The notes from October 8, 1999, were approved. Lloyd Johnson noted that he had commented that there should be UM guest editorials in the newspapers more frequently (related to the 5^th paragraph on page 4.)

The notes from November 12, 1999, were reviewed and the following changes were made: In the second paragraph, Peter Ward’s reported comments were deemed not to accurately convey his attitude and contribution to the discussion. He did say that OVPR should be involved with setting the agenda and Vice President Ulaby agreed. Ben van der Pluijm will circulate an amended paragraph to the committee. He does not feel that RPC should set the agenda but should set it in connection with OVPR. Barring changes to be made to this paragraph, the notes from November 12, 1999, were approved.

Vice President Ulaby said that the winter solstice is on December 22, 1999, which is also the moon’s paragie around the earth and when the moon is closest to the earth. The moon will appear 14% larger and 7% brighter. He encouraged everyone to observe this.

Vice President Ulaby had prepared some material regarding agenda items 2 and 3. However, he had a schedule conflict and needed to leave early. He asked to move into agenda item 3, and start by updating the Committee.

The document, “School and College Research Infrastructure Policies,” includes responses from the College of Engineering, Literature, Science and the Arts, the Medical School, and the School of Information as to how they support the research enterprise, the piece related to A21.

Ben van der Pluijm clarified for new members that the agenda, sent out prior to today’s meeting, included two action items: #1-OVPR to review current practices and #2-Formulate standard minimum guidelines. This is OVPR’s reaction.

Vice President Ulaby provided a brief history: Several years ago, the Federal government changed the policy with regard to certain items being charged as direct costs on grants and contracts. This included secretarial support, Xeroxing, telephone, etc. From that point on, these items, as a rule, cannot be counted as direct costs (DC). This created problems at UM, which needed separate institution level support until the new rules could be adjusted to. The Federal government felt that part of what they paid direct costs for should be paid for through indirect cost recoveries. UM’s position is that the Federal government pays 51% in indirect costs (IDC) and in reality, we recover, from all sources of grants and contracts, about 30% on average over all. The actual cost to UM (for administrative support, etc.) is closer to 60% plus. One problem is that the typical faculty or researcher needs those pieces of support to operate and function. UM struggled for solutions and it evolved under the new budget model, that all IDC generated remains at each school and college. Each program has developed way to distribute that money. Pieces of that are A21 issues. We do not have a UM-wide policy. Each program is different and there are a variety of distribution plans. OVPR tries to help out, for example when a grant runs out and a new one hasn’t yet started, OVPR can provide bridge funding.

From the four schools highlighted, the table shows what they do and how they distribute IDC. Some support takes place outside of what you see. Some provide supply costs and the cultures vary considerably. In some schools, RIP money is the primary source for these costs. All have RIP programs, and have started using the RIP as a way of taking care of secretarial expenses, supplies, etc.

Ben van der Pluijm asked if it is desirable at UM to have a structure where the guidelines are clear for PI’s and the minimal expectations at UM are clearly defined. Information has not been clearly available to PI’s in the past. Should there be baseline standards?

Vice President Ulaby said there has been discussion at the Deans level and their response is that cultures, etc., among the schools are so different, a uniform structure is not practical and they have resisted. Second, is that all IDC gets plowed into “research infrastructure” which includes start up costs (faculty, facilities, etc.); cost sharing for proposals, etc., and it is logical that they receive two budgets, one related to the instructional part and the other to IC to support the research part of the enterprise. This varies from school to school.

How much should be the responsibility of the PI from university accounts? (I.e., repairs, electrical, telephone, computer repair, replacement, etc.) Much of this comes from the PIs University accounts, but should be coming from IDC which are supposed to be there. At the UM level, the more successful we are, the more taxed the system becomes because we are subsidizing so much. $50M brings in $15M in IDC but the cost to operate is more like $20M and the UM must come up with more. PI says, “I need help.” The money comes in, the department collects IDC and the PI needs more help.

Marvin Parnes reviewed the conception of IDC. UM decides how much to spend on support of activities, i.e., secretaries, supplies, etc., then tries to collect as reimbursement the proportion spent in support of organized research. The real cost that UM is putting out, UM tries to collect in IDC coming back to UM. These are not dedicated costs to specific proposals or directly associated with specific proposals. UM has a spending level and collects as much as it can from the Federal government, puts it back in the budget and decides what to spend in each department. There is no mandate, no legal connection in the kind of payback.

A comment was made that the response time to fixing problems has increased and PIs see this as lost time. When equipment goes down, or there are repair problems, the response time used to be faster; now PIs are waiting a couple of weeks for replies to appeals. PI may not perceive IDC properly but at the same time, the experience is that this used to be able to be addressed and is now more difficult. There is no magic formula that can help PIs to realize that UM is behind them and can find ways it can be facilitated. This is a serious issue for this Committee and it is right to bring it up.

Vice President Ulaby said that what is missing is the voice of the faculty articulating these concerns to the Deans. There is flexibility at UM but control is in the hands of Deans. Vice President Ulaby does not believe the Deans are hearing form faculty but from directors of centers who are receiving block grants, which are larger to operate, and have more visibility. Faculty or teams of faculty are being hurt, they are not being heard. OVPR will try to communicate to the Deans but the concerns need to be heard from faculty and RPC can assist.

Rob Todd wondered, in terms of the average faculty member investigator, how many realize the implications of changes in the budget system where IDC go to the unit. Until he came to OVPR, he himself was not as aware. He wonders if some significant portion of faculty investigators do not know the changes have happened and wonders if they are pointing fingers in the wrong direction. A key aspect is the lack of information getting to the faculty.

Now that we have the information, is there a desire for minimum guidelines around campus. Shouldn’t there be some common ground? Vice President Ulaby said that if UM had some minimal guidelines, the humanities would suffer because they do not generate revenue. Cultures among schools vary so much it does not make sense to have policies that are uniform across UM. It is up to the individual schools and colleges to decide on their priorities and this must come from the Deans.

Marvin Parnes provided an overview of what OVPR provides through the faculty award program, which is open to everyone on campus and provides some measure of those kinds of resources outside the control of Deans, i.e., seed money, interim or bridging support or other special needs. One role OVPR plays is providing some resources across campus above and beyond.

Vice President Ulaby stated that we try as best we know how to “compensate” for the lack of sensitivity that may exist in one given entity or another across campus. If we receive a proposal from a unit where in general, that unit does not provide much in support, we tend to weight it more heavily and provide more support. Collectively, this is a substantial amount. Rather than trying to get the Deans to change their cultures administratively, it is more workable to use our resources.

Is OVPR getting enough for the research enterprise where they can help enough? Who gets what slice of pie? OVPR should fight for more of pie so there can be a less biased distribution of funds.

Engineering has more faculty than LSA but it is the same faculty who attend meetings regardless of whether or not research is on the agenda. The person who controls the agenda controls where research is on agenda. There is a need to come up with a way to get research-related information to the faculty. DRDA and OVPR are developing web sites and it is part of our job to work with SACUA to bring research-related information to the attention of the faculty. The Record has cut down on the research-related information they publish. This committee should work with OVPR and SACUA to inform faculty where information is available.

Vice President Ulaby agrees that using the web is a good proposal as most people have Internet access. We should try to put as much information as possible on the web. Getting a larger piece of the pie is always a struggle. It is a zero sum gain - we gain, someone else loses. OVPR has developed a slightly different approach. In the past, OVPR funded proposals and still does when it involves faculty directly. However, when proposals involve schools and colleges, OVPR prefers the joint initiatives approach, and asks the schools and colleges for money. This way, OVPR funding goes further and we can support more faculty.

Can OVPR get information in terms of how IDCs are spent in individual PIs lab? What kind of things do IDCs pay for in individual labs, besides water , heat, etc., where are these IDC dollars being spent to help PI?

Marvin Parnes explained that first, IDCs go to UM, goes into budget for what UM has already demonstrated it has been spending. What UM is counting as IDCs are all the things that go into the IDC calculation (see chart). Everything paid for gets calculated in IDC rate then gets paid back to UM. The dollars are not a different color. Ask the schools, what do you do to make sure you are providing the right services and support for research? Not, are the dollars going into the right slots? We have specialized programs where money goes back to the departments for what they need. One issue is that this may feel like it is not good enough and it may be the quality of support that is lacking. IDC demonstrates to government that we are paying these costs.

UM is spending more than we are collecting. Variations exist between one entity and another, between one faculty member and another. This can translate into schools trying to build up in certain areas which comes at the expense of ongoing projects. Many individuals feel they are not getting support equivalent to what they contribute.

In order to personalize the numbers, could we make up a lab or a situation where the PI brings in $300K? With IDC of 50%, what is the trickle down effect, what are the costs, what comes back to PI, and what goes to the department? It would be interesting to take a lab and calculate it out. It may amount to more than the PI realizes. It may also demonstrate a deficit. Bruno Giordani said that in trying to calculate from a lab or a clinic, anyone could provide information. He is always told that he is in the red. It is hard for faculty to understand the process until you talk to other faculty and say I have to write a grant. One says I have to pay for release, another does not, one pays for a secretary, another one does not. There can be a lack of support phenomenal in comparison with other. It is variable, what deans can say we give to departments. It would be interesting to look at a $300K Medical School grant and see what the fall out is among different departments.

From listening to Marvin Parnes over the last three years, are we sure DRDA is effectively negotiating the IDC rate? Can Parnes provide insight? Johns Hopkins IDC rate is 60%, UM is at 52%. Why aren’t we higher? Judy Nowack noted that there was a Council on Governmental Relations study last year on why IDC rates differ and a copy will be distributed.

The IDC rate is negotiated by Financial Operations, not DRDA, and UM has one of two “cognizant agencies.” UM is assigned to HHS. The other is ONR, the Office of Navel Research. The negotiation process goes back and forth. In the last round, he thought it was a fairly bizarre process, not rational. UM tried to be rational in terms of presenting data but often in negotiations, the perception of agencies is hard to understand. We eventually negotiate and get close to what we need. By law, we are capped at the administrative portion of 26%. It does not matter what the real costs are. We are not able to recover all of those costs.

Researchers may not be worried about IDC numbers but how to increase response time for requests, repairs, supplies, etc. OVPR can be very important in getting around departments and colleges and anything we can do to help increase the size of the pie for assisting in helping building bridges, RPC would like to help.

If we agree that dissemination of information is necessary, how do we do it? The table provided is illuminating and we are happy to see this. It is a good platform to share. These numbers can be put together in the Record write up or in a SACUA session. Can this table be distributed or placed on the Web page to inform faculty? The bottom line is that researchers should not be worried about IDC of 52% and where it goes, but where do you go when you need assistance. If you know your way in, you get it, if not, you don’t. Young faculty may suffer. Having information available on the web is OVPR’s goal. OVPR buys space in the Record. OVPR should be able to work with schools and colleges to put information on the web. Several schools and colleges do. Faculty need to be made aware of what the schools and colleges provide.

SACUA has ample space in the Record. Having a forum to express opinions is good. Departments will be surprised to see what other departments do. Should we proceed with preparing document? Should this be passed on to Ben van der Pluijm’s successor? Should the Committee work with OVPR to put information (the table) in the Record? There should be some review of the table and related information to verify the accuracy of the data. It was decided to revisit this at a subsequent meeting.

There were no other comments. The Committee took a short break.

To introduce the topic, a little more than a year ago, the council of deans decided that it would be useful to have intense discussion on the professoriate. A small design team, led by Dean Joseph White, was identified to put together the format and agenda. Judy Nowack was included to make sure the Primary Research Scientist (PRS) issues were included. The format of the meeting was an entire day and the members were balanced. The group worked through the day. At the end of the session, task teams would be identified to work out specific recommendations. The PRS team was co-chaired by Dean Stephen Director and Thomas Carey and the rest of the committee was quite diverse. The task team report is a set of conclusions and recommendations and was released a few weeks ago in conjunction with Provost Nancy Cantor’s talk to the Senate assembly. It is also available on the Web. There were seven recommendations, several of which have come forward and have been part of the theme of deliberations and actions from RPC and OVPR for some time. Some bring up other issues and will be things we have dealt with and some where OVPR may not have come out with that formulation.

It is not clear where Provost Cantor will go with the recommendations in this report, i.e., campus wise debate, etc. A number of the recommendations are already shaping initiatives we are building in OVPR.

The next two documents are distributed for information and are in pursuit of these recommendations. They are going to be part of a manual for PRS appointments that OVPR is putting together which current does not exist and has never existed. It will be its own section on the OVPR website: PRS promotion recommendations - background, philosophy, history, guidelines, bridging, links to various schools/colleges guidelines, example appointment letters, termination issues, and hiring and promotion issues. The second document is the PRS appointment procedures.

The September document had gone out earlier about the form in which Vice President Ulaby wanted to see the promotion recommendations come forward. The November document was created recently on the theory that we wanted to have documentation on the promotion of PRS as parallel as possible to the appointment process for senior PRS and instructional faculty members. One of the changes is that OVPR no longer reviews the assistant research scientist appointments (except in those units reporting to OVPR). This makes it parallel to assistant professor appointments, which can be made without Provost approval. This document provides specifics on what we want to see in the appointment package and in the promotion package. There are already some units which are adjusting their internal process. At the associate research scientist level, OVPR needs at least five evaluation letters. We want to see an appointment letter and want to see it before the offer goes out to ensure that those features that should be in the offer letter are there.

The PRS appointment procedures will provide some degree of uniformity in a world that has very different cultures in the way primary research scientists are hired. Some have no mention of tenure situation and this is an attempt to provide more structure which is parallel to the UM teaching track. One highlight is letting go of the assistant research scientist reviews. The puts the responsibility of ensuring quality of those packages at the unit level.

Discussion continued on PRS appointment and promotion procedures. The PRS track has been used in the past in a haphazard way, which is then reflected poorly on the group as a whole. Provost Cantor articulated that she wants to create an environment where research faculty feel as loyal to UM as teaching faculty. Vice President Ulaby has already brought this to the RADs and challenged them to look at these recommendations and find out how respective units will respond. To be allowed to make PRS appointments at all, the unit must develop internal policies acceptable to OVPR.

Promotion to the associate PRS rank is the first step where central administration is involved. Another change is that senior PRS, which were approved by the Provost, will now be approved by OVPR. OVPR’s position on the different parts of the recommendations what OVPR will do has not been created or articulated. Bringing them here is part of the process. They have been taken to the RADs and their feedback was obtained.

It will be good to know what OVPR will do with these recommendations. One concern with PRS is the name, scientist, as opposed to “research assistant professor” which is used at other institutions. Has there been debate on this? Ten years ago, this Committee pushed for that under George Carignan and was turned back with concerns on tenure issues. Homer Neal felt it was not politically the right time and if that issue were pushed to exclusion of others, the others might not get done. We do have senior and regular track. OVPR will respond back to this Committee. The manual will be a living document on the web.

Ben van der Pluijm wished the Committee happy holidays and the Committee thanked Him for his service to RPC.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 noon.