Faculty Senate


Faculty Officers
Faculty Senate
Faculty Manual
University Standing Committees
Faculty Assembly
Academic Unit Codes of Operation
University Calendars
Issues of Importance for Faculty

Research Creative Activity Grants Committee


Minutes November 16, 2005


Seodial Deena, Committee Chair, called the meeting to order.


Items Discussed:


The committee, acting on a suggestion by Professor Deena, agreed that the Chair and committee officers should request more funding from the Vice Chancellor for approved research proposals. Dr. Deena stated that funding from the College of Arts and Sciences will be continued for some proposals submitted by that College’s faculty, provided the proposal was recommended for funding.


The committee agreed that at least one additional meeting should be held sometime during the Spring Semester, in addition to the one that is usually held, to discuss matters related to improving the grant review process.


A brief discussion was held about the list of proposals, in the order circulated to members earlier in the week. The committee agreed to leave the list in its current state.


Proposals that were listed in the top 30 for funding priority were reviewed for any problematic budget issues. None of the proposed budgets were altered.


Some discussion was held concerning the following questions, raised by various committee members:


1) What about changing the proposal in a way to avoid faculty members placing their summer stipend in with the budget?


2) Concern was expressed over the low ranking of the social science proposals.


3) Concern was expressed by committee members who felt unqualified to review proposals well outside their area of expertise.


4) A suggestion was made to name ad hoc subcommittees to review proposals in areas not well represented by committee membership. No action was taken.


5) Another suggestion was asking previous grant recipients to serve on the committee. No action was taken.


6) Professor Jones suggested that the chair and/or officers send thank you letters to each committee member with a copy sent to the member’s chair. The committee agreed with this suggestion. Al Schreier volunteered to send a template for the letter to Professor Jones.


7) Discussion item, some budget items need more information.


8) Some concern was expressed about proposals that request $10,000 funding without detailed justification. Some committee members noted that, for some projects, $10000 is a small amount and more is needed.


9) Discussion on whether requests for laptop computers should be honored, or budget items that do not have price quote. Al Schreier stated that one proposal needs to provide a budget justification.


10) A question was raised as to whether all proposals that score 3.0 andhigher should be recommended for funding, given that so many proposals score 3.0 and higher. After discussion, the committee decided to recommend all 3.0 and higher proposals for funding.


11) Some discussion was held on whether there should be a separate general equipment fund. No action was taken.


12) Discussion was held on proposals that received equivalent scores. After discussion, the committee voted to let a normalized distribution break any tie.


Respectfully Submitted,


Mark Jones