March 5, 2018

Date of Meeting: 

Monday, March 5, 2018

Research Council Meeting

Monday, March 5, 2018

Members Present: Johna Leddy, Nicholas Borcherding, Barbara Eckstein, Jane Nachtman, Elizabeth Constantine, Titus Hou, John Nelson, Kevin Kelly, Jessica Boyle, Jane Paulsen Jason Rantanen, Amanda Haes, Bob Kirby

Members Absent: George Hospodarsky, Steven Mickelsen, Jennifer Fiegel, Alberto Segre

Others in Attendance – Richard Hichwa, Ann Ricketts, Jennifer Lassner, Marie Kerbeshian, David Ryfe, Michael Weaver

Item 1:  Updates from OVPRED (Rich Hichwa)

  • Hichwa updated the Research Council on the Central Services Review Committee report, which is scheduled to be submitted to the University of Iowa Office of the President within the next week.  At this time it is unclear whether the reports will be shared widely including with charter committees such as Research Council.
  • The Vice President for Research and Economic Development Search Committee co-chairs have submitted their phase I report to the Office of the President.  There is a scheduled meeting between the co-chairs and President Harreld at the end of March to discuss implementation of the recommendations.

Item 2:  Intellectual Property Policy Update, Phase II (Marie Kerbeshian)

  • Kerbeshian explained the history and rational for past changes to the University’s Intellectual Property Policy.  Proposed current changes would revert the distribution of licensing revenue back to the pre-2005 model, which was 25% each to the inventor, department/college, University of Iowa Research Foundation, and Office of the Vice President for Research and Economic Development.  Existing licenses would be grandfathered in to the current distribution model.  The new model will help UIRF with its funding shortfall in the coming years.
  • Jason Rantanen encouraged the council to consider the copyright portion of the policy as well as the IP piece.  Discussion followed regarding the difference between copyrightable material based on scholarly duties vs. job requirements (i.e., being paid to write code). 
  • The next step is to present the policy changes to the leadership of the Faculty Senate.  Research Council is being asked to review and endorse the suggested policy changes and vote yea or nay via email to Michael Weaver by Friday, March 9.

Item 3:  College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Dean Search (David Ryfe)

  • Ryfe spoke about several key areas of focus for the committee and desired skills/qualifications for an ideal candidate.  Research Council members mentioned several desirable qualifications and areas of concern:
    • The dean should make it a high priority to get out and meet with faculty.  It is apparent when the dean doesn’t get to know the faculty to the detriment of the college.
    • The dean should have knowledge with respect to online teaching and other technical aspects of the dissemination of knowledge.
    • Energy is being used to run the college/settle departmental disputes and not put forth on a long term vision for the college and its research.
    • The search committee should get a sense of how candidates stand with regard to undergraduates and first year.  The Office of the Provost has taken on a larger role in this area and CLAS should explore the pros and cons of this change.

Item 4: Academic & Professional Record (APR) and Undergraduate Research (Titus Hou)

  • Bob Kirby and Titus Hou met with the faculty data use group to talk about a centralized data system that could link undergraduates with researchers.  The committee was comfortable with allowing undergraduates to access select APR Data.  Research Council discussed and it was suggested that researchers have the opportunity to opt in to the system rather than be automatically included.

Item 5:  Time Savings Subcommittee (Johna Leddy)

  • Leddy updated the group on the timeline for recommendations to the subcommittee and solicited feedback/recommendations from Research Council.

Item 6:  Roundtable

  • Internal Funding Initiatives – OVPRED is waiting to understand the new institutional budget model before it goes forward with future IFI requests for proposals.  The most successful seed grants are biomedical, with modest return on investment from math and physical sciences, and little to no return from humanities projects (return being defined as further funding from external sponsors).
  • Research Council briefly discussed state and federal lobbying activities.