New Business —

Celka Straughn presided as chair. 

We have two meetings this Spring, because of scheduling. We may try to schedule a third. The provost and chancellor has approved the committee’s recommendations on the GRF. The Office of Research is working on the implementation of the gradual implementation of those changes. 

Charge 5.1.  We talked about comparison with Midwest institutions as the most beneficial. Celka asked if anyone had any updates on numbers for charge 5.1.  None were provided.

Charge 5.3. Research funding with KUEA. KUEA could tell the story of research. What recommendations does this committee have? 

Comments:

• KUEA is working on a strategy, which will include relationship building, and is a long process. The Office of Research is working on other projects that will have an immediate impact on GRF. It will be good to talk about other projects that will have an immediate effect. 
• Is the total amount of GRF the same? A response was the amount has been the same. The Office of Research could advocate with liaisons on this. This committee decides what to do with the appropriations and the Office of Research should consider as a part of a big portfolio. 
• This is a unique funding situation with state appropriations and GRF. 
• Now might be the time to bring in state legislators. The Office of Research has been supporting internal funding in addition to GRF. The State could be motivated to increase the GRF.
• The Pharmacy School received GRF, and the dean added to the funding. Could the Office of Research also add to the funding to make it more attractive, for example?
• The GRF money is used by departments for seed money. The Office of Research is considering the use of money for seed funds. All of this should be considered strategically. A comment was made that the GRF is a tiny part of the Office of Research’s overall budget. It has restrictions on it. We should look at our internal funding for research in a big picture way. The GRF guarantees every unit has some research funds. 
• Strategically, it is important that this committee is pushing the research goals for the future-five or 10 years out. The committee can develop new ways of funding. “Anti-fragility” could be the north star. 
• The Office of Research has been providing funding at the level of GRF funding.  The GRF provides a floor for funding.
• For those in sciences and social sciences, seed grants are different. When we have an emphasis on seed grants, we are restricting research funds for humanists that might support research that leads to promotion and tenure.
• The Office of Research would like to say strategically what the point of funding a see grant is. Sometimes, but not always, the point is to go out and get an external grant. At other times, it could be to provide funds to publish a book. We should have. internal funds to speak to that.
• That is why the GRF is given to the department who know their needs.

Charge 4. Is this achievable by the committee? This is a difficult charge for the committee. There are many factors, and this committee does not have the data. For the report, we are doing the work, and it is not just about the KU budget, but Federal too. There was no objections to reporting these conclusions on Charge 4 in the final report.

Items A, B, or C. Increasing research perception across campus.

At a future meeting, the Office of Research can speak about this. The Office is monitoring this. The Office is having Town Hall every Monday. Research implications about what is happening at the federal level are being shared. Faculty Affairs is launching initiatives on mentoring graduate students. 

Final Report/Recommendations

Think of recommendations for the Faculty Senate for next year’s committee that we can include in the final report. Also, consider that we will need a chair and a co-chair for next year. If anyone would like to do so, please do so.

Meeting adjourned.