University Times

Should the University Senate have a standing committee to address research? Senate President Michael Spring broached the topic at the Oct. 1 Faculty Assembly meeting.

“None of our standing committees are directly focused on research issues,” Spring said. “We do have representatives on University committees appointed by the Senate but we do not have a separate standing committee that focuses on research issues.”

Spring said research was among the topics the Senate executive committee discussed in a recent meeting with the chancellor and his leadership team. He also plans to raise the matter with the expanded Senate executive committee — made up of the Senate officers and committee chairs — later this month.

Spring has asked Mark Redfern, vice provost for research, and Senate representatives on research-related University committees to attend Faculty Assembly to address research-related issues. “Hopefully that will occur next month,” Spring said, adding that the discussion may be held in a closed session.

Of the Senate’s 16 standing committees, some are focused on teaching, some on service and some on issues related to faculty welfare, Spring told the Assembly. “I’m hard pressed to find a committee that says this is how we should be moving forward in research,” he said.

“I do believe that the provost is very concerned about broadening our research base, about making sure the policies are good,” Spring said, adding that an administrative committee on IRB issues had positive impact and that the Senate has representatives on the University Research Council and the University’s conflict of interest (COI) committee.

“There’s nothing here being sought after because something’s wrong,” he said. “The question is: Should we as a faculty have a standing committee or charge an existing committee with oversight of faculty concerns related to research?”

Spring said he was prompted to think about the lack of such a committee when he sought expert faculty input after Senate officers were asked to review conflict of interest policy revisions.

Spring said he got informed feedback from the Senate representatives on the research council and COI committees. “But that was the first time it struck me that it was strange that we didn’t have a group focused on these issues.”

Several faculty members inquired about the scope such a committee might have or whether there are gaps in existing University bodies that need to be filled.

Penelope Morel of medicine suggested that one issue that could be addressed might be the difficulty University investigators have in getting reagents transferred from other researchers.

Thomas Smitherman, the Senate’s immediate past-president, said, “It seems to be that, comparing ourselves to our peers, that our research bureaucracy — which has to be there — and our research procedures — that have to be there — are more difficult, more drawn out, more slow, more hard to understand than comparable universities.”

He said he has begun to see a need for a Senate research committee “somewhat along the lines of (BPC) that parallels our procedures and policies to allow more robust and vigorous faculty input.”

Budget policies committee chair John J. Baker commented that the area of research integrity policy, for example, could be problematic in terms of having faculty oversight.

Spring said he felt that was one area currently covered by a Senate committee. “If there were a question of inappropriate treatment of a faculty member, in terms of research integrity, it might come to (the tenure and academic freedom committee).”

Carey Balaban, vice provost for faculty affairs and former TAFC chair, pointed out that Senate officials review the University’s research integrity policy. “There is faculty involvement, in fact, Senate involvement, in an advisory capacity in these areas right now,” Balaban said. In addition, the University Research Council is made up of faculty appointees, he said.

Spring noted that standing committee members are elected, rather than being appointed by the Senate executive committee, as representatives to the University committees are.

The Senate “should not create something that is not needed or that would be adding to the problem,” Spring said.

“If we’re looking, I believe there are enough places for improvement that broad-based input could help with. That’s not to say that it needs to be a standing committee. That’s not to say it can’t be the discussion of a plenary session. That’s not to say it can’t be an open forum. That’s not to say it can’t be a standing committee,” he said.

“I don’t have an answer, I don’t have a focus. Just a question: Should we be more concerned about it?”

Chancellor search committee update

Spring reported briefly on the Senate executive committee’s meeting with leaders of the chancellor search committee. He said Faculty Assembly members’ input (see Sept. 12 University Times) was shared in the course of what he characterized as a “lively discussion about the best characteristics of the upcoming chancellor.”  Spring said, “After a very wide-ranging conversation over an hour and a half, I left the meeting confident that chair (Eva) Tansky Blum and Provost Emeritus (James) Maher will conduct an informed and exhaustive search to give us a very good chancellor, coming up with an outstanding individual to serve as the next chancellor of the University. It’s going to be a difficult task.”

Senate Vice President Irene Frieze added that some of the Senate officers emphasized the medical school’s valuable role in the University and how important it is that the next chancellor has an understanding of medical school issues.

She said she was pleased that Maher is among the search committee leaders. “He clearly is going to represent the academic, arts and sciences undergraduate aspect of the University, so I was very pleased to see that,” she said.

Frieze said she asked about the size of the pool of candidates qualified to be chancellor and was told that it was not very large. “All of us have our wish list of wonderful characteristics we’d like the person to have; the pool may not be as big as we need to find all the things that we want in a new chancellor,” she said.

Communication issues

Spring addressed several issues related to communication, which is among his stated priorities as Senate president.

• Open committee meetings

He invited feedback on the issue of the openness of Senate committee meetings, some of which are closed to observers. (Senate bylaws state: “All meetings are normally open to members of the University community, although standing committees may meet in executive session when necessary and appropriate for dealing with confidential matters.”)

He said, “I believe that our discussions should be as open and honest as possible … and at the same time carefully controlled so as not to provide ammunition to those who are not fully prepared to understand an open academic dialogue.

“I really think that when we meet collegially we can talk about things in an open and honest way, not worrying about somebody misinterpreting. I think as we get higher up in the hierarchy of organizations, it becomes possible that somebody can take something that was said and misuse it. So there’s a question of how open should the dialogue be? How honest should it be? And how controlled should it be?”

Spring said that view has been supported under Pitt’s shared governance system, adding, “The Senate really is an outstanding example.” At the same time, he said, some administrative liaisons to Senate standing committees have advocated for closed meetings to allow for frank discussion. One administrator told him, “As soon as you say you’re going to go to a closed session, then everyone gets suspicious about what’s going on, so why not have them closed all the time, therefore you can talk very naturally about what you’re going to do.” In addition, some administrators have indicated that open meetings could limit the information they present to the committees.

Spring said he understands how and why the practice of closed committee meetings has come about. “And I’ve been persuaded that … the amount of closure some committees have adopted may indeed be for the best,” Spring said.

“While it’s my naive belief that we should be able to talk publicly and openly about matters of concern to the University and rely on ourselves to do such in a careful and controlled manner, I’m finding that I think I’m in a minority position and that more people may feel that a lot of the standing committee meetings should be closed in order to allow an open and honest dialogue,” he said.

Budget policies committee chair John J. Baker commented, “One advantage of an open meeting is that it’s one of the ways that we let the University community know what’s going on in the Senate, especially if the University Times reports on it.”

Benefits and welfare committee chair Angelina Riccelli commented that her committee has been seeking ways to create greater faculty and staff awareness of wellness issues. She noted that while some committee meetings would need to be closed for confidential matters, others would benefit from being open in order to receive feedback from the University community.

Spring invited faculty to contact him directly with additional comments. “I’ve talked to a number of people about this. I don’t think there’s any easy answer. I think there will be meetings that are (both) open and closed. …  I think there are other meetings that will be closed because the chairs feel it’s important … I think there are other meetings in which the administrative personnel that are involved — who would share a tremendous amount with the committees and get their feedback — might feel that they’re not prepared, for whatever reason, to say what they want to say in public,” Spring said.

“It’s an ongoing struggle in terms of how you do it.”

• Videotaping Assembly meetings

Spring said he had received input from the Office of General Counsel on a plan to record a future Faculty Assembly meeting (see Sept. 12 University Times). “They indicated that what we wanted to do is acceptable, especially given our bylaws, which state, related to observers: All meetings are normally open to members of the University community, although Faculty Assembly may meet in executive session when necessary for the purpose of dealing with confidential matters.”

He said the general counsel’s office recommended announcing in advance and at the start of the meeting that it would be recorded so that anyone who feels uncomfortable could be excused. Spring said given members’ comments at last month’s Faculty Assembly meeting and the bylaws (which state that the meeting is open to the University community, but not necessarily to the general public), he is suggesting that rather than streaming a future meeting live, that it be taped and made available asynchronously on the Senate portal.

“I will make sure that I give you word in advance that it will be done and try and do it in as simple and direct a way as possible,” Spring said.

Computer science faculty member Robert Daley, chair of the Senate commonwealth relations committee, said he sees two sides to videotaped meetings. “If we discuss very controversial things, that’s actually the one that’s most likely to attract faculty who want to be part of that discussion, but it’s also the one most likely to turn off a whole bunch of people,” he said. “If it’s a vanilla meeting with standard reports and standard issues …  a lot of faculty would say, ‘That’s so boring, why would I want to go to that meeting?’”

Spring agreed, adding that of nearly 4,000 Pitt faculty members, “my guess is that 3,500 have no idea that these meetings even exist, and the less what goes on.” He added he hopes to find an appropriately interesting meeting to videotape.

“I’m not meaning it as something that prevents anyone who’s here from coming to any of these meetings. But it might be a useful adjunct to the orientation of new members,” Spring said.

In response to a comment by Bradford faculty member John Slimick, who noted the distance and expense involved for some faculty, Spring said the Senate would be willing to use Lync software for any member who wanted to attend via videoconference.

He noted that videotaping meetings was not intended for two-way communication, but that videoconferencing could be a possibility to facilitate remote attendance.

In other business:

• Spring said that after consulting with Senate representatives to the University Research Council and the conflict of interest committee, the Senate executive committee has endorsed changes to Pitt’s conflict of interest policy. “The primary focus of the changes was to promote commercialization of University intellectual property. So, it was generally looked at as a friendly change to the conflict of interest statement to make it more amenable to faculty being involved in commercialization.”

• Spring said the University Council on Graduate Studies had received the reports on graduate department closings and suspensions in the Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences. “The Senate budget policies committee has been monitoring the process. My personal conclusion, having attended the last meeting, was that while the process got off to a shaky start, the process has been fully in compliance as we move forward.”

BPC chair Baker added that the committee discussed the issue and “will have a report or statement eventually on it.”

• Baker asked how the Post-Gazette’s recent move to limit the amount of news content nonsubscribers can view may affect Pitt faculty. Faculty Assembly members from the University Library System volunteered to gather information and Spring promised he would report on the issue.

• Spring said the Senate website’s public and limited-access portions both are up and running. He encouraged faculty to respond to the current “question of the month” posted at www.univsenate.pitt.edu: “Are there matters/issues related to research that Faculty Assembly should address?”

*

Faculty Assembly’s next meeting is set for 3 p.m. Oct. 29 in 2700 Posvar Hall.

—Kimberly K. Barlow