Date: 
05/08/2013 11:00 am to 12:30 pm
Location: 
109 Gilkey Hall
Agenda: 

1. Discussion about a new proposed University policy on allocation of F&A revenues
The University Budget Committee, in response to a request from the Provost, has developed a proposed new policy for the use of F&A revenues. At issue is the issue of the subset of F&A revenues that we call returned overhead (ROI). At present, there is a large array of policies regarding the expenditure of ROI that differ from college to college. A summary of the current policies of each college is also linked.

Based upon the discussion that occurred at our last meeting, it appears that our wishes about the dispersal of ROI are being disregarded. Is that true? Do we favor allowing individual PIs have some say about how "our money" is spent? Or do we favor complete dispersal of these funds for the "common good"? Do we need to be "re-educated" about how F&A monies are expended? Or do administrators need to be "re-educated" about the purpose of F&A?

What are our alternatives? A minority report on F&A policy? Direct action by the Faculty Senate?

We should have a lively discussion.

Minutes: 

1. Discussion about a new proposed University policy on allocation of F&A revenues occurred
The University Budget Committee, in response to a request from the Provost, has developed a proposed new policy for the use of F&A revenues. That new policy is described in an attached document. At issue is the issue of the subset of F&A revenues that we call returned overhead (ROH). At present, there is a large array of policies regarding the expenditure of ROH (and salary savings from faculty buyouts) that differ from college to college. A summary of the current policies of each college is also appended.

2. Points that occurred in the discussion:

  • Under the current system of dispersal of ROH, many individual PIs do not have sufficient funds to meet the challenges of small-scale repairs and maintenance; minor item purchases, especially software; small travel expenses by students, etc.
  • There are no readily accessible funds to meet these financial needs in the current system of ROH dispersal. The magnitude of these problems is such that approaching the funding agencies for these monies is not likely to be successful nor is funding by the Research Council likely because these are single investigator needs.
  • Sequestration is and will continue to make this problem worse.
  • We suggest that a fraction of the ~31% of the F&A distribution returned to colleges to cover administrative costs be earmarked for direct distribution to the individual PIs. We have no set fraction in mind for this dispersal although we would be happy to see the current policy of the College of Engineering be used campus wide (15% of the ROH is dispersed to the PIs).
  • We believe this action supports the general budgeting principle used extensively throughout academia that revenues be dispersed to those responsible for generating them, partially in hopes of increasing revenue generation.
  • We recognize there are "no free lunches" and that some current or future proposed use of ROH may be precluded. We judge the needs outlined herein to be more compelling.


3. We will submit these recommendations as a minority report for the University Budget Committee (UBC) policy for F&A dispersal.
UBC Chair Lundy has indicated this report will be welcome. Also attached to this document is the formal minority report that will go to the Provost as part of the UBC recommendation. Please reply to Loveland with suggested edits by 1200 Friday 10 May.

4. Next Meeting
The committee agreed to meet on 15 May at 11:00 AM (109 Gilkey) to discuss a pending Category I proposal and to provide faculty input to a discussion that is starting on a new budget model for OSU.