The University Senate
of Michigan Technological University
Minutes of
Meeting 488
24 February
2010
Synopsis:
The Senate
·
The Vice President for Research
discussed recommendations from the incentive return task force
·
The Elections Committee filled multiple
committee vacancies
·
Proposal 11-10, Amendment for
Proposal 20-04, Graduate Certificates passed
1. Call to order and roll call. President Rudy Luck called the University Senate Meeting 488
to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, February 24, 2010. The Senate Secretary Marty
Thompson called roll. Absent were Senators Marilyn Vogler, and representatives
of Army/Air Force ROTC, Geological and Mining Engineering and Sciences,
Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Academic Services B, Auxiliaries
and Cultural Enrichment, Advancement, USG and the Graduate Student Council.
2. Recognition of visitors. Guests included Dave Reed (VP for Research Office) and Max
Seel (Provost Office).
3. Approval of agenda. Hamlin moved approval of the agenda; Onder
seconded the motion; it passed unanimously
on a voice vote.
4. Approval of minutes
from Meeting 487. Luck
asked if there was approval of the minutes. Boschetto-Sandoval asked if the
words ‘survey guru’, quoted from Caneba, could be removed. Changes were
accepted. No other changes were requested. President Luck declared that the
minutes stood approved.
5. Report from Vice President for Research
Reed presented the recommendations of the Incentive Return Task Force. He started by detailing the mission of the task force to
review current practices, benchmark other institutions, and make
recommendations if changes are needed to improve our research infrastructure
and meet our strategic goals. Reed added the approach currently being used was
originally established in the 1980s and was based on administrative costs at
that time.
Incentive Return Task Force members include:
Carl Anderson, College of
Engineering
Will Cantrell, Department of
Physics/EPSSI
Jason Carter, Department of Exercise
Science, Health, & Physical Education
Jim Frendewey, School of Technology
Deb Lassila, Office of Budget and
Planning
Terry McNinch, Michigan Tech
Transportation Institute
David Reed, Vice President for
Research (Chair)
David Shonnard, Department of
Chemical Engineering/SFI
Reed stated that the amount of
General Fund support given to Investigators, Department Chairs, College and
School Deans and Institute Directors is based on percentages of the Facilities
and Administrative (F&A) Cost recovery associated with sponsored projects. In
FY2009, $6.2 million of the $10 million in F&A Cost recovery was
distributed as incentive returns. The intended purpose of the incentive return
funds will be left unchanged as it remains consistent with the University Strategic
Plan. Reed then delivered the recommendations of the Incentive Return Task Force. Mullins inquired about the apparent discrepancy between
the percentage returns currently in place and the $6.2 of $10 million returned
in the form of incentive returns as shown earlier in the presentation. Reed detailed
where those numbers came from to reach that figure. Luck asked how much currently
goes to institutes. Reed noted that it is currently 50%, but that percentage
will decrease to balance the increased return to investigators. Following up, Luck
inquired about the potential negative impact this decrease in funds might have
on the centers and institutes. Reed speculated on a range of potential impacts
this change might have. He added that the committee will recommend that centers
not be allowed to change their current incentive return allocations. Seel
clarified that the full 20% [a combination of the 10% to departments and 10% to
colleges] is given to the center. Reed elaborated that center allocation of that
20% is at their discretion. Dewey asked if the departments accepted losing 2%. Reed
said he discussed these changes with chairs and deans to make the deans realize
they will have to do more for the departments [due to the increase of 2.7% in
the allocation to colleges]. Seel detailed examples of fund usage for grant
matches and startup funds, which ultimately benefit the departments. Moran inquired
as to the role of finding adequate startup funds as a motivator for such
changes in the allocation of incentive return funds. Reed affirmed the concern
for fund allocation and the importance of the issue. Moran asked if the task
force will assess the cost and needs for startup funds to determine if there is
a match with resources. Reed, careful not to speak for the task force, expected
the answer to that question to be yes, and that where those monies come from
and what they are spent on can be tracked. In reference to recommendation 6,
Storer asked how the committee decided that administration would know better
than centers and institutes, where funds should be allocated. Reed notes varying
degrees of support and opposition from faculty. He added that chairs, deans and
faculty not involved in centers were in favor of recommendation 6. Pierce,
fearing an increase in the bureaucracy at Tech, struggled to understand why we
do not just give chairs a greater percentage of the funds rather than the
incentive return allocation being kept at the administrative level. Reed answered
this question using the example of it being easier to allocate money from a
single source than pooling funds from multiple smaller sources. Kilpela asked if
the writing center was included in the task force recommendations. Reed said the
writing center does not get incentive returns and consequently was not included
in these discussions. Moran noted the recommendation preserves centers ability to
allocate by standard allocation. Reed affirmed this and added that the centers
will be held accountable for how they spend their funds. Moran added that recommendation
7 is not interfering with center autonomy but, rather, providing a means to
assess fund usage. Reed affirmed this saying the recommendation results in more
autonomous decision-making by the centers. Smith noted these recommendations
result in an increase in flexibility and less money. Reed said the P.I.’s get a
greater percent return than they do now. Storer felt that recommendation 6 was
not necessary due to recommendation 7. He further remarked on the apparent
redundancy of the two recommendations and added that the message being sent in
recommendation 6 is wrong. Seel added that there is not a separate standard
between departments and centers. Storer noted the restrictions on centers
stated in recommendation 6 are not placed on departments or deans. Reed stated
that the department and dean pools are not already divided into percent
allocations, as is the case for the centers, although they have the discretion
to do so. Moran asked Storer about the wording of recommendation 6. Storer
restated his opinion that the wording in recommendation 7 makes recommendation 6
redundant. Dewey asked about the elimination of the word incentive. Reed noted the
change in terminology was based on a desire to better reflect what the funds
are for, which is to increase research and graduate capacity rather than
deemphasize the incentive. Herbig asked about the projected change in
disbursement of funds. Reed felt it was too difficult to project the percentage
of funds returned from F&A at this time. He added that being involved in a center
should be for the intellectual benefits and if it is based solely on incentive
return some individual P.I.’s may not be as interested in the center as the
percent return from centers decreases. Luck thanked Reed for discussing the
matter with the Senate.
7. Report from the President
Luck lauded Judi Smigowski, Senate
Assistant, for working hard on website updates and improvements. He then acquainted the Senate with the
website and encouraged people to persevere to find items of interest. Next, Luck
mentioned the approval of Proposals 12-10 and 10-10. He then described the
approval mechanism as the documents leave his office en route for signatures by
the provost and president. Luck noted the administration has approved
amendments to the charter of the School of Technology. Luck thanked the full
senate for finding volunteers for the committee assignments, especially Onder,
Chair of the Elections Committee, Zanello, Chair of the Research Policy
Committee and Smigowski, Senate Assistant. He acknowledged the volunteers as a
means to encourage Senators and inject some excitement into the Senate. He noted
that elections are forthcoming and if anyone has nominations, they should bring
them forward.
8. Report of Senate Committees
Onder thanked all those who
volunteered to fill committee vacancies and listed the remaining vacancies in
the faculty and staff at-large positions. He noted that the ballots will go out
next week for the positions and asked President Luck if he can approve those positions
which have only one nomination. Luck said we should wait for additional
nominations before voting and proceeded to ask for additional nominations.
Onder sought a vote on the Athletic Council nominee Dana Johnson. Luck moved for a vote on Dana Johnson as
the Senate nominee for the Athletic Council; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.
The next committee is the Faculty Distinguished Service Award Committee. Luck
asks for more nominations. There being none, Luck moved for a vote on Roger Kleckhafer for the Faculty Distinguished Service Award Committee; it passed unanimously on a voice vote. Next, Luck moved for a vote on Pat Goschalk for the Misconduct in Reseach, Scholarly, and
Creative Endeavors Inquiry Committee; it passed
unanimously on a voice vote. Up next for consideration was the Sabbatical leave committee, which has two nominations, Onder
requests we vote to send both names to the president. Luck asked if there were
any other nominees. There being none, Luck
moved for a vote; it passed
unanimously on a voice vote. Onder lists two
nominees for the Conflict of Interest Committee and declared a vote to be
necessary. Luck requests a brief biography of the two nominees (Aparna Pandey
and Joe Thompson). Luck illustrates the use of the iclicker, which was to be used
for the vote. Luck called for the vote via iclicker. Aparna Pandey acquired a
majority of the votes and was approved for the position. Onder thanked everyone
and closed his comments by stating the results of the vote.
9. Old business.
Proposal 11-10, Amendment for Proposal 20-04, Graduate
Certificates
Storer, on behalf of the Curricular
Policy Committee, described Proposal 11-10, an amendment to Proposal 20-04,
originally discussed during the last Senate meeting. Moran asked if the committee
supports the proposal as written. Storer affirmed that they do. Luck asked for additional
comments. There were none. Luck moved for
a vote on the proposal; it passed
unanimously on a voice vote.
10. New business.
Proposal 12-10, Modification to Professional Leave Policy
Scarlett noted that this proposal is
a consequence of the friendly amendment put forth by Stockero during the
previous meeting. He reminded everyone that this was to insert part-time and
full-time wording into the professional leave policy, to be consistent with the
new entrepreneurial leave policy. The Academic Policy Committee endorsed this
change. Herbig inquired about the process for approving leaves, which addresses
the faculty organizational structure only. Scarlett did not create specific
language addressing staff issues, as this was written by and for faculty. He
added that staff was asked to modify their version of the proposed policy
change appropriately while staying in the spirit of the resolution. Luck asked
what the concerns would be to adding immediate supervisors. Scarlett saw no obvious
problem with that change. Seel noted the proposal was written for the faculty
handbook and consequently has faculty-based language. He added that a similar
change in the staff version of the policy would require changing chair or dean
to supervisor. LDavis noted that Colleges and Schools have deans, but Schools
don’t have department chairs. Scarlett speculated on what can be changed. Herbig
asked if immediate supervisor would universally address this. Snyder said it
would not. Luck requested the language for faculty and staff be made to fit
each situation as it applies. Luck charged Scarlett with updating this with
corrected language. He noted the corrected language will be made and the
proposal will be submitted in the next few days so that voting can take place
during the next Senate meeting.
11. Adjournment. Hamlin moved to
adjourn; Storer seconded the motion. President Luck adjourned the meeting at 6:33
pm.
Respectfully submitted
by Marty Thompson
Secretary of the University Senate