1:00pm – 201 Gilmore Hall

Council Members present:

John Doershuk, Edward Gillan, Carin Green, Bob Kirby, Cheryl Reardon, Catherin Ringen, Paul Romitti, John Rosazza, Alberto Segre and Linda Snetselaar

Guest:

Rich Hichwa

Agenda Item 1:  Subcommittee Breakout Sessions

The Centers and Institutes and Undergraduate Research Subcommittees convened for 30 minutes.

Agenda Item 2: Approval of April 4th meeting minutes

Ed Gillan moved to accept the minutes from the April 4th meeting, seconded by Carin Green. The minutes were approved.

Agenda Item 3: Publication Waiver subcommittee update

There have been no publication waiver requests since the last meeting.

Agenda Item 4: Subcommittee reports/summaries

Centers and Institutes Subcommittee

Final recommendations from the Council on the Centers and Institutes draft document

• add a voluntary “sunsetting” bullet for defunct centers, which would also allow the name to be used again, and/or
• a bullet on renewal requirements. 

Authorship Guidelines Subcommittee

The draft Authorship Guidelines policy has been forwarded to the Graduate College, Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost, and Staff Council for review. This draft, with any comments and/or revisions, will be back to the Research Council in the fall to go on to the Faculty Council and Faculty Senate.

Undergraduate Research Subcommittee

The Undergraduate Research Survey for Faculty was sent April 14th, with a request to respond by May 1st. As of this meeting there were 226 responses. When Bob Kirby, Subcommittee Chair, receives the survey analysis he will share it with the Subcommittee members and Research Council.

Agenda Item 5: Final Report

The Research Council members reviewed Paul’s Final Report draft. There were only minor changes suggested.

Paul thanked and congratulated the Council members for their hard work and accomplishments this year and vice versa.

Agenda Item 6:  Other Items

Rich Hichwa asked the Council members for suggestions for improving communications from the OVPR, which he will take to the OVPR retreat and share/discuss with those at the retreat. The Council member suggestions were:

• On communications from OVPR, use a research tag line and more people would be likely to read.
• Social networking, while all the rage, requires the user to “opt in” and if they don’t our message will not be read.
• The VP for Research should meet with collegiate faculty annually or biannually.  This was something David Skorton did and was viewed as an important and responsive interaction with faculty.
• Workshop panels on grant writing were viewed as very helpful. 
• Only the basic education/training message from the OVPR should take place at the fall orientation for new faculty.  More intensive education should occur just before spring semester and before IFI competitions. New faculty have too many other concerns to assimilate a research message during orientation. 
• Direct communications to DEOs who can target specific faculty and assure greater readership.  Likewise to colleges that have their own research councils.
• All email messages from the OVPR should be archived and made available on the OVPR website.  They could then be retrieved if someone deleted but later decided it was something they wanted to read. 
• The number of IRB subject recruitment emails should be consolidated to a weekly or biweekly delivery. 
• Having a venue for faculty recognition of research service and awards was viewed as an important acknowledgement.

It was questioned why the Research Council was no longer asked to review guidelines or given any information regarding SSFP (and other IFIs). There was a request to meet with a representative from Sponsored Programs next year to share ideas and information.

The meeting adjourned at 2:26 p.m.