|
Planning for IPM Symposium VTransition Committee Conference Call
|
Tom Green, Ed Rajotte, Frank Zalom, Jim VanKirk, Pete Goodell, Sue Ratcliffe, Tom Rabaey, Elaine Wolff, Rick Meyers (for Mike Fitzner, Eldon Ortman and Bob Nowierski)
Keep them in mind as we plan the next meeting - Jim VanKirk to follow-up with Hoffmann and Stinner re posting bar charts on symposium website
Income to date is $167,000 with an additional $71,667 expected from NIFA/ARS/APHIS/EPA/SARE. Expenses to date are $166,848.30 leaving a current balance of $151.70. Once the additional income is received, carryover funds should be $71,818.70.
Travel expenses including rooms $35,036
Conferences and Institutes administrative fee $16,000
Marketing including giveaways $6,291
Food and beverages $71,074
Administrative including C&I travel, registration materials, staffing $14,868
Other instructional including program printing, AV, facilities $23,579
We will have over $71,818.70 to carry forward once all checks are in.
Have not received checks from SARE or the ãunified fundä managed by NIFA but are confident their arrival is imminent.
We’ll use the grant funds (NIFA, SARE, EPA, etc.) to pay off bills, use excess registration fees as carryover. Thus no concern about termination dates.
For now, funds will stay in Univ. of Ill. non-interest producing account, loss of potential $4,000 to $6,000 in interest. Some discussion of which is safer in the long term ö interest-bearing land grant univ. account, account with IPM Institute, or other. Some concern that any LGU account might be subject to admin fees to help out in budget crunch. Tom Green, Sue Ratcliffe and Elaine Wolff will investigate prior to the next call
Consensus that we should use a similar committee structure the next time around. Establishment of the new steering committee is now our paramount job.
Sue R. will develop a draft invitation to participate and share it within the next week. Transition committee members will have short period to comment on the draft, Sue will amend as necessary, share the amended version for a very short response period. It will be sent out to all lists we have including Symposium attendees, who will have 2 weeks to respond.
Transition committee to discuss and choose steering committee members from the resulting volunteers. Likely will establish some ideal composition guidelines to ensure adequate representation from research, extension, government, industry, ngos, all disciplines, ag IPM, community IPM, etc. Sue will include this goal/description in the email invite.
Items eventually tabled as more appropriate for steering committee:
Some discussion about importance of establishing balance among research, extension, other stakeholders. Though Indy meeting targeted just who we wanted, some sentiment to increase the research component. Concern that this increase be done in a way that enhances interaction of researchers with all other stakeholders.
Discussion surrounding paid professional help. Consensus that Elaine or someone like her should be hired to manage the administrative issues. Another person might be hired to coordinate or help coordinate the program issues, acting as an admin asst to the co-chairs. Discussion of role of IPM Centers in this regard. Once steering committee leadership established, resources should be assessed and this issue addressed.
Role of IPM Centers in leading/planning next symposium, need for steering committee to select leadership.
Success of Indy symp. program in part due to ground-up approach of building the program. This has to be balanced with the competing concern of too many concurrent sessions forcing painful participant scheduling choices.
Decision that next symposium should be held in Spring 2006, specific date and place to be determined by new steering committee, new site-selection committee, etc. Local arrangements volunteer is important but perhaps not as much so as for Indy symp.
No objections to timeline provided
At 2.5 years out from Spring Î06, we should hustle to firm up location and date to maximize our options, e.g. San Antonio was a favorite for ‘03, but hotel weren’t available.
Thanks to all who participated ö it’s a tremendous benefit to be moving ahead with the collective experience from ‘03, contact lists, residual funds and good will/eager future participant pool created by the ‘03 success.
This page developed and managed by the National Integrated Pest Management Centers.
contact Jim VanKirk with questions,
additions, etc.
Integrated Pest Management Centers are sponsored by the United States Department
of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service.