University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

October 14, 1987

                                    Minutes

                            COMMISSION ON RESEARCH

                               October 14, 1987

                            President's Board Room

                                   3:30 p.m.

 

 

 

  MEMBERS PRESENT:  L. J. Arnold, F. M. Asche, J. Cairns, Jr., R. A.

                    Comparin, P. K. Edwards, D. B. Hodge, J. C. Lee (for W.

                    G. Huber), D.G.I. Kingston, D. F. McTaggart, C. L. Foy

                    (for G. W. Norton), A. W. Steiss, F. W. Stephenson, L. A.

                    Harris (for R. A. Teekell)

 

  MEMBERS ABSENT:   V. R. Fu, M. R. Geasler, M. D. Pierson, M. Potts, G. G.

                    Schurig, J. F. Wolfe

 

  INVITED GUESTS:   G. R. Hooper, C. D. Waring, K. A. Wilkins

 

 

  1.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

      The Office of Management and Budget has established a computerized

      "blacklist" of organizations (and people) with which it is considered

      seriously improper to do business.  Universities are expected to moni-

      tor contacts with these organizations and individuals.

 

      A list of Research Scientist appointments was distributed.

 

      Greater oversight may be required of contracts that can be interpreted

      by the Internal Revenue Service as producing "unrelated business in-

      come."  The Commission took action last year to clarify procedures with

      regards to "residual funds" in fixed price agreements.  It appears most

      likely that initially the IRS will scrutinize large institutions with

      medical colleges.

 

  2.  MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1987 MEETING

 

      The Minutes of the September 23, 1987 Meeting of the Commission on Re-

      search were approved as corrected.

 

  3.  COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

      a.  COMMITTEE ON CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION PROCEDURES

 

          Due to the seriousness of the problem, the consensus was that the

          report should be hand-carried to a designated university official

          for discussion of the specific issues cited therein.

 

             MOTION was made that Dr. Hooper take the Report of the Com-

             mittee on Construction and Renovation to Minnis Ridenour with

             a request for a response by the middle of December, 1987.

             Motion seconded and carried.

 

      b.  COMMITTEE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

 

          Copies of the SCHEV H-1 Form were distributed.  This report summa-

          rizes the number of patentable and copyrightable intellectual prop-

          erties during the past year for which University has some

          proprietary interest.  The amount of royalties received during FY

          1987 also is recorded.

 

      c.  FACULTY SALARIES UNDER SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS

 

          The Commission was asked to consider the problem of dealing with

          faculty salary calculations under special assignments.  The most

          typical assignment is under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act

          (IPA).  The members were asked to review a memorandum outlining

          possible options in preparation for a discussion of this item at

          the October 28 meeting.

 

  4.  FORUM WITH MR. DON MOORE, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF PURCHASES AND

      SUPPLY

 

      The forum was held on October 7, 1987 to discuss problems concerning

      the time delays in purchasing research equipment.  Members were asked

      to study the forum minutes prior to the next Commission meeting.  Bill

      Haas will be invited to attend the meeting to comment on some of the

      points highlighted in these minutes.

 

      All items purchased with state or federal funds must conform to state

      procurement laws.  In response to a question raised at the meeting with

      Don Moore, a memorandum entitled "Equipment Expenditures from Non-

      Government Sources:  FY 1986-87" was distributed to the Commission.  Of

      the total equipment expenditure from the sponsored accounts in 1986-87,

      18.64% were from nongovernmental (private) sources, 60% of which were

      over the $1,200 threshold for which bids are required.

 

      Mr. Moore made several comments about the sole source justification as

      a tool to expedite the purchase of a needed piece of research equip-

      ment.  He stated that faculty familiarity with a piece of equipment or

      awareness of its reliability--that it worked better than another piece

      of equipment--should be considered adequate sole source justification.

 

  5.  COMPUTER EXPENDITURES

 

      Computing expenditures for Research last year amounted to a total of

      $3.4 million.  Approximately $1.7 million was spent for mainframe com-

      puting.  Computing services on standalone equipment totaled $345,000.

      Hardware and software leases accounted for $284,000 in expenditures.

      Just under $1 million of research money was spent to acquire computing

      equipment.  The 86-87 figures are very similar to the expenditure pat-

      terns for 85-86.

 

  6.  CORE RESEARCH PROGRAM

 

      The Commission was provided with a summary of the issues and concerns

      relating to Core Research, as reflected in the Self-Study report.  The

      Commission discussed the basis for the Core Research program and the

      procedures by which projects are selected under this program.

 

      The six Subprograms--Agriculture and Forestry Research, Coal and Energy

      Research, Environmental and Water Resources Research, Industrial and

      Economic Development Research, Supporting Research, and Veterinary Med-

      ical Research--have been identified by the University and endorsed by

      the State (the Governor's Office and the General Assembly).

 

      Each year, faculty members are asked to propose specific areas to be

      incorporated into the Core Research agenda.  They also are asked to

      submit proposals within the areas that the program supports.  Proposals

      are reviewed on two levels:  (1) the appropriateness of the proposed

      research from a scientific point-of-view; and (2) its application to

      the Commonwealth of Virginia.

 

      Proposals are ranked within each College and are then sent to faculty

      committees for ranking.  The committees are organized by Subprograms,

      and each has a representative from each College.  The peer evaluations

      are brought together and are reviewed at the Research Division. They

      are discussed with the individual Colleges to examine the impact of

      these evaluations on the College allocations of positions and dollars.

      Quite often the College review and the faculty review do not match up.

 

      No specific constraints are placed on project budgets, but most faculty

      understand that Core resources are limited.  Faculty are encouraged to

      lay out a research program for more than one year.  But, in effect, we

      have only been able to award them one year of funding.  The feeling was

      expressed that a determined effort should be made to fund longer-term,

      higher-quality proposals with clear lines of funding (greater than one

      year).

 

      Lack of communication between some College officials and the faculty

      was discussed.  Many faculty are unaware the proposals are being sought

      for the Core Research Program until such a short time before the dead-

      line they are unable to respond with a quality proposal.  This year the

      call will be put out without any dollars.  Dr Kingston advocated using

      the Core Research Program to break down artificial barriers between

      Colleges.

 

      Dr. Hooper indicated that the Commission's concerns will be discussed

      further and that the Core Research program will be changed this year.

      The topic of Core Research will also be discussed in a general, philo-

      sophical sense by the College Administrators for Research.  A model has

      been formulated to be implemented after these discussions.

 

      This item will be carried forward as an agenda item and more data will

      be provided the Commission relative to the disposition of Core funds

      over the last several years.  The Commission should examine the Self-

      Study recommendations as well as providing inputs to the proposed

      "model".

 

 

  The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.  The next meeting will be held October

  28, 1987 at 3:30 p.m.  in the President's Board Room.

 

 

 

  Owl:mar

 

Current Virginia Tech Governance Minutes Archive

Return to Virginia Tech Governance Minutes Archive


VT History | Digital Library and Archives | Special Collections | University Archives


Send questions or comments to:

Tamara Kennelly, University Archivist
University Libraries
Virginia Tech
P.O. Box 90001
Blacksburg, VA, 24062-9001

URL: http://spec.lib.vt.edu/minutes/cor/1987/October+14++1987.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:24 EDT