University of California, Davis
[updated 9/19/01]
WHAT WERE THE STRENGTHS OF THIS COURSE? WHAT DID YOU VALUE MOST?
 | Group discussions. |
| State presentations and discussion groups, good course planning and preparation. |
| Lot of group discussion, finding out how certain issues are handled in other states/regions. Good participation. Good state presentations. |
| Open discussion. |
| State presentations were great, got many creative, innovative ideas to use and apply in my state. Mock inspections for regulated community an excellent teaching tool. |
| You used clearly defined and presented some of the major issues of concern for pesticide issues. |
| The speakers gave good presentations that simulated great discussions. |
| Good to have the right people from HQ present all week to hear, learn, and contribute. |
| As always, meeting other states, FED people and hearing their experiences, resources, and problems. |
| Excellent preparatory discussions to address concerns – penalty matrix very beneficial – great training! Enjoyed law enforcement’s perspective - it does apply to us. |
| True to form – the course was excellent. Great organization and attention to detail. UC Davis staff does an outstanding job. Thanks! |
| Well presented. Good interaction between states, book well done. |
| I like the five-day course. Too bad the events of the week somewhat dampened enthusiasm. Great group interaction. Good to see headquarters people interacting socially. |
| Also need to consider having every person be on a panel in addition to state presentation so experience could be shared. |
| Participants were very much involved and didn’t hesitate to openly discuss issues. |
| Good mix of states, good representation from regions and HQ; pertinent topics; state presentations. |
| How many other states sample produce for residue? Handling "no-tolerance – established" with FQPA is an issue FDA has some enforcement levels. Then, use different methods. We need to look at them. |
HOW COULD THIS COURSE BE IMPROVED?
| Shorten course to four days and have an evening session. |
| Consider the several new people. |
| Field trip with hands-on activities/observations. |
| Eliminate teleconference and lab issues. |
| Less interactive, more developed facts. |
| Keep the meeting to four days. |
| Teleconference should be later or nearer the end. Some people should have a portable microphone to be heard clearly. |
| All participants should submit materials before being an agenda speaker. Must find way to get new, different people to interact rather than always having the old hands constantly be speakers. |
| State presentations were great – but spread out throughout the week instead of over two days. Lack of OPP understanding of enforcement issues might be addressed by participation of key OPP folks in this PREP. |
HOW WILL YOU APPLY WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNED?
| Update databases/tracking/Notices of Non-Compliance, fix it. There are things that I picked up that I will use immediately. |
| Implement in state program. |
| Yes. |
| Much of this discussion can be used in my work. |
OTHER COURSES/TOPIC YOU'D LIKE TO SEE US OFFER?
| More issues in the structural PC field. |
| Consistency issues in states – Notice of warning vs. civil penalties. |