Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

Ruth Borger called the meeting to order shortly after 6:30 p.m. Friday evening. By consensus, the group decided to adjust the agenda: On Friday evening, the group would have a brief discussion on all four of the project's objectives. On Saturday, the group would review those objectives in more detail, adjust annual milestones to reach those objectives, and review expected outcomes and impacts. This is Year 2 of the five-year project. Year 3 begins. Oct. 1, 2013. Objective One: Increase the capacity of land-grant institutions to successfully implement a strategic issue management approach to relationship management and communications programming. Jason Ellis led this discussion for the research team (consisting of Ellis, Katie Abrams, Abigail Borron, and Mark Tucker). During the past year, the research team conducted a survey of ag communication heads to assess the current state of practice of Issues Management. They presented preliminary results at the Association of Communications Excellence (ACE) conference in Annapolis, MD, in June. They also submitted a proposal to present at the 2013 Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists (SAAS) conference; however, that proposal was not accepted. The research team is reviewing the paper for possible revisions and will submit it as a journal article to the Journal of Applied Communications. Ellis shared the original paper with the group (the paper was emailed to the group on Tuesday, 2/5/12) and agreed to present major findings from the survey on Saturday morning. In the coming year, the research team plans to conduct in-depth interviews at institutions currently practicing issues management. Questions raised: 1) Could NCERA 223 support this work monetarily? Kris Boone noted that the only funding funneled through the NCERA system is to support travel, adding that many multi-state groups use that time together to write proposals. However, our group still has about $7,500 from a $10,000 in funding from Iowa State University. The group generally supported the idea of using this money to fund proposals. 2) Would it be beneficial to set up a peer-review process for research within the committee? Boone responded that the benefits of such a system would depend on each university's promotion and tenure standards -- whether such a peer review process would be seen as legitimate by the institution. Objective Two: Increase the number of land-grant institutions implementing research-based issues management programs and creating best practices for issues management. Some of the milestones under this objective overlap with Objective 1: The survey is done. The team can expand on the earlier work of Mark Tucker and Inez Ponce de Leon ("Advancing the Land-Grant Mission through Responsible Issues Management," published in the proceedings available to download at http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/bookstore/Item.aspx?catId=594&pubId=14720) to assess the current body of knowledge and expand the lit review on issues management. The research team will establish a research agenda for the coming year stemming from Saturday's discussion. Question raised: Elaine Edwards asked how best to measure the success of this objective (increasing the number of institutions practicing issues management). Objective Three: Enhance institutional communication capacity and the capacity to address problems/potential problems through an issues management approach at land grant institutions. Faith Peppers reported that the training is completed but the file is too big to send to everyone -- it needs to be stripped down. In addition, Peppers submitted a proposal to have an after-conference train-the-trainer workshop immediately following the ACE meeting in Indianapolis in June. Also, the Southern Region's Program Leadership Network (PLN) meets in August. It's a joint meeting with the Association of Extension Administrators (AEA -- 1890s administrators) and the Association of Southern Rural Extension Directors (ASRED), and would be a good opportunity to offer training in issues management. Objective Four: Increase the speed and effectiveness of land grant communicators when reacting to national issues impacting land grant institutions. Beth Forbes led a discussion on what we've done so far. We have made informal connections especially through emails within this NCERA group when issues arise in our states. We have attempted to use the eXtension Community of Practice in the past but we found the system cumbersome, and it is more open than what this group feels comfortable with. (Note: More discussion on this objective on Saturday resulted in decision to move forward with a LinkedIn group on Issues Management) Saturday, Feb. 2, 2013 Jason Ellis reported on the communications heads survey results. (For more details, see An Exploratory Study of Issues Management in the Land-Grant System: Current Practices, Perceived Effectiveness, and Next Steps," emailed to team on Tuesday, Feb. 5.) In summary, Ellis reported the survey was sent to 103 ag communications heads and administrators representing; only 22 completed the survey. Of those 22, 17 said they advised deans or administrators on issues facing the college of institution. Survey results are based on those 17 responses. Of the 17 responses: -- 12 regularly use issues scanning techniques; 9 regularly use issues identification techniques; more than half use priority-setting; less than half conduct trend monitoring or trend analysis -- 76 percent felt the methods used by their institution were effective or very effective, while only 23 percent felt methods used by the land-grant system were effective or very effective. -- Top issues that land-grants are facing were (in order of frequency): 1. environment and ag conditions: water, drought, invasive species, fertilizer use, fracking 2. funding: funding priorities, threat of budget cuts, higher ed support, unpaid bills 3. food ethics and debates: animal welfare, food safety, GMOs 4. human heath: general health, child's health, obesity 5. institutions' relevance: effectiveness of land-grant universities, impact and documentation of our work, faculty retention, stakeholder support, public trust, tuition 6. university administration practices: adminstrative structure, staff training, public/private partners -- When asked how issues management could be improved, 94 percent said proactive orientation (not reactive approach); 76 percent said training of communications staff; 65 percent said to increase involvement of deans/other administrators; 65 percent said more research on issues; 59 percent said increased involvement of public and extension stakeholders On ways to further Issues Management efforts, 15 of the 17 said they needed more information and convenient access to information on effective issues management in higher ed, including: 1. activities or methods to be more proactive, such as how to do issues scanning and identification or messaging of salient points 2. Lists of LGU priority issues 3. A plan template 4. A checklist of necessary IM activities Boone suggested that these last ideas are selling points for the training that we offer. Peppers said the training already includes everything above except for a plan template, and the trainers will add that. Boone asked to include ideas on how to institutionalize IM efforts so they are part of the workday, and how administrators delegate IM responsibilities. Ellis asked for ideas about what researchers needed to ask in qualitative interviews. The group suggested: -- What information do you get from other universities that helps you in issues management? -- How could the LGU system improve IM? -- What kind of training do we need to offer communications staff? -- What qualities should administrators look for when hiring new staff? -- Learn more about relationship of communicators with ag college administration and how university communicators and administration fit in -- For institutions that are already doing IM and doing it well, ask for techniques they use. (Peppers shared that at University of Georgia, when issues arise she puts a team together that normally includes both the state and county level; most communication is online; when meetings occur, they are short -- 30 minutes -- and efficient. She gathered information about impact of first two teams and put together a poster presentation for statewide conference -- helped spread the word about issues teams and showed value so others would be willing to join teams as other issues arise). Forbes suggested that other states are doing issues management but not labeling it as such. For example, she has put together four teams in the past year to deal with issues such as drought, but didn't label them as "issues teams." Doing so would be a good way to link the different teams and help team members understand they are following the same types of strategies. After this discussion, the group went through each objective's milestones on a year-to-year basis. That is, we focused on each year of the project, beginning with this year (Year 2) to revise milestones. New milestones are below. Milestones: Year 2: Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2013 Objectives and original milestones were: Year 2, Objective One: Increase the capacity of land-grant institutions to successfully implement a strategic issue management approach to relationship management and communications programming. 1. Review Issues Management literature to establish lexicon; annotated bibliography; FAQ on language 2. Assess the current state of practice: Who is doing it and what does it look like; IRB approval Progress: 1. The literature review is done. After discussion, we did not see the value in the annotated bibliography and will drop that from our list. We need an FAQ on IM language. Virginia White will lead that effort. 2. We have assessed the current state of practice by doing the survey. Year 2, Objective Two: Increase the number of land-grant institutions implementing research-based issues management programs and creating best practices for issues management 1. Develop the methodology for the survey of land grant institutions to assess issues management capacity and conduct an environmental scan 2. Assess body of knowledge and expand literature review 3. Establish a research agenda 4. Conduct Meta analysis of case studies 5. Identify the best practices existing in other disciplines Progress: 1. Done. 2. We have assessed the body of knowledge (see research paper); we want to update the literature review. 3. The research team will establish the research agenda based on the discussion at this meeting. 4. We have already collected some case studies in past years (Filipic sent to Abrams for assessment); we will move meta analysis to a future year. 5. We have explored best practices in private industry and fount them wanting (not unbiased; related to image improvement) New milestones: conduct qualitative interviews (research team); collect additional case studies (Abrams). Year 2, Objective Three: Enhance institutional communication capacity and the capacity to address problems/potential problems through an issues management approach at land grant institutions. Year 2: 1. Use trainings/workshops already in system 2. Design and issue management professional development curriculum for administrators, communicators, media [talk with national media about major issues] 3. Collaborate with SAAS to present professional development track on Issue Management either in general session 4. Continue involvement with 1890 and 1994 institutions. Progress: 1. We have been utilizing trainings/workshops in system; adapting them as we gain more information on IM in the land-grant system. 2. Curriculum is being developed to share with communicators at workshop immediately following ACE meeting in June. Developing curriculum specifically for media is beyond the scope of this project, but will change wording to "others as identified by institution." 3. Proposal was made but not accepted; has been proposed and accepted at ACE in June, and will be proposed to PLN in southern Region. 4. Have not been successful in involving 1890 and 1994 institutions within this group. In years 3, 4 and 5, will offer trainings to 1890s and 1994s. Year 2, Objective Four: Increase the speed and effectiveness of land grant communicators when reacting to national issues impacting land grant institutions 1. Use trainings/workshops already in system 2. Design an issue management professional development curriculum for administrators, communicators, media [talk with national media about major issues] 3. Collaborate with SAAS to present professional development track on Issue Management either in general session 4. Continue involvement with 1890 and 1994 institutions. Progress: See Objective 3 for accomplishments on these milestones. For this objective, we will add a milestone to establish a network by forming a Linked in group as a way of establishing formal networking. In addition, Boone has formed an North Central Administrative Committee (NCAC) through the NIMSS system for agricultural communications administrators. Milestones: Year 3: Oct. 1, 2013 to Sept. 30, 2014 Year 3, Objective One: Increase the capacity of land-grant institutions to successfully implement a strategic issue management approach to relationship management and communications programming. 1. Publish white paper on current state of issues management and how it will benefit your institution Peppers will lead this effort. We believe it's a good idea to have a white paper, as it is a traditional academic output. It could include a project update, and possibly get published in JAC or JOE. It is possible we will see a need for additional white papers in years 4 and 5; that will be determined in year 3. This helps us reach our impact/outcome goal by raising awareness and spreading the word about IM in LGUs. Year 3, Objective Two: Increase the number of land-grant institutions implementing research-based issues management programs and creating best practices for issues management 1. Collect, analyze and report land grant survey data 2. Continue scan of tools already in use or under development 3. Start development of best practices 4. Identify research needs (hypothesis driven) 5. Identify areas where we should have best practices and/or need best practices Progress/update: 1. This has been done in year 2. 2. We have determined this is not necessary. 3. We are developing some best practices in year 2; in year 3, we will review and update if needed. 4. We will review and possibly update research needs. 5. We determined this no longer fits our goals/objectives. It is not a priority. Year 3, Objective Three: Enhance institutional communication capacity and the capacity to address problems/potential problems through an issues management approach at land grant institutions. 1. Continue professional development system Progress/update: 1. We will do so by providing more face-to-face training as needed; establish a strategy for delivering training via distance education; possibly identify professionals to provide instructional design assistance; and design a C&A Award category in IM in ACE. Year 3, Objective Four: Increase the speed and effectiveness of land grant communicators when reacting to national issues impacting land grant institutions 1. Continue network building and rapid response system 2. Offer training to 1890s and 1994s 3. Develop marketing strategy for training materials. Milestones: Year 4: Oct. 1, 2014 to Sept. 30, 2015 Year 4, Objective One: Increase the capacity of land-grant institutions to successfully implement a strategic issue management approach to relationship management and communications programming. 1. Evaluate land grant system, looking for impact of issues management process; identify universities who are using issues management and those who are not Update: This makes more sense to do in the final year of the project, year 5. Instead, we will develop white papers, depending on determination in year 3. Year 4, Objective Two: Increase the number of land-grant institutions implementing research-based issues management programs and creating best practices for issues management 1. Establish and pilot best practices Update: Will modify this objective to: Establish and showcase best practices through presentations, publications. Year 4, Objective Three: Enhance institutional communication capacity and the capacity to address problems/potential problems through an issues management approach at land grant institutions. 1. Continue professional development system Update: Revise this to provide more details of our plans: 2. Assess the demand for an IM Certification Program (academic and/or professional development) 3. Develop application workshop with case studies. 4. Implement C&A IM Award category. 5. Develop the Distance Education strategy. Year 4, Objective Four: Increase the speed and effectiveness of land grant communicators when reacting to national issues impacting land grant institutions 1. Continue network building and rapid response system Update: Revise this to provide more details: 2. Offer training to 1890s and 1994s 3. Launch marketing plan for training and networking. 4. Expand LinkedIn group 5. Request to get on APLU agenda to address administrators Milestones: Year 5: Oct. 1, 2015 to Sept. 30, 2016 Year 5, Objective One: Increase the capacity of land-grant institutions to successfully implement a strategic issue management approach to relationship management and communications programming. 1. Define strategies for change Update: Revise this to say: 1. Prepare summative evaluation to analyze results of project and future needs. 2. Evaluate system, looking for impact of IM Process. Year 5, Objective Two: Increase the number of land-grant institutions implementing research-based issues management programs and creating best practices for issues management 1. Refine and elaborate best practices 2. Publish and disseminate findings Update: 1. add "as needed" to this milestone 2. add: "of the project" Year 5, Objective Three: Enhance institutional communication capacity and the capacity to address problems/potential problems through an issues management approach at land grant institutions. 1. Continue professional development system Update: Revise to: 1. Implement the Distance Education Strategy 2. Act upon findings of needs assessment for IM Certificate Program Year 5, Objective Four: Increase the speed and effectiveness of land grant communicators when reacting to national issues impacting land grant institutions 1. Continue network building and rapid response system Add: Offer training to 1890s and 1994s Expected Outcomes and Impacts We made some substantive changes to this section of the document. It now reads: Outcome 1. Institutionalizing a culture of strategic issue management a. Increased capacity for administrators, communicators and others in strategic issue management b. Adoption of issue management programs by institutions c. Promote and conduct empirical research that informs institutional practices and understanding of strategic issues management Outcome 2. Create a national repository and network of expertise on issue management a. Archive of peer-reviewed publications and curricula related to IM in land-grant universities. b. Creation of a vibrant network of professionals interacting on issues management Impact 1: Increased responsiveness to issues facing land-grant institutions Impact 2. Decreased institutional and individual liability for inappropriate response to issues Impact 3. Increased potential for success in launching new issues-based initiatives Impact 4. Retention of autonomy, relevance and influence of land grant institutions and land grant philosophy Impact 6. Reduced issue whiplash and crisis fatigue On our To Do List: Filipic will send the research paper to the group. Filipic will write minutes, update the plan. Edwards and Borger will submit official report Abrams will create Google Drive Peppers will put training materials in Google Drive Filipic will create Linked In group Gould and White will submit proposal to present at PLN and AEA Ellis and research team will conduct qualitative interviews White will develop FAQs on IM language drawing on previous work of research team Research team will update the lit review Ellis will lead effort to set research agenda Abrams will collect case studies Boone will discuss IM with NCAC for agricultural communicators Edwards and Boone will talk with Chris Hamilton about team Impact Statement due by Dec. 15; will draft and discuss with team by summer 2013. Moving forward: The team had a brief discussion of what works for us as a team, including: Having deadlines. Leadership. Followup. Shared responsibility -- everyone has a task. Engagement of participants. Consistent communications (including regular meetings and email communications). Time devoted to collaborate and work. New ideas include possibly having face-to-face meetings electronically over Skype, Google Hangout, or Adobe Connect. In the future, we'll organize our agenda for monthly meetings by objective. Meetings set for first Wednesday of the month at 1:30 p.m. Eastern/12:30 p.m. Central. Chairmanship was passed from Ruth Borger to Elaine Edwards. Martha Filipic remains as secretary. Meeting adjourned shortly before 4 p.m. on Saturday, Feb. 2, 2013.

Accomplishments: Outputs: The research team conducted a survey of agricultural communication heads to assess the current state of practice of Issues Management. Survey results identified the top issues that land-grants are facing (in order of frequency): 1. environment and ag conditions: water, drought, invasive species, fertilizer use, fracking 2. funding: funding priorities, threat of budget cuts, higher ed support, unpaid bills 3. food ethics and debates: animal welfare, food safety, GMOs 4. human heath: general health, child's health, obesity 5. institutions' relevance: effectiveness of land-grant universities, impact and documentation of our work, faculty retention, stakeholder support, public trust, tuition 6. university administration practices: adminstrative structure, staff training, public/private partners (Objectives 1, 2.) Activities: Presented preliminary results at the Association of Communications Excellence (ACE) conference in Annapolis, MD, in June 2012 of the communication head survey. They also submitted a proposal to present at the 2013 Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists (SAAS) conference; however, that proposal was not accepted. (Objectives 1, 2.) Research paper written and under review for publishing: An Exploratory Study of Issues Management in the Land-Grant System: Current Practices, Perceived Effectiveness, and Next Steps, (Borron, Ellis, Tucker and Peppers) (Objectives 1,2) Proposal submitted for an after-conference train-the-trainer workshop immediately following the ACE meeting in Indianapolis in June, 2013. (Objective 3) The group reviewed strategic direction for the project and went through each objective's milestones on a year-to-year basis. That is, we focused on each year of the project, beginning with this year (Year 2) to revise milestones. (All Objectives, 1, 2,3,4 and Milestones)