CONSENT AGENDA
University of Nevada, Reno
2010-11 Faculty Senate
January 19, 2012
JCSU Rita Laden Senate Chambers
Process for Consideration of Consent Agenda Items:

All items on the Consent Agenda are action items. A single vote for the consent agenda passes all
items listed on the agenda. Any senator may request an agenda item be pulled for discussion and
held for a separate vote.

Prior to a vote on the consent agenda, the Chair will open the floor for comment from senators
including requests to pull items.

Once all items to be pulled have been identified, the Chair will call for a vote on the remaining
Consent Agenda items.

Discussion and action on items pulled will be managed individually.
1.
Request to Approve the December 14, 2011 Meeting Minutes
Action/Enclosure
2.
Request to Approve the University Administrative Manual
Revisions: vetted by the UAM Committee & the Executive Board
Please note that additions are bold and blue
Deletions are strikethroughs
Action/Enclosure
5,410 Core Research Facilities (New Policy)
January 19, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 1
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
January 19, 2012
Consent Agenda Item #1
December 14, 2011 Meeting Minutes
1. Roll Call and Introductions:
Present: Eric Albers for Julie Hogan (DHS), Pat Arnott (COS), Rafik Beekun (COBA), Mike Bennett (A & F),
Todd Borman (IT), Susan Donaldson (COOP), Patricia Ellison (SOM), Catherine Goring (SOM), Keith Hackett
(Pres), Eric Herzik (Ex-Officio), Yanyao Jiang (EN), Stephen Lafer (COE), Amy McFarland (SOM), Amy
McFarland for Kami Larsen (SOM), Donica Mensing (JO), Glenn Miller (CABNR), Swatee Naik (COS), Louis
Niebur (CLA), Louis Niebur for Leah Wilds (CLA), Elissa Palmer (SOM), Crystal Parrish (DEV), Chuck Price
(SS), Maggie Ressel (Lib), Tammy Freeman for Valerie Smith (VPR), Marjorie Vecchio (CLA), Marjorie
Vecchio for Isabelle Favre (CLA), Jonathan Weinstein (COS), David Zeh (Chair-elect).
Absent: Gerald Ackerman (SOM), Alice Running (DHS), and David Ryfe (Chair).
Guests: Kent Ervin (COS), Juliana Felix (ASUN), Martha Hildreth (CLA), Marc Johnson (Pres),
Tom Judy (A & F), Jean Perry (Pres), Marsha Read (VPR).
2. Salary and Benefits Committee (SBC) Year-end Report – Chair Kent Ervin:
SBC Chair Kent Ervin thanked the committee members and Michelle Kelley, Benefits Manager.
Link to the Report: http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/committees/SB/SBC_Yrend2011.doc
Ervin summarized the report for the senate.
MOTION: Niebur/Ressel. To accept the report as published.
ACTION: Passed unanimously
Louise Niebur asked if the committee was recommending that the past merit be incorporated into the future
rates. Ervin replied that the code was vague on this issue and needed more transparency. The senate could make
that recommendation.
Recommendation 2:
The Salary & Benefits Committee requests consideration of the following charges for 2012:
a) Continued monitoring of the status or implementation of charges 1 (a-d), 7, 8, and 9, with new
recommendations as appropriate.
b) An investigation and possible recommendations for how merit raises, when they are funded in the
future, would account for evaluations during the past period of zero funding for merit raises. The
charge would include a review of relevant Code and administrative policies, and recommendations for
a formal policy.
MOTION: Niebur/Borman. To approve recommendation 2 as written.
ACTIION: Passed unanimously.
Recommendation 1a: The committee recommends that the parental leave guidelines be communicated to the
administration and units.
MOTION: McFarland/Ressel. To approve recommendation1a.
ACTION: Passed unanimously
Item 7 (Charge 7) - Continue to monitor salary equity assessment issues. Explore the ability to implement a new
study that investigates whether “total compensation”, which would include benefits could further improve the
accuracy and whether inequities exist on the basis of age, sex, marital status, or family status for total
January 19, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 2
compensation (i.e., when employer subsidies of health and other benefits are included). If any such inequities
are found, the Salary & Benefits Committee would like to review the study and propose solutions based upon
results.
Human Resources agreed to look at the issue of discrimination regarding marital and family status, but there
was not a good database regarding discrimination on these issues. However, the committee felt that there was a
large economic impact in the amount of subsidies of the health benefits provided. For example, a married
spouse get approx $4,900 subsidy, but a registered domestic partner would get nothing which was direct
discrimination on the basis of marital status. Currently PEBP subsidizes the employee 93%, rather than 100%.
For example, you cannot make an informed decision because the cost gets spread around. The number of
institutions that cover 100% of their employees varies, although most cover employees 100% and no
dependents but there is everything in between. The cost to NSHE given the number of registered domestic
partners would be approximately $150,000 annually. Zeh said that with health care it was usually considered a
shared burden, rather than discrimination. For example if you are a young person you cover some of the costs of
an older person. The senate discussed whether or not there was a contradiction between recommendations “b”
and “e”.
Recommendation 7: The committee recommended: that the following statement of principles regarding
health care benefits be communicated to the UNR Administration and the NSHE Task Force on benefits:
(a) A competitive, comprehensive health care benefit package is essential for the recruitment and
retention of high-quality faculty employees.
(b) Health care insurance and other supplemental benefits should be structured to equalize their value
for employees of various marital status and family status, including non-traditional families, to the
extent feasible.
(c) Registered Domestic Partners of employees should be provided exactly the same benefits and
insurance subsidies as married spouses of employees.
(d) The subsidization of 100% of the cost of a basic comprehensive health insurance plan for each
employee participant should be a priority, and continued partial subsidization of dependent benefits is
also a priority.
(e) The financial impacts on all employee groups should be considered when implementing a change of
benefits or subsidization.
The Salary and Benefits Committee recommends that the issue of the impact of other forms of supplemental
compensation be further monitored pending the results of the next Salary Equity Survey.
MOTION: Herzik/Mensing. To approve the recommendation as written
ACTION: Passed unanimously
Item 9 (Charge 9): Investigate and propose a policy for creation of a pool for advance funding of annual leave,
in particular, to solve the problem of funding accumulated leave rights for employees on grant-funded contracts
or clinical contracts.
Ervin said that this was beyond his committee and that there were many stakeholders in developing a policy. If
this was done through grants then there were negotiations that would need to take place with DHHS and there
was some discussion of them agreeing to fund this. However, DRI receives funding from them. The committee
was asking the senate to approve a set of principles including a university level Task Force.
The Salary & Benefits Committee recommends that the Faculty Senate adopt the following
principles and request for action:
January 19, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 3
(a) Annual leave and sick leave benefits earned by a faculty member should be retained by the
faculty member while employed by the institution regardless of future changes in salary funding
sources.
(b) Liabilities for annual leave and sick leave should be funded as accrued by the source of the
salary funding.
(c) The faculty member’s responsibility to document leave should be implemented on an “exception
reporting” basis, rather than requiring logging of all time spent on each contract.
(d) A university task force with representation of various stakeholders should be appointed to
develop a detailed policy and implementation of a leave pool system for faculty.
(e) If required for implementation, Board of Regents approval or legislative authority should be
requested for establishing a leave pool and a fringe rate surcharge to fund it.
MOTION: McFarland/Price. To accept recommendation as written
ACTION: Passed unanimously
Kent said that there are some exciting things happening with the faculty retirement plan, because NSHE has
negotiated lower expenses for the mutual funds. During these negotiations, concessions from the vendors who
agreed to fund a program manager and an independent consultant. The first report was incomplete, but it
showed that over 60% of our funds were underperforming.
3. Bylaws and Code Committee Year-end Report – Martha Hildreth:
Link to the report: http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/committees/B&C/BC_Yrend2011.doc
Committee Chair Martha Hildreth thanked the committee members and summarized the report.
The word “should” needed to be inserted in the last sentence of 2.a.1. It should read: “Furthermore, a formal
performance review should have taken place so that the committees would have adequate information on which
to evaluate the interim president.”
MOTION: Herzik/Nicholas. To approve the report as amended
ACTION: Passed unanimously
The bylaws were pretty gender specific and the BCC was recommending that Executive Board charge next
year’s committee to review the bylaws with respect to gender.
Compliance with UNR Bylaws 3.3.5 paragraph does not comply with the AAUP Guidelines. The denial of
promotion or tenure at the department level does not always mean that it will continue up to the college level.
Faculty could be mislead by this. The recommendation was to have the Executive Board formally inquire about
these policies. The website was not very informative, as there were pieces all over and the one on the HR
website was probably outdated.
Donica Mensing thanked the committee for the time the spent reviewing Journalism’s bylaws, it was very
helpful.
MOTION: Ressel/Borman. To endorse the recommendations in the report
ACION: Passed unanimously
4. Consent Agenda:
MOTION: Ressel/Price. To pass the consent agenda as published
Action: passed unanimously.
5. Chair’s Report:
January 19, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 4
Chairman Jason Geddes and Vice chairman Kevin Page would be holding a Town Hall Video Conference on
strategic planning with UNLV and UNR on December 15, 2011. It would be in the Center for Molecular
Medicine Room 111 at UNR.
Board of Regents’ Special Meeting will be January 20, 2012 and will be on the 8% fee increase proposals, the
National Governor’s Association performance measures and strategic planning.
The Presidential Search Committee met December 9, 2011 and chose R. William Funk and Associates as the
Executive Search Firm. They would be meting again on December 16, 2012.
The Commission for the Future of the University of Nevada (CFUN) met for the first time. Co-chair David
Ryfe pointed out that the commission needed to use sensitivity and complement what people were already
doing. The commission had the opportunity to listen to Dean Richard DeMillo on what universities needed to
do to survive. Universities should not all try to be the University of Michigan, but find out what their focus can
and should be. The commission was thinking Excellence within Affordability. The commission would break up
into two groups to address the two charges.
Zeh suggested that the senate familiarize themselves with the Complete to Compete Document. Ryfe had sent
some performance measures to Chancellor Dan Klaich and some may be included in the strategic plan. Zeh felt
that it would be difficult to get one system committee to agree on performance standards based on the different
missions of the institutions. Output standards could create more conflict. The senate should take some kind of
lead on this issue. The online education issue was also a concern.
Regarding Curricular Review in Title 2, Chapter 6, the Council of Chairs felt that if a president requested
curricular review, then it should trigger a senate review to look at the budget before a decision was made to
have curricular review. The Board of Regents would still have final say, but it would provide more faculty input
in the decision. Many senators agreed that there was little faculty input or oversight. There was also some
discussion about whether Curricular Review would happen again. System and administration do not feel that it
will, that the economy has bottomed out and things will get better from here on.
At the December BOR meeting Chancellor Dan Klaich’s contract was renewed. Also at the December meeting
an 8% student fee increase was approved with the caveat that students approve the proposal and that the
proposals would come back to the Regents at the January 20, 2012 special meeting for ratification.
Zeh also spoke about the $5.5 million one-time money from out of state tuition. This would be used for
temporary teaching, classroom renovation, computer and laboratory upgrades. This was one-time money and
needed to be spent prior to the end of June 2012. This must be approved by the Interim Finance Committee of
the Nevada Legislature which was scheduled to meet on December 15, 2011.
There has been discussion at the system level about pulling out of PEBP.
The process for Requests for Action from the senate would now be sent through the provosts office, and then to
the President for final signature.
There was some discussion regarding the debt of leaving the WAC and moving to the Mountain West
Conference. The original $ 5 million penalty was reduced to $900,000 and would be paid over a 5 year period.
The move should increase income for Athletics and the area.
6. Nevada Dining – Beau Wootten, Director:
Beau Wootten spoke about the winter closure hours. Both the Overlook and Bytes would be closed 12-26-11 to
1-2-12, but otherwise open with limited hours during winter break. Nevada Dining will be offering a few new
concepts during the spring semester, including Godfathers Pizza and a made to order Entrée Salad. A senator
felt that Extreme Pizza would offer a better pizza than Godfathers. Nevada Dining tries to work with local
businesses. Pathways needed to be open longer hours and improve the quality of their service. The places in the
student union were individually owned and were doing well.
Wootten commented that use of the Wolf Card, gave a 12% discount, by not charging sales tax and a 5%
discount on food and drinks.
January 19, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 5
7. Visit with President Johnson:
The Formula Study Committee has met; NSHE has an advisory committee with Bruce Shively as the UNR
representative. There has been talk about what the appropriate funding mechanism should be for funding higher
education. They are looking at the formula that has been in effect for the last several years. There was some
discussion regarding greater granularity, he said that he did not care how much granularity was put in as long as
UNR and UNLV were treated the same in the distribution. We have gotten more money in the past due to the
operations and maintenance fund due to buildings that are older than 25 years, but UNLV will be getting more
of that soon.
Link to the Formula Funding Study Committee:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Interim/76th2011/Committee/Studies/FundingHigherEd/?ID=34
The university was scheduled to go before the City Council for a zoning change for a planned unit to be
developed on the 104 acre strip on the Main Station Farm. This land was the strip along McCarran Blvd and
they were asking that it be zoned for light industrial or business use. This strip is higher up and closer to a major
thoroughfare. For years we were a member of the Flood Management Project and for years we have asked that
this piece of property be protected. The reason for doing this now was that so flood waters would not affect this
piece of valuable property.
The university was not going to close the farm; at least 600 hundred acres would hold flood waters for the city.
When the reductions happened to Agriculture, the Range Science Degree was split from the Forestry Degree,
which meant the university would still be educating people to take care of public lands in the state.
We have a committee looking at the mission centric portions of the agriculture experiment stations land so we
would be able keep our educational research mission. The farm and Agriculture were not closing.
Wolf Pack Meats has been the slaughter and packaging facility for the research animals. Over the last 5 years,
approximately 2/3 of the business was from the university farm produced animals, this year about 76% was
from custom slaughter and cutting for packaging for grass fed and other small volume operations. We had
subsidized this and it was losing money. We were using Nevada Legislative Research Funds to pay the deficit
and approximately 86% of the customers were from California.
A stakeholders meeting was held and they developed a list of elements necessary for a Request for Proposal to
have someone else run the operation and make it a profitable operation. Wolf Pack Meat was one of the few
operations that was USDA inspected for both the Slaughter house and the Packaging plant.
Johnson announced the closure of the Fire Science Academy.
Administration was working with the student leaders regarding the 8% student fee increase. The students had
until December 23, 2011 to get back to administration regarding their desires for the fee increase use.
The university had an unexpected increase in out-of-state tuition that Administration would be meeting with the
IFC for the use of the $5.5 million one-time money. One time-money would be used for some temporary
instruction, computer replacement and classroom renovation. These would be student impacting projects. The
out-of-state tuition increase was unprecedented for several reasons. Our reputation is going up in the west,
parents say that we are affordable; we have a beautiful campus; we are doing recruiting outside of the state, and
the tuition is going up in California institutions.
One-time money cannot be spent going back to handle personnel issues that happened during the curricular
review process. We cannot guarantee long term salaries with one-time money. And we cannot use the student
fee for research or extension oriented items.
Would the legislature be more likely to decrease our base because of the out-of-state money increase? Johnson
responded that the Formula Funding Committee would look at that.
January 19, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 6
Could the faculty put in a request for upgraded equipment for their labs with the one-time money? Johnson
thought that would be an acceptable use of funds.
There was some discussion regarding the Course Concierge service now that Paul Neill was no longer the
director. The calls should go to first to the Core Curriculum office, then to the advising center and then to the
provosts office. The program information was difficult to find on the webpage and students were having issues.
The forms can be filled out on-line and submitted, they are getting reviewed and an email is sent to the student.
8. Athletics Compliance – Jean Perry, Special Assistant to the President:
Jean Perry said that this was PowerPoint was presented to the Board of Regents, who wanted to make sure that
Athletics at UNR and UNLV were not having issues as some of the larger institutions.
Jean Perry reports directly to the President not to the Athletic Director, which helps maintain university control.
Both the Director of Compliance and the Coordinator are attorneys. The compliance Department was the
strongest it had ever been.
The biggest issue for compliance is education, particularly with boosters. The university self reports and last
year they reported 8 compliance issues, one was for $.42 for a postage stamp. For example, if they have an
athlete they are recruiting; they may pay for their trip to visit UNR, but they could not give them anything else
unless all prospective students were to receive it, not even a t-shirt.
The university ranked in the top ten in gender equity. The student athletes’ graduation rate has gone up 15% in
the last seven years and it is currently around 76%. Athletes were advised on the culture of completion, athletes
expect to complete college now.
9. New Business:
None
Meeting adjourned 3:35 pm
January 19, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 7
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
January 19, 2012
Consent Agenda Item #2
This is a new policy
Core Research Facilities
5,410
Revised: January 2012
I. Definitions/Criteria of Core Research Facilities
A core research facility provides access to equipment that in and of itself is either too expensive, too unique or
whose usage would be too limited if it were to be accessible only to a single researcher. The basic intent of a core
facility is to increase access to multiple users thereby maximizing the efficiency of utilization and opportunities for
research expansion.
Depending on the degree of access, core research facilities can be defined as (a) departmental core research
facilities, (b) college core research facilities, or (c) University Core Research facilities (UCRF).
A. Departmental Core Research Facility
Departmental Cores primarily serve members within one department. Priority for service is given to departmental
faculty members. The fee schedule is set by the department with the approval of the department chair. The use of
research space to support the service will be within the research space allocation of the department. Departmental
core services are not eligible for institutional support for equipment, space or interim support.
B. College Core Research Facility
College Core Services will serve primarily faculty members within a particular college. At least 50% of the user
activity must be from investigators distributed between departments other than the sponsoring department. User
activity can be a combination of number of principal investigators, amount of revenue from other departments,
percentage of the revenue that covers operating costs, the grant support activity and scientific impact factors. The
service will not be redundant to existing university core services. The priority for service will be for School of
Medicine faculty. This is not offered as a university wide service and therefore in general will not be eligible for
institutional support from the Vice President for Research (VPR) for equipment or interim support. However,
large unique non-redundant (non duplicative) equipment may require support from the VPR or the college if a
university wide benefit is apparent. The College Core Services will reside within the research space of the
sponsoring department or center and the research space will be designated as college research space. This will
remove the core service space from the research space allocation within the sponsoring unit.
C. University Core Research Facility
A University Core Research Facility (UCRF) serves two functions. The first is a research support function that
offers equipment and services for the investigations of faculty and staff members, as well as students, across
campus. This function may also include support for faculty members engaged in the development, optimization,
and benchmarking of new research equipment. The second is a training function that assists users or possible users
to focus the capabilities of the UCRF on research problems relevant to them. This function encompasses the
publication of print and electronic manuals and guides, individual or small group consultations, short-term user
workshops and technical seminars, and longer-term specialized training programs. In addition to its research
support and training functions, a UCRF also promotes the cross fertilization of research by encouraging the
exchange of ideas that might not otherwise take place among researchers from diverse disciplines. Moreover, a
UCRF supports multidisciplinary collaborations in areas that may not now be obvious to faculty members.
A UCRF will serve faculty members within any department or center within the University. Priority for service
will be on a “first come, first served” basis and the fee schedule will be uniform. The UCRF serves multiple users.
At a minimum, the facility must serve at least three principle investigators from more than one department.
January 19, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 8
Established core services will have well-defined services offered, established costs, and a user’s group. Established
core services will charge fees sufficient to cover 50% or more of their operating costs, will have undergone
competitive external review and have current grant support for service activities, including extramural funding for
the service itself. Services must have an established impact in the form of grant support activity and/or
manuscripts citing core support. The priority for service will be for UNR faculty. The service is offered University
wide and therefore will be eligible for institutional support from the VPR for equipment and/or interim support.
The UCRF will be listed as VPR research space. This will remove the core service space from the research space
allocation within the sponsoring unit. University research facilities that by their nature require significant
regulatory compliance (e.g. vivarium, BSL3) may be designated as a UCRF.
II. Criteria for Establishing a New Support Service
To determine whether or not a facility should/could be designated as a core facility of any type – departmental,
college, UCRF, a thorough assessment and review should be conducted. The review should include a needs
assessment, documentation of unique service, the administrative plan, a business plan, utilization plan and a
quality control/period review plan:
A. Needs Assessment
i.
Supply vs. Demand:
Documentation is required detailing the projected use of the service. Acceptable documentation includes
grant activities currently listing this type of service on the budget page justifications, current publications
from faculty using this type of activity, shared user instrumentation grant applications or letters of support
from faculty outlining their specific needs.
ii.
Cost Benefit Analysis:
The rationale for starting an in house service rather than utilizing commercial services is required. Acceptable
justifications include unique departmental needs, in-house versus out sourcing considerations, the necessity
for local expedited service or the potential for new technology development. Not acceptable justifications
include service proximity or convenience factors not tied to performance.
iii.
Risk Assessment:
There are potential services that exist on the “leading edge” that only one or a small group of principal
investigators may recognize as having potential importance including the impact of a new service that faculty
will be using in 2 to 3 years. This potential class of services could greatly enhance the research mission but
may involve considerable risk. Justifications of leading edge type services must include an analysis of benefit
versus risk.
iv.
Other compelling considerations:
Occasionally there is a compelling need for a rare service that is needed by a few investigators. Alternatively,
a large number of faculty may use the service but need it only occasionally. These considerations will need
explanation, justification and documentation.
B. Demonstration of a Unique Service
i.
Documentation of No Overlap with Existing Services:
Significant overlap with existing services is strongly discouraged, however in extraordinary circumstances
some overlap will be considered if compelling justification is given. It is recognized that a proposed new
service may have a minimal amount of overlap with existing cores. Overlapping services will require
justification as a new service since in most cases, existing established core services are expected to integrate
new complementary services or take the lead in developing new complementary core services.
January 19, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 9
C. Administrative Plan
At a minimum the administrative plan must address:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
One Faculty Member or Service Professional with administrative and scientific oversight
Financial Tracking Mechanism with Quarterly Reports
Support Personnel
Web based access for description of the service and fee schedule.
Faculty based Users Group, meeting biannually with documentation
Annual reporting of activities to Dean’s Research Council
Mechanism for communication with existing core support services
D. Requirement of a Business Plan
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
Fee Schedule Determination:
Some considerations include - tiered pricing or bundling, pilot projects (keep same fee structure,
mechanism of subsidization possible), non-university users (at the moment, a minimum rate of current fee
plus 50.5% of base rate is used; 50% volume requires reassessment of user fee and non-university business
plan), justification of fee schedule
Target Market
Pro forma Projection (3-5 years)
Financial Plan for Long Term Operation and Maintenance of Equipment
Requirement for inclusion of costs on PI users grants
Revenue distribution from non-university user fees
Upgrades
New Technology Development
Subsidizing Interdisciplinary/Pilot Projects
Incentive Plan
Marketing Plan:
This should specify whether a web site will be used, brochures will be printed or if workshops will be
scheduled and how this new service will be interfaced with research faculty
E. Plan for Maximum Utilization of Service/Instruments
i.
ii.
iii.
How requests are made
How time is allocated
Plans for attracting new users
F. Quality Control Review Process
i.
Benchmarks for Success
 Listing of peer reviewed grant funding support for the service
 Number of users that have peer reviewed funding
 Number of users that include the service on grant budget
 User satisfaction
 Impact of service for publications, IDC, and total awards
 Unique features or niche of the service
 Balanced Scorecard (budget or goals are measured against actual costs)
 Participation, presentation, leadership in national/international core research facilities societies such as
ABRF (http://www.abrf.org)
 Core facility conducted surveys of users that include assessment of data quality, data accuracy,
turnaround time (Cores should distribute these to all customers, keep them (ALL) on file and have them
available at the review)
January 19, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 10
ii.
Ensuring that all projects have received approval by institutional human subjects, animal welfare and
biosafety committees. The investigator is responsible for having appropriate UNR regulatory approval.
iii.
External Review process:
Every three years, an external review of the service will occur. The external review may be accomplished
by the required NIH core support services review. More frequent external review may also occur at the
request of the users group contingent upon resources. This process will include an announcement (i.e.
university web page, AHSC wide announcement) that a given core is coming up for review and
performance feedback is solicited from the relevant community of researchers. This is an opportunity for
feedback independent of that channeled through the core, a mechanism that has limitations.
III. How Core Facilities are designated and approved
A. New Service Approval Process
The process for approving new research core services will be coordinated through the VPR Research Council. The
process will require a recommendation for approval by the sponsoring unit (s) – in the case of department core, the
department, in the case of a college facility – approval by participating departments and dean’s approval, for
UCRF – departmental, college approvals. Final approval will be at the designated core level – i.e. for departmental
cores, the department chair approval; for college cores, the dean, for UCRF the VPR.
January 19, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 11