|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveApril 26, 1989
Minutes COMMISSION ON RESEARCH April 26, 1989 President's Board Room 3:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: L. J. Arnold, F. M. Asche, R. A. Comparin, P. K. Edwards, W. L. Flowers (for M. R. Geasler), W. G. Huber, F. W. Stephenson, H. H. Stoevener, E. R. Stout MEMBERS ABSENT: G. E. Bunce, P. P. Feret, V. R. Fu, G. R. Hooper, J. C. Lee, D. F. McTaggart, M. Potts, J. Randolph, M. G. Squires, W. L. Stutzman INVITED GUESTS: D. V. Richardson, M. D. Shelton, R. A. Teekell 1. ANNOUNCEMENTS. The Chairman thanked the four members of the Commission whose terms expire with the end of today's meeting. They are Dean Stephenson, a deans level administrative appointment, Dr. Comparin, a departmental level administrative appointment, Dr. Feret, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences represen- tative, and Dr. Edwards, the representative from the College of Architecture and Urban Studies. 2. The MINUTES OF APRIL 12 were approved including the revised language to Appendix H, Research Agreements with Industry, Manual of Procedures. 3. WASTE POLICY INSTITUTE. The Commission has been asked to nominate two of its members for the Waste Policy Institute Board of Directors. By acclimation the Commission nominated Dr. Ed Bunce and Dr. Ed Henneke. 4. OUTLYING FACILITIES. The Chairman introduced Dr. David R. Ford, Asso- ciate Vice President for Facilities, and Ms. Kathye Johnston, Director of Budget and Financial Planning. The Chairman informed the guests that at the last meeting of the Commission a discussion was held about off-campus facilities. Those are facilities in the Blacksburg area that are not contiguous with the core campus and the problems associ- ated with utilities and maintenance at those sites. For the most part the utilities, maintenance and custodial services are funded by ad hoc arrangements by the department, center or college that uses the facil- ity. Consequently, only the most vital services are supplied. It is often the case that no custodial service and no grounds-keeping ser- vices are performed. Dr. Ford reviewed the history of the situation. Briefly, facilities were built on the periphery of the campus, usually by funds not ac- quired through the normal capital process, and these facilities were never included in the maintenance and utilities budgeting process. The magnitude of the problem is difficult to identify. Dr. Ford related that he had recently visited with the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Faculty Association and the department heads there, identified approximately $250,000 of annual maintenance and utilities that they are funding. The Chairman related that Dr. Hooper and Dr. Steiss had collected some data about a year previously again trying to identify the utilities and maintenance costs associated with outlying facili- ties. That estimate was somewhere in the neighborhood of $250-300,000. It may in fact be considerably larger than that. A discussion ensued about the definition of on-campus versus off- campus. Dr. Ford related that he did not believe that on-campus ex- tended only as far as the steam lines and that everything beyond that was off-campus. Clearly, no one has a clear-cut definition. Ms. Johnston is of the opinion that the on-campus/off-campus is not the is- sue. The issue is that the facilities in question were built with non- general funds and that the state to this point has not committed general funds for maintaining these buildings. That is the same issue associated with maintenance and utilities at the Anaerobe Lab. Dr. Comparin raised the question as to whether or not facilities and maintenance of facilities is included in our indirect cost calcu- lations. Ms. Richardson believes they are. Dr. Comparin believes that all sponsored programs whether they are conducted in buildings on the core campus or in other facilities should have the same services since all are being used in the indirect calculations. The question then is who pays the bills. Mr. Shelton returned to the on-campus versus off-campus issue. His de- finition of on-campus includes all those facilities that are accessible to those same services and activities as others. This would include access to the library and other general campus services. Dean Stephenson pointed out that the crux of the problem is that we have a group of faculty who have been successful in generating research and often in generating the funds for the facilities and because they are unfortunate enough to be in a department which doesn't have space to accommodate them, we charge them a "penalty" by insisting that they maintain their facilities. It is difficult enough to coordinate re- search with students getting back and forth to classes from outlying facilities and on top of that there is a charge for utilities, custo- dial and maintenance services. He argued that the burden should be shared across the research community because the entire community is benefiting from the entrepreneurial activities of these successful fac- ulty. Ms. Johnston pointed out that the dollars to fund such services and activities have to come from some place. If they come from the 208 budget that simply means that the total amount available for allocation to departments for operating is thereby reduced. However, the Univer- sity certainly may use its funds for maintaining a building built with non-general funds. Clearly, no consensus was reached by the Commission on how this problem should be solved. With the three new facilities now under construction or in the final planning stages at the Plantation Road Research Com- pound, the problem clearly will get bigger not smaller. 5. ADJOURNMENT - 4:35PM. ERS/php
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, 24062-9001URL: http://spec.lib.vt.edu/minutes/cor/1989/April+26++1989.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:24 EDT