|
|
|
IV-1.00(A) UMCP POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND REVIEW OF CENTERS AND INSTITUTES
APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT 1 AUGUST 1991
A. Policy
Although faculty may from time to time establish
informal relationships for the purposes of conducting
research, or of fostering improvement of teaching or
curricula, or of enhancing service to the State in a
particular area, they must follow certain procedures,
as described below, for inclusion in official
administrative lists and for periodic review.
Institutes, Bureaus, Centers, Laboratories, Research
Teams, and other similar groups and organizations form
useful devices for organizing groups of faculty and
staff from different disciplines to focus teaching,
research and/or service in an area of common interest
and concern. Centers, Bureaus, and Institutes should
be justified on the basis of their contributions and
relationships to academic programs, but with a very few
exceptions, these entities shall not offer courses or
oversee degree programs. To provide an orderly method
for the establishment of Centers, Institutes, and
interdisciplinary units known by other names, it is
appropriate to devise guidelines or procedures that
provide for appropriate faculty and administrative
review. These units are expected to be supported
largely by external funding and not exert significant
claims on State or university resources. Yet the
legitimate interests of faculty proponents and of
administrators in whose jurisdictions the units may be
located must be protected. These procedures are
intended to protect those interests but are not so
complex as to render the establishment of the units
such a lengthy and time-consuming task that few will
venture to propose them; they comply with the
University System Policy for the Establishment and
Review of Centers and Institutes in the University of
Maryland System, approved by the Board of Regents on
January 11, 1990. (IV-1.00)
B. Group
The first, and simplest type of unit compares to an
established specialization area within a department,
such as organic chemistry, counseling psychology, or
nuclear physics. Characteristically, it is an ad hoc
collection of faculty members gathered together as a
"Group" to promote an area of common interest.
"Groups" and projects in this category might be short-
lived. Such a group shall be titled "Research Group
for ________" or "Laboratory for ______" etc. No
formal procedure for its establishment is involved
other than written approval of the Dean for the unit in
which the faculty are housed.
C. Center
The second level of organization compares to an
academic program without departmental status. Typical
of this type of organization is a "Center." It has
more permanency than the "group" referred to above. It
may involve external and/or State funding and may
appear as an organized unit in the working budget.
Usually, it will have a formal administrative
structure, headed by a Director. The Director and a
secretary may be, at least partially, supported by
general funds. Procedures for establishment of a
"Center for ___" are as follows:
1. A formal proposal for the establishment of a new
Center shall be prepared by its proponents, who
may be informal groups of interested faculty and
administrators, a committee appointed for the
purpose of determining the need, desirability and
feasibility of a Center, or any similar formal or
informal group.
2. The proposal shall include a statement of the
purpose of the Center; the rationale for its
establishment; details of its membership,
governance, and administration; initial and
prospective funding; space needs, and other
requirements.
3. The proposal shall be submitted by the organizing
proponents to the Dean(s) of the College(s) to
whom the Center Director will report. In those
circumstances in which a Center will reside within
a Department, the proposal will first be submitted
to the Department Chair. The Dean(s) will submit
the proposal to the Programs, Courses, and
Curriculum Committee(s) of the College(s) in which
the Center is to reside, for advice and
recommendation.
4. After review by the College(s)
a. The Dean(s) of the College(s) in which the
Center will reside will be responsible for
identifying the source of resources (if any)
necessary to create and maintain the Center.
These may be extramural funds, department
funds, College funds, and/or small, short-
term commitments from Graduate School DRIF
monies. A proposal requiring, in the view of
the Graduate Dean, large or long-term
commitments from Graduate School DRIF will
fall under provisions 4.b. below. If the
proposed center requires space, the Dean(s)
will be responsible for identifying the
source of additional space as well. The
proposal, including commitment of funds,
space, etc. will be forwarded to the Vice
President for Academic Affairs for approval.
The Vice President has the option of
consulting The Academic Planning Advisory
Committee, but is likely to do so only if a
major redirection of resources appears to be
involved.
b. In unusual circumstances, a special funding
opportunity may require a commitment of more
resources than the College(s) involved can
afford. (e.g., NSF Science and Technology
Centers). In these cases, the Dean(s) of the
College(s) involved shall be responsible for
identifying the resources the College(s) can
commit and enumerating those which would need
to be met by the campus. At the campus
level, the full review process would be
required in these cases, including review by
APAC and final approval by the Vice President
for Academic Affairs. APAC shall develop
guidelines for its review.
5. It is understood that in the review process,
alterations may be recommended and made in the
proposal by any of the reviewing administrators.
D. Institute or Bureau
The third level of organization compares with an
academic department. Typical of this type of
organization is an "Institute" or "Bureau." It is
expected to continue indefinitely and, thus, have
greater permanency than a Center.
It may have both external and general funding, but it
should be included in the working budget and have a
formal administrative and governance structure. Just
as a Program may propose conversion to an Institute.
Procedures for establishment of an Institute are
similar to those used for the establishment of new
academic departments, and are as follows:
1. Same as 1) above
2. Same as 2) above
3. Same as 3) above
4. Same as 4) above, except that the Vice President
recommends approval to the President.
5. Upon approval by the Vice President, the proposal
is forwarded to the President. After review and
approval by the President, the proposal is
forwarded to the Chancellor for information. It
is understood that in the review process,
alterations may be recommended and made in the
proposal by any of the reviewing administrators.
E. The Periodic Review of Centers, Institutes, Etc.
1. Institutes and Bureaus
Institutes and Bureaus shall be subject to the
same review procedures as academic departments.
2. Centers
It is expected that Centers will be established
with the provision that their functions,
productivity, fiscal condition, and continuance
will be periodically reviewed. The procedure for
review is as follows:
a. Every five years, each Center shall submit a
review of its activities to the Dean(s) to
which it reports. This review shall include
the following types of information: date
Center established, purpose, major activities
over previous five years, funding and major
categories of expenses, number of personnel
associated with the Center and source of
support for each, relationship to
institution, benefits to institution.
Upon receiving the review, the Dean(s) shall
choose one of the following administrative
actions: maintain the Center in its current
state; institute a broader scale review;
change the definition, operators and/or
director of the Center; terminate the Center.
Each Dean shall submit to the Vice President
for Academic Affairs a report of these
reviews and the administrative actions.
b. A Center which is established with (other
than one-time) funding from outside its
College(s), i.e., one established according
to 4.b. above, will follow the same procedure
with one additional step. The review will be
forwarded to the Vice President for Academic
Affairs who, in consultation with APAC, shall
choose whether to continue to terminate the
campus' portion of the Center's funding.
c. Those Centers which reside entirely within
one Department and report to the Department
Chair shall be reviewed as part of the
Department review.
3. For those Centers existing as of July, 1988, Deans
shall establish a staggered schedule of reviews
beginning in five years.
|
