 Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Catherine Bohr as chair of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine Committee on enhancing coordination between land grant colleges and universities. I would like to welcome everyone to today's virtual workshop session entitled building and sustaining a culture of collaboration across the land grant system. If you were able to join us at yesterday's workshop, you heard about two exciting collaborations built on the use of data science and artificial intelligence, offering novel and compelling platforms for bringing all kinds of institutions together and for tackling complex problems that benefit from having multiple partners. Today, we will hear about four different partnerships as described by pairs of individuals involved in those collaborations. We have asked them for short eight minute presentations to tell us about the goals of their activities, what it took to build these collaborations, and to describe the keys to sustaining them over time. Today's workshop discussions will be moderated by a member of our study committee, Dr. Wendy Powers. Dr. Powers is associate vice president of agriculture and natural resources at the University of California. There are also several other members of the study committee joining us online today. And in the interest of time, rather than have them introduce themselves, I'm going to ask the study staff to put up a slide with a list of the members so that public audience can see who is on the committee. Yesterday's and today's virtual workshops are intended to inform the final report of the committee, which will be released in September. We are also in the process of organizing one final working session on the topic of capacity, and we hope to announce the date and the time for that session soon. The committee's report will make recommendations on how to encourage collaborations across the land grant system, and these are collaborations that will be successful and impactful. So we are looking forward to insights insights from today's discussion that will help inform those recommendations. Before we begin, I want to let you know that the meeting is being recorded, and the recording will be posted on the project website about a week after this meeting. During the question and answer period, I'd like to ask everyone online to be mindful of the fact that the committee has made no conclusions about anything yet. Please don't leave our workshop today thinking otherwise. Comments made by members of the committee should not be interpreted as positions of the committee. And in addition, please recognize that committee members very typically ask probing questions in these information gathering sessions, and those questions may not be indicative of their personal views. I'd also like to note that there is a Q&A box that the public can use to ask questions of today's speakers, and we will aim to get some of those questions answered as time permits today. And so with all of this, I now would like to turn the meeting over to Dr. Powers for her introductory remarks. And thanks so much everyone for taking time to join us this afternoon. It is really my pleasure to have been part of this group, the Blue Ribbon Panel, and to be here with you today talking to these groups about their collaborations. The Blue Ribbon Panel undertook its work. It was clear early on that there are numbers of really strong collaborations in projects across the land grant system, projects that span institutions, projects that span transdisciplinary teams, and that these projects have amazing outcomes from the efforts of the work. I also recognized early on that in addition to projects, there were people that we spoke with that really conveyed collaborations that transcended projects that really reflected a culture of collaboration across institutions. So we're very fortunate today to have with us a number of these participants that we spoke with during our interview phase of the Blue Ribbon Panel work, and have them share with you, as Catherine indicated. Some of the things that have been done within these cultural efforts to sustain the collaborations, some of the challenges that have been overcome in doing so, and really help us all think more broadly about collaborations so that it's beyond the project. And since that project and does become part of the culture and how we all work in the land grant system. So we have four different projects, four different groups that are going to talk with you today about their efforts, vastly different in the way they've approached their work and what their work is. And as Catherine shared, we've asked each of these teams to talk with you briefly about the work, the goals of the work, the challenges they've had in sustaining that collaboration and tips for all of us so that we can embrace these types of long term collaborations right now. The first team, the first team that's coming to us from Michigan, and they represent the Michigan Intertribal Land Grant System, or miles project. We have two members of the team that are meeting with us today. The first is Dr. Steve Gianni. Steve is actually a member of the Blue Ribbon Panel, and he serves as the land grant director for Bay Mills Community College, a tribally controlled college located in Michigan. Joining him is Emily Proctor. And Emily is the tribal extension educator community food in the Community Food and Environment Institute and Michigan State University extension. She works with Michigan tribal nations, tribal communities, schools, community partners and other various government agencies. Emily is a citizen of the Little Traverse Bay Band of Ottawa Indians, and she also serves as a member of the Miles Project, serving as the associate director of that project. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Steve and Emily to share some of their great ideas. My name is Emily Proctor, strawberry woman in Anishinaabe Moan. I come from the place or land of the crooked tree, live in Harbour Springs, and it's a pleasure to be here with you this afternoon. Hello everyone I'm Steve as was mentioned earlier from Bay Mills Community College, where I have the privilege of serving as the land grant director. We're located in Eastern Upper Michigan right along the shores of Lake Superior. And again I'm privileged to be a member of the Blue Ribbon Panel, working on this issue over the past number of months. So what you see before you is a one particular slide that shares different logos from each of our tribal nations. We need to give the caveat that these are the logos emblem seal of our tribal nations here in Michigan. So if you are interested in learning more utilizing their logo please seek their their permission before using them. For this particular presentation we are sharing them as a point of education and awareness building. So that's our disclaimer before we jump in. And you'll also notice within this particular slide that you see a fire in Anishinaabe Moan it is Skode Skode, which means fire, and from miles and the work that Steve myself and our wonderful partners. We think of our work as an opportunity to unify the fire unifies us. It is deliberation collaboration ceremony and sacred. You may see when working with tribes such items, everything has a purpose, the circle, everything in the circle is equal. Everything has a place, though it can change with size, though it can change with those who are at the circle. We always remember those who may not necessarily be with us that day but there is always space. In Michigan, Anishinaabe share common cultural practices and language called Anishinaabe Moan. All tribal nations share common ties to the land. The tribes have their own unique structure of government as well as political identities that vary from village to village nation to nation. Seated around the fire that you see on the slide in front of you are in Michigan, we are represent the land grant system is represented by four institutions. One of them being Michigan State University as the 1862 institution here in Michigan. The other three land grant institutions we have in Michigan our tribal colleges are 1994 land grant institutions. They include Kiwanabe, Ojibwe Community College located in the western upper peninsula of Michigan. Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College located in central Michigan, about one hour north of Michigan State University, and Bay Mills Community College, the institution where where I'm located located here in eastern upper Michigan. The image that you see represents not only the land grant institutions but also the tribal nations that we work with very closely as Emily mentioned. We have 12 tribal nations in Michigan, but we only have three tribal colleges in Michigan, meaning that the majority of the tribal nations in Michigan. We do not have a tribal college or 1994 institution with within their reservation or within their tribal nation boundaries. So we have all representatives representatives of the land grant system, as well as our tribal nation partners represented around the fire that Emily explained to you earlier. And we can also tell, as we spoke about this is a circle, we strive to build in sustainability, thus the integrated Michigan land grants team to increase and approve the impact of extension education and research activities and the ongoing partnership with tribal nations, tribal communities, and their neighbors. And we'll continue to train and develop Native American, Anishinaabe, Indigenous talent to be employed in the land grant system. We continue to build our competence as a team to bring our authentic selves to our work to be accountable and reliable to our to others and to ourselves. We strive to ensure we are doing all we can to be transparent in all aspects of this initiative. We continuously strive to approach this work with humility. There are multiple ways of knowing and ways to engage with tribal nations. We must be willing and able to become comfortable within a less defined fluid environments, thus the Michigan land grant fire, which equals the land grant family, and in my opinion is the Michigan and a tribal land grant extension system. We continue to prioritize relationships, flexibility and being open to new ideas. As the miles team, we continue to build our structure upon community feedback, thus the close relationships being developed between the land grant system and our tribal nations. Sustainability is built into our framework. We're not project based, we're not grant based, rather we're trying to build a foundation or a system that will create a sustainable working relationship between the land grant system in Michigan and the tribal nations within the state of Michigan. We have some voices that we wanted to share with you that reflect some of the, some of the successes and some of the future aspirations regarding the work that we're doing with our miles team, as well as some of the history of perhaps where we got to where we are today. So I'm going to ask Emily now to share the first the voice that we wanted to share with you. Sure. We just want to be at the table from one of our Michigan tribal leaders. Another quote comes from a previous president from Bay Mills Community College after numerous years of exploring relationships and opportunities to work together. I guess I guess Michigan State University is serious about this now. This was after they put money on the table to support the work that we're doing collaboratively. And from Patrick Coney, our former associate director from MSU Extension, who is now in a different position, supporting our campus and our community partners and tribal nations. Why are we doing this, because we can and should tribal nations and colleges have a right to be there. We assist them with providing those resources and programs based on their needs. Miles will continue regardless of additional external funding. This quote comes from my friend and colleague Emily proctor tribal extension educator, Michigan State University extension, and her quote is, all of us are in relationship. We need to find a way to be in an equitable relationship with tribal nations, uphold the tribal sovereignty by upholding tribal knowledge traditions values and self governance. The final quote is from President Sherman of Q&A Bay Ojibwe Community College. And this came by way of communication of her staff that we partner with at our retreat. This partnership has strengthened relationships and increased collaboration opportunities between KBOCC and other Michigan land grant institutions. And with that. Is there anything else at this moment for our presentation. Just just the focus on the notion that this is not project based this is not grant based. Our expectation is that the land grant system will be part of the fabric of our tribal nation communities. And will therefore eliminate the the episodic the periodic relationships that have been developed over the years which sometimes have worked very well and other times have not. The outcome here is not projects the outcome here is not pursued the outcome is a foundation that allows these relationships to flourish into the future regardless of who might be working at the individual institutions. And with that Wendy I think we've concluded our short presentation. Thank you Emily thank you Steve that was really wonderful and thanks so much for sharing the graphic I love that it really conveys that this is a long term commitment to the partnership. We're going to hear more from Steve and Emily a little bit later on but next we're going to go to our next example. Our next example comes from the 1890 Center of excellence. And we have two presenters here presenting as a pair. First is Alton Thompson. Alton is the executive director for the Association of 1890 Research Directors and in that role often provides leadership and coordination and representing the Association and their interest in developing multi state and national priorities and implementing a regional response for the 1890 system. Alton is joined today by Moses Cairo and Moses I'll point out is a member of the Blue Ribbon panel. In addition Moses is the professor dean and director of the land grant programs in the School of Agriculture and Natural Sciences at the University of Maryland Eastern shore. Prior to that he was a professor and director of Center of Excellence in biological control of Florida and now. So Moses and Alton we look forward to your comments. Again, my name is Alton Thompson. And the as Winters said executive director of the Association of 1890 Research Directors and my colleague Moses Cairo will be doing a couple of slides for us. But this is about the Centers of Excellence example example example of collaboration across the 1890 land grant universities. Also I must say I did enjoy the presentation by on the 1994s, which are which are partners in the land grant system in terms of why the 1890 centers of excellence. And the centers of excellence started really in 2015 with the celebrate in 2015 1890s celebrated 125 years since the signing of the second moral act of 1890. What the land grant university want to do was they appeal to the Secretary of Agriculture at that time which was Tom Vilsack to come to commemorate commemorate the occasion by establishing the centers of excellence to collaborate with USDA on his programs and also on his programs. The Secretary ever did agree to to provide sense of excellence, but it did not provide a secure funding base. So essentially what he, what he did was asked the agencies to use the discretionary funds to fund these centers of excellence. This met with mixed success. And some of the agencies uses that discretionary funds, some of the agents did not use discretionary funds. So it wasn't a good. So it really didn't really materialize until the 2018 farm bill when they stabbed the centers of excellence. The mission, the purpose of these centers of excellence was to foster and coordinate research extension and education programs consistent with USDA and NIFA priorities and programs. And there are 1918 90s and 18 Southern and border states, as I tell people a lot of the times, I have 19 bosses, but they they're in 18 other states, which is good. And Moses Cairo is one of my bosses I can't say too much about my bosses. He created a culture of working together a cultural collaboration, and also to be a sort of Steve mentioned as well, is to put a focus on populations that tend to be low income marginalized persons who can really benefit substantially from USDA programs and who really also understand the culture of people that are underserved underserved or not served at all. And it was also to leverage investments, and we're looking at partnership outside of USDA, the private sector of other federal agencies to to leverage the commitment to USDA. And also the one thing that was nice about this program was that there was no matching funds. And one of the one of the barriers that prevents the 1890s and the 1994s from participating programs is the is the requirement for matching funds. We don't have a non federal match to go with the program so that's one of the barriers. So in the 1980s sense of excellent. This was, this was an excellent. And there was an excellent provision in the program to allow for non matching funds. In terms of the how this is where Dr Cairo would talk about the how in this presentation. Well, thank you. Thank you. So, so over the last seven to eight years, the key stakeholders from across the 1890 family engage in a consultative process involving faculty. Research and extension directors and presidents of the 1890 institutions. The meaningful engagements were driven through existing structures such as the association of 89 to research directors. The association of the extension administrators and the council of deans. The structures were essential in supporting that engagement across the universities through the consultative process. Critical national issues where the 1890s have a competitive edge were identified and prioritize for development as centers of excellence. These were also areas where linkages with clear linkages with stakeholders could be drawn. Critical consideration was the need to ensure that each participating university had a voice and that the processes were inclusive and equitable shared ownership and governance or critical considerations along the process in the development of all the administrative and operational structures. While the specific details do vary from one center to the other, certain elements are common. For example, each has an advisory committee. But the bottom line is that all members have a platform to participate in the development of the work plans and also in the center administration. Back in 2015, the universities also recognize the utility of having an entity that would facilitate navigation across the participating institutions without being encumbered by the individual institutional bureaucracies. So to this end, the universities established the 1890 universities foundation, which supports advocacy, certain center operational processes. The foundation has just celebrated five years of operation and continues to support the centers. Thank you. In terms of the also thank you Moses, in terms of the centers of excellence, these are currently of 1890s have six sense of excellence. Again, these were, these were generated by the, the 2018 farm bill, and also we asked them for reauthorization in the 2023 farm bill. The first one you see here is a set of actions for student success and workforce development. This is a center again, tied to USDA priority about workforce development. Workforce development is a very important topic now. And also it is, it was, it's hosted by North Carolina A&T. They have about eight partners that's working in this partnership and it's excellent. I think as Moses said it's opportune for collaboration. In order to compete for a center. We specified that a consortium each one of these centers must have at least three participating institution to work in these centers, and all of them have at least three, and some four and some even one of them have 18. The following systems rule prosperity and economic sustainability is hosted by Tuskegee University. All 19 universities take a participating in this center, small farm center hosted at Tuskegee. The next one is the center of excellence for global food security and defense. The best center is hosted by the University of Maryland, sure. And is guided by the very capable Moses T Cairo who's a member of this panel. The center of excellence for nutrition, health, wellness, and quality of life is hosted by Southern University. Again, you know, this center is very timely because primarily because of COVID. The COVID has really unveiled a lot of health disparities and quality of life issues in the population that we serve. The two newest centers that was funding that was funding was appropriate last year was emerging technologies, which is hosted by Delaware State University, and natural resources environment and energy and environment was hosted by Tennessee State University. In the middle, we have the 18 nine universities foundation, the universities, universities, 18 nine universities foundation was the management entity for the centers of excellence. This was approved by USDA prior to form these centers. This management entity was approved by NIFA USDA. Every center have a RFA such that their their request of proposals are sent out to all 19 schools, even though you're not a member of the consortium, you still able to participate in each descent through the RFA program. Again, you know it's the evolution of the centers. Now we have six and recurrent request of some additional ones in the 2023 farm bill sustainability is an important issue. Again, as Moses mentioned, our enabling policy framework is the farm bill, both the 2018 farm bill and the hope and preferably the 2023 farm bill section 70 to 13. It's about it's all about making a difference. It's all about outcomes. It's all about impacts also in order to be very impactful and very intentional in what we do. It's all about partnerships partnerships is a must. 18 nine is one 18 90 cannot do it alone. Our consortium 18 90s can do it alone. So we look for looking at partnerships and everything that we do. The department facilitates a collaborative approach that allows the 18 90s to develop a critical massive expertise. Essentially, right now we don't have the bench strength to allow us to a massive critical a massive expertise. This is about lessons learned. It's about best practices is about promising strategies that all contribute to USDA innovation agenda, as well as to 18 90 innovative agenda. And also is about contributing to the grand challenges and food and agriculture and improve the quality of life and the people that we serve and beyond. It's about an era of accountability and an era of impact. So again, it's out is outcomes driven. It's about impacts, and it's about outcomes. Global engagement. We do have the opportunity to engage globally. As you know, we're in a global base of society, a technology driven society, and the centers make a lot of international partners. We all allow to communicate collaborate with international partners that include subcontracts, and particularly the, the center of excellence that's hosted by the University of Maryland is insured. You know, talk about global security is really appeared that we have international partners future takeaways. It takes effort, willingness to be a working collaborative partnerships. It's not about a flavor of the month as Steve alluded to is about sustained partnerships, including the, including but not limited to 1962 land grants the 1994 land grants industry nonprofits and federal and state agencies. It's all about inclusiveness and equity as as 1994 presentation alluded to as well. I suggested recommendations to Congress. From this panel, if you want, will I need to consider reauthorization of the centers of excellence in the 2023 farm bill, increase the number of centers from six centers to 12 centers, and also increase the level of funding to 5 million per center per year. Currently, the existing centers of excellence funding range between 1.5 million and 2 million. That's really is not enough funds to have a real, excellent center. So when increase the level of funding from 5 million per year per center per year, also increase the centers from six to 12, and also reauthorize the centers of excellent. This is one of my favorite slides. I like this little guy. First is the comments, we can do it now we can do it later. I yield to the to windy powers. Thanks all thanks Moses great presentation and thanks for sharing the information on the centers of excellence are really a great way to build capacity. We're going to go back to the 1890 system and enhance collaborations with a do 1994 as well. We're going to just hold on questions for a little bit I want to get through our next two examples and then we'll come back. We're doing really well on time. Our next example comes from Virginia and it really illustrates the path to building a sustainable long term institution between in 1862 and 1890 institution. So sharing with us some of their tips and successes is back at Jones and is the director or the emeritus director of the Virginia Cooperative Extension and associate dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and started in that role back in 2011, and he just retired recently so congratulations on that I hope you're enjoying retirement, although I've already had a conversation with him today and I know he's very busy joining at today is Jeanine Parker Woods, Jeanine is the associate administrator for Virginia Cooperative Extension and programming at the Virginia State University. She's also, she provides oversight to extension specialists and serves as the liaison being cooperative extension at Virginia State University and Virginia. So I'm going to turn it over to Ed and Jeanine and we really look forward to your comment. Thank you Wendy and we're glad to be with you today and share about our relationship in Virginia Cooperative Extension between two great land grant universities, Virginia Tech and Virginia State University. The leadership of the Commonwealth of Virginia expects our two institutions to work together, and they have put in state statute that we will be Virginia Cooperative Extension that is, we're mandated to do that and then it says that we should work together. And so, even though we're expected to do that, it is the right thing to do. And so as the two institutions who serve the Commonwealth, the people of the Commonwealth, we should be working together. And that is the framework from which we usually start our conversations. And you'll hear a little bit more about that. I think a little bit later in our conversation. We really build our relationship and the success of our relationship on four things. And the first one is about relationships and that relationships matter. We were fortunate in Virginia for many years before my retirement and the retirement of Dean Ray McKinney at Virginia State he and I had been friends and had worked together for many, many years, both in Virginia and North Carolina. And we knew that it was important for us to have a solid relationship as leaders of the organization, but not only that we wanted a solid relationship of the leadership team within that in the organization. We also very clearly wanted to make sure that we had mutual respect. I mean, that is what a professional should be doing. And it's very easy at times to forget that there are differences in the two institutions. And there's differences in culture. And, and there's differences in resources. And so it was very important for us to have that on the table and understood and respect each other and work with each other to me. I don't really have much to add to that one in particular if you want to move on to the next one. All right. All right, so common vision and common purpose. So not only, you know, do we have this kind of common vision and common purpose, as it relates to Virginia Cooperative Extension. We really take that as a step further with how we look at what we do collaboratively across across both institutions, we look at ways for us to do things together more. And so that's, that's all the way down to the to the bottom one of the interesting pieces about our relationship is that Virginia State University does not have county agents. It is imperative that when we are communicating and working on, you know, where do we want to go in the next five years and where do we want to go in the next 10 years that we're looking at what does that mean for specialists at both institutions. And then what does that mean as it gets trickled down to the county level. And so when we're looking at, you know, our common purpose, we try not to duplicate programs and we try to make sure that, you know, we're really making sure that the citizens of the Commonwealth is our primary responsibility, and then making sure that we were able to work together in order to accomplish those goals. And you want to add to that. Nope. Move on to the next one shared governance and we find this to be particularly important and there's two two examples of that that I'd like to bring up one is in our development of programs. And it is imperative that specialists from both institutions program leadership from both institutions are engaged as we're developing the priority programs will be conducted across the state. And so that we are in agreement on those and then also how we are complementing each other in supporting those programming efforts and making sure that we we put the resources where they need to be to make that happen. It is the other example that I want to share there was COVID. And every one of us were met with a variety of different challenges during the pandemic when we had to make decisions about do we close offices do we not close offices do we have in person programming how do we staff our offices. And we made sure that even though the two universities might have different policies we work together to make sure that the message we sent to the entire Virginia cooperative extension system was consistent about across both institutions. And, and that that was not easy some days, but that was our goal to make sure that we were, we had, we were in sync. It was consistent and that we delivered one message, whether that message came from Virginia State or if it came from Virginia tech. We also were very intent and many, many communications that those communications were shared by both institutions at the same time. It was done jointly. It wasn't Ed saying one thing and, and, and Dr McKinney saying another, it was Ed and Dr McKinney saying the same thing and the same communication. And we worked very, very hard at making sure we could do that and that that the times was was challenging for us so it was really one of understanding that we are two institutions, but we're one system and we have to figure out where we need to come together to make the system work. Jeanine. I think one additional piece to this would be that, you know, if you're, if you're new to this concept, you know, you might think well, you know how often are you, you all meeting to be able to accomplish this and, and I would like to point out that during coven we met twice a week. You know, kind of in this kind of post, you know, or in the, you know, version of coven. We're still meeting on a weekly basis instead of twice a week but you know we, and when I say we I mean the administration from both sides are consistently meeting and then we're looking at, you know, how do we improve together. We're looking at having. When we rolled out our new branding, you know that was a co branding, you know, session we all met together collectively and made decisions together so that when we moved forward we moved as one, even though we are two institutions, which brings us to constant communication. So, yes, formally, we meet every week, three times a month we meet virtually and one time a month we meet in person we try to move across the state when we're meeting so that we are also not just from an administrative standpoint but then also going to our local and on the ground community level offices and making sure that they see us as a collective administration as well. But then we're also talking during the week I mean we spend a lot of time saying you know well hey we've got these programs and things happening, you know or there's there's there's some moving parts here, you know we want to make sure that you guys are aware as well. So when we do things across the state we do things across the state collectively whether that's, you know showing up to act business council or being part of the state fair, you know we host, you know some of the stuff for Virginia tech Virginia tech holds some of the things for us as well. So we have to do more shared things together our at communications or mark mark on depending on what institution it is. We spend a lot of time they spend a lot of time together making sure that they're communicating on a regular basis so we really do try from the top down to make sure that you know we are all moving in in the collective direction. So did you want to add to that. The only final comment I would add is that because of our mutual relationship or respect and our common purpose. When we're speaking with elected officials across the Commonwealth. We support each other in that effort. It's not a competition. We look at it whatever supports either of us supports all of us. And so we very often are advocating for both institutions for the work that's being done and the people involved. So, we always say one system to great universities. Thank you, Wendy. Well, thank you. Thank you, Jeanine. I, I know I continue to be so impressed by this commitment to collaboration there's so much we can learn here, all the way ranging from the expectation put forth by the Commonwealth to the execution by the highest levels of leadership with the institution, all the way into the county offices, truly impressive. So thank you so much for sharing that we look forward to learning more. Our last example comes from a multi state research project. And many of you know the multi state research projects are really the gem of the land grant system, really allowing that collaboration across institutions to solve real world problems. Today we have members from project test 1074 future challenges and food animal production seeking solutions through focus facilitation meeting with us today. Particularly the members are john class in who's an associate professor and director of graduate programs and biological and agricultural engineering at North Carolina State University. And we've been a member of this project for a long time, and really been a leader in this project as it's moved forward and go through many iterations. Also joining us is Dr Rebecca Larson Rebecca as an associate professor and extension specialist in the Nelson Institute for environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin Madison. So Becky also has been with this project for quite some time and we really look forward to hearing both of your comments. Thank you, Wendy for the introduction and thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today. Becky and I have been working on on this particular version of the project for for several years. It's a very different project from the ones you've just heard about those were about institutional level collaborations, the multi state projects you know are across institutions but the actual collaborators are individual faculty members. It presents some unique opportunities and challenges, because as much as we like to think faculty are the kings of our own kingdom. We are very much limited but by what our deans and directors and department heads will have us do. Next slide please. The historic focus of this manure management. This project has been on manure management, and the common some of the common problems associated with that are identified here odor control nutrient use pollution control. And, and historically, there have always been some joint projects now I want to be careful this is a multi state project, but this is not a project in the sense of significant money for specific outcomes. This is the funding mechanism for the multi states, as you're aware, but there have always been collaborations among across the states of individuals on actual funded projects, but those were facilitated by the the individual relationships, and and not from what I remember those years were those were not put forward by the project itself by by this multi state project. Some years ago, probably more than 10 years ago, we changed our methods with the intent of trying to work together more, and we specifically looked at developing networks, both among our different disciplines. We did add different stakeholders, we tried to include as many of our colleagues as we could, focused on sharing data and methodology so that we could compare results and compare and integrate projects at a better time and a better way. And then brainstorming on some of the larger grand challenges. I'd like to ask Becky to speak up here and clarify some things that I may have missed. I think that's all great. I do want to stress a little bit on the idea of bringing us together I think faculty member general, we are all overwhelmed with our never ending management and it's nice with these projects to be able to bring your head up for a second and a bigger picture. So I think sometimes they're really, it's hard to articulate sometimes some of the really great things about these projects, and it's really this idea that we can kind of share some vision on a bigger picture. I would say faculty members in general talk about that this is what is lacking kind of in their, in their kind of daily routine is the ability to stop the management for a minute and think and brainstorm and really bringing people together to kind of think through where we're going where we've been. And so I think that's a really important thing in these projects. Thank you Becky. Let's go to the next slide. I'd like to ask to identify some key attributes of what we think are related to the success of our project and we do consider it a success. Our annual meetings have and our annual meetings have been revised so that we are more collaborating and talking and brainstorming as Becky was just saying. We've added webinars so we're not only talking to each other once a year we're talking to each other for for additional times a year. And we've made these learning opportunities, whether it's a new technique or introducing an entirely new analytical procedure. We've made this time for collaboration for conferences and for specific research and and approaching particular proposal opportunities from a group and then from a team standpoint within the entire project for different research activities. And this actively engages all our members, especially new faculty that show up that are hired in institutions related to animal agriculture. They're put in touch with us and we're very welcoming with them. And sometimes we'll throw them right into leadership roles within the first or second year. And that if you if you don't mind like I think the the mentorship within these is really important. I think you get people that span many generations and I think when when John was mentioning the, when I was a new faculty member these were good to open up your eyes to help you realize the partnerships you need to make to get some opinions of people who have been dealing in these circumstances for a while. I think that the young faculty member brings a new technique some new thoughts some energy. So I think there's some really great collaborations particularly amongst these kinds of people in the different stages of their career. And I think even recently, maybe I'll see on the next slide with it, you know, combining some research and some ideas about how we formulate teams. Folks have even been bringing postdocs and graduate students sometimes to these now and I think that's really critical to kind of keep this momentum of what passing on some of the information. Thank you, Becky for saying that I did want to mention that a few years ago there were two of us at two of the faculty at meetings actually brought graduate students and as far as I remember it was the first time it was, it was probably 10 years ago or more. And honestly, the faculty forgot that the students were there. This particular meeting became exciting. I won't say, I won't say contentious. But one thing that the students realized after that and shared with us individually is that, wow, these faculty, they're real people they disagree. They can talk to each other. They saw us in a new light and I think that's important for students to understand that that doesn't lessen their respect for us or or didn't change the. I have any, any less work at change the work ethic at all when we got back to our institutions but I think it's important for for graduate students to understand that and open their eyes as well as the faculty that you're saying. Let's go to the next slide we can talk about some of the outcomes. One of those projects that I mentioned that the faculty from within the, the project wanted to focus on was funded by the National Science Foundation in the areas of food energy and water food energy and water systems. And the successful project was called infuser. It's an electronic resource facility resource electronic resources for other to support other projects working in in in the fuse areas. And it was about team teamwork and collaborations high performing teams. And you're seeing a photograph there of one of the symposia that the infuser held, we were doing this kind of work by zoom, long before coven. And in fact, our webinars were held that way. Also, we even had some of our national, our annual meetings held remotely by by zoom and we were well familiar with this technology before. Before COVID. We've had several publications that came out of these efforts, not just infuser but but other efforts by the projects and project itself and in collaborations within there, and certainly new collaborations among, among colleagues. And the one thing I wanted to add is outcomes. You know they're interesting that you know it's easy for us to say the publication we did or the training that we did like that publication I would say the really benefit of it was that we we were all over the place that really I initially thought we were all kind of moving in the same direction. And so it was really great to have this discussion and really changed my thought process on where as a, as like a nation we were headed with some of these really big talking points and challenges that we're facing. So I think, you know, you might just say there's a publication and it might not really change that much. But I think the discussion and the outcomes of the way it might have changed the way we think. And now the interactions that we have that have led away from that publication are really the critical things that are hard to document sometimes in these outcomes and the, and the connections that we make and how it kind of starts to impact all of our research and efforts moving forward. That's right we certainly get. And I know I have gotten somewhat tunnel vision with the specific challenges in North Carolina and the species of pigs and poultry here when I talked to Becky in Wisconsin and some colleagues in Texas I remember that that cattle present are a big part of the situation big part of the issue and present very different challenges. And, and so that I think that's an important point. Speaking of challenges. We can go to the next slide. We've listed some here that in spite of what I call success here, we do have some some challenges and the most important I think is our, our never ending challenge of getting the abroad. And that's what I think it would be a sufficiently broad collection of disciplines that are actually tackling this project, this challenge as as a system. We've historically had sometimes one, maybe two economists. It hasn't been consistent getting new disciplines and new tech, that new, especially new faculty with newer techniques or different ideas is, is difficult. And I think one of the reasons is is that the faculty reward system is based on in our individual research and extension programs. We're all expected to create nationally recognized research extension and we're teaching programs. That's part of our job description. Our department voting faculty want to see leadership from each of us. And, and that actually I think in some ways gets in the way of collaboration. I think another thing is that our, our focus in spite of the, the need to look at this as a system because our, our nutrients and feed come from every play every lot of different places, actually a few different places and our products go to a lot of different places. Our research director and extension director often focused on what have you done for our clientele in the state. I know that's been mentioned. Our faculty are fine with national publications and collaborations but but sometimes the university is asking about what we've done here. And the only thing I want to add I know maybe we're running a little long is that these, these teams are really driven by the people who are on them. And they're all extra workload for all of us that really isn't recognizing the reason that we do it is because it for passionate and we care about the outcomes of things. And so I think remembering that in terms of like what are the drivers and making sure that it doesn't become more management and bogged down by a lot of the things that happen in our own institutions, and that we really can use these this opportunities to really discuss and create some partnerships and collaborations without really having to have a really hard core outcome is really important, I think, and the ability if I was to recommend one thing to try to help us out, maybe to provide a little more support in terms of the management of the of the actual team so that things can have a little more continuity and flow without as much effort. That's going to end my comments there I don't know if you have anything. That's a good point one one one example is sharing documents we're all used to sharing documents through Google Drive or teams. It depends on a particular faculty member of a particular university being willing to manage that. And what happens when that individual either changes institutions changes focus or, or as facing some of us would actually retired, what happens to the those documents, and the that institutional management that comes with it so Becky's are, are, I think, right on right on target. With that, I think we're, we'll pass our time, Wendy will give it back to you. Thank you. Great. Well, thank you john thank you Rebecca great comments and I will point out to the participants today that this project does 1074 has been a very successful project within the last decade it was the recipient of both the national multi state project award as well as I think two years ago the regional award. And much of that is because of the partnerships across disciplines that have been built through the project, but it was really great to hear from Rebecca and john some of the challenges of sustaining that transdisciplinary lens of solving these big wicked problems. Yes, we've heard from our four examples we're going to invite our presenters to answer a couple of questions that the panel would like to put forward to the presenters. And I'd ask that maybe you raise your hand so that I can see who the call on to respond to the question. The first question from the panel is how can collaborations address differences in capacity among the partner institutions and help faculty from across the land grant system participate for one of the things that the panel talked about quite a bit and it's deliberations was for example, participation in these multi state research projects. As Rebecca indicated, people are so busy. So what could be done to help engage participation, particularly of smaller institutions 1890s 1994 in these multi state research project, or people from smaller departments that have different types of responsibilities. On the first part of that, that question about different about just participation is that the difference in how our research directors administer the hatch funds. Some of our directors are rather generous in travel funds, or really project funds. Some are restrictive on to as to who can access those funds as it can only be one person from from the college, or can it be multiple people. And others are working entirely off of off of their other projects that are supporting this terms of other schools. We have the privilege of working here at NC State University and we have a very close relationship with at least our sister department at NC and T they have also a biological and agricultural engineering department. The focus there as I try to work with them at times is that their focus is very different while we're focused on the larger, larger production agriculture for instance in my case in animal agriculture. Those faculty are working on smallholder farms. It's very appropriate for them and that was mentioned before, but it does not lead to a lot of collaboration, there are some collaborations, but I think it is that's one thing that is an issue. Thanks john. So I don't see any other hands up so I'm going to move to the other question and the blue ribbon panel as you might know we're trying to put together a list of recommendations for a number of stakeholders from institutional leaders faculty funding agencies and even Congress to try and support improved collaboration within the land grant system. So what recommendations might you have for one of those units, institutional leaders faculty funding agencies or Congress. I know some of you have addresses in your slides in your comments, but any other things that you want the blue ribbon panel to know from your experiences that we can use in our recommendations. Thanks we've heard from our four examples we're going to invite our presenters to answer a couple of questions that the panel would like to put forward to the presenters. And I'd ask that maybe you raise your hand so that I can see who the call on to respond to the question. The first question from the panel is how can collaborations address differences in capacity among the partner institutions and help faculty from across the land grant system participate for one of the things that the panel talked about quite a bit and one of the things that the panel's deliberations was, for example, participation in these multi state research projects. And just as Rebecca indicated, people are so busy. So what could be done to help engage participation, particularly institutions 1890s 1994 in these multi state research project, or people from smaller departments that have different types of responsibilities. John. On the first part of that, that question about different about just participation is that the difference in how our research directors administer the hatch funds. Some of our directors are rather generous in in travel funds, or, or really project funds. Some are restrictive on to as to who can access those funds as it can only be one person from from the college, or can it be multiple people, and others are working entirely off of off of their other projects that are supporting this. In terms of other schools. I have the privilege of working here at NC State University and we have a very close relationship with with at least our sister department at NC and T they have also a biological and agricultural engineering department. And what I've noticed there is I try to work with them at times is that their focus is very different while we're focused on the larger, larger production agriculture for instance in my case in animal agriculture. Those faculty are working on smallholder farms. And that's very appropriate for them and that was mentioned before, but it does not lead to a lot of collaboration there is some collaboration. But I think it is that's one thing that is an issue. Thanks john. My comment is very similar to john's. My thing is anytime you're talking about like a North Carolina state and a North Carolina NT in Virginia State and Virginia tech. You basically play to your strengths, even though the 1890s and 1994 I have the same capacity as the agency to choose. We do have unique strengths that we can add to to any program. We have intellectual capacity to add to any programs, and you pay you you play to your strengths and you play to you, you play to your passion. As I tell people all the time, you know, the 1860 the large institutions, the large institutions do not have a monopoly on innovation and creativity, you know, they're at the 1890s and 1994 as well. And with Virginia and with North Carolina State and Virginia Tech, I know they play they recognize that and play to those strengths that Virginia Tech realizes what Virginia Tech Virginia Tech realizes what Virginia State brings to the table. And as John said, North Carolina State realizes what AT brings to the table. And together that make a very strong effective program that improves the quality of life of all the residents of the people that we serve. Play to the strengths. Thanks, Alton. Rebecca. I just wanted to add that I think sometimes as faculty members we could have greater participation if one, there was more attention brought to these collaborations in general. So as a faculty member I never knew about them and had to get my word of mouth there were certainly no one from above, letting us know that this existed or how to navigate it by any means so it was all individuals and I think even on s 1074, we reach out to people, and maybe there we need to rethink some of the way these things are kind of structured and funded, because even though you know the institutions have some of the money. They have a lot of other priorities. And so if we think these things these collaborations are important enough, maybe step funds should be more structured that way so that you know there's money for this people who want to join. It might be a little more straightforward on how that, how the partnerships can come together. Right. Thanks for back up to name. I would say two things. So one is that we look at things from an issue base perspective, which then allows for people to play to their key strings. And then the second piece would be that you have to bring the players to the table at the beginning. A lot of the grants and stuff that I see. They've asked somebody to come in at the very tail end they've already put the whole project together, and then they just want this other institution just to add to the collaborative space, but not really respecting the strengths and the skills at those other institutions. And so I would say, you know, maybe, I know extension has a tendency to do this a little bit more because we do try to be, you know, one system anyway, but allowing for spaces for us to be able to have these conversations around these issues with with the different folks from the different institutions because by having those opportunities to have those discussions, then you find partners around those issues that that all, you know, are interested in the same issues. And then you find those partners that actually want to be able to work and collaborate together. Thank you. Thank you, Wendy. Just to reinforce some of the comments that Alton and others have made it. First of all, you need to know each other, and you need to know each other's strengths and weaknesses. The other piece is that most oftentimes the once, once there's a collaboration that's identified, and it's, and it's recognized, for example, miles in Michigan is now recognized. And what we see is a lot of faculty members, especially from the 1862 partner. They see this platform and they recognize that as an incredible opportunity to strengthen proposals and increase the likelihood that proposals might be funded. And that's a good thing. But oftentimes at the at the 1994s and the 1890s, perhaps. It's not necessarily faculty members who are facilitating the land grant work. It's folks who are hired specifically to carry out the land grant mission of the institution. They don't even have the luxury of dozens and dozens and dozens of faculty members who could potentially devote time to research or extension projects. And how do the 1862 faculty members know this well they they participate in the relationship building. They participate in opportunities that we as miles provide for each institution to get to know each other and what the strengths and weaknesses are. And we've also discussed recently some sort of a screening tool or mechanism whereby all these requests that are now coming to miles and there are plenty of them on a weekly basis. How do we somehow screen those so that we identify appropriate opportunities for further collaborations and weed the ones out that look like they're going to lead to some of the shortcomings that have already been identified. And how do we do that. And as we get to know one another becomes easier for each of us to say no I don't think we can do that I don't think that's something that we can participate in that's not. We don't have the capacity or that's not something that our community is interested in or it's just not part of our mission so so much of that is involved in relationship building getting to know one another. Thank you. Thanks to you. Emily. Appreciate it Wendy. And yeah, I appreciate all of your comments thus far I fully support and echo echo what our panelists have shared today to add on though I would coming from 1862 perspective and engaging in this work with tribal nations tribal communities and colleges. Including my own. You know it's building that capacity also internally at 1862 and what I mean by capacity is, how are we able to have conversations with current staff or working with our partners at tribal colleges and tribal nations to to leverage the resources and funds that we as 1862s have access to to respond to those needs to develop positions that are co shared co created with our partners. And again internally it's creating those professional development opportunities to address the systems the systems that may not have always been there to support staff who do this work. So it's addressing the, how do I. It's addressing the structures to support an individual who who has been asked to work with tribal nations. You know, not often have our systems been created for individuals to do that work you know where do you work in. You run into community members beyond the tribes who may not understand nor appreciate the work that you're doing with tribes, you know questioning why you're funded questioning, you know, why is extension moving in this this moving forward in this effort. So how can we build a response system internally to build capacity, work with our partners to build staffing plans. I'm sure those staffing plans reflect the needs of the communities we're serving, but also come from a place of melody and authenticity to know that our systems are not perfect that they need tweaking they continue to address that power dynamic, if you will. So I think those conversations in my institution I'm affiliated with has contributed to building this awesome effort and I mean awesome every sense of the word. of miles but also creating some level I won't say per se trusted with all tribal nations but at least have an understanding of who we are, what we do, and how we are able to approach this partnership in a humble way by saying we're not here with all the answers, we're not here to do this to you. However, we're here when you're ready. We are working to address those issues as you're comfortable with coming forward. Hope that meets that. Thanks Emily, great message. Yeah, just briefly and my experience, one of the things that causes collaborations to collapse is that we forget to, we forget the end goal. We forget our mission, we get wrapped up in our structures and, and sometimes egos and sometimes who's going to get credit and, and we got to come back and say okay, what is it we're trying to do and why are we trying to do that. And who are we trying to serve. And, and that that is really important to just remind ourselves of that on a regular basis. Thanks said. So I don't see any other hands up so I'm going to move to the other question, and the blue ribbon panel as you might know we're trying to put together a list of recommendations for a number of stakeholders from institutional leaders faculty funding agencies and even to try and support improved collaboration within the land grant system. So what recommendations might you have for one of those units, institutional leaders faculty funding agencies or Congress. I know some of you have addresses in your slides in your comments, but any other things that you want the blue ribbon panel to know from your experiences that we can use in our recommendations. I have two things that I would, I would recommend. One, directly related to your question would be to find ways to encourage and reward collaboration in general even on on our own campuses. If that can be built into promotion and tenure systems, then then faculty will be more likely to do that. That's what faculty respond to that and raises. The other is is related. Some what and I think it changes the focus of what the faculty do and it's something I will say as often as as people will let me and since you're letting me I'm going to say it now you may have heard this windy. But I think our focus should be on graduate education, rather than outstanding outstanding graduate education programs, rather than outstanding research and extension programs. I think the outcomes will be the same. We will get the research done we will develop good research great research programs, but with the focus on students. I think we will get better outcomes for for them for the students and for the future. Thanks john Rebecca. I think the one thing that I would like to say is when people are planning things and they want to strengthen something like safe collaborations. You know, you've got a bunch of information and then you make up like a plan of action or a direction. Remembering that there's a lot of diversity going here on here right and a lot of different ways that we all have to operate in our systems. So there might be an end goal but maybe setting up the structure so there's three ways to get to it or four ways that you know as many as you can think of, instead of one would help. I think a lot of people be able to use different tools that they might have to engage their membership and others to participate. Thank you. Thank you. Just speaking to, excuse me, speaking to something that I did mention during our presentation, but the idea of having enabling structures or that enabling environment that is supportive of collaborations. For example, the idea of even having an 1890 universities foundation that helps cut across the red tape of bureaucracies within certain process of setting up these kinds of collaborative partnerships, I think would be helpful. And so, being able to support such structures would really result in the establishment of un-sustaining all collaborations, because I think that is a major stumbling block, just the fact that our institutions are so different at some times in terms of our processes. Often. Part of my response to having a brain freeze, but I'm sure you can figure it out. One of the things I would do is with respect to Jeanine and Ed's presentation, just take that second slide. That second slide about as a collaboration would be a definite one to put in the presentation. I get suggestions from the National Academies. The idea of active listening is critically important. The thing that the also what Jeanine also mentioned was involving partners from the very beginning, not at the end. And the one thing I'm having a brain freeze on there was a book I read about the growth mindset. And I can send it to you, Wendy, is about having a growth mindset as you go through these collaborations. That's an excellent book. It's an excellent piece of work. I think everybody higher education ought to read it. It's called a growth mindset. Thanks for that. We'll look up that book for sure. Emily. I have an idea that myself and a team of faculty and previous native students on campus wrote was a reciprocal research guide, and I can share the link if you like. And this guide, it offers the official title is reciprocal research a guide book to centering community and partnerships with indigenous nations. And we hoped individuals would use this is a larger effort for planning for and reflecting on research partnerships. So you're able to use it individually in the community graduate level course, but this helps to walk through. If you will as an example, your intention and motivation to engage in research with indigenous nations, what has propelled you to go down that road, be it extension be it faculty. And so we hoped that this would support individuals aspiring to engage in research. There's also five scenarios included for you to work through they're all based on different. Topics such as environmental gardening and food supporting change tribal sovereignty and research so there's a couple of different. Examples in there but I encourage individuals who were wanting to go to go down this road of research with indigenous communities to do to engage in that self reflection your. If you will doing your own work right to to engage with these particular communities and is that something you'd like for me to share I could. If you could put a link in the question that would be great. Stephen Emily I don't know if you're monitoring the Q&A but there there are some questions in there specifically that I don't think we have time for you to respond to today but if you could grab them and the person submitting them and maybe respond offline to them. I think they'd appreciate that. Thanks Wendy. So we are winding down any last comments on that last question from the blue ribbon panel that anyone wants to share. Okay, I don't see any hands. So I'm going to just say a couple of concluding words turn it over to my colleagues, Moses and Steve if they want to add anything and then we'll toss it back to our chair Catherine for any final remarks. So I do want to thank everybody for finding the time to come and serve as a panelist participate and listen and really help us all move forward in trying to strengthen our collaborations across the land grant system. This has been just a wonderful experience for me to be part of the blue ribbon panel, but really to hear from all of you today, so that I can take it as in my own learning and try and improve. Thank you so much. I know it's been a lot of time putting things together and making time on your calendars for this but on behalf of the panel we really appreciate it. Steve Moses anything you'd like to add. No I just like to echo your remarks and just in my times. Okay, thank you Wendy just that there are examples that seem to be working and I think that recommendations need to reflect what is working well and, and also that the focus can't always be on. We get big grants. The focus has to be on how do we work collectively together, whether it's within a state or a multi state to better impact the quality of lives of the people who were expected to serve. I know sometimes that's difficult to grasp especially, you know, from a big time research perspective but if we're going to bring the smaller institutions along effectively and meaningfully the focus has to be on how do we better serve the people whom our mission dictates that we serve. And there's no doubt that collectively we can do that better than we can individually. Even with the, even with the disparities and capacity we've been able to work around that we've been able to impact that. We know one another we can work together to, to somehow make make it work, even with the capacity disparities, not that we like those disparities do we but we can certainly work work around them and work together within those realities. Thank you. Thanks for that Steve Catherine anything you want to say to close this out. Thank you, Wendy and and again a thank you to everyone who participated in the, the presentations today and in this session, what I'd like to do is a last call for any blue ribbon panel committee members for comments or questions that you might have before we end this particular session today so if anyone else from the committee has comments or questions that they would like to make. This would be a really great time to do that. Meanwhile, again, these were four terrific presentations, I think very deep and meaningful ideas with regard to why we formed partnerships the value of forming partnerships and some really important ideas about why some partnerships and collaborations work. And why some others fall apart, and some terrific insight into some of the characteristics of those that have had long standing success and so I'm so grateful for that. Well, I'm seeing no committee members raising their hands and speaking up so at this point, I will thank everyone again for participating and I'm very grateful for your time today. Thank you all.