Montana Tech
Office of Research and Graduate School
406/496-4456; 406/496-4334 (fax)
E-mail:
InterofficeMemo
Date:June1, 2008
To:Research Advisory Committee *
CC:Frank Gilmore; Library
From:Joseph F. Figueira, Associate Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs and Research, Dean of
Graduate School
RE:Research Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
It was determined that a Quorum was present and the Research Advisory Committee (RAC) meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m. on March 27, 2008.
Attendees:
Philip Dirige, Jerome Downey, Chris Gammons, David Hobbs, Gary Icopini, Mary MacLaughlin, Marv Miller, Dan Trudnowski, Xiaobing Zhou, Joe Figueira, Chair, Carleen Cassidy
Absentees:
Grant Mitman, Holly Peterson, David Reichhardt, Larry Twidwell, Doug Abbott and Rollo Shea
Approval of Minutes
Motion to approve minutes of November 16, 2007: David Hobbs
Second: Philip Dirige
Approval of Agenda
No additions to the Agenda.
Introduction
Jerome Downey was introduced as a new faculty senate representative and a Committee Member List was distributed to all present.
Information Items
- Department of State Proposal – Joe informed the Committee that he is preparing the final report for the Department of State sponsored thesis abroad program. As he gathers information from the faculty for this report he will determine if the outcomes of the program justify an unsolicited proposal to the Department of State to continue the Thesis Abroad Program. A request was made that all faculty with knowledge of student foreign exchange activity please submit to Joe for use in this endeavor.
- IDC Collections & Dispersals–As per the request of a Research Advisory Committee member Joe Figueira presented a PowerPoint Presentation to review the current IDC policy. He also highlighted proposed changes to the policy which are still in the draft stage. A copy is attached.
- Course Buyouts/Policy & Procedures - Carleen Cassidy prepared a Course Buyout Information handout which was very informative and clarified how the present system works financially. This information complimented Mary MacLaughlin’s presentation regarding drafting a new Course Release Policy, which is still in the drafting and revision process.
Action Items
Course Release Issues and Faculty Workload – Mary MacLaughlin has been working on drafting a fair and reasonable Course Release Policy. A draft is attached. After discussion, twoMotionswere made and approved.
1.Motion 1 – Endorse the draft with suggested changes – Changing the blue highlighted portion in the second paragraph to read, “The RAC supports a policy statement that more equitably reflects the actual conditions on campus (i.e., the unwritten “15 credits/semester minus 3 for service, minus another 3 for research = 9 credits/semester standard courseload for research activefaculty” policy) and that more clearly identifies and defines the rights of the faculty to request course release that would allow them to conduct funded research.”
Also, changes should be made in paragraph 1, 7th line, to read “Currently, a 3-credit course buyout is charged at the rate of (3 credit release) / (24 credits/year teaching load for faculty in departments with graduate programs) = 0.125 (1/8th)of the AY salary. This sounds like a small difference, but easily adds up to thousands of dollars in a proposal when compounded by benefits and overhead. It is also not fair to charge the granting agency for 1/8th of a researcher’s time, when the course release only really gives them back 1/10th of their time”
Motion to Approve – Dan Trudnowski
Seconded – Chris Gammons
The Committee unanimously approved this Motion. None were opposed.
2.Motion 2 – More revision was needed in the yellow highlighted section of #2 of Mary’s draft, and to revise this paragraph to read, “As an incentive to preserve course offerings, if the decision is made to cancel a course orreplacement course due to a course release, the entire salary savings would be returned to the VCAAR.”
A Motion was made that Mary would work on this language and submit a new draft to the committee, with the main intention of this document being to ensure that Department Heads and/or Deans are motivated to find an instructor for the course that a Researcher has bought out of rather than just cancel the course, which is unfair to the students and causes resentment and discouragement and is not good for the Department as a whole. It was discussed whether this was actually something that the Research Advisory Committee had the power to do. Doug Abbott will be consulted, among others and this is still very much a work in progress but will be finalized and action will be taken to fix this problem.
Motion to Accept – Chris Gammons
Seconded – Dan Trudnowski
Motion Carried
Discussion Items
- Distinguished Researcher Award Committee: Holly Peterson, Chris Gammons, Don Stierle -
Chris Gammons handed out an outline of his discussion of the Distinguished Researcher Committee and how these awards are determined. Chris said that the DRA Committee would like give up to 4 general awards. The concern is that not enough faculty who are deserving of this award are receiving them. It was pointed out that each year, the Committee receives twice as many faculty nominations as Bureau nominations. He proposed to give the Committee flexibility to alter the number of awards given to faculty and to the Bureau rather than have a set number from each. Also, if there are no lifetime awards to be awarded in that year, that those funds be used to recognize additional Distinguished Researchers instead. Discussion of where the funds were coming from was also discussed and the Committee would like to increase the funding for this program from $4000/yr. to $5000/yr.
Motion by Chris Gammons to lift the cap on Lifetime Awards and leave it up to the discretion of the Committee.
David Hobbs seconded the Motion.
The Motion was carried.
Announcements
Joe Figueira announced that at present, all information indicates that Earmarks were on hold for this year (DOD funding bill was approved), but that this situation may change after the general election. In general earmarks will be very difficult to secure in FY2009.
Attachments
1. Course Release Issue Handout – Mary MacLaughlin
2. Distinguished Research Handout – Chris Gammons
3. Joe Figueira IDC Policy PowerPoint
4. Carleen Cassidy Course Buyout Information (as corrected)
Course Release Issues Associated with Research Activities
Recommendations from the Research Advisory Committee
Course release is the mechanism that allows faculty to conduct research, while at the same time preserving Montana Tech’s course offerings. One of the big issues with course release is related to faculty workload expectations. The RAC supports a policy statement that more equitably reflects the actual conditions on campus (i.e., the unwritten “15 credits/semester minus 3 for service, minus another 3 for research = 9 credits/semester standard courseload for research-active faculty” policy), and that more clearly identifies and defines the rights of the faculty to request course release that would allow them to conduct funded research. Specific problematic items associated with this, and associated suggestions, include:
1)The existing course release formula does not adequately account for the fact that teaching does not comprise 100% of faculty workload. If the workload is technically defined as 15 credits/semester (30 credits/academic year), with reductions to 12 credits/semester for committee service and student advising, and perhaps an additional reduction to 9 credits/semester for master’s level research and graduate student advising, then the cost of the course release should be based on the total 30 credits/academic year. Release from a 3-credit course would then be 3/30=0.10 (1/10th) of the academic year salary (plus benefits, overhead, etc.). Currently, a 3-credit course buyout is charged at the rate of (3 credit release) / (24 credits/year teaching load for faculty in departments with graduate programs) = 0.167 (1/8th) of the AY salary. This sounds like a small difference, but easily adds up to thousands of dollars in a proposal when compounded by benefits and overhead. It is also not fair to charge the granting agency for 1/8th of a researcher’s time, when the course release only really gives them back 1/10th of their time. The most direct problem is that some granting entities (NSF, for instance) have caps on the amount of funds that can be used for faculty salary, and in some cases, faculty are opting to forgo course release because, according to the formula in the existing policy, the available funds are insufficient to cover it; this is definitely not fair to the faculty involved, and is a disincentive to invest the time to write proposals, manage projects, and otherwise build and maintain a strong research program. In order to be consistent, changing the expected workload for course release will also affect the calculation of matching funds available with the 3-credit/semester (6 credits/AY) reduction for master’s level research and graduate student advising, reducing the matching funds from 25% of the annual salary to 20% of the annual salary.
2)The current policy leaves it up to the department to determine from which course the faculty member is to be released. While this is working fine in some departments, it is not working in others. Related recommendations include:
- To facilitate management of the course release, all impacted parties need to be notified 1 semester in advance (summer session counts as 1 semester).
- The policy should clearly state that the faculty are not responsible for finding substitute instructors for the released course. This should be the responsibility of the head of the department offering the course, although the faculty member is encouraged to assist.
- When course release has been approved and funded in a proposal, the course teaching load shall not be shifted to other faculty members in ways that increase their teaching load without their consent and appropriate compensation.
- If the faculty member provides adequate notice, but is not allowed release from the originally requested/planned course, and is forced to accept release from a course with a higher number of teaching credits, the credits associated with the originally requested course should be used to determine the amount of faculty salary charged to the grant.
- As an incentive to preserve course offerings, if the decision is made to cancel a course because of the course release granted to the faculty member, the entire salary savings will remain under the control of the VCAA/R (i.e., not redistributed to the department, dean, and institution according to the standard formula).
- A mechanism should be created for faculty to appeal workload and course release issues. For instance, the workload appeals committee described in the MTFA collective bargaining agreement ( article 21, paragraph 5 (page 39) could be utilized for this purpose.
March 27, 2008
Distinguished Researcher Handout – Chris Gammons
Distinguished Researcher Committee
Committee members:
Holly Peterson
Chris Gammons
Don Stierle
Rich McNearny
John LaFave
Present situation: The DRC recommends up to 4 awards annually
-1 “General” DR award for MT Tech faculty
-1 “Lifetime” DR award for MT Tech faculty (only if appropriate)
-1 “General” DR award for MBMG
-1 “Lifetime” DR award for MBMG (only if appropriate)
Problem: Not enough faculty are getting awards
- Deserving faculty have applied multiple times and have been turned down
- If there are no “Lifetime” nominees, then we can only award 2 DR’s per year
Motion (two-part)
1)Increase the maximum number of awards given from 4 to 5
- 3 for MT Tech faculty; 2 for MBMG
2)If no “Lifetime” candidates, then DRC can recommend multiple awards from the list of “general” nominees, up to maximum of 5
Joe Figueira IDC Policy PowerPoint Page 1
Joe Figueira IDC Policy PowerPoint Page 2
Carleen Cassidy Course Buyout Information (as corrected)
COURSE BUYOUT INFORMATION2 SIDES TO THE EQUATION - GRANT FUNDING & ACADEMIC (Departmental) FUNDING
CURRENT POLICY - 3 CREDITS = 25% COURSE BUYOUT
Example: / Researcher John Smith / Academic Salary is $60,000 per 9 month academic year
25% course buyout for A/Y / Research Salary is $90,000 per 9 month academic year
GRANT FUNDING / ACADEMIC (Departmental) Funding
Grant is charged and researcher is paid 25% of “Research” Salary / Academic Department has 25% of
"Academic" Salary available for
backfill
25% of $90,000 = $22,500 / 25% of $60,000 = $15,000
$15,000 / Available for backfill
$ 4,992 / Part-time replacement ($832/credit)
(3 credits/semester = 6 A/Y)
$10,008 / Remainder distributed as follows-
70% of $10,008 = $7,005.60 / Department - 70%
20% of $10,008 = $2,001.60 / Dean - 20%
10% of $10,008 = $ 1,000.80 / Montana Tech General Fund - 10%
PI Salary would be $22,500 (25% of 90,000) + $45,000 (75% of 60,000) = $67,500 for Academic Year if "Research" salary is budgeted grant funding. If regular "Academic Salary" is used for budgeting in grant PI Salary would be $60,000 for the A/Y.