Members in attendance: Ben Barstow, Bob Berger, Bill Green, Andy Jensen, Joel Kangiser, Chuck Masters, Doug Muse, Brian Sakuma, Herb Teas, Kurt Volker, Doug Walsh, Tedd Wildman

Staff in attendance: Donna Gorham, Tracy Olberding, Alan Schreiber

Guests: John Brown, WSU, Don Holbrook, WSU, Art Linton, WSU, Richard McCartan, Assistant Attorney General, Kim Patten, WSU

Chair Doug Muse called the meeting to order at 10:15 a.m.

Commissioners, staff and guests introduced themselves.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Chair Muse called for public comment. There were no comments.

MINUTES
Chair Muse asked for comments and corrections to the proposed minutes from the July 11, 2001 meeting. Andy Jensen noted on page four paragraph one ELISA is misspelled, on page five paragraph five Cavalieri is misspelled, on page five paragraph six sentence eight is unclear, on page seven paragraph four sentence one the word reminder should read remainder. Schreiber responded page five paragraph six sentence eight expresses two thoughts: one being how closely the Commission should follow the more intricate financial procedures and the other being WSU staff had identified irregularities in spending money outside of the approved time frame. Schreiber agreed to correct the sentence. Art Linton noted page six paragraph three sentence three should read the Center on Sustainable Agriculture instead of the Commission on Sustaining Agriculture.

Chair Muse asked for comments and corrections to the minutes from the August 16, 2001 Executive Committee Teleconference. No changes were noted.

FINANCIAL REPORT
Administrator Schreiber presented the financial report noting Tucson Smith is the new Fiscal Specialist at WSU for the Commission. Schreiber asked Don Holbrook how long Tucson had worked at WSU. Holbrook replied seventeen to eighteen years. Schreiber stated he was pleased with Tucson's work and he was quickly coming up to speed on Commission business. Schreiber noted financial reports are usually provided by the 10th of each month and this month's report arrived the afternoon of the 18th. Schreiber noted total encumbered overhead funds equal $183,608, forward allocated funds equal $249,005, leaving a total of $567,386.19 left to spend on projects this fiscal year. Schreiber reminded Commissioners a total of $846,000 was previously encumbered but has not been spent. Herb Teas questioned the change in dollar amounts from the last meeting. Schreiber noted the previous report showed $173,572.16 forward allocated, a difference of approximately $76,000. Schreiber asked Don Holbrook if WSU policy still advocated forward allocation. Holbrook replied his understanding was to meet proviso, Carol Pinch was not available during the meeting, and he would follow up on this. Schreiber asked Holbrook to ask about the difference in dollars, this was a large change with no money spent since the last meeting. Holbrook noted Sandy Christian did not spend much time training on the reports. Holbrook stated their goal is to provide meaningful information and if a different format is needed, he would be happy to change the reports. Schreiber noted the current report is a big improvement over what was used last. Schreiber continued based on the July meeting report, $826,000 was available for allocation or 17.3%. Schreiber noted he could not explain the difference in the numbers and funds were available to fund the one proposal before the Commission. Schreiber stated he would have an answer about the discrepancy by the November meeting. Herb Teas suggested the Executive Committee meet to develop a format for the financial reports.

Chair Muse turned the meeting over to Vice Chair Herb Teas and excused himself.

ADMINISTRATORS REPORT
Schreiber directed Commissioner's attention to copies of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) pertaining to the WSCPR. Schreiber read RCW 15.92.105 Report on Activities. Schreiber noted he was excited about what the Commission has done and was looking forward to releasing information on our results thus far. There have been dozens of registrations. Ann George asked Schreiber to include an agenda item to develop a time line for the report to the legislature. Schreiber showed Commissioners copies of the last three progress reports. Schreiber asked Commissioners if the legislative report should be similar to previous progress reports or if a more detailed report should be developed. Bill Green recommended using both formats, a glossy public version and a detailed document for legislators. Herb Teas asked who would look at the detail. Green replied legislative staff would be interested in the detail. Schreiber suggested starting a year in advance to develop the report.

Doug Walsh suggested creating an electronic version in .pdf format and link the report to the Commission website. Chair Muse asked who should be involved in developing the reports. Schreiber noted a motion is on the table for the overall structure and suggested a subcommittee be formed to develop the format. Schreiber stated he would provide an outline on report content.

Herb Teas requested Schreiber come up with an outline to present at the next meeting if time permits or no later than March 2002. John Brown emphasized how important it is to make a report and noted the Office of Fiscal Management develops the budget in late fall and the report is not due until December 15. Brown asked if the Commission should take the budget process into consideration. Schreiber said the report should show the Commission is doing a good job and should review the past five years.

Art Linton suggested Schreiber visit Rep. Gary Chandler and ask what he wants included in the report. Schreiber noted he had talked to Rep. Chandler and his response was that he did not want to see a detailed report but preferred an executive summary. Linton recommended the report focus on content not political aspects. Schreiber noted Rep. Chandler is expecting a glossy report but there is merit for a detailed report.

Administrator Schreiber provided Commissioners with an update on open and expiring Commissioner terms. Three Commissioners' terms are expiring; Bob Berger and Herb Teas are staying on and Tedd Wildman is rotating off the Commission. The Food Processors position is still open. Schreiber noted he expects to have two new Commissioners by the next Commission meeting.

Schreiber informed Commissioners a new web master had been lined up, and a new web page should be up and running by the next Commission meeting.

Chair Muse returned to the meeting .

Schreiber noted an issue from the previous meeting requires continued discussion; the issue is to improve the Commission presence in Olympia. Schreiber noted several options are available; to pay someone to put forth an effort for the Commission, ask commodity groups represented by Commissioners to include information about the Commission with their legislative contacts or to have individual Commissioners contact legislators. Chair Muse asked Ben Barstow how easy it would be to include information about the Commission in legislative contacts. Barstow responded the wheat growers visit Olympia about once a year and information on the Commission could probably be worked into the presentation. Doug Walsh suggested inviting more urban legislator on the Tour. Schreiber noted the timing of the tour this year conflicted with the wheat tour and the legislature was still in session, both of which affected Tour attendance. Kurt Volker said he did not feel it was the Commissions responsibility to work with lobbyists, that Commissioners should be talking to legislators and commodity groups. Volker stated he was not comfortable spending money to support a lobbyist. Volker suggested getting invitations to the Tour to legislators in advance and delivering the invitation in person to get legislators to commit to attend the Tour. Volker noted more legislative participation in the Tour is needed, especially by those legislators not familiar with agriculture whether they are power brokers or not.

Chair Muse asked Commissioners about participation in the Ag Presidents group, this group has a large contact base with Olympia. Muse noted the Commission has not taken part in this organization. Schreiber noted he has attended three or four meeting in the last six years. Tedd Wildman said he had attended in the past representing wine and as chair of the Commission. Wildman noted this is a good opportunity for representation. Chuck Masters said he likes the idea of using the various groups for getting the message out. Masters said a perception exists that pesticide use is critical to agriculture and wondered how much non-agriculture legislators understand the role of the Commission. Masters continued the WSCPR is viewed by some people as a group who just want to register more pesticides, instead, the Commission has, in large part, come up with IPM practices and more friendly approaches to pest control. Masters said it is important to convey the role the Commission plays is a valuable tool to agriculture. Bryan Sakuma suggested a more personal approach by identifying individual legislators who have a voice in supporting legislation, spending some one on one time with each of them identifying their constituents specifically affected by this Commission. Bill Green said Commissioners should lobby legislators representing agricultural communities, and it is the agricultural community's responsibility to ensure the Commission continues. Green suggested setting up a workshop between legislative sessions to show what the Commission is doing. Schreiber stated he would attend the Ag Presidents meeting, work with Commissioners that have a presence in Olympia and increase attendance by legislators on the Tour.

Schreiber noted elections would be held for Commission officers at the next Commission meeting. [note added later: Schreiber was incorrect; elections are held in January]

Schreiber updated the Commission on two projects that would be returning money not spent to the Commission. One project was to fund a part time quality assurance person at the FEQL through Carol Wyckoff's office that position was not filled and the $12,000 would be returned. The other project was on clover seed funded for $8,500 from the Commission with $8,000 matching from Cal-West. Bill Whitmer was involved with the project, Cal-West downsized staff and Whitmer's position was eliminated. Whitmer was a good guide on the project and some innovative things were done with growers. Schreiber stated some funding would be returned to the Commission. Kurt Volker asked for clarification whether Cal-West put up matching funds that never came through. Schreiber replied in-kind funding was provided but in-cash funding was not. Volker asked if this happens often. Schreiber noted this was a first time occurrence. Volker commented if Cal-west came forward as a proposal sponsor in the future, to remind them of the fact they did not meet their obligations on the previous project. Schreiber indicated a letter was written to WSU and the project file detailing the situation.

Schreiber noted a potential source of additional funding for proposals had come to his attention. Schreiber received a copy on September 17of a letter dated September 5 from WSDA Director Jim Jesernig indicating two meetings would be held today to determine use and distribution of $10.1 million allocated to Washington State by federal ag assistance legislation recently enacted. One potential use for a portion of these funds is additional funding to WSCPR. Since the meeting was being held today, Schreiber felt he had to act. Before writing the letter he spoke to the Executive Committee, and to some other Commissioners and agricultural leaders. Schreiber read a one-page letter he wrote to Jesernig, requesting $150,000 to help growers of minor, minor crops obtain support from the WSCPR, noting a historical decline in requests for assistance from minor, minor crops and the inability of these smaller groups to generate matching funds. Schreiber noted Paul LaCroix agreed to speak up for WSCPR at the meeting. Schreiber requested guidance from Commissioners on this subject.

Kurt Volker asked if the Commission received $150,000, where would it be applied, what does the mandate allow. Schreiber replied the mandate does allow for this situation, the money would be held by the Department of Ag and released to WSU. Schreiber noted in previous progress reports minor-minor crops proposals have gone from 68% to 54%. Volker commended Schreiber for acting so promptly. Doug Walsh asked what the timeline for allocation was. Schreiber replied he had no idea, but expected it would be a relatively short time. There was a consensus to support the request for matching funds from the WSDA.

PROJECT PROPOSAL
02PN001- Efficacy, and fate and persistence of Arsenal (imazapyr) for control of two diverse aquatic weeds
Request: $9,260.00
Co-funding: $27,612.50
Schreiber introduced Kim Patten, WSU, noting an emergency funding request had been received from Patten. Schreiber noted an emergency request is justified; control of spartina a critical issue, Patten had received permission to do the work very recently and did not want to wait until the November meeting to request funding.

Kim Patten noted in previous years funding was provided by the Commission, progress was being made toward a 24C registration, however, fate and persistence data was lacking. Patten stated in-cash matching had been secured through an IPM mini-grant and BASF was providing in-kind services in analytical chemistry. Patten indicated he would be making an application next week and the week after. Chair Muse asked about the lack of persistence data. Patten responded fate and persistence data in an estuary is not available and ecology makes their evaluation based on estuary data. Patten noted lots of residual data is available. Muse asked what the consequences would be if the applications were not made this fall. Patten responded he would have to wait until next fall and that would delay the 24C another year. Patten noted at the rate Spartina spreads; this is one opportunity for control. Chuck Masters asked if the study design for persistence and fate data was approved by ecology, WSDA, and EPA. Patten replied he had asked over and over what should be included and felt he had everything, noting he added interstitial water to the design. Masters responded he was questioning the design due to application being to one 60 x 100 plot, which seemed weak. Patten agreed the size of plot was limited to one acre. Patten said he would prefer many acres and sites and to utilize aerial application, but he does not have this option. Bill Green suggested this project would be good to include in the legislative report stating the Commission funded research that identified a product to control Spartina. Ben Barstow asked for an explanation on how the weed impacts oyster growers. Patten replied Spartina takes over seedbeds, traps the larvae on the shell in higher water. Patten noted the bigger question is how it changes the nature of the bay. Tedd Wildman noted the impact is enormous. Patten said he is optimistic the research will provide a solution.

Schreiber noted numerous aquatic site projects have been funded by the Commission in the past. Schreiber asked Patten to compare cranberry and Spartina projects. Patten said cranberry research has nationwide support from the Cranberry Institute, Spartina research is supported in Washington State only and Patten is the primary researcher.

DISCUSSION
Doug Walsh asked if a precedent was being set by using IPM Mini-grant monies as co-funding, and wondered if other proposals would use this as co-funding. Teas responded this was fine as long as it was not the same money. Schreiber noted it is harder to identify co-funding money for Spartina research since it is not a crop and no commodity group exists. Teas clarified the source of co-funding does not matter to the Commission. Doug Walsh suggested creating an electronic version in .pdf format and link the report to the Commission website. Chair Muse asked who should be involved in developing the reports. Schreiber noted a motion is on the table for the overall structure and suggested a subcommittee be formed to develop the format. Schreiber stated he would provide an outline on report content.

RESEARCH PRESENTATION
Kim Patten presented Commissioners with an update on cranberry research funded by WSCPR, noting he had received quite a bit of money since the inception of the Commission for various research projects. Research funded has supported several products that are in the registration process; Singer is in efficacy review with EPA, registration is expected in 2003 - 2005, insecticides Confirm and Success are scheduled for EPA review in 2002, fungicides Indar, Abound, and Orbit are also scheduled for EPA review in 2002. Patten's presentation included slides showing control and cleanup with herbicides, fungicide treatments and rate and application schedules. Kurt Volker asked about the future of the cranberry industry if bankruptcies occur. Patten responded the future depends on how well Ocean Spray does in recovering the price of cranberries, noting cranberries have been grown in Willapa Bay since the 1880's. Chair Muse asked about the status of co-funding within the industry. Patten responded Ocean Spray is not providing co-funding, however, there is still a cranberry commodity group that can still provide co-funding.

Chair Muse thanked Dr. Patten for his presentation. Chair Muse adjourned the meeting for lunch at 12:35 pm. The meeting resumed at 1:10 pm.

FISCAL ISSUES
Chair Muse noted a change to the agenda; a discussion on fiscal issues would take place before the discussion on the Letter of Agreement. Administrator Schreiber introduced Don Holbrook, WSU Finance representative. Don Holbrook noted the financial report format has evolved in the past and now was a good time with a new Fiscal Specialist, Tucson Smith, in place to look at different reports and terminology. The financial reports are the Commissions reports and he and Tucson Smith looked at the spreadsheets and plugged in the numbers. Don Holbrook stated the discrepancy noted in the Administrators Financial Report will be interesting to solve and noted the report does balance with WSU's accounts. Holbrook stressed reports could be added or modified, whatever the Commission wants. Schreiber suggested a small committee of Commissioners work with Don to develop a small report that non-accountant types can follow.

Schreiber noted Tour expenses sent to WSU for payment had not been paid. Schreiber also noted the Tour is paid for by different sources; Commission funds, registration fees and sponsorships, which were lower than expected. Schreiber continued WSU disallowed most of the expenses invoiced to WSU for the Tour, even though the Commission authorized funds to pay for these expenses. Schreiber questioned Don Holbrook why, for example, the lunch expenses for the third day of the tour were disallowed. Don Holbrook replied Sandy Christian had stated everything regarding the Tour was supposed to be included in the registration fees when training Tucson Smith. Schreiber replied this was a miscommunication and registration fees are not enough to cover Tour expenses. Schreiber continued in the past the Commission has paid for a fair amount of the Tour and if Commissioner's approve funds to pay for Tour expenses and assuming state guidelines are met, WSU should not put additional rules on the payment. Bill Green asked what rule was used to disallow these expenses. Don Holbrook replied Sandy Christian's verbal instruction to Tucson was registration fees were to cover these expenses. Bill Green commented this was not a rule state agency's follow. Schreiber asked if this was a recent development. Holbrook replied Sandy indicated it was done for some time. Schreiber requested Holbrook look at past Tour expense detail and noted in the past the majority of funds have been paid by the Commission. Holbrook replied he was not trying to be hardnosed and would be happy to check on past Tour payments.

Schreiber asked Holbrook if someone travels on Commission business; for example, attends a meeting leaving at 9:00 am, drives three hours, has lunch and returns, and incurs some expenses, are they entitled to be reimbursed. Holbrook replied the three-hour rule applies, if travel is less than three hours before or after the persons' normal workday, and no reimbursement is granted. However, if the person attends a business lunch and conducts business during lunch and states that on the expense report, then reimbursement can be made. Art Linton asked if this applies to persons not employed by WSU. Bill Green noted the three-hour rule comes from the Office of Fiscal Management. Art Linton suggested if the individual is not a state employee, any time spent traveling should be reimbursed. Don Holbrook replied it is a tough decision and suggested sending a letter to Central Administration at WSU for clarification. Schreiber noted many people incur expenses for the Commission and some just absorb it, for example, Andy Jensen's Commission related expenses are part of his employment and he is reimbursed by WSPC, but Tedd Wildman's Commission related expenses come out of his pocket. The enabling legislation states Commissioners serve without pay expect for travel expenses. Richard McCartan said the discussion seems to indicate Commissioners should be paid as if all were WSU employees and caution the Commission not to go outside of state rules and reimbursement amounts are set by statute. McCartan said he would take a look at the law as it relates to the Commission.

Kurt Volker asked if expenses disallowed for the Tour have been paid. Schreiber responded that the expenses were paid by ADG, Inc and that ADG, Inc covers a lot of the costs for the tour. Herb Teas noted the Commission authorized the Tour expenses in question as valid. Richard McCartan said the RCW 15.92.095 states money may be used for supporting the Commission and there is latitude to pay for tour expenses if it is determined the activity supports the Commission. Holbrook replied Sandy Christian indicated disallowing certain expenses was standard practice. Schreiber said the Commission directs WSU how to spend the Commission's funds, a vote is taken, a budget is approved and as long as the expenses are within the budget and within state guidelines, the Commission has paid. Chair Muse noted Sandy Christian had caught a lot of little things and the Commission appreciates her efforts. Holbrook asked if the invoices go to the Commission for review. Schreiber responded the list of expenses was presented to the Commission at the last meeting, Commissioners have seen the budget, but a vote is not taken on individual invoices. Schreiber noted Commissioners have not seen the disallowed expenses. Teas noted the Commission approved the Tour budget. Holbrook said he was just asking for clarification. Schreiber noted he has no concerns or problems with the way the "books" are being done and chalked up the current issues to having a person new to processing Commission expenses.

DISCUSSION
Herb Teas asked for clarification on the $40,000 amount. Schreiber responded $30,000 is owed to the Commission for three months administrative fees and as soon as the Letter of Agreement is signed, WSU will move quickly to pay these invoices.

DISCUSSION
Bob Berger asked if the Commission had an existing signed MOA. Schreiber responded the signed MOA expired on June 30, 2001. Schreiber continued a new MOA has not been signed since WSU had some concerns with the language and wanted to make some changes. Herb Teas noted the Commission wanted some changes as well, for example, using the term co-funding. Holbrook clarified the new language refers to the legislative report required by the RCW. Schreiber noted WSU is expected to track state appropriated funds only, WSU does not track matching funds and the Commission would not go to WSU for a report on matching funds. Bill Green expressed his displeasure with the entire situation. Green said if the Commission approves the immediate release of funds, WSU should issue the check immediately. Richard McCartan noted WSU has some concern over their responsibility in regard to RCW's. Green continued the existing MOA language is unacceptable and not appropriate according to statute. McCartan noted the agreement has been negotiated between WSCPR and WSU over a number of years and is not a new agreement. Green said if WSU withheld payment from ADG, payment should be withheld every researcher on staff without an MOA. Green continued if the statute states a fiscal agent is used then an MOA is not needed, WSCPR is an independent state agency, not part of WSU, and a portion of the new agreement may be a violation of statute. Tedd Wildman said precedent was established when he was first asked to come up with an agreement by Zuiches, it was reviewed by the Attorney General's office at that time. Wildman said he does not see any problem signing the agreement and moving on. Kurt Volker said he had seconded Green's motion and considered withdrawing his second, but, he thinks WSU is acting inappropriately, this is the Commissions money, ADG has not been paid, tour expenses have not been paid, ADG covering these costs is inappropriate, and justifying the non-payments based on Sandy Christian's interpretation was inappropriate. Volker continued the issue in front of the Commission is to pay ADG and move on, the MOA should be signed and it is not appropriate for our contractor to be out expenses. Bryan Barstow said ADG should be reimbursed for costs incurred, going out two months is not reasonable, and the agreement should be set up so that this should not happen again.

Schreiber said the Letter of Agreement spells out what the Commission and WSU will do, he has no problem with it, however, WSU feels uncomfortable with matching funds. Schreiber continued no one thinks WSU is responsible for accounting for money that does not flow through them. Herb Teas asked where matching money does flow. Schreiber replied it doesn't go through WSU unless the match goes to WSU researchers. Teas responded WSU should not be held accountable. Schreiber continued if a MOA is what WSU wants all they are doing is putting in writing what is done. Barstow asked McCartan if the language of the first line on page two was appropriate. McCartan replied the language does not need to be in there, he was not sure what the intent was. Don Holbrook asked if the terminology has been there since the beginning. Schreiber replied the sentence had been included in past years. Holbrook said he saw no problem to point to state RCW. McCartan noted expenses related to what ADG is paid is covered by contract, as far as reimbursement of expenses, he has not looked at WSU procedure. Barstow asked if that is where the conflict over tour expenses is. Holbrook replied it appears to be a miscommunication. Teas the contract say to reimburse commission expenses up to $9,000 per year and the question is who approves the expenses. Schreiber noted the way it has worked in past was that WSU pays for most expenses, WSU tells us what is not allowed, for example t-shirts and hats are not allowed. Holbrook noted depending on intended use. Teas stated the Commission approves expenses not WSU. Bob Berger said the money we are spending is money appropriated to the Commission through WSU accounting procedures, the Commission is specifically charged to approve these expenses. Berger continued the Commission operated for 2-3 years without an agreement and WSU paid the bills. Berger asked why this is needed other than for Zuiches comfort. Berger said the Commission should look at whether we execute a different agreement but the Commission needs to get the bills paid. Teas noted a new agreement would better define authority. Berger agreed. Chuck Masters said the Commission needs an agreement so that everyone understands who does what. Schreiber noted Commissioners had voted to give the Chair authority to negotiate and sign the agreement, then the new language came up between Commission meetings, Chair Muse called an executive committee teleconferences to discuss. Chair Muse asked for any further discussion. Andy Jensen said he was in favor of the motion, but found it curious WSU was not paying ADG without an agreement, and asked if WSU is paying researchers without an agreement. Schreiber responded WSU was paying researchers and the agreement is separate. Jensen asked if there was an agreement between WSCPR and WSU to pay researchers. Schreiber replied the enabling legislation allows for payment to researchers.

Chair Muse asked for Commissioner comments on the Letter of Agreement. Tedd Wildman asked why a cap on reimbursements was needed. Teas replied it was agreed on in the budget. Schreiber said dollar amount is needed for budgeting. Doug Walsh asked if there was a separate account for the $9,000, and noted there was nothing stopping the Commission from adding to the account if need be. Schreiber replied if the expenses start to go over $9,000, it could be a signal to slow spending. McCartan noted the fee structure was fully explained in the contract. Schreiber said the contract between WSCPR and ADG, Inc., has a fee payment section including travel, mileage, per diem, office expenses, etc. Chuck Masters asked what is wrong with this agreement. Schreiber responded Bill Green objects to the addition of the sentence by WSU. Masters continued nothing is wrong with the contract if we continue as is. Bob Berger said the Commission has a bank account; WSU makes funds available to this account and asked how that is different than page 2 of the letter of agreement. Schreiber explained the check account has two purposes, WSU writes a check to the Commission, it is deposited in the Commission account, a check is written from that account to pay ADG the administration fee, the other purpose is to pay expenses we incur that WSU will not allow such as t-shirts and hats. Bob Berger said t-shirts and hats are paid for all the time by state agencies. Don Holbrook said that expense will be reviewed. Bill Green said it is time to sit down with WSU and set up a structure that is in line with statute. Schreiber said the agreement is fine with him and if no changes are made, Doug Muse could sign the agreement and Don Holbrook could take it back to WSU today. Herb Teas said he agrees with Bill Green that changes need to be made to the agreement.

DISCUSSION
Herb Teas noted a motion has been passed to cover ADG's expenses, approving the agreement today does not alter the flow of funds, and the agreement should not be approved. Schreiber asked Don Holbrook if WSU can pay the expenses without a Letter of Agreement. Holbrook replied he would have to go through Ralph Cavalieri and the Attorney General's office first and would try to get this done. Schreiber noted telling Holbrook to pay the expenses is no different than telling him to pay a researcher. Chuck Masters said to take out the sentence on the second page that refers to WSU business policies. Holbrook said changes need to be initialed and he would route the amended agreement through WSU Director of Purchasing. Joel Kangiser asked if an interim expiration date should be used to allow changes later on. Richard McCartan said the agreement contains language allowing for termination by either party with 30 days notice and he recommended leaving the date open and revising if the Commission wants. Andy Jensen said he was in favor to pass something to move on; the whole issue gives him heartburn that we sign a contract to pay administrative fees but do not sign a contract for other funds. Jensen said he agrees with Bill Green that the Commission should have a different agreement in the future. Doug Walsh said when a project is outside of WSU, the funds are not released until the project is complete and this is a month-to-month expenditure, not a project that is ever completed. Chair Muse noted Sandy Christian caught some errors and the Commission appreciates her efforts.

Schreiber recommended a subcommittee be formed to draft a new version of the agreement for next year. Chair Muse indicated he would include this in new business and adjourned the meeting for a five-minute break.

The meeting resumed after a five-minute break.

PROJECT STATUS REPORT
Schreiber noted $12,000 will be returned to the Commission as a result of the project review in process. Schreiber said the researcher left and the money was left in the account, and will be returned to the Commission. Schreiber continued highlighting new information on the report received from researchers. Assistant Administrator Tracy Olberding has made contact with a number of people and will be continuing the follow-up. Doug Walsh asked Olberding what to provide to her for project status and if just a sentence would be enough. Olberding replied a sentence on project status would be acceptable. Schreiber said the report includes every project ever submitted, each project has a hard copy file, and this information will form the main content for the report to the legislature. Muse said this is a quality assurance requirement for the Commission and asked Commissioners if it meets the need. Kurt Volker requested an electronic copy of the file before the next Commission meeting and asked for the file to be distributed electronically to Commissioners. Schreiber noted IR-4 work will not have a report. Muse asked about the money being returned to the Commission. Schreiber said the money comes back to the Commission, the project status will be changed to not initiated, and said it was a clover project. Teas noted the $12,000 never left the WSU account and the Commission still has control. Bob Berger noted the Commission approved the project and felt the work needed to be done and asked if another researcher should be found. Schreiber replied the co-funding agency backed out of the project. Berger asked if the work still needs to be done. Schreiber replied yes, but there is no one to work with and no matching support available. Schreiber noted the electronic version has more columns than the hard copy presented to Commissioners. Schreiber noted this is an on going project and older projects will be reviewed again to see if there is anything the Commission can provide.

IR-4 WORKSHOP
Schreiber gave Commissioners a report on the recent IR-4 Workshop meeting he attended. The workshop brought together commodity groups, chemical companies, university extension, and regulatory representatives. Washington, Oregon, and Idaho were represented; Doug Walsh and Rick Boydston attended. The groups were broken up by insecticide, fungicide and herbicide and projects were prioritized as follows: A = start the project this year, B = possibly start this year, C = project was tabled, and D = project was removed from the list. Projects were reviewed and rated over three days, 225 on the first, 260 on the second day and 300 on the third day. Schreiber noted the Workshop was very interesting and informative, and he expects a request from IR-4 for funding. Doug Walsh noted it is not the Commission's responsibility to fund high-ranking projects in IR-4 unless they are presented by a commodity group to the Commission. Walsh continued there are a number of trials assigned to Washington State. Many of the registrations coming have much of the work done in terms of residue projects, also, there fewer new chemistries coming. IR-4 has a limited policy now to finish what they start and are taking on less new work, partly due to petition processing at EPA, they can only take so many. Schreiber noted this is the first time there has been any contention between the western and the three other regions for the national allocation of funds, 40% of the requests are from the western region but only 25% of funds go to the west. Schreiber told Commissioners to expect a big proposal for IR-4 to be submitted for funding. Doug Walsh noted the northwest had a good group. Art Linton asked what the process was after the prioritization done at the meeting. Walsh replied each region can upgrade one of the B priority projects. Walsh continued once the project is initiated by IR-4, IR-4 is committed to petition EPA within thirty months. Bill Green asked what agency IR-4 is under. Walsh replied it is a multi-government agency with two pots of money from Beltsville and Rutgers, which is distributed to four regional land grant universities - UC Davis is the western region university. Schreiber replied the short answer is USDA.

NEW BUSINESS

Chair Muse asked Commissioners if they had any concerns for Richard McCartan to address. Herb Teas asked in regard to co-funding vs. match, who sets the definition and degree of accountability. McCartan replied the statue uses the term matching and it is the duty of the Commission to ensure co-funding occurs. McCartan said the state auditor may look at whether the Commission is enforcing the agency to give matching or co-funds. Teas asked if it would be on a project-by-project basis. McCartan replied if the Commission is making no effort to enforce the agreement than the auditor may have a finding. Chair Muse thanked Richard McCartan for attending the meeting.

Chair Muse noted some unfinished business with regard to the legislative report. Chuck Masters said more discussion was needed on improving the legislative presence. Doug Walsh suggested considering Olympia as a meeting site for a legislative short course some time in September or October. Schreiber asked if this would be outside a regular meeting. Walsh replied if this was held at the same time as a regular meeting, commodity group representatives would be there, and it should be done at a short meeting, perhaps September 2002 to coincide with the report being done. Volker said the legislative report should also be ready at that time. Schreiber replied much of the report would be done but it would not be complete. Chair Muse suggested deferring the discussion to another meeting. Schreiber said if time allowed at the next meeting, an outline and timeline for the final report could be reviewed. Art Linton said the whole topic is important enough to allocate time during a meeting for discussion.

Chair Muse noted Commissioners Teas, Volker, Berger, and Green would form a committee to develop a new letter of agreement. Andy Jensen asked to be included on the committee. Muse added Jensen to the committee.

Chair Muse asked for other new business. Teas noted the need to address the format of accounting reports from WSU. Teas recommended designing a summary more user friendly to those without accounting backgrounds. Chair Muse said the same committee looking at the letter of agreement should look at the accounting reports.

Chair Muse asked Schreiber to outline the remaining meeting dates and places. Schreiber said the meeting schedule is: November 13-14 in Ellensburg at the Hal Holmes Center, January 8-9, 2002 in Portland Oregon at the Portland Hilton, March 13, 2002 in Moses Lake, May 8, 2002 in Yakima possibly at the WSDA facility.

Chair Muse asked for any other new business.

Chair Muse adjourned the meeting at 4:00 pm.

Return to the Minutes Page

Return to WSCPR