University of California, Davis
June 12-16, 2005
COMMENTS
 | Excellent food and facility and staff – very smoothly run course. Too many snacks! I’ll need to wean myself back onto carrots and celery! |
| Excellent. |
| Great mix of attendees. |
| Excellent PREP – Great location /variety of speakers etc. Hats off to Suzanne/Jennifer for a job well done. |
| Enjoyed the teleconference/PP – very effective. More comfortable chairs – stand and stretch breaks 15 seconds. Bad – facility no phone bank for calls at workshop; lighting. |
| Extremely well organized, great mix, great distribution. Five-star operation!! |
| Home Run! (Continued on bottom.) |
| Days 2, 3 & 4 were best. Found "ethics" disappointing – expected more applied – problems and solutions, how to weigh risks/benefits examples of others’ etc. dilemmas. |
| Best PREP I’ve attended yet. Great course. |
| I think overall course was great. I would like to see a little more flexibility built in, some really good session/ question had to be cut short to stay on time. Contacts and networking is invaluable. Potential topics – New and innovative application practices and equipment that reduce or minimizes risk. I think tours should continue! A structural pest/WDO tour would be interesting. People using non-pesticide products as pesticides/garden shows that teach people how to make "home remedies" to care of pest problems. i.e., Jerry Baker, tobacco tea. Spraying bleach solutions to control turf diseases etc. Finding your way around the regulatory process (EPA headquarters.) Where to find info that is not on the web. Conflict resolution, tools to use with a sometimes irrational public (far left and far right). |
| Overall course very good. I know it takes time and effort to plan these PREP courses. |
| Overall this was an excellent course – very informative and balanced. |
| Services were outstanding. |
| All speakers were great all were well-prepared. |
| Wide variety all very interesting topics. |
| Fine group of folks with excellent presentations, facilities and administration. |
| A well run course! Staff was very attentive to detail and provided assistance continually and swiftly. |
| Very efficient and helpful staff, very well-organized. |
| Majority of presentations were very valuable and informative. They will be used throughout profession. |
| Overall a satisfying program. I didn’t necessarily agree with everything but I learned a lot about other areas. |
| The 5 days were good but a long time – recommend considering other locations, but overall it was great. |
| PREP always informative, timely info, speakers were very appropriate for combo. |
| It was a good use of my time. UC Davis staff and EPA did a good job of carrying the course through. |
WHAT WERE THE STRENGTHS OF THIS COURSE? WHAT DID YOU VALUE MOST?
| Variety, viewpoints, facility. Got some ideas for improvements in our pesticide program. Opportunity to network w/ colleagues. |
| Participation from all present states and tribes w/EPA and others. |
| Participation of all seems some large problems for all. |
| State/tribal presentations. |
| Interaction. |
| People at all levels. Relationship building. Congeniality, enthusiasm and thoroughness of support. |
| Selection of topics and quality of speakers. Great selection of attendees! Kudos to Suzanne, Jennifer and John! |
| Great information, the speakers were brilliant. |
| Interacting w/counterparts from other states, providing lunches and dinners got people to interact more – great idea. |
| The presenters where the strengths of the course. |
| Participants whom provided presentations. |
| I really enjoyed hearing from all of the states. The veterinary poisoning section was excellent and the ethics portions were refreshing and a great way to end the training. |
| Dr. Talcott’s presentation, Father Miles, and individual reports. |
| Provided an excellent overview of issues pertaining to pesticide regulation that will allow me to interact w/coworkers and other intersecting entities. |
| Excellent coverage of wide range of subjects, especially liked presentation on Exposure Incidents. |
| Presentations from states and tribes were very informative. Some gave ideas of different situations and solutions. |
| Review and effects on future interaction good range of speakers and good speakers. |
| Presentations from States – this initiated after-hours dialogue. |
| Would like to have a presentation from OMB – like to hear and see what they actually want; thoroughly. All of the info usable can be incorporated into daily enforcement activities, new ideas for program concerns/ implementations from state presentations. Planning committee; are they all southern?? The hospitality was very warm just like being home in the south!! |
| The interaction with attendees. The ethics portion by Father Riley. |
HOW COULD THIS COURSE BE IMPROVED?
| Eliminate "current trends in ITC," or apply it to what we do. |
| Full day field trip!! Could easily do a morning/afternoon session close by. Less "talking heads" more kinetic stuff (demos provided). |
| State and Tribe inputs. |
| The 2 hour talks are a little rough. |
| Panel at registrants and FIFRA 6 (a) (2) and Family Practice Physician; Survey Regions of Model Program – How they work and why -> presenters state tops. |
| Industrial representation for labels/labeling. Breakout work sessions on issue topics. |
| Add winery tour to the Napa field trip with an opportunity to taste and purchase the products. |
| I think the ethics section could have been longer and had more discussion. |
| Attempt to be inclusive w/presenters and/or speakers; more group interaction, maybe. |
| I made specific recommendations on other eval forms. May want to consider dropping "trends in communication" I didn’t get the point, in relation to my position – add "risk communication" instead. |
| More five-minute breaks. |
| More tribal participation on programs, such as program problem or situations. |
| Lanyards for name tags – save pin holes in clothes. |
| Get more interaction w/fellow students – try an approach that breaks the groups into small teams and maybe rotate people within the teams; the opening exercise didn’t cut it; make it more interactive. |
| Measures of success presentation had little substance and was insulting – needs to be redone if given again. |
| Perhaps request input from participants on topics they would like to include. |
| Have fresh coffee after lunch. Allow one morning or afternoon free time to explore the area and events. |
HOW WILL THIS COURSE HELP YOU IN YOUR JOB/CAREER?
| Rejuvenated my attitude and provided specific (possible) solutions to professional problem thru networking. |
| Helps me understand different viewpoints and issues of importance to develop projects. |
| Use other contacts. |
| Immensely specifically to properly embrace collaborative concepts. |
| A wealth of resources (both peers and subject experts.) |
| Knowledge, management skills, and contacts. |
| The contacts made will be helpful when issues arise and state comparison is needed. |
| Definitely. |
| The course is able to help me be better at my job. |
| This will help my pesticide program with its policies/procedures and what the program can expect. |
| Excellent job! Very organized. |
| Refresh professional theory and share experience/solutions. |
| Very useful for day to day operation and dealing with EPA. |
| Contacts with other people. This was a tremendous learning experience for me. |
| It just adds education and valuable experience to my knowledge bank. |
WHAT OTHER PROGRAMS WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE US OFFER?
| Add wildlife. |
| SLA/CES Cooperation; Great Guidance Enforcement and Compliance Assistance; someone from OMB. |
| Dialogue with industry on issues such as: Label/labeling interpretation; termiticide issues; ESA/Water Quality. |
| GMD development of governmental oversight (or lack thereof). |
| Maybe a management style course, a few day of Miles type training. |
| CTAG, someone from OMB a panel of OPP, OMB, OECA and state panel for information. |
| I’d like to see a Forestry Management topic added to the list. |
| Worker Protection Education. |
| Again more participation from tribal programs, informative states or tribal programs. |