|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveOctober 23, 1991
Minutes COMMISSION ON RESEARCH October 23, 1991 206 Sandy Hall 3:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: V. Bonomo, T. Brandon, E. Henneke, G. Hooper, P. Knox, J. Lee, R. Lytton, R. Olin, R. Rich, P. Scanlon, E. Stout, A. Swiger, J. Wightman, G. Graham (for T. Wildman) MEMBERS ABSENT: C. Burger, J. Cowles, M. Denbow, M. Lambur, V. Wall INVITED GUESTS: J. Tank, S. Trulove, J. Viers 1. ANNOUNCEMENTS. 1) Dr. Stout announced that the Interdisciplinary Cen- ters Policy has had its first reading at University Council. Dr. Hooper stated that some members of Council wanted it made clear that the departments and colleges should be involved as centers are estab- lished. Dr. Stout stated that he had met with the Committee on Inter- disciplinary Research and that they have a plan by which they are proceeding to review and evaluate four of the longest established cen- ters this year. The goal is to have the reviews and reports of these centers completed in the spring. 2) The intellectual property policy that was approved last year will go before the University Council at its next meeting. 3) Drs. Hooper, Stout, and Eaton have created two ad hoc committees with membership from both the Commission on Research and the Commission on Graduate Studies to address two very specific issues this year. One of the goals that we had was to look at the question of ownership of data and if necessary revise policy wherever it needs revision. Two members of the Commission on Research and one member of the Commission on Graduate Studies serve on that committee. From the Commission on Research Paul Knox has agreed to chair and Bob Olin has agreed to serve and the CGS member is Steve Boyle. Another ad hoc committee is on graduate enrollment management. Two members from the Commission on Graduate Studies - Fred Lutze will chair and Ron Johnson; Joe Cowles from the Commission on Research. Dr. Hooper stated that the enrollment of the university has grown steadily, not always with the resources to match it. We were charged to come to 4,000 graduate students sometime back. We have surpassed that. Several colleges have stated that they wish greatly to increase their graduate enrollment. Dr. Hooper stated that if we had to somehow manage enrollment what would be the criteria. Dr. Olin asked what the enrollment is now. Dr. Hooper responded it is 4, 276. Dr. Hooper stated that the other sense of management that he would like to get to is the Ph.D. content versus masters content. The Ph.D.s are much less represented as a percentage than they were 3 years ago. 4) Dr. Stout passed out a couple of fact sheets on the indirect cost issue prepared by Mr. Hurd. 2. AGENDA. Dr. Rich asked about the status of the recommendation that was made last time regarding tuition waivers. Dr. Stout stated that it will appear on the Graduate Commission agenda sometime soon. Dr. Hooper stated that they were checking into it now. He stated that he had drawn it to the attention of University Council. Dr. Rich asked that the Minutes show this response. Dr. Scanlon motioned approval of the Agenda. Agenda was approved as circulated. 3. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9. Dr. Wightman motioned approval. Dr. Rich sec- onded. Minutes were approved. 4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT. Dr. Stout provided the membership an over- view of what has been done on this. There were two things that were sent back to change. One was relatively minor - in the approval proc- ess we had said that it is the responsibility of the principal investi- gator to identify everyone who needs to comply with the provisions of the amendment. We changed identify to inform. The other was the issue of what happens when an employee obtains a personal interest in a firm with which the university already has a contract in place. Kay Heidbreder, the Associate General Counsel, has looked at the issue and there is no provision in the law for after the fact disclosure. Once the contract is in place, the employee then acquires a personal inter- est in a firm that person is de facto in violation of the law and dis- closure is not an appropriate mechanism at that point. There is really only two things that can happen. One is that the employee is in vio- lation of the law and may or may not be prosecuted if someone discovers that fact. The other is that it might be possible to terminate the contract, renegotiate it, and before it is signed have the employee disclose. Kay Heidbreder has written a new paragraph: "The law con- tinues to define as an impermissible personal interest those situations in which an employee enters into a commercial arrangement with a com- pany. If the university currently has a signed research and develop- ment contract with that company an employee contemplating entering into such an arrangement should seek advice from the University General Counsel." Dr. Olin asked if a person could fill out the personal con- flict of interest before they went into the conflict - bought 10% of a company. Dr. Stout stated that the law only allows for disclosure of personal interest that you have before the contract is signed. Dr. Scanlon asked if there is a way that the Professional Practices In- stitute will conflict with this. Dr. Stout responded that when the university signs a contract with a company the fact that the employee has a personal interest won't change our ground rules. By the univer- sity consulting policy a faculty member or any other employee cannot consult with a company at the same time he/she has a research grant or contract. Dr. Scanlon asked what if for instance you are just merely a consultant. There is not a contract with the university and they would be turning around and using students as employees in that context. Is there a conflict there? Dr. Stout responded that there may be a con- flict there but it should be addressed in the consulting policy and not here. Dr. Stout stated we need to get it through the governance system, back to State Council and implement its procedures. Dr. Henneke motioned approval. Dr. Lee seconded. Dr. Henneke stated that one point the faculty need to be aware of is that this document is meant to protect the faculty. Dr. Stout stated that the point should be made that we sought this amendment to the law to allow faculty to enter into these kinds of situations, whereas previously it was prohibited. Dr. Scanlon asked if this will help us with other problems with people like NIH. Dr. Stout responded that he hopes so. Dr. Scanlon stated that we should try to embrace that broader type situation than we have because of the situation where somebody develops a drug or product and then turns around and tests it. NIH is worried about the integrity of that product. The question was called. Motion was approved. 5. ADJOURNMENT. Meeting adjourned at 4:00PM. 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/1991/October+23++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:25 EDT