Ad hocAd Hoc University-Wide Governance Committee
September 24, 2004
Minutes
Present: J. Acker, R. Bangert-Drowns, J. Bartow, B. Carlson, P.
Eppard,
M. Fogelman,
R. Geer, T. Hoff, J. Pipkin, L. Schell, G. Singh, J. Wyckoff
Discussion on a motion regarding Committee timetable and release of
report:
Discussion ensued about the Committee’s timetable for the completion and
release
of its draft report. This discussion was conducted in anticipation of
the
University Senate meeting scheduled for Oct. 4 and in light of Senate
Chair
MacDonald’s indication that she had hoped to distribute the committee’s
draft
report prior to that meeting. Professor MacDonald had further indicated
that
the proposed Bylaws of the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering
(CNSE)
had been transmitted to Interim President Ryan, and that President Ryan
had
invited Senate comment on the bylaws. The president also was reported as
expressing a desire to take action on the bylaws by Oct. 8. Professor
MacDonald
had encouraged the committee to work as quickly as it can and indicated
that she
would welcome a partial report if the Committee is not able to produce a
final
draft report. Committee members expressed concern that the committee had
been
asked to review the CNSE Bylaws, which they did not understand to be a
part of
the Committee’s charge. Concerns were expressed about the committee’s
submitting a partial report, in that an incomplete report risked being
misunderstood and not accurately reflecting the committee’s consideration
of the
issues it has been discussing over the past several months. Additional
concerns
were expressed that the committee not be perceived as becoming embroiled
in the
review of CNSE’s bylaws, and that it is important that the committee’s
work be
perceived as being independent of specific controversies and addressing
broad
governance issues pertinent to the entire University community. Committee
members agreed that a draft report cannot be concluded and submitted in
time to
meet the Senate Chair’s request.
There was discussion about whether the committee’s initial report might
be
completed by November 1. One Committee member suggested that a November
1
submission date might be feasible for a draft report, yet emphasized that
consultation with faculty is an important part of the process of
developing a
final report. The committee has assumed from the outset that a draft
report
will be shared with faculty, staff, the administration, and students for
review
and comment. Another Committee member suggested that the committee’s
voting on
a specific motion would be the best way of communicating with the Senate.
The
Committee members present agreed to begin discussing the Research
Subcommittee
report and table the discussion on the draft motion until later in the
meeting,
when other committee members were expected to be present and at which
time the
committee would be in a better position to estimate how much time might
be
needed to complete a draft report.
Discussion on Research issues:
Professor Wyckoff reviewed the five areas that the Research Subcommittee
considered: (1) compliance and conduct, (2) indirect cost return, (3)
research
awards (funding), (4) centers and institutes, and (5) excellence awards.
He
reported that, in short, the Subcommittee believes that the status quo
should be
preserved with respect to faculty governance in these areas of research.
The
subcommittee is recommending no changes in current procedures although it
encourages consideration of stronger policies surrounding potential
conflicts of
interest in research endeavors.
In considering faculty governance issues pertaining to research centers
and
institutes, the Subcommittee examined policies at several universities
including
SUNY Binghamton and the University of South Carolina. At both of those
institutions, there appears to be no university-level faculty input
regarding
centers and institutes. Instead, decisions are made by the President,
following
input from the VP for Research and the units involved. A majority of the
Subcommittee concluded that benefits are associated with the model used
at
UAlbany and that there are advantages to keeping university-level faculty
oversight of centers and institutes in an advisory role to the VP for
Research.
The Council on Research presently reviews applications for the creation
of
centers and institutes and requests additional information when needed.
A
formal policy is in effect, which requires Council on Research review of
proposals for centers and institutes. The Council performs an oversight
and
review function and is advisory to the Senate and the VP for Research.
It was
suggested that centers and institutes acquire an important University
resource
in having the University’s name attached to them, and that the University
has an
interest in ensuring that University at Albany name is associated only
with
appropriate initiatives. Another committee member expressed the view
that the
role of the faculty in considering centers and institutes is important,
but
raised questions about the level at which that faculty role should be
performed—at the School or College, or at the University level. It was
suggested that greater expertise is likely to be found at the
School/College
level. Other members suggested that the Council on Research has an
important
role to play in considering University resources. It was suggested that
the
review of centers and institutes by the Council on Research may interject
additional delay and cause other units to feel scrutinized. However, it
also
was pointed out that provisional centers can be created without undue
delay, and
that the Council on Research can later be consulted to apply for non-
provisional
status. Applications for the creation of centers are available on-line,
so all
parties have advance knowledge about what will be expected in the review
process. Another committee member drew an analogy to the tenure and
promotion
process. It was pointed out that, as with tenure and promotion, there is
apt to
be greater expertise regarding centers and institutes at the
School/College
level. However, because centers and institutes may involve a competition
for
scarce university resources, there is good reason to have University-wide
consideration including faculty review. It also was pointed out that the
faculty within a School or College might have divided views about the
advisability of creating centers and institutes. In such cases, the VP
for
Research will be aided by University-wide input. It also was pointed out
that
centers may bridge or span Schools and Colleges. Another member pointed
out
that centers and institutes sometimes have external affiliations, and
that very
significant dangers could be presented by such partnerships. University-
wide
review could be an important safeguard against such worst-case scenarios.
A
hypothetical example was offered of a pharmaceutical company engaging in
partnership with a School or College to create a center that proved to be
a
drain on resources or have other negative consequences. Although the
probability of problems may be low, the magnitude of problems could be
huge,
suggesting that University-wide review is appropriate.
Discussion then turned to FRAP A and FRAP B awards. FRAP A awards are
made at
the University level, and FRAP B awards are distributed at the School or
College
level. Approximately $100,000 has been made available annually to
support the
FRAP A awards, while approximately $70,000 has been distributed to
Schools and
Colleges so that they can make FRAP B awards. It was pointed out that if
FRAP A
funds were distributed to local units instead of managed centrally, and
if the
distribution were on a prorated basis, smaller units would not receive
large
sums of money. It also was pointed out that maintaining central
distribution of
FRAP A funds would enhance the potential for interdisciplinary research
to be
supported. In addition, FRAP A awards can be used to support the best
proposals, which may not be distributed evenly among units. On balance,
allowing some awards to be distributed by the University and others to be
distributed by local units appeared to be sensible.
Discussion then turned to compliance issues. The subcommittee
recommended that
research compliance remain at the University level, and encouraged
stronger
campus-wide policies regarding conflict of interest matters. The
Subcommittee
examined oversight of conflict of interest in research at the University
of
Michigan and Penn State. Each of those institutions has considerably
more
rigorous faculty review of conflict of interest issues than exists at
UAlbany.
One committee member asked if the Subcommittee had examined New York
State
requirements regarding conflicts of interest in research. A member of
the
Subcommittee explained that the NYS requirements had been reviewed. It
was
noted that UAlbany’s present Conflict of Interest Committee is very
small; it is
composed of the Vice President for Research and only one or two faculty
members.
Other institutions have councils comprised of faculty representatives
from
throughout the university that specifically consider conflict of interest
issues. Those councils have considerable authority. For example, at
Penn State
the conflict-of-interest committee can recommend a faculty member’s
dismissal
for violating policies against conflicts of interest. The Subcommittee
recommends that the committee report should reflect that conflict of
interest
policies should be strengthened at UAlbany and possibly involve creation
of a
separate, free-standing faculty committee. It also was pointed out that
the New
York State Ethics Commission oversees subsidized consultative
arrangements, and
that NYS regulations thus would apply to faculty who consult with
industry.
Following additional discussion, the Committee voted on several motions
pertaining to research issues, as follows:
1. The University should retain campus-wide governance in matters of
research compliance and conduct. The University Senate is urged to give
increased consideration to issues involving conflict of interest in
research
including mechanisms for reviewing potential conflicts of interest.
(This
motion passed by vote of 12-0-0.)
2. University Senate Charter section SX.5.3. should be reaffirmed
with
inclusion of the following (bolded) provision: “The Council as a whole
shall
regularly review research activities and the allocation of research
funds,
including Indirect Cost Return, within the University. It shall consider
the
relationship between teaching and research. The Council shall oversee
policy on
University research, including that described in the University policy on
Organized Research Units. It shall make policy recommendations to the
Senate.”
(This motion passed 11 yes-0 no-1 abstention.)
3. With respect to matters including the allocation of research
awards,
benevolence association grants, and conference and journal support,
University
Senate Charter section SX.5.6. should be reaffirmed in its entirety.
(SX.5.6.
provides: “The Council shall conduct or participate in the review of
applications to internal campus research support mechanisms. It may do
so by
the creation of ad hoc committees that include expertise from faculty who
are
not members of the Council.”) (This motion passed 11-0-0.)
4. The role for the Council on Research, through its Committee on
Centers,
Institutes and Specialized Research Laboratories, as codified in
University
Senate Charter section S.X.5.8. should be reaffirmed and endorsed.
(SX.5.8.
provides:
SX.5.8. The Committee on Centers, Institutes and Specialized Research
Laboratories
SX.5.8.1. The committee shall include a minimum of four Council members.
SX.5.8.2. The committee shall be responsible for guiding Council actions
as
charged by the University Policy on Organized Research Units.
SX.5.8.3. The chair of the committee shall be designated by the Council.
(This motion passed 10 yes-0 no-1 abstention.)
5. The present University-wide structure regarding procedures
relevant to
excellence in research awards should be retained as provided in
University
Senate Charter section SX.5.7. (SX.5.7. provides: “The Council shall
conduct or
participate in the processes by which campus or SUNY excellence in
research
award nominations are made. It shall determine the appropriate review
process
for each award category and may create ad hoc and expert review
committees that
include faculty who are not members of the Council.”) (This motion
passed
10-0-0.)
Continued discussion on Committee timetable and release of report:
Discussion resumed regarding a timetable for completion of the
Committee’s draft
report. It was agreed that the tenure and promotion report is
progressing well
and that there is a great deal of consensus on research issues. It was
estimated that an additional two to three weeks may be required to
discuss
graduate curriculum and academic standing. The next Senate meeting is
scheduled
for October 25th and it was suggested that the draft report might
feasibly be
concluded by then. However, it was pointed out that the draft report
must be
distributed to faculty and other constituencies, and to the
administration, for
review and comment. Discussion ensued about mechanisms for distributing
the
draft report. The consensus appeared to be that once the draft report is
released, it should be considered a public document and distributed as
widely
and efficiently as possible. Accordingly, it appeared advantageous to
enlist
the assistance of the Senate website for distributing the draft report,
at the
same time the report is released for discussion with committee members’
constituencies. It was suggested that an announcement be made at the
October
25th Senate meeting that a draft report will be available on the Senate
web site
not later than November 1st, which would allow for review of the report
and
later discussion at the November 15th Senate meeting. It was emphasized
that the
report will be a draft report, and that the committee anticipates and
expects
that the draft report will serve as the basis for discussion and comment
prior
to the preparation of a final report.
A motion was made to communicate to the Senate regarding the Committee’s
timetable and release of its report. The motion was seconded. Nine
members
were present for vote on the motion, which passed seven to two. The
motion is
as follows:
The Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Governance requests an extension of its
work
beyond October 1, so that we may conclude our business in as diligent and
complete a manner as possible, pursuant to our stated charge. We ask for
an
extension to, at the latest, November 1, for submission of our draft of
the
final report to the University Senate. We consider our work to be
independent
of current Senate review of CNSE bylaws and charter, for several reasons.
First, our charge implies separateness from existing events involving
CNSE and
the larger University. Second, our charge is focused on future states
for the
entire University, and all schools and colleges comprising it, as opposed
to a
single school or college. Third, we feel it is more advantageous to
present for
public consumption a draft of the report
in its entirety. Finally, we are concerned that the draft of the final
Ad Hoc
Committee report, and the deliberations reflected therein, be viewed as
objectively as possible by the entire faculty body of the University.
This
will allow it to serve as a springboard for subsequent debate and
dialogue
around future models of faculty governance within the University.
We recognize that the Senate is interested in guidance and feedback.
Yet, the
seriousness and completeness with which Ad Hoc Committee members have
engaged
governance issues within each of the areas of research, curriculum, and
promotion/tenure over these past few months preclude finishing this work
in a
rushed or incomplete manner. Therefore, the Committee asks the Senate
for
consideration in this regard.
Submitted by:
Ad Hoc University-Wide Governance Committee*
James Acker
Robert Bangert-Drowns
Jonathan Bartow
Bonnie Carlson
Philip Eppard
Martin Fogelman
Robert Geer
Timothy Hoff
John Pipkin
Lawrence Schell
Gurinder Singh
Barbara Via
James Wyckoff
(*Note: 9 members were present for vote on motion, which passed 7-2)
