EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

Present: Bender, Bryant, Latta, Miller, Prochaska Cue, Scheideler, Whitt

Absent: Aguilar, Humes, Mayo, Siekman, Zorn

Date: Wednesday, April 5, 2000

Location: 201 Canfield Administration

______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order (Latta)

Latta called the meeting to order at 3:06 PM.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Update on Faculty Compensation Advisory Committee Meeting

Scheideler reported that the FCAC met on April 3^rd. She stated that she brought forward the executive committee's recommendation that the departments and deans should retain as much of the salary increase as possible with very little of it staying in the Vice Chancellor's office. She noted that Vice Chancellor Edwards stated in the meeting that the Chancellor's office wanted to keep back more of the money to reward merits that are not recognized by deans and chairs and to help those colleges that are furthest behind their peers institutions. She stated that the executive committee felt that they should try to obtain special funding from the legislature to help balance out those colleges that are so far behind, rather than taking it from other colleges on campus. Scheideler stated that Dean Nelson brought forward a recommendation from the Dean's Council that more of the money should stay at the department levels. She stated that a motion was put forward that 3.5% goes directly to the department chairs, .75% to the Deans, and .5% for the Vice Chancellor. She reported that this motion was approved by a majority of the committee. She pointed out that this is different from last year where 3.0% went to departments, 1% to Deans, and .75% to the Vice Chancellor. Scheideler stated that she has reported this information to the Chancellor.

3.0 Vice Chancellor Torr

Summary of Torr's Presentation:

The Executive Committee invited VC Torr to a conversation about corporate sponsorship of research. The article, "The Kept University", motivated this request. VC Torr told the committee that at UNL about 6% of the sponsored research is funded through corporate sources. This differs greatly from some campuses where over 50% of the sponsored research comes from corporate sources.

VC Torr made the interesting observation that 20 years ago 80% of the funding for the university came from the state and the faculty had a tradition of giving the fruit of its research activity to the state. Now, 38% of the funding comes from the state and the faculty are still being expected to give away the fruits of their research to the state.

VC Torr also noted the following relative to the disbursement of Indirect Cost monies: 1/3 covers fixed costs/ 1/3 goes back to the Deans, and 1/3 goes to the Chancellor and VC for Research. Little of this money is returned to the faculty investigator and she would like to change this.

The Executive Committee encouraged VC Torr to plan another series of workshops for faculty and applauded her efforts, believing that she has made much clearer her mission to support all kinds of research activity on campus.

3.1 Corporate Sponsorship of Research

VC Torr stated that the issue of corporate sponsorship of research is a very hot topic on campuses around the country. She noted that 6-7% of the budget at the top 50 research universities are provided by corporate funding. She stated that last year UNL's corporate sponsorship was 6%. She pointed out that much of that is for smaller projects. She noted that corporate sponsorship is not a great deal of concern for us at this point because we are not at a point where we are developing a great deal of intellectual property that has significant market value. She pointed out that universities and corporations have very different missions which is where the conflicts arise. She noted that most of the conflict is in the area of medicine which is where 90% of the misconduct cases occur. She pointed out that this issue is one in which we need to stay alert on to avoid any potential conflicts.

VC Torr noted that corporations do not pay much in the way of indirect costs and that the federal grants are much higher in this area. She reported that UNO receives 30% and UNMC receives approximately 50% of its research base from corporate sponsors. She states that this creates a problem because the campus is now beholden to corporate sponsors for a large portion of their research funding. She stated that we, as a research university, must maintain our 70% base from federal funding because this allows greater assurance of maintaining academic freedom.

Latta asked if policies should be in place to guard against academic freedom from being compromised for the sake of corporate sponsorship and whether the Office of Research serves as a gatekeeper to monitor the process? VC Torr stated that the intellectual property policy is a Central Administration policy that governs all of the campuses.

Scheideler stated that some portion of the research coming from state corporations is healthy for an institution. VC Torr agreed, particularly for those areas of engineering, biological sciences, and chemistry because it does keep us in touch with the real world. Scheideler pointed out that the opportunity to impact an industry is much quicker if there is corporate sponsorship rather than federal sponsorship.

Scheideler pointed out that younger faculty need to be trained in how to deal with funding agencies. VC Torr agreed and said that there needs to be some kind of protection in place to assist faculty in making decisions on any type of corporate funded research. She suggested that more workshops that could provide preventive training could be very helpful.

Latta asked if we should be proactive to have some kind of statement that would indicate what the acceptable upper limit of receiving corporate sponsorship would be for the campus? VC Torr stated that the percentage is not the issue and that you can not predict what areas of research will be problematical. She stated that workshops on university interactions with industry would be a good thing and that another area that needs to be looked at is the policy on misconduct and the process for handling it. Latta pointed out that the problem seems to come from the nature of the contract. VC Torr stated that the standard industrial contract should be looked at very carefully as to how it could effect us. She pointed out that it needs to benefit us rather than the corporation. Latta noted that if we had these kinds of standards in place than we would be prepared to deal with companies from our perspective.

Bryant pointed out that schools such as North Carolina, who has a lot of money from corporate sponsorship, will be more attractive to post doctoral students given the enormous opportunities to conduct research. He asked if there are universities that still have a great deal of control over their corporate sponsored research? VC Torr stated that these universities are usually exceptional schools that are in high demand for research.

Latta asked what the implications are on the land grant mission from corporate sponsorships and the various issues it raises? VC Torr stated that they have impact in what we do in areas of demand. She pointed out that 20 years ago when 80% of the university's budget came from the state, the faculty had a tradition of giving their research away because they believed that it was being funded by the state. Now, we only get 38% of funds from the state and yet we are looked to for providing state of the art equipment, recruiting top faculty, providing good student experiences, as well as providing answers to problems for people in the state. She pointed out that we need to use our creative wits to get industrial sponsorships to put the tools in place to let us answer these demands. Scheideler stated that we need a new paradigm in order to address these concerns. Latta asked if the public needs to better understand the relationship between 38% state funding but 100% responses. Chancellor Moeser stated that we need to do a better job at explaining how research fits into the response rate back to the public.

Scheideler stated that there has been some concern on the research agenda in that some faculty feel that the smaller grants are being less valued. She stated that faculty do not seem to be getting the message that all research is valued. Chancellor Moeser pointed out that another misinterpretation is that faculty feel that only funded research matters which he points out is untrue. VC Torr stated that she wants to enhance and encourage faculty to conduct research in the areas that they are most interested in. Scheideler suggested that placing more emphasis on a balanced university would be positive showing the integration of the arts, the applied and the basic sciences. VC Torr asked if producing the research newsletter would be helpful in getting that message out. Latta suggested that an editorial in the Scarlet might be more productive.

3.2 Indirect Costs Policies

Latta asked if the current indirect costs policies needs to be re examined and updated. VC Torr stated that the current policy states that certain fixed costs are paid out of the indirect costs. The standard breakdown is that 1/3 covers these fixed costs, 1/3 of it goes back to the Deans, and 1/3 is divided between the Chancellor's Office and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research. She noted that the Deans funding varies from college to college and is handled differently within each college. She stated that typically 25% of this amount is usually retained by the Deans while the remainder goes back to the department. She pointed out that very little goes back to the actual investigator. She stated that she would like to change this to give the investigators more of an incentive to get these grants by giving them back a larger portion of the indirect costs. She stated that she is concerned that many of the indirect costs are going towards supplementing operating budgets for the departments. VC Torr stated that while she knows how much each of the Deans receive in indirect costs, she is not aware of how they are being spent. Bryant pointed out that the faculty would be interested in learning how these funds are spent. VC Torr suggested that she should start requesting the Deans for an annual report on how they have spent the recovered indirect costs.

4.0 Chancellor Moeser

4.1 Biennial Budget Priorities

Chancellor Moeser reported that the impact of the Governor's cutting of the funding for the health trust fund will be a heavy burden on the University in the next biennium. Latta asked the Chancellor if he is aware of any other priorities that Central Administration will likely advance for which the campuses will need to cover the costs. Chancellor Moeser stated that some issues that are potentially on the table are: $5 million proposal for research support; additional support for engagement with extended education; funding for need based scholarships; ongoing information technology; and the revision of the Student Information System. He felt that there is still a chance to increase the University's contribution to retirement. He pointed out that we need to get to the high point of faculty salaries rather than just aiming for the mid-point of our peer institutions. He felt that faculty of the Lincoln campus would rather have a 3% salary increase rather than a 4 ½ or 5 % increase at the expense of our operating budget. Latta stated that there is a strong sense that we can not keep on cutting academic programs to cover other costs. The faculty feel that they need to weigh the priorities of how the money should be spent.

4.2 Kellogg Commission Recommendation

Chancellor Moeser suggested that this topic be discussed in a joint meeting with the Academic Planning Committee.

4.3 Josephson Visit

Chancellor Moeser reported that the visit of Michael Josephson was an effective character building conference. He pointed out that it was geared more towards the non-academic side of the campus community and that they would like to see the residence hall assistants have training in building character. He noted that values are transmitted through the every day living and social environments. He stated that they are looking at ways to get the campus more engaged in character building.

5.0 Approval of 3/22/00 and 3/29/00 Minutes

Item postponed due to the lack of a quorum.

6.0 Senate Meeting Follow Up

Item postponed.

7.0 Unfinished Business

7.1 Finalize Senate Ballots

The committee discussed the nominees for the Senate elections.

8.0 New Business

8.1 SIS Panel

Item postponed.

Meeting adjourned at 5:05 pm. The next Executive Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, April 12^th, 3:00 pm, in the Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.