Guest Speaker Presentation —

Joshua Roundy and Meredith Bagwell-Gray, Research Committee, were speakers. Nate acknowledged their work and the work of the committee. Nate noted that as we saw with the forum in December and the feedback, there are issues and complications. Nate hope to come up with a dialogue on how to move forward.  What should the goal of the research committee be? What else should we consider and how can we move this forward?

Nate asked about Joshua’s and Meredith’s take aways from the feedback. Josh said there won’t be an option that will make everyone happy.  There is a side that was not very vocal. They said what was presented was the best solution to appease both sides, but they did not make anyone happy. He said can there be a way they can balance things more. Joshua said he does not know where to go from here. They found a solution that everyone on the committee was good with. He noted no one likes the current solution.

Meredith questioned the committee charges. If the committee spends time thinking about the decision, but they are stonewalled, what is the purpose. It took the committee a long time to come to the agreement, 1.5 years. There are many units represented on the committee. If they come up with a solution, but it’s not accepted, maybe this shouldn’t be a standing charge. 

Nate said that we didn’t realize we had control of the money.  Ani said she gets the point of Joshua and Meredith’s comments. What we were hearing all over campus was that everyone was self-serving. It was hard to ignore. What we talked about before, do you add a layer of productivity and equity as metrics incorporated into what you already have or, we can do nothing, and not rock the boat. Ani said there’s been much change on campus lately, and we don’t think about the effects of change.

Nate suggested to do a survey on more feedback, “should the GRF be changed?”  Are people unhappy with the current allocation? If they are, then there is a mandate for change. If people are willing to accept it, then the committee should not waste their time doing this work.

Joshua said the committee agreed easily that it needed to be changed. We tried hard to do productivity measures in the current proposals. He said productivity is so subjective. The only way is to self-define, which can be problematics. For example, schools have unique productivity or impact results.

Joshua said if we want to do something productivity related, we should turn it over to Simon Atkinson and let them decide. The committee would then review. This might be a better way to deal with productivity. In terms of equity aspect, it is hard to define. What should be the determining factor outside size of department. Then there are those who don’t have a shot at other funding, and some think they need it.  Which is more valuable, those who need ….3.24

Ani agreed with Nate’s suggestion to send a poll to campus and see if people want to change the GRF. Are we trying to change something that people don’t want to change?  Though Joshua doesn’t like the solution, at least it releases the committee.  Kristin asked if smaller schools would be outnumbered by larger schools? Are we inherently perpetuating inequity?

Meredith said as a committee they have been studying this extensively. In 1991 we established the fund with a vague reason on why. The standing charge is to establish the policies and evaluation criteria for the fund. In the 1990s they decided to give it to the Units and let them decide how to divide. This committee’s job is to decide the allocations. The committee makes the recommendations, and the Faculty Senate votes on it. Nate said the Faculty Senate did not vote because there was not evidence that the faculty were supportive of the recommendations.

Nate is leaning towards the poll. This will give us a mandate. If the majority want change, then we need to change. He agreed with Kristin’s point that we need to consider the larger and smaller department issue on voting.

Meredith said there was a faculty survey in 1991. A new faculty survey does seem like a good idea and next step. 

Joshua asked if faculty senate would be opposed if it was handed over to KUCR to manage. Will they be more resistant to giving over the money, or having their amounts cut? Nate said he is not in favor of giving this over to KUCR. Even with a committee, Nate would be surprised if we don’t get the same allocations as we have.  He doubts we will get equal distribution across the units as we are now.

Meredith said it can go back to the committee, instead of KUCR. Nate said that this is a huge workload for the committee. Meredith said it makes sense to go to departments to decide where the money goes within their own department.

Nates gave a suggestion for the path forward. Do a survey and have open forums. Decide what are the priorities for changing this. We should get as much info as possible. We want to make a standing decision that doesn’t need to be changed again. 

Meredith asked about specific next steps for the committee. Do we design a survey to go out across campus? We keep the current allocation in the meantime.

Nate, the survey needs to be short. Does it need to be changed and what is the purpose of the GRF? The survey should come to FacEx first and then we can administer it through the Governance Office.

Nate said we can go directly to the faculty. We need to keep track of what units it is coming from. Is anyone opposed to this? Joshua is not happy about this, but it is the best way forward. We need to change the committee’s charge, so this does not keep coming up.

Nate said we will make sure this doesn’t happen again.  It will come off the charge.

Nate thanked them both for their efforts. Joshua appreciates Nate’s and Ani’s work on the Senates.

Joshua said they will get to this in the next few weeks.

New Business —

Closed session for restricted research discussion and GTA/GC members. None objected. Meeting adjourned.