Evaluations Summary for OHECC 2003
   
     (as of 4/15/2003)

Number of respondents = 19

Ratings:

Comments:
Rating: Excellent
Best Part: The in-service training was great. The workgroup meetings were good, too. Overall, it was a really good OHECC. Thank you so much for organizing it.
Worst Part: The caterer needs to provide a better selection of teas. From those of us who are tea drinkers, they served dreck! The water was tepid, too. Whine, whine, whine.
Future: If you are going to split the four workgroups over two days, it makes sense programatically to have F&N/UrbanHort on one day, and Landscape/Turf on another day. This seems like a more common program split for Advisors. As it was this year, UrbanHort/Landscape, and F&N/Turf, some Advisors were split over whether they could really attend for three days. Maybe others feel differently, so it would be worth determining before next year's OHECC.
------------------------------
Rating: Excellent
Best Part: Research reportsFace-to-face meeting in one place with key individuals normally scattered throughout the state.Collaborative project facilitation.Well-organized and mostly efficient meeting.Hands-on library resource training.
Worst Part: Digital photography hands-on ideally would be more publication production focused (exactly what is needed from authors) and include a summary hand-out.Not enough bottled waters.Weather was too nice to have to be in meetings.
Future: Don't let speakers leave the room until they've provided an electronic copy of their presentation for posting online.Always have it organized by folks as competent and dedicated as Dave Burger and Linda Dodge!
------------------------------
Rating: Excellent
Best Part: The meeting did not turn into a cry and moan session for Coop Extension, yet there was every reason for that to happen. The attendees showed class. This hasn't always happened in the past. The chance to see a new research facility "work-in-progress" was a good opportunity. 
Worst Part: Mike Parella's raving. I like him, but he was on an Eco- track that was over the top.
Future: It is pretty much as it is. Get another Chair like Dave Burger, a rare Chair.
------------------------------
Rating: Very Good
Best Part: Plenty of time for workgroups to meet. The general session was good, too.
Worst Part: Not much to complain about (but that's not what I liked least). The on-campus food was so-so. 
Future: I think OHECC is in a good groove and should continue more or less the same.
------------------------------
Rating: Excellent
Best Part: I could only attend one session (landscape) and it was great. The talks were appropriate and timely and the food was excellent.
Worst Part: Nothing.
Future: Nothing.
------------------------------
Rating: Excellent
Best Part: Organization and content was great. Location was good. Food was good.Discussion and visits with colleagues was beneficial.THANKS
Worst Part: I didn't like how "everyone" from the Urban Hort Workgroup and other workgroups came to the Landscape Workgroup Meeting. Although the information is for everyone, I was hoping that the workgroup meeting would have been more intimate for actual planning and discussion. With so many people in the room, open discussion was discouraged and it took on more of a report format, whereas time could have been better spent planning. I am tired of Mike Reid's criticism of production agriculture, even when the criticism is bonafide. He is in the position to organize a campaign within UCCE yet never takes a leadership role or defines how a larger percentage of us can play a proactive role. All he does is complain and point out faults. 
Future: Perhaps a 2 hour workshop/tour should be offered simultaneously on Tuesday afternoon and Thursday morning so that people have a choice,e.g. I bet that many from the Urban Hort workgroup would have enjoyed a tour of arboretum or some other location on campus where landscape reconstruction is going on. I realize that workgroups change time slots each year, so workshops could be cancelled if preregistration numbers were insufficient.
------------------------------
Rating: Very Good
Best Part: Mostly, the discussions were very open and people were respectful
Worst Part: Occasionally, some were rather sarcastic to those with different approaches. What's new? 
Future: It was as good as it can be. Keep it up.
------------------------------
Rating: Fair
Best Part: Workgroup meetings and time to meeti informally with colleagues. Having the Landscape WG and Urban Hort WG on the same day worked well.
Worst Part: Having it at UC Davis
Future: 1. Move it to "neutral" off-campus facility. 2. Invite industry/non-UC professionals to give presentations in general session.
------------------------------
Rating: Excellent
Best Part: --The afternoon trainning sessions.--The food!--A convenient way to conduct Workgroup meetings.
Worst Part: -- everything was just fine.
Future: -- you did a an excellent job. keep doing what you are doing.Thanks for all your time and efforts. 
------------------------------
Rating: Excellent
Best Part: Interaction with colleagues
Worst Part: Limited amount of time I was able to be present
Future: Good choice of location and timing, more specifically not during public school spring break. 
------------------------------
Rating: Very Good
Best Part: Held at UC Davis, opportunity for work-group meetings, chance to network withadvisors in other areas of the State. 
Worst Part: Difficult to attend Spring conference because of conflicting activities thistime of year.
Future: Hold OHECC in Fall - October or early November.
------------------------------
Rating: Very Good
Best Part: It was well organized--thanks again, Dave. Web site is good. Turf workgroup meeting well organized. I like location--easy to get to.
Worst Part: Urban Horticulture Workgroup meeting didn't allow enough time for topics. Would have been good to register online. 
Future: I don't know . . . You are doing a great job. I like having it at a place that it is easy to get to. Get date set as far in advance as possible. I had a conflict with one day.
------------------------------
Rating: Excellent
Best Part: Hearing about the work others are doing, and the chance to talk about upcoming changes.
Worst Part: No complaints
Future: The biggest problem is not having enough time to address everything that needs to be covered
------------------------------
Rating: Excellent
Best Part: Excellent combination of talks, discussions, field trip, training, and group dinner. I think web-based meeting information is the way to go.
Worst Part: No free time. My own fault, I wanted to attend all sessions. 
Future: Bring back Dave Burger, as Dictator of OHECC. Thanks Dave, we really appreciate your efforts. Your great effort really shows in the fine, well organized program. 
------------------------------
Rating: Very Good
Best Part: I was only there for a half day, so I can't provide a fair assessment of the best and worst. The workgroup meeting I attended (landscape) was not as productive as it could have been. Individual program reports should take the majority of the time.
Worst Part: Being on campus.
Future: Off-campus sites are best. Faculty members are less distracted and we get to visit a location we may not be familiar with.Field tours are a very good dimension to include --- such as the tour in Palm Springs. Just being in a bus with UC colleagues for a day is beneficial. 
------------------------------
Rating: Very Good
Best Part: Only attended the general session. I did enjoy the variety of presentations and really liked the library training, very useful.
Worst Part: Digital photography training...too technical. I would prefer something more hands on like how to manipulate photos using Adobe Photoshop, Photoshop Elements or some other software package. 
Future: None. Everything was well organized.
------------------------------
Rating: Excellent
Best Part: Schedule set-up so we could attend. General session presentations were stimulating (mostly), especially the pp about disease/fungicide resistance. Pam Elam's talk about motivating volunteers was excellent. 
Worst Part: Wished I could have attended all three days.
Future: Same-old Same-old works fine.
------------------------------
Rating: Very Good
Best Part: Opportunity to network with colleagues
Worst Part: my fault - didn't spend enough time with the group
Future: The faculty club is not the most congenial spot, although I assume it is relatively inexpensive. What about doing it in the Spring break and using the Department classrooms - would feel a bit more 'homey'.
------------------------------
Rating: Excellent
Best Part: It was great getting together with my ECCU Colleages. The landscape workgroup meeting was one of the best I've been to. It is great to see the bickering diminishing and the productivity increasing. Good leadership. 
Worst Part: 
Future: I would like to go to Southern Califonia to see what's happening. Will the next OHECC be in S.CA?

Back to OHECC 2003 Home Page