RESEARCH COORDINATING COUNCIL

RESEARCH COORDINATING COUNCIL Memorandum No. 106 September 18, 1997

MEMBERS PRESENT: Tebbs Adams, Jennifer Attebery, Jonathan Blotter, Richard Brey, Leonard Hitchcock, Dianne Horrocks, Dave Kleist, Rudy Kovacs,
Tom LaHann, Jeff Meldrum, Kevin Moore, Dan Wolfley ,Edwin House (presiding)

MEMBERS ABSENT/EXCUSED: Ron Balsley, Frank Harmon, Richard Holmer, Richard Inouye, Allen Jackson, Sarah Patrick, Paul Zelus

I. Corrections to Memorandum #105--Jonathan Blotter, Frank Harmon, and Tom LaHann absent, votes changed to 8y, 0n. It was MSC (9y, 0n) to approve Memorandum #105 as corrected. II. REPORTS
A. Faculty Research Committee - Of the 22 proposals, 9 were awarded for a total of $23,781. Of those awarded, there were two from the Arts and Humanities, two from the Natural Sciences, two from Pharmacy, two from Health Professions, and one from Social Sciences. The call for nominations for area representatives from Social Sciences, Fine Arts and Humanities, and the College of Business has been issued; the graduate student representative has been solicited from Biological Sciences. The call for fall proposals has gone out.

B. Graduate Student Research and Scholarship Committee - No report as Dr. House is waiting for a decision by this committee for the member that will represent them at the Research Coordinating Council meetings. This committee meets tomorrow.

C. University Research Committee - This committee meets only in the spring semester. Of the eight proposals received, seven were funded at least in part. This committee awards about 80% of its allocation on equipment. There were not sufficient funds for Dr. Kovacs proposal, so Dr. House made up the difference out of carryover research funds.

D. Outcome of Technology Incentive Grant Competition - ISU, U of I, LCSC and BSU entered into a competition for $2.5 million. This is to fund new advances in instruction with computer technology and required collaboration with other academic departments, colleges and/or industry, as shown in the report to Dr. Lawson. ISU developed a strategy to improve our success rate by forming a subcommittee of the Technology Oversight Committee to review proposals before they were sent in. There were two meetings to make sure the proposal matched with the RFP and had good technical information. ISU won awards on three proposals in which we were the lead. The principal investigators for these proposals are Dr. Linda Hatzenbuehler, Dr. Bill Yates, and Dr. Edwin House. On the GIS proposal, there was collaboration with CSI, three major industries and several ISU academic departments. ISU is also a significant partner on four others. The net dollar flow to ISU is $1,009,518. The attached list shows who the lead institutions are on those proposals.

There will be a new competition this spring. If anyone thinks they might be interested, please let Dr. House and Deb Easterly in Sponsored Programs know, and they will provide the appropriate materials.

E. Infrastructure FY98 Allocation - Dr. House makes a recommendation to Dr. Lawson and this is normally followed. These funds are used to help meet the match required by NSF EPSCoR in conjunction with U of I. The faculty travel fund is not open-ended. The faculty member receiving these funds must be using this to solicit external funding. These funds cannot be used for travel to present a paper. Individual faculty can make requests to Dr. House or Dianne Horrocks; they must document how they are seeking external funding. We participate with 15 other states and Puerto Rico in the EPSCoR program and pay $4,000 annual membership dues to be a member of the EPSCoR Coalition..

The attached list shows how the funds for FY98 were allocated. One of the Museum’s adjunct faculty is writing a proposal for about $1.2 million and Dr. Lai in Pharmacy is developing a new research center, which Dr. House is nurturing. MCERC uses its funds for continued development, CERE uses it for equipment and release time. Some of these funds were given to assist the Institute of Rural Health Studies with partial salary assistance and material and supplies. The Counseling Department requested help with purchasing a new software package called "NUDIST" and received assistance from these funds. The investment of infrastructure funds is already paying off. Dr. Patrick has received a $300,000 grant from the Center of Disease Control. The College of Arts and Sciences receives some of these funds for start-up funding for new faculty, and this is part of the matching funds required by NFS EPSCoR. Physics received some for an adjunct faculty project and $13,706 for equipment. The call for requests for infrastructure funds goes out annually, usually in April.

F. Final Outcome of RTEF Competition - Dr Lawson made the decision to fund the top three proposals--Larry Smith, Kathleen Kangas, and Traci Bliss. Dr. Bliss used her time during the summer to write a proposal to the Albertson Foundation and was awarded $600,000--a good return on the investment. Dr. Smith and Dr. Kangas are writing proposals, and there is expectation of significant monetary return. Other parts of the campus recommended Jack Rose and Rick Holmer for release time, so they were funded from other sources.

G. Other - None.

III. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Humanities/Social Sciences Research Fund - Due to the new requirement that Special Project Research Grants demonstrate economic development or commercial value, they appear to be unsympathetic to the social sciences and humanities areas. Dr. Bowen asked Dr. House and Leo Herrman for an average of the monies received since 1993 to make a recommendation of an annual allocation for the grant proposals in the social sciences and humanities areas. The best year was 1996; the recommendation to the President was to fund $62,000. The President decided to set aside $100,000 as a special research fund for competitive grant proposals from the social sciences and humanities. The Research Coordinating Council must recommend to the Faculty Senate how the fund will be handled. Dr. House asked for nominations from each Humanities/Social Science department for a representative to serve on an ad hoc committee to recommend a basic plan to the Research Coordinating Council. This committee will discuss concerns and then advance to the Research Coordinating Council their recommendations. The Research Coordinating Council will review these suggestions and then advance recommendations to the Faculty Senate. When the Faculty Senate approves these recommendations, they will be put in place. Dr. House has the new RFP which states proposals must show commercial value to the State. However, there is a possibility that this competition may be canceled. It requires a subcommittee on campus to determine what constitutes "commercial value" and "economic development." The maximum grant is still $35,000.
B. Change in RTEF RFP and Guidelines - New criterion was used to decide who to fund. The top three proposals were funded because they were written to generate indirect cost for the institution. The Research Coordinating Council will need to make this revision to the guidelines and the call. C. Data Ownership Issues - The Research Coordinating Council should develop a policy regarding data and information on how authorship is handled on papers. Students must be protected but also have responsibilities. One item that needs to be addressed is: On a paper published based on thesis or dissertation research, should the student be listed first or be the sole author? Several other issues related to data ownership need to be considered. Dr. House will write a first draft to initiate the discussion. The final policy will be part of the Research Policies and Procedures Manual. D. Support for Research Titles: Faculty, Postdocs, etc. - This document is currently in the hands of the Faculty Senate. There are two concerns in Health Professions and Pharmacy--people hired who are not in a tenure-track position want more security, and the terms are not obvious to people who are here for one, two, or three years at a time ("visiting"). The new titles will also create opportunities to hire full-time research faculty. University of Montana has about two dozen of these. Temporary positions mean the source of funding is terminating. The College of Health Professions and Engineering are hopeful of doing away with the title "Adjunct". Postdocs are considered faculty but are temporary. If funding is to last longer than three years, then they should be changed to a faculty title. The Postdoctoral fellows’ primary responsibility is to do research. They will not be required to do much teaching. The proposed title limits them to 6 credits/academic year. Postdoctoral Associates may be used to teach, perform research or fulfill service obligations. Postdoctoral Clinical Associates may be used for teaching duties and clinical positions. The issue was raised concerning the issue and use of a faculty card. The privileges are not the same but there is no way to monitor this because there is no differentiation between regular and affiliate faculty on the card. One of the privilegess that affiliate faculty receive that regular faculty don’t is a free parking permit. Dr. House said this is because they provide a service to the University, and this usually is their only form of compensation. It was MSC (9y, 0n) to approve the document for the nontenure track faculty and forward it to the Faculty Senate as a recommendation to approve. E. Extra Compensation for Faculty, re-review - This topic refers to extra compensation for faculty members from a source other than the University. The Research Coordinating Council should make recommendations to forward to the Faculty Senate. Several of the existing rules regarding this were discussed. F. Graduate Student Research Committee Concerns - Some students expressed unhappiness to Dean House with some aspects of the committee. Dr. House made a promise that he would oversee the committee this year and the meetings would be held in the Office of Research Conference Room. Students will be notified before the end of the semester whether or not they have been awarded. It is imperative that the committee make decisions in a timely manner for this to occur. Meeting adjourned at 5:08 p.m.