PACE Dialogue Session – UCDavis, February 20, 2013 – Room # 4

These are the raw notes, representing the sequence of the conversation. Comments cross-over key topics.

ACTION ITEMS

  • Align merit and promotion evaluation with land-grant mission expectations
  • Training for new hires, linked to mentorship. Both formal/informal. On topics including: informal rules and practices between advisors/specialists/AES faculty, MyTravel, etc.
  • Engaged Scholarship- learn and implement so that
  • Work has relevance to particular place/clientele
  • Research is applied to that group
  • Provide an update on where we are with the issue of equivalent status
  • *Fund workgroups like before
  • Better explain/define Strategic Initiatives’ justification, purpose and how it provides financial security
  • *Establishmentor program w/ established protocol and assigned mentors (don’t leave Advisors to look for their own mentors)
  • Equity review for new specialists (off campus)

CLIENTELE

  • Private extenders (e.g. PCAs)
  • Changed from Farm Adv. to deliverables from grants
  • Was who contacted me and asked for help  now depends on grant that funds work
  • NSF grantsdefine clientele
  • Can be farm adv.; whoever needs help
  • Two-way “clientele”- I learn from everyone
  • Clientele is the extension component= farm advisors/processors/industry
  • Clientele was defined in position description: mine is youth
  • Beekeepers + govt. agencies (CDFA, EPA, etc.) + Farm Advisor [they are a priority]
  • Public that you serve (policy makers, funding agencies, mission based)
  • Not trained for this though: how do we create common messages
  • Vacuum when new hires don’t do what’s expected and instead work on grant-funded work
  • Landowners, land managers, policy makers but define broadly
  • Specialists: Farm Advisors ask questions; notify of trials/on-going research; be good to work with [Specialists do view Farm Advisors as someone to work w/ plusFarm Advisors need to work well w/Specialists)
  • Early focused networking/training needed
  • Find common interests to find people to work with – Specialists affiliated more w/ dept?
  • Specialists in dept. is better for network/continuum from faculty point of view
  • Some feel broke network
  • Clientele evolves over time
  • Advancement expectations
  • Who determines? Who clientele is isnot evaluated
  • Value of work less than funding driven/advancement expectations (publications vs. client calls)
  • Extension not valued for merit/promotion as Specialist
  • Rewards are vague vs. mission
  • Need recognition beyond publications
  • No Advisor input
  • Not always what you got into it for
  • Extension is valued
  • Pulled many ways, larger areas covered
  • Less of us to do things, esp. to keep connections w/ clientele, need to replace lost positions
  • Graduate students
  • Growers [think of as part of continuum]
  • Continuum important for addressing clientele
  • No continuum for some
  • Communication very important for clientele
  • Communication in continuum so everyone is aware of it

ROLES AND RELATIONSHIPS

  • CA very different from other states – Farm Advisors like Specialists – Specialists like faculty
  • Farm Advisors are expected to do lots – that’s okay
  • Shrinking numbers so this is what is being done (i.e., Farm advisors becoming “Specialists”)
  • Roles are changing = this is good
  • If vacuum (no person or expertise there) may be filled by others in different roles
  • Be proud of UC extension program
  • Advisors get good and not good responses from faculty. What contributes?
  • Distance to interact
  • Do you have funding?
  • Time to cultivate relationship
  • For faculty, Advisors out in the field have contacts to help develop research, different expertise to draw upon, very collaborative
  • Number of faculty that function like Specialists
  • New faculty hires: their specialty doesn’t match Advisor needs/scale of experience too big
  • New hire focus too broad for working with Advisors
  • Advisors contact UC faculty at non-land grant Universities but they don’t know who UCCE or ANR is

Ideal roles?

  • Blur betweenFaculty and Specialists in some departments (but depends on the department)
  • Way to recognize Specialist activities needs to be better defined
  • Connect research w/ outreach
  • Education
  • Know this when hiring
  • Farm Advisors: know what’s going on/trends
  • Faculty: keep up w/ technology (more intense)
  • Specialists: informed on general field through meetings; reading journal articles
  • No back and forth between Specialists and Faculty in merit review. Who votes on merit in each Department? Is it consistent? Academic Federation vs. Senate?
  • Faculty respect extension
  • Hierarchy/structure may be driving a wedge between – need to be informed
  • Specialists are the bridge between basic vs. applied questions
  • Concern over department changes to appointments and how it will impact what gets done/how things are valued

COLLABORATION

  • Mentorship to increase collaboration
  • Bring back workgroups
  • Don’t like initiatives, program teams
  • Program areas don’t fall into initiatives
  • Cross-pollination not happening under, in it
  • Collaboration happening on blogs, but is it rewarded?
  • Pay scale differences when pool is equivalent and work done is similar
  • Would need PhD min. requirement
  • But regional responsibility so maybe necessary to do
  • Those that work w/ volunteer programs will have to coordinate too large a group – some Master GardenerCoordinators are 4H Coordinators too
  • Increase in responsibilitiesare increased barriers to collaboration
  • May increase collaboration though by asking others for help
  • Hire people w/collaboration in mind and hire where new person is not alone so opportunitiesfor collaboration
  • w/multi-county hiring: consider the person’s personality to do more
  • Internal grants foster collaboration

PROGRAM PLANNING

  • Grant proposal work will get done by business unit how? Mechanism to process grants needs to get better
  • need mechanism also apart from campus
  • Bring back workgroups – use funding from initiative
  • What is the goal/outcome of the initiatives –need to better define purpose
  • Big ANR meeting stifles open dialogue and academic freedom
  • Not comfortable w/ idea that Initiativespurpose was to leverage money to find more money
  • Top down decisions but instead should be more/continuous involvement from those doing the work
  • No clear way for Specialists/Farm Advisors to help harness industry opportunities to fund/fill ANR/campus positions
  • There is a disconnect between leadership and scientists to build collaborationand program planning – lack of communication, dialogue, listening
  • What will change with new president/will we have to do this again?
  • No mentor at first hire – some have, some don’t
  • Have to actively pursue money for mentorship (need to ask, but in order to ask, need to know funds exist)
  • No set mentor protocol – assign people because it can be too hard to find a mentor on your own
  • New Advisor/Specialist manual
  • Bring back internship program with Farm Advisors (e.g.,Almond Board funded pomologist)
  • Specialists on campus importantfor collaboration – weakness network (known issue)
  • Specialists can’t hire post doc or have grad student when not on campus
  • Can’t do normal process (e.g., equipment)
  • How will they be evaluated?
  • Lack of clarity with job description level to candidates
  • How will non-campus Specialists function?
  • Why is this necessary? It creates more separation within the network/continuum
  • Response to what leadership heard from counties (to have non-campus specialists)
  • Affiliation with campus doesn’t mean physical location has to be on campus
  • It is more work (attending meetings, collaboration, teaching)
  • How has position description for Specialists change over time? Campus doesn’t see position description when hiring; need more communication between ANR and campus on prioritizing positions and development of position descriptions.
  • Support and develop a process for getting new field stations

MEETING EVALUATION

What Worked Well?
+ / What Would Make It Better?
++
Great job facilitating / Breakfast - don’t say you’ll do something and then don’t
Mix of attendees in groups good / More time on front end to go through day/agenda/charge
Small groups worked well / Give out pie charts/stats to groups
Good to hear about Specialist issues as Farm Advisors/different perspectives / Not sure on goals of meeting
Very positive group / In this room weighted with specialist and faculty
Lots of farm, less 4H- mix was off balance
Give out the agenda ahead of time
Two recorders

1