RESEARCH COORDINATING COUNCIL
January 20, 2005
Brian Attebery Phil Blick Deb Easterly
Kay Flowers Larry Ford Richard Inouye
Lori Johnson Skip Lohse Jason Marenda
Mike McCurry Malcom Shields Rob Van Kirk
Robert Wharton Thomas Windholz Connie Tillotson (Secretary)
Alternates: Martin Horejsi for Al Strickland
Absent: John Bennion James Bigelow Steve Byers
Linda Deck Gregory Green Frank Harmon
Dianne Horrocks Subbaram Naidu Robert Picard
Beth Hudnall Stamm Thomas Windholz Paul Zelus
Guests: Randy Gaines, Chief Information Officer, Computing & Communications
Steve Billingsley, Executive Director, INRA
Fred Sica, Director, Business and Research Development, INRA
Dr. Wharton called the meeting to order.
I. Approval of Minutes
Dr. Wharton asked for any changes or corrections to the minutes. Dr. Wharton requested a motion to approve the minutes. Dr. ____________ moved to accept the minutes, Dr. Van Kirk seconded the motion. Motion passed (Memorandum #159).
Dr. Wharton said there would be a slight modification from the agenda to turn the time over to Steve Billingsley and Fred Sica from Inland Northwest Research Alliance.
Inland Northwest Research Alliance - Dr. Billingsley provided an outline of key points which he was planning on discussing. He thanked the Council for extending the time to him. His primary purpose in the presentation was to discuss where INRA has been and to extract the things they feel they have done well and apply them as they move forward to the future. He discussed the beginnings of how INRA was formed and expanded on they have grown and have provided an assortment of services for the various universities. Dr. Billingsley expanded on the various projects with the universities and said they currently have nine projects which will be completed in September 2005. One of the projects which they feel has been very successful has been the annual symposium. This is an opportunity for Ph.D. students and Post Docs to interact in a multi disciplinary way with their peers. It also provides a good opportunity for individuals from the outside to see what is being done with INRA and subsurface science. As a result of outside individuals seeing first hand what is being done, a few research initiatives have been developed. One of those research initiatives is the Educational Research Initiative. They have recently received word that they will receive another $4M which will be expended in the subsurface science research institute. Most of the funds will be used to fund fellowships for students for 2005-2006. They will be asking for an additional $4M for the 2006-2007 academic year. They have had approximately 65 fellows through the program and are expecting an additional 24 fellows with the new allocation of funds. That program is unique in the country and very well respected. The fact that we can deliver simultaneously to nine different sites a multi disciplinary curriculum that was developed in literally three months is nearly impossible but has been accomplished.
He would like to enlist our assistance in ideas to sustain this program beyond the 2006 academic year. They have been asked not to ask for future funding for this. They need to determine what funding can be secured for this for the future. One of the things needed is to develop new initiatives. He would like to know what our expectations are for continued participation in the INRA organization. He would like the faculty=s assistance in determining what they (INRA) could do for ISU to help us garner additional resources in addition to what we have. Toward that end, they have hired Fred Sica as the director Business and Research Development to help INRA diversify the resources. Dr. Billingsley concluded his presentation and Dr. Wharton asked for questions from the Council. A short question and answer session followed. Dr. Billingsley thanked the committee for their time.
Dr. Wharton requested the Council to review the summary sheets which outlines the proposals awarded by the various committees. While the Council was reviewing the sheets, Ms. Tillotson asked to apologize for a few errors on the agenda. She apologized to Ms. Kay Flowers for listing her name as Kay Billingsley. Also corrections on the agenda to Dr. Wharton=s and Ms. Horrocks= name. They are listed as ex-officio - they are actually officio voting members.
In response to a few questions by the Council, Dr. Wharton said the summary sheet of awards are considered public information. The awards have been granted and letters issued to the applicants.
A. Faculty Research Committee (FRC) - No report provided. Dr. Wharton said another Call for Proposals was issued and the proposals are due March 31. It was anticipated another $37,000 was available to fund projects.
B. Graduate Student Research and Scholarship Committee (GSRSC) - Mr. Jason Miranda said they awarded all but three proposals. The three which were not awarded had questions in the initial review process. The applicants were advised to provide additional information or clarify various points and either the additional information was not provided or the clarifications were not made so they were not awarded. Since the last meeting, the Committee made some changes to the guidelines to the proposal; some of the items had some ambiguity to the instructions. Corrections and clarifications were made to the guidelines in response to the various questions raised in the review process. Dr. Wharton asked Mr. Miranda whether he was satisfied with the process of the funding for this committee and Mr. Miranda indicated he was satisfied.
Dr. Wharton expressed his appreciation to all who have served on the various committees. He knows much time and effort was expended for those serving on the committees.
C. Humanities and Social Sciences Research Committee (HSSRC) - Dr. Wharton said six proposals were awarded and five not awarded. Normally HSSRC submits another Call for Proposals but since the full $87,000 was awarded in the last semester, no call will be issued.
D. Undergraduate Research Committee (UgRC) - Dr. Van Kirk reported a correction to the handout. The handout shows two proposals were not awarded but it was one proposal not awarded (it was submitted by two students). The Committee will have their first meeting of the semester next week and shortly thereafter they will issue a call for proposals. They will have a little less money to work with than last semester. Last semester they had $10,500 to award. They have that amount this semester but some of the funds will be expended on the Undergraduate Student Research Symposium which will be April 14 and 15 (Thursday and Friday). They will have about $9,000 to award for proposals and use ~$1500 for the symposium. A call for papers will be sent out for the symposium. Dr. Van Kirk said the numbers of student participating in the symposium have varied in the past. He mentioned the trend of including it with the Idaho Academy of Sciences has increased the numbers and the invitations will include other universities around the region. Dr. Van Kirk said they would like to see the numbers increase and hope to encourage more participation. The keynote address and poster session/social will be held in the SUB and ballroom. The oral presentations usually are conducted in classrooms in the Physical Science Building.
E. University Research Committee (URC) - No report at this time.
F. Federal Initiative Update - Dr. Ford reported we had our lobbyist at ISU last month and for two days met with individuals to discuss their project requests. The projects submitted look very promising. Currently we are in the process of finalizing the project requests and preparing the congressional forms. Dr. Wharton and Dr. Ford will meet with the delegates in Washington D.C. on February 14 and 15. The list of projects we are pursuing will be presented to Dr. Bowen early next month. Dr. Wharton feels this is an important venue - this year we received close to $10M for a variety of activities.
G. INL/BEA - Dr. Wharton said Battelle Energy Alliance is the group awarded the contract at INL effective February 1. Dr. Wharton has devoted a substantial amount of time during the transitional phase with BEA and our colleagues at University of Idaho and Boise State mapping the future for the Idaho universities with the lab. Plans are coming together. He mentioned he recently spent 2-1/2 days with BEA, the National University Consortium (which is comprised of MIT, Oregon State, North Carolina State, and Ohio State, and New Mexico State), also known as ANUC@, along with IUC (Idaho University Consortium which is ISU, BSU, and UI). The main focus of ISU=s involvement thus far is related to the Center for Advanced Energy Studies which was a component each bid team was required to submit in their proposal for the contract. Dr. Wharton feels we will be presented with some reasonable opportunities. He discussed the various opportunities which may develop as a result of the collaborations with the other universities and BEA. Currently many of the options explored are in the draft and discussion stages at this point. One of the options being explored is the 2+2 program based on a SBOE recently approved bachelors degree in nuclear science. ISU is the only university in Idaho which offers this type of degree and we have received support from BSU and UI that their students will participate in this degree program. Dr. Ford mentioned that one of the federal initiatives which ISU is pursuing is multimillion dollars to support the Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering . This will be a joint request by all three universities with proceeds to build faculty capacity and research in Idaho Falls.
III. Council Business
A. ISU Information Systems Acceptable Use Policy - Dr. Wharton introduced Ms. Flowers and Mr. Gaines and turned the time over to them to discuss this policy which has generated a lot of discussion throughout campus. Kay mentioned she attended the Technology Oversight Council Meeting today which she felt was a good meeting which addressed many issues on the Policy. She did mention the Acceptable Use Policy which was previously issued will be revised. The areas which have raise the most concerns are:
1) Privacy Issues - The policy will be revised to include the difference between confidentiality issues and privacy issues. ISU Computer Center needs to monitor the traffic to make sure no violations are taking place. Currently no policy is in place that protects us from individuals hacking into our systems.
2) Authorized Equipment - Ms. Flowers mentioned ISU soon will no longer support Windows 95/98. Security patches and updates will no longer be available. A base level of acceptable equipment/operating system needs to be in place. Mr. Gaines said ISU has received approval from Microsoft for a central license which can be used to upgrade the operating systems on campus. If an individual has a legal copy of 95/98 software, the license will allow the upgrade to the current operating system. This policy will also prevent unauthorized individuals from placing a sniffer on the network which can collect passwords.
A policy is needed to prevent equipment being placed on the system which can actually damage the network. Certain types of equipment will require modifications to bandwidth, etc. to accommodate the increase in traffic, etc. The major concerns from campus have been connections of PDA=s to the computer, or when visitors arrive with equipment to connect to display their presentations, and scientific equipment to collect data from various projects, etc. The policy is also needed to notify the Computer Center when anticipated high volume of traffic is expected to take place. Normally the Computer Center will shut down a system if a huge amount of traffic is taking place.
3) Software - A policy needs to be in place to insure only authorized software be placed on computers. This will make sure illegal copies of software are not placed into service. Campus wide licenses help with providing legal copies for use. ISU needs to be protected.
4) Authentication - Policy to require authentication from the user accessing the network. Which ever system they place into effect will have preferences which can be modified by the user to indicate when authentication should be requested. If a federal agency subpoenas wanting to know who has logged on to a certain ISP address then they need to be able to comply and this will also protect the individual. The biggest concern with this policy is when visiting researchers are on campus, as the host department/college we need to have a mechanism in place to allow a guest researcher to log onto the network. A policy will help the responsible department to retain a record of guests accessing the account.
Ms. Flowers said it may even be that they may take the policy and divide into other policies: Standards for Access, Password Policy, Security Policy. Changes will need to be made to this policy and resubmitted for a comment period but some type of Authorized User Policy needs to be in place.
B. Other Business
Ms. Flowers said she was requested to provide an update on how our money (overhead funds) are being used in the Library. She does not have that information at this time but does have a proposal to present. She has been repeatedly requested to obtain Web of Sciences. The proposal she submitted reflects the lowest price she has seen. She would like to take half of the money from overhead to pay for this. Unfortunately the total amount is $12,000 and this proposal is $51,362. She is planning on approaching the physical sciences and biological sciences to see if they will be willing to help purchase this using money generated from grant overhead.
Dr. Wharton requested a motion to adjourn the meeting. Dr. _________ moved to adjourn, Dr. Van Kirk seconded. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned 4:40 p.m.