Report on Reviewing Centers                     CAA subcommittee on Centers

Decentralizing Centers

6 June 2003:

Kinds of Centers

Centers are non-degree granting units undertaking activities that cross departmental, divisional, school, or college boundaries. The primary purpose of a center is academic. Current regulations for centers are in BoT:3335-3-36.

1. University-reporting Centers. Any center that reports to the Provost or Vice President for Research will be reviewed by CAA at initiation and on a five-yearly basis, as described below. The initiation must be approved by the Provost, Senate and Board of Trustees. Subsequent reviews will be directed to the same with any recommendation for continuation.
2. Start-Up Centers. External or central funding opportunities allow the establishment of start-up centers. See the procedures below. If, after six years, the CAA determines the start-up center is a university-reporting center, CAA will review it. If not, the Provost will decide the start-up center's future.
3. College-reporting Centers. Any center that reports to a college or school can be established by that unit that will review it every five years. The Provost will receive documentation of any such new center and subsequent reviews.
   Note: Single departments cannot establish centers (BoT:3335-3-36) and should use other labels, such as laboratory, office or studio, to call attention to non-traditional organizations.

Review

1. Principles of any review.
   1. The body charged with the review will identity quantifiable targets that were set for the center and discover the center's budget, using the original proposal, any information provided by the center, and any other relevant information. This first effort will be shared with the center director for its accuracy and updating.
   2. The center will then be asked to write a brief but fact-intensive response that addresses specifically its record in making or missing the quantifiable targets. In either case, the response will define a new set of quantifiable targets to be assessed in the next review.
2. Subsequent action
   1. The review body will meet with appropriate individuals to assess the accuracy and specificity of the response. Its report must recommend one of three options:
      1. closing the center
      2. revising the direction and budgetary support of the center
      3. continuing the center in line with the mission proposed in its report, perhaps with recommendations regarding funding.
   2. In the case of CAA review, its report and recommendation go to the Provost and, if appropriate, the Vice President for Research.
   3. In any case, the entity to which the center reports will notify the Provost of its action or recommendation.

Start-Up Centers

1. Starting. Proponents of a new center that might get substantial external or central funding must first convince department chairs and college deans of that likelihood. Those individuals could support the proponents in approaching the Provost and Vice President for Research for annual rate funds. The Provost has the power to authorize a new center subject to two conditions:
   1. The Provost will notify CAA, Senate and Board of Trustees that the Start-Up center has been approved.
   2. The Provost will specify the criteria that the center must satisfy to continue as a center. The CAA can make recommendations to the Provost on their appropriateness.
2. Reviewing. After six years, the CAA will evaluate the center following the above criteria and procedures. Of particular concern is the center's success in developing income streams to sustain it. This important issue, not only for Start-Up Centers, is addressed in an Appendix on Income Streams.

Appendix: Income Streams for Centers

These recommended principles are directed to the Senate Fiscal Committee that is solely authorized to make recommendations to the Provost-Executive Vice President.

1. External grants that fully pay appointments in the center and earn full overhead provide a basis for center income streams. Any return on overhead shall go to the center by the same rules that apply to colleges. Those grants that partially pay appointments shall return overhead income in proportion to the fractional salaries.
2. Staff and faculty whose appointments are partially or fully paid by university annual rate provide a basis for center income streams.
   Examples of faculty or staff whose appointment are in part paid by university annual rate funds are those whose appointment results from the center's collaboration in an Ohio Eminent Scholar, Strategic Investment or future competitions that provide such funds.
   1. Indirect costs associated with grants involving faculty or staff appointments in the center shall return in proportion to participant's share of the grant and the fraction of participant's salary from the center.
   2. Return of tuition from courses taught by faculty or staff shall be proportional to the fraction of any course taught and fraction of participant's salary from the center. This shall also apply to any appointments in item 1.
   3. Any income stream to the colleges that is based on faculty or staff performance or numbers shall flow to the center in proportion to the fraction for salary from the center. This shall include any changes based on marginal or other performance changes. This shall also apply to any appointments in item 1.
3. Any change to these principles require explicit approval by the Provost. This includes centers that are wholly within a single college.

Committee Membership
Marilynn Brewer, Psychology
Bob Gold, MPS Dean
Richard P. Gunther, Fiscal Committee Representative
Russell Pitzer, CAA Chair
Thomas Rosol, Office of Research
W. Randy Smith, OAA
John W. Wilkins, Ad Hoc Committee Chair
Karla S. Zadnik, Research Committee Representative