Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

NCERA Meeting  Minutes Summary Jan. 30-31 2009 Westin Peachtree Plaza Atlanta, Georgia Attending: Marcus Ashlock, Linda Benedict, Kristina Boone, Ruth Borger, Elaine Edwards, Jason Ellis, Martha Filipic, Pat Melgares, Virginia Morgan, Faith Peppers, Joan Thomson, Frances Gould, Mark Tucker, Sonny Ramaswamy, Chris Sigurdson Arriving Jan. 31: Dwayne Cartmell, Traci Naile, Tanner Robertson I. Review Draft of Project Outline and Rationale Reasoning behind broadening the focus of the project from Biosecurity Communication to Issues Management. A discussion ensued with the following points made: " The change was precipitated by a multi-state effort to develop crisis communications plans, during which it became obvious that employing Issues Management could reduce number and severity of crises an institution faces. " Issues Management involves other stakeholders besides college administrators; outside organizations' issues often affect our own institutions. " We could take these plans "upstream" to the university level; Although that is part of the goal, stakeholder issues make the Extension and research institutions in our colleges function different than most issues dealt with at the university level, which mainly focuses on student/academic issues. " The benefits that Issues Management plans could bring to communications staffs. Administrators often turn to communicators during a crisis situation; Issues Management could bring communicators to the table on an ongoing basis and be an inroad to getting administrators' attention, and help institutions take an active role in influencing issues instead of passively allowing issues to gain momentum. " Issues Management can also help our institutions put issues on the agenda that could be beneficial. The current draft of the Statement of Issues and Justification would not grab administrators' attention and suggested that the team spend the afternoon identifying the problem we want to articulate regarding Issues Management and working on a new draft. We need to demonstrate how a multi-state effort in particular brings more value than institutions working on this individually. The description should include long-term goals and partnering with underserved groups, such as 1890 and 1994 institutions. During the following discussion, it was noted that different universities have achieved varying levels of achievement of Issues Management. Literature theorizes that institutions that employ Issues Management will be able to maintain autonomy; create goodwill; and get resources to work on problems. The idea is to get in front of potential problems before they become crises -- not only institutional problems but agricultural and community issues as well. Issues Management is a mature field in public relations, but new to agriculture. We held a brainstorming session to help us articulate the problem/issues. After the brainstorming session, we broke into two groups, one focusing on the Problem and Rationale and the other focusing on Outcomes. Each group wrote a draft and brought it back to the group the next morning. Problem/Rationale: Established a Writing Team that will refine the document, adding information about the gaps in Issues Management research. The Writing Team has 60 days to update information on the NIMSS web site. Outcomes: 1. Institutionalizing a culture of strategic issue management 2. Creation of a national repository and network of expertise on issue management Discussion followed, with suggestions to add outcomes involving: " outreach to the 1890 and 1994 institutions " bridging communications practices with research " how issues management can involve (and benefit) our institution's stakeholders, and to be explicit about assisting our own institutions (internal) and other audiences (external) Updates and action plans from outcome teams The teams established during our May 2008 meeting in Kansas City were asked to present their reports. It was suggested that after this meeting, new teams be formed according to the outcomes/objectives we have created, each with Extension, Research and Academic components. Election of Chair Elect After this meeting, Faith Peppers becomes chair for two years. A motion by Joan Thomson for Ruth Borger to become chair-elect was seconded, and Borger was elected by unanimous consent. Objectives 1) Create a culture of strategic issues management within our institutions. 2) To link current research into the development of best communication practices for land grant institutions 3) To enhance institutional communication capacity at land grant institutions Each objective has a team. Teams met individually then reported back to the group on plans for Procedures and Activities.