47
4) the team holds its own annual planning session when it organizes its research activities and gives priority to each proposed research trial. Required purchases for these trials are then built into the budget submitted to IFAS. Much of this activity is presently coordinated with the Live Oak AREC staff, to avoid budget complications.
A special session of the team is called occasionally to
discuss research proposals which cannot be reviewed at an annual planning review.
5).the team opens its proposals to review at its annual
summer reviews, and to extension agents, who often are consulted as the design is being prepared.
6) proposals are modified accordingly and formally written into a plan or work.
This planning procedure has usually functioned well.
However, in general, the University's budgeting time schedule-budgets need to be submitted before June-- has conflicted with the team's planning and review schedule, held necessarily in late June after the winter wheat harvest. During the period 1983 to present much of the project discussion and planning :i,.s taken place between the extension and station/campus research personnel. This represents a positive step toward regionalization of the project and less dependence on campus decisions.
Despite problems with time schedules, the FSR/E team has
usually had sufficient funds to alter research designs as needed when conflicts between budget and planning research activities occur. More attention to the budget should have been given by IFAS administrators, and some means of coordinating budget plans with the Live Oak facilities developed earlier.
Budoets
The following tables summarize the budget support for the project since 1980.
Table 7. USDA Funding, 1980-84.
Period Amount Spent
Sept. 1980 60,700
Sept. 1981 111,894
Oct. 1991 30,000 (conference)
Nov. 1982(a) 155,777
TOTAL 358,371
(a) Use of this money was extended until March, 1984.