MENU
 
Faculty Senate




 
fsonline_large
purple
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 Activities Grants Committee

ANNUAL REPORT

1997-1998 Academic Year

 

1.    Membership (include ex-officio members).

      Linner Griffin          Michael Felts          

      M.S. Ravi               Melvin Stanforth       

      Mark Taggart (VC)Josie Bowman          

      Brenda Killingsworth(S)   Larry Means            

      Resa Crane        Ed Stellwag                  

      Randy Joyner           William McPherson     

      Catherine Rigsby (C)          Dawn Clark             

      Marge Inman                   David Dennard         

      Randall Parker                Bonnie Mani            

      Michael Ehlbeck               Leland Wallin          

      Mary Ellen Franklin     Alan Schreier         

 

2.    Meeting Dates (include members absent).

There were five full committee meetings and 3

subcommittee meetings during the year:  Full committee

meetings (attendance records are not available):

      August 29, 1997

      September 11, 1997

      October 16, 1997

      November 13, 1997

      January 29, 1997

      March 3, 1997

 

3.    Subcommittees established during the year (include

progress and/or completion of work).

 

Subcommittees 1 and 2:  Established for rounds one and

two of proposal reviews.  Each subcommittee met twice

(during the first two weeks of October).  Work completed.

 

Proposal "Feedback" Subcommittee:  this proposal was

established to design a feedback instrument to be sent to all

applicants.  The instrument was designed, approved by the

full committee, and will be used by the committee for all

future proposal evaluations.  A sample is included in the

new grant application packet.

 

On-line Grant Subcommittee:  This committee was

established to investigate the possibility of putting the grant

application on-line.  After an initial information-gathering

effort by the chair, it was decided that this idea should be

postponed until next year.  It should be noted that the

Teaching Grants committee has made good progress with

their on-line application mock-up and has invited a

representative from the Research/Creative Activity Grants

committee to attend their subcommittee meetings in next

Fall.

 

4.    Accomplishments during the year, especially as

addressed through committee goals.  Include

recommendations made to agencies other than the Faculty

Senate as well as the Faculty Senate.

 

The committee recommended 21 proposal for funding:  7

stipend proposals, 2 project expense proposals, and  12

dual stipend/project expense proposals. The total project

expense funding recommendation was $93,405.00; total

recommended stipend funding is not available, but the

maximum recommendation was $114,000.

 

The committee reevaluated the salary cap that was

approved and put into place in a previous year.  A vote on

whether or not to remove the $6000.00 salary cap resulted

in a tie (7 votes for removing the cap and 7 votes for

keeping the cap in place) and the decision was made to

revisit the issue next year.  This is a very emotional issue for

many of the faculty.  It should be reviewed with (at least) the

following in mind:  the charge of the committee, the Vice

Chancellor's intentions for the appropriate use of the

moneys granted through this committee, and the fact that

receiving salary from a R/CA Grant has not effect on an

individual's ability to receive a teaching salary in the same

summer.

 

The committee used a new evaluation procedure this year.

The procedure was approved last year and involved a 3-

round review process (including subcommittees) that

insures a fair and thorough reading and evaluation of all

proposals.  The new procedure worked very well and should

be followed in the future as well.  An important part of the

new procedure was the distribution of the proposal rankings

(by proposal number and reviewer number) to all committee

members after each round of review.  The only shortcoming

of the process was the lack of substantial feedback to the

applicants.

 

To address the feedback issue, a new review instrument,

"Summary of Committee Evaluation Comments," was

created.  This instrument was approved by committee vote

and will be part of the official notification returned to all

applicants with proposal award or rejection letters. 

 

5.    Reports to the Faculty Senate (include dates and

resolution numbers).

n/a

 

6.    Business carried over to next year

(list in priority order).

 

1.  Establishing a meeting time that will allow maximum

attendance.

 

2.  Development of an on-line grant form and procedure.

 

3.  Reevaluation of the $6000 salary cap.

 

7.    Evaluation of the committee (include anything that

hindered or assisted the committee's work during the year).

A.  Charge:  n/a

 

B.  Personnel: all committee members must be willing to

attend meetings and willing to spend the time necessary to

fully evaluate the proposals.  Lack of attendance was a

great hindrance to the committee this year.

 

C.  Attendance:  attendance is an ongoing problem. 

Although almost all members are diligent about returning

evaluations, less than 1/2 are diligent about attendance.  A

standing meeting day and time might be the answer.  When

the committee was polled for such a time, however, less

than 1/2 of the members responded!

 

D.  Responsibilities: n/a

 

E.  Activities: n/a

 

8.    Suggestion(s) to the Chair of the Faculty and/or

Faculty Senate for improving the effectiveness of the

committee.

A subcommittee should be maintained (and should work with

the Teaching Grants Committee) to develop an on-line grant

form and procedure.