University Research Council (URC) Minutes
October 27, 2014
Members Present: Joyce Shaw, Jorge Brown (University Libraries), Teresa Welsh, Hani Morgan
(Education & Psychology), Trent Gould, Carol Connell (Health), Doug Rust (Arts & Letters), Sarah Morgan
(Science & Technology), Omar Harvey (Faculty Senate), Cheri Becker/via IVN access (Business)
Members Absent: Steven Venette (Arts & Letters), Fujun Lai (Business), Mohamed Elasri (Science &
Technology), Bonnie Lee Harbaugh, Sheila Davis (Nursing)
Ex Officio Present: Sam Bruton (ORI), Marcia Landen (ORA)
Ex Officio Absent: Gordon Cannon (VPR)
Ad Hoc: Syd Conner, Shelia Johnson (ORA)
The meeting was held in McCain Conference Room 200a. Dr. Cheri Becker joined the meeting via IVN
access set up for the coast. She was able to interact well and participate in the meeting. The meeting
was called to order at 3: 10 p.m. by Dr. Teresa Welsh due to Ms. Joyce Shaw, Chair, being temporarily
delayed. A sample of the newly designed Innovation Award medallion was circulated. Ms. Shaw has
plans to get quotes on adding the name and date engravings on the back of the medallion. Dr. Bonnie
Lee Harbaugh was out sick, but sent a notice of her absence in which she said she will send a written
report of where she stands with Research Awards Day later, but that she is progressing nicely. She
designated Dr. Sheila Davis to serve as her proxy. However, Dr. Sheila Davis was also absent.
Approval of Agenda
1. Approval of Agenda
Corrections in renumbering the agenda where there were two number 5’s, indicating Dr. Sam
Bruton as #5 and making Ms. Marcia Landen #6 on the agenda were agreed upon.
MOTION: Dr. Sarah Morgan motioned to approve the agenda as amended with a second by Dr. Sam
Bruton; motion carried.
2. Approval of Minutes (September 2014)
Corrections to the minutes were given to Ms. Shelia Johnson by Ms. Joyce Shaw.
MOTION: Dr. Doug Rust motioned to approve the September minutes as amended with a second by Dr.
Sarah Morgan; motion carried.
3. Old Business
Announcement for submission of 2015 Innovation Award Nominees (Douglas Rust/Chair):
Dr. Doug Rust reported that he has not had a response from Dr. Gordon Cannon on the new
Innovation Awards category, “Emerging Scholar Award”.
The call for nominations will move forward and will go out to the deans in early November. No
major issues are foreseen. He intends to tailor the memos specifically to each college based
upon the list of who has received the awards given to him by Ms. Joyce Shaw. Hopefully, this
will encourage nominations from every college.
1|Page
Dr. Teresa Welsh thought this was a good idea and added that each college has URC
representation on this council who can also help get the word out.
Election “super ballot” (Academic Council, Graduate Council, Faculty Senate) - Spring 2015
(Douglas Rust)
This is a single ballot fashioned in much the same way as government elections, rather than
having separate ballots for every council. It is hoped that this will help the voters organize their
thoughts and not vote for the same person for everything and increase voter turnout. A
meeting will be held with representatives from the councils with Ms. Linda Rasmussen in HR,
Provost Denis Wiesenburg, and someone from the LAC who is going to handle the technology to
put the ballot on line. The URC has been invited to also send a representative to this meeting
Friday, October 31, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. Also, in the fall, turn in the vacancies that would need to
be filled in the fall 2015. Figure out which people are eligible for each vacancy according to the
bylaws of this committee. The ballot is going out in the spring. The representative will have a
workload in November and then virtually nothing else after that time. The URC election process
was discussed and Dr. Cheri Becker added that in the past it has been done both ways, by
election, and appointment. After lengthy discussion it was determined that an election
committee is not currently in place. The URC bylaws specify “by election”. Dr. Teresa Welsh
said Ms. Joyce Shaw has a list of who rotates off of URC and she will talk to her about it. Ms.
Shaw arrived and apologized for her delay. She clarified that the bylaws do call for elections.
URC was transitioning from a fall election to a spring election, at the request of Dr. Gordon
Cannon, when the graduate and faculty senate hold their elections. We were unable to comply
last year. There were 4-5 URC open positions. It was voted at the May meeting to ask the deans
to make appointments for the spots where people were rolling off the URC so we could start the
academic year with a full complement of people. There is nothing wrong with getting back into
the election process. It is supposed to be by election as other councils are. She said she was
elected which demonstrates how long it was ago that there was a full election. However, this
last time two (2) deans appointed and one decided to have an election.
Action Item: Dr. Teresa Welsh volunteered to be the URC representative at the meeting in the Provost’s
office on Friday, October 31, 2014 at 3 pm.
4. Update from Office of VP for Research (Gordon Cannon) None-Dr. Cannon in Washington, DC
5. Update from ORI (Sam Bruton) FCOI discussion of two (2) points
Dr. Sam Bruton discussed two issues regarding FCOI disclosure which he had previously
distributed to URC members for consideration and discussion in this meeting:
a. Financial Conflict of Interest (FCOI) Compliance – what if anything might be done to improve
compliance. This is the second year asking for disclosure. The federal requirement went into
effect around 8/24/12 which says everyone working on PHS funding has to comply with this
disclosure. Provost Wiesenburg included not only PHS researchers, but all faculty. In August
2013, e-mail links were put in place. This year compliance went down with only about one third
of the people responding. Possible areas of confusion about it were discussed at length, i.e.,
Perhaps, they did not realize it was an annual requirement—“I did it, so I don’t have to do it
2|Page
again; confusion as to who needs to complete it. Dr. Bruton is asking URC members to help
spread the word and if there is confusion, correct it or direct them to him. The general
impression of those who have completed it is that it is quick and easy. Dr. Cheri Becker thought
the e-mail that was sent was unclear. The e-mail said “if you are doing this funded research”,
and when she received it, she was surprised because she thought you had to do whether you
were receiving funded research or not. Since the e-mail said otherwise, she did not do it until
later when someone told her she needed to do it. She was not sure if the e-mail came from her
college or somewhere else. Her suggestion was that it be correctly communicated. Dr. Sam
Bruton said it is all full time faculty plus people who have new PHS applications. The real
problem is that a lot of full time faculty are not doing it. Dr. Becker suggested the first step
would be to make sure the expectations are correctly communicated. Dr. Bruton did not know
what e-mail she was referring to because he drafted an e-mail and sent it to Dr. Gordon Cannon
to send it out and it was pretty clear that all full-time faculty plus people who have new PHS
applications should do it. He felt it could be addressed easily enough if agreement on wording
could be achieved as well as who was to be included. Dr. Trent Gould said his perception of the
message is that it was clear. However, he pointed out that he thought, in order to get more
compliance, chairs and deans would be happy to follow up on it if they had a list of who had or
had not completed it. Dr. Teresa Welsh said in the College of Education and Psychology there
was a spreadsheet of who had not completed it and none of their people were listed. Ms. Joyce
Shaw commented that even a faculty member in English who had never received any kind of
NIH funding; if that is your title, you would be required. This is the message that needs to go
out. Dr. Bruton said, correct, and also that it is an annual thing. After much discussion, it was
determined that there was confusion in identifying faculty even after much effort. Just getting a
list of who is/is not faculty is a tedious process. Ms. Marcia Landen asked how hard it is to
generate periodic reports of compliance. Can the software spit out a periodic report? He said
the software prints out a list of who has done it and they then have to check by hand against all
faculty members to get the list of who “has not” is where the problem lies. There was no list of
all faculty, even from Human Resources. Dr. Trent Gould said that everybody that is a part of
the core of instruction is already in SOAR. Dr. Sam Bruton said he has been on a wait list for
almost a year and a half to get help with an IRB problem. It is not a simple thing. SOAR lists who
is employed, but not employees have to do this. People are not categorized all that cleanly in
SOAR. Dr. Hani Morgan said in the handbook/bulletin of the lists of all courses there is a list at
the very end of all faculty. Dr. Trent Gould added that it is not always up to date. Dr. Trent
Gould stated that SOAR is supposed to have all this functionality to it and it is all about how you
write your query to the database. You might need a SOAR guru who knows how to do the
queries, not necessarily I-Tech. Dr. Bruton thought this a good suggestion. The person who
helped set up the FCOI disclosure system to begin with was very good but then left the
university within a month of it getting up and running. We would now need someone to get up
to speed on how the whole apparatus was constructed to change the structure. He thanked the
members for the suggestions and said he would follow up on it.
b. Research Scientists – Who is included in so-called “research scientists”. Many of the people
work at Stennis who are technically USM employees on the Human Resources list, although they
are paid from federal money, i.e., NASA or some other grant. It would seem in theory they
should also be included. He would like to find a way to amend the definition so that people like
3|Page
this are included. He and Dr. Cannon discussed this with Dr. Joe Graben from Stennis and he
has no problem with his people being included. He initially thought to just go with the core of
instruction definition, but thought he must have misread the faculty handbook because that
would not do it. The handbook said these research scientist “can” become part of the core of
instruction if the university president designates them so. But, they are not automatically a part
of the core of instruction. He surmised it would be better to say "core of instruction, plus
research scientists, plus librarians”. After discussion, it was finally decided to add a check off
box to the Internal Approval Form (IAF) with the lead P.I. having responsibility to insure the coPI’s are in compliance. Ms. Marcia Landen said they are in the process of revising the IAF and
she thought they could work that out.
Action Item: Ms. Marcia Landen to follow-up on adding a check off for FCOI compliance to IAF.
6. Update from Research Administration (Marcia Landen)
Ms. Marcia Landen had electronically distributed a document on Eligibility Requirements to
serve as a Principal Investigator/Project Director or Co-Principal Investigator/Co-Project Director
at The University of Southern Mississippi to URC members for consideration and discussion in
this meeting.
Ms. Landen opened the discussion about the emailed draft and said she has already noticed one
change she needs to make since she sent it out. However, guidelines exist on who can serve,
but there is just no policy behind it. The intention is to make it broad enough so that everybody
can serve. It does not necessarily have to be tenure/tenure track faculty. Temporary people
coming in and out of the university would probably require someone else to have administrative
oversight. Ms. Joyce Shaw had several questions from GCRL.
Question: Concerns over some of the terminology. What is the definition of permanent staff?
Does it apply to state funded staff or soft money folks? Including a comment from an Emeritus
person, associate research professor who has been working with us for over fifteen (15) years
(how permanent is that) who does not want to be excluded, and those taken to the VPR for
approval to allow them to do it. It is clear that post-docs can’t. Dr. Trent Gould added to this list
folks that are part of institutes and centers that might have the expertise to be a PI but are not a
part of the core of instruction. .
Answer: Ms. Landen thought based upon the previous discussion, someone like that would not
be a part of the core of instruction. Sam thought the core of instruction is not the way to go.
The handbook defines it negatively. It logically says you are included unless you have a title like
i.e., adjunct. He suggested instead of trying to define permanence, define in-permanence.
Question: The VPR approval wording raised the question for Ms. Joyce Shaw’s of how often do
they have to be approved, i.e. every time they get a grant? Is it possible to set a time frame (2-3
years) on a VPR approval if you really wish to streamline the process, i.e., for people who submit
grants all the time?
Answer: Ms. Landen thought that a possibility. Serving as a PI on a project is so project specific.
Are you qualified to be a principal investigator (PI) on this project? She was not in a position to
make that kind of determination. Is VPR input needed? The reason for the VPR input came
4|Page
from experience at her previous position in which a visiting instructor came in to the university
and dumped a bunch of money in the department and then left. Obviously, the dean and chair
of the department were all for dumping the money, but the concern in central administration
was who is really going to manage it/is truly responsible. Most of this will just be routine
coming through a dean and a chair. She did relate a recent incident where a dean decided that
a visiting instructor was not eligible to be a PI. He was not a tenure/tenure track faculty
member which is really the dean’s responsibility to determine. So, who is eligible, and who are
the decision makers to determine eligibility?
Question: Dr. Hani Morgan asked, what does it mean to be a resident at USM?
Answer: Ms. Landen answered that this is someone transferring in to USM. They have been
hired to start in the spring or fall. However, it may be the summer before they are here and
have an appointment, but they want to apply for a grant before they arrive, which is fairly
common.
Dr. Cheri Becker suggested changing the wording under Policy/Procedures to: Others who wish
to serve as a PI/PD but “who do not have permanent appointments” to “who have temporary
appointments”. She stated that none of us really have permanent appointments. It was agreed.
Question: Dr. Hani Morgan asked if the funding organizations might eliminate some of the
things being discussed. He recently applied to the Spencer Foundation, for example, who had
criteria for funding that allowed him to apply that would eliminate some of the others who may
be adjuncts or whatever.
Answer: Ms. Landen answered, yes, some external funding agencies have different criteria for
who can be a project director which was stated in the wording. However, this is just talking
about who is managing the project here at USM. Therefore, you might be PI eligible for USM,
but not eligible for NSF or a particular organization. Or, if you are eligible for the i.e., Spencer
Foundation and might fall in one of these temporary categories; it is pretty easy to get approval.
Dr. Sarah Morgan added that an adjunct teaching a class would not need to sign this, but they
also cannot serve as a PI.
Dr. Trent Gould asked what the next step would be in getting this policy into effect. Will this
body vote or look at wording and get consensus. He suggested with URC becoming a more
prominent part of the policy process, if we say yes, then he felt it should go through the Council
of Chairs and ask Dr. Omar Harvey to take it back to Faculty Senate to make sure they have no
objection to the wording. At that point, implement it and cast a broad announcement that a
new policy has been created. Ms. Landen has not been through the process before but did
agree that proper protocol should be followed. Dr. Sam Bruton said there is a policy on policies,
but it is not all that well-defined in a case like this. Certain policies like the Scholarly Misconduct
Policy clearly has to go through the process. He had to go through the Handbook Committee,
Faculty Senate, Council of Chairs, deans group, Executive Cabinet and the USM attorney, Paul
Walters is the last step. In the case of the IRB policy, Attorney Walters who is the compliance
person said he did not have to go all the way up the chain because it involved bringing ourselves
into compliance with federal regulations. Since this is no federal compliance issue, he
5|Page
recommended it just go through Faculty Senate and also send it to the chairs and deans to see if
they have a reaction.
Ms. Joyce Shaw said ultimately it may not matter because it seems anybody can be a PI with
proper approval. However, the impression exists that there is some ambiguity, as in the case of
the research scientist who has asked, and it still has not been made clear to him, what research
and clinical faculty can and cannot do. He is concerned because it definitely would impact him.
Answer: Ms. Landen answered that approvals are indicated on the IAF which go through every
time. If it needed to go up to the VPR for approval, it would be on the IAF and guided by the
grant administrators. Dr. Trent Gould asked who would approve for IDS and she answered for
anyone other than the IDS chair, she would be the approver, and Dr. Gordon Cannon for her.
Ms. Landen said they are striving to make this as easy as possible with the least layers of forms
and approvals as possible, but also want to make it clear as to who is responsible for what and
insure that the university is protected. She thanked the URC members and said she will make
some changes and bring it back to URC before it goes further.
7. Update Faculty Senate (Omar Harvey)
Dr. Omar Harvey shared:



There is a draft resolution on the current budget process which Dr. Omar Harvey agreed
to share electronically with URC for review.
Concerns from at least one faculty about due process in misconduct by faculty in which
there were allegations against faculty and then being told to get off campus without due
process.
Holiday break extension - whether two additional days (one university Holiday, one
employee leave day) will be added to make it two (2) full weeks. Some people like it
and some do not.
Action Item: Dr. Omar Harvey to electronically circulate the “draft” resolution to URC members for
review.
8. 2014 University Research Awards Day (Bonnie Lee Harbaugh) – Out: No report
Action Item: Dr. Bonnie Lee Harbaugh will send a written report of where she stands with Research
Awards Day electronically.
Ms. Joyce Shaw along with Dr. Teresa Welsh and Mr. Jorge Brown plan to walk over to look at
the area for setup. The cost to have the names imprinted on the back of the medallions has
proven costly because of additional setup fees which would be almost equal to the costs of the
medallion. In light of the current budget crisis, it was decided to just put Innovation Award and
the dates on the back of the medallions and not add the individual name to each medallion. It
was agreed. She will take the medallions to the engraver to have them ready for Nov. 21st.
There may be a pre-event meeting of the URAD chairs to make sure everything is covered.

Poster Session (Jorge Brown) – He was happy to report that Dr. Cannon did agree to pay
for some of the posters. He still needs to see the space and will do so today. He sent
6|Page

out a draft of the call for posters and he only needed to change the location and date.
He also needs to let people know that there might be tables for displays since the easels
do not work well for some. He thought this might be looked at on a case by case basis
when abstracts are submitted.
Displays (Teresa Welsh) - She needs to look at the space to see how many tables they
can fit. One table lined up will be for SCOPUS help with the aid of some librarians rather
than a SCOPUS representative, along with some promotional giveaways.
9. New Business
a. By-law committee - Ms. Joyce Shaw received an e-mail from Faculty Senate about URC by-laws.
A chair/co-chair is needed and she will work with them. There were no volunteers. There were
a number of members absent and she will pursue trying to get someone to fill this position.
There was discussion of the URC charter and it was determined that a charter does exists and
reads like the by-laws, but is not up-to-date because it does not include the recently added
College of Nursing. She will look into the charter, but a chair is really needed to look at the bylaws and make sure we are doing what we say we are doing. Dr. Trent Gould was asked to chair
but said he has been given two committee appointments by the president, but will report back
anything he learns, but his hands are full.
b. Non-attending members – Ms. Joyce Shaw noticed in the By-laws that she is supposed to
contact any member who fails to attend two (2) meetings with no proxy. On the third such
absence, they are put off they committee. There are a couple of people who fall into this
category and she will be making contacts accordingly.
c. Election committee - October 31, 2014, 3 pm meeting at Provost’s office – addressed earlier.
Dr. Teresa Welsh will attend and report back to the URC. If a vote is needed, it will be
circulated electronically.
10. Next Meeting: Monday, November 24, 2014.
MOTION: Dr. Trent Gould made a motion to adjourn the meeting with a second by Dr. Carol Connell;
motion carried.
11. Meeting Adjourned: Meeting adjourned @ 4:40 p.m.
7|Page