This business meeting of the Advisory Board of the Joint Policy Council on Agriculture and Higher Education (JPC) was held in the board room at the California Farm Bureau Federation headquarters, 2300 River Plaza Drive, Sacramento, on June 28, 1999 from 9:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m.

Advisory Board members: Mark Burrell, Chair; William Allewelt, agribusiness consultant; Don Gordon, Agricultural Council of California; Ken McCorkle, Wells Fargo Bank; Brenda Jahns Southwick, California Farm Bureau; Loyd McCormick, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enerson; Ron Schuler, California Canning Peach Association; Nicole Van Vleck, Montna Farms.

JPC members present: W. R. Gomes, JPC Co-Chair.

Guests present: Kristin Power, Agricultural Council of California; Trevor Suslow, UC Davis; Stan Van Vleck, Kahn, Soares & Conway.

Staff present: John Gutierrez, JPC Coordinator.

1. Meeting Overview: The meeting’s objective was to identify an issue or issues to recommend to the JPC for consideration as they decide which issue(s) which will be the focus of the JPC’s efforts to work cooperatively among all three higher education systems in support of California agriculture. The steps taken over the past year by the Advisory Board and JPC have led up to this point. Mark Burrell reviewed those steps briefly:

2. Major Progress in Articulation: After his review, Mark asked Reg Gomes to provide the JPC’s perspective on the day’s meeting in the context of the past year. Reg took some time to step back amd review another very important accomplishment for agriculture and higher education, achieved over the past year with the support and encouragement of the JPC members and their agricultural deans. That is the tremendous and substantial progress made in the articulation of agriculture programs among all three systems of higher education.

This progress has been made under the auspices of the statewide articulation grant program being administered by Mark Bender, dean of agriculture at Modesto JC. Through this program, funded by the Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, agreements have been reached among all the community colleges offering agriculture courses on sets of course outlines in five major areas of agriculture: plant science, animal science, agricultural business, environmental horticulture, and mechanized agriculture. These agreements mean that, if a community college adopts these course outlines in their agriculture programs, those agriculture courses will be automatically and fully credited to students who transfer to any other community college who has also adopted the same course outlines. This statewide agreement provides a clear incentive for community college agriculture programs to adopt these course outlines, since it makes it more attractive for students to take their agriculture courses.

Beyond the monumental step of achieving agreement among the 60+ community colleges who offer agriculture courses, these agreements in large part have been extended to both the CSU and UC schools that offer undergraduate agriculture programs. The JPC made articulation the top priority of its Committee on Cooperation in Education, which is made up of the agriculture deans of the JPC schools, and this is where the JPC’s influence has had its effect. In meetings with the deans and articulation officers at the various CSU and UC schools, the community college articulation grant group received unprecedented cooperation and achieved agreements on the majority of the course outlines they presented for articulation purposes. This means that, once these agreements are ratified by the UC and CSU hierarchies, students will find a much greater ease of transfer without loss of credit for agriculture courses.

Reg reported this in summary fashion, based on the report given by Mark Bender at the April 1 JPC meeting. The JPC had asked Mark to report this directly to the Advisory Board at their next meeting, but he had an unavoidable conflict that prevented his attendance. A full presentation by Mark Bender of the progress made in articulation is therefore planned for the next Advisory Board meeting this fall.

3. Recommending an Issue to the JPC: The members present grappled with the enormity and difficulty of whittling down to one, two or three the dozens of both broad and specific issues identified in the four issue papers. Some members wanted more guidance from the JPC to accomplish this. Reg reiterated the criteria identified by the JPC which would serve as the basis for ultimately selecting an issue:

A Model Question

In the end, the members present embraced their role as an advisory board in this fashion. They tentatively proposed that addressing the following question could serve as a model for the kinds of projects the JPC may address in the future:

The group’s discussion made apparent that this issue has the following advantages relative to the JPC’s stated criteria and other pertinent factors:

Mark Burrell proposed to create a small sub-committee of advisory board members and others to prepare a written proposal for the consideration of the JPC and the Advisory Board at a proposed joint meeting of the two groups this fall. Bill Allewelt agreed to participate in the group, and Dr. Trevor Suslow, a Cooperative Extension Specialist and member of the JPC Food Safety Issue Paper Group also agreed to participate.

4. Brief Review of the JPC Conference: The inaugural JPC conference was briefly and positively reviewed by the members present. Glowing praise was offered regarding the thought put into the program, the quality of the speakers, the coherence of the event, and its value for the JPC in terms of establishing its profile. It was remarked by the advisory board members that they were impressed and pleased by the turnout of JPC leaders at the conference. The only negative reflections were reserved for the fact that the room in which the conference was held was too small to accomodate the overflow crowd in the morning, and that therefore, the JPC lost the chance for its conference to have an even greater impact.

During peak attendance, 84 people were crammed into a room that seated 60, and more than a few attempted to listen from outside but eventually left. The conference was assigned to a small room due to the low pre-registration numbers; since many JPC Conference attendees registered using the Great Valley Conference forms, it was impossible to determine how many intended to attended our event as well. It was agreed that an adjustment will have to be made in the registration procedure if the JPC continues to hold their conference in conjunction with the Great Valley Center in the future.

Upon reflection and discussion of the value of holding the event in conjunction with the GVC, the group agreed that the benefits far outstripped the negatives associated with it. They recommended that the JPC continue to hold the event in conjunction with the Great Valley Center, which is something that Great Valley Center President Carol Whiteside has already offered.

5. Business Items/Next Meeting: The group agreed that it would be useful to have a joint meeting of the JPC and the JPC Advisory Board this fall to consider the proposed model question and issue referenced in number 3 above. John Gutierrez will consult with the JPC members to try to find a date agreeable to the majority sometime early this fall, September or October.

Upon the election of Gray Davis, Richard Wilson resigned as director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and therefore chose to resign from the Advisory Board. Bob Vice decided to give way to an active Farm Bureau leader in Doug Mosebar, who is now on the advisory board. With complements and words of encouragement for the JPC, Mike Fitch elected to more fully enter into retirement by stepping down from his seat as an advisory board member prior to this meeting. The JPC therefore will be considering candidates to fill vacancies on the advisory board, and as usual, welcomes the input of current members.