|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveSeptember 11, 1991
Minutes COMMISSION ON RESEARCH September 11, 1991 206 Sandy Hall 3:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: V. Bonomo, T. Brandon, C. Burger, J. Cowles, D. M. Denbow, E. G. Henneke, G. R. Hooper, P. L. Knox, M. Lambur, J. C. Lee, R. Lytton, R. Olin, E. R. Stout, T. Wildman MEMBERS ABSENT: R. Rich, P. Scanlon, L. A. Swiger, V. Wall, J. Wightman INVITED GUESTS: T. Hurd, M. D. Shelton, J. Tank, S. Trulove, J. Viers 1. INTRODUCTIONS. Dr. Stout welcomed everyone to the 1991-92 edition of the Commission. Each member introduced himself/herself and stated the constituency represented. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS. A. MISSION OF THE COMMISSION ON RESEARCH. Dr. Stout provided a copy of the mission of the Commission taken from the Univer- sity Constitution. B. UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE SYSTEM. In preparation for the change in the governance system, Dr. Stout stated that sometime in spring semester the Commission would need to make arrangements for the transition. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Dr. Stout suggested that the item "Transition to Revised Governance System" under the goals be added. With that addi- tion Dr. Henneke motioned approval. Dr. Knox seconded. Motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF ANNUAL REPORT. Dr. Knox motioned approval and Dr. Lytton seconded. Motion passed. 5. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE. Dr. Stout asked for nom- inations to the Supplemental Grants Committee. Dr. Hooper informed the membership that the Committee meets approximately 3-4 times per year. Dr. Stout stated that the appointments generally last two years. Dr. Knox asked Dr. Hooper if there needs to be a person from the pure sci- ences area. Dr. Hooper responded that yes it would be nice to balance it out. Dr. Denbow offered to serve on the committee. The membership enthusiastically accepted his offer. 6. COMMISSION ON RESEARCH COMMITTEES. Dr. Stout provided the Commission with the membership of the two standing committees - Committee on Interdisciplinary Research and Committee on Core Research. He sug- gested that perhaps they should wait until everyone had had a chance to think over the election of two new members to each committee before they vote. Dr. Stout provided an overview of each committee and their responsibilities. The Committee on Interdisciplinary Research drafted the centers document that was approved last year, and they also help evaluate applications for university center standing. Another task that was built into the centers document was that all existing univer- sity centers be evaluated on a five year cycle. Dr. Stout suggested that a committee member be on the review committee of those centers be- ing reviewed each year, maybe even chair the committee. He stated that he had yet to convene the Committee on Core Research and that perhaps it needs to be disbanded. He stated that the Committee on Core Re- search was created to give balance to the two parts of research - the core research program and interdisciplinary research. The Core budget- ing and allocation process is such that there is relatively little room for input. The membership agreed to take up elections next time. 7. GOALS FOR THE YEAR. A) PROCEDURES TO COMPLY WITH THE 1991 AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT. Dr. Stout provided an overview of the State Conflict of Interest Act. It was established in 1986 and previous to this July an employee of the University owned a personal interest in a private company and that company entered into a contract with the university, the employee was in conflict with the State Conflict of Interest. Be- ing in violation carries with it both civil and criminal penalties. With the leadership of the CIT and the six doctoral institutions, a proposed amendment was developed to the Conflict of Interest Act that would basically move that kind of activity from a prohibited state to a disclosure state. The amendment passed in the 1991 General Assembly without discussion and without opposition in both houses. Basically, it says that if you as an employee of an educational institution have a personal interest in a private firm and the private firm enters into a research and development contract with the university, that you as the employee must disclose that fact. Dr. Stout, in working with the other five doctoral institutions over the summer, has developed procedures by which they propose to put that into effect. These procedures are now under review by the Attorney General's Office. There is proposed to be an appeals committee that would hear disputes about the conflict of in- terest procedures. Dr. Stout proposed that that committee be a commit- tee of the Commission on Research. B) INITIATE FIRST ROUND OF FIVE YEAR CENTER REVIEWS. Dr. Stout pro- posed that the Committee on Interdisciplinary Research help him make up a calendar of those reviews. He stated that he thought it would be based on how long they have been in existence and when they were last reviewed. The reports of those review committees will come to the Com- mission. C) COMPLETE ACTION ON THE PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES INSTITUTE. Dr. Stout stated that the Professional Practices Institute would be a private university affiliated corporation that could sit next to the university and through this mechanism faculty could do some kinds of research and development and practices that don't fit very well under the Sponsored Programs at the university now. Testing, evaluation and many kinds of activities that faculty would like to engage in could be done under the Professional Practices Institute. This Commission, the Commission on Graduate Studies, and the Commission on Extension all approved the same resolution that stated that we approve of this idea in practice and that a committee should be appointed to draft the bylaws and charter. The committee needs to be appointed to finish up that issue. D) CONSIDER THE REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL AFFIL- IATES. Bud Harris in the Office of Sponsored Programs chairs an ad hoc committee which is looking into some problems associated with the in- dustrial affiliates program. Industrial affiliates are basically a partnership program whereby a group of industries each pays a member- ship fee for the general support of a program. For that they get early access to research information and get to know and interact with gradu- ate students. The fees are deposited in the Foundation as though they are gifts. That committee should give us a report sometime this year. E) MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE PROCEDURES (NIH). In January of 1990 every institution that has NIH funding was required to file with the Office of Scientific Integrity of NIH a statement and set of procedures to deal with Misconduct in Science allegations. Dr. Stout, with assist- ance of the President of the Faculty Senate and the Chairman of the Commission on Faculty Affairs drafted a document to deal with allegations of misconduct. This was sent to NIH as an interim proce- dure. A final document needs to be completed. F) OWNERSHIP OF RESEARCH DATA. There is an issue of ownership of re- search data that has been raised. Such things as who owns the data, where do the notebooks stay? This item has become a national issue as well. G) TRANSITION TO THE REVISED GOVERNANCE SYSTEM. At the beginning of the meeting Dr. Stout stated that sometime in the spring semester the Commission would need to make arrangements for the transition. 8. 230-01 BUDGET UPDATE. Dr. Stout provided the Commission with a couple of handouts to help the membership understand the Research Division budget and where we are at this time. He provided an overview of the Research Division summary of the budget reductions for the biennium 1990-92. Dr. Stout went over Rounds 1, 2 and 3 budget reductions. He stated that all these reductions are permanent and are carried forward each year. He also informed the Commission that we still have the po- tential for Round 4. So far, Round 4 reductions seem unlikely. We do not yet know how the early retirement program is going to affect the budget. When Round 2 came it was clear that the Research Division could not possibly meet Round 2 reductions without significant layoff of personnel. In order to soften that Round 2, Mr. Ridenour brought $300,000 into the 230 budget for each year of a four year commitment. The first of that $300,000 is to be the excess 30% account. When Round 3 came, the Budget Office and Mr. Ridenour reduced our central assess- ments by $721,000. That commitment continues into this year. This year because Round 3 doubled and because of the loss of general funds related to growth in indirect cost recoveries, the administration agreed to help with another $500,000. That was a 1 year commitment. Next year the budget gets reduced by $1.221M whether anything else bad happens or not. Even though there may not be any other formal budget reductions from Richmond, the pain for the Research Division is not yet over. Without Round 4 calculated the overall budget reduction for the Research Division is about 19%. The second handout that Dr. Stout pro- vided showed how the funds for the academic programs are distributed. The 230 budget like the other two budgets supports both academic and non-academic areas. Out of the $33.5M budget, only 2.5M is spent in operating funds. Most of the budget is spent for personnel. 9. SPONSORED PROGRAMS REPORT. Tom Hurd presented the Commission with a set of handouts which reflect the activities of Sponsored Programs. Mr. Hurd stated that while we are still growing, we are at a much slower rate than last year. Our largest single sponsor now is indus- trial sponsors followed by Federal flow-through dollars. For the first time, the largest Federal sponsor is the Department of Energy. In years past it has been the Department of Defense. Mr. Hurd stated that with all the other institutions that he has talked are also experienc- ing a slow rate of growth. He stated that everyone seems to be working harder but enjoying it less. We are getting more awards for less money. Mr. Hurd stated that as the economy goes so goes sponsored pro- grams. Mr. Hurd stated that the base for the indirect cost recoveries is $48M. The actual recoveries that were received was $13.4M. The rate that we recovered at was 27%. Mr. Hurd stated that we will never recover the full amount of our negotiated rate. Mr. Shelton stated that we hope the rate will go up a little because we have had an in- crease in the indirect cost rate. 10. INDIRECT COSTS - FEDERAL. Dr. Stout stated that a sheet was provided concerning the indirect cost rate with the agenda. The handout pro- vided information on where the indirect cost rate proposals are as of June 5. Two have originated in Congress - Waxman-Dannemeyer and Boucher. One has originated in the Office of Management and Budget. They all have many features in common. They would cap the administra- tive part of the indirect cost 26%. Dr. Stout stated that if you add up the administrative parts it would 26.3%. Mr. Shelton said that the Federal government sometimes does not take tenths of a point. Dr. Stout stated that there would be a requirement that the building and equipment allowance parts of the indirect pool should be set aside in a special account and that those dollars be used to build or renovate re- search space to be used for federally-sponsored research or the pur- chase of new equipment in support of federally-sponsored research. Currently that equipment and building allowance is about 20% of the total indirect cost pool. One of the other provisions that would clearly affect how we do business is in the Waxman-Dannemeyer proposal. It has language that the Federal government always has the lowest rate. If the university should charge any other sponsor a rate less than the Federal government, the Federal government will get that lesser rate. We either charge everyone the negotiated rate, or we charge everyone zero. If this takes effect, there might be some sponsors with whom we simply can't do business. We obviously don't want that. Mr. Shelton stated that the state already has a policy and that it will conflict with the Federal proposal. Dr. Stout said that the latest OMB version says that the building and use allowance must be set aside in an inter- est bearing account. That is contrary to state law. 11. INDIRECT COSTS - STATE. In the 1990 General Assembly language was written into the appropriations act requiring that the Department of Education do a study on the uses and purposes of indirect cost. SCHEV has done that study. A copy was circulated with the agenda. Overall, it is far more university friendly and positive than expected. It makes lots of good statements about the importance of sponsored re- search and indirect cost recoveries. There are a few things, that de- pending upon how they ultimately are determined, may cause us some problems. One is a recommendation that the state controller should look at institutions which historically under-recover indirect costs. The implication is that there should be some financial penalties asso- ciated with under-recovery. Overall, it is rather positive and should be helpful to us as time goes by. 12. ADJOURNMENT. Meeting was adjourned at 4:50PM. 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/September+11++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:25 EDT