PSAS INITIATIVE TEAM MEETING
MINUTES
Present: Wayne Tatman, Brett Moline, Jim Gill, Jim Krall,
Frank Henderson, Tanya Daniels,
The main purpose of this meeting was to determine this team=s priority for filling Cooperative Extension Service (CES) specialist positions. Several different specialist positions were examined.
Jim K. stated that an agreement had been suggested concerning sharing time of Dean Younts, water specialist at the Nebraska Pan Handle Research Station and suggested we find out where that stands. [I checked and the agreement fell through and is not being pursued. – Bill Taylor]
They were as follows:
#1
Weed Science Specialist
-75% extension, 25% research
-Develop an applied research program to support an extension education program to address, in an integrated approach, weed management on native rangelands.
-Responsible for weed management extension education on intensively managed lands through cooperation with research weed scientists.
-Cooperate with Wyoming Federal land managers, i.e., National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and Air Force.
-Cooperate with USDA-ARS rangeland weed ecologists.
-Obtain soft money to support program
#2
Integrated Pest Management coordinator
This position would basically correspond to Tom Whitson=s current position.
#3
Irrigation/Water Quality
This position would possibly have a 3-way split of teaching, research, and extension. The position would focus on water and soil chemistry, drought management, and quality of water. An example of an issue needing to be addressed is water from methane wells drilled in N. E. Wyoming.
This position could be an endowed chair of Irrigation and Water Quality. This position would need approximately $2.4 million, with one-half from private funds and matched from State funds.
Wyoming Association of County Agriculture Agents recommended weed scientist and integrated pest management positions.
Renewable Resources recommended three different positions:
#1
A person focusing on water quality and teaching basic irrigation.
#2
A specialist focusing on extensive land areas with invasive weeds.
#3
A specialist focusing on livestock/wildlife interactions.
The Ag and Applied Economics Dept. identified water issues as its highest priority
The Animal Science Dept. recommended two different positions.
#1
A specialist in livestock production systems, focusing on ruminant nutrition. This person would have both beef and sheep responsibilities.
#2
A specialist that would be an animal systems livestock economist.
During group discussion, it was suggested that a row crop agronomist is also needed.
After voting, the group decided water specialist and weed specialists were tied for first choice. A third choice was the animal science systems position.
The team suggested that the water specialist would be housed in the Plant Science department with a 75% extension and a 25% research split. The primary speciality of this position would be irrigation with secondary specialties of water quality and water policy.
The weeds position would also be housed in Plant Sciences, again with a 75% extension and 25% research split. Rangeland weed control would be the specialty of this position and (s)he should approach weed control on a watershed basis using an integrated control approach.
The Animal Science Systems position would be housed in the Animal Science Dept. with a 75/25 extension/research split. This person should concentrate on beef and sheep, as well as provide leadership in youth livestock activities. It would be preferred that he or she also have economics background.
The rationale for these positions needs to be written and submitted by April, 2002. Jim Krall is in charge of writing the rationale and justification for the two positions that would be housed in plant science and Wayne Tatman is to write the rationale and justification for the animal science position.
Needs assessment was the second item of discussion. The team agreed that needs assessment is a necessary tool to determine CES=s effectiveness. Surveys on the Young Beef Female program will run through the PSAS team. The information gathered by the PSAS team will be used as input to the team’s needs assessments.
General discussion ensued. The group was still not clear as to the degree of detail Susan wanted and it was suggested that perhaps we should just ask for a prioritization of the three main team objectives. Bill will further discuss the issue with Susan. The team would like to review the survey draft before it is finalized.
The team then discussed the report of the subcommittee appointed to examine needs assessment for the team. The subcommittee report was accepted with two changes in item #2. The report now reads as follows:
1) As
we had decided to move ahead with the Young Beef Replacement Female program, we
believe the issue team should move ahead with program planning and
implementation. We also recommend the
Sustainable Livestock Systems issue team take the opportunity to get feedback
at the Wyoming Stock Growers Association meeting regarding that program initiative
via a short survey delivered at the meeting.
2) Concern
was expressed that waiting too long for information regarding clientele needs
from the current process could hinder successful future initiatives. Concern was also expressed about expensive and
time consuming survey techniques. It was
the committee's thought that a brief electronic survey should be delivered once
a year to county based educators in mid-September to be returned to the
initiative team by mid-February. The idea is that county educators are
encouraged to meet with their area advisory committees prior to answering the
survey and use that input to answer the survey.
These surveys will be relatively brief, perhaps 5-10 questions, and they
are to include questions that are specific to PSAS initiative team program
offerings. These results then can be
used to give direction to initiative and issue team program planning.
3) It was also expressed that there is some confusion about how to do needs assessment. Perhaps it would be good to have additional information regarding the formal needs assessment process being proposed in the strategic plan. Moreover, perhaps members of the initiative teams should have some input in that process, and it is urged that all initiative teams be apprised of the results of those formal assessments proposed for the districts and at the state level as specified in the strategic plan as soon as the results are available.