Concordia University, Nebraska
Undergraduate Council and IRB Minutes
February 9, 2009, 3:15 p.m.
TLEC Conference Room
In attendance:
JJurchen, MMeehl, KMiller, BRoyuk, DThurber, LAshby, RBork, TWarren, ESiffring
Not present:
PBerkbigler, JMueller-Roebke,
Meeting agenda:
1. Opening Prayer
- BRoyuk opened us in prayer.
2. Approval of Agenda.
-BRoyuk recommended that we commence with the IRB at 4 P.M.
3. Approval of Minutes for December 18, 2008.
-The minutes from the previous meeting were approved as written.
4. Ad Hoc Committees in Progress
-KMiller reported that the Gen. Ed. committee is planning a forum to ask the faculty if there is “buy-in” to competencies. Topics at the forum will also suggest a two-prong approach to developing competencies, namely a lower-level set of basic competencies in General Education and a set of advanced competencies that will be fulfilled by classes in subject majors or minors. The committee will meet one more time (Feb 10) to attempt to determine definitions in preparation for the faculty forum. The forum will be held this Wednesday, Feb 11th.
5. Travel Policy
-JJohnston-Hermann shared some of the history of the off-campus activities policy. The goal of revising the current policy is to begin and close the communication loop. In summary, JJohnston-Hermann had previously assembled an artifact resembling a handbook of useful forms, particularly designed for academic trips. There had been a previous attempt to incorporate a portion of JJohnston-Hermann’s work into a previous proposal to the faculty that was not passed. JJohnston-Hermann has revised the policy to make it more appropriate to a faculty handbook policy.
-TWarren asked if any of the policy had been passed through risk management. JJohnston-Hermann replied that MChaffee is the University’s current attorney for risk management. MChaffee has worked through the policy.
-TWarren remarked about the importance of being able to distinguish between the portions of the policy that were recommended and the portions of the policy that were necessary.
-KMiller asked who was to be the keeper of the materials concerning the travel policy, JJohnston-Hermann shared that the keeper of travel policy materials was the Dean of Students.
-BRoyuk asked if current practice would change substantially if the policy was passed. JJohnston-Hermann responded that the policy is close reflection of current policy.
-KMiller brought section IIIC to the attention of the UGC asking who should supply forms. JJohnston-Hermann replied that standard field-trips and co-curricular activities forms are provided by department chairs. Otherwise, requesting forms directly from MOldenburg or JJohnston-Hermann would be a reasonable step, particularly for domestic travel.
-LAshby asked if there was any form of approval in the policy. JJohnston-Hermann shared that Cabinet would like to be aware of any student international trips. Furthermore, the DKumm would like to be informed about fiscal issues such as liability.
-TWarren recommended that the policy avoid too many procedural matters. In particular, TWarren recommended removing section IIIC.
-ESiffring expressed concern that information about travel, flight data, etc. should be entered into the University database (Banner). His concern is that there are times when the campus is closed and information sitting on the hard drive of a computer in a locked office over a University break may not be readily available.
-DThurber responded that the list of travel participants, particularly students taking a trip for University credit, is submitted to the Dean of Students.
-MMeehl recommended JJohnston-Hermann revisit Section A4 to clarify the statement printed therein.
-BRoyuk closed the item by informing the UGC that JJohnston-Hermann would be sending him a copy of her latest draft.
6. Speaker-Series Committee:
-BRoyuk reminded the UGC that a speaker series committee still needs to be appointed. He recommended that one member be appointed for a 1-year term and another member for a 2-year term, each to be synchronized with faculty elections.
-BRoyuk asked KMiller if she would be willing to serve for one of the terms.
-BRoyuk asked the UGC if there were any nominations.
-KMiller suggested that the UGC solicit volunteers for the Speaker-Series committee. TWarren concurred.
7. Intellectual Property
-BRoyuk shared the feedback received from the University Attorney who considered the policy. Most of the comments concerning the proposed policy dealt with stylistic issues. However, BRoyuk showed that there was one significant substantial point that the University Attorney raised that concerned the “default” position to be held by the University. Specifically, the University Attorney recommended that in general the Intellectual Property for “University Research”, etc. should be owned by the University.
-BRoyuk shared a discussion he had with RHermann concerning alternate philosophies of University ownership of faculty-generated Intellectual Property. RHermann and BRoyuk recognized that the University Attorney was simply serving in his vocational capacity of looking out for the best interests (particularly financial interests) of the University. Some unstructured discussion ensued.
-TWarren suggested receiving feedback from BFriedrich. He shared a previous experience at Concordia St. Paul in which the faculty and Provost had developed an Intellectual Property policy that was rejected by the University President.
-LAshby noted that the University Attorney had started his comment with “In my opinion”. She suggested that his comment was concerned more with philosophical orientation than legality.
-MMeehl noticed that under “definitions, intellectual property” there is an instance of straight-quotes, curly quotes mismatch.
-A small amount of formatting discussion continued.
*************
Begin IRB Session
JJanousek research proposal
-JJanousek provided some background about her proposed survey, which is concerned primarily with the perception of Concordia students regarding the recently developed vaccine for HPV: It is now known that Cervical Cancer is caused by HPV, which is a sexually transmitted disease. About two-years ago it was found that a vaccine against the virus is about 70% effective at eliminating HPV. The current recommendation is that all girls and women starting at age 9 should be vaccinated.
-JJanousek would like to involve 193 participants in the survey for statistical significance. JMueller-Roebke has been working with JJanousek to identify courses that would be appropriate.
-JJanousek explained that the questionnaire is compiled from a questionnaire used in a previous study. A few demographic questions have been changed, and a few questions have been eliminated that had no bearing on JJanousek’s current study.
The floor was opened for discussion
-KMiller suggested modifying the last question on page 3 to make the “Over the age 26” question “fall in line” with the other options in the item.
-TWarren asked about the risk factors to the students. JJanousek responded that apart from the fear of reduced anonymity, it was difficult to find other risk factors.
-TWarren also pointed out that there was not a lot of information provided concerning the tracking and handling of the data. JJanousek shared that she was not currently considering other uses for the data beyond her dissertation.
-JJanousek expressed her concerns that she may not be able to publish the results because the demographics could be traced back to Concordia. There was a general expression of sympathy within the UGC, but it was obvious that her concerns were valid.
-KMiller shared a generally perceived concern (KMiller did not express that she held this concern herself) that relative immunity from HPV might lead to increased promiscuity. There was a general consensus among the UGC and JJanousek that the possibility of contracting HPV is not likely to be a strong deterrent for any sexual activity among Concordia’s student population.
-TWarren suggested that Theo 483 is another potential course for the proposed survey.
-LAshby asked if there was a cutoff for minors in the study. After some discussion it seemed apparent that very few (if any) of the students during second semester would be under 18.
-DThurber commented that the study was very important and encouraged JJanousek in her efforts.
-MMeehl made a motion that the IRB approve the proposed instrument. KMiller seconded the motion.
-The motion was approved.
Cindy Zetah Reseach Proposal
-BRoyuk displayed an email that he had received from Cindy Zetah regarding a survey that was to be used on campus. Cindy Zetah is a graduate student at Concordia who needed to complete the survey for a class project.
-TWarren stated that he would like more information concerning the survey and how the information would be used. However, he recognized that a full IRB discussion of the proposed research was probably not necessary in this case. TWarren also spoke in favor of developing a more formal procedure for IRB approval.
-Some discussion ensued over the importance of having an IRB
-KMiller made a motion that the IRB approve the proposed instrument. MMeehl seconded the motion.
-The motion was approved.
End IRB Session
*************
8. Creation of an IRB
-MMeehl suggested that the IRB be composed of four members spanning a broad range of disciplines {Science, Social Science, Education, and “none of the above”}
-BRoyuk recommended sending the creation of the ad hoc to the Assignment Committee.
-LAshby suggested that the UGC specify that the ad hoc will constitute the IRB until their charge has been completed.
-LAshby suggested a completion date for the ad hoc before the end of the year. TWarren concurred, suggesting that there were many available models.
-There was a general consensus that an April 27th deadline was appropriate.
-BRoyuk volunteered to draft a charge for a committee to form an IRB.
9. Attendance policy.
-BRoyuk distributed some of the notifications that MChaffee has received and some of the communications that the Dean of Student Services has sent to students.
-Concerning the FAQ, BRoyuk shared a list of questions that he could imagine would be asked and suitable responses that are in accordance with the revised policy.
-KMiller recommended that the FAQ would include a statement about pre-approval such that professors, both full-time and adjunct would be made aware that they have the ability to contact the Provost and have a standing attendance policy exception, particularly in cases of classes that meet infrequently.
10. Adjournment
-The meeting was adjourned.
11. Next UGC Meeting –
- Meeting again on Monday, February 23
5