Minutes of the Research/Creative Activity Grants Committee Meeting
March 1, 2010
Rawl Annex 142
Presiding: Carmine Scavo, Chair
Regular Members present: Scavo, Newhard, Zhang, Lapicki, Lorenzo, Davis, Ratcliff, Brinkley, Arrigo
Ex-Officio Members present: Selim, Schreier, Ross, Gallagher, Billingsley, Morris
Meeting Called to Order: 3:30pm
The purpose of the meeting was to review and discuss the rankings of the proposals submitted by Faculty and scored within the individual subcommittees.
A motion is made by Schreier to go into closed session.
· Morris seconds,
· motion carries.
Dr. Scavo and Dr. Brinkley presented a spreadsheet showing the unadjusted and adjusted scores and ranks for all proposals, as well as subcommittee means and standard deviations. A discussion followed as to the normalization procedure, Scavo and Brinkley explained the procedure. A discussion followed as to whether the normalization scheme should be revised in the future, particularly because means and range between the groups varied. The spreadsheet s ranked proposals by their adjusted score. A discussion was made of how to present the rankings and information from the committee to Dr. Magaeen.
A motion is made by Lapicki that the top 16 proposals are accepted as ones to forward and individual rankings/presentations among those 16 be further discussed.
· Billingsley speaks against the motion.
· Brinkley seconds the motion.
· Lapicki withdraws the motion; Brinkley agrees to withdraw.
A motion is made by Morris to send the entire list ranked by the adjusted score to Dr. Magaeen. Ratcliff seconds the motion.
· Ross proposes an amendment that the chair include in his memo to the VC an explanation that the “highest performing” subgroup does not appear in the top 10.
· Billingsley speaks in favor of the motion
· Davis speaks against the motion.
· Lapicki calls the question.
· Motion carries with 2 nay votes.
A motion is made by Brinkley to include in the spreadsheet forwarded to the VC Office information about the ratio of “5” scores (highest score) for each proposal (i.e. 2 out of 4 members scored proposal “A” a 5)
· Morris seconds the motion
· Motion carries.
Schreier requests that a document be prepared discussing the issues of normalization and the opinions and suggestions of committee members of how the process should be done in the future. Scavo states that the committee’s annual report would be an appropriate place to discuss issues of normalization for the future. Scavo asks that committee members forward him their thoughts to be included in this discussion.
A motion is made by Morris at 5:05 to adjourn.
· Billingsley seconds the motion
· Motion carries
Meeting adjourned: 5:05PM.