Executive Committee Meeting Minutes December 13, 2018

11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., Eastern Time 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: 11/8 minutes (URL), CES Strategic Agenda (4-5), 2019 ECOP Budget (URL), Background on a budget revision: Civil Discourse, Civil Dialogue on Race Relations: “Coming Together for Racial Understanding”(6), ECOP/ESCOP Letter re Listening Sessions (7), 2 attachments regarding studies of Extension (NASEM, Charlies Riley Memorial Foundation) (8-10), Finance Update (12).

OPENING BUSINESS – Ed Jones

Ed Jones called the meeting to order. Attendance is recorded on p.3. A quorum was present. The minutes of November 8 meeting (URL), were approved by unanimous consent. Additions to agenda Well Connected Communities Wave 2 Update was added by Michelle Rodgers. The Finance Update was presented and is to be attached to the minutes – see page 12.

I. Business Requiring Immediate Attention – Set Goals and Action Plans (Who, What, When, How): A. Well Connected Communities Bridge funding proposal –

Michelle Rodgers: New Robert Wood Johnson Foundation opportunity driven by first year results and short term funding (18 months rather than 24). A proposal is under way for Well-Connected Communities to provide breathing room to start wave 2. Very positive step. Stay tuned for revised timeframe. May 2019 is time for submission for wave 2. Will have a full update at a future ECOP Meeting.

B. 4-H Reputation Ed Jones/Jennifer Sirangelo/Artis Stevens – Jennifer Sirangelo/Artis Stevens of National 4-H Council presented a three-phase approach to preserve/improve the national 4-H reputation. 4-H Council monitors social media and how the social media comments turned positive with the blog; National 4-H Council and ECOP Chair response, November 21, 2018. https://4-h.org/about/blog/this-is-4-h/ (theme that 4-H serves all kids). But unfortunately the polarizing tweets, letters, etc. associated with 4-H continue. 1) Jennifer noted that she is beginning to receive negative letters, and they are working on a response template – that could be shared with Extension Administrators and Directors. 2) Corporate donor Bayer is providing National 4-H Council pro bono reputation management consulting. Jennifer said this experience has heightened their social media awareness around this and other ‘controversial’ issues and how to respond quickly. 3) Jennifer is meeting with Scott Angle about a framework of being proactive. Questions: – how should Extension administrators and directors be informed? – how to we engage USDA-NIFA in the responses? Ali Mitchell suggested that Council share the talking points and that we should remind our colleagues of the letter sent earlier about the need to reference parent university inclusion policies. Robin Shepard noted that the need for quick responses in other program areas.

C. Civil Discourse Budget Discussion and Approval Decision –

STOP

BEFORE U PRINT

10 pages long

1

Ed Jones/Sandy Ruble: ECOP/APLU’s contract with Southern Rural Development Center/Mississippi State University to provide training on Civil Dialogue on Race Relations (Coming Together for Racial Understanding) requires that $10,000 of the expenses that was approved in 2018 will not be expended until 2019. (see page _ for details). Bill Hare made a motion to use $10,000 of 2018 Strategic Priorities line item in 2019 ECOP budget. The 2019 Budget will now reflect a beginning balance of $10,000 for this specific purpose. Mark Latimore seconded the motion. Motion passed.

D. Scott Angle Engagement Topics from the meeting that Ed and Rick had with him on 12/10 and into the future) –

1. 4-H Ed Jones: This item was not discussed during the first meeting.

a. NIFA inclusion response b. Name and Emblem

2. CES/ECOP commitment to support NIFA through Relocation Louie Tupas: Still no decision on who remains in DC and who will be moved outside of DC.

3. REEport – from 12/7 web call Ed Jones/Rick Klemme: There was a webinar last from 12/7/18. The conceptual background was not covered in that presentation. A follow up meeting with Chuck Hibberd, Ed Jones, Rick Klemme is schedule with NIFA Liaisons at 1:30 p.m. ET today. Conversation will continue. 4-6 below were very positive beginning conversations on support and implementation.

4. 1994 ECOP engagement support 5. Agency leader support, e.g., Matt Lohr at NRCS 6. Farm Bill from his perspective

E. Topic for Next Generation Extension – Learning for Leaders, Dec. 7, 3-4:00 p.m. ET

1. January – 4-H Grows 2. February – Awards 3. March – Hold for RFA for Well Connected Communities

May be rescheduled based on I.A.

4. Other see ECOP Executive Committee meeting minutes from 11/8/18 I.D. (URL) Ed Jones: Requested other suggestions and this will be picked up in January.

F. Consortium for Economic and Community Engagement – CECE 1. Executive Committee Support/Liaisons (Marshall Stewart & Dawn Mellion-Patin

have submitted applications as well as others) Rick Klemme: Provided brief update on executive committee selection process and his conversations with Sheila Martin, APLU VP Economic Development and Community Engagement.

G. Appointments 1. JCEP Liaison – July 2019 2. CARET Liaison to ECOP

Rick Klemme: Provided a brief on a potential change.

II. Current Project Updates

Meeting was adjourned before this section of the agenda was reached.

ADJOURN

2

ECOP Executive Committee Membership 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 o Albert Essel, 1890 Region ● Lyla Houglum, Western Region ● Rick Klemme, DC Office ● Ali Mitchell, Northeast Region ● Sandy Ruble and Marianne Klein, DC Office o Robin Shepard, North Central Region

Back to page 1

Guests ● Jennifer Sirangelo, National 4-H Council ● Artis Stevens, National 4-H Council

3

Emphasis Areas and Ongoing Priorities for the Cooperative Extension Section

Ed Jones, 2019 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 (ECOP Budget & Legislative Committee-BLC Chair/ECOP Executive Committee) –

Build on advocacy strategies to increase federal capacity funding (Smith-Lever and 1890s Extension)

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’s 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. • Providing value for federal partners (as the outreach/engagement arm of the federal

government).

Private Resource Mobilization/Extension Resource and Partnership Development – Establish and implement a model for private funding of national initiatives as a complement to public funding for Extension.

Collaboration with Federal Entities (ECOP Chair/Chair-elects) – 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 (BLC Chair/ECOP Representative to the BAA Committee on Legislation and Policy-CLP/ECOP Executive Committee) – 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.

4

• 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 (ECOP Chair/Chair-elects/Past-chair)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 (ECOP Chair/Chair-elect).

• 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. (ECOP Executive Committee/National Impacts Database Committee)

• Continue a commitment to collaboration with ESCOP and the ESCOP Science and Technical Committee by establishing/maintaining a strong working relationship with ESCOP Chair. (ECOP Chair)

• Expand strategic alliances that benefit Cooperative Extension with national partners (e.g. NASDA, NC-FAR, NACo, SoAR, CFARE, ESCOP, APLU BAA, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and others).

• Identify ways to support the Issues, Innovation and Impact programs led by eXtension. (ECOP Executive and Program Committees).

• 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:

• On-board a new Executive Director for the Cooperative Extension System.

• Establish Futuring of Extension, by using a systematic process to be ready for the future.

• 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 (NEDA) and a monthly Next Generation Extension – Learning for Leaders webinar series.

• Implement national Excellence in Extension and Diversity Awards.

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

Back to page 1

5

EXHIBIT A - INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT

2018 Cooperative Extension Rapid Response Team (RRT) on Civil Discourse Civil Dialogue on Race Relations: “Coming Together for Racial Understanding”

Purpose: To convene teams with proficiency in training others on civil dialogue on race relations and to ensure

that 1890 and 1994 land-grant institutions are engaged in the program.

Description: Workshops will equip participants with sufficient proficiency in civil dialogue processes and race

relations practices to train others in their respective states to join or initiate efforts to promote civil dialogue

within their state and communities. The training would focus on core competency training as well as exploring

proven models that have had success.

ECOP Funding:

Chris Boerboom: Scholarship to ensure that 1890 and 1994 are engaged in process. 20 scholarships/$500 up to

$10K intent to have available. Pilot support for implementation and evaluation back to the states. Mississippi for

$5K for 3 additional states for the coming together program. Motion from (Program) committee is to use up to

$25K by ECOP. Administrative arrangement through Mississippi State. Motion approved. – March 15, 2018

I. Implementation: Cooperative Extension Section Rules of Operation, ARTICLE VIII – Programs and Operations Support

The programs and staff support of the Section and ECOP operate with funding derived from formula-based

assessments of member institutions, gifts, contracts and grants. In distributing funding to various entities to

implement Section or ECOP initiatives, ECOP will not pay facility and administrative (overhead) fees.

A. Up to $10,000 funding for scholarships will pay for travel expenses to workshops; limited to $500/person.

B. $15,000 will to be used to support three pilot trainings (West, Northeast, 1890) – states to be determined by mini-application process and will be expended over the contract period in two payments.

1. $5,000 in 2018 for the purpose of identifying pilot sites, establishing pilot site contracts, and draft pilot site plans and timelines.

a. Pilot staff time to draft plans/timelines and get administrative approval for roll-out plans

b. Travel for pilot staff to meet (especially if spanning more than one institution or if staff are not all campus based)

c. Setting up contracts with vendors for training d. Marketing materials to recruit participants

2. $10,000 in 2019 to support the three pilot sites identified as they train other Cooperative Extension

professionals and participate in the evaluation protocol for the project. Expenses to include: a. Pilot staff time

b. Training expenses related to the project

c. Travel of Cooperative Extension staff

3. Principal (project) Investigator will be responsible for reporting to ECOP on: a. Program evaluation of goals b. Proficiency of competencies

c. How the money was spent Back to page 1

6

TO: NIFA Listening Session Organizers (DRAFT dated 11/29/18 – final was sent by 12/1/19)

FR: Ed Jones (ECOP Chair) and Deb Hamernik (ESCOP Chair)

RE: Joint ECOP and ESCOP Submission

As Chairs of the Cooperative Extension Section (CES) and the Experiment Station Section (ESS) of the Board

on Agriculture Assembly (BAA), our 1862 and 1890 members, we highly value our partnerships with NIFA.

This partnership facilitates numerous high impact capacity and competitively funded programs and

projects. Our collective, interrelated, transformative Extension and research efforts address the needs

demonstrated by stakeholders in food and agriculture, communities, economic development, families and

youth, and natural resources. In doing so, research and extension continue to help rural and urban America

remain vibrant and thrive. Maintaining the balance between on-going needs, emerging challenges, and

stakeholder expectations necessitates new strategic investments from our federal partner, NIFA.

The Greatest Challenge?

Our greatest challenges are complacency and the assumption that the Land-grant Extension and research

enterprise will maintain leadership roles while being nimble in addressing the dynamic and complex

challenges of today without ongoing and increasing financial and human resources. Current example

programs of Extension and research efforts making a difference (with strong NIFA financial support) cover

healthy food systems, healthy people; community-based approaches to mental health and addiction; and

building the future American workforce through degree and STEM programs. Research advancements have

provided sustainable, competitive and profitable food and agricultural systems across agroecosystems.

However, the ageing core infrastructure needed to continue these innovations is in dire need of significant

investment from our federal partner, NIFA.

Needed breakthroughs?

Breakthroughs are needed to address contemporary issues and challenges including antimicrobial

resistance, food security, global trade, extreme stress events (fire, weather), water quantity and quality,

workforce development, mental health and addiction. There are significant challenges to vibrant

communities that offer complex opportunities for innovations from Extension and research. These

examples are a short list of key areas for which NIFA should advocate for and allocate significant new

monies to help catalyze systemic change, breakthroughs and impacts for the 21st century

Top Priority?

The return on local, state and federal public investment to people and economies from our cumulative

Extension and research efforts is unquestionably strong. Why wouldn’t the leadership from ECOP and

ESCOP work with our NIFA partner to strategically leverage and grow the Extension and research ‘business’

to build a greater America? We have the opportunity to reinvigorate these Land-grant components of

Extension and research into action, yielding results and advancements across our diverse landscapes. Given

this, our top priority is ???

Over the course of the next year, we will continue to provide leadership for our Sections and will be an

excellent partner through our Extension and research programs. Our national, state and local systems will

deliver impacts and long-term results across rural and urban communities. Collectively, we, as leading

elements of the Land-grant system, look forward to meaningful conversations that revitalize and grow the

partnership, create new opportunities and enhance our innovations leading to prosperity across the United

States. Back to page 1

7

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)

8

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.

9

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

10

ECOP National Leadership 2018Last update 11/1/18

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 $646,145

Assessments (0 institutiond unpaid, 2 pardoned) 600,000 597,575

Other (interest on ECOP Holdings with APLU) 2,094 2,395

Meetings (Equal to Meeting Expenses) 10,000 46,175

Expense (explained below) $612,094 $459,276

ECOP National Office Operations $403,163 $320,773Salary and benefits (originally calculated for full time ED) 324,663 206,293

Part-time ED, Full Time Program Assistant (PA) - January-April 108,221 83,488Part-itme ED, Full Time Assistant Director, Part-time PA - May-Dec. 216,442 122,805

Meetings (Equal to Meetings Income) 10,000 40,759

Travel expenses (will increase by 25-30% per ED contract) 18,500 31,469Staff development (orginally calcuated to inc. orientation of a full time ED) 4,000 0

Office supplies 500 43

Technology and communications 2,500 2,466

Design, printing, engraving (includes Nat. Health Implementation Printing) 1,000 3,645

Miscellaneous 1,000 0APLU Support for ECOP 41,000 36,098

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

Based on 1.400 FTE - May-December 27,333 22,441

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 9,000.00

Program Committee National Diversity Award $5,300 5,000.00

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 $101,832

kglobal 111,331 85,332

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.

*

**

***

11