|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveFebruary 26, 1992
Minutes COMMISSION ON RESEARCH February 26, 1992 206 Sandy Hall 3:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Brandon, C. Burger, J. Lee, R. Olin, M. Stephenson, E. Stout, V. Wall, T. Wildman MEMBERS ABSENT: V. Bonomo, J. Cowles, M. Denbow, E. Henneke, G. Hooper, M. Lambur, R. Lytton, R. Rich, P. Scanlon, A. Swiger, J. Wightman INVITED GUESTS: D. Shelton, J. Tank, S. Trulove, J. Viers 1. ANNOUNCEMENTS. 1. Dr. Stout announced that the Special Faculty Ap- pointments document has passed University Council. It will be distrib- uted to the general faculty. 2. According to the Attorney General's office the Conflict of Interest procedures need clarification of lan- guage. Dr. Stout stated that if there are any substantive changes, he will bring a draft back to the Commission. Dr. Burger asked if it will have to go back to University Council again. Dr. Stout responded that he hopes not if the changes are only cosmetic. 2. AGENDA. Dr. Stout added one agenda item - Nominees to the University Intellectual Properties Policy Committee. Dr. Wall motioned approval of the agenda. Dr. Wildman seconded. Agenda was approved. Dr. Stout then provided the membership with copies of the Research and Graduate Studies Division annual report. Susan Trulove was the author, editor and publisher. Dr. Lee asked if it would be shared with other faculty. Dr. Stout responded that they intended this first report to be an on- campus distribution. Ms. Tank asked what he hopes to use it for in the long run. Dr. Stout responded that in the long run we want to use it primarily as a marketing tool to inform the university community and outside constituencies about the great things that are happening in graduate studies and research. He also said that it will serve as a year by year chronicle of activities. Dr. Stout provided the member- ship with copies of the Department of Energy proposed budget and pro- grams, National Science Foundation budget summary, and some statements by D. Allan Bromley about the proposed federal budget in science and technology. 3. MINUTES OF JANUARY 22. Dr. Stout asked for additions/corrections of the Minutes. Dr. Wildman stated that he was listed as both here and not here. He was here. With that correction, Dr. Stout asked for a motion to approve. The Minutes were approved. Dr. Olin asked about the FRS Committee. Dr. Stout responded that we have a long list and that they would be forwarded to Mr. Shelton as soon as possible. 4. BUDGET UPDATE. Dr. Stout provided the Commission with copies of Virginia Tech Summary of Reductions and Actions of the Senate and House of Delegates 1992-94 Biennial Budget. Starting July 1, 1992 the annual reduction in the Research Division after round 4 is approximately $7.2M per year or 23% of the total budget. The university is now in the process of doing part 1 of round 4 - the 3% reversion. For the Re- search Division that is $812,000. We are taking that from two sources: 1) The $425,000 is salary savings that have not been distributed back to colleges. 2) The remaining $387,000 will be taken from the excess 30% account. On the third page of the handout the Budget Office has an analysis of the Governor's budget for the 1992-94 biennium. Dr. Stout stated that the Governor has authorized a tuition increase up to 11% with an additional 7% the second year. The Equipment Trust Fund appar- ently will have some money - $40M. This $40M is from refinancing the bonds they have already sold. Virginia Tech's share would be about $8M. In the budget reductions proposed for Virginia Tech there is 5% for in- struction and 5% for research. The Commonwealth Centers in the first year of the biennium will be fully funded - funded at the level they are now. In the second year they will be reduced by about 30% and in the next biennium, 1994-96, they will be reduced to zero. Basically, we get three additional years of the Commonwealth Center funding but at reduced levels. Since the beginning of the College of Veterinary Medi- cine there has been an appropriation of $50,000 to support new initi- atives in veterinary medicine research. That funding would be eliminated. The Volunteer Development Center which is part of the Pub- lic Service Division now would lose a major part of their funding, $87,185 for the biennium. In the Governor's budget the Cooperative Ex- tension Service is proposed to be reduced by 29% - $12.2M. The Univer- sity is supporting an amendment to add it back. Dr. Stout stated that the last page is Virginia Tech's part of the bond package. The major items in the general obligation bond are Phase IV for Vet Medicine - $8.4M out of the bond issue and $1.3M out of nongen- eral funds; Engineering/Architecture is the largest project - $17.7M would come from the bond package; $6.2M would come from nongeneral funds. The Governor's bill would have that $6.2M come from Research overhead. If we get a bond package and if that language stays, we have major problems of finding $6.2M in research overhead. There is money in the bond package for conversion of Major Williams to academic use. In the Winchester office and laboratory complex (one of the Ag Exper- iment Stations) the $700,000 in nongeneral funds would come from the sale of existing facilities at Winchester once the new building is built. The Biotechnology Infill is the biotechnology building which we have been pursuing. It is a $9M project (we have about $2M from the USDA) and if we get $4.5M from the Federal government we will have a hole here to fill ($400,000 minimum). On the Actions of the Senate and House of Delegates handout - it is a summary of the budget bills as they came out of each house. The Senate would restore $6.5M for Extension or about half of what we lost. The Center for Innovative Technology would have $11.5M restored by the Sen- ate and the House would add $9.7 back so it looks like CIT will wind up about where they are now. Both the Senate and House would basically restore the 2% salary reduction that we had in December of 1990. It will come in December of 1992. Dr. Olin asked if it will just go back to the way it was or whether it will be distributed to departments to disburse. Dr. Stout stated he did not know how it will be handled. Ms. Tank asked if graduate students are in that group. Dr. Stout re- sponded yes. He stated that if graduate teaching assistants get an in- crease then graduate research assistants will as well. Dr. Stout stated that there was an amendment that would reduce funding for 13 public service and research centers across the state. Two of these are here - the Coal and Energy Center and the Water Center. The Senate amendment is to cut the Coal and Energy Center by $44,000 in the second year of the biennium and to cut the Water Center by $122,000 in the second year as well. The House of Delegates would restore $5M to Ex- tension so they might wind up with between $5 and $6.5M somewhere. The Virginia Housing Research Center would be reduced by $225,000. The Housing Center was created by the legislature in 1989. 5. IMPLEMENTING THE NEW CONSTITUTION. Dr. Stout stated that last year the university passed a new governance system which was to take effect at the end of this academic year. The Commission on Research membership list was provided to the members. Dr. Stout stated that Dr. Harris sent the chairs of commissions and committees a request for nominees for presidential appointments about three weeks ago. Basically, the letter from Dr. Harris says that there is so much to do and that every- one who serves on a committee or commission will be asked to stand in place one more year. Ms. Tank questioned whether it was across the board to place an SGA representative on all commissions and committees. Dr. Stout said that it is written in the constitution to have an under- graduate student, graduate student and classified staff member on all commissions. Dr. Stout informed the commission that as far as he knows everyone's term continues for one more year. 6. NOMINEES FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES COMMITTEE. Dr. Stout stated that the Commission on Research elects a faculty representative to serve on the Intellectual Properties Committee. Dr. Stout stated that we need to nominate two faculty members of the Commission. He said that Dr. Hooper will try to give as broad a representation and yet try to get faculty with competence to serve on the Intellectual Properties Commit- tee. Dr. Olin asked what time was involved in serving on the commit- tee. Dr. Stout responded that the committee meets once a month for an hour. The primary business that the IPC does is decide who owns the intellectual property whether it be the university or the inventor. Once the committee decides who owns it, then they decide what to do with it. Dr. Stout stated that it is almost always transferred to VTIP. He said that in the new structure there will be two or three subcommittees. One subcommittee would make these ownership decisions. If the inventor does not like that decision, there is an appeal process to the full committee. There is another subcommittee of a somewhat larger group consisting of most of the faculty representatives that would be advisory to VTIP on such things as to whom could we go to for more information on this intellectual property (what the marketing op- portunities are, what the patent possibilities are). Dr. Stout stated that it had not been an onerous task in terms of time. He said that Legal Counsel is an ex officio member as well as Dr. Ray Smoot. The committee, therefore, has legal and business experts to turn to when needed. Dr. Olin volunteered to serve. Dr. Denbow was nominated and seconded to serve. Dr. Lee moved that nominations be closed. Dr. Wall seconded. 7. ADJOURNMENT. Meeting was adjourned at 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/1992/February+26++1992.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:25 EDT