Summer Scholarship Grants discussion:
Will be reviewed for award period of Summer B of 2016-Summer A of 2017.
Discussion: 12 month faculty cannot apply for the grants without being attached to a 9 month faculty
Would require them not to get stipend, but funding will go funding for research materials – pending Dean’s approval because they may not be allowed to take the time for the research or may not allow them to use the grant funding for a buy-out to reduce teaching requirements. Dean’s approval would need to include a plan to outline it not impacting regular job requirements.
Role of grants: Is it to help out newer faculty? To help tenure-earning faculty.
Motion (Nicholson): In October 2016, to allow permanent, 12 month faculty to apply for grant on their own, but they are not allowed to get salary, have to get permission from their Dean, and have a research component to their job assignment.
Motion seconded (Heffernan): 11 in favor, no opposed.
Discussion: Faculty brought to council attention that females have been under-represented in previous award. Discussion of systemic issue in University setting and how council can consider this in light of the University mission and council goals. Faculty provided numbers of males and females who have received awards in the past, but council requests the number of male to female faculty in the University during these years and the number of males and females that have applied each year to evaluate this issue carefully.
Motion (Moore): To add a requirement to the application that part of funding, if awarded, you must review the next cycle of awards the following year
Motion seconded (Brown). 10 in favor, none opposed.
Part of the reason to combine the scholarship and proposal grant was because proposal grant historically had fewer applicants. The same amount of money is available as the previous year.
Every proposal gets reviewed by two council members and asks winners from last year to aim for a
Council President will send the existing rubric around for pre-review. President will get the names of previous proposal and scholarship awardees and email them to request them to review for this year’s round of proposal before it becomes a requirement next year.
Nicholson and Chuan are not available to review due to applying for scholarship grant.
Continue from last year that reviewers cannot review someone from their own department.
Comments to applicants should be provided – have an area for confidential and public comments that could help applicants in revision of their applicants.