University Research Council (URC) Minutes
April 27, 2015
Members Present: Joyce Shaw, Jorge Brown (University Libraries), Teresa Welsh, Hani Morgan
(Education & Psychology), Carol Connell, Trent Gould (Health), Doug Rust, Steven Venette (Arts &
Letters), Bonnie Lee Harbaugh, Sheila Davis (Nursing), Omar Harvey (Faculty Senate),
Members Absent: Fujun Lai (Business), Mohamed Elasri, Sarah Morgan (Science & Technology), Cheri
Becker (Business)
Ex Officio Present: Marcia Landen (ORA)
Ex Officio Absent: Gordon Cannon (VPR), Sam Bruton (ORI),
Ad Hoc: Syd Conner, Shelia Johnson (ORA)
The meeting was held in McCain Conference Room 200a. The meeting was called to order at 3: 00 p.m.
1. Approval of Agenda
MOTION: Dr. Steven Venette motioned to accept the agenda with a second by Mr. Jorge Brown; motion
carried.
2. Approval of November 2014 minutes
MOTION: Mr. Jorge Brown motioned to accept the November 2014 minutes with minor editorial
changes noted by Ms. Joyce Shaw with a second by Mr. Steven Venette; motion carried.
3. Update from the Office of VP for Research (Gordon Cannon) – None. Dr. Cannon out.
4. Update from Office of Research Integrity (Sam Bruton) – None. Dr. Bruton out.
5. Update from the Office of Research Administration (Marcia Landen)
Ms. Marcia Landen had one handout (Eligibility Requirements to Serve as a Principal Investigator/Project
Director or Co-Principal Investigator/Co-Project Director at the University of Southern Mississippi)
In her opening remarks she announced that funding for USM is up about 5 million dollars this year
compared to this point last year; which is excellent. She also talked about the reorganization in ORA for
the group that handles proposals and awards to a team approach; which is now complete and in place.
Mr. Syd Conner has now posted an ORA organization chart with team assignments out on the web. Any
questions about this reorganization may be directed either to Ms. Marcia Landen or Ms. Michelle
Shows.
The revised draft of eligibility requirements of a Principal Investigator handout which had been
previously presented to the URC was opened to discussion. The major issue from the last discussion was
the definition of a temporary employee. She has addressed this by removing it completely. The new
language was the third bullet on page 1 of the document which reads as follows: Policy/Procedures: The
PI/PD:
1|Page
“Must not be in a position that is intended to be temporary (including but not limited to postdoctoral,
adjunct, and visiting appointments). Those in a temporary position who wish to serve as a PI require
approval of the Vice President for Research along with the appropriate chair and dean.”
Ms. Landen had discussed the language about permanent and temporary positions with Ms. Linda
Rasmussen in Human Resources and they agreed it is not well defined anywhere. She suggested naming
the types of positions that are clearly intended to be temporary positions: postdoctoral, adjunct,
visiting. She would appreciate comments and feedback. Ms. Joyce Shaw asked about Emeritus
positions from her campus with so many retiring. Ms. Landen said although Emeritus is not specifically
named, they would fall under those that can be approved. Dr. Bonnie Harbaugh suggested to put it in
with the others even though it is not a temporary position. Dr. Doug Rust asked about the motivation
for this language. Ms. Landen said it was motivated by commitment to the university. Someone in a
postdoc position will only be here for a few years and they are not really in a position to be making
financial and compliance type decisions because they are going to be gone. Dr. Doug Rust was
concerned about Emeritus people who are now successfully writing grants. He would hate to see a
policy created that takes that privilege away if they are succeeding at what they are doing; unless there
is negative consequence in which the university would become liable. Otherwise, we would just be
taking away a stream of opportunity and income that is already apparently flowing at the moment. In
his experience, Emeritus who wrote a grant and brought money in; if they were told they could not be a
PI, they might possibly be offended. It was agreed that a lot of the retirees look forward to retiring and
writing grants and focusing on research. Dr. Omar Harvey thought it would be disrespectful to these
senior level people. For clarity, Ms. Marcia Landen said what she is hearing from URC was that although
anyone could be a PI with approval, they thought Emeritus should not have that extra layer of approval.
Dr. Trent Gould thought with Emeritus free to go where they want to go, it would be disrespectful for
the administration to not have that conversation on where they will be going and what they would be
doing. Dr. Omar Harvey said in his experience, most of the Emeritus give up teaching to focus on their
research. Dr. Steven Venette pointed out that anyone could apply and receive a grant and leave the
university the next year. He also asked if this is in response to a problem. Ms. Landen said they have
not had a problem but they are asked this question often. “What is the university policy on who can be a
PI? The problem she is solving is just clarity. There have been problems with people not doing reports.
It doesn’t matter what their title is, but tenure tract faculty who leave the organization to go
somewhere else or retire, then there are other actions that can be taken. Misconduct filings can follow
them and they can be tracked down. However, the visiting and adjuncts who will only be here for a
short time and once they go away there is not a strong a tie generally. If it is a postdoc and they don’t
go on to a faculty position somewhere else; sometimes they leave academia altogether making it harder
to track them down. It could happen in any position, but it is just less likely in the more structured
responsible positions. The conscious decision/review on qualification would fall to the Chairs, Deans
and VPR to trust them to do what needs to be done: PI and Co-PI’s here at USM. The sponsoring
organizations would be responsible for their own PIs. Ms. Landen said she did not want to be in the
position of a person receiving a courtesy appointment to USM and they become a PI and there is no
policy and they blow it off. There is no tie/no commitment and they are left scrambling trying to get
things done which she has seen happen. Ms. Joyce Shaw said postdoc would find the Co P.I. experience
helpful in their career path. It falls to the deans and up to the VPR when they sign off recognizing that
the i.e. postdoc is a PI. Ms. Marcia Landen said there is no additional burden. Dr. Trent Gould
suggested referring back to the Faculty Handbook, Section 3.3, 3.4, p.19, putting the wording in that
2|Page
refers to the two major categories listed there. After further discussion it was decided to leave the first
and second bullet point. Remove the third bullet point. If there are questions on suitability then the
VPR makes the final decision. Mr. Jorge Brown thought this might also catch junior faculty who can be a
co-PI, but are not yet ready to be a PI. Ms. Marcia Landen said everybody needs approval on the IAF and
she is just trying to put something into policy that avoids those outliers that are just not going to be here
very long. The signature authorities’ sign-off says this person is technically qualified and
administratively agreeable and the responsibility will ultimately fall to that chair and dean to make sure
it all happens. Ms. Joyce Shaw said the chairs and deans need to be aware of this responsibility. Ms.
Landen thanked everybody for the discussion.
6. Old Business
•
Innovation Awards discussion: Dr. Doug Rust said he has taken on a new role as Graduate
Council Chair for next year and he might not be able to do both jobs well. He recommends someone
else take on the position of Innovation Awards Chair next year. He talked about the responsibilities of
the position. He is very passionate about this award and really hates to give it up. He will pass all the
materials that were so helpful to him. His success was promoted by materials passed on to him from
the last chair, Dr. Lachel Story, and he will pass those materials on to the new chair. He felt this to be a
very rewarding position in being able to help people and the university. Dr. Doug Rust read during the
last one upon the recommendation of Ms. Joyce Shaw because the VPR was out of town and also at
Faculty Awards Day. This year he will be here. He contacted Dr. Gordon Cannon to clarify if he will need
to read again. He has not heard back, but will copy Ms. Denise Casey to confirm. Ms. Joyce Shaw
advised the new Innovation Awards chair may be called upon to read in the absence of the VPR at these
events, although it is the primary responsibility of the President, VPR, or Provost. It is their day. There
will be new members coming to URC which will offer a fresh pool for the vacated positions. The
progress on the Super Ballot and the status of it was discussed. Some people said they still have not
seen the Super Ballot.
•
Recommendations for University Research Awards Day chair: Dr. Bonnie Harbaugh was the
chair last time and agreed to serve again. She already has addressed the venue which was one of her
main challenges. She already has the football schedule. Ms. Joyce commented that she was very
pleased to hear this and thanked her for a job well done.
•
Purpose & charge: Ms. Joyce Shaw opened the discussion of the new Purpose and Charge
document which will replace the outdated Bylaws Charter. She said this is the charge that will replace
the charter answering “what we do” for people who might like to serve.
Mr. Jorge Brown called a question.
Motion: Dr. Doug Rust motioned to accept the Purpose & charge as amended with a second by Dr.
Steven Venette; motion carried.
ACTION ITEM: The Purpose and Charge is to be cleaned up by Ms. Joyce Shaw and sent to Mr. Syd
Conner to be posted to the website.
The university use of Aquila as a digital archive was discussed and recommended to Mr. Syd Conner.
Both Ms. Joyce Shaw and Dr. Teresa Welsh were proponents of this system and all the capabilities and
positives it offers. Power Points can go on it and it is well indexed by Google Scholar. Also Reference
3|Page
Journals can be downloaded world-wide. It was suggested that the URC website would continue to
archive the most recent items with a link to Aquila for the older things and also as a backup for the
website.
•
By-laws – The By-laws were discussed at length on the wording regarding URC member absence
and the proxy. Dr. Teresa Welsh said Faculty Senate policy is, proxy or not, on the third absence there is
a warning and on the fourth absence they are vacated, regardless. Faculty should not be able to
indicate on their Vitae that they have served when they in fact have not. There was concern that the
URC wording would allow a member to be on URC for three years with a proxy and never attend a
meeting. It was also stated that the Faculty Senate spelled out who had a proxy. There was general
agreement that there should be no credit for people who do not actually serve. In looking at the Bylaws, Ms. Joyce Shaw said the language in the By-laws was in the wrong place. It is item “J” and it
should be moved to Section “2” under “E”. Mr. Jorge Brown added that then “G” would be new and
explain how to fill a vacancy. Dr. Teresa Welsh said Faculty Senate is supposed to vote on this same
issue on Friday of this week. Mr. Doug Rust was asked to also report back on how the issue of proxy is
addressed with Graduate Council. Dr. Trent Gould read from the Committee on Committees on the
main website and the recommended wording on Rules for Standing Committees as another possible
option. ” Removal for Cause. Committee members who fail to attend meetings or to actively engage in
the business of the committee may be removed by a two-thirds vote of the remaining members.”
ACTION ITEM: Ms. Joyce Shaw made note and agreed to look at Rules for Committee on Committees
and the recommendations there.
Dr. Teresa Welsh liked this suggestion and asked if it could be approved by E-mail.
Dr. Trent Gould said it described Ex-Officio a little differently, i.e., who they are. Ms. Joyce Shaw said
the URC Bylaws changed to add 2 members from the University Libraries. The Faculty Handbook says
one. She sent an e-mail to the Faculty Handbook Committee/Dr. Rick Green and acknowledged the
differences and advised them that the Bylaws were under revision and when they were officially voted,
a copy will be sent to them so they can make the change. She was emailed from Faculty Senate twice
about the discrepancy, but has not heard back from them.
Ms. Marcia Landen said both her title under ORA and Dr. Sam Bruton’s title under IRB are not accurate.
This is their role, not their title. She suggested the use of a lower cased “d” to describe their roles. She
also noted that the Provost was listed as Ex-officio. Dr. Trent Gould said the committee does not report
to him and he should be taken off. URC reports to the VPR. The Provost should now just be on the
guest list. The elections should now be noted as “in the spring”, since they will be included on the Super
Ballot in the spring. Dr. Doug Rust suggested it be left as open as possible. The Super Ballot is not
completely standardized and may be a little different next year.
Ms. Joyce Shaw said revision of the URC Bylaws has been a work in progress for quite some time. If it
can be cleaned up, it can be voted on in the next session.
Motion: Due to time restraints, Mr. Jorge Brown motioned to table the Bylaws and move on to the next
item on the Agenda with a second by Dr. Trent Gould; motion carried.
7. New Business
4|Page
•
Faculty Awards Day, May 1, 2015 – Ms. Joyce Shaw encouraged as many members as possible
to attend the Faculty awards Day, May 1, 2015.
8. Welcoming new Chair, Dr. Teresa Welsh. Ms. Joyce Shaw welcomed the new URC Chair.
9. Meeting schedule for 2015-2016 tba.
Motion: Dr. Steven Venette motioned to adjourn the meeting with a second by Dr. Trent Gould; motion
carried.
10. Meeting Adjourned @ 4:37 p.m.
5|Page