October Office of the Provost

Document Sample
October Office of the Provost Powered By Docstoc
					                   University Standing Committee on
                      Extension and Engagement

Date:     October 23, 2006
Time:     1:00-3:00 pm
Location: 232 McKimmon Center for
          Extension and Continuing Education


Attendees: Sue Bracken, Mark Brooks, Jim Brunet, David Haase, Ron Heiniger,
Joe Hummer, Denis Jackson, Audrey Jaeger, Carina Lockley, Bob Mowrey
(Chair), Nancy Powell, Mark Wilson and Susan Bennett, scribe.

Guest(s): Mike Davis

Committee Introductons – Dr. Bob Mowrey
Each member and guest introduced themselves and stated their

Minutes – Two changes for the September 5 minutes -- Jim Brunet would like
minutes to reflect he had an excused absence at the September 5 meeting. The
spelling of Audrey Jaeger’s name to be corrected.
A motion was made by David Haase to accept the minutes with corrections as
noted above and was seconded by Ron Heiniger. The motion passed

Annual Symposium on the Engaged University – Mike Davis
Dr. Mike Davis, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Extension, Engagement, and
Economic Development, announced the 5th Annual Symposium on the Engaged
University will be held, January 26, 2007 from 1:00 – 4:30/5:00 pm, at the
McKimmon Center. He distributed the attached “working” draft copy of the

Background information – in the past the symposium and awards banquet have
been on the same day (around the end of April). However, the planning
committee recommended the symposium part be separated out from the awards
ceremony. The symposium/agenda is based on recommendations that came out
of the Joint Committee on the Scholarship of Extension and Engagement from a
few years ago. The Joint Committee’s primary recommendation was the need
for professional development to be added to the criteria as soon as the criteria
went through the system officially. That’s what this topic is about this year.
(RPT Guidelines, and documentation necessary for portfolios.) Dr. Davis would
like representatives from this group, AOFEE, Faculty Senate, and the Deans
council to be a part of the planning group.

There will be topical dialogues that include a Junior Faculty panel – “Panel
dialogue with NCSU Administrators and Senior Faculty concerning tenure
expectations.” There will also be a Senior Faculty panel – “involving case studies
focusing on inclusion of Engagement Quality Indicators in RPT reviews.”

Amy Driscoll suggested Lorilee Sandman to be speaker, Associate Professor and
Co-director, Clearinghouse and National Review Board for the Scholarship of
Engagement, University of Georgia. This has not been confirmed.

Debbie Reno is working on setting up a planning meeting either November 6 or 7
before 3:00 pm. Audrey Jaeger, Sue Bracken and Bob Mowrey agreed to help on
the Symposium planning committee. Ron Heineger suggested David Smith,
Interim Department Head, would be a potential faculty member to serve on the
Senior Faculty Panel.

Susan Bennett noted the Awards Banquet will be on April 23 (5:00 – 9:00 pm).
McKimmon Center.

Discussion followed. Bob Mowrey to draft a letter with David Haase’s input – a
notice regarding the symposium needs to get out soon to get on faculty
calendars. This is an important topic that is timely for faculty wishing to go
through the Promotion and Tenure process. Bob Mowrey asked if the Provost
will be in attendance throughout the afternoon (in addition to the Provost
speaking from 1:30 to 2:00 pm. Susan Bennett indicated the Provost’s schedule
is blocked for the entire afternoon. Bob agreed to contact Mike Davis to confirm
the Provost’s involvement through the end of the program.

A suggestion was made by Nancy Powell that it would be good to have faculty on
panel that have gone through the evaluation process.

Susan Bennett indicated that current and past University P&T committee and
Colleges Chairs of P&T will be invited and or asked to participate.

Extension Seed Grants Awarded for 2006-07
Bob Mowrey indicated there were a total of 44 proposals submitted. The green
highlighted spreadsheet in your material are the sixteen grants that were
accepted. (See attached). For proposals reviewed, he shared a spreadsheet of
proposals accepted and the ones rejected (which include comments and scores).
There were nine proposals not showing on either list that were not forwarded for
review because they did not meet the criteria.
Bob Mowrey shared a message from Dr. Zuiches expressing his regret in not
being able to attend this meeting. “Please extend my thanks and appreciation to
the Committee members for the excellent work they did on the evaluation of the
Mini-grant proposals. I am delighted with the diversity and quality of projects
that have been approved.” He also would very much like to see proposals
submitted in the Spring of the year, so that faculty could begin projects in the
summer. Please have committee discuss submission timeline.”

Extension Seed Grant Process – Changes?
The committee was concerned in not receiving a list of reviewers comments and
rankings of proposals with decision to support or not to support proposals
(before the award letters were sent out). The committee would still like to have
a breakdown of scores in each of the eight categories plus the total score, plus
comments. Karen Turner will send the spread sheet to the committee members
by e-mail prior to the next meeting. Dr. Mowrey suggested we review
development of a new time schedule and clarify the role of the committee in
writing. Discussion followed.

Time Line
As mentioned in Dr. Zuiches’ previous communication, the time line for proposals
being changed for submission in the Spring was discussed.

It was decided by the committee to recommend the following proposed new
timeline (to Dr. Zuiches) for the 2007-08 competition as follows:
       Dec/January 2007 Announcement letters to go out
       March 1, 2007        Proposals due to college
       March 15, 2007       Proposals due to Office of Extension, Engagement,
                            and Economic Development Office by noon
       April 15, 2007       Judging by USCOEE members completed
       April 23, 2007       Awardees announced
       June 30, 2008        Funding cycle ends
       Sept. 15, 2008       Final Report due

Nancy Powell made a motion to submit the proposed new timeline above to Dr.
Zuiches for review. The motion was seconded by Joe Hummer. The motion
passed unanimously.

Because of the change in the timeline, we need to be cautious when changing
the advertising for the new call for proposals. The committee was concerned it
might be confusing to current proposal submitters. Bob Mowery to check with
Dr. Zuiches’ regarding double monies being promised for this year vs. fiscal year
and the status of our overhead funds. It is a suggestion to have a reminder
ready (about the request for proposals and the new time line) for those
attending the Symposium on January 26.
Compare Scoring Criteria with Criteria Listed in RFP
Discussion took place regarding the scoring process. It was recommended that:
A “Scorecard” should be added to the proposal guidelines and include the eight
evaluation criteria to replace the five criteria that are currently in the proposal.
It should be indicated in the proposal that there will be a comment sheet
returned to the faculty member after future review processes. (The ultimate
goal is to provide a numerical average for each of the eight categories, a total
score, an average score for grants that were approved and a place for comments
at the bottom of the score sheet.
The score sheet will be attached to the acceptance or rejection letters in an
effort to improve faculty grant writing skills.

David Haase made a motion as noted above and was seconded by Mark Wilson.
The motion passed unanimously.

Bob Mowrey asked how close the committee’s selection of proposals to college
ranking? Karen Turner will provide that information at the next meeting.

The following statement was discussed in the current mini grant Proposal
Guidelines -- Section IV, Proposal Preparation and Submission Instruction, “A
match is required from either internal or external sources. Extension sources
may be in-kind or cash match; internal sources must be 50% cash match and
50% in-kind match.”

Dr. Zuiches put the above statement in the guidelines initially to encourage more
colleges to support extension and engagement activities—thinking the colleges
would match funds. Discussion followed concerning the request for matching
funds in the proposal guidelines.

Jim Brunet’s concern was who will come and check afterwards whether the cost
sharing was completed or not. What happens if it is not? Who checks the
leverage of funds? Can you leverage the same funds indefinitely?

Karen Turner will follow up with Courtney Thornton in regards to the final report
for grants issued during the 2005-06 period.

A concern from members from the last meeting included the comment, “if you
can use your salary as matching funds, why include a matching fund request in
the guidelines?”

A motion was made by David Haase to recommend that Dr. Zuiches remove the
statement about matching funds in future proposal. The motion was seconded
by Jim Brunet and passed unanimously by the committee.
Area of Committee Interest
1. Carnegie Classification – Bob Mowrey noted that Dr. Zuiches has asked if our
committee would be interested in reviewing methods of introducing the Carnegie
Report to faculty and alerting faculty to those opportunities. “How do we best
communicate the information collected during this process across the university
campus and to stakeholders and how can we help leverage the really positive
experiences into helping other colleges and their students become more
connected to the community?” NOTE: the web address for the Carnegie Report
can be found at There are
two reports listed -- one is the “final on-line submission version” (73 pages long)
and one is “an extended version with additional partnerships” (94 pages long).
Both are essentially the same except the longer version has more examples of
outreach programs. Please review for discussion at the next meeting.

Sue Bracken indicated that the National Outreach Scholarship Institute is starting
a national competition that will award prizes to institutions that submitted
Carnegie report material. Sue Bracken suggested we get Lorilee Sandman on a
teleconference call at the next meeting if we wanted to pursue sending examples
of programs that have already been submitted (or encourage faculty to submit).
The committee asked if the Carnegie Report topic will be included in the
Symposium for January 26. Susan Bennett to check with Dr. Zuiches and Dr.

2. David Haase suggested the committee review the role/importance of economic
development with the concept of Extension and Engagement; perhaps a poll of
the faculty to learn their understanding of the importance of economic

3. Nancy Powell suggested Emergency Disaster as a future committee topic –
“Would we have a different role as a University after a disaster.” Dr. Mowrey
indicated that Ed Jones, Chair, of the Extension Disaster Education Network for
NC Delegates is our State Level contact, and David Ranier, is our Campus

Next Meeting:
Date:       November 27, 2006
Time:       1:00 – 3:00 pm
Location:   232 McKimmon Center for Extension and Continuing Education

Submitted by Susan Bennett

Shared By: