Attendees: Jerry Lin, Ken Young, Chunda Chen, Scott Crawford, Ana Christensen, Yasuko Sato, Xianchang Li
Jerry Lin called the meeting to order at 1:00pm.
I. Approval of January 2020 minutes Corrections
Correct spelling of Ana Christensen’s name and add Scott Crawford as an attendee.
Ana Christensen made a motion to approve the January 2020 minutes.
Scott Crawford seconded the motion.
Motion approved.
II. Motion for eligibility of PI’s at 91制片厂
Dr. Lin: Let us spend a couple of minutes to review the eligibility of PI’s at Lamar. The policy was revised based on our discussion last meeting. Please read through the policy and let’s discuss if there are additional questions. The spirit of the policy is to be inclusive based on the eligibility of RFP announcement. For postdoctoral fellows, we need faculty mentors to serve as Co-PI’s. Also, in the event when a faculty PI leaves, we need to have someone on the grant to take over. All PIs need to satisfy the grant announcement and one of the following requirements listed in the PI eligibility statement. The policy allows a staff member to apply for a grant with the criteria listed in the statement.
Scott Crawford makes a motion to for the PI eligibility policy to move forward with the approval process.
Dr. Ken Young seconded the motion.
Motion approved.
III.Research data on LU Dashboard
Making institutional statistics transparent as required by state rules is one of President Evans’ initiatives. Institutional statistics are also useful for making institutional decisions. We want to come up with a database showing research-related statistics at 91制片厂 that can be incorporated into 91制片厂 Dashboard. This would be information that is considered public. Examples of the institutional data are the demographic information, number of student enrollment, revenue of external research fund and institutional research expenditure. ORSPA will work with this committee to discuss and determine what data we will place on Dashboard in the future.
Dr. Young: I want to clarify what the information will be posted. Are there any research specific data or student research works be placed on the Dashboard?
Dr. Lin: At this moment, we are going to come up with institutional statistics. If you have any good ideas from your colleagues, please let me know. We need to decide about what institutional data to be placed on the Dashboard.
IV. Gallery display of faculty research and scholarly projects
Dr. Lin: We want to recognize our faculty’s work alongside the hallway that you just walked in. It is a great way to promote scholarly activity and their research. The cost to put these images is low and it is a great way to make our PI’s work noticeable across campus and as we beautify our working space. The more entries we receive the better. We have 12 spots. Our office will handle the editing and final printing. We have only received a few and we need a lot more. The only requirement is a high-resolution picture and it should include a short story about the photo.
Scott Crawford: Have you considered placing in the front of the library? It could be beneficial with the visitors that come to the library.
Dr. Lin: This is a great idea and we should consider it.
V. Policy of indirect cost generated from research grants
Dr. Lin showed the distribution of IDC for all Texas Public Higher Education Institutions and drafted a policy similar what’s used at most TSUS universities for committee review. The intend is to come up with a clear policy on the IDC distribution and implement the policy all the way to the PI level. Presently, each college has an IDC account and it is under the control of the Dean. I propose we use Texas State University as our model. They have 50% recovered by the university and 25% recovered by the office of research. In the past, the remaining 25% was equally divided by the college, department, and the PI. I am proposing that we provide a bigger portion for the PIs, i.e., the remaining 25% would be divided up as 10% to the PI, 7.5% to the participating colleges and 7.5% to the participating departments/centers. The policy needs your input and consideration before we form an agreement in this committee. Once approved by Research Council, I will draft a memo for approval by the Provost. If the PI did not use their IDC, it would go back to the university IDC account after the end of the third fiscal year. The policy will not apply to previous IDC generated. I anticipate that this will be a big step forward for our PIs for the future. But again, this is all pending Provost and then Board of Regents approval.
Think about this proposed IDC policy draft and provide me with feedback so we can come up with a clear policy that is beneficial to the PIs, and the departments can also use their IDC to support their research.
Dr. Young: Can we build into this policy a process for handling disputes, such as if the money is not being distributed as it should by the college or department? Will there be guidelines for the college or department as to how the funds should be utilized?
Dr. Lin: It is perhaps not very productive for the Research Council to come up with this part of the policy at this moment. The questions would be more in line with the dean’s consideration in the respective colleges. However, if we come up with a policy that IDC will be deposited into the accounts of PIs, department and colleges, the dispute will automatically go away in the years to come. Policy and implementation of are equal importance. What I would also like to do at the bottom of this policy is provided some examples of recommended spending. Please review carefully and we will look at it, discuss more in depth and approve an agreed-upon policy next month.
Roundtable:
Dr. Lin: Are there any items that this office can help serve you or our PIs better? Please use PIVOT, as it is a great resource for our PIs to find funding opportunities.
Jerry Lin adjourned the meeting at 2:00pm