Members in attendance: Bob Berger, , Ann George, Bill Green, Andy Jensen, Joel Kangiser, Doug Muse, Chuck Masters, Bill Mason, Bryan Sakuma, Herb Teas, Kurt Volker, Doug Walsh

Staff in attendance: Donna Gorham, Karen Roberts, Alan Schreiber

Members not in attendance: Ron Angel, Tedd Wildman

Guests: Ben Barstow, John Brown, WSU; Sandy Christian, WSU; Catherine Daniels, WSU; Don Holbrook, WSU; Art Linton, WSU; Gerry Santo, WSU; Nana Simone, WA Tilth Producers; Jane Thomas, WSU

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

Commissioners and guests introduced themselves. Alan Schreiber welcomed new commissioner Ben Barstow and stated since his appointment is not official (from Governor Locke), he is not eligible to vote but can participate in the discussion.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Doug Muse called for public comments.

Doug Walsh is developing an IPM mini-grant program with Sandy Halstead. Funding of $40,000 is available with a $20,000 match from WSU. Doug Walsh stated these funds are potential match for this program to WSCPR.

MINUTES
Herb Teas noted revisions to the minutes. Alan Schreiber asked for other comments.

FINANCIAL REPORT
Alan Schreiber presented the financial report. He stated fiscal year 2001 allocation was $1,000,000 and the current balance is a deficit of -$154,822.16. There is $954,000 accumulated carry forward allocation. The amount needed for the rest of the year is minimal, funding for the proposals being heard today and any emergency requests. The Commission will receive $1,000,000 in July of 2001, for FY2002 funding.

Bob Berger stated he is comfortable with deficit. He questioned what original mandate requires for a contingency fund. Ann George stated the mandate did not specify an amount. Herb Teas stated from a practicality issue a contingency fund is moot. Sandy Christian said to stay with 25% and treat that amount as spent. It tends to take about six months for researchers to start spending money after award. Emergency requests start spending sooner. The money will not be spent too soon.

Alan Schreiber stated the amount WSU has allocated is $954,000, not all has been spent. The first $500,000 of new mandate is proviso with the fiscal year. Monies are not going out at expected rate. At the current rate of expenditure, not all of the $280,000 that has been allocated will be spent and any unspent money will be returned to the legislature. Alan stated there are two approaches to deal with this. The UC-Davis/IR-4 program is the biggest recipient. Many projects are 95% complete and during the last six months of the projects most of the resources are consumed. Some researchers will request payment as work is done. Others wait until the whole project is done to request payment. There are accounts with money still left, i.e. Doug Walsh has some. The billing process needs to be adjusted to spend money.

ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
001 PEST CONTROL TOUR
Alan Schreiber discussed the 2001 Pest Control Tour. The tour starts 6/18 with a reception and will have a similar format as two years ago. The tour will be based at the Doubletree Hotel at Sea-Tac airport. Costs have increased this year. Dyvon Havens and Paul Lacroix are helping with ag day on the 19th, stops will include vegetable seed, cut flowers, berries. The schedule for day 2 includes urban issues, structural landscape, nursery, golf course. Day 3 includes natural resource issues, forestry, noxious weeds, old growth forest, right of way. Hopefully the tour will visit Bryan Sakuma's farm.

Post cards will be sent out this week. There is a 50-person limit, however, not everyone attends all days. One 50+-passenger bus will transport attendees, with two chase vehicles. The date has been moved up one month from previous years. A lot of interest has been received and invitees will include 25 from private sectors and 25 from public sectors.

Doug Muse commented on the 50-person limit and wanted to insure legislators were included in the mix.

Doug Walsh asked to add a Ron Hampton replacement.

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACT RFP
Alan Schreiber reviewed the RFP for the WSCPR administration contract. The RFP is for FY2002 with an option to extend for 1 year. The RFP was written after the last commission meeting and advice was requested from the attorney general's office. The advertisement went to three newspapers (The Seattle Times, The Spokesman Review and The Olympian). Alan commented on the high cost of running the ad and the requirement to put it in the legal section. Due to the high cost of the ad, an abbreviated version was submitted to the newspapers. Inquiries are to be directed to Doug Muse. Doug has received two requests so far and copies of the complete RFP will be mailed out to those people. An appropriate time frame was needed due to the complexity of the RFP; the deadline for submitting bids is April 15. Doug Muse will convene an executive committee meeting to review the bids, and then present them to the full commission. A decision will be made at the May commission meeting.

Bob Berger asked if a historical summary of expenditures would be included to responders. Alan Schreiber replied that the RFP is divided into five areas: 1) Accounting and Financial Services, 2) Commission Administration, 3) Meetings, 4) Annual Pest Control Tour, and 5) Outreach and includes just the effort for the last fiscal year. Doug Muse asked if more financial information should be included in the RFP. The consensus was existing information was fine. Art Linton questioned the April 1 date. Alan Schreiber clarified date should read April 15. Bill Green requested clarification on who pays printing costs for progress report. He also suggested posting on the web site.

FINANCIAL LIASON
Alan Schreiber directed commissioners to a summary page and announced Sandy Christian is retiring from WSCPR duties. The commission has been very happy with Sandy's work. She is willing to continue working until FY2001 books are closed; approximately July 20. Alan Schreiber reported on a meeting in February with Carol Pinch was very productive in identifying the selection process. The position will be a Financial Specialist I. Alan Schreiber asked WSU representatives if any update on hiring was available. Sandy Christian indicated Don Holbrook's section would be responsible for the position; however, the business and finance office is deep in budget cuts. WSCPR is not high on the priority list. Alan Schreiber requested a meeting with Sandy and Don to discuss the situation. Alan is confident the position will be filled. Sandy may be available as a consultant.

Bill Green indicated that in reviewing the duties listed as WSCPR commitments (salary for 46 hours per month, travel expenses, and providing copies of pertinent WSCPR documents) and WSU commitments (office space and equipment, mainframe computer access and email, travel status release time) are no different than what is currently in practice and that the person will continue the same duties Sandy has provided for WSCPR. A change was noted in the way the WSCPR and the administrator pay for the position. WSCPR pays $10,000 and the administrator pays the difference. WSCPR agreed to the $10,000 figure to get Sandy, the time required is worth more than $10,000 and the administrator is happy to pay the difference. The current billing process needs to be changed. WSU wants to reduce the administrator's management costs and bill the commission back. The new person's costs will be less than now. Sandy Christian indicated $1,500 at most. Ann George stated she appreciates Sandy's knowledge and her expertise will be missed. WSCPR needs a link with WSU and WSCPR needs to pay the costs of the necessary position. The change will occur at the same time as the new contract is awarded. The financial liaison at WSU should be a separate budget item.

DISCUSSION
Ann George stated proposals should be considered separate from funding the financial position. She expects total cost to be $11,000 to $14,000. Sandy Christian stated total would be $12,100. Herb Teas said the position needed to be funded. Ann George stated the financial position is needed as much as an administrator.

A question was raised if the hours allotted to the position would be sufficient for a new position. Sandy Christian replied a person qualified for a Financial Specialist I would be a competent person. A qualified person would already be familiar with the work being done; i.e., contracts language, managing 25-30 active contracts.

COMMISSIONER VACANCY
Alan Schreiber updated the commission on the status of finding a replacement for John Shields. The commission is working with Northwest Food Processors; however, the WA Processor Council is the actual nominating group. Alan Schreiber is encouraging appointment of someone with more than just potato processing experience. Expectation is to have a nomination by the next commission meeting.

PROGRESS REPORT
Alan Schreiber regretfully reported the progress report was behind schedule. He committed to have a draft progress report to printers before he submits his bid for the administrative RFP

Bob Berger asked what the review process would include. Alan Schreiber replied the draft would be sent to commissioners for review and to other people appropriately by commodity or expertise to review for editorial correctness.

PROPOSAL PROCESS
Alan Schreiber discussed the projects report. Current fiscal year projects and proposals scheduled to be heard were included. Projects 01PN050, 01AN051, and 01PN052 are revisions. 01AN051 was withdrawn from consideration. 01PG063 is a new emergency request. This project is to support a section 18. If data is favorable, a section 18 may result in 2002. Alan Schreiber asked if any commissioners objected to hearing the proposal. Kurt Volker stated since the proposal was in support of a section 18, the commission must listen to it. Chuck Masters asked if researchers who were denied last time had a chance to resubmit the projects. Alan Schreiber responded they had a chance to resubmit.

01PN050 Management of Pratylenchus penetrans on mint
01PN052 Evaluation of an organic pesticide and sodium azide for control of the Columbia rootknot nematode on potato
Gerald Santo, WSU

These projects are mainly concerned with sodium azide (Agrizide), Agri-50 and sodium azide combined. Acts as a carrier of sodium azide. Inorganic azides are very stable as opposed to organic azides. It is an alternative to methyl bromide; lots of studies comparing a wide bio-spectrum, potato and mint are studying verticulum and nematodes. Dr. Santo revised the proposal to address concerns at the January meeting. This is a viable product; EPA and USDA consider it viable. The data indicate it could be as early as 1 year for re-registration according to Richard Stetler of Cal Agri Products. Agri-50 by itself is an excellent nematode treatment. It is being studied as a carrier.

01PN050:
Request: $8,500
Match: $8,500

01PN052:
Request: $5,000
Match: $10,000

Bill Green said the MSDS and dispersion is below lower exposure limits (LEL) and will not be a concern. Ann George questioned if it was effective as an insecticide on mint. Dr. Santo stated the proposal was not looking at some pest (not recorded). The potato project would be field plot work.

Joel Kangiser had talked to Tom Elwinger at EPA. No new information on the compound was found it was cancelled in 1989, nothing has been submitted for re-registration. It is considered a toxic category I, highly toxic to fish and wildlife. Exposure to water causes fumes to be released. He did not know if it would make through re-registration in one year.

Dr. Santo stated he had talked to Dr. Peter Calkins at EPA. Three companies are interested in the compound, an American company, a Japanese company, and one other company. The information Dr. Calkins had was impressive.

Alan Schreiber asked Dr. Santo what the mint industry thinks of the project. Dr. Santo stated they are supportive. Alan Schreiber noted Rocky Lundy is a strong proponent and the mint industry is supportive.

Doug Walsh asked if the compound was shanked in as a gas. Santo indicated the project would look at field application methods.

Herb Teas questioned Joel Kangiser if the project timing was appropriate. Joel stated Dr. Calkins indicates some data has already been submitted but he did not hear this from Tom Elwinger. Herb Teas asked whether we should be funding something that will not get registration.

Ann George stated the project would gather preliminary efficacy data, application and field rates; a field study is 3 years out and a Section 18 is five years out. Alan Schreiber noted CalAgri is a new company and questioned if they knew the regulations. Dr. Santo replied the company had contacted EPA to verify this is a viable product to research. A letter from Kim Vick will make sure it is on the list of EPA review.

Bob Berger noted it is beneficial on nematodes, however, previous expenditure was inconclusive, how is that being modified. Dr. Santo replied it is a two-year study, the first year was not conclusive and the second year will be more conclusive, long term effects on mint are unknown. Kurt Volker noted mint lesion nematode results from last year were inconclusive and the product is ineffective on chitwoodi. There is reason to believe it is effective on mint, but study was inconclusive. Dr. Santo replied there is some indication it would be effective, nematodes are highly variable in the field and he hopes for better results.

Kurt Volker noted other research has been done in Florida on strawberries and tomatoes, and questioned what level of confidence Dr. Santo had of the researchers who had done the previous work. He also questioned the match monies and why no support from registrant. Dr. Santo replied he had reviewed other work done on corn, cotton and soybeans, and saw good results. Dr. Santo had assumed match monies must be from the commodity group, but that he was getting support from Cal Agri of $50,000 on all projects. Art Linton commented if Cal Agri does not fund, the proposal would not need WSCPR funding.

Ann George noted the budget page from the potato project indicated a $5,000 cash match from the industry, and questioned if it was still in place. Santo replied it was. Bob Berger questioned footnote 2 on the budget page was not defined. Dr. Santo replied footnote 2 should be stricken (it was from the prior submittal and indicated support of previous organic research). Bob Berger commented $7,500 WSU-ARS match monies were noted on the budget page but not in the totals. Is this matching or not? Sandy Christian stated some WSU monies can be included, some cannot.

Herb Teas commented broadcast application of Vapam on potato is ineffective. Dr. Santo replied Vapam application is effective when shanked and sprayed. Doug Muse stated it may be applied right before disking the ground. Herb Teas stated spraying on top is ineffective; it must be incorporated deeply.

Andy Jensen stated the potato project was not funded and did not have a timeframe for funding. Alan Schreiber noted funding was not decided when the proposal was submitted to WSCPR. Ann George questioned if there was interest in reducing the proposal to azide alone. Andy Jensen stated it had not been discussed, but he would be interested. Ann also noted no commodity signature. Alan Schreiber stated a signed copy was presented the first time the proposal was heard, support funding was pending WSCPR funding, WSCPR denied funding, the project was resubmitted to WSCPR but WSPC did not fund. Ann George stated would have approved pending commodity group approval. Alan Schreiber commented he doesn't know if commodity group supports it. Andy Jensen replied WSPC has no position on this particular project.

01PG063 Washington Potato Mite Research Project
Andy Jensen, Washington State Potato Commission

Project is for miticide research. Mites are a problem only in the Columbia Basin. There is currently one miticide registered, Comite, and it is used as a prophylactic. Last year received a Section 18 on Capture, which has close to or less efficacy than Comite. It is not performing satisfactorily. Valent is already funding trials for etoxizole and EPA is reviewing data. If these trials are successful, a Section 18 may be pursed for 2002.

Request: $10,000
Match: $30,000

Ann George stated the product did not work in hops. Doug Walsh stated WSPC growers are concerned that Capture does not have knock down capability, it actually does two things: nothing or helps them expand. It is effective for a pyrethroid in knocking down mites. It worked well in strawberries. Alan Schreiber noted there were two products, Apollo and Comply. Doug Walsh stated Len Welch indicated it appears to have activity against early instars, i.e. is not only ovicidal. Bob Berger questioned funding breakdown. Alan Schreiber clarified WSPC would fund efficacy data and Valent would fund laboratory analysis. Andy Jensen stated this does not require an agreement between the commission and Valent since they are funding different portions. Doug Walsh stated that WSCPR funds is for his program for GLP residue trials; Valent is paying for laboratory testing. It is more costly to provide fresh and processed samples for Valent to test and is more involved. Kurt Volker questioned if they will need processed samples of dehydrated, French fries, flakes, dry slices, wet & dry peel, and fresh potatoes. If project is funded a GLP protocol will be developed, since no protocol is available how was budget set. Alan Schreiber replied a standard price for GLP trial is used and they must provide processed material to lab for testing. Doug Walsh stated the budget is based on previous experience.

PESTICIDE NOTIFICATION NETWORK UPDATE
Jane Thomas reviewed the annual report for the Pesticide Notification Network. Jane provided a brief background on the development of the PNN. Part of the WSCPR mandate was to develop a system to track availability of pesticides for minor crop and emergency uses in Washington. WSU operates the PNN on behalf of the WSCPR. PNN is an information distribution system that includes information on new product registrations, notification of Section 18 and 24-c's, proposals for cancellations of chemicals and removal of uses of chemicals, web page posting of copies of Section 18 and 24c. Jane discussed specific requests she has handled; a WSDA request to determine if a Section 18 was still needed for canola, she summarized and sent out the WSDA Section 18 compliance program, notified users of potential problems when Dow Agro Sciences had production problems with Surflan, sent out notifications on diazinon and chlorpyrifos, notified users of new rules from WSDA for Section 18 labels. Jane also reviews the Federal Register each month and provides a summary to PNN users. A handout was provided listing primary contacts for 2000.

The budget request was discussed. The request to increase funding is due to equipment replacement. A new computer is being requested. The existing computer would be returned to WSCPR if it were replaced. A summary of past budget requests was included in the report. It was noted unspent salary monies were returned in previous years. No unspent salary money was left for FY2000. Jane asked for questions.

Bill Green asked if the salary request included inflation. Jane replied 4% was included for inflation. Kurt Volker asked how much was being allocated for the new computer. Jane indicated $1,500. Alan Schreiber asked if PNN is solely supported by WSCPR or if other funds are available. Jane replied WSCPR is sole funding source for PNN. Alan Schreiber asked if Jane is spending more than 50% of time on PNN. Alan Schreiber commented notifications are a half page and a template is used for notifications. Jane stated notifications are sent out by commodity. Alan Schreiber pointed out 344 notifications were sent out in CY2000. He asked Jane if there had been any feed back on PNN activities. Jane indicated feedback has been both positive and negative. Jane has given presentations to various groups to inform them of the availability of PNN and the label database. The number of presentations was limited but is now expanding to other requestors. Herb Teas stated there is value to what Jane has done with PNN. She is the prime source of information on changes.

Alan Schreiber stated an annual report for PNN is to be given in March and the budget will be adopted in May. Alan Schreiber stated the dollar amount is for the budget committee to decide in May. Jane asked how notification of decision would occur. Alan Schreiber replied one more piece of information was needed from Jane.

Break for lunch at 12:20p.m. A tour of the Wapato USDA-ARS facility followed lunch. The meeting resumed at 1:30.

PROJECT STATUS REPORT
Alan Schreiber presented a report of projects previously funded by WSCPR. This October will be the sixth year of WSCPR funding. The direction at the January meeting was to review the first fifty projects. The report is in chronological order by project number. A slight change to the approach of the project resulted in a total of 53 projects being reviewed. Not all of the first 50 are included here. Some researchers have received funding in later years and these projects were checked on at the same time. Some early projects did not have final reports generated; this was not a requirement for initial projects. Alan Schreiber asked commissioners to think about the format of the report as he reviews each project. Comments included adding a column to note a date to follow-up on the project progress, add column showing last status date, adding a column for target pest, noting if IR-4 projects are complete or have come to an appropriate end, and adding a project status column (for all) stating project is complete, dropped, or some other appropriate comment, adding registration number rather than just noting when section 18 received, add year section 18 received.

Commissioners agreed to continue this effort and want a statement as to the status of each project. Comments included: WSCPR has an obligation to ensure projects come to an appropriate end, project status is needed for future funding requests and decisions, legislature will need this information for funding decisions for WSPCR, shows rational and proper stewardship of money, concentrate on old mandate projects new mandate projects need impact statements which are the responsibility of researchers to provide, commission should proceed and plan to have an active program to monitor status of incomplete projects, time to complete review should be tracked and reported. Alan Schreiber committed to complete the review of projects funded through FY2000 by the meeting in September and will include a copy of report in meeting notebooks.

WSCPR GRANT POLICY AND PROCEDURE ISSUES
Alan Schreiber stated the new RFP would be released in July for the November meeting. The RFP will be reviewed in May and adopted in July for release; submission deadline will be October for the November meeting.

Alan Schreiber directed the commission's attention to three pages of issues for review in regard to developing the new RFP.

Issue 1: Define cost sharing. The WSCPR has matured. It has historically funded nearly every project presented. The WSCPR is no longer able to do that. WSCPR needs to become more formal. Attitudes and the level of standard will be raised. What qualifies as cost sharing must be defined.

Sandy Christian stated WSU funds can be used for cost sharing in some cases. WSU employee's whose salary funding comes from state funds can be used as matching, salary funding from federal funds can not be used as matching. Commodity group funds can be used as cost sharing if approval by the commodity group is documented. Time periods must match for funds to be used together.

Alan Schreiber does not agree with using the federal policy. Chuck Masters asked what policy applies to WSCPR. Sandy Christian replied the federal policy applies because WSCPR monies are routed through WSU, which is a federally funded institution. Herb Teas asked if researchers could alter funding. Alan Schreiber replied no they cannot. The researchers can modify timing of billing, but it is very difficult to ensure compliance. Bill Green stated he is paid by federal funds and state funds cannot match state funds at the Department of Ecology. Bill Green stated the Commission is not a sub agency of WSU.

Alan Schreiber stated the state house and senate ag committees tell us what they want in the report to the legislature. The Office of Fiscal Management (OFM) stated the funds must be auditable. Since matching funds are not auditable, this must be reviewed by OFM to determine if it is acceptable. Let the legislature, specifically the ag committees, make the decision. A statement about the matching funds needs to be added to the RFP. Submitters must ensure matching funds are eligible and must provide documentation that funding is eligible. Joel Kangiser asked what criteria are used to determine matching. Ann George replied this should be in the MOA. Doug Muse asked whose money is spent first. Sandy Christian replied the money should be split evenly between the WSCPR and commodity group, then proportional by the number of commodity groups. Doug Muse asked how it is actually being done. Sandy Christian stated it is by earliest term date. John Brown stated 99 of 100 researchers would not know where their salary comes from and to hold OSU to same standard as WSU. Sandy Christian replied all agencies must be held to same standard. Herb Teas stated the Attorney General's office should be requested to clarify this. Alan Schreiber stated he would work with Sandy Christian on this and continue the discussion on issue 1 and 2 at the May meeting.

Issue 3: What is an appropriate level of match? Alan Schreiber asked if there is a more appropriate scale. Ann George replied a 1:1 match with special consideration with a sliding scale depending on commodity group's ability to match. A set rule is not appropriate, need to trust commissioners' instinct. Alan Schreiber asked if source of match matters, that policy has changed bit by bit. Herb Teas stated need to identify where benefit is. Doug Muse stated the benefit is to Washington growers. Ann George stated benefit is to Washington tax dollars. Alan Schreiber noted that assumes benefit goes to Washington growers. Doug Walsh noted the cover sheet signed by commodity group resolves the issue of where the benefit goes. Doug Muse questioned if the appearance of the commission being bought is an issue, i.e.; a German brewery with a high match vs. a rhubarb project with a small match. Ann George stated each project must stand on its own merits. Bob Berger stated each commissioner must determine the viability of each project; the commission should not try to reduce the program to rules, but guidelines are needed. Alan Schreiber stated originally the commission wanted commodity groups to match funding to show support for the project. If the commodity group does not support, then why should the commission fund it. Now the commission is shifting to not caring where match comes from and does not want specific rules on source of match, each project will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Herb Teas stated the RFP should require requestor to specify the source of matching.

Issue 6: Unacceptable proposals. Alan Schreiber is reluctant to reject proposals and has let the commission do this. What constitutes an unacceptable proposal? No commodity group support, no matching funding, poor experimental design, researcher not acceptable. Doug Walsh stated if no affected user group or commodity group support is indicated, the proposal should be rejected. Bill Green suggested adding to the administrative RFP a requirement to review proposals for experimental design. Andy Jensen and Ann George agreed. Bill Green stated poor proposals should be returned to the administrator to fix. Herb Teas asked if that was the administrator's job. Bill Green clarified that the proposal would be sent back to the requestor through the administrator.

Issue 7 Budget review. Doug Muse stated the proposal should go through a financial review before it is submitted. Alan Schreiber state the commission cannot require to have a certain reviewer, but can require a review by the person with fiscal responsibility. Doug Muse asked how much time that process should take. Art Linton replied at WSU the turn around time is 24 hours.

Issue 8: Define foreign travel policy. Alan Schreiber noted the RFP states any travel must be specifically stated in the proposal. Sandy Christian stated normally cannot use state funds for foreign travel. The policy must be consistent for non-WSU and WSU employees alike. Alan Schreiber stated the RFP must include if foreign travel is required for the project. Sandy Christian stated if the travel request is legitimate, the researcher should call the administrator and amend the proposal to include specific travel requests. Alan Schreiber stated the draft RFP will be reviewed at the next commission and he would include a statement about foreign travel.

Issue 10: Establish a policy on cost extension for grant funds. Alan Schreiber stated researcher provide end dates on all projects. Sandy Christian noted the award letter states one year from letter date and ninety days are needed for float to clear the system. Alan Schreiber stated researchers have time to spend money, may need to provide a drop-dead date to spend. If researcher needs to go past that date, they must provide a justification to the administrator. WSU has requested if the final report is in, no more monies be spent. In reality a lot of money is spent after the final report is in. WSCPR does not track spending on a detail level. The commission needs to establish a policy for extension for grant funds. WSU's suggestion is to not extend funding after a final report is received. Bill Green stated if an extension is requested, a good reason must be provided. At WSDA, receipt of the final report coincides with final payment. Herb Teas agreed any request for extension should detail why. Alan Schreiber said there should be no expenditure of commission funds after the end date unless a detailed explanation of why an extension is required is provided. Sandy Christian stated fund expenditure and final reports should be due on the same date. If no report has been received, the administrator should call Sandy to check on expenditures. Ann George questioned IR-4 residue studies, status reports are send but a final report is not done. Alan Schreiber stated if analysis is received from the lab the project is considered finished, if still waiting for lab analysis the project remains open. Final report deadlines should not be set. Ann George further questioned how expenses for lab work are handled. Alan Schreiber replied most invoices come in after work is completed. Sandy Christian stated UC-Davis does not bill on a regular basis. Bill Green stated a billing a criterion needs to be put in place. Andy Jensen suggested an 11-month period after the end date to spend funds or give a lump sum payment. Alan Schreiber stated the RFP would include a tighter schedule for billing.

Issue 11: Better define our policy on resubmitting rejected proposals. Alan Schreiber stated if a proposal is rejected, the requestor may resubmit a revised proposal following the same guidelines as a new proposal. The revised proposal must have a new signature from the commodity group before the revised proposal will be submitted to WSCPR for review. Andy Jensen stated the commodity group is actually the one submitting the proposal and they should see it before it is resubmitted. Alan Schreiber stated he will not consider the proposal if no signature of commodity group is present. Doug Muse noted some proposals are submitted without signature in order to meet the submission deadline. Alan Schreiber stated usually the proposal is complete and if he expects a signature from the commodity group, he will accept the proposal. Andy Jensen commented researchers should be encouraged to get commodity group review and signature before submittal. Bill Green questioned if users can submit proposals. Alan Schreiber clarified anyone can write and submit a proposal. Doug Muse stated the requestors should be more serious about submissions. Bob Berger noted on page one the applicant is identified as the commodity group, if that is left vacant the proposal should be sent back. Alan Schreiber commented many times the signature is missing due to electronic submission. Ann George stated commodity groups must get researchers to go through them for proposals. Alan Schreiber asked if all requests must come from commodity group. Art Linton replied minor minor crops might not have a commodity group. Alan Schreiber stated must have a commodity group signature before proposal will be released to commissioners for review. Chuck Masters asked what does the signature mean. Bill Green and Herb Teas stated the signature indicates the commodity group supports the proposal. Bill Green also stated it indicates the commodity group has agreed to submit the application. Bob Berger requested changes to revised proposals be noted with revision bars on the proposal to better facilitate commissioner review.

Doug Muse asked if there were other issues to discuss. Bill Green questioned if the WSCPR can vote to bar resubmission. Joel Kangiser asked why bar anyone? Bill Green stated the researchers usually resubmit at next meeting or wait to next funding cycle

PROPOSAL REVIEW

01PN050 Management of Pratylenchus penetrans on mint Gerald Santo, WSU

Administrator's comment: fine proposal, no problems with guidelines

01AN051 Long term effects of cover crops on nematodes, soil-borne diseases, soil microbes, and nitrogen cycling Gerald Santo, WSU

Proposal was withdrawn by the researcher.

01PN052 Evaluation of an organic pesticide and sodium azide for control of the Columbia rootknot nematode on potato Gerald Santo, WSU

Administrator's comment: weakly written proposal, WSPC did not support, questionable commodity group support. Herb Teas commented the proposal is unsupported. Andy Jensen stated the WSPC has not formed an opinion, however, he personally would sign off on the project, just cannot do so officially.

01PG063 Washington Potato Mite Research Project Andy Jensen, WSPC

Administrators comment: fairly written, straightforward, urgency is due to the nature of the project. If the project is approved, the administrator will hold funds until reassured a section 18 can be approved.

Herb Teas asked for clarification. Alan Schreiber replied the question is if EPA has proceeded far enough in the review process to grant a Section 18. A Valent person thought it would go through. Alan would like to talk to a company person. Herb Teas asked what time frame was expected. Joel Kangiser replied it might not be on the review schedule until 2002. Ann George questioned if this constitutes an emergency. The administrator replied he has no problems with the time frame.

BURROWING SHRIMP INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT MOA
Bob Berger stated the oyster growers presented an opportunity of every party involved to attend the signing ceremony. Bob Berger represented the WSCPR at the signing ceremony. Alan Schreiber noted those parties whose signature are on the MOA are required to have a representative on the IPM committee. Bob Berger is currently listed as the tentative WSCPR representative. Ann George asked if Bob was willing to serve in that capacity. Bob replied he could attend the meetings.

Alan Schreiber commented he appreciated Bob's efforts and noted any expenses incurred by Bob can be submitted for reimbursement. John Brown commented the MOA asking for representation has set a precedent. He questioned if that is where the commission wanted to go. Bob Berger noted WSCPR would participate in the meetings only when requested to attend. Doug Muse questioned of a conflict of interest is possible. John Brown stated he was originally against the MOA and questions if there is a limitation to the commission's involvement and if this is a political issue. Bill Green commented the commodity group did not request the MOA, the Department of Ecology requested it. As to where will it lead, he hopes it leads to other MOA's with sister agencies. Alan Schreiber stated he thought the request came from the oyster growers. Bob Berger replied it did come from the Department of Ecology. Ann George commented there might be other opportunities and it is not likely there will be too many for WSCPR to support. Doug Muse suggested this be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Joel Kangiser stated the commodity group is depending on a highly toxic product.

Chuck Masters noted at the January meeting proposal project 01PN053 was funded for the full amount of $12,100 with a match of $26,810. The minutes indicate funding in the amount of $6,050 with a match of $6050.

OTHER BUSINESS
Alan Schreiber discussed a proposal that was resubmitted. Indications were that the commodity group would not fund it. The resubmittal did not meet the timeline. The commodity group agreed to fund the project partially to finish it. The commodity group was contacted and signed the cover page. The commodity group did not realize the implications of the signature and felt used by the requestor. Alan Schreiber stated the proposal was returned and will not be considered.

The next WSCPR meeting will be May 9, 2001 at Snoqualmie Pass.

RATING OF PROPOSALS

01PN050 and 01PG063

Bill Green stated sodium azide is being added to a carrier, however by itself it is still a hot material. Ann George noted there are two formulations. Bill Green replied he does not dispute that.

Andy Jensen abstained on proposal 01PG063.

Sandy Christian stated Ralph Cavalieri suggested WSCPR consider approaching the legislature to remove WSCPR from WSU. Alan Schreiber asked why this was suggested. Sandy replied it would remove the cost sharing issues. Alan replied it is a good deal for WSCPR to use WSU for accounting functions. Sandy Christian restated the issues surrounding cost sharing. Alan still questioned what advantage that would be to WSCPR. Bob Berger stated this issue needs more discussion.

Doug Muse asked if a separate motion was needed to deny funding to project 01PN052. Bill Green stated WSCPR may deny funding without a motion.

Ann George stated Rep. Chandler must understand what the issues are; otherwise a revision to the legislation will be required. Alan Schreiber stated the issue is a matter of interpretations. Sandy Christian stated as of July 2000, WSU matching funds must be noted in the budget. Alan Schreiber replied it is not possible to audit retrospectively. John Brown noted on a few WSU faculty have tried to use their salaries as a match. If a ruling is made, WSU will have to live with it, but the ruling should be applied to other groups as well. Alan Schreiber replied the commission would make every effort not to discriminate against WSU.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

Return to the Minutes Page

Return to WSCPR