WEDA Input on ECOP Structure

10/10

  1. What is right about the ECOP structure and its operations?

I am new to extension administration so can only provide initial reactions.
- broad regional representation in the organization encompassing all parts of the country
- important questions dealt with such as "branding/marketing" extension and how to measure excellence in extension
The opportunity is still there to have a positive impact on Cooperative Extension as its advocate in the national system. The composition of the membership is balanced with the regions.
Sorry, I'm not comfortable making a judgment as I do not know the structure well enough.
Representation by region gives broad input to issues. It has been helpful to have some meetings via Connect so that all directors can have a better sense of connect to ECOP.
Good representation from across the nation on most committees. Leadership rotates among regions/institutions
Regular conference call/webinar updates for Directors are very helpful
-Regional representation.
-Staffing by APLU outreach and extension leader(s).
-Appropriate liaison relationships to other BAA units.
It seems to be representative of the national system and an efficient use of resources. It provides a voice for Extension administrators at the national level and some focus to system wide issues and concerns.
It seems to represent the Extension community
I do not have enough experience with ECOP to weigh in on these two questions at this time. No doubt in the future I will have some informed opinions.
Not a complex structure. Only 3 committees (program, personnel, and executive) so ECOP is not difficult structure to navigate. Many organizations have too many committees and then confusion as to which issue is handled by which committee. The rotation of leadership by region and 1890s works well. Regions and appointees can plan ahead, be mentored or have a chance to observe as Chair-elect before he/she assumes the ECOP Chair role.
  1. What is wrong with the ECOP structure and its operations and what changes would you make to correct the issues?

- active participants don’t seem to include many from smaller states and institutions, such as in the PacificIslands. This may reflect their very limited staff and resources to participate or that activities of ECOP just aren’t relevant.
- seems like a lot of meetings take place -- how to participants have the time and money to do so
The three committee structure is old and seems to have lost its energy. The activities of the committee tend to fall on the current chairperson. Although issues carry forward, leadership seems to be fighting the battles alone.
In light of decreased budgets, ECOP should review the face-to-face meetings it conducts and determine if some could be replaced by web-based meetings. I'm particularly thinking of subcommittee meetings, but the whole meeting schedule should probably be reviewed.
-Lack of effective relationship to the contemporary outreach and engagement mission of Land-grants today.
-Redesign the APLU portfolio of commissions and councils to more effectively link the Boards on Human Resources, Natural Resources and the Council on Government Affairs to result in a more coordinated legislative and policy strategy.
There is not a "strong" voice for 4H, and with lack of leadership from the federal partner someone needs to provide input on behalf of the youth development program. Need to determine ECOP's roll in national advocacy for funding and priorities. Seems Extension takes a backseat to the research agenda and many national concerns are driven by research directors and deans. For example, lack of language related to 4H youth development, family and consumer sciences and community development within NIFA.
-It doesn’t seem like ECOP has a strong voice within the BAA – our needs to not seem to rise as high has some of the others within the “family” even though we are one of the largest contributors to the assessment that supports Cornerstone.
-The need for the LAC should be reviewed. It seems like a worthwhile process for participants but I’m not sure of the overall value for ECOP proportional to cost. If LAC is valuable, could the process be conducted using technology instead of a face to face meeting?
-May want to consider involving other directors on Program and Personnel subcommittees rather than just ECOP members (similar to how the Budget and Legislative Committee is formed). It makes for a difficult time commitment when signing on to ECOP means other assignments will automatically be given.
Not sure ECOP operations are clearly defined
- Who holds members accountable when ECOP policies are ignored or violated?
- Who hold NIFA accountable when ECOP is ignored?
- How can ECOP adjust to a system that is issued-based and not the traditional subject-matter based?
I do not have enough experience with ECOP to weigh in on these two questions at this time. No doubt in the future I will have some informed opinions.
-It is unclear what is the value and purpose of the Leadership Advisory Council? While I assume it informs the incoming Chair of ECOP the views and pulse of the system, has anyone reviewed the "plan of work" established by the ECOP Chair as to what really come from the LAC and the cost (real cost of time and travel) to get that information?
-Given the few number of committees, are we overburdening the two chairs of the Program and Personnel committee? Or are there good examples of sub-committee or ad hoc work groups to share the work burden?
-Are we connecting well with the liaisons to ECOP from Experiment Station, CARET, and giving our ECOP liaison to the Experiment Station Directors, for example, enough orientation about their role and expectations? Given we are trying in our states to enhance integration of research and extension, and we all lobbied hard for AFRI proposal funds for extension, we don't have a good track record of success here.
-In addition, are the Committees, like Personnel, setting their agenda for addressing the biggest issues facing the system? How do these committees get their charge from ECOP? My disappointment or concern, for example, is that across the country the response to the budget cutting is a variety of different and very fractured statewide organizations. I don't know how we are going to describe Extension jobs in the future, to mentor, to recruit, to move employees in the future thru careers across state lines and, lastly, to partner across state lines. How is ECOP surveying what is happening to personnel and structures of extension across the country in this economy and providing leadership to this crisis which is setting the stage for extension in the decades ahead? Is ECOP's structure and way of doing business addressing the most important issues, not just managing business from year to year?