Executive Committee Meeting Minutes November 8, 2018

11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., Eastern Time, via Zoom Presiding – Ed Jones, 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: Draft October 3, 2018 minutes (URL), CES Strategic Agenda (5-6), Proposal for Pesticide Safety Education (7-8), Liaison Definition for Board on Human Sciences (9), 2 attachments regarding studies of Extension (NASEM, Charlies Riley Memorial Foundation) (10-12), Alabama’s 21st Century Extension Creed (URL), Summary of 2018 NEDA Survey (URL), Finance Update (scroll to page 13), 2019 ECOP Budget (URL).

OPENING BUSINESS – Ed Jones

Ed Jones called the meeting to order. Attendance is recorded on page 3. A quorum was present. The minutes of the last meeting were approved by vote; motion to approve made by Mark Latimore, second by Scott Reed. Rick Klemme added a review of the ECOP Agenda for 11/15/18 to the agenda. The Finance Report was received as information. Sandy Ruble noted one correction: “2 institutions unpaid” in the assessment income line. Since the report was recorded 10/1/18, one of the two institutions has paid.

I. Business Requiring Immediate Attention – A. Pesticide Safety Education Proposal –

Ed Jones: At eXtension Impact Collaborative, the request was made, letter received as attached. Chuck Hibberd made a motion to endorse the proposal, asking that the group work closely with eXtension Foundation in the process and with care to be taken on how the rate of indirect costs are administered. Bill Hare seconded. The motion passed.

B. Future of Extension – (Jones) i. Chair Strategic Initiative

ii. NASEM/BANR proposal p. 10 Ed Jones: Rick Klemme and Ed met with National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicines’ Board of Agriculture and Natural Resources; moving towards a scoping meeting in early 2019.

iii. Charles Valentine Riley Memorial Foundation (RMF) proposal pp. 11-12 Ed Jones: Initially, RMF proposal specific to Ag and Natural Resource. In conversation held 11/7/18, emphasized importance of broadening the study to other areas of Extension. Karen Plaut, Purdue University, is the land-grant contact working with RMF, relying on her with the help of Jason Henderson to stay connected appropriately. Fifteen to twenty impact statements have been requested from Extension. Non-land grant universities and NGO’s are included, which is cause for concern. Others agreed with following questions and suggestions for next step were introduced: Ed Jones and Rick Klemme, working with Jason Henderson, Purdue, will continue to work with Karen Plaut to refine the purpose of the study and identify the process of review by Extension toward the final report (Ali Mitchell).

STOP

BEFORE U PRINT

13 pages long

EDA Team will actively become involved when the purpose is made clearer; recommended going first to the National Impact Database Writing team (Ron Brown); possible using Battelle studies by region (Lyla Houglum).

C. New NIFA Director Scott Angle Engagement – Ed Jones: On Monday at 10:00 a.m. CT a meeting has been arranged during the APLU Annual Meeting, New Orleans Marriott, to meet with USDA NIFA Director Scott Angle; ECOP is invited to participate. ECOP Chairs will meet beforehand on Sunday during lunch to prepare for leading that conversation; listening, being supportive, and raise sensitivities in a positive way. Louie Tupas: Encouraged ECOP to take advantage of this first opportunity to raise items and connect it to the second opportunity to meet at NIFA (late Jan. or early Feb.) Be sure that there is follow-through on any points made at the initial meeting.

D. Topic for Next Generation Extension – Learning for Leaders, Dec. 7, 3-4:00 p.m. ET Ed Jones: Is considering the continuation/enhancement of the “Engagement” conversations held at NEDA with Directors and Administrators learning more about APLU’s merger of Council on Engagement and Outreach (CEO) and Commission on Innovation, Competitiveness and Economic Prosperity (CICEP). Vonda Richardson, Chair, ECOP Professional Development Committee indicated that the committee is willing to help contribute ideas and resources. Chuck Hibberd: Any topics surrounding the Strategic Agenda, either in December or in the future, Recommended sharing Scott Reed’s presentation; approach to design future extension program, with strong legacy factor, accompanied by a “future of Extension” open conversation. Rick Klemme/Sandy Ruble: February 1 topic will be Awards. Others: The future of Extension idea, Certified Extension Professional Program with competencies, New RFA for Healthy Partnerships with March is the timeframe. Topics of interest are more important – Regions are welcome to add to this list as time goes on.

E. 1994 Engagement and Support – (Jones) Ed Jones: For now will persistently raise the conversation with NIFA; intend to include this in conversations with Director Scott Angle. Ali Mitchell: Have other avenues to acquire funding for travel for 1994s been explored? Chuck Hibberd: Recommends conversation with John Phillip on whether this was discussed with FALCON.

F. 21st Century Extension Creed (URL) – (Jones/Reed) Ed Jones: Rick Klemme recently discovered a modern version. Opened the floor for comment and suggestions. Do we find value? Do we ask JCEP and JCEP member organizations? Scott Reed, ECOP Liaison to JCEP, expressed interest in engaging JCEP and its member organization in establishing a more modern version. Oregon State University Associate Directors analyzed and found that the newer version found by Rick Klemme did no resonate positively. Scott Reed made a motion to ask JCEP to review the older established version and adopt a 21st century version. Mark Latimore seconded. Discussion: Timeframe should be included; status report by Spring Meeting. With the addition of the timeframe, motion carried.

G. 2019 CES Capital Quest Planning – Ed Jones: Vonda Richardson is willing to have the Professional Development Committee strongly engaged, former participants would like to be engaged, too. Hoping to bring it earlier in the year, February/March. Louie Tupas: Uncertain due to announcement of the move of NIFA, to occur last of January/early February, when the best time would be. Will get back to ECOP about dates. Will want to be certain to have full participation by NPLs from participating states present this time. Ed Jones asks Albert Essel to work with Vonda Richardson to complete planning and framework, for 20-25 participants.

H. Liaison Role Definition as part of the update to ECOP Operating Guidelines – Ed Jones: Assigned to EDA Team to review BoHS the Liaison Role version and write up an appropriate ECOP version for consideration. Sandy Ruble: ECOP approved other changes to the Operating Guidelines in July.

I. Big Ideas Next Steps – see II.G. Ed Jones: Still in process; moving forward.

J. NIFA Listening Sessions – (Jones) Ed Jones: An ECOP member was present at all 4 sessions except for the Northeast Region. Rick Klemme and Jeff Jacobsen are working on an ECOP/ESCOP joint written testimony for Ed Jones and Deb Hamernik (ESCOP Chair) to submit by the deadline of 11/30/18. Mark Latimore: Participated on behalf of AEA in New Orleans, submitted the written testimony into system. Jon Boren: Attended in the West; wished attendance was better. Ali Mitchell: Rick Rhodes and Ali Mitchell provided verbal testimony for the Northeast session; building off of one another’s main points. Mike Fitzner: There were 5 NIFA staff members at each session. Overall turnout was lower than the year before. Input on future planning might include hold every other year instead of every year. Jones: Recommends that NIFA explain what changed as a result of the 2017 listening session. A way to show value of participating. Louie Tupas: Will provide link to summary from 2017: https://nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resource/NIFA-Listens-2017-Report.pdf Encourages other written input until Nov. 30/end of the month. Mike Fitzner: Take care to direct the input toward the questions that are posed so as to help NIFA address needs or gaps.

K. Appointments 1. JCEP Liaison – July, 2019

Scott Reed: Wiling to stay engaged before his retirement, end of July.

L. Agenda for ECOP Meeting 11/15/18 – Rick Klemme/Ed Jones: Will include ECOP Exec. Committee Minutes. Report out from BAC/PBD. Chuck Hibberd: Prefers to get as much input on topic of Strategic Realignment during this meeting. Rick Klemme: The one-line approach, the more complexity in how to work it out. Other comments: If alignment is to one line, who makes the decision how the capacity funds are distributed and how? The approach of the Strategic Realignment Committee is to pause to gather additional input from the system. Chuck Hibberd: Had a conversation with Deb Hamernik, ESCOP Chair; ESS is in a position to end their relationship kglobal, theme oriented reporting, rewording these. Robin Shepard and Mark Latimore are attending ESCOP meeting at APLU Annual Meeting. Michelle Rodgers: The proposal for next $10M ask for RWJF, includes 8 positions at 1890s institutions to align with ECOPs request from October 2018 meeting.

II. Track outcomes and indicators of success (placeholders; as time permits): A. ECOP Opioid Response Working Group (Klemme/Brown) B. 4-H Leadership Committee (Jones/Jones) C. eXtension Leadership Committee – (Jones/Geith) D. JCEP/eXtension accreditation project – (Geith/Mull) E. NRCS Update (Shepard) F. NIFA Update (Tupas/Fitzner) G. ECOP/CES Big Ideas Update and ECOP/CES/NEDA Engagement (Jones/Klemme)

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

H. CMC expectations process update (Klemme)

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

J. Professional Development (Essel) 1. Excellence in Extension Awards 2. New Director and Administrator Orientation

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

L. Policy Board of Directors (Rodgers/Klemme) M. Budget & Legislative Committee (Boren/Klemme)

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

I. III. Executive Session (placeholder; as needed) II. A. National office staffing and Executive Director Search and Screen Process

ADJOURN

ECOP Executive Committee Membership Attendance is indicated with or .

Voting Members

Ed Jones, Virginia Tech, Chair Mark Latimore, Fort Valley State University, Chair-elect Chuck Hibberd, University of Nebraska, Past-chair Scott Reed, Oregon State University Bill Hare, University of the District of Columbia

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

● Ron Brown, Southern Region ● Albert Essel, 1890 Region ● Lyla Houglum, Western Region ● Rick Klemme, DC Office ● Ali Mitchell, Northeast Region ● Sandy Ruble, DC Office ● Robin Shepard, North Central Region

Back to page 1

Emphasis Areas and Ongoing Priorities for the Cooperative Extension Section

Ed Jones, 2018 Chair (To be revised for 2019)

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/Jones) – 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 (Jones/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/Jones/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 (Jones/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

Back to page 1

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

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 meeting to plan a study on extension Before organizing a scoping meeting, the first step is to reflect on what are potential desired outcomes of an Academy study on extension, e.g.: Awareness building of the current state of Extension (drawing a broad picture of extension today, pros and cons) Role/place/niche of extension in the 21st century (identifying where extension has been most effective, specific opportunities for extension to have an impact) Defining success (analysis of where the dollars have gone and where they have had impact) Measuring success (prospective metrics) Questions for ECOP to consider (10/18 meeting) Consider the audience for the ultimate product Who will use and how? Whom do we want influenced? Will it help decision makers / policy makers / public? Will there be actionable recommendations for a particular group? Scoping meeting design alternatives: 1. Pre-meeting conversation to define the specific need for a study on extension and the scope of such a study (what, generally?), which would set the bounds for discussion at the scoping meeting. The scoping meeting would crystallize the key questions to be answered by the study within the pre-determined scope. 2. Use scoping meeting to broadly explore the need for a study on extension, and what is most important angle or issues to focus on, and to coalesce around an agreed upon scope for the study. If possible in the time allowed, crystallize the key questions to be answered by the study within the agreed upon scope. Things to think about. Audiences (for the study and possible sectors from which representation at the scoping meeting would be desirable) 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 meeting ‘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

DRAFT

10-9-18

Developing More Support for Increased Funding for Agricultural, Food

and Natural Resources Research and Related Activities

Overview and Need for a Special Report on Extension and Outreach

Lack of investment. The United States’ total federal investment in agricultural research has been

flat for a long time, a fact that does not bode well for the future of our farm and food system. Not

only does the research undertaken today have a profound impact on the what food and agriculture

will be like a generation from now, but our chances of successfully tackling major societal

challenges related to our current system are being seriously impeded by the lack of sufficient

investment. Yet support for upping the nation’s game and securing our future through agricultural

research sadly seems to be a mile wide and an inch deep in Washington policy circles.

Unifying Message Efforts. With that thought in mind, over four years ago, the Charles Valentine

Riley Memorial Foundation (RMF) started a process of pulling together a wide range of players in

the research, education and extension space to work toward a unifying message that could help

reverse the tide and prod policymakers to recommitting the U.S. to a world leadership role in

agricultural research by simultaneously increasing resources and improving the system.

The “unifying message” endeavor has engaged a wide range of stakeholders in discussions on how

to make game-changing progress. Those conversations, and the overall framing for the project, are

written up in eight reports in the RMF Unifying Message series. Six of the reports summarize the

results of six roundtables involving 262 people from 121 organizations, including federal agencies,

universities, scientific societies, and food and nutrition, natural resources and agricultural

commodity interests. Twelve of those organizations assisted RMF in organizing and reporting on

the roundtables: American Society of Biologists, Soil and Water Conservation Society, American

Society of Nutrition, Institute of Food Technologists, the Supporters of Agricultural Research

(SOAR) Foundation, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), the National Corn

Growers Association, and six universities led by Iowa State University. The most recent publication

in the series, “A Unifying Message: Pulling Together. Increasing Support for Food,

Agricultural and Natural Resources Research” (June 2018), neatly summarizes our current

predicament and the nature of the unifying message initiative.

Special Reports on Key Topics. In addition to the unifying message series, RMF has also recently

published several other brief reports that are important looks into particular agencies and

institutions that are part of the overall agricultural research effort. Two special reports were issued

in June 2018, one pertaining to USDA’s Agriculture Research Service — “Agricultural Research

Service: Specialized Agency Functions and University Relationships” – and one pertaining to

research conducted by the U.S. Forest Service — “Forest Service Research and Development:

Creating the Knowledge Needed to Manage America’s Forests Sustainably.” Other reports in

the series deal with the Economic Research Service and Non-Land-Grant Colleges of

Agriculture.

Need for Special Report on Extension and Outreach. Perhaps the most important single

characteristic of the approach taken by RMF is evidenced by those who have been involved to date.

RMF has included a broader range on interests than any other ongoing efforts to increase support

for developing and distributing scientific knowledge related to food and agriculture. Although RMF

has laid a firm foundation, consistent with that characteristic, Cooperative Extension programs at

land-grant universities and outreach activities of non-land-grant colleges of agriculture (NLGCA)

and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are part of that total system and deserving of additional

special attention. Therefore, RMF is sponsoring a special report on Cooperative Extension programs

and outreach activities of other organizations and is seeking assistance in preparing that report and

will be seeking recommendations for knowledgeable people to review the report.

The RMF was founded in 1985 “to promote a broader and more complete understanding of

agriculture as the most basic human endeavor and to enhance agriculture through increased

scientific knowledge.” The Foundation’s namesake was a famed 19th century entomologist who

became the first Chief Entomologist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Back to page 1

ECOP National Leadership 2018Last update 10/1/18

2017 ECOP Holdings by APLU Holdings $599,561

APPROVED BUDGET ACTUAL AMOUNT

National Health Implementation Carryover for Cost of Printing Beginning Balance $3,587

Income $612,094 $638,500

Assessments (1 institution unpaid, 2 pardoned) 600,000 589,860

Other (interest on ECOP Holdings with APLU) 2,094 2,150

Meetings (Equal to Meeting Expenses) 10,000 46,490

Expense (explained below) $612,094 $388,920

ECOP National Office Operations $403,163 $275,528Salary and benefits (originally calculated for full time ED) 324,663 199,507

Part-time ED, Full Time Program Assistant (PA) - January-April 108,221 84,167Part-itme ED, Full Time Assistant Director, Part-time PA - May-Dec. 216,442 115,340

Meetings (Equal to Meetings Income) 10,000 9,077

Travel expenses (will increase by 25-30% per ED contract) 18,500 29,596Staff development (orginally calcuated to inc. orientation of a full time ED) 4,000 0

Office supplies 500 43

Technology and communications 2,500 2,107

Design, printing, engraving (includes Nat. Health Implementation Printing) 1,000 3,587

Miscellaneous 1,000 0APLU Support for ECOP 41,000 31,610

Same as FY17 based on 1.065 FTE - January-April 13,667 13,657

Based on 1.400 FTE - May-December 27,333 17,953

ECOP Executive Committee $6,800 $1,400

Meeting support 5,000 0

Memberships & related fees (NC-FAR) 1,800 1,400

Personnel Committee Excellence in Extension Award $12,000 $0

Program Committee National Diversity Award $5,300 $0

4-H Leadership Committee $7,500 $5,703

Strategic Priorities $31,500 $15,568

Support for JCEP Town Hall 5,000Meeting Support for National Impacts Database Writing Team 2,500Meeting Support for Extension Resource and Partnership Development (formerly PRM) 8,068

National Impacts Database Committee (Website Host with ESCOP) $12,500 $0

ESS-CES-AHS Communications and Marketing Effort $133,331 $90,721

kglobal 111,331 74,221

Cornerstone Government Affairs 22,000 16,500

(Office space, conference/meeting support, human resources, payroll, IT Help, legal assistance, copying, etc.)

Staffing Transition

Staffing Transition

*On December 14, 2017 ECOP Executive Committee extended the contract with Executive Director Rick Klemme until April 30, 2020 at 0.60 FTE. On April 12, 2018 ECOP Executive Committee approved creation of Assistant Director (internal promotion effective 5/1/18) and creation of Part-time Program Assistant (new effective 5/16/18).

**This budget line is designed to support efforts of ECOP in order to advance strategic priorities. Every effort is made to usefunds from annual income. If needed, reserves can be used as long as a $200,000 carryover is retained in order to cover approximately six months of ECOP National Office staffing and related costs (Approved by ECOP July 2016). *** On October 15, 2017 ECOP voted to spend $5,000 for travel expenses for the National Impacts Database Content Writing Teamtomeet face-to-face, matching ESCOP contribution.2018 Budget was approved by ECOP on July 18, 2017.

*

**

***