P2Rx Administrative Call

April 20, 2005

Attendees: Andy Bray (NEWMOA), Gary Hunt, (WRRC), Deb Jacobson (GLRPPR), Thomas Vinson-Peng (Zerowaste), Rick Yoder (P2RIC), Mike Vogel (Peaks), Ed Gonzalez (WRPPN), Chris Wiley (PPRC), and  Jean Waters (P2Rx).

Agenda (all times Central):

1:00 - 1:30 Review and choose top three national priorities

1:30 - 1:50 Each center director share thoughts about the Summit (or other related insights)

1:50 - 2:05 Review logic model recently sent by Beth (let me know if you didn't get it)

2:05 - 2:15 Misc. and wrap up

Start with review of the Summit while waiting for everyone to join the call.

Deb – Fun walk was success although not on the agenda as soon as we would have liked.  It’s kind of institutionalized now.  There will be a wrap up call for the Summit within a week, and she’ll be on it.  It will include discussion about whether to have a conference next year or skip a year.  Deb’s hearing more people relying on centers to help in states that are losing P2 funding. Center for Neighborhood Technologies will be the recipient of the $300 collected from the Fun Walk.

Thomas – loved the Fun Walk.  P2Rx really is showing leadership.

Rick – Monday session was pretty good, wish we’d talk more about how the centers could divide up the work better.  In discussion with OPPT headquarters folks, realizing that the PART process is important, setting up for measurement is key to successful review by OMB.  Rick is starting to think the best way to attend the conference is to go and network, forget the sessions.

Deb – Allan Abramson was there, did anyone get to talk to him? Jean, Gary, and Thomas talked to him.  He’s retiring in June.  Gary says Tom Tilman is leading the proposed committee to review all P2 spending; Allan said P2Rx should be on it – Jean and some others.  Rick says we should be saying where P2 is going and then decide where to spend the money.  Thomas says we need to look for other P2 funds also.

Chris says the measurement training session and Wednesday afternoon measurement session went well.  A lot of people are hanging their hat on measurement being some kind of savior of the P2 program.  The OMB process (PART) at EPA emerged as pretty serious – the need to have numbers is very apparent.  It was mentioned several times throughout the Summit that P2Rx is going to provide collection of the outcome measures.  Chris says we have to be cautious as we move forward to know what we can deliver and what we can’t.  Chris was a little disappointed in Tuesday’s session – all we talked about was the name change for NPPR.  The town hall didn’t move us any closer to defining our P2 vision.  Stewardship is the buzzword.

Andy echoes Chris’ comments about the town hall.  The MACT session was great.  Gary spoke in that session.  Andy followed up with Tom Devanzo and Eileen Sheehen to come up with some data to show that some P2 projects for MACT are not really preventing pollution.  They are just switching from a hazardous HAP to an equally dangerous nonHAP.  News session was small but key players attended.  There was a short meeting with Chris Wolnek and Tania Del Matto from P2WIN.  They’re interested in linking to our programs directory.  At least 14 programs want the NEWMOA desktop measurement system.  The PART process is going to be key.  Andy met with Tom Devanzo and Rob Gilliam this week, Andy educated Tom about some of the stuff we are doing.  He gave Tom a copy of our most recent activity report.  Tom was interested to see our collective web measures.  Tom asked NEWMOA specifically about how funding goes between the regional roundtable work and other P2Rx work.  Andy told him that they compliment each other.  Also, there’s talk of forming a subcommittee of P2 coordinators to meet with P2Rx regularly and keep communication going. 

Gary - Where does P2Rx fit in the decreasing funding picture?  Some states are seeing their funding drop below an FTE so wondering if some money be diverted from P2Rx?  It’s not about whether or not they want P2Rx but the level of funding for states is so low. 

Andy says P2 coordinators are trying to decide whether to fund 50 states or fund programs that have measurable returns.  What have they gotten for the money they have spent in the past?  Gary thinks every state needs someone at the table to talk about P2.

Results of priority areas are as follows:

	NEWMOA	WRRC	GLRPPR	Zerowaste	P2RIC	Peaks	WRPPN	PPRC	Total
New Markets			x	x				x	3
Strengthen the Base	X	X	X	X			X	X	6
Promotion		X	X		X	X	X	X	6
Programs & Products	X	X		X		X	X		5
Funding Sources					X	X			2
Define the Vision	X				X				2

The top three areas are:  Strengthen the Base, Promotion, and Programs and Products.

Rick thinks we’re missing the boat if we don’t throw funding out there. 

Andy wants to consider promotion part of strengthening the base, products, and new markets.  Gary says maybe it’s best to leave it at the top two areas.  Thomas says that with strengthening the base, there are things we need to work into our proposals.  The question was raised that if we adopt a couple of focus areas it would impact our FY06. Ed doesn’t think he’ll be able to add focus areas to his work plan.  Thomas will be able to change work plan, Rick will also.  Thomas thinks when we write our proposals, rather than just put the template in, we need to think about what we do in terms of the focus priorities. 

Gary thinks strengthening our base and working on high quality products, is what we should be doing anyway.  Andy asks if we’re going to repackage what we’re doing, or are we going to drop other things in favor of our focus areas.  Region 9 is going to focus but won’t write it down with timelines, etc. 

Andy suggested we pick an issue or two to focus on nationally.  All centers could contribute to a common project.  Gary says the hot topic at HQ is area sources and RCC.  Do we want to do what the Regions want or what Charlie wants?  Andy thinks we should try to serve the coordinators, but try to do both.  The different focus is that we need to look at major environmental issues.  Chris says if we follow water conservation, for instance, Mike could look at agricultural applications, PPRC at another application, and it all ties together.  Andy says if we choose to pursue this we have to pick a big, broad topic.  Mike supports this.  The last time we really looked at programs and products was way back in Seattle.  We don’t have anything strategic in programs and products that really pushes us.  Deb says the people from the region have already told her what they want.  They want a strategic planning meeting.  Mike says no matter how you slice it we have responsibility to region and EPA.  This reminds people of Isao’s presentation many years ago where he listed all the environmental priorities of different groups. 

Chris suggests that we do some homework.  Identify a top topic and think about what the center would provide product-wise or information-wise to the topic. We could brainstorm on the list serve about topics and have every center vote on their top three.

Jean asked for those that would participate; if we identify a topic; will centers adjust their work plan so we’ll all contribute to a national effort?

Mike will commit to working through the process but he has to see what the actual issue is that we choose before he can commit to changing the work plan.

A vote was taken on committing to working through the process.

Andy - yes

Gary - yes

Deb - yes

Thomas - yes

Rick - yes

Mike - yes

Ed - yes

Chris – yes

Meeting adjourned.