Minutes - Nov 18, 2008

Date of Meeting: 

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Council members present:

Doershuk, Flatté, Hubel, Irish, Kirby, Leddy, Reardon, Ringen, Snetselaar, Subramanian


Charlotte Talman, Director, Clinical Trials Office, Twila Reighley, Director, Sponsored Programs, Susan Klatt, Director, Financial Management, Ted Welter, Assistant Controller, Business Office, John Keller, Dean, Graduate College

Professor Michael Flatté called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

Minutes from the September and October meetings were approved.

Agenda Item 1: Professor Flatté asked for an open forum regarding discussion topics for the next council meeting with President Mason.  Topics suggested include:

  • Modification to the F&A policy and transparency.  Where do the returns go (department or faculty PI)?  It was suggested to have a list of other peer universities and their policies for this discussion item
  • Grants and incentives for grant writing.
  • University budget in light of the flood, state revenue shortfalls, etc.  Specifically, how are we going to attract and retain new faculty and where will the resources for new initiatives be found?
  • How does the current economic situation directly affect the UI research enterprise?
  • Funds for graduate students.   RA support from the graduate college.  More faculty oversight is requested for these grad college funds.

Agenda Item 2: VPR Updates:

  • Richard Hichwa presented the new NIH guidelines on grant submissions.  The NIH hopes to streamline the submission/award process by making a faster, more informed decision.  Because of this, Hichwa stressed the importance to keep to key ideas, translate the project concisely and clearly and emphasize significance, innovation and ultimate deliverables in the proposal. All major agencies are expected to adopt these guidelines eventually, therefore applicant mentoring, education and internal grant reviews before submission is needed.  Resources geared toward grant writing excellence is vital.
  • Dean Keller updated the members on establishing a post doc office with a joint effort by the OVPR.  Jordan Cohen, Minnetta Gardinier and Dean Keller recently presented this topic to the Deans Council and received strong agreement and endorsement.  It has since been submitted to the Provost’s office.
  • Charlotte Talman updated the group on the Conflict of Interest process.  She reports that “business is brisk” and the amount of disclosures received in the office is good.  This indicates an increased awareness of the issue.  The Conflict of Interest and Research Office meet once per month.

Agenda Item 3:  Undergraduate Research:

Bob Kirby presented an overview of and changes to the internal undergraduate awards and opportunities available to university students.  Changes include:  

  • Focus on outreach by the creation of “research ambassadors.”  The ambassadors speak with faculty and at student functions regarding the value of research training for undergraduates and to get students involved earlier with their faculty mentors. 
  • Mentor award program (new this spring).
  • Student attendance at the Board of Regent’s meetings to present their work.
  • IREU and ICRU Scholar Assistant programs were combined to create a better awards system.
  • Application guidelines were changed to include submission not only from faculty but from Professional and Scientific staff who engage in research as a primary component of their position.

Agenda Item 4:  F & A Policy:

Susan Klatt and Ted Welter gave an overview of the new F&A Distribution to Colleges policy and how it works.  The policy was reviewed and approved by the VP group and Deans last spring.   Starting in FY09, the component of indirect cost recoveries attributable to collegiate and departmental administration within the GEF will be assigned to each individual college.  Henceforth in FY10, the component will be adjusted up or down based upon the indirect cost recovery growth of each college.  

Agenda Item 5:  Ethics in Research Policy:

Grainne Martin gave a brief presentation on the university ethics in research policy.  The research misconduct policy in the operations manual needs revision in light of revised Public Health Service regulations.  One area of possible change in the UI policy relates to the size of the investigation committee and the need to involve as committee members faculty who are experts in the science.  The policy revision process will be done consistent with standard University policy approval procedures and typically involves UI constituencies before approval.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:53 p.m.