Oregon Council for Knowledge and Economic Development

Council Minutes

     June 11, 2002

Chair Allen Alley opened the meeting at 9:15 AM. Ron Fox called roll.  Four members of the Council had been excused with commitments. He reported a quorum assembled with present members.

  Chair Alley asked the Council for comments on and approval of minutes from the previous meeting. Rep Butler motioned to approve, Scott Gibson seconded, and the minutes were approved unanimously. Chair Alley then introduced technical advisor Dr. Lura Powell, director of the Pacific Northwest National Labs in Richland, WA. He would be calling on her later in the meeting to provide an update on the Lab’s collaborative efforts in Oregon to date.  He also introduced Jason Daughn, field director for Senator Ron Wyden, who would be providing an update on the Senator’s Bioscience Task Force.

  Chair Alley then asked Ron Fox to provide an update on the search for a technical advisor to represent traditional industries to the Council.  Mr. Fox responded that he had spoken to David Marks, President of Marks Metal Technology and a member of the Clackamas County Economic Development Commission. Mr. Marks had indicted an interest in serving the Council, and Mr. Fox would be providing additional information as a final decision was made.  Chair Alley noted the importance of getting people involved who could bridge the state’s diverse industries. 

  Before moving into the committee presentations, Chair Alley noted that several people on the Councils and involved as advisors had been involved in travel to Asia. He noted a number of people were currently part of a delegation to Korea; he personally had visited China and Japan.  He emphasized that everything this committee takes on was part of a larger framework of global competition. Oregon was no longer competing with the Bay Area or Washington, but with the entire Pacific Rim. He was encouraged to see people actively engaging these regions.

  Workforce Development Committee

Chair Alley moved on and asked Jill Kirk, chair of the Workforce Development Committee, to begin with the first report.  Ms. Kirk began by noting that like the other committees, her presentation would be a high level overview of the work that the committee had been doing.  Deeper content would be available in the final report. The Committee’s Goals were two-fold: to ensure both industry and student needs are met, and to ensure that students in all areas of the state and in all stages of educational development can receive an excellent education. Turning to the Committee’s metrics, she noted the following: knowledge and technology jobs are not just in high technology companies; they pay well above the average wage, and they range across industries and skill-levels, from entry-level to those requiring many years of post-graduate education; and they are constantly changing given the changing environment. The Committee had three priorities: addressing immediate workforce gaps, ensuring capacity of Oregon’s primary and secondary education to teach applied math, science and technology, and increasing the supply of qualified workers by raising awareness about the importance of technology-based education and training.  While all fields of education were important, a focus on math and science was necessary to move forward. She noted that these goals needed to be broad, as they would affect everyone in the state at some point. 

At this point, Jim Johnson asked where the goal of excellence—providing all with a compulsory education or focusing on producing the best in specified fields—fit into the Committee’s discussion. Ms. Kirk responded that it depended upon the level of education being discussed. At the K-12 area it is based on higher standards being implemented and benchmarked to national and international standards aimed to move students to a much higher level of achievement. At the university level, the question turns to the area of spires of excellence, focusing on doing a few fields very well and choosing not to pursue others. To that end, she added that decisions would be made in concert with financial and industry advisors about where universities would focus their potential. Mr. Johnson asked if the committee would be making this or related recommendations. Ms. Kirk responded that at this point, they did not plan to, but as other committees finalized their recommendations they would look for overlap with this area.

Ms. Kirk moved on to the Committee’s chosen strategies.  The first was to address immediate gaps in workforce needs. They recommended development of a coordinated and flexible system for incumbent worker training. She noted that this had been already taking place in a limited capacity, but that they would need to expand it to a more systemic, prolonged level, looking at industry clusters to develop pilot programs. She also noted that employer/employee incentives were needed. Chair Alley asked if the committee was looking for a specific level of worker. Ms. Kirk noted that the recommendation would go across the board, and that while the State had targeted training/development programs for relatively mid to low level positions, it may be that greater gain could be seen by developing the high levels (e.g. engineering) as well. Historically, most programs have been at community colleges only, so the program would need to be expanded. Secondly, the Committee recommended increasing the funding, focus and delivery of technology training for a wide array of teachers. She emphasized that it was critical for teachers to integrate technology into curriculum and effectively teach math and science, especially in distressed communities, and to provide scholarships and incentives for math and science study.

Scott Gibson asked about the likelihood for some sort of targeted charter school for even just eighth grade, perhaps online, to reduce costs and need for additional teachers, as a more focused option to trying to implement something like teacher development statewide, especially for teachers without science and math backgrounds. Ms. Kirk responded that these programs did exist on a small scale, and noted the importance of using technology to teach technology, e.g. using the Internet. She then cautioned that even reliance on “experts” for targeted programs is dependent on qualified teachers in the actual classroom who can sustain and promote that information, and that it was essential to have both.  

She moved on to the third strategy, developing a public awareness campaign to promote the importance of science, math and technology education and its impact on career opportunities.  It would also ensure outreach to groups typically underrepresented in technology careers, such as females and minorities. She noted that these groups were not isolated, but excluded on a more broad systemic level than most people were aware.

She concluded with her summary of presentation, stressing that it was an enormous systemic issue, and that there are excellent reform efforts already in place so we don’t have to start from the beginning, but there is a great amount of work to do.

Chair Alley asked the group if there were any questions. Representative Butler commended the work of the Committee, but was disconcerted that they were still talking about building awareness as an action item. Ms. Kirk noted that some more specific things would be included in the final report, but with such a huge issue, it was important to use small “front-end” for effectiveness. She added that much of the strategies were long term, and that “you can’t turn a generation around in 18 months.” There are longer lead times being considered, especially taking into effect the idea of parents and teachers.  Senator Deckert added the scope of the problem was very broad but that the final report would include more tangible long-term strategies, such as the development of online charter schools. Teacher training in math and science would make more sense within that framework. Ms. Kirk reminded the group that many of the standards were already in place. 

Ann Bunnenberg brought up a scenario involving relocating companies and how slow worker retraining often is.  One thing she would find valuable from the committee was increasing speed and effectiveness in matching workers in training programs and relocating companies.  Ms. Kirk agreed that response time was crucial, and pointed out that there was more development in the community college system on this point than at the university level.  Mr. Gibson asked a question about the use of existing and developing broadband infrastructure, noting Qwest was currently hooking schools up to broadband as part of their court settlement. He asked Gordon and Bill to share what they knew about Bill Kelley’s local online education company, and whether it was possible to put content on top of technology. Bill Newman noted that they could talk to Bill, but recalled that the company was focused on teaching basic computer skills at the lowest grade levels. Mr. Gibson asked Mr. Newman to approach him, since it was something Oregon could benefit from primarily if the company was interested in partnering. 

Chair Alley then brought the discussion back to Mr. Johnson’s earlier questions of overall excellence in education.  He didn’t feel like Oregon had made a commitment to that concept, in any level of the system. It seemed like a lot of parents believed Oregon was a good place to educate kids, but serious shortcomings arise under scrutiny. He noted that tying public awareness into this process of promoting excellence was key.  “That public support is necessary if anyone expects the public to make the necessary sacrifices to build education. Individuals agree that education is important, but as a state it seems to be a lower priority.” Ms. Kirk responded that one of Oregon’s stated goals was to have an excellent education system, and great progress had been made so far since reforms were implemented.  She felt however, that the current financial climate discourse was developing at cross-purposes. Schools found it difficult to publicize their achievements in a flat economic climate, since it may encourage the state to limit funding even further.  She hoped that as the state headed into another special legislative system that people would be aware of that. 

Mr. Johnson encouraged the Committee to put more focus on higher education, since K-12 had the primary focus already, adding that the Council’s focus on economic development implied greater focus on universities. He noted that funding for the universities was on the decline, and yet expectations were rising. Those with college degrees earned greater income, and those individuals were necessary to encourage a prosperous economic environment. Jim Berchtold of the Oregon Independent College Foundation noted the tremendous disconnect between the concept in excellence and the actual results.  Don Krahmer shared his experience with representatives of the Washington Technology Alliance. He wondered if it would make sense to have an OCKED delegate go up to Seattle to brief them on what the Council was doing, and learn more about Washington’s progress as well.  He then noted that the Progressive Policy Institute came out with rankings of states, and has statements on what other states are doing in economic development and higher education.  Much of that activity was similar to what Oregon was doing, reinforcing that public information was important. He then added that more important was a reform of the state’s funding base.  It was necessary to get focused to actually grow and make progress as a worldwide competitor, and not just stay at subsistence level.  Dr. Lura Powell concurred on the synergy between Washington organizations and Oregon. She added that PNNL had a lot of programs in education at all levels and workforce training that Oregon could be taking advantage of, involving students and teachers getting hands-on instruction in the lab. The Lab was very interested in working with more organizations and institutions in Oregon to enhance existing programs and develop new ones. 

Mr. Gibson asked the Committee to consider a policy revising scholarships. Currently the millions of dollars given in state scholarship money to incoming Oregon college students had nothing to do with their career choice, only their college selection. He wondered if it would be possible to divert some of those funds to go to scholarships dependent on career program, like engineering or health care, (areas of projected labor shortages) noting that it might provide an incentive for kids in knowing what they wanted to do. Gordon Hoffman responded that in regards to education, most successful programs in math and science in lean economic times depended on the individuals running them, not with policy. He stressed that it was important to build off of efforts already in place, like OMSI, Saturday Academy, Veneer Software, and individual programs in high schools recognized for their excellence. Communication between organizations was also essential. Pat Scruggs responded that the Committee had recognized all of these programs and ideas, but that public awareness was necessary to build these programs and encourage their utilization by parents and teachers in the long-term. Chair Alley then reminded the group that each committee would have to come up with specific actionable items for the next meeting in September. He also encouraged the committee to look into some of the higher education proposals already being proposed like the top tier engineering schools and strategy to increase engineering graduates in the state to affirm their importance. 

Business and Capital Formation Committee

Chair Alley then asked Scott Gibson, chair of the Business and Capital Formation Committee, to continue with the presentations. Mr. Gibson thanked the Committee and staff for their work, and moved on to their key goal; enhancing the ability to start and grow companies and to promote entrepreneurs willing to commercialize ideas in Oregon. The objectives were more defined, more narrowly to focus on increasing capital. This was divided into two categories: institutional seed and venture capital for science and technology (noting that there was currently only one active seed investor source in the state for this), and increasing pre-seed capital, (investing in technology that is still in its discovery stage to lower risk and investigate its potential before turning into a company and commercial product or service.)  Their focus was on technology currently existing throughout Oregon.

Mr. Gibson then turned to a discussion of state capital investment metrics, which he noted were fluctuating wildly as everywhere, but when looked at in terms of gross state product, Oregon was half of Utah’s gross state rate. As Utah was not classified as a “tech-oriented” state, this indicated a serious shortage of capital. Chair Alley then asked if these numbers were 2000-2001, and if that meant that current numbers could be even lower. Mr. Gibson concluded this was likely, noting that before the recession Bay Area venture capitalists used to come to Oregon because there was a valuation differential. In the past six months, that differential has leveled out everywhere, meaning Oregon has lost even this advantage. In terms of other numbers-business start-ups, patents, license income and federal research, Oregon was either at or below the median for state rankings.  “This isn’t good enough” he noted, indicating that Oregon was not doing a good job capitalizing on the technology transfer federal dollars were bringing in. 

He then moved ahead to outlining the Committee’s three strategies. The first was increasing awareness and interest in Oregon as a place to invest. To this, he added that the state needs to view venture capital as an industry base and work to attract firms to locate here. The committee believed the best way to do that was to pressure funds to put a local partner in Oregon. Currently, there are a number of philanthropic agencies with large endowments, most of which are sophisticated enough to have private equity asset allocation.  They will seek out top tier venture capitalists to invest their money.  It would be possible to have investment committees pick a VC and provide incentive or pressure as a condition to have partner in the state in return for investment for funds.   Two or three senior partners, even if commuting to and from Seattle, would be a significant improvement over the status quo. He also added the idea of tax credits or deferral to “special people” like venture capitalists who can help create a culture of investment and have a multiplier effect on the economy. 

The next strategy considered the task of enhancing the ability to make investments and start businesses in Oregon.  One idea involved providing a mechanism for tax credits to let private individuals invest in the Oregon Growth Account. This could increase the public funds available for the fund managers of OGA/ORTDA to work with.  Another meant removing barriers and enhancing effectiveness for a capital gains rollover.  Here he noted that Oregon’s laws are currently flawed and the Committee was seeking advice on how to change them. The third was a modification of securities regulations to be in alignment with competitive regions, specifically in the technology sector. A fourth strategy encourages philanthropic seed funds to target money to the bioscience sector, meaning several million dollars would be available to help foster discoveries. OHSU has already committed to the idea of this, having begun to fund an outside board and creating philanthropic track to supplement those funds. The fifth strategy was to increase the Higher Education Technology Transfer Fund, again with a focus to funding the bioscience sector. Finally, the Committee recommended the development of tax incentive packages for qualified bioscience companies that meet specific criteria and would attract other qualified companies and talent to the state. Mr. Gibson noted that many people currently living in Seattle were attracted there because of the quality of life and incentives offered.  Oregon could attract the next wave of bioscience professionals with a similar package.

Mr. Gibson then moved on to the final set of strategies, concerning the problem of attracting management talent and infrastructure for startup companies. There was a dearth of outstanding talent in Oregon and the Committee advised working with existing organizations, such as business associations and the Oregon Technology Transfer Committee to remedy this. Also, support for technology transfer efforts to promote incentives for university faculty involvement in industry collaboration was needed.  There was also a definite need to create incentives for both “special people” and physical infrastructure, such as wet labs, that could be shared by both start-ups and anchor tenants. Finally, the committee threw its support behind technology transfer efforts to establish a development corporation funded by the research institutions.  In summary, Mr. Gibson emphasized that the Council needed to recommend a focus on strategies to bridge the funding gap, recognizing the differences inherent in the maturation cycles between technology and bioscience sector businesses.

Chair Alley thanked him for his presentation, and then went on to note that this area hit the closest to home for him given his past experience.  He knew there were a lot of east coast firms who could be prime candidates for a move to Portland or Seattle, and would consider moving if there was more venture capital. Mr. Gibson added at similar qualified; potentially interested firms were in the Bay Area. He also noted that Midwest firms would be interested as well, using the example of Arch in Chicago, which had developed a lot of intellectual property in universities and invested in state retirement funds. Mr. Krahmer added there were many things that could be undertaken to accomplish these goals, noting that many of the people capable of “connecting the dots” such as Bill Newman, Gordon Hoffman, and Treasurer Edwards were all involved with the Council.  He then wondered if the capital gains rollover provision had sunsetted, adding it might be necessary to bring it back. He suggested the Council enlist the help of the Oregon State Bar who could assist in a study at no expense.

Ms. Bunnenberg added that the underlying message the committee wanted to convey was that in order to effect either the tech or bioscience sector in any meaningful way, the state and those interested needed to be more politically aggressive. “We’re behind the curve, and we need to have political willpower to make any gains, which is radical in the Oregon political infrastructure.”  Senator Deckert responded that one of the strengths of Oregon is that “we can be small and nimble enough to move on something like this.” He asked Mr. Gibson what the one or two things the Committee really wanted to get from all these potential recommendations.  Mr. Gibson responded that the Committee hadn’t gotten to that point, still needing some seasoned advice on what was most viable. He knew what was the most meaningful to the committee was income tax relief. The Committee was waiting to hear what was the most appropriate given current circumstances.  Mr. Krahmer interjected to caution that the laws would be complex to modify, especially if dealing with an out of state firm with an Oregon office or subsidiary. Senator Deckert encouraged the committee to boil down the options to a few simple and clearly explained options for the Legislature to pick up on. Chair Alley encouraged those with legislative experience to help the committee with defining terms so that they would be politically palatable and appropriate.

Representative Butler noted that the course of developing any potential policy recommendations, it was important to emphasize how important wealth is.  “Oregon will get its greatest financial rewards by getting involved and noting the employment process, so that wealth brings jobs.” He emphasized that in capital gains Oregon was surrounded by states that didn’t tax capital gains, and that put Oregon an at disadvantage. He was grateful both gubernatorial candidates had recognized this importance.  

R&D/Technology Transfer Committee

Chair Alley thanked Mr. Gibson for his excellent summary, and then asked the Research & Development/Technology Transfer Committee to present their report. Committee Chair Jim Johnson began by reviewing the group’s long term goal, to dramatically increase high quality R&D efforts that will create new products, services, and businesses leading to high paying jobs and sustained economic growth for the state.  The Committee had two categories of priority strategies: cost-driven and policy-driven.  Cost-driven priorities included the development of a focused signature research center that attracts world-class researchers, enhances the quality of facilities, and prompts an increase in commercialization capital and management/technical resources.  Policy-driven priorities included removal of barriers and a streamlined ability to conduct joint research between private businesses and universities, and the promotion of R&D and technology transfer efforts as a recognized economic development asset for the state.  He noted the Committee’s illustrated equation of increased research, focused commercialization and expedited interaction adding up to equal economic development.

Mr. Johnson then moved on to discuss the strategies in more detail.  Under increased research, he emphasized the need to explicitly include knowledge creation in the mission statements of involved state agencies.  There was quite a debate going on as to what university and economic developments missions should be, and the Committee firmly believed that not to include research commercialization would be a step backward, especially in a globally competitive world. Secondly, it was important to create communication linkages; specifically a marketing plan that touts statewide regional entities aligned with signature research and economic development plans of regions and the state. Under focused commercialization, he emphasized the need for more federal dollars to be raised for Oregon and create the right environment for universities.  Because more federal money was being channeled towards centers of excellence, it was important to develop the idea of signature research.  Instead of having one professor, Oregon needs 5-10 to have a critical mass and get dollars to flow.  This requires tough choices to be made about what the state’s area of excellence was going to be.  Noting the critical need for fast decision-making between now and the legislative session in January, he hoped for an answer soon.  Mr. Gibson asked if the idea was to have two areas in bioscience and technology.  Mr. Johnson responded there was the possibility of doing more than one in parallel, but the state didn’t have the resources to do full funding of both simultaneously. Chair Alley noted that this path was common in other parts of the country, but that Oregon had never focused its resources in this direction. 

Mr. Johnson continued on to the next priority for focused commercialization, increasing the role of state government in linking research assets to economic development.  Citing recent stories of lags between business and the state in getting things done, he emphasized the need to get things done quickly according to a business timetable. He also noted the idea of creating a development commission or corporation to provide expertise to universities that was still in development by the committee.  He then touched on the next priority involving expedited interaction between universities and businesses.  This included streamlining technology transfer agreements in alignment with best practices and creating more industry/university interaction. Centralization was needed; there were good examples of startups with needs and no idea of where to go for advice or access to facilities and equipment.  He also mentioned vocal state support for the Bayh-Dole Act, the federal legislation insuring university income on commercialized research that was currently under review by a Senate committee. He offered that the Council make a statement of support to one of the key figures in the review, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden.  Finally, he noted that the state needs to develop incentives for interaction between universities and businesses, such as changing policies related to tenure and providing funding for emerging growth companies to access university resources.   He noted that currently faculty pursuing research with commercial potential could be on a “negative tenure track”.  Faculty involvement was a fundamental way to become more competitive.

Chair Alley asked the group for comments.  Don Krahmer noted the importance of galvanizing public opinion to make these goals successful. State universities were already doing this individually, but more concerted efforts were needed. He noted that private sector involvement in this effort would be key.  Lura Powell of Pacific NW National Lab noted that her facilities were often used by universities and was often used for analysis to see the region’s strengths with its Starlite database software.  This tool could help find the connections between business accessibility and capital.  She also noted that incubator space was an effective tool for increasing interaction. She also cautioned that capital must be patient with bioscience, as it often takes a long time for research to become marketable, unlike information technology. She also noted the importance of attracting SBIR and other federal dollars in the process.  Mr. Krahmer asked how these resources would help commercial technology connections coordinate with state and federal sources, and if other states were doing it differently. Dr. Powell responded that the path could be difficult to navigate without well-connected individuals. Building a database from scratch was not a good idea, because it would change constantly.  It was better to build upon connections with people like Walt Plocilla, who know how to navigating the federal grant process.  She also noted the idea of using a development corporation to help capture and nurture technology transfer for the staff. Chair Alley mentioned the display technology industry as an example of how focused research could feed a new industry of global importance.

Chair Alley then turned the discussion back to another strategy; support for the Bayh-Dole Act. He asked how urgent this support would be needed. Mr. Krahmer noted that Jason Daughn, field representative for Senator Wyden, was on hand and could discuss this in greater detail.  Chair Alley called upon Mr. Daughn to report on the situation.  Mr. Daughn began by encouraging the Council to put together a letter outlining its position on the issue. He was recently introduced to the Bayh-Dole issue, knowing a number of representatives in Congress had questions and concerns about the amount of taxpayer dollars going into research that develops Prozac and other successful pharmaceutical companies while receiving little return for its “investment”. Concern had arisen from the perception that the patent holder gets all financial reward from what many see as a taxpayer-funded research project.  Mr. Daughn noted that all involved understood that people were equally concerned that money generated by universities stays with universities. He concluded with encouragement by the group to make the Senator and his colleagues aware of their concerns, as currently he was still formulating his position and would be interested in hearing any comments the Council might have. Chair Alley noted that any kind of change could stifle economic growth. Jim Johnson concurred, adding that from Oregon’s perspective, the preservation of Bayh-Dole was critical.  Stressing the importance of good communication with the Senator’s office and the rest of the Congressional delegation, Mr. Krahmer offered the idea of having Mr. Daughn doing some additional probing and to come back to the rest of the group for the next presentation.  Mr. Daughn responded that he would be happy to do that, and noted that everyone needed to do a bit of research before further discussion.  He also stressed that the Senator, as part of the Senate Committee on Science and Technology, was very supportive of the work and opinions of the Council, and if they were supportive of keeping Bayh-Dole in its current form, he would take the opinion of the Council under serious consideration. 

Chair Alley asked if from a process standpoint, it was possible to document something like this to the group, or if their presence was enough. He suggested that the Council draft a letter clarifying its position to the Oregon congressional delegation as soon as possible. Mr. Daughn responded this would be a good idea, also noting that he would need some time to get the Council the appropriate information and were acutely aware of the Senator’s position.  Chair Alley noted that his only concern was that the next Council meeting would be in September, and he didn’t want anything to happen without the Council putting a formal statement out until then. He was confident that there was consensus and therefore had no issue making a formalized statement as soon as possible. Ms. Bunnenberg noted that an option might be for the Council to pass a statement of concern while working on something more formal. “That gives us the chance for him to formulate his position while we still get a chance to be on the record regarding the current momentum in Washington.” Mr. Daughn asked Chair Alley if 48 hours was enough time to get the necessary information regarding the Senator’s position. In the meantime the Council staff would draft something in positive support of Bayh-Dole in the following two weeks.

Senator Deckert asked about the Committee’s priority of investment in top tier research as a critical priority.  He wondered if the system of governance for higher education in the state had been addressed.  Concerned about the degrees of autonomy that existed within the system currently, he advocated that someone needed to take this issue on as well.  He encouraged the committee to make some kind of statement on this.  President Paul Risser responded that this was very important, and noted that Oregon State and other public universities had been in the process of outlining priorities for change and autonomy recently. While some changes could be made internally, many issues were systemic and would soon be issued publicly. Senator Deckert encouraged the campuses to be bold in their priorities and to utilize the Council in the process if needed.

Pursuing Next Steps

  Chair Alley then thanked all the committees and noted the exciting ideas coming out of the committee process.  He then recalled the first meeting where the Council discussed coming up with a list of actionable items to take the Legislature. He noted that many committees had gotten that point, while some were still in the concept stage. The next step was to prioritize up to three ideas per committee that were actionable, as well as focusing on resources needed for implementation, with the target for completion being the September meeting. Using input heard today, he hoped the committees would be able to complete this by September. He then called on facilitator Pat Scruggs for additional comments about the work plan.  She noted that to have these recommendations ready prior to the September meeting for the Council as a whole to digest, committees would need to have their work done by August.  She noted that although summer was not a good time to get work done, the committees only needed to focus on priorities; not everything would need to have equal focus.  She noted they would have very little time to pull together a draft report, gather feedback, and having a final report ready following the November election. She noted staff would be ready to assist and help with any questions; as well as assuring work was completed in a timely manner. Chair Alley added that as priorities were established, it was important to look to other people who could assist with research and feedback.  He also encouraged the committees to focus on their bolder ideas, since the Council was the best opportunity to articulate them to the state.

Mr. Newman noted that in coming up with priorities and implementation goals, overlapping with committees and work between them would only make the final recommendations stronger.  He encouraged this process, and hoped there would be a mechanism to keep the committees working in concert with one another. Chair Alley noted that the chairs had already discussed their committees’ complementary goals, and that ultimately the goals would be coming from the full Council. He encouraged coordination, particularly between Mr. Johnson and Mr. Gibson.  Mr. Johnson noted that any overlap from his committee was intentional and reinforcing. 

He then moved on to planning for the next meeting. Ms. Scruggs noted that the week of September 16 was as far as they had gotten.  The group was polled for the best date within that time. It was decided that the morning of Tuesday September 17^th was tentatively a good option for most. She stressed that this meeting was critical for attendance, since recommendations would start to be finalized at that point. 

Bioscience Task Force

Chair Alley then moved on to the final report items of the meeting.  He asked Ron Fox for an update on the Bioscience Task Force.  Mr. Fox said that names had been submitted to the Governor for recommended appointments. Specifically Ann Bunnenberg and Lynn Stevenson, active members of the Capital Formation Committee, were among the names.  The Legislature still had some other recommendations and the final approval process was still underway. 

Update on Pacific Northwest National Lab

Chair Alley then asked Dr. Powell for an update on activities of the Pacific Northwest National Lab.  Dr. Powell noted that traditionally the lab had its strength in physical and computational sciences, but was recently moving forward with developing bioscience and particularly systems biology.  This field was especially exciting because of its promise in developing disease cures and other important applications. The Lab was making this move because the interfaces between the physical, biological and informational sciences would be where big discoveries were going to happen.  The Lab had a major user facility for businesses and universities to use, which had outstanding resources and could be used at no charge providing any research was published under open literature policies.  She continued by noting examples of their capabilities, including proteomics and nanoscience. She estimated the Lab had $587 million dollars in projected sales for the next year. About 40% of the Lab’s work was national security-based, focused in nonproliferation and intelligence, energy, and sustainability. Facilities included a Linux-based supercomputer that would be among the top non-classified machines in the country, the world’s largest MMR magnet, and other outstanding facilities. Last fall, OUS and OHSU signed a memorandum of understanding with the Lab to formalize relations concerning collaborative research.  Under that, programs have been started involving microtechnology, a center of excellence for bioterrorism, and other relations.  There was a committee of representatives from all parties that met periodically to look for potential areas of synergy.

Chair Alley then asked how a company could find out what resources were available to them. Dr. Powell responded that the website was the best area to look first, and also to talk to Mike Schwenk, head of economic development at the Lab. She was also happy to personally talk to any interested parties. Mr. Krahmer noted that the total amount of research at the Lab exceeded the total research dollars in Oregon and stressed the need to collaborate more often. He then noted that Bill Newman and Gordon Hoffman had hosted a meeting rural Oregon, which was close to the Lab, and noted that building a relationship with the Lab was important for the Eastern part of the state’s economic development strategy.

Dr. Powell agreed, and added that since the Lab is both federal and private, companies can work with the Lab without having to go through the creative process to utilize resources and technology. The Lab also provides free business assistance and advice to companies. Finally, she noted that if a group of Oregon companies wished to visit the Lab, they would be happy to provide tours and connections with the local communities and extended an invitation to the Council. The Lab could accommodate large groups and was close to airport facilities.  Chair Alley noted this would be good for trade companies like SAO and AEA.  Mr. Krahmer noted that legislative representatives might want to take advantage of this as well citing it as an educational tool to reinforce the Council’s agenda before the Legislature headed into session.

Update from Senator Wyden on Science and Technology Agenda

  Chair Alley then asked Mr. Daughn to present some information about Senator Wyden’s Science and Technology Agenda.  Recently the Senator Wyden in conjunction with the OBC announced would be working cooperatively with the business, education, and public communities to develop a long-term sustainable economic agenda for Oregon.  In December, they hoped to host a business summit to note targets and goals for the long term.  The key would be bringing in the elected leadership to participate and be accountable to bring the goals to fruition.   He hoped the recommendations of OBC and OCKED could be folded in one “blueprint” from which everyone could work to the benefit of Oregon.  

Chair Alley asked if the Council’s final report would be done by this time. Ms. Scruggs responded that since it was being developing to coincide with OBC, it likely would be completed by then.  Senator Deckert noted that the timing worked nicely for the two reports to be released together, and stressed the importance of being results-focused.  With the Senator Smith and Wyden working together it would be possible to get good bipartisan participation from the legislature and that would help galvanize action. Mr. Krahmer encouraged the Council staff to continue inviting the Congressional staff to the meetings. 

  With no additional business, Chair Alley thanked participants and adjourned the Council at 11:25 AM. 

Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development