CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
__
MINUTES OF MEETING 12-10-2013 APPROVED BY COMMITTEE 02-11-2014
Sub. To Exec. Comm.
Approved by Exec. Comm.
Sub. To Acad. Senate
Approved by Acad. Senate
POLICY ITEMS
Members Present: Nazaret Dermendjian, Doris Helfer, Michael Hoggan, Yanbo Jin, Greg
Knotts, Garry Lennon, Linda Noblejas (recording), Jerry Schutte (Chair), Diane Stephens, Ward
Thomas, Veda Ward
Member Excused: Debi Prasad Choudhary
Guests: Crist Khachikian, Michael Neubauer
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 2:04 p.m.
2. Approval of the Agenda
The agenda was approved by acclamation.
3. Approval of the Minutes from November 12, 2013
The minutes of the November 12, 2013 meeting were approved.
4. Chair’s Report
Schutte reported that the Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Space Planning will be
meeting next Wednesday, December 18, 2013 to give the final blessing of the report that
will be submitted to the Provost before the year ends. It will then be vetted to relevant
Cabinet members, the Provost’s Council, and other committees for input. The Ad Hoc
committee ended up with four categories: classroom, lab, research, and office space.
They analyzed existing reports and will make recommendations for best practices for the
utilization of space on campus.
Schutte also reported that he had a discussion with Vice President Donahue regarding the
multi-purpose facility. Donahue has met with the consultants and they are implementing
some recommendations for a two-phase feasibility study. The first one will be submitted
in December and then the second one in the spring semester. They are looking into a
multi-purpose facility that can provide a venue for our basketball teams and at the same
time a venue for commencements. It will also involve a mixed use facility that can be
1|Page
used for additional faculty housing. He stated that more information will be coming out
in the spring.
5. Executive Secretary’s Report
a. Classroom Refresh
Stephens reported that the recommendations for classroom technology upgrades
for the summer will be presented at the Classroom Technology Committee
meeting on Friday, December 13, 2013. This will include upgrades to projectors,
replacement of DVD/VCRs with Blu-ray players, and new computers.
b. Facilities and Equipment Requests
Stephens reported that the Provost has authorized funding for the highest priority
equipment requests totaling $500K from the colleges. The facilities requests are
currently being evaluated to get more accurate costs.
c. Enrollment
The Chancellor’s Office has requested campuses that are significantly over their
enrollment targets to gradually decrease their percentage over target each year.
The campus has built an internal target for 2014/15 that meets that criteria and
exceeds the Chancellor’s Office target by 4% (instead of 5%, as we did this year).
Because of an increase of 570 FTES allocated to CSUN by the Chancellor’s
Office, our baseline FTES is 26,143 for 2014/15. We added 4% additional FTES
and non-resident FTES to this baseline FTES, bringing our internal target FTES
for 2014/15 to 28,984. These targets are subject to change based on the State
budget and further directions from the Chancellor’s Office.
6. Lab Printing
The committee composed of Neubauer, Stephens, Eichten, Winterhalter, and Altman in
consultation with IT, USU and Quick Copies have met this semester and drafted this
document on lab printing that was presented at Provost’s Council this morning. The draft
of the proposal was uploaded in myCSUNbox for everyone to review. Neubauer and
Stephens gave the background information on the number and types of computer labs on
campus, the demand for printing from students that was demonstrated on the annual IT
survey, the college printing practices, printing related to sustainability, and the trends and
options at CSUN.
The campus does not currently have a formal policy on the provision of printing services
for students. There is no consistent quota for students within and between colleges and
departments for printing at no cost. There is also no policy defined to charge students for
printing services if they are printing odd sizes or in color. There is inconsistency in
printing that meets the sustainability goals of the campus which is duplex printing.
2|Page
With budget reductions, many colleges severely limited student access to printing in labs
that caused the increased demand for printing at the USU. Because of that, the Provost
provided $50,000 to the colleges starting in 2012/13 to help offset printing costs and
required colleges to provide some level of free printing to students using lab printers.
The proposal that was presented to Provost’s Council is to launch a program in Fall 2014
using the GoPrint software that will give free quota to students equivalent to 100 black
and white pages per student in Academic Affairs labs and the Library per semester. If the
students go over that quota per semester, they can use a PayPal account or purchase a
card in order to print. The revenue for the over quota will go to the unit or college at
which the student exceeded quota.
The group will also submit a Campus Quality Fee proposal in order to request funds for
the purchase of printers that can print duplex printing, for the software, the licensing and
the maintenance costs of the printers.
A discussion took place on questions regarding the software to be used, tracking of
expenditures, maintenance by college techs, the use of Quick Copies for odd size
printing, in color, and in high volume.
7. Best Practices for Faculty Regarding Student Printing
Schutte stated that various surveys on printing have been done through the years. The
students want to pay less in printing costs. The faculty survey shows that faculty still
insist that students turn in hard copy papers. He stated that starting in 2011, he has asked
students to submit their work in Microsoft Word so he can turn on the track changes and
make comments and corrections. It has been a 100% success for him as they have
decreased the use of paper by half. There also have alternative ways that they have
suggested to students to submit work, for example using a thumbdrive, Cloud storage or
myCSUNbox to reduce printing to zero. . He asked about the best practices for faculty
regarding printing. Discussion occurred on preferences of the faculty in the group. There
were some who have difficulty sitting at the computer and grading students’ work.
Students use different software and they cannot be opened by others so printing is
required. Major disciplines vary as well and it should be taken into account. Flexibility
issues needs to be built in as part of the best practices for faculty on printing. It was
suggested to provide training to faculty and encourage them to use programs such as
Moodle, Turn It In, and creating portfolios for students, etc. Another suggestion was to
provide instructions to students on how to reduce printing on certain programs like
printing a page rather than the entire file. Information needs to go out to faculty and not
only by email but rather going to faculty meetings, new faculty orientation to address the
issue and give some examples on what’s available. Some are visual learners and they
would understand more if they see things in action rather than just reading an email. The
same information should go out to students to set the cultural expectations of the
University regarding printing. It should be incorporated in orientation, Summer Bridge,
University 100, introduction to classes, Gateway, etc. A video was suggested to be made
3|Page
that would include personal stories of what people have done before and what they are
doing now to help in reduce printing.
It was suggested to present a recommendation to Senate Executive for further review.
Helfer volunteered to draft something for the committee to review and comment before
the February meeting. It will be uploaded to myCSUNbox so everyone can have access.
It should not only focus on the training aspects but also frame it to be consistent with the
President’s seven goals. The recommendation is to help facilitate best practices for
printing on campus.
8. Research Expenditures and Work-to-Date Challenges
Khachikian showed the profile of grants at CSUN from 2000 to the present. He showed a
snapshot of activities of the campus for the last 14 years. The first chart includes data on
the total amount of funds awarded to campus to date. He also showed the chart of grants
that were submitted and how much dollars were actually awarded. The second chart
shows the success rate, based on the dollar figures of grant activities. The three agencies
with the most activity or where we receive our biggest grants are from the U.S.
Department of Education (USDE), National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National
Institutes of Health (NIH). He stated that our success rate is average and we are doing
well considering we are not a minority institution but a Hispanic-serving institution. The
overall success rate is 20-25% of the grants that get funded. He also showed the chart
that breaks down the funds that are brought in by the colleges. There are a few colleges
that are not that active compared to the other colleges. There are colleges that have access
to funding but they are not going after them for some reason.
He also talked about the indirect costs (IDC) generated on grants as that is what most
people ask him about. He stated that when faculty write a grant proposal, they request
45% IDC and once it gets funded, people think that we get the entire thing. On average,
he said the campus only receives 12%. Last year, the campus generated $3.4M on
indirect costs. Half of that goes to TUC for administration costs and half of that goes to
his office and then almost all of the indirect costs from his office go back to the faculty.
He added that whatever is left gets reallocated to the colleges based on the proportion of
the IDC generated through grant activities (see Attachment). There is large grant release
program that was created as an incentive for faculty to support research and other creative
activities. The program provides faculty a threshold that for every $15K generated
indirect costs from grants, Research and Graduate Studies will give three units of released
time or $5,000 equivalent cash that goes to the faculty’s TUC account that can be used
for research. The College of Science and Math faculty are recipients of this program
because most of their grants submitted to NSF or NIH generate indirect costs. The CSU
Grants Related Instructional Faculty (GRIF) is also funded by the IDC. Any faculty
member who has brought in $500,000 in grants can apply to become a GRIF. The
Provost makes the appointment and the faculty salary gets augmented by about 5%-35%.
This additional salary is not paid by General Fund but by indirect costs.
4|Page
Khachikian showed the table that includes data on the sponsored program activities over
the past three years. The calculations focus on the amount of the IDC generated and how
the IDC is returned to the campus.
Discussion followed with more questions on indirect costs, how the TUC is affected in
their planning with regards to the 3.9% service fees, and the difference between a
research project and a gift.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:59 p.m.
The next ERC meeting will be on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 at 2:00 – 4:00 p.m. in UN
211.
NOTE: Potential Policy: A possible recommendation for best practices for faculty
regarding student printing will be drafted and will be discussed at the next meeting.
5|Page
Attachment
Profile of Grants at CSUN 2000-Present
The following figures were produced from data on the submitted and awarded grants. In
some cases, the actual expenditures were different for various reasons (e.g., budget
changes, reduction in budgets by agency, etc.). Therefore, the actual funds the campus
received are sometimes different than actual expenditures (not included in this report).
The following figure includes data on the total amount of funds awarded to campus to date.
Data beyond 2013 reflect multi-year grants that were recently funded.
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
$0
2000
$5,000,000
6|Page
The following figure shows the success rate, based on $s, of our grants activities.
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
The following figure shows the $/grant that was submitted or awarded.
$/submission or $/award
$800,000
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
Submitted
Awarded
$100,000
$0
7|Page
The following figure shows the $ awarded to colleges arrange in order from the college
with the greatest awarded $s to the college with the least.
$ Awarded
$120,000,000
$100,000,000
$80,000,000
$60,000,000
$40,000,000
$20,000,000
$0
This figure is similar to the one before but for the $ generated in indirect costs (IDC)
IDC Generated
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
8|Page
This figure shows the top 3 agencies with the most activity. USDE = US Dept. of Education.
70%
60%
50%
40%
USDE
NSF
30%
NIH
20%
10%
0%
Submitted
Awarded
Indirect Cost
The following table includes data on the sponsored programs activities over the past three
years. The calculations focus on the amount of IDC generated and how that IDC is returned
to the campus.
10/11 Fiscal Year
Actual $
%
Sponsored programs revenue- Direct
Sponsored programs revenue- Indirect
Total sponsored programs revenue
IDC generated from prior year revenue
TUC service fee of 3.9% of total revenue
TUC Sponsored Programs expenses
ORSP expenses from prior year
Allocation to reserve for disallowances
Transfer of Observatory indirect costs
Large grant release time
GRIF*
11/12 Fiscal Year
Actual $
%
12/13 Fiscal Year
Actual $
%
20,957,394
24,657,566
2,846,843
3,236,799
3,326,385
23,804,237
27,894,365
30,862,226
2,443,672
27,535,841
2,846,843
3,236,799
756,075
30.94%
928,365
32.61%
1,087,880
33.61%
475,520
19.46%
547,177
19.22%
490,160
15.14%
91,327
3.74%
94,633
3.32%
114,830
3.55%
0
0.00%
4,777
0.17%
55,000
1.70%
20,000
0.82%
$9,676
2.45%
80,922
2.50%
795,045
32.53%
969,763
34.06%
1,093,763
33.79%
75,480
3.09%
129,028
4.53%
178,199
6%
9|Page
The following table and the pursuant paragraph include information on how the IDC
generated in 12/13 was returned (or will be returned) to the campus in 13/14. There is a
one year lag because we have to wait to generate and retrieve all the IDC before we can
spend it on campus programs.
Academic Affairs
Arts, Media, and Communication
Business
Engineering and Computer Science
Education
Health and Human Development
Humanities
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Science and Mathematics
Student Affairs
Extended Learning
IDC based on awards for 12/13
IDC based
on 12/13
Fiscal Year
$26,603
Release Time
(13/14
estimate)
GRIF (13/14
estimate)
54% TUC fees
(estimate)
$14,366
Net funds
(estimate)
$12,237
$11,380
$9,943
$6,145
-$4,708
$71,487
$19,887
$38,603
$12,997
$94,032
$64,627
$440,638
$34,802
$103,221
$24,859
$47,518
$13,874
$50,777
-$21,372
$237,945
$120,373
$55,739
$22,623
$7,492
$6,382
$71,549
$563,296
$142,514
$45,053
$304,180
$2,007,786
$741,246
$183,712
$1,084,204
-$1,376
$288,760
$245,980
$534,740
$40,019
$3,907,076
$1,037,878
$276,283
$21,610
$18,409
$2,109,821
$483,094
We expected to receive $3,907,076 in IDC funds in 13/14. However, the actual amount of
IDC generated in 12/13 was $3,236,799. The TUC will likely take 54% (or $2,109,821) of
these funds, leaving $1,530,137. The estimated cost of running the Large Grant release
time program is $1,037,878. The estimated cost of running the GRIF program is $276,283.
Subtracting these costs, ORSP will retain $215,976 of the recovered IDC funds. This
amount fluctuates annually. All remaining funds are reallocated back to the colleges based
on the proportion of IDC generated through grants activities (though the practice has not
been consistent and often the funds are used for special projects).
10 | P a g e