|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveOctober 9, 1991
Minutes COMMISSION ON RESEARCH October 9, 1991 206 Sandy Hall 3:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Brandon, C. Burger, M. Denbow, E. Henneke, P. Knox, M. Lambur, R. Olin, R. Rich, P. Scanlon, E. Stout, J. Wightman, T. Wildman MEMBERS ABSENT: V. Bonomo, J. Cowles, G. Hooper, J. Lee, R. Lytton, A. Swiger, V. Wall INVITED GUESTS: T. Hurd, K. Heidbreder, D. Shelton, J. Tank, J. Viers 1. ANNOUNCEMENTS. Dr. Stout provided updates on the following topics for the membership. 1) National Science Foundation Budget. The Senate- House Conference Committee reported an 11% overall increase in the Na- tional Science Foundation budget. 2) CORETECH initiative for graduate traineeships. The Conference Committee recommends $23M. 3) The USDA budget has $1,021,000 for the Biotech building. We now have approxi- mately 2M of the 9M required to construct the building. 4) The Office of Management and Budget on October 3 published the revised rules on indirect costs in the Federal Register. There is an administrative cap at 26%. The administrative portion of our rate is 26.3% so if we lose anything it will not be much. In relation to building and equipment use, annually, the institution must certify that an equivalent amount of funds from indirect cost recoveries have been spent in acquisition of space, renovation of space or purchase of equipment. We must cer- tify annually that indirect cost recoveries from federal sources have not been used to support research efforts by private industry or for- eign governments. We will have to certify annually that no indirect cost recoveries have been spent for unallowable categories. Congress has not yet acted on two pending bills that could impose further re- strictions. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Dr. Henneke motioned approval of agenda. It was seconded. Agenda was approved. 3. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25. Dr. Burger motioned approval of minutes. Dr. Henneke seconded. Minutes were approved. 4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Dr. Stout provided copies of the amendment to the law approved by the 1991 General Assembly and copies of our proce- dures for compliance with the Virginia State and Local Government Con- flict of Interest Act. Dr. Stout introduced Ms. Kay Heidbreder, the Associate General Counsel. Dr. Stout provided an overview of the changes that were made to the document as a result of the discussion at the previous meetings of the Commission. Dr. Rich stated that he did not see provisions for what happens if a conflict of interest develops during the term of a contract. All of this seems to be developing to- ward a pre-existing conflict of interest. Ms. Heidbreder responded that the law does not really look at it in that sense. She stated she would argue that the same procedures would have to be followed. The employee would have to take the initiative at that point and disclose that interest. She stated that it may be wise to draft something spe- cifically in the policy. Dr. Stout stated that we add a sentence say- ing that if an employee gains a personal interest during the life of the contract it is the employee's responsibility to disclose. Dr. Lambur suggested that maybe it would be the responsibility of the prin- cipal investigator to inform employees and advise them of the disclo- sure rather than identify. Maybe inform them is better. Dr. Rich stated that he wondered along those lines how realistic it is to say the department head is responsible for assuring the condition. He asked whether realistically are the department heads going to know these things. Ms. Heidbreder responded that the department head should make sure that the contract isn't interfering with the employee's work. Dr. Olin stated that it was not clear to him what happens if a conflict develops after the contract is signed. Dr. Stout responded that the employee must disclose the newly acquired personal interest or be in violation of the law. If the disclosure is not endorsed through the usual process, then either the employee must dispose of his/her per- sonal interest, or the University may terminate the contract, or the employee remains in violation of the law. Mr. Hurd stated that we may not be able to cancel the contract. There may be some contractual grounds to take it to court. Ms. Heidbreder stated the employee is then in violation of the conflict of interest act and there isn't any exception under the act for pre-existing contracts. The full range of penalties that exist under the act could be imposed on the employee. Dr. Stout stated that we need to add a sentence that speaks to con- flicts which develop after the contract is signed. Dr. Stout stated that maybe by next meeting we would have a clean draft for the member- ship to consider for approval. 5. SPECIAL RESEARCH TUITION, DR. HENNEKE. Dr. Henneke provided a resol- ution and supporting information to the membership. The resolution stated, "The Commission on Research requests the appropriate governing body of Virginia Tech study our current graduate fee structure relative to the other major research university in Virginia (UVA). The purpose of the study is to determine how Virginia Tech can reduce graduate stu- dent fees for those students who have completed their graduate course work and are registered for research credit hours only. A report of all findings and recommendations should be made to the University Coun- cil." Dr. Henneke pointed out some significant differences between the two institutions. There is the difference in-state tuition between VPI and UVA. The really significant difference is students doing research. Right now our students at VPI who have completed all their graduate courses but still have to sign up for 9 hours of thesis or dissertation hours in order to maintain their status have to pay $1,889, whereas at UVA the approved fee structure for such students is $489. Then there is also some difference in students performing research during the sum- mer session. At VPI they would pay $542 a summer term and UVA they would pay $337. He felt that there is a significant difference in the structure of the fees charged to graduate students at VPI and UVA. Dr. Henneke presented the resolution as a motion. Dr. Wightman seconded. Dr. Wightman stated we have lost a lot of ground. What has taken 10 to 20 years to build, we have lost in a matter of months. He felt that our graduate students need help. Dr. Henneke referred back to a ques- tion asked at last Commission meeting about whether the $489 that UVA charges per semester was supplemented from other funds. His informa- tion is that it is not. Mr. Shelton stated that his understanding is that UVA has put in a full tuition waiver program for all graduate stu- dents. Mr. Hurd stated that he thought that was just graduate research assistants. Mr. Shelton stated that he would check this point. Dr. Scanlon stated that he felt that it was now time to look at a low in- put, low output system so that we are not pricing ourselves out of the research funding market. From the standpoint of the Research Commis- sion we need to look at being competitive in the research area. Dr. Stout stated that one way to get at Dr. Scanlon's concern is for the Commission on Graduate Studies and the Commission on Research to ap- point a joint committee to study this issue. Dr. Stout stated that there is a statewide budget initiative supported by the presidents of all the colleges and universities and by the State Council. One of them is graduate financial assistance. Dr. Stout called for a vote of sending the resolution to the Commission on Graduate Studies. Motion approved. 6. ADJOURNMENT. Meeting adjourned at 4:25PM. 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+9++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:25 EDT