MEETING SUMMARY, JPC ADVISORY BOARD, OCTOBER 2, 1997
The following is a summary of the discussion and decisions made at the JPC Advisory Board Meeting in Sacramento on October 2, 1997. The meeting was held in the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.
Attending
Members: Mark Burrell (JPC Advisory Board Chair); Michael Fitch (Wells Fargo Bank); Donald Gordon (Agricultural Council of California); Betsy Marchand (Yolo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District); Cindy Myers (Golden Maid Packers); Robert Nottelman (Nottelman Orchards); Ronald Schuler (California Canning Peach Association); Robert Scofield (consultant); Ann Veneman (California Department of Food and Agriculture).
JPC Liaisons present: Warren Baker (JPC Co-chair, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo); W.R. "Reg" Gomes (JPC Co-chair, UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources).
Guests present: Joe Rodata (Deputy Chief of Staff to Governor Wilson) Charles Crabb (South Central Region, UC Cooperative Extension); Barbara Schneeman (UC Davis)
Staff present: Steve Nation and Claudia Reid, UC DANR Office of Governmental and External Relations, John Gutierrez, JPC Coordinator.
Summary of Discussion
1. There is widespread dissatisfaction with the progress of the JPC to date.
Several believe the committee structure as recommended by the Commission and adopted by the JPC is partly responsible for the dissatisfaction.
2. That dissatisfaction notwithstanding, those present believe that the JPC is worthwhile.
It has a unique and valuable purpose to serve in support of the California agricultural economy, and its model of collaboration is a powerful one that could be applied with positive effect to other segments of the state economy.
3. The JPC’s structure should be redefined to make the JPC more effective.
4. The Committee on Instruction should define the priority issues in its area, so that the progress they have made will be preserved.
5. The hiring of John Gutierrez as a full-time JPC staff coordinator is a very positive step.
It will provide continuity and focused attention to the work of the JPC.
6. There exists a continuing need for better communication.
This applies both within the JPC, and between the JPC and external audiences.
Suggested Change
The Advisory Board suggested the following change be made to the JPC’s structure:
•Refocus efforts--and the committee system--around issues that are cross-cutting and critical to future competitiveness.
The Advisory Board defined cross-cutting issues as follows:
1) An issue that crosses the traditional boundaries of teaching, research and outreach (public service), touching upon all of these elements.
2) An issue broad enough to be beyond the ability of one segment of higher education to address. (Examples: water quality, water quantity, agricultural literacy)
3) An issue broad enough so that it can’t or won’t be funded by a single commodity group.
Needs to Keep in Mind: The Board also identified the following needs as the JPC moves forward in defining the priority issues it will address:
1) Need for the JPC’s efforts to complement--and not duplicate--the California Food and Fiber Future (CF3) initiative, and the work of the Agricultural Issues Center (AIC) at UC Davis.
2) Need for a broader base of input from the agricultural community on the priority issues around which the JPC should reorganize, and coincidentally for greater awareness of the JPC’s existence and its mission in the agricultural community.
3) Need to preserve the work accomplished to date by the JPC Instruction Committee.
Actions Proposed and Assigned:
The Advisory Board did not believe it was ready to make definitive recommendations to the JPC regarding the priority issues around which the JPC and its committees should be reorganized, but it was prepared to take the following steps toward implementing its suggested change and the other needs it identified:
1) Acting on advancing the process to reorganize the JPC’s committees: The first step is to communicate the conclusions of today’s meeting to absent advisory board members, and to all other JPC members and committee participants, and to solicit their timely input on the contemplated reorganization of the JPC committees.
•Mark Burrell will compose a draft letter to the other advisory board members for this purpose and circulate it to Baker and Gomes, and then to the advisory board co-chairs Don Gordon and Mike Fitch. Gomes and Baker will compose and sign two cover letters, one to the other JPC members, and one to the academic members of the committees, which will go out over a copy of the Burrell letter to those members.
2) Acting on the need for JPC to complement the work of CF3: By November 15, Barbara Schneeman, Ron Schuler and Steve Olson will make observations and suggestions in writing on how the JPC does or may complement the CF3 initiative.
3) Acting on the need to preserve the work accomplished by the Committee on Instruction: By November 15, Bob Nottelman and Tom Dickinson will submit to the JPC and Advisory Board leadership, a list of priority issues in the area of instruction for the JPC’s attention, from the Committee on Instruction.
4) Acting on the need for a broader base of input for suggested priorities and better communication with the agricultural community: At the next meeting of the "Six Pack" of agricultural association leaders, Don Gordon (who is a member of the Six Pack) will ask if the member organizations would be receptive to a representative of the JPC Advisory Board attending one of their upcoming meetings or conferences for the purpose of introducing the JPC and its mission and soliciting their memberships’ input on the priority issues it should pursue. At some later point, volunteers from the Advisory Board will be requested to attend and address these (and hopefully, other) agricultural associations.
5) Acting further on the need for better communication with external audiences: Burrell proposes to contact the UC President and CSU Chancellor to arrange a meeting with each of them and JPC Advisory Board leadership, shooting for late this fall or early next year. The purposes of the meetings would be to impress on them, directly from ag industry leaders, the importance industry places on excellence in agricultural higher education; to increase their awareness of and commitment to the JPC, with the hope that this may lay the groundwork for their support of the JPC’s future policy and research initiatives; and so that Advisory Board leaders may have the opportunity to listen to their ideas and concerns around agricultural education and intersegmental cooperation.
Dissatisfaction with the committee structure Many believe that by parceling the JPC’s work into the traditional functional areas of instruction, research and outreach, the committee system has been handicapped. Rather than being oriented towards tackling real-world problems and envisioning creative means of cooperation, their discussions have been bogged down in defining terms and the scope of their activity. They have lacked clear purpose and interesting issues to address, it is argued, since the real-world challenges do not lend themselves to the traditional functional divisions of academia. Therefore, committee discussions have generally lacked in interest and participation. Addressing real-world challenges requires a flexibility to reach across these artificial boundaries. We have good minds, people with willing hands. We need to give them real tasks to put their minds to, their hands on. The priority issues, which are to be concrete, cross-cutting problems that require intersegmental collaboration to be addressed effectively, will provide clear direction and interesting, important work for the committees, it is hoped.
An Elaboration on Competitiveness The advisory board felt that "competitiveness" begged the question, "Whose competitiveness?", i.e., it was necessary to identify who the stakeholders are for the JPC’s purposes. They also agreed that consideration of the question should not delay their attempts to reform the JPC. In a brief meeting following the Advisory Board Meeting, the board chair Mark Burrell and co-chairs Mike Fitch and Don Gordon, and the JPC co-chairs Reg Gomes and Warren Baker defined the stakeholders as follows:
For its purposes, the JPC has broadly defined the stakeholders as the people of California. The JPC members represent institutions whose purpose is to serve the public good. In California, the public good is served significantly by a flourishing agricultural economy, through provision of food, employment and economic side benefits. Therefore, more narrowly, the JPC defines the stakeholders as the California agricultural industry. The Advisory Board members represent stakeholders in the agricultural industry. The JPC was created to enhance cooperation among the higher education systems for the benefit of the California agriculture industry, with the purpose of serving the public good.
The JPC and the Advisory Board are trying to find ways that higher education can support the agricultural industry of California for the public good, since the agricultural economy’s health significantly impacts the state’s overall economic health. "Competitiveness" refers broadly to the state’s economy, and more specifically to the agricultural industry. If California is to remain viable and healthy, the agriculture economy of the state needs to remain viable and healthy.