EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

Present: Alloway, Beck, Fech, Flowers, Hoffman, Moeller, Peterson, Rapkin, Scholz, Shea, Stock

Absent: Alexander, Bolin

Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Location: Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace

Note: These are not verbatim minutes. They are a summary of the discussions at the Executive Committee meeting as corrected by those participating.

______________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

Beck called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Article in Chronicle of Higher Education

Beck reported that there is an article in the recent issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education regarding the removal of tenure lines at the University of Arkansas for new faculty members in agriculture. She noted that a colleague from there called her concerned with what was happening.

Peterson asked if this was happening to people who are involved in teaching as well as research. Beck stated that the article states that the decision will affect those people in research and extension but not teaching. Peterson noted that some southern universities do not grant tenure to people unless they have a teaching assignment.

Beck stated that the Vice President of Agriculture is making the decision at the University of Arkansas and claims that there needs to be flexibility in who can be hired or fired. The Vice President stated in the article that people should not be hired for 30 or 40 years because topics that need to be addressed often change over time. Beck reported that the AAUP is very interested in what is happening and will be contacting the University of Arkansas.

Moeller stated that the situation could be a sign of things to come. She stated that she thinks universities are going to become more streamlined. Peterson noted that the campus has been hearing from the Board of Regents and the administration that the university cannot be all things to all people and that the University’s efforts need to be concentrated in specific areas. He wondered whether the University will eventually try outsourcing certain courses which he believes is dangerously wrong thinking.

Moeller stated that the situation at Tulane University is dire. She noted that they have a “hurricane clause” that is similar to financial exigency and as a result they are eliminating a great number of professors and academic programs. Hoffman reported that Tulane has eliminated the College of Engineering. Flowers stated that 23 faculty members with the Tulane Medical School are being released.

2.2 End of Semester Note to the Faculty

Beck asked the Committee whether they thought it would be a good idea to send a short note to the faculty thanking them for their input and wishing them a relaxing break. The Committee agreed that this should be done.

3.0 Approval of 12/7/05 Minutes

Alloway moved and Flowers seconded approval of the minutes as amended. Motion approved.

4.0 Unfinished Business

4.1 Administrator’s Serving on Committees

Beck reported that Griffin informed her that the Syllabus of Campus Wide Committees specifically states under the General Rules and Definitions, Eligibility for Membership: that “administrators in category (3) are eligible for committee membership only in cases specified in the descriptions for particular committees.” Category 3 is defined as “the Chancellor, Vice Chancellors, and all administrators who hold continuous appointment or appointment for a specific term.”

Beck noted that the administrator inquiring about serving on a committee does not fit the eligibility requirement stated above. Peterson pointed out that the language seems pretty clear that an administrator cannot serve unless specifically stated. He asked what committee the administrator is interested in serving on. Beck reported that he wants to serve on the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee. Griffin noted that this is the most popular committee and that there have been people who qualify that have been waiting to get on this committee for several years.

The Committee agreed that Beck should notify the administrator that he does not qualify to serve on the committee.

5.0 New Business

5.1 Vice Chancellor Paul, Associate Vice Chancellor Espy, Dr. Bachman, Chair of IACUC and Dr. Hoyt, Chair of IRB

5.1.A. Research Advisory Board

VC Paul stated that he created the Board as an addition to the Research Council because he wanted to have a group of leading researchers who would challenge him and UNL in a broader way for developing research investment. He pointed out that the Council reviews proposals and does a lot of work while the Board is primarily an advisory group to him. He stated that one of the things the Board has been discussing is how to build teams to collaborate research across colleges, departments and disciplines. He noted that there has been some success in this on campus but there are more opportunities for team building. He stated that he would provide the Executive Committee with a list of the members of the Board. He noted that the Chair of the Council is also a member of the Board.

VC Paul stated that the Board is meeting tomorrow and one of the issues that will be discussed is the need to have faculty retreats on particular research topics. He noted that something similar to this occurred several years ago and it had a lot of positive aspects. Moeller asked if the Board was looking at emerging themes and issues that can help further the cause of research on campus. VC Paul stated that the Board challenges the campus and is complementary to the Council.

VC Paul reported that recently the Four Corners Research Alliance was created. He noted that this is an initiative which is in the early stages between the University of Iowa and Iowa State University, the University of Missouri, the University of Kansas and Kansas State University and UNL. He stated that the initiative was suggested at a meeting with the various Chancellors and Presidents of these institutions. He reported that the group was challenged with what kinds of research these institutions can do together to capitalize on the regional strengths. VC Paul stated that a group of members from the initiative had a retreat two weeks ago and they looked at what the grant challenges are in research that as individual institutions they could not do but collectively they could.

5.1.B. Problems with IRB and IACUC

Beck reported that in the Executive Committee meetings and at Senate meetings statements were made by faculty members who had problems with getting approval for IRB and IACUC proposals. She noted that it is her understanding that the process of getting IRB approval may have been resolved but there still seems to be some issues with IACUC approval. Beck stated that the issues that have been raised involve delays in getting protocols approved, particularly those involving UCARE students. She noted that some UCARE students could not do their projects because it took too long to get approval.

Beck reported that another issue raised is that there is a lot of nitpicking of the protocols. She stated that on animal research there seems to be a lack of understanding in regards to agricultural animals. She noted that another issue is that inspections between east campus animal care facilities and city campus facilities often occur back to back and there needs to be greater hygiene care when this happens.

VC Paul distributed a report written for the meeting concerning IRB and IACUC protocols. He pointed out that the campus is not yet at the place where we want to be in processing protocols. He stated that he invited Professor Hoyt, Chair of IRB, and Professor Bachman, Chair of IACUC, to attend the meeting to address these concerns. VC Paul noted that there has been some progress in making improvements in the processes.

VC Paul stated that it is important to understand that the compliance business is changing and is quite different from how it used to be. He pointed out that there have been a number of institutions that have been shut down in conducting certain kinds of research because they did not meet the compliance regulations and he does not want that happening here.

VC Paul reported that there are new compliance areas that are being emphasized. As a result the campus is providing more training and is being more proactive in conducting responsible research. He pointed out that since 9/11 new compliances have to be addressed.

VC Paul stated that additional staff has been hired to help the process of both IRB and IACUC protocols. He noted that some refinements have been made in how protocols are handled and managed.

VC Paul stated that one problem with the IACUC protocols is that there is only one certified veterinarian although another one has just recently been hired. He pointed out that these veterinarians are not tenure track positions and are in high demand by other institutions and organizations.

VC Paul stated that a contentious issue that causes confusion is the standards of animal care that are required for accreditation. He noted that UNL is currently not accredited but the campus still needs to be in compliance with the animal welfare act.

VC Paul reported that he hopes to have more on-line submission of protocols to make it easier for the faculty. He stated that his office recently looked at the data on submission of protocols and found that one of the major challenges is communicating to faculty members the need to make corrections quickly to protocols. Associate VC Espy pointed out that as of 10/31/05, 26 protocols out of 35 were awaiting a response from the principal investigator.

Professor Bachman noted that for the IACUC they are now down to two weeks in getting a response back to the principal investigator. She stated that the committee that works on these protocols is working hard to eliminate delays in the approval process and in some cases where there is an extreme rush they can be completed in a matter of days.

Professor Bachman pointed out that there are some things that must be done on the IACUC protocols. She noted that the IACUC review committee must comment on each protocol that is submitted and some need to have a full committee review. She stated that if no major corrections are needed on the protocol, it can be processed in two weeks. She pointed out that student approval can be done on line and in a few hours. She noted that an alternative to the on-line process is the student can attend a seminar session that is held once a month.

Professor Bachman stated that to avoid any nitpicking on protocols investigators should remember to write for a diverse audience. She noted that if the language of the protocol is very clear it will help get the protocol through faster.

Professor Bachman stated that the lack of expertise with agricultural animals will hopefully be resolved now that there are more veterinarians on board. She pointed out that the University also has some connections with outside veterinarians to help out when needed.

Professor Bachman agreed that if one colony of animals is being inspected another one should not be done immediately afterwards because it could have devastating effects. She pointed out that scheduling should be arranged so this does not occur. Associate VC Espy stated that it can be difficult to do inspections because sometimes they have to be done at remote facilities. Professor Bachman noted that now that there are alternate members on the committee, they will be able to go out on inspections as well.

Professor Bachman explained that recently incorporated into the committee is the use of alternate members. She noted that departments who use animals in research have a member on the committee but oftentimes all members cannot make the meetings and therefore they would not have a quorum. Now departments can have an alternate member attend the meetings and be involved in inspections.

Beck stated that last year there were several colleagues who had a three year approval granted to them on research they were conducting but recently these people were told that every time they want to do a new experiment they must submit a new request to IACUC. Professor Bachman stated that if the original protocol does not cover the new experiment then a modified protocol needs to be done. She pointed out that a modified protocol can be approved by one person. Beck asked if the research project is just a continuation of an approved protocol why the researcher must go through the process of applying for a new protocol. VC Paul stated that the University needs to be in compliance with the Animal Welfare Act and the number of animals that are used must be recorded. He noted that one of the challenges is who is keeping record of the number of animals used.

Professor Hoyt stated that these are some of the same kinds of issue with the IRB. He stated that the committee is working to find ways in which to respond quickly to the protocols. He noted that an area that needs to be addressed is the campus commitment in complying with regulations. He pointed out that protocols done by graduate students that are not reviewed well by department committees can require a lot of additional work because they contain errors. This in turn can cause a real delay in other protocols being processed. He noted that the chair of the department review committee will be called if a protocol is received that seems out of line. He pointed out that the staff of the Research Compliance Services Office is very willing to work and be proactive with the faculty on protocols.

Professor Hoyt noted that a lot of changes have been made to the IRB process. He stated that the committee sat down and critically reviewed where the bottlenecks occurred in getting IRB protocols through. He noted that expedited reviews used to be distributed to the full board at monthly meetings but this is not required now. Moeller stated that she has seen a significant difference in the past six months in the turn around time for getting protocols processed.

Professor Hoyt stated that there can be an ebb and flow on the protocols. He noted that he personally signs all continuation letters and professors can have a tendency to submit protocols at particular times during the semester. He pointed out that they typically get 15 modifications a month and each one can take up to two hours to review. He stated that in some months they can receive as many as 120 new, modified, or changed protocols.

Professor Hoyt stated that although the basic rules have not changed much there have been a lot of additional guidelines. He noted that sometimes the parameters for protocols can be foggy and evolving. He pointed out that a regulatory agency can suddenly appear on campus to check things out and they must be dealt with immediately. He noted that if a lot of inconsistencies in protocols are found by a regulatory agency it can create a new set of concerns. He pointed out that there are a lot of things going on in the background that most people are unaware of but the office staff has worked hard to be very responsive. Moeller noted that Shirley Horstman is very helpful in the office.

Professor Hoyt stated that sometimes the IRB board does receive compliments. Moeller asked who people should talk to if they have a complaint. VC Paul stated that they should contact Associate VC Espy. He recommended that for emergency protocols a principal investigator should call and visit with the staff rather than sending an email. Professor Hoyt noted that the more lead time the more helpful it is. He pointed out that if there is a lead time constraint then the staff should be informed when the protocol is first submitted or a phone call should be made to see if the protocol can be processed quickly.

VC Paul stated that the plan is to get the Association for Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AHRPP) approval for IRB at UNL. He noted that this is the agency that provides a good housekeeping seal of approval for a university and it indicates that we conduct our research according to gold standards. He pointed out that getting accreditation is a fairly extensive process which includes a visit to campus. He stated that the benefits of having accreditation are that it demonstrates that UNL is on the forefront in complying with research standards for working with human subjects and it is a marker that we take the research seriously and we are a leader among our peers. He pointed out that regulatory agencies do notice that the University has accreditation.

Flowers asked if the on-site visits for accreditation will extend to visits at the department level review committee. He stated that he is thinking about communication between the Office of Research and these department review committees to insure that there is adequate time for the committees to be prepared for the visit. Associate VC Espy stated that the Office of Research is going to review the area of communication with departments and colleges. She stated that interviewing members of the department review committee will be a part of the on-campus visit.

Associate VC Espy stated that she thinks that the campus is in good shape for the accreditation but there may have to be some work to do with enhancements. She noted that there are some conflict of interest policies that need to be looked at but she did not believe that there is a lot of work to do on these. She stated that she hopes the application to AAHRPP will be submitted in three months. VC Paul noted that his office has been working for two years on getting everything ready to submit the application. Flowers asked if site visits will occur once the application is submitted. Associate VC Espy stated that it will probably be a year after the application is submitted before on-site visits will be conducted.

Flowers asked if the Office of Research will be informing the department review committees of the accreditation process. Associate VC Espy stated that the Deans of the colleges will be notified.

Professor Hoyt pointed out that some departments do not have review committees or some do not conduct the committees like they should while others have excellent review committees. He stated that the department review committees that are not operating as they should will be asked to provide more expertise in particular disciplines to facilitate the IRB review process better. Associate VC Espy noted that the members of the review board are from different disciplines and they do not have the expertise that can be found in the departments. She stated that the preliminary review of protocols should be done at the local level where the expertise is the greatest. Flowers stated that he can see the unit review committees taking a different role and more senior faculty members with research experience are needed to participate.

Associate VC Espy reported that the Office of Research hopes to have more of the process handled electronically.

VC Paul stated that he is proud of the chairs, vice chairs, and members of the review committees as well as Associate VC Espy and the staff of the Office of Research for all of the work they do. He noted that they are the first ones to receive complaints but the last ones to get thanks.

VC Paul distributed the 2004-2005 Annual Report of the Office of Research and Graduate Studies. He noted that the report includes activities of students and service by faculty as well. He stated that the document is well received when taken to agencies and donors. He pointed out that the report is only a small sample of the accomplishments of the university’s work on research.

VC Paul reported that his office is trying to track on a monthly and quarterly basis the activities of research on campus. He noted that overall the effort of faculty members has been great and faculty members are getting larger grants which is the result of research being conducted by teams from across the university and with colleagues from other universities as well. He pointed out last year was a record year for research grants but this year’s first quarter was better than last year’s.

VC Paul stated that any faculty members with questions about research and graduate studies should contact his office.

VC Paul complimented the Senate for co-sponsoring the Faculty at 5 events. He stated that he thinks the campus needs to find more venues where faculty members can come together to get to know each other. Moeller stated that there needs to be some kind of meeting of faculty members where the work they do becomes the topic of conversation. She noted that former VC Torr held dinners for faculty members with similar disciplines so they could meet and discuss possibilities of research. VC Paul stated that he has been thinking of doing something similar. He noted that there have been some retreats and they have been very successful.

Beck asked VC Paul to comment on the mentorship report and career development proposal written by the Research Council. VC Paul stated that he has communicated with the Research Council about these and recently a research workshop for chairs was held on mentoring. He stated that SVCAA Couture is trying to set up a workshop on mentoring.

Beck asked what the status is of the University’s conflict of interest policy. VC Paul stated that he has not seen a new draft of the policy. He noted that General Counsel Dick Wood is still working on the policy. Associate VC Espy stated that the Office of Research has been working on developing a very specific conflict of interest policy but it applies to research. She noted that a draft is not ready yet for distribution.

Hoffman asked about the fees that are charged for patents. VC Paul stated that on his office’s website the royalty distribution policy can be found and it discusses these charges. He pointed out that his office only receives about $150,000 in state funds to help support technology on campus and additional funds are needed to help cover the costs. He stated that if anyone has questions on this they should send him an email.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, January 4th at 3:00 pm. The meeting will be held in 201 Canfield Administration Building. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Pat Shea, Secretary.