to position the System for stronger relationships/cooperation and depth of conversation with JCEP and ECOP, strategic perspective with stronger emphasis on capacity building for innovation, strengthen relationship with program leaders, deepen conversations, more frequent conversations with impact collaboratives. Value in regional representation across all program areas. There is a concern about both eXtension Board having all 5 regions represented. There needs to be a purpose statement for such a committee.

Recommended membership, yet not limited to the following: Mike Gaffney (Washington State University), Chuck Hibberd, Jason Henderson, Lindsey Shirley (Oregon State University), Vonda Richardson, NIFA-Brent Elrod. Group should be as diverse as possible. Jason Henderson agreed to convene the groups with the support of EDA Team Member Executive Director Ali Mitchell.

STOP

BEFORE U PRINT

13 pages long

http://www.aplu.org/members/commissions/food-environment-and-renewable-resources/board-on-agriculture-assembly/cooperative-extension-section/ecop-members/ecop-documents/eec-archives/2018%20EEC%209_13.pdfhttp://www.aplu.org/members/commissions/food-environment-and-renewable-resources/board-on-agriculture-assembly/cooperative-extension-section/ecop-members/ecop-documents/eec-archives/2019%20CES%20Budget.pdfhttp://www.aplu.org/members/commissions/food-environment-and-renewable-resources/board-on-agriculture-assembly/cooperative-extension-section/ecop-members/ecop-documents/eec-archives/2018%20EEC%209_13.pdfhttp://www.aplu.org/members/commissions/food-environment-and-renewable-resources/board-on-agriculture-assembly/cooperative-extension-section/ecop-members/ecop-documents/eec-archives/2019%20CES%20Budget.pdf

Bill Hare made a motion for ECOP to organize the group (using the discussion recorded above as a foundation) with a charge to frame up the more formal relationship of ECOP to eXtension Foundation. Ed Jones seconded. Motion passed.

C. JCEP request – pp. 6-8

Chuck Hibberd: Asked the Personnel (Professional Development) Committee to consider the proposal for action by ECOP.

D. Liaison Role Definition - p. 9

Chuck Hibberd: Tabled this issue until later meeting. His request is for ECOP to identify who are the most valued Liaisons. Use the new sample, good to take stock. This language is to be incorporated into the revisions of the ECOP Operating Guidelines.

E. ECOP Liaison Role to ESCOP –

Chuck Hibberd/Rick Klemme: Based on recommendation by the EDA Tea, Bill Hare made a motion to permanently appoint the ECOP Chair-elect as ESCOP Liaison. Fred Schlutt seconded the motion. Motion passed.

F. Big Ideas Next Steps

No discussion/action.

G. NIFA Listening Sessions – Update pp. 10-11 Chuck Hibberd: Bill Hare made a motion to approve the plan with the addition of adding talking points regarding concerns about the relocation of NIFA outside of Washington, DC. Ed Jones seconded. Discussion: The frequency, whether expressed in the feedback portals online or in the form of testimony at listening sessions is key to expressing concern over the relocation. Motion was approved. The Executive Committee frame the suggested talking points. http://www.aplu.org/news-and-media/News/aplu-board-on-agriculture-assembly-statement-on-proposed-nifa-and-ers-move

H. National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM), Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources (BANR) – Proposed Extension Study – p. 12

Chuck Hibberd: The NASEM BANR has approached ECOP proposing to do a study on Cooperative Extension. Frame the context of the study, scoping the context and later a group to do the work. How to frame?

Discussion: Need boundary conditions towards a look forward with an engagement emphasis, building on the legacy and network, frame around contemporary extension with base of local connections, network, and as an engaged institution; need the good balance of thought leaders and influencers; could connect with capacity building in innovation group; could connect with broader NASEM Board (Sue Le Menestrel); need to engage the broader issue of knowledge-based engagement with levered resources. A similar/parallel proposed study was in the works by Charles Riley Memorial Foundation. They may be related. There would be a cost to ECOP for a scoping study; cost of travel.

Chuck Hibberd’s Idea for Framing: Identify contemporary and ways build on strong local connection, important issues, community engagement strategies. Knowledge-based applied science.

Motion: Ed Jones made a motion to support the continue NASEM conversation. Fred Schlutt seconded. Discussion: Who else is on the Board? Invitation to join the Board Meeting. Motion passed. Louie Tupas: Refer to http://dels.nas.edu/banr for the list of board members. Rick Klemme will follow up.

II. Track outcomes and indicators of success (as time permits): A. 4-H Leadership Committee (Hibberd/Jones) B. NIFA Update (Tupas/Fitzner) C. ECOP/CES Big Ideas Update and ECOP/CES/NEDA Engagement (Hibberd/Klemme)

1. Adding value to campus mission assignments 2. Reporting themes assignments 3. Extension Resource and Partnership Development

D. CMC expectations process update (Klemme)

http://www.aplu.org/news-and-media/News/aplu-board-on-agriculture-assembly-statement-on-proposed-nifa-and-ers-movehttp://www.aplu.org/news-and-media/News/aplu-board-on-agriculture-assembly-statement-on-proposed-nifa-and-ers-movehttp://dels.nas.edu/banr

E. 2019 Joint ESS/CES-NEDA Meeting Planning Update – (Hibberd/Klemme/Ruble) a. Indianapolis – Hotel RFPs in process b. September 23-26, 2019; Save the date

F. Personnel (Essel) 1. Excellence in Extension Awards 2. New Director and Administrator Orientation

G. Program (Brown) 1. Rapid Response Teams 2. Diversity Award 3. Culture of Health Partnership – Well Connected Communities (Rodgers)

H. Policy Board of Directors (Rodgers/Klemme) I. Budget & Legislative Committee (Boren/Klemme)

1. CLP/Farm Bill; EFNEP/SNAP-Ed (Boren/Schlutt)

I. III. Other: II. International Extension continues to be an item for future meetings.

III. IV. Executive Session (as needed)

ADJOURN

ECOP Executive Committee Membership Attendance is indicated by and .

Voting Members Chuck Hibberd, University of Nebraska, Chair Ed Jones, Virginia Tech, Chair-elect Fred Schlutt, University of Alaska, Past-chair Bill Hare, University of the District of Columbia Mark Latimore, Fort Valley State University

Ex-officio

• Rick Klemme, ECOP Executive Director, Cooperative Extension/ECOP

• Jon Boren, New Mexico State University – ECOP Budget & Legislative Committee, Chair,

• Michelle Rodgers, University of Delaware – ECOP Representative to BAA Policy Board of Directors and Program Manager, Well-Connected Communities Culture of Health Partnership

• Louie Tupas and Mike Fitzner – USDA-NIFA Executive Director and Administrator Team o Ron Brown, Southern Region o Albert Essel, 1890 Region

• Lyla Houglum, Western Region

• Rick Klemme, DC Office o Ali Mitchell, Northeast Region

• Sandy Ruble and Marianne Klein DC Office o Robin Shepard, North Central Region

Back to page 1

Guests

• Chris Geith, CEO eXtension Foundation

• Jason Henderson, Purdue University

• Barbara Petty, University of Idaho

• Jo Britt-Rankin, BoHS

• Scott Reed, Oregon State University

https://www.aplu.org/document.doc?id=5310

Emphasis Areas and Ongoing Priorities for the Cooperative Extension Section

Chuck Hibberd, 2018 Chair

Overall Theme: Science-informed decisions and policy

The Cooperative Extension Section (CES) is led by Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP), a 15-member board representing the five Cooperative Extension regions. ECOP’s role is to identify and implement member-driven opportunities designed to enhance resources, relationships and recognition for Cooperative Extension nationally. ECOP’s work addresses four core themes:

1) building partnerships and acquiring resources, 2) increasing strategic marketing and communications, 3) enhancing leadership and professional development, 4) strengthening organizational functioning.

EMPHASIS AREAS

Capacity Funding (BLC Chair/Hibberd) – Build on advocacy strategies to increase federal capacity funding (Smith-Lever and 1890s Extension) initiated by Fred Schlutt and Bret Hess (2016-17 ECOP and ESCOP Chairs, respectively). Promote and expand participation in the Public Issues Leadership Development (PILD) program as a major Extension advocacy tool. Advocacy messaging will be focused on Cooperative Extension’s value relative to:

• Science in action – continue to leverage the research and engagement initiatives of Land-grant universities.

• Proactive, flexible and collaborative action on disasters, threats, emerging opportunities, etc.

• Extension provides a national reach with the opportunity for meaningful local impact. • Opportunities to expand high impact programs such as 4-H youth development or water or

health. • Provide value for federal partners (as the outreach/engagement arm of the federal

government). Note: This messaging could be strengthened with a mission statement and core values reflecting the intent of the Cooperative Extension Section.

Private Resource Mobilization (Dobbins) – Establish and implement a model for private funding of national initiatives as a complement to public funding for Extension.

Collaboration with Federal Entities (Hibberd/Jones/Latimore) – Focus on clarifying roles for Cooperative Extension with federal agencies. Specific examples include NRCS, NSF – Broader Impacts, the Departments of Health & Human Services (CDC, FDA/FSMA) and Housing and Urban Development as well as the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research. Frame these conversations around emerging opportunities in the following areas:

• Nutrition, health and wellness

• Positive youth development

• Water

• Food production and food security

• Community development Priority outcomes for these conversations include collaboration opportunities as well as programmatic and/or capacity funding.

Farm Bill Initiatives (Schlutt/BLC Chair/Hibberd/Essel) – Engage appropriate parties to address:

• SNAP-Ed/EFNEP: o Present a coherent argument to grow funding for SNAP-Ed and EFNEP. o Funding directed to LGU-based Cooperative Extension. o Seek increases to support 1890’s and 1994’s, as well as 1862s.

• 1890s - change carryover provision language of 1444 to be consistent with the Smith-Lever carryover provision.

• Clarify role of NRCS and Cooperative Extension relative to conservation education.

• Extension Farm Bill training through Farm Service Agency Strengthen our Working Relationship with NIFA (Hibberd/Jones/Latimore)

• Seek a streamlined, impactful reporting framework that aligns state and NIFA needs.

• Strengthen collaborative relationships with NIFA leadership and NPLs with monthly on-site conversations and seminars (Extension Directors/Administrators invited).

• Explore and provide input on NPL priorities for AFRI-funded Extension projects as well as Extension Director/Administrator participation on these review panels.

• Work with NIFA leadership to strengthen state liaison roles. Integration With Key Partners

• Consider a reciprocal liaison relationship with the National Urban Extension Leaders (NUEL) to strengthen our engagement with urban Extension.

• Invite our 1994 Tribal College Cooperative Extension Service partners to identify a liaison to ECOP.

ONGOING PRIORITIES • In collaboration with ESCOP, review the value of the ESS-CES-AHS Communications and

Marketing (CMC) Project to Cooperative Extension and identify the most appropriate path forward (Ed Jones).

• Collaborate with ESCOP to strengthen the Land-grant message of accomplishment and impact. Enhance our visibility by strengthening participation in www.landgrantimpacts.org. And, work with NIFA to make the database more useful to our federal partner.

• Continue our commitment to collaboration with ESCOP and the ESCOP Science and Technical Committee by establishing a strong working relationship with new ESCOP Chair Gary Thompson.

• Expand strategic alliances that benefit Cooperative Extension with national partners (e.g. NASDA, NC-FAR, NACo, SoAR, CFARE, ESCOP, APLU BAA, National Academy of Science-Breakthrough 2030 project and others).

• Identify ways to support the Innovation Initiative led by eXtension.

• Through the eXtension Foundation Board of Directors, assure that eXtension is an active contributor to the advancement of Extension education across the nation.

• Enhance leadership for and increase participation in 4-H positive youth development through collaboration among Extension Directors/Administrators, NIFA 4-H Headquarters and National 4-H Council through the work of the ECOP 4-H Leadership Committee.

Specific initiatives or efforts designed to strengthen Cooperative Extension and ECOP’s operations and value:

• Demonstrate ECOP’s value to the members of the Cooperative Extension Section.

• Strengthen ECOP functions by moving from a reporting model to a deliberative, forward-looking, action-oriented framework. Similarly, review the effectiveness of ECOP’s committee structure and consider alternatives.

• Provide opportunities for directors/administrators to improve personal, organizational and system leadership skills, including an annual conference and a monthly Next Generation Extension – Learning for Leaders webinar series.

• Implement national Excellence in Extension as well as Diversity Awards.

• Partner with JCEP to strengthen national leadership of Extension’s professional associations.

On-board a new Executive Director for the Cooperative Extension System. Back to page 1

http://www.landgrantimpacts.org/

Back to page 1

Please choose the type

of submission to ECOP.

Choose one, please

TYPE 1 - A request for action by or dialogue with ECOP on

October 3-4, 2018

Type a question Request support, advice, and budgetary support for creation of

an Extension credential.

Name of person making

this submission Casey Mull

Email address of the

person named above mullcd2@uga.edu

If you are submitting this

request/report on behalf

of the person named

above, please provide

your email address here.

Thank you.

mullcd2@uga.edu

Select the source of this

submission from the list

provided or add another

Joint Council of Extension Professionals (JCEP)

Summarize background

information or

accomplishments.

An idea arose from a discussion during the Spring Face-to-Face

JCEP Board meeting around the area of resource generation

opportunities. An idea was brought up about a credential for

Extension Professionals and a committee was formed to further

look into this possibility. In June 2018, the committee met and

discussed JCEP’s role to assure extension educators are

contemporary, well equipped professionals. Using Chuck

Hibberd’s work on Extension Professionals a couple years back,

it was decided that JCEP should explore a credential for

Extension Professionals. There is potential for partnering with

eXtension to leverage their resources as well. They are very

interested in being a part of this process.

Since many Extension Professionals are trained in subject

matter, and other areas beyond subject matter there may be a

mailto:mullcd2@uga.edumailto:mullcd2@uga.edu

need for more training in the areas of Extension that are more

general and process-oriented such as cultural competency,

crucial conversations, etc. As an umbrella organization

representing over 10,000 members of the seven associations,

JCEP is the logical location to lift up the field and host a

credential backed by multiple associations. A changing

workforce, people rotating through positions (millennials), and a

growing need to insure baseline understanding of the work that

Extension does reinforces the need in creating a professional

credential by JCEP.

Additionally, there is a need to look into the larger and expanded

view of who might desire an extension credential. Member

associations under JCEP is where subject matter is delivered but

how we do the work beyond subject matter. Some of the

questions that came up on the committee’s discussion included:

• Where is Extension in the larger engagement scholarship

conversations?

• What is the value-add for the Extension Director?

• Where does this fit in the professional development path for the

long-term and short-term professional? Value of carrying Ext

credential – performance element and promotion/raises,

leadership opportunities, at minimum a point of distinction.

Millennials rotate through rather than staying for many

years. Onboarding is important. Engagement work across

universities happens without Extension involvement – Extension

missing in action. Extension embedding engagement in the skill

sets of Ext Professionals.

Another idea for consideration is if this is for Cooperative

Extension Professionals only or broader for individuals involved

in Outreach & Engagement at the University level. At many

universities, Outreach & Engagement may be separate from

Extension having an understanding of Extension could be a

strength to both.

Summarize upcoming

plans.

The committee tasked with evaluating this concept and making

recommendations submits the following recommendations:

1. Move forward with creating a business plan for a credential for

Extension Professionals and potentially for those involved in

university Outreach and Engagement (i.e. community

engagement or engaged scholarship).

2. Knowing that all Extension professionals are extremely busy

and because we want to move this program through quickly to

help meet the needs, hire a graduate assistant for 1 to 2 years,

beginning in January, 2019 to do the following work:

a. The graduate assistant would work with NAEPSDP to create a

systematic needs assessment of Extension faculty, staff and

partners to determine the need for such a system and what

should be included.

b. Conduct a market evaluation of who else is in this business

c. Create the outline of what the credentialing program would

look like, including topics to be taught, and put together the first

cohort group by 2020.

d. Conduct an in-depth evaluation of the first cohort in order to

make any changes to the future program.

Carrie Stark, State 4-H Program Director at University of Nevada

Cooperative Extension and current NAEPSDP Past President

has a graduate student who currently works for her who has 15

years of county-level Extension experience and would fit very

nicely with this project.

The budget for Graduate Student at University of Nevada, Reno

per year is $38,800.

Requesting $10,000 each from JCEP, ECOP, and eXtension to

support this work and examine.

Upload any files

associated with this report

here.

Graduate Student Proposal-Revised.docx

Back to page 1

https://www.jotform.com/uploads/sruble/80233988790973/4130205601012397593/Graduate%20Student%20Proposal-Revised.docx

Excerpts From Board on Human Sciences Rules of Operation: Liaisons shall: • Serve for two years • Be appointed members of the elected Board of Directors or form the general membership, to serve as a

liaison from BoHS to another entity within APLU or external to APLU • The Board of Directors will also identify partner organizations within APLU or external to APLU designated

to represent a different organization or group related to the work of BoHS and APLU, but are non-voting member of BoHS

• Liaisons can serve for a specific project or need, or for the duration of term of appointment (e.g. serve as

liaison during elected term of office such as three years) • Current BoHS Liaisons to other organizations: o ACOP/APS – Academic Programs Committee on Organization and Policy/Academic Programs Section o ECOP/CES – Extension Committee on Organization and Policy/Cooperative Extension Section Page 5 of 9 o ESCOP/ESS—Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy/Experiment Station Section o ESCOP Social Sciences Subcommittee o ICOP/IAA—International Committee on Organization and Policy/International Agriculture Section o Budget and Advocacy Committee (BAC) of the APLU Board on Agriculture Assembly o Committee on Legislation and Policy (CLP) of the APLU Board on Agriculture Assembly • Current organizations with Liaisons appointed to BoHS: o American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (AAFCS) o Alliance for Family & Consumer Sciences o Council of Administrators of Family and Consumer Sciences (CAFCS) o Council on Governmental Affairs (CGA) o Cornerstone Government Affairs o Family, Career and Community Leaders of America (FCCLA) o USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Liaisons can be expected to: • Attend meetings and conference calls of the BoHS Board of Directors, contribute to written reports of accomplishments and contributions by BoHS and/or to BoHS by the other organization • Request of the BoHS Chair and the Executive Director adequate time on the agenda • Offer guidance for priority work, promoting deliberate synergies and coordination of efforts • Draft or review and provide advice for program topics, sessions and speakers for APLU and BoHS conferences and meetings • Advise BoHS of the timely progress of the effort so that all members are informed and provide input on goals and collaborative effort • Provide written report prior to BoHS regularly scheduled meetings, and vice versa, provide written report to the external entity • Attend to other details and responsibilities as outlined by the chair or lead of the effort Back to page 1

http://www.aplu.org/members/commissions/food-environment-and-renewable-resources/board-on-human-sciences/board-rules.html

USDA NIFA Listening Session – CES Participation Plans:

EDA team and Extension Executive Committee developed talking points (see end of document) for each

Regional Extension Executive Administrator and Director to use in coordinating the written and verbal

testimony for each of the four session sites: Each regional extension executive administrator and director

will work with their respective extension executive committee member and extension administrators and

directors on the written testimony and who will represent the region. The written testimony will be

shared broadly with extension colleagues within their region; encouraging colleagues to build from the

testimony in their written comments or verbal testimony.

• Thursday, Oct. 11, Hartford, Connecticut (RSVP by Thursday, Oct. 4)

(Northeast Region)

• Thursday, Oct. 18, New Orleans, Louisiana (RSVP by Thursday, Oct. 11)

(South and 1890 Regions)

• Thursday, Oct. 25, Minneapolis, Minnesota (RSVP by Thursday, Oct. 18)

(North Central Region)

•

• Thursday, Nov. 1, Albuquerque, New Mexico (RSVP by Wednesday, Oct. 25)

• (West Region)

Rick Klemme will work with ESCOP Chair and EDA team on joint testimony to be delivered to the national

web site.

Rick Klemme will monitor and coordinate with BAA testimony.

NIFA Notes and Expectations (Paula Geiger)

NIFA plans to send 5 representatives to each listening session, including a Deputy Director, someone from

the OD or Division Director level, a Communications staffer and others.

Speakers will be scheduled time on the agenda once the RSVP period closes. RSVPs for each in-person

listening session are due one week prior to that session. NIFA Coordinator Megan Haidet will contact

participants that have RSVP’d one week prior to the session to confirm speaking times.

Speakers are not required to stay for the full day.

The program will begin at 8:30am and will end when all speakers have concluded or at 5pm, whichever

comes first.

If there are additional questions, do not hesitate to contact Megan (Margaret.haidet@nifa.usda.gov)

mailto:Margaret.haidet@nifa.usda.gov

CES Talking Points:

NIFA is a valued partner

Extension’s programs have been built from a legacy of agriculture, 4-H and home economics into contemporary programs that are delivered in effective ways to farmers, their families, and the communities in which they live.

These programs are delivered to rural, tribal and urban communities as the agricultural economy is intertwined across all communities.

Extension’s strategic priorities reflect the broad-based issues facing rural and urban America:

1. Nutrition, health and wellness

2. 4-H Positive youth development

3. Water quality and use

4. Food production and food security

5. Community and economic development

Extension is integrally important and valuable in the NIFA portfolio as the invaluable linkage between research and the people across America.

Capacity funds are vitally important to leverage state and local investments in supporting the locally-based, national network. These funds enable the development of local and reginal relationships, development of a significant volunteer base, linkage with partner organizations and increased resources available to address issues important locally, regionally and nationally.

Notes for the three questions posed by NIFA for these listening sessions:

In your field, what is the most-needed breakthrough in science/technology that would advance your agricultural enterprise?

Integration of social sciences in multidisciplinary programs.

Engagement of end users in the research-education- extension approaches addressing critical ag issues.

When considering all of agriculture, what is the greatest challenge that should be addressed through NIFA’s research, education, and extension?

Integration of all three functions with extension having co-leadership (use state specific examples)

What is your top priority in food and agricultural research, extension, or education that NIFA should address?

Build from 5 strategic priorities, noting that farmers, growers and producers live in rural communities, have families with youth.

Recognize the importance of rural-urban interdependence. Back to page 1

Sept. 27, 2018 TO: Robin S., Chuck H and Chuck R FROM: Rick K RE: Meeting Summary Primary discussion point: Nature of the proposed scoping study Potential outcomes of an Academy study: Awareness building of the current state of Extension Role/place/niche of extension in the 21st century Defining success Measuring success Questions for ECOP to consider (10/18 meeting) Ultimate product Who will use Whom do we want influenced Scoping study design alternatives Pre-study conversation to build foundation for the scoping study Use scoping study to define the overall study Audiences – general Blend of those who know us well, those who don’t and those who are critics Audiences – specific Legislative ag leaders (Chuck R knows the name)

ag emphasis; probably a blend of the general audience characteristics NACo Community emphasis, more on the know us well side NASDA State/ag emphasis, more on the know us well side 4-H Council Youth development emphasis, way more on the know us well side Health Care Industry Health and wellness emphasis, probably a blend National Sustainable Ag Coalition Ag/community emphasis, probably a blend w/ slight tendency toward critic Next Steps Robin S sends us a copy of a relevant scoping study ‘report’ ECOP discusses next week (Oct 3-4) BANR meeting discussion on Oct 14-15 Ed Jones as a potential participant via zoom or phone conference

Back to page 1