University of California, Davis
April 3-5, 2006
[updated 5/1/06]
WAS THE AGENDA FOR THIS COURSE ADEQUATE AND MET YOUR EXPECTATIONS?
 | This is a great forum for discussion and networking. The agenda was a good balance of workgroups/roundtables to lectures. If given a bit more information, I could have prepared more and gotten more out of discussions. |
| When the agenda was received I was very interested in the topics and was not disappointed after going through the session. |
| Would like to hear more of strategies and planning for the future. |
| A few segments didn’t connect but overall excellent. Well planned and well executed. Suzanne Forsyth and the entire UC Davis Extension are great; professional and well organized and attentive to details. |
| Yes. |
| I agree with the items and comments from the wrap-up session. |
| The agenda was very good. Nice assortment of topics and balance of format (roundtable, breaks, traditional presentations.) |
| Yes, it either met or exceeded my expectations. |
| Yes, most was great. The legislative roundtables were not particularly useful to me. |
| Yes, great selection of attendees. Great cross talks. |
| I really didn’t know what to expect because it was a first of this kind. Some topics I did expect more than what I got. |
| PREP courses are always great for networking. The most valuable point of this course for me was networking with my state counterparts. How about less “presentation” and add a field trip - the bus time and field discussions are great - also, it gets us out of the “desk and office” mode - too much sitting. |
| Yes, I would have liked more time for the presentation on performance management. Great speaker. |
| Overall yes. The legislation session could have been more instructional and less just informational. |
| Yes, overall, very good. I thought there would be more on performance measures and how the states may need to mange to meet them (i.e. date collection, entry, and reporting.) |
| Overall, I felt the agenda was a good mixture of topics. It would be more beneficial on some topics to make the relationship of activities directly to states. |
| I thought the agenda was very close on the mark for topics dealing with management. I was disappointed with the content and a couple of speakers, but I would definitely recommend tailoring the course further and continuing this course in the future. |
| Yes, for the most part. |
| Yes, in most ways. It was a little redundant on succession planning. |
| Yes, maybe provide earlier so that participants could prepare. Enjoyed the dialogue more than the lectures. |
| Yes. |
| Little heavy on “touchy feely” - sometimes it felt a bit like a retreat. |
WHAT IS YOUR FEELING ABOUT THE 3-DAY FORMAT (AS OPPOSED TO LONGER PREP COURSES)?
| If it was any longer, I’m afraid many attendees (including myself) probably would not have been able to dedicate any more time to attend. |
| I thought this format was great! It was less stressful for me to spend a shorter time (3 vs. 5 days) and I felt that it allowed me to focus more on topics. Consider using 3 day format for other topics, too. |
| Three-day format is good, although we could benefit from more details on some topics (measures, outcomes.) |
| For this group I believe 3 days was great. The field trip was missed but everyone’s so stretched/spread out that it was not a detriment to the program. |
| The 3-day format is just right for those from the east coast. If you plan for a 5 day format make the days shorter (end at 3:30 or 4:00). |
| The 3-day format is awesome! Thank you for considering it. |
| 3 days is a long time to be away from the office. |
| Three days may actually be somewhat short—a fourth day with some type of field trip might have been useful. |
| 3 days is ok - enough time to get into the subject, not too much take away. |
| Excellent! I liked the field trip with other PREPs but the value added was questionable. |
| Agenda could be shortened to two days and concentrate on topics that really affect states and programs. |
| Good length. Too bad there isn’t time for everyone to give a presentation, as in the combo course. Would like to know what resources other programs have (i.e. Louisiana online registration.) |
| 3-day was long enough—great exposure, lots of knowledgeable people, great networking. |
| Loved it! I think more people will be able and willing to attend a 3-day course. 5-day course and 2 days of travel is too long. Love eliminating the field trip. Move the dinner up 1 night and let those who can leave the last night instead of having to stay an extra night do so. |
| I personally prefer the field trips. They are always very informative. |
| Excellent. If this training would have been longer, you would lose the quality. Always leaving them for wanting more. |
| This format is appropriate for this type of PREP course. |
| Still felt like a long course when travel particularly on the weekend is factored in-maybe travel on Monday and Friday. Liked it much better than the 5-day format. |
| Just right. |
| I thought it worked very well. |
| I like it. |
| Worked well. |
| Felt this is the right length of time. |
| Great for senior managers. |
WAS THE FREE-FLOWING DISCUSSION (ROUNDTABLE SESSIONS) A PROPER APPROACH FOR THIS TYPE OF COURSE? OR WOULD YOU PREFER MORE TRADITIONAL PRESENTATIONS?
| I very much prefer the open discussions and ability to offer comments freely. |
| Definitely go with the roundtable discussions. This group’s benefit was/is the level of experience that needs to be shared. Lectures did not facilitate sharing of ideas. |
| Reasonable balance. |
| I liked the roundtable – learning from my colleagues is valuable. |
| Free flowing discussion was a relief from the traditional presentation. |
| Keep roundtables - gives a perspective that can be related to - it is good to hear about other states and problems/accomplishments. |
| The roundtable sessions were a great approach and, in my opinion, are as valuable (if not more) than traditional presentations. Roundtable sessions allow us to “compare notes” and take back some great ideas for possible implementation. The sessions facilitate partnering immensely. |
| Roundtables were very good - maybe some roundtables around specific topics (e.g. IPM, enforcement, training, long-term planning). |
| I think a mix of the two approaches worked well. I don’t know how the “panel” groups were developed, but more effort could be made to split up the participants to make more people presenters. |
| Free-flowing is great. You could also use the time to get input on specific items of interest to EPA. |
| Excellent approach - maybe could have had a little more time for this but lectures important if at the appropriate level. |
| Roundtable is fine. Panels rethink. |
| Yes - the roundtable sessions were excellent. I didn’t care for the legislative panel discussion. Suggest state reps submit their legislative challenges before coming to the course and have a roundtable based on common challenges. |
| Roundtables are good and helpful and you recognize that other states have similar problems. |
| I thought it worked. There was a lot of expertise in the room to glean from. Need more discussion on how states are doing the enforcement #s. |
| These were excellent. Good to hear what other states are doing and issues they face—what they did to overcome. |
| I would like to have more “roundtable” discussions. I found it very valuable hearing the issues and activities other states are having. |
| Yes. The combination was appropriate. |
| For this topic, I felt I came away more with general concepts and heard how other agencies dealt with issues but I would have preferred more formal hands-on exercises and tangible tools to walk away with. Sometime roundtable discussion digresses into a complaint session. |
| The free-flowing discussions are a very good approach. |
| Yes, it encourages involvement. |
| I like the interaction in the roundtable, but the lectures were useful. The mix was very good. |
| Prefer the discussion. They are real life situations. Too much lecturing on Wednesday. |
| Yes, actually would prefer more. |
| Discussions were probably best feature - maybe allow more time for key topics. |
WHAT COULD THE PREP PLANNERS HAVE DONE TO MAKE THIS COURSE MORE USEFUL TO SENIOR MANAGERS?
| Not certain. I think they did a very good job and need to be complimented for suggesting this course to be held. |
| It would be good to prepare in advance for some sessions. For instance, I could have benefited from researching my state’s legislature process (which I am not yet well versed on). It would have helped me get more out of the sessions. |
| I think this was a good first effort. |
| Opportunity to exchange ideas and technology issues. |
| Let people make their own hotel reservations—block the rooms and let us take care of the rest. We shouldn’t have to get permission for requesting something other than a standard, two queen, non-smoking room. |
| Instead of “The World is Flat” book, I’d like to have gotten the book “Tell the Truth With Kindness” from Father Miles. |
| Measures presentation needed table linked to our situation and EPA measures. Either drop the stress management lecture or get someone else. |
| Ask for topics on issues that are real problems for states to be addressed and positives of what states are doing and maybe ask for volunteers to provide a PowerPoint. |
| Ditch the California legislative presentation. I’m not interested in what California is doing—expand with a roundtable legislative discussion. |
| IT among states what works—why recreate the wheel? |
| Excellent job, as always by UCD Extension. |
| Would be costly, but to bring 2 managers from each state, collaboration on ideas. |
| I thought the planners did a very good job. Room and all amenities were great. |
| More time on personnel management issues. |
| Give us real tools, exercises or hands-on work to develop plans to deal with management issues. |
| To eliminate stress reduction presentation and discuss real management tools. |
| More practical applications—directions as to how we can help EPA-OPP/OECA to understand the states’ plight. |
| More contemporary issues and success stories. |
| Leveraging resources session - partnering and Homeland Security issues. |
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
| I enjoyed the course very very much. |
| I would be willing to help on planning committees. |
| Very good program. |
| Thanks to John Ward and other EPA personnel present. |
| Thanks! Great course. |
| Thank you John, Suzanne and Melissa! As always you have pulled off another very successful course. Thank you for your hard work, organization and attention to detail. Great job! |
| I thought this was one of the more valuable training sessions I have attended. |
| Great work! |
| My thanks to all who contributed to this course. Home run! |
| Include Homeland Security on agenda and how states are addressing this issue. Do not have a theme for “banquet.” What about a tote or brief case graduation? |
| Performance management could have been expanded - didn’t seem to be enough time. Recommend starting with the case study. Just a thought: the stress management session was fun - a nice addition. |
| I liked both the lecturing and roundtable, equal amounts. Suggest an email list server where participants can communicate with issues in between PREPs. |
| Ask “what do you wish you had known as a new manager that you know now?” |
| I look forward to attending the second session management PREP course. An item for the next meeting could be a discussion on how to garner partnerships with other states and federal agencies with like issues. |
| This course should be offered again. Less time spent on mentoring. |
| Locations, lunches, and the planning and development of agenda, speakers and course materials were EXEMPLARY as usual. My compliments to Suzanne Forsyth, John Ward, and the staff for a wonderful job as always! |
| I always come away from these courses with useful information. |
| Measurement should be strengthened. Include logic models. Expand cross-training session. |