Questions Submitted by the Faculty to
President Shumaker
Concerning the Proposed University of
Tennessee Research Foundation
February
18, 2003
The following
questions were submitted by faculty members on the Knoxville campus and
indicate the breadth of the University faculty’s concerns about the proposed
University of Tennessee Research Foundation.
Michael Combs, President of the Faculty Senate, eloquently summarized
the sentiment of the faculty at a recent Faculty Senate Executive Committee
meeting when he stated that in talking with many faculty members he had found
no faculty member who either strongly opposed or strongly supported the UT
Research Foundation concept, but many were very concerned that the planning
process was not adequate and left many unanswered questions and potentially
significant risks. To address these
perceived problems and allow President Shumaker to directly address many of the
questions that have been posed, he invited the President to hold an open
meeting with the faculty and staff.
To allow
broad participation in this event, written questions were solicited from the
Faculty Senate, the Research Council, and the faculty and staff of the
Knoxville campus. All of the responses
were collected by Lou Gross, Chair of the Faculty Senate’s Budget Committee,
and Doug Birdwell, Chair of the Research Council, and are included in this
document. Michael Combs, Lou Gross, and
Doug Birdwell developed the following structure for the February 18th
meeting: Michael Combs will read each
question, and the President will have three minutes to present an initial
response. One follow-up question may be
asked, either from Michael Combs or the floor, and the President will have an
additional two minutes to respond. The
intent of this format is not to suppress questions or limit answers, but to
ensure that as many of the submitted questions as possible are addressed. If additional time is available after these
questions have been addressed, questions from the floor will be solicited.
Some faculty members
have asked whether the requirement that questions be in writing and submitted
in advance was a condition imposed by the President. This was not the case; the format of this event and the
requirement for prior submission of questions were decided by Michael Combs,
Doug Birdwell, and Lou Gross and were chosen to maximize the breadth of issues
that can be addressed and the opportunity to obtain informed responses to these
questions.
Minutes of
this event are being taken and will posted on the web.
Michael
Combs, President, Faculty Senate
Doug
Birdwell, Chair, Research Council
Lou Gross,
Chair, Faculty Senate Budget Committee
Questions Submitted by the Faculty
-------------------------
Please
comment on what considerations lead to the current model for the UT Research
Foundation, which seems to assume that nearly all research administration is
done by the Foundation. This is in contrast to several other models with more
modest responsibilities for a research foundation (an example of a more modest,
but successful, model is Florida State).
-------------------------
1. Section
IX, A, 2 of the UTRF Business Plan indicates that UTRF will retain a portion of
F&A recoveries to do many things. It also states that no State funds will
be used to fund UTRF. A quick reading of the formulas used to compute the
F&A rate reveals that F&A recoveries, far from being net profit, are
based on real but non-direct, largely infrastructural, costs borne by the
institution. Within the UT organization, F&A recoveries are used in large
measure for such infrastructural costs. If UTRF takes F&A recoveries then
the infrastructural costs will have to be borne from another source, probably
State funds. In this arrangement, can one accurately maintain that no State
funds will be used?
2. The
financial plan indicates that substantial new funds will be used for UTRF apparently $1.8 million. In the greater
scheme of things, new expenditures have to come from somewhere. F&A
recoveries are already being used to pay infrastructural costs associated with
sponsored activity programs. What programs will need to be cut to accommodate
the new expenditures?
3. Section
IX, A, 2 of the UTRF Business Plan indicates that F&A recoveries will be
used to fund, among other activities, a faculty incentive plan. Most major
components of UT, with the exception of the academic component in the Knoxville
area (once referred to as UTK) already have faculty incentive programs which
were developed in the context of the particular unit's mission and needs. Does
UTRF, by using F&A recoveries from all components of UT intend to supplant
existing faculty incentive plans with one which some might call uniform and
others might call one-size-fits all? Or, does it intend to use F&A
recoveries from all components of UT, together with the commensurate resource
shifts, to fund a faculty incentive plan for that component of UT which does
not currently have one?
4. With the
exception of efforts to assist start-up companies, the other proposed UTRF
functions are currently the responsibility of existing units within UT. Much of
the justification for UTRF hinges on more efficiently providing services to the
research community. Is there some evidence that increased operational
efficiency will more than offset the increased bureaucracy costs which are
imbedded within UTRF? Moreover, is there any evidence that if operational
efficiencies are available that they could not be secured without UTRF and the
accompanying increase in bureaucracy and its associated cost. (Stated less
tactfully, what makes anyone believe that current problems associated with
research services will get any better by changing the organization and adding
more administrators?)
------------------
1.
The State revenue
shortfall is slowing the process of appointing a Chancellor at Knoxville to
save costs in administrative areas.
(a) Why is the
Research Foundation still under consideration given the fact that it will
require an upfront investment of more than $5 million?
(b) Why not focus
on fixing problems in the current Office of Research?
2.
The Research Foundation
web site and Q&A sessions with different groups have revealed that the
function of the current Office of Research will remain substantially the same but the Research Foundation officers will
constitute a large number of officers (Executive Director, Research Services
Director, Business Development Director, etc.), which would act as another
level of administration.
(a) Does this not represent a major increase in
administrative costs?
(b) Don’t current problems in the Office of Research
remain?
3.
The proposed Research
Foundation has the campus Chief Research Administrator reporting to the
Chancellor and also being accountable directly to the Foundation’s Executive
Director so there are two masters to serve.
(a) Would it not
be more direct and responsive to the University’s colleges and faculty simply
have a Vice Chancellor reporting directly to the campus Provost/Chancellor?
(b) Won’t an unhealthy situation develop for the Campus if
the Research Foundation is established quickly but the Chancellor search is
slowed?
4.
The primary
justification for establishing the Research Foundation is to enhance business
flexibility by dealing better with indemnification, confidentiality and
jurisdiction since the Foundation will be setup as a 501(c) Corporation.
(a) What is gained from this action compared to the
current UTRC which is already a 501(c) Corporation but still has to add the
following clause to all of its contracts: “licensee
shall at all times during the term of this Agreement indemnify, defend and hold
UTRC, the UNIVERSITY, and their respective trustees, directors, officers,
employees and affiliates, harmless against all claims, proceedings, demands and
liabilities of nay kind, whatsoever…”?
(b)
Is it reasonable to
assume that the University will not require indemnification in research
contracts when University faculty and students are doing the research but the
Research Foundation is simply signing the contract?
(c)
The Research Foundation
proposal simply states that a committee will be set up to resolve this problem
but shouldn’t this issue be fully resolved before going forward with the
Foundation since it may not be able to deliver on its basic premise.
(d)
With regard to the
Research Foundations premise of providing confidentiality, is it not true that
the State legislature passed a bill two years ago that exempted proprietary
research contracts from the Open Records Act? Why hasn’t our current Office of
Research implemented this already?
5.
Many faculty have
expressed a great deal of concern about only two faculty members being on the
Research Foundation Board and it is troubling that issues such as “Conflict
Monitoring” are the responsibility of the Foundation.
(a) Why can’t these panel members be appointed by Deans
and / or the Faculty Senate to represent Campus interests better and achieve
real faculty representation?
6.
Another basic premise of
the Research Foundation is that technology transfer and licensing of patents
will generate income for the University, inventors and the Research Foundation.
(a) Given the fact that UTRC has not accomplished this in
many years of operation, how can the Research Foundation make money for the
University even if it theoretically manages these activities better than
UTRC?
(b) Given the large amount of work usually asked of
inventors to commercialize an invention, wouldn’t drastically reducing the
share of income to inventors as proposed by the new Research Foundation reduce
the incentive of faculty to obtain patents and commercialize their work?
7.
25% of the F&A
recovered from grants currently is returned to the colleges to help defray
operating expenses and to add funds to the research budgets of faculty
generating the grants.
(a) Will this practice continue or will this money be used
to help fund the proposed Research Foundation?
-------------------
UT often
couples the terms "research” and “creative activity." Our mission
statement lists the terms "scholarship" and "artistic
activity" as both activities that develop individuals and the society as a
whole. Currently some of our F&A recoveries are used to help fund faculty
research in the arts and humanities for which there are few outside forms of
support. The present charter of the UT Research Foundation has no charge to
devote a percent toward the arts. How
will the Research Foundation serve to fund artistic or scholarly activities for
which there are not external resources? Shouldn't the foundation strive to
commit a percentage of its resources toward this purpose?"
-------------------
1. What model
is the UTRF based upon? Is there an existing RF at a Top 25 Research University
that UTRF is based upon?
2. How will
the UTRF dovetail with the current Office of Research duties?
3. How will
faculty who are not patenting research materials benefit/interact with the
UTRF?
4. Will
overhead of grant monies be diverted to UTRF, even for grants obtained by
faculty who are not patenting research materials?
5. How will
the UTRF Business Plan be revised in light of the recommendations of the
F&A Revenue Task Force report?
---------------------
My personal
list of the most significant impediments to research at UT includes: (1) space,
including shortages, space allocation policies, and Physical Plant’s inability
to perform renovation / remediation work on existing space within a reasonable
period of time and at reasonable cost; (2) the IRIS financial system; (3)
inefficiencies and delays within the Office of Research; (4) state and UT
purchasing requirements that delay equipment acquisition; and (5) excessive delays
and paperwork associated with Human Resources.
At the January Research Council meeting, discussions with Dwayne McCay
made it clear that current plans are that the UTRF (a) use the existing IRIS
financial system and UT Human Resources, (b) allow purchasing to occur outside
the established state and UT procedures only for occasional and exceptional
cases, (c) use existing personnel within the Office of Research and the
academic units to process research proposals and contract awards; and (d) push
plans for new UTRF-provided space out into the mid- to long-term time horizon
and not affect existing UT space or Physical Plan procedures. In addition, the UTRF plans will add another
layer of administrators, in a parallel structure, through which approvals of
research proposals and contracts must pass.
If UT wishes to establish a research foundation, why don’t current plans
address the existing problems, and without addressing these problems, what is
the anticipated benefit?
My greatest
concern with the current drafts of UTRF documents is the absence of control
over the distribution of F&A and the selection of board members. We are about to establish an independent
entity whose board members are all appointed by the UT President and whose
Bylaws place few restrictions upon the manner in which F&A funds may be
distributed or used. While faculty
members tend to think very highly of you, our university knows from experience
that not all university presidents are trustworthy, and the UTRF is by design
an entity that should survive both you and most current faculty members. Federal regulations require a great degree
of autonomy of board members of non-profit corporations, so much of the
University’s future control depends upon the first approved Bylaws and the appointment
process for board members. I believe a
much safer course of action would be appointment of members of the board by the
Faculty Senate rather than the President, or at least appointment of a majority
of the members by the Faculty Senate.
Why do you wish to place this power of appointment under the exclusive
control of the President of the University, and why don’t the Bylaws place
additional constraints upon the financial relationships between the UTRF and
the University?
Success
breads success, but success in research without reinvestment is at risk. This is due to the high variability of
funding patterns in research and, at least in engineering and the physical
sciences, the large infrastructure costs that are required to support research
laboratories. This university has
gradually moved away, at least in some areas such as Engineering, from a
research funding model that taxes funded research projects to support general
infrastructure and “pet projects” of members of the administration and toward a
funding model that reinvests a portion of its indirect cost receipts in the
research efforts that generated those receipts. Last year, the Research Council advocated a funding model that
would return a portion of F&A receipts directly to sponsored researchers in
proportion to their funding. The
Research Council’s position, and my personal opinion, is that a funding
reinvestment rate of approximately 10% of direct cost research expenditures is
necessary, at least in Engineering and most of the physical sciences, to
sustain growth of funded research efforts with an acceptable level of
risk. With the 25% return of F&A to
the College of Engineering and the college’s long-standing policy of returning
these funds in their entirety to the departments that generated those funds,
and with the adoption of policies by some Engineering departments that return
all of these funds to the faculty members responsible for their generation,
this 10% reinvestment rate has been achieved for at least some research efforts
in Engineering. I believe the results
speak for themselves, with the continuing health and growth of established
research laboratories in these departments.
The UTRF draft documents, and in particular the shift of control of
F&A to the UTRF, places these efforts at severe risk, especially given the
absence of constraints upon disbursement of these funds. Are you willing to modify these documents in
a manner that assures that these established rates of reinvestment will
continue, and if not, given that essentially no other funds are available to
support the infrastructure of these projects and laboratories, why are you
willing to place these research efforts at risk?
------------------
Given that
the UT Research Corporation has been losing more than $300,000 per year for the
past three years, and currently is in debt to UT for more than $1,200,000, how
can UT possibly justify the tremendous expenditure (more than $8,000,000) of
the University's limited resources to expand such a financially-failing operation,
that would benefit a very small fraction of UT faculty, particularly as the
Business Plan has no description for how such a Foundation could ever be
financially self-sufficient without depletion of the F&A currently being
used to fund basic operations throughout UT?
------------------
Currently a
sizable portion of F&A monies are used to supplement the general operating
budget. Where will the monies come from if F&A will be controlled by the
UTRF?
--------------------
Much
has been discussed about how the RF will handle getting grants, but little has
been said about how purchasing will be done under the new system. How will
purchasing rules change? How will accounts be kept?
I
also wonder what improved services the RF will offer to UT faculty? Will we get
help in identifying grant opportunities? Will we get help with budgets, can
they fill out forms for us and package proposals to send to sponsors? At my old
institution, the RF did the cover pages, the budgets, and all standard forms
(including Current and Pending). They also made the requisite number of copies
and transmitted them to the Sponsor. They would even upload files onto
Fastlane! This kind of assistance allows the faculty to spend time on the most
appropriate things.
--------------------
We discussed
the UT Research Foundation at the department meeting this week and generally
people are very enthusiastic about the proposed plan if it is something
new. We all feel change is needed. The greatest area of concern with the UT
foundation had to do with staffing.
Will new people be hired (seen as a requirement for this to mean
anything) or will existing staff be imported into the new structure. There is a strong feeling in our department
that new, competent people who are facilitators and who will be dedicated to
speeding up all issues involving grant submissions and administration are
needed. Simply creating a new
Foundation with the same people won't work.
--------------------
(1) The
Research Foundation was preceded by another Foundation, which failed. What lessons have been learned from this
failure, and how is the new Foundation going to overcome the lessons of the
past?
(2) We seem
at UTK to be generating funds for infrastructure improvement, yet floors are
left unclean and electrical wiring upgrades are one and two years behind
request. How will the Foundation
address these issues of infrastructure?
How will the University address these issues?
(3) Faculty
engaged in funded research generate significant F&A monies for the infrastructure
of UTK. How do we know that these funds
support research on campus, for faculty and students? Who is accountable for these funds, and how does this person
report accomplishments?
---------------------
Most
businesses require confidentiality regarding their sponsored research
activities. Will the proposed research foundation be able to handle this
requirement? If so, how? Earlier, the
signature of the Tennessee Attorney General was required by State law; later
the law was modified to give Presidents or Chancellors signature authority. It
usually took weeks or even months for the earlier case; but I didn't gain
enough experience after the law was changed to comment on the willingness of
Presidents or Chancellors to sign and thereby support research for private
companies. Please keep in mind that most companies require signatures prior to
initial discussions. This is one of the major reasons that faculty don't help
the private sector except through their private consulting.
------------------
What changes,
if any, will occur relative to the current way that 25 percent of F&A
return is returned to
Colleges/Centers/Departments/Principal
Investigators?
-------------------
1. I do not
see any performance standards pertaining to the research office or research
foundation on your scorecard. The
performance of the research office services greatly affects our research
productivity as a faculty. Are you
going to have performance measures such as goals for time to negotiate
contracts, time to process subcontracts, etc.?
I feel these are needed.
Comment:
The
continuous delays currently inherent in these processes make our other research
goals difficult to attain and many faculty see the process of getting grants
from small corporations too painful due to IP and contract negotiations.
---------------------
Is there any
connection between the new UT Research Foundation and the "UT
Foundation" established in 2001 as the main fund-raising and
development-managing partner of the university?
---------------------
Can we
realistically invest this large amount up front to launch the Foundation when
we are being asked to significantly reduce spending because of the state's
budget problems? We've postponed new administrative positions, wisely in my
opinion. Why would it not be prudent to also postpone starting the
Foundation? The additional time
required to jump through another hoop is my second concern. We often submit
proposals at the eleventh hour because of the time needed to gather the people
and incorporate their input, craft a proposal, obtain letters of support from
collaborators outside the University, et cetera. Routing proposals through an
additional administrative layer before submission adds to the problems of
meeting deadlines. Is it necessary? What
will it add?
---------------------
How is a
"Research Foundation" different from a "Center of
Excellence"? In the final analysis don't both have something to do with
finding an egg? I believe that it was gold but I'm not sure. In the present
climate this might be a hard-sell in Nashville. You might come back and have to
clean some of if (the egg) off of your face. Let me see now, we want a research
corporation in order to better educate your children and to discover truth?
---------------------
The Office of
Research Administration continues to be barely able to handle grant proposal
submission in a timely fashion, and is still 5-6 months behind on processing
new awards, despite very forceful recommendations made by an external auditor.
These problems are a result of significant understaffing. It is clear that the
way to recruit and retain competent personnel is to offer them competitive
salaries plus concrete assurances that they will not be overloaded with work.
What provisions are being made to ensure that with the new system, this will
happen?
---------------------
1)
Responsibilities without power - How will associate deans for research (ADR) be
given to authority to make decisions about responsibilities for cost-sharing,
space allocation and resource allocation. At present ADR's do not have
authority over these issues. If this status quo is preserved, every time an
issue arises with these responsibilities, an ADR will have to go ask the
positions with the power to make decisions about these responsibilities. ADRs
would be little more than "water-carriers" and a delay-steps in the
process with respect to these responsibilities. Also, if every ADR is given
such authority, who will resolve disagreements about these responsibilities
between ADR's when they are vying over the same space, cost-sharing dollars or
other resource allocations?
2) Needs for
Specialized Knowledge and Skills - ADR's will now be expected to resolve issues
about disclosure processing for technology transfer, commercial lab use for
technology transfer, conflict resolution for business development, commercial
lab use for business development, and proposal quality for a variety of funding
agencies and RFP's. At present ADRs and
their staffs do not have such knowledge and skills. How is such expertise going to be established in every College
office that handles significant research funding (about 6 such offices)? Is it an effective use of University campus
resources to have a plethora of ADR's and their staffs with all or part of this
specialized knowledge and skills rather than one central campus office?
3) Inadequate
Resources for Handling Responsibilities - The Office of Research has 6 staff
members plus 2 administrators and 2 executive secretaries that handle grants
and services for the equivalent of about 8 people (the 2+2 do have other
responsibilities) doing this work, which is only part of the new
responsibilities of the ADR's. The University is handing over $1.59 million in
E&G dollars to the UTRF, which includes the funding for the operations of
the Office of Research (page 15 of status PDF - Existing UT Funds Transferred -
UTK column). So, the University is removing staff and funding to that has been
used to support the research mission of the institution, while at the same time
expecting ADR's to perform those tasks without the supporting staff and funds.
Considering that the College of A&S has $25 million of the $94 million in
new awards to the UTK main campus, and $23.6 million of the $55.3 million in
research expenditures of the UTK main campus (see 2001 report from Office of
Research, which is last available year), and hence, somewhere between about 25%
and 45% of the workload (not including funding for instructional or public
service grants/contracts) for the campus goes through the ADR office for Arts
and Sciences; I estimate that the College will need 3 to 4 staff members for
this job, including some with specialized knowledge and
skills. What is the University plan for funding and
staffing these positions, as the College and Academic Affairs do not have the
funds or personnel?
4) A job for
more than one ADR, at least in Arts and Sciences - In most, if not all
Colleges, the ADRs, if they exist, have other responsibilities (in my case,
they are space-related issues and graduate studies issues), so this new load is
being added to already full plates of responsibility. The truth is that in at least A&S and probably at least 3
other colleges, 1 ADR would not be enough.
Is the University intending to provide funds to hire an additional set
of associate deans (as well as the previously mentions staff) to cover the
workload? Which leads to the previous
question: would it not be a more efficient use of resources to have a central
office for the campus that effectively handled these responsibilities?
As an aside,
while the UTRF might be able to claim 24-hr turnaround as a realistic goal, it
will only be because so much work is going to have to be done by the ADR's who
will be underfunded, understaffed, insufficiently skilled, and likely ignorant
about important matters related to grant services, technology transfer and
business development. Also, as presently envisioned in the workflow diagrams of
the status report, ADR's most likely will lack the authority (power) to execute
their responsibilities effectively. Who
would want to be an ADR?
-----------
I do not know
how to respond to a single web page full of ideals and not specifics. There is a saying the devil is in the
details. This proposed foundation
appears to fall in the category of not being thought out prior to exposure.
My initial
concern is --
Will this
reduce the overhead cost of conducting research at this institution?
What will
become of the overhead monies generated by research?
Who is
funding the foundation? and
What is it
going to do for my research program?
Currently,
the research office on the Ag. Campus can approve proposals in 3 days or less,
though they ask for a week. I have a
feeling though I do not see this on the Web site that the turnaround time will
be significantly increased. How much is
the foundation going to cost and where will the funds come from. Are we simply moving people and bodies
around to a newbusiness structure? Why
are plans to construct new buildings to house the Institution not on the Web
page? Much more needs to be specified
before this project can be reviewed. I
encourage the Research Council to make sure that no more is spent on
administration of research activities than we currently spend. If more is spent, then the Foundation will
be a drain on our already scarce resources.
-----------
Based on the
discussion with many faculty members who are active in research, and from
concerns expressed by the faculty during the town hall meeting on February 11,
it appears that the majority of the faculty is opposed to the proposed Research
Foundation. Also, there have been
enough legitimate complaints expressed by the legislature about increasing
administrative costs in the University over the past decade, and the Foundation
is going to further increase administrative costs. At this time, how can you justify forming this foundation to the
faculty, students, and the taxpayers?