ºù«ÍÞÊÓƵ

Managing Contracts

Scott Palo noted that faculty members do not have the authority to sign agreements with Benefunder, BVSD or other organizations. OCG is checking into Benefunder. Additionally, late grant reports have been a problem.

CAETE Update

Doug Smith and Rob Davis reported that CAETE’s role is being expanded to serve the whole campus through a new organization, Be ºù«ÍÞÊÓƵ Anywhere (BBA), which will report to the Provost’s Office. It is expected that there will be a transition over the rest of this academic year, with CAETE personnel becoming BBA employees (or some may become OIT employees in service of BBA) by next fall.

Next Steps with Bioengineering Minor and Possible Major

A task force of Dave Klaus, Charlie Nuttelman, Rich Regueiro, Sriram Sankaranarayanan, Won Park and Wei Tan made recommendations for a proposed bioengineering minor. Rob will soon be appointing an implementation committee and will also ask a group of faculty to look at the bigger picture of the future of bioengineering and biomedical engineering in our college. It was noted that premed requirements may be changing, that we should focus our efforts in those areas of biomedical engineering for which we have strength, and that a recent NIH report indicated that the industry base in this field is not strong.

Institute and Program Hires

Rob noted that there are several interdisciplinary institute and program searches underway this year for which tenure homes may be in our college. Jim reported positive experience with ICS, whereas IBG faculty are less integrated (eg, no teaching). Balaji noted upsides of working with CIRES and INSTAAR. Penny and Jim noted that an MOU at the time of hire may be needed, as there are varying practices with respect to ICR and the disbursement of course buyout and sabbatical savings.

Potential Investment in Seminar Visits

Rob noted that some junior faculty had recommended more funds be spent to invite seminar visitors, which would help us be known better and enhance our reputation. A few departments have endowments for special seminars, and others put in departmental funds, while in other cases seminars are opportunistic (visitors who are in town for another reason). There was general consensus that seminars can be of great value, though too many can lead to poor attendance and participation in the visitors’ schedules – especially during recruiting season. Rob said that he would put together a proposal for possible investment of dean’s discretionary funds.

CU Freshman Performance Stats

Rob shared some campus-wide freshman performance stats presented by Mike Grant. They include that about 20% of freshman go on probation or suspension after their first semester, and nearly 30% of students taking Math 1300 (Calculus) get D, F, or W grades, though with huge (0 – 68%) variation by section. This led to discussion of whether Math 1300 should be continue to be allowed to substitute for APPM 1350 for engineering students. Diane said that APPM mid-term test scores are lower this year, and Dan noted that some students with AP credit are having substantial trouble in the higher-level math courses.

Other

JoAnn reported that campus-wide there are about $450 million in general funds carried over from one year to the next. There will be a plant fund created for each general fund, with the balance placed in the plant fund and then automatically moved back to the general fund as needed (sort of like linked checking and savings accounts or linked foundation and gift accounts). Rob asked which departments are planning for new, professional master’s programs under the campus revenue sharing plan. CS, ECEE, and MSE are considering such programs, and other departments may be doing so in the future. Rob will ask if the revenue sharing plan applies to stand- alone certificates as well as degree programs.

In Attendance

Rob Davis, JoAnn Zelasko, Doug Smith, Mary Steiner, Sarah Miller, Scott Palo, Diane Sieber, Penny Axelrad, Dan Schwartz, Balaji Rajagopalan, Jim Martin, Bob Erickson, Clayton Lewis, Mark Gross.