Facebook
X (Twitter)
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
Delicious
LinkedIn
StumbleUpon
Employee comments sought for REC use and RAC meetings
The following policies regarding research and extension center use and research advisory committee meetings are available for employee comment:
580 - USE OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EXTENSION CENTERS
580 Appendix A, Procedural Requirements for Employee Organization Access to the Research and Extension Centers
580 Appendix B, ANR Research and Extension Center (REC) Access Violation Report
581 - RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEES (RACs) at the RESEARCH AND EXTENSION CENTERS (RECs)
Links to all of these policies are located at http://ucanr.edu/p/48355.
Please send comments and suggestions to Robin Sanchez at rgsanchez@ucanr.edu by Friday, Aug. 29, 2014.
Comments:
2.
I look forward to observing (and, perchance, participating) in this long-overdue, and essential analysis of ANR governance of the Research & Extension Center System.
John Harper's comment (above) is an excellent beginning. We look forward to many more of the same.
3.
Ditto to both above... Seems to me, there are administrative and programmatic issues here.
Admin: What is considered REC and not REC? I understand the they are technically UCCE properties, but the basic maintenance, day-to-day site operations, who is responsible? local counties? Also, it is not clear to me what is a REC and not. For example, UCCE San Mateo has Elkus Youth Ranch, http://ucanr.edu/sites/elkus_ranch/ , is this considered a REC?
Programmatically: How does the nine REC's fit in and support ANR's Vision, strategic plan, etc. Are the Program team leaders working with the REC Director? What is the nature of the relationship/partnership of a REC with the local UCCE County office?
4.
Hi Charles,
ANR is a complex organization. Please see http://recs.ucanr.edu/About_Us/. The RECs are research (extension) centers while Elkus Youth Ranch is an Environmental Education Center under UCCE Smith-Lever Act funds (NIFA statewide program). ANR as a whole is more than just UCCE Extension Offices and Statewide Programs. The Hatch-Act established the Agriculture Experiment Stations (AES) located on the UCB, UCD & UCR campuses. RECs are research locations supporting ANR research projects that are part of ANR's strategic initiative. that's the short version.
5.
Charles G Go has put it exactly right: There certainly are both administrative and programmatic issues here. Issues that have been building for quite some time.
Incidentally, there are RECs and there are RACs. As implied in the "cover letter" by Pam Kan-Rice, the Research & Extension Centers (RECs) Research Advisory Committees (RACs) are an integral part of the ANR system. Like the two sides of the same coin.
Also, I recommend to Robin Sanchez that three short weeks is too little time to pursue these issues fully and in depth. After all, it's August, right? Folks are away on summer trips and vacations.
The committee that put this "look-see" together spent three months on it. Please don't cut short the time available for commentary.
6.
Interestingly, this ANR post title uses "...RAC meetings", while a more appropriate term would be "...RAC functions". Referring only to the SFREC RAC, its function as a quasi administrative body dealing with programmatic issues as well as simply Project review and approval (see current ANR description), has become a mere shadow of what it was in the days of James B. Kendrick and Harold Heady.
It is possible that ANR top leadership prefers NOT to have operative decisions made by a well-constituted RAC but instead made, "on the spot", by single individuals far removed from the Research & Extension Center.
7.
Hi John,
Thank you for your comment regarding clarification of REC Directors interacting with County Directors. You bring up a good point about better communication and coordination with UCCE advisors and specialists, RECs and others in the ANR network. We are emphasizing improved coordination and collaboration with UCCE advisors/specialists with all of the RECs and looking to expand opportunities for future efforts to engage with the public and clientele in a more cohesive manner. At HREC we are looking forward to working with the new HREC director once he/she is selected and, in the meantime, encourage collaboration with the Interim Director who is working with advisors in Lake and Mendocino Counties to develop outreach and education activities at HREC.
Regarding waiving of Rod Shippey Hall fees, unfortunately these fees are important for the short- and long-term maintenance of the facility. We believe the fees are quite reasonable and are comparable to the other Centers. We would be willing to work with you to help look for funding opportunities for the use of the facility.
Thank you for your comments.
Lisa Fischer
8.
In Lisa Fischer's reply (August 18, 9:29 AM)to John Harper's comment (August 6, 10:32 AM) assumes that protocols exist to get these tasks done. "Better communication", "better collaboration", "expansion of opportunities" "in a more cohesive manner" are simply ideas. What is needed (and perhaps it does exist)is a set of means and authority by which these ideas can be brought to reality.
I am reminded of the late Professor Maurice Peterson of the Agronomy and A&RS departments, and once the University Dean Of Agriculture. I can just "see" him making this comment, as he told his story about an unfortunate young member of the department who "didn't make it". "He had a lot of good ideas", Pete said, "but there was never any implementation!"
To advance the ideas Lisa Fischer has expressed, some toes would need to be held to the fire. But on what grounds? A case in point: SFREC Director Jeremy J. James' position description placed his local area responsibilities squarely in two counties, Sutter and Yuba. Hearsay records that soon after Director James took charge he made it clear that he would honor the position description's dictates faithfully and well, but only to Yuba County. Director James has done exactly that, and his record of research, teaching, outreach, and Center management to date has been exemplary, and surely will continue to be. And, an idea that had little merit to begin with (two counties, exponentially differing from each other in terms of diversity and needs), fell out of the equation.
Hypothetically, if ANR top administration were to decide at this date(not likely, of course) to force Jeremy to take Sutter County under his wing, could it even be done? Chris Greer, and his search committee would have to be quizzed, and the position description reviewed in detail. But Chris isn't even "there" any more. Having been anointed as a "Vice Provost", maybe he'd be free and clear of any such action. (Lisa, just what is a Provost in ANR, and what does Chris Greer, as a Vice Provost, actually do?)
Bottom line? It's easy to make lists. Position descriptions make a notorious example. Lisa's second paragraph, which refers to John Harper's idea of dropping auditorium use fees to foster greater use of Rod Shippey Hall, is easy: "Can't do it. We need the money." Amen. 'Nuff said. The top paragraph just needs a little work.
9.
This was a timely and most-appropriate post, even though it elicited fewer comments than I had expected. As Charles G Go pointed out, there are both administrative and programmatic issues embedded here, in the context of how Research & Extension Centers should (and should not) be managed.
An interesting subset of these issues is found in Policy 580, Appendix B ... Access Violation Report (AVR). Albeit quite different from another issue of earlier this year, which mandated a smoke-free "campus" for the SFREC, the protocol (as tentatively advanced in the AVR by Lisa Fischer) to define and enforce violations of unauthorized access, does certainly bring back the crucial (but obviously unwieldy) matter of enforcement, just as the earlier call (of UC Presidential origin, and intended only for UC Academic Campuses) did to eliminate smoking anywhere on Center properties of many thousands of acres.
"Control of unauthorized access" also immediately brings to mind the Rogers-Vertrees issue of "unauthorized" (this can be taken both ways!) access to property along the Yuba River. Property that, like a great deal of other property between the southern boundary of the SFREC, does not belong to the University of California. I have written extensively about the "Rogers-Vertrees issue" on my website, save-uc-ce-sfrec, and I invite anyone further interested in the concept of controlled access to the Yuba River to pursue it further there. For sure, this issue certainly fits the analogy of a "canary in the coal (or gold, if you wish!) mine", since it warns of (much more, quite likely) trouble down the road if not openly dealt with in the present.
While administrators of other Centers appear to have no difficulties with the ANR benchmarks of transparency and accountability, I believe that the administrators of the SFREC do. I recently requested information about new and ongoing Center Projects, as discussed in this year's Research Advisory Committee meeting. I found an amazing reticence in response to an information request that should have been treated routinely, considering that information of this nature would be readily accessible under the auspices of the California Public Records Act.
I also think that a proportionally larger share of local REC income go back to a specific REC for maintenance. This is especially needed with a livestock based REC. Under the current policy HREC has been force to defer maintenance to fences which greatly impacts maintaining the sheep flock well-being. Managing a livestock-based REC from afar results in poor management.
Waiving of auditorium use fees or a significant reduction in those fees for a local advisor based educational program would be an incentive to bring the community to the RECs.
Posted by John Harper on August 6, 2014 at 10:32 AM