Pulling savings out of our RASS

Last year, the BoR and the TAMU System created nine shared services teams to look for ways to

To review current services or activities and determine if there are efficiencies and any associated cost saving by sharing these services without sacrificing quality.

In January, Chancellor McKinney summarized (pdf) the progress on shared services. Notably absent from the list of possible savings was anything from the Research Administration Shared Services (RASS) team. It seems the RASS team didn't find very much to cut.

Yesterday, VP for Research Seeman updated the CPI on what happened after the RASS failed to find much to save from sharing services. It seems the Regents didn't like that answer and sent the team to redo the analysis. The RASS still didn't find things where sharing would cost less. Not willing to accept that answer, the BoR is now looking to pay an outside consultant to look for savings.

Places where shared services can save significant amounts without sacrificing quality were also elusive in 2007, when the Integrated Research Administration Project committee went looking for them. But Vision 1920 is confident that if we just keep looking, there will be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Vision 1920 is also proud of our BoR's patriotism. Research administration is part of the indirect costs applied to extramural funding, so we're sure that when those savings are found, the BoR will return an appropriate share of the found money to its rightful owners in funding agencies of the federal government.

Resistance is futile

Another opponent of the Vision 1920 steps aside

The chair of a group representing the Texas A&M research community stepped down last week, saying in an e-mail to members that she was leaving for personal reasons and to pursue research interests.

Deborah Bell-Pedersen, whose yearlong term was scheduled to end in May, on Saturday announced in an e-mail that she was leaving her post at the Council of Principal Investigators. The group in recent weeks has been critical of the A&M System's proposed National Center for Therapeutics Manufacturing and a pair of other therapeutics-related centers.

Nancy Amato, a computer science professor, will serve as interim chair of the group. Neither Bell-Pedersen, who was out of the country, nor Amato could not be reached for comment.

Looks like the faculty are starting to understand which way the wind is blowing.

Giroir's chicken explained

Previously Vision 1920 was perplexed by this figure in Brett Giroir's presentation. At his open presentation today, Dr. Giroir used it again, and explained what he has against chickens: As explained in this Scientific American article

Today's flu vaccines are prepared in fertilized chicken eggs, a method developed more than 50 years ago. The eggshell is cracked, and the influenza virus is injected into the fluid surrounding the embryo. The egg is resealed, the embryo becomes infected, and the resulting virus is then harvested, purified and used to produce the vaccine. Even with robotic assistance, "working with eggs is tedious," says Samuel L. Katz of the Duke University School of Medicine, a member of the vaccine advisory committee for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "Opening a culture flask is a heck of a lot simpler."

One of the goals of the NCTM is to revolutionize vaccine production by moving it out of eggs. This cutting edge idea is a niche in the vaccine industry where A&M can clearly leap ahead of the competition, which only includes the likes of Novartis, Baxter, and Merck.

CPI open meeting

July 8, 2009
Memorial Student Center, room 201
11:30 a.m. - 1:15 p.m.

We don't govern based on polls

Earlier this summer, the Council of Principal Investigators voted no confidence in the Chancellor. These faculty are so messed up, the CPI then polled their membership after going on record. 87% of the CPI voted no confidence, but the results of their own poll came out different.

484/523 (91.5%) of the PIs voted no confidence.

Pishko defends the NCTM

On the little-read CPI discussion board, Prof. Pishko objects to the inclusion of the NCTM in the CPI resolution of no confidence

I reviewed the membership of the CPI and there is not one individual on the CPI who has been involved in any of the NCTM discussions. How is anyone on the CPI to know where funding for NCTM may come from when they have not been involved in the discussions? The answer is they cannot. Did the CPI bother to talk to anyone who has been working on the project? The answer is no.

Indeed. How could they know where the funding came from?

CPI votes no confidence

Communique from the CPI

To all Principal Investigators,

Based on concerns from the PI community that actions on the part of Chancellor Michael McKinney have seriously undermined the research enterprise at Texas A&M University and have drastically hurt our national and international reputation, the CPI Executive Committee drafted a Resolution of No Confidence in the Chancellor. The full text of the Resolution can be found on the CPI website:

http://cpi.tamu.edu/voting/2009/PIres/

The CPI members have passed the resolution with a vote of 27 Yes, 2 No, and 2 Abstain.

At this time, we are conducting a poll of all PIs to determine their support of this Resolution.

We note that this effort coordinated by the CPI is complementary to and supportive of any similar efforts that may be undertaken by the Faculty Senate. Moreover, since the CPI and the Faculty Senate constituencies are not identical (CPI represents people that are not represented by the senate, e.g., non-tenured research faculty, and vice versa), both efforts are needed to allow all researchers and faculty members to express their views.

The deadline for PIs to cast their votes is 12 noon on Tuesday, June 30, 2009. We have set this deadline so that results will be available before the special faculty senate meeting that will be held later that day.

An argument for home schooling

In addition to the Faculty Senate, the Council of Principal Investigators is considering a motion of no confidence in the Chancellor.

The group of about 40 people represents about 2,500 members of the Texas A&M research community.

Why is this Council of Principal Investigators butting into A&M business. A&M doesn't even have a principal; do they think this is a High School? No wonder our public schools have problems - the folks who should be investigating principals are wasting their time potbanging about the universities.

And why are there so many of them? Vision 1920 sees a cost-cutting opportunity.

2%ers

Despite hearing from both Chancellor McKinney and President Loftin, the faculty don't seem to be calming down.

Citing concerns about shared governance, improper influence and "irresponsible behavior," a pair of Texas A&M University groups have drafted resolutions of "no confidence" in A&M System Chancellor Mike McKinney.

Members of the Council of Principal Investigators can vote on the resolution online until 4 p.m. Friday. The group of about 40 people represents about 2,500 members of the Texas A&M research community.

The Texas A&M University Faculty Senate is scheduled to vote on its no-confidence resolution at a special meeting Tuesday in Room 601 of Rudder Tower.
...
The CPI resolution lists eight concerns about McKinney

If they were real Ags, they would have come up with 12 concerns.