202 



Question 2: Some individuals feel that the placement of forestry within USDA represents a 

 conflict of interest Where do you feel forestiy should be placed in any reorganization scheme? 



Response: Rather than being a conflict of interest, the association of agriculture and forestiy in 

 USDA has been highly complementary. The two share many things in common. The science 

 base, economic principles, and management concepts to which the practice of agriculture is 

 anchored arc also applicable to forestry. Additionally, they share many of the same problems - 

 economic, social, and environmental - and benefit mutually from the solutions to these problems. 

 At the local and state level, forestry and agriculture are inseparable. Together, they provide the 

 economic underpinning for much of rural America. 



The question of where forestry should be located within the federal organizational structure has 

 been studied extensively in the past The conclusion from these studies that forestry should remain 

 in USDA is still valid. The benefits both presentiy and prospectively of the Jissociation between 

 agriculture and forestry outweigh any benefits that may result ftom moving forestry out of this 

 department 



Question 3: As an administrator, how do you include "cross-cutting" initiatives in your planning 

 process? 



Response: In our setting, initiatives may be considered "cross-cutting" for any one of three 

 reasons. Some initiatives cut across disciplinary lines, and require special mechanisms in order to 

 ensure appropriate coverage of the areas of expertise necessary for an optimum solution. A second 

 form of "cross-cutting" issue has been increasing in its importance in recent years, and those are 

 issues that cut across commodity or clientele areas of interest Such issues as water quality, 

 environmental protection, and food safety are good examples of these kinds of issues. A third 

 kind of issue that requires special attention is one that cuts across functional areas of the university. 

 Since we are funded under separate directives for teaching, research, and extension, we sometimes 

 have to exert special effort to assure that all functions are considered appropriately. 



As the university vice-president in charge of all functions and disciplines directly related with 

 agricultural and forestry problems, a gcxxi deal of my personal effort must be directed to assuring 

 appropriate consideration for the issues described above. Unit managers, be they heads of 

 functional, disciplinary, or commodity focused units in our system are routinely involved with 

 planning activities extending beyond their area of direct responsibility. All program planning and 

 implementation teams are formulated to assure participation by a variety of faculty members across 

 disciplines and functions. 



Perhaps the greatest stimulus to good planning with regard to cross cutting issues is the direct 

 involvement of clientele representatives in program planning and evaluation activities. Those who 

 apply the results of our science and technology in Uieir everyday activities are quick to point out 

 omissions of coverage. 



In summary, proper attention to cross disciplinary, functional, or commodity lines presents a 

 unique challenge to any administrator. In a university setting, these challenges are sometime 

 exacerbated by reward systems and peer pressure. Qne of the substantial strengths of the land 

 -grant system is the maintenance of mission oriented and directed research responsibilities in the 

 experiment station director, along with clear responsibilities for extension programming through 

 the extension director. When those two agencies are appropriately meshed with the academic 

 structure supporting the teaching mission, one can be reasonably sure that cross-cutting issues will 

 be adequately considered. 



(Attachment follows:) 



