Accessible document
Assembly of Sea Grant Extension Program Leaders
Sea Grant Week 2005
Rockland, Maine
June 5-8, 2005
In attendance: Assembly members and others participating in the SGW 05 event.
Ralph Rayburn called the meeting to order at 8:30 am at the Samoset Inn in Rockland, Maine.
(Summary of comments) Sea Grant (SG) week is a good time to think about the future and about new opportunities. We're transitioning to sustainability at the same time there is pressure for coastal growth. That growth will drive SG's agenda in the foreseeable future creating new disciplines and new problems.
Publication of the Ocean Commission report placed emphasis on place-based science, constituent involvement, environmental literacy, transferring science to people at the local level. SG is mentioned in the Ocean Commission report, but funds are limited so it's important that SG be showcased.
I want to thank the Assembly and all extension personnel for promoting SG and the Administration's agenda. My thanks to Ralph and Assembly for innovative programs like the Beltway Brownbags, Sea Grant Academy, the rip current initiatives and others.
The outcome is that OMB went to bat for us in 06 considerations and our budget is up. That is unprecedented. The Assembly has helped make that happen. We'll need the engagement of the Assembly in the future.
Look at outreach in a rapidly changing world. Outreach is "in" and everyone knows we need it. Can't solve problems without constituent involvement and informed public policy locally. NOAA will look more and more at SG as an outreach element. We haven't in the past been looked at by the agency in that light.
Fish extension and coastal communities are two excellent examples. We need more interaction with other states. Congress will still ask for evaluation, but maybe we can change how we do it.
More focus is needed on management of critical problems and involvement in public policy. Changing problems means changing skill sets. Should we have a higher % of specialists to generalists? This needs some real thought. We need new information and disciplines into the program. My challenge to the Assembly – are you organized to deal with this change? Do you have the capability, responsibility and flexibility to respond? Don't let the opportunity pass by because of myriad frustrations – its all about planning and execution, execution, execution
Question – What about regionalization?
Ron – We are about to put out an RFP to provide grants to 6 regions –
planning grants - $250,000 to begin a regional planning exercise, needs assessment
and research agenda. Regions have been defined as the OOS regions. RFP will
be out this summer.
Question – Bump in the budget?
Ron - $4 million added to President's budget that is currently going on.
But this didn't result in any more $$ because Congress would have added
it anyway. So it is an indicator of the President's support.
Question – Will there be another call for proposals for fisheries
extension?
Ron – only if we get Congressional largesse, and we didn't get it
yet.
Question – Has Ocean Commission report impact our funding?
Ron – I think, yes, people are rethinking ocean policy and the way they
approach environmental problems. Ecosystem based management and outreach are
becoming lexicons that don't go away easily. We will also be in the ocean
observation business.
Jim also thanked the Assembly. He introduced Amy Zimmerling, new Coastal Community Development Coordinator and Megan Agy, new program officer.
Jim reviewed the extension program survey. A total of 377 extension agents work for Sea Grant nationally. About 118 agents are working in fisheries. Mean FTE per program is 9, with a range of 1.3-23.4. Total FTEs is 288. Jim will post survey on Assembly website.
Coastal communities and economies are due for an upcoming review. Ron will be asking the panel to do the review with a subgroup. There will be an evaluation and assessment and also a look to the future. Also the national ports program and law center will be reviewed with a look to what is working and what should we do in the future?
International extension. Seven of us are just back from Indonesia. They are hiring some extension agents now. All paid for with Indonesian funds. Dale Baker, Sea Grant extension leader in New York will be setting up an extension aquaculture program in Mexico. Sea Grant would like to develop a list of folks who could go and do training for several weeks at a time to build international capacity in SG.
Performance measures. NSGO has to develop performance measures Jim needs to develop 1 or 2 measures for the extension staff such as number of state and local agencies, community leaders and industries that access and use Sea Grant extension..
Climate Change Extension. Jim introduced Dale Baker – New York Sea Grant Extension Director, who will be in DC for a few months working on Climate Change applications. This is collaboration between SG and NOAA's Climate Program. Dale will look at capacity in climate outreach, and will identify other products within NOAA and EPA. He wants an individual from each SG regionals plus AK and HI to attend a training to develop a network of climate extension specialists, training at the Coastal Services Center.
Stakeholder involvement is needed at several levels, in state, subregional,
national.
Our strategy needs to be multifaceted. The External Relations committee wants
connection with the Assembly. At the Hill we make the most impression with state
delegations. For example, Russ Moll went to a hearing with a stack of letters
from stakeholders. Also national groups such as the American Association of
Port Authorities. We could probably do more with creating partnerships with
these programs
Question – It bothers me when we have to go get letters in 2
days. You have a lot of material generated in PATs, can't you use that?
Jennifer – Congressional representatives respond to things that come from
their constituents directly.
Question – How can we involve ourselves in controversial topics
when some are partisan?
Jennifer –Integrity as extension agents is the greatest gift to DC.
Ralph discussed the need for positive, egalitarian communication between SGA and Assembly and the need for a real role for extension in the Congressional efforts.
The 12 member committee will take a look at the PAT process – how could it be improved? So far has met with the SGA. They will be done by end of year and the final report will be used by the National Sea Grant office and Congress.
Things the committee will consider include- are the incentives for regionalization compatible with PAT program? Everyone says they want outreach – are the $$ there for it? How are extension and outreach assessed in the PAT? Are the benchmarks appropriate? When you looked at the review, are the outreach components accurately represented – was the story told? We would like input either anonymously in email or in the open session this afternoon.
Question/Comment – I've noticed that every SG program is very different from each other, but the PAT process is trying to homogenize and put things in linear mode. The process fails to recognize the difference within each program and doesn't make room for idiosyncrasies between each program.
Question/Comment - one of the original purposes of the PAT was to make
the SG network better. How do we learn from each other and make ourselves better
nationally if we are competing?
Question/Comment – If the purpose of the PAT is to rank the programs from
1 to 32, it does not foster sharing. Ranking breaks down the spirit of moving
forward as a group.
Question/Comment – The length of time, and opportunity costs of competing
against ourselves and our colleagues is a huge time sink. Three months of staff
time, costs of up to $250,000. We never get that level of return. We spend so
much time on the PAT process that we don't serve our clients. 50% of the
rating is connected to extension – results – so it is a huge effort
on education and extension communities – but 50% of funds that come in
go to research when they don't really have to show results.
Background on the PAT: In 1994 there was a review that suggested changes in how SG programs were operated. Management should be more decentralized. That happened and then evaluation of programs started. The fact that there is evaluation is not a decision from SG or the Panel. It was a decision by Congress – they mandated an evaluation and a ranking.
Panel's view is caring about SG and wanting to make it strong. As far as evaluation process – the Panel follows a series of steps in the evaluation process. They are trying to achieve openness, transparency, consistency. In November meeting we have a review meeting and a training session. Once you start a cycle – don't want to change the criteria until the cycle is done. We realize that the criteria of ranking the programs as assigned by Congress is very difficult. It is an assignment that complicates the whole process and puts limits on it.
Question was how is final review done at National Sea Grant office? National office does not change the PAT score. National office changes the ranking for purposes of funding mechanisms. Recommendations are then made to the program and response from the director.
Panel committee is putting together a report for changes in the process for 2007. NRC report will be important to SG community and also be important in going to Congress/OMB etc
Kathy gave a review of the Fisheries Extension Enhancement Committee meeting held in May 2005 at the NSGO. The goal of the committee is to develop a national identity for Sea Grant fisheries extension activities. Jim Murray introduced Terry Smith as NOAA Fisheries Sea Grant liaison replacing Emory Anderson.
Question – what happened to next call for proposals for FEE?
Can't we just fund the proposals for which there wasn't enough funding
from the last round, rather than asking for new proposals?
Jim - They are dated – at some point if there are funds, should we do
a re-call for proposals or should we update them and revise them? That decision
will have to be made.
Question – We have FEE projects so why are we now developing
a fisheries extension coordination committee?
Jim – Rather than our office making decisions, I asked the Assembly to
organize a committee. Also we don't have a national coordinator. We need
to look at our fisheries extension effort more holistically.
Decision point – should the fisheries extension enhancement committee become a standing committee? If so, who are the members?
B. Bacon recommended that "policy" for Fish extension be taken care of regionally. Jim Murray commented that he would like to use this committee as a policy committee for the NSGO. R. Rayburn noted that the idea is that this be a committee of the Assembly, not of the Fisheries Theme Team . If the Assembly accepts this idea, then the makeup should be discussed. J. Rasmussen noted that if it's a policy committee, then the committee should reflect the views of the Assembly.
J. Hurley asked why not shift the regionalization $$ to fisheries extension as an example of regionalization? Jim Murray noted that regionalization is different. It is looking at regional planning and research.
J. Falk asked should we work outside the fisheries theme team? Will other committees start? P. Granger asked if there still was an impetus for the NOAA partnership that was discussed in Seattle 18 months ago? Terry Smith noted that regional issues such as bycatch may have a regional solution. Communication between NMFS and Sea Grant would help.
Regional associations are being formed. These organizations are working with stakeholders. Sea Grant should have a seat at the table. Funds could potentially be used to hire agents; for example, the Great Lakes could have 8-9 observation agents and a coordinator working with the great lakes commission.
M. Spranger noted that not much money is involved yet, but this is an international effort with 140 countries engaged. J. Thigpen commented on the need to integrate with communicators and educators. He sees the potential for a full time education specialist for ocean observing in each Sea Grant program.
Program leaders presented the winning program from each region.
Ralph discussed efforts to open up the ExCom meetings. Bi-monthly audioconferences have included the regional coordinators. John Woeste, Assembly liaison to the National Panel has joined on occasion. Beltway Brownbags have gone on. Most recent one was on NEMO held during the same week as the Sea Grant Academy and SGA meeting in DC. We're working hard to try and keep everyone involved and informed.
Paula Cullenberg: The Assembly has about $5,800 in its account, at the University of New Hampshire .
Tricia is the new Coastal Service Center liaison, and state Coastal Zone Management programs, Sasheen Tavares is acting in the position formerly held by Lynne Hinkey. Prior to her position now, Tricia was the head of the CZM program in Minnesota.
CSC outreach manager is involved with social assessments. They work a lot with NERRs and CZM programs. The CSC is developing performance measures for CZMA, visitor use management, and technical assistance. The needs assessment training is online.
MPA social science web site – social assessments, Capacity Building – Fellowship program, meeting planning, facilitation; Fellowship program is for newly graduated environmental studies person to work in coastal zone management programs. Coastal Hazards - IOOS, ocean planning, risk and vulnerability analysis of ocean observing can be made available to .coastal watersheds – conservation planning, land use, coastal community development , recreation and tourism. Partnerships – leveraging resources and avoiding duplication
Regional presence – for CSC – wanting to get out into the field more – wants to be in Gulf of Mexico next and has some funds to work in the Great Lakes Region –have some regional people in a few sites around the country.
Comments from one Academy attendee from New Hampshire, an FEE program new hire: "The Academy was a good intro from private industry profit motive to SG service. Liked going to DC which gave us the big picture, also gave us a good introduction to the regional approach. Logic model approach was useful and helped answer questions of what outreach and extension are. The Academy has had a significant impact on my program thinking."
Academy goal could be to train 50% of the SG Extension professionals.
Mike Liffman – goes well with the regionalization approach. Other people
might want to step up to the plate and organize these.
Brian – participation of all was helpful – work continues at home
– with mentoring arrangement. They are developing a plan of work.
Full cost of the Academy: If the programs did not absorb costs, the Academy
would cost about $85,000.
Bylaws committee – comments passed at Jekyll Island were integrated.
Beltway Brown Bag Update Ralph Rayburn noted that offshore aquaculture is the next Beltway Brown Bay being planned.
Nominating committee – Bill DuPaul. as immediate past chair, will head up the nominating committee. John and Dale will continue to serve on the committee.
Assembly 06 Planning Committee -- meeting – Puerto Rico, Hotel Rincon of the Seas Grand Caribbean Hotel, on northwest side of the island. Need a committee to work with Chapa and his staff. Mike, Bill, Jack, Virginia are interested in serving on the committee. Meeting will be in either May or June.
Extension program leaders survey results. –29 responses were submitted.
Resulted in three primary issues
1. chartering assembly as nonprofit corporation
2. changing the leadership terms of service to correspond to SGA
3. change committee structure
Changing committee structure
Performance standards development – Ralph will come up with some names
– and will try and come up with a committee – John Schwartz volunteered
Dale wanted volunteers for climate – Mike, Virginia, Jim Fawcett
Formalizing committee structure
Bob – why not just keep them ad hoc? Ralph noted that if you have a forum,
then you can start to build up engagement by program leaders. If you have more
structure, there is more carryover and longevity. But Bob thinks that most folks
won't do the work.
John Schwartz would like to see the ExCom make appointments each year but make sure there is changeover. Virgina moved that we formalize the committees and give it a try. Jim Fawcett seconded. Bill DuPaul noted that there need to be a way to turnover the membership. Cliff suggested shortening the list. He suggested we get rid of bylaws committee. All in favor of Virginia's motion except one.
Terms of service for chair – currently one year, past chair serves one year and chair elect serves one year – is one year term enough? Ralph outlined the options. Motion by Mark Malchoff to go with option 4 – eliminate immediate past-chair position and transfer duties to the chair-elect. Service commitment would be four years. Chris DeWeese seconded.
Idea was to have chair as rep to SGA for two years not one. This will require an amendment to the bylaws to be voted on at next meeting or by e-mail, and to take effect with next election (those in office currently serve under terms to which they were elected). Virgina asked for a friendly amendment to state that chair will be 2 years. Motion from Jim Falk to add an at-large member to ExCom for 2 year alternate terms. Second from Jay. John Schwartz suggested that bylaw committee to look through it and present it as a package. Call for question – passed unanimously.
Keith Gates, for organizing an excellent meeting at Jekyll Island;
Jim Falk for his service on the Assembly's Executive Committee;
Ralph Rayburn for organizing Brown Bags;
Jay Rasmussen for his service on the Assembly's Executive Committee;
Lynne Hinckey for her service as liaison between CSC and Sea Grant.
Resolution to recognize Lynne Hinkey was moved and seconded. Passed unanimously.
Survey for National Sea Grant Extension staff survey. Nancy
Balcom noted that it was designed to get information about whether Assembly
was serving extension staff.
Extension staff survey - Motion by Brian Doyle to table action on this survey.
Vote was majority in favor, 4 voting against motion to table. Motion passed.
If you want to be involved internationally there are at least 3 ways –
1. Your home university – what are they doing internationally? How can
SG get involved?
2. URI = Sea Grant association signed on to AID program "A leader with
Associates" program – one on freshwater and watershed, and another
in coastal marine management issues – AID missions in many countries of
the world.
3. Also partnerships with NOAA – senior Fulbright short term scholar program
– info available on webpage.
4. Sea Grant international committee – need distributed leadership –
encourage you to join in –
Rene – NOAA been involved with SG International for about 6 years – There are three international delegations at SGW 05. Korea, Indonesia, Nicaragua all need extension agents – using SG as a model
Meeting adjourned at 4 pm.
Wednesday, June 8, 2005
Meeting resumed
Nancy Balcom called the Wednesday meeting to order at 10:30 am.
Guests were introduced: Terry Smith NMFS, Megan Agy NSGO, John Woeste National Panel liaison. Note: Kathy Castro voting in proxy status for Rhode Island –
Chapa needs to know dates by end of June. A lot of PATs going on in May, June, Sept, early October. Great Lakes network meeting in May, July is hurricane season in Puerto Rico. ExCom will review dates and set date.
Nancy Balcom and Ralph Rayburn met with Rick DeVoe and Jon Kramer on Tuesday afternoon. . ExCom will be receiving ERC newsletter and ExCom past chair (Bill DuPaul) will be sitting in on monthly meetings.
Question? – will Assembly get ERC newsletters? Bill will check on that.
B. Bacon asked who will be the ERC rep after the change in the past chair position
goes away. Bylaws could be changed to add a staggered second at-large position
and get rid of past chair position. This is designed to mirror SGA and have
a longer term seat as liaison as SGA. Bylaws committee will look at this. Bylaws
committee – P.Cullenberg, B. Bacon and M. Liffman are on the bylaws committee.
Jon Kramer will participate on our ExCom calls whenever possible, and ExCom
will circulate a list of ways we can better work with SGA. Elections have to
happen in November December so nominations committee can get the slate together
bylaw committee has to have it figured out.
Is this an Assembly committee? J. Rasmussen made a motion that SGEPL support
the concept of fisheries extension standing committee. Second by J. Schwartz.
B.Bacon noted that the Assembly shouldn't have a policy group. Jay Rasmussen
commented that the Assembly has learned that it needs to act and push forward.
This is less an issue of organization than an expression of our interest in
trying this out.
M.Spranger asked if this had to be a standing committee rather than adhoc?
J. Thigpen noted that we have regional coordinators with Terry Smith on board
to coordinate it on the national level. B. DuPaul commented that the original
FEE committee was a Congressional mandate and had a provision for regional coordinators
to put information together. Technically the regional coordinators disappear
in four years, so do we let this idea die or do we try to make that bigger and
give it a longer life span?
J. Falk noted that we're trying to pull together committees to better
tell our story and to try to get new funding. P. Granger asked Jim Murray if
he was going to do this anyway or do you see this committee helpful?
Jim Murray answered the "why fisheries and not other areas" question by noting that there is legislation here, language just for extension, which mandates a national thinking about fisheries extension. The NSGO would like input after the 4 years of FEE end to either continue the program or not. He commented that it would be nice to have national coordination and leadership for the program from the Assembly. The legislation gives it a special need and this is an opportunity for Assembly to step up.
B. Bacon noted that he still didn't see what the role of the Assembly
was for doing that.
Jim Murray suggested that the committee would like to develop a national meeting
for fisheries extension agents next year since 118 people are involved. Bob
Stickney with the Fisheries Theme Team may have $$ for national meeting.
M. Spranger asked who would appoint the adhoc committee. J. Murray noted that the Assembly ExCom has the power of setting up a special committee.
The need for a networking function that is not happening now was recognized. The purposes of committee could include potentially organizing a national meeting, tell our story to Congress for continued support and act as a network.
J. Falk offered a friendly amendment that it should be a special committee and reevaluated in 2 years. M. Spranger seconded it. J. Rasmussen is willing to accept the amendment.
Motion for Assembly to set up a special committee called the Sea Grant Fisheries
Extension Coordination and Enhancement Committee for a 2 year period.
15 in favor, none opposed
Jim Murray noted that Ron Baird has expressed his support a number of times for this concept. This would expand on the Sea Grant Academy and enables us to provide professional development to current SG extension staff. It was noted that we have a new education and professional development standing committee. Perhaps that committee could consider a concept paper for a SG Institute. M. Spranger noted that in an earlier conference call he talked with Ron Baird and Jim talked about the concept. He did put together a concept paper for mid level training program and he would be willing to share a draft with the committee.
Motion by M. Spranger – The education and professional development committee
will develop a concept paper to develop the Sea Grant Policy and Training Institute.
Seconded by B. Bacon. Comment – committee should consider including other
parts of Sea Grant not just extension. Motion passed unanimously. M. Spranger
volunteered to serve on that committee.
J. Schwartz noted that someone was supposed to investigate it and bring it
up at this meeting. He asked the bylaws committee to go through it and look
into it. SGA would let us use the 501(c)(3) status but we need to be careful
with that. Needs to be looked at more.
Mike recommends a new MOA with SGA. Nancy recommends talking with Elaine Knight
about it. This issue will be further explored.
Final comments
B. Bacon suggested that at some point the Assembly consider a role of the Council
of Past Chairs of the Assembly. P. Granger suggested that the Assembly consider
a session on nuts and bolts of how we do our jobs such as how do you train people,
how do you conduct staff meetings. He would like to see some of those topics
maybe in lieu of policy meetings. M. Spranger noted that 30% of the survey response
asked for professional development. M. Liffman agreed and would like to see
what's new and fresh approaches.
B. Bacon noted we have to continue to collaborate.
Meeting adjourned at 11:55
Note: This is an accessible version of a document originally produced for the Web in .pdf format. While it contains all significant content of the original print document, it may omit layout and graphic elements which contribute to the look and feel of the original, and make the .pdf version more suitable for printing.