ࡱ;   AB=%r8X"1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1 Arial                  83ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333'vFaculty Responses to the 91 fid CompletedLast page seenStart languageUMaine should seek from the State of Maine an increase in MEIF investment in UMaine research and development, scholarship, and creative activity from $11.7M/year in FY2010 to $16.7M/year in FY2017[Comment] UMaine should seek from the State of Maine an increase in MEIF investment in UMaine research and development, scholarship, and creative activity from $11.7M/year in FY2010 to $16.7M/year in FY2017UMaine should expand the number of new Major Program Investments, such as the Forest Bioproducts Research Institute and the Sustainability Science Initiative.[Comment] UMaine should expand the number of new Major Program Investments, such as the Forest Bioproducts Research Institute and the Sustainability Science Initiative.UMaine should offer to non-tenure track research faculty members (soft-money) the opportunity to receive 40% of recovered indirect costs from their grants to invest in their research programs.[Comment] UMaine should offer to non-tenure track research faculty members (soft-money) the opportunity to receive 40% of recovered indirect costs from their grants to invest in their research programs.UMaine should restore faculty positions in specific strategic areas and find creative ways to reduce teaching loads in those areas in order to increase the research output of faculty members.[Comment] UMaine should restore faculty positions in specific strategic areas and find creative ways to reduce teaching loads in those areas in order to increase the research output of faculty members.UMaine should encourage an increase in the quality and the number of graduating doctoral students from 59 to 75 by FY2017 by investing an additional $75,000 annually to the $100,000 already provided by the VP for Administration and Finance.[Comment] UMaine should encourage an increase in the quality and the number of graduating doctoral students from 59 to 75 by FY2017 by investing an additional $75,000 annually to the $100,000 already provided by the VP for Administration and Finance.UMaine should set the minimum load to trigger the in-state tuition rate for out-of-state graduate teaching or research assistants (whether funded internally or externally) at 25% instead of the current 50%.[Comment] UMaine should set the minimum load to trigger the in-state tuition rate for out-of-state graduate teaching or research assistants (whether funded internally or externally) at 25% instead of the current 50%.cUMaine should continue to invest $400,000/year (MEIF) in the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciencesm[Comment] UMaine should continue to invest $400,000/year (MEIF) in the Graduate School of Biomedical SciencescUMaine should continue to invest $100,000/year (MEIF) for doctoral students in their terminal year.m[Comment] UMaine should continue to invest $100,000/year (MEIF) for doctoral students in their terminal year.UMaine should further integrate research experiences into the undergraduate curriculum by providing faculty with resources and recognition for their contributions.[Comment] UMaine should further integrate research experiences into the undergraduate curriculum by providing faculty with resources and recognition for their contributions.UMaine should add two more grant specialists in the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs to support grant preparation and investment.[Comment] UMaine should add two more grant specialists in the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs to support grant preparation and investment.UMaine should streamline administrative procedures in the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs to shift administrative burdens away from Principal Investigators[Comment] UMaine should streamline administrative procedures in the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs to shift administrative burdens away from Principal InvestigatorsUMaine should hire a grant-writing specialist whose primary focus would be to help streamline the proposal submission process and expand the number of proposal submissions and increase the success rate.[Comment] U< Maine should hire a grant-writing specialist whose primary focus would be to help streamline the proposal submission process and expand the number of proposal submissions and increase the success rate.UMaine should establish a process whereby each funded grant that employs high-technology equipment would have a budget created by the VP for Research that totals 2% of the total equipment costs[Comment] UMaine should establish a process whereby each funded grant that employs high-technology equipment would have a budget created by the VP for Research that totals 2% of the total equipment costsUMaine should continue the high-technology equipment infrastructure program supporting pilot projects in the emerging areas of science that require high-performance instruments to collect preliminary data for subsequent proposal submissions and/or manuscript preparations.[Comment] UMaine should continue the high-technology equipment infrastructure program supporting pilot projects in the emerging areas of science that require high-performance instruments to collect preliminary data for subsequent proposal submissions and/or manuscript preparations.UMaine should develop a schedule to upgrade research lab facilities, coordinating with the Provost, VP for Administration and Finance, and Director of Facilities and Maintenance.[Comment] UMaine should develop a schedule to upgrade research lab facilities, coordinating with the Provost, VP for Administration and Finance, and Director of Facilities and Maintenance.qUMaine should develop a sustainable program for the return of indirect costs recovered from grants and contracts.{[Comment] UMaine should develop a sustainable program for the return of indirect costs recovered from grants and contracts.UMaine should develop separate faculty reward mechanisms, including funded annual Vice-President for Research awards for research excellence, and unfunded research excellence awards, to provide a competitive environment for growth of research and development. [Comment] UMaine should develop separate faculty reward mechanisms, including funded annual Vice-President for Research awards for research excellence, and unfunded research excellence awards, to provide a competitive environment for growth of research and development.UMaine should seek opportunities to apply the research and education capacity of UMaine towards current and future challenges faced by Maine s people and businesses.[Comment] UMaine should seek opportunities to apply the research and education capacity of UMaine towards current and future challenges faced by Maine s people and businesses.UMaine should engage industry and communities in the research enterprise by using Cooperative Extension, Maine Sea Grant, and other programs to gain valuable insight when planning proposals and projects.[Comment] UMaine should engage industry and communities in the research enterprise by using Cooperative Extension, Maine Sea Grant, and other programs to gain valuable insight when planning proposals and projects.xUMaine should promote the integration of educational outreach and research opportunities through enhanced communication.[Comment] UMaine should promote the integration of educational outreach and research opportunities through enhanced communication.Please provide any further comments you desire to make concerning the strategies, objectives and tasks listed above or in the Strategic Implementation Plan for Enhancement of Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity. 2012-04-17 13:02:33enStrongly AgreeAgreeNeutral / No Opinion2012-04-17 13:08:10DisagreetFocusing investments could stymy R&D in other areas as faculty try to fit themselves into the campus-fundable areas.<I agree as long as tenure track faculty also get funds back.GWe could have more doctoral students if funding was available for them._Our out-of-state graduate tuition rate is excessive and a barrier to growing graduate programs.I have not seen much output showing how the funding has been used and how faculty have multiplied those funds with extern< al funding.Excellent investment!That office is under-staffed.Faculty are being asked to do more and more. A campus-wide expectation for teaching versus research workloads would be helpful.2012-04-17 13:12:12QThis is a pathetically small investment in graduate students. Try adding a zero.kI don't see any value for the University or the State to distinguish in/out status for graduate students. Also consider boosting personnel on the grant administration side. There has been a noticeable slowdown in the processing of sub awards over the last few years.lIn my experience, grant writers are most useful on the development side, not for securing research awards. This would have knock-on affects on many other goals. For example, I would likely spend this money on additional graduate students or on undergrad interns.UMaine is dangerously close to becoming a second-rate research university. This would help raise the profile of research in the University and in the State.This is highly dependent on the pool of money we're targeting. NSF, NASA, etc. care about good science. Maine's needs are a distant priority.2012-04-17 13:22:42L100K is even a very small amount if UMaine is really serious about this goalStrongly Disagree!Biomed sci is not a stength of UMaine. UMaine should better invest in areas that it has ciritcal mass and can compete. IN SHORT, even in twenty years, I do not think that UMaine can compete in BIOmed sci. Too ambitiopus of a goal for a university that does not even have a medical school! uThere should also be more investment to birng in new doctoral students. This helps us to leverage for federal grants.hI do not beleive in motivating faculty by meaningless recognition. Providing enough resources is enough.This will be a waste of money. I can say in all honesty that even if a reource like this is available, I would probably not use it. GUmaine facilities for research is indeed antiquated... 1980's standard.2012-04-17 13:09:30Neutral / No OpinionNWe live in a global society, with boundaries beyond Maine. Too self-centered.2012-04-17 13:20:002012-04-17 13:21:532012-04-17 13:20:282012-04-17 13:20:102012-04-17 13:40:062012-04-17 13:44:35At least two, if not more.QThis is by far the biggest road block. the burden on faculty is simply too high.PIs need more incentives. EBut we must also remember that our research matters beyond the state.2012-04-17 13:56:371The best way to enable faculty and programs/depts. to grow and be enhanced is to enable indirect $ to be given to the people/programs/depts. that are successful in obtaining it. This would allow faculty to contribute to the financial challenges faced by their departments via their grant writing efforts. 2012-04-17 13:57:592012-04-17 13:59:051why shouldn't this apply to tenure-track faculty?As always, the actual implementation of these objectives is critical. I hope that we will not use this initiative to pursue a "rich get richer" approach to research at UM.2012-04-17 14:00:35mThis program should have rolling deadlines throughout the year to allow efficient data collection by faculty.2012-04-17 14:03:002012-04-17 14:13:30}2% is not likely to be enough. Maintenance costs for these instruments can be significantly larger. 5% should be the minimum.Return of indirect costs allows faculty to hire more students, or buy more supplies and better equipment for their projects, improving research productivity. I strongly endorse this proposal.Isn't this one of our primary reasons to exist as a Land Grant University? Is there a particular reason why it needs to be "proposed"?2012-04-17 14:20:128This recommendation leaves out the non-MEIF disciplines.QWe do not have, and cannot expect to get, sufficient funds for such an expansion.@Return of indirect should also extend to other types of faculty.Two problems here. First, how will strategic areas be defined and who will defined them? Second, would reducing teaching loads disadvantage our students?_We need to spend available funds instead on strengthening the undergraduate<  side of the campus.This is a large sum, and it is not clear how much this school has benefited the campus or the state. This sum would be better spent restoring lost faculty positionshThis money would again be better spent for other pursuits on campus, especially those that are non-MEIF._Incentives, resources, and recognition very important here. CUGR needs at least a half-time AA.7Our Sponsored Programs office is seriously underfunded.nI would recommend more than one such specialist so that a variety of disciplines could be helped more readily.CThis seems to already being done, at least in some of the colleges.>These recommendations overall strongly favor the sciences and engineering on campus. While some might help the other disciplines, the bulk of the proposals, and probably the bulk of the money they envision, favor the sciences and engineering. The recommendations thus work to the disadvantage of the other disciplines.2012-04-17 14:10:582012-04-17 14:16:47Depends though on what is meant by strategic. STEM isn't the only focus on campus and the rest of us have the potential to bring in millions too if given the opportunity. 1At least! You need to spend money to make money. PIf you help me with the administrative load I can find and write my own grants. Yes!!! It's about time. What incentive do any of us have to do this work right now? It's certainly not for salary or appreciation. There are other research producing areas on campus besides STEM, don't forget that. Those areas, if provided support, have tremendous potential to bring in funding too. 2012-04-17 14:13:552012-04-17 14:15:562012-04-17 14:20:472012-04-17 14:33:11]Really, it seems like this should be an option for tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty.OHowever, this should not be at the detriment of teaching quality across campus.I'm not confident that we have the faculty numbers, course numbers, or infrastructure in a broad variety of areas to support increasing the number of doctoral students substantially. It seems that funds should support increasing the quality of graduate programs first (and on the quality of jobs graduates receive after graduation), and on increasing the number of students AFTER this goal has been achieved.Most graduate students are out of state and sacrifice the quality of their research in order to take enough classes to avoid out of state tuition. It seems that students who are teaching or research assistants should receive an automatic waiver regardless of the minimum load.Current system discourages researchers from applying for grants because most, if not all of the burden for applying is on the principle investigator -- this includes pre- and post-award management.2012-04-17 14:37:412012-04-17 14:41:302012-04-17 15:04:47Agree, but the plan can not hang its hat on this strategy as federal and state fiscal issues will add continuing downward pressure on state capacity to agree to this request despite all the supportive arguments.&Real cost of research to the institution is high, and actual IDC rate of grants and contracts is often a fraction of IDC rate of record. Budgetary impact affects both soft and hard money faculty in long run. Any IDC return for soft money positions should be linked to a threshold return rate. kIn sufficient information to judge. How does this compare with investments in other areas and per student. WInsufficient information to judge. How well have these monies met original objectives.BI am not sure how much room their is for improvement in reality. I suspect this will be far more effective if done at the college level possibly with joint ORSP-college oversight. Reality is that such a person's time will be dominated by some colleges.=In principle yes. The specific level of 2% is hard to judge.A schedule is not the answer. It will fail. Might start with concept planning on the relative responsibility by the university, colleges, centers/institutes, etc. for long term management planning.There are many many ways to do this. To name Cooperative Extension and Maine S< ea Grant specifically implies a narrow perspective despite the reference to "other programs."Many thanks to the committee that brought the implementation plan to this stage. The diversity of strategies suggests there were much creative effort and serious discussion.2012-04-17 15:04:20What is a strategic area and more importantly how does a program become a strategic area? I'm concerned that now impoverished areas will continue to be so impoverished. One only has to look at building maintenance issues to see the divides.Does this also require an investment in faculty? Where do the majority of doctoral student enroll and where are the majority of the faculty investments?My guess is that such a specialist will be helpful in some areas and not others. One person can't be an expert is all areas. Guess what areas will get the help?VWe can't ignore ME people and interests but we shouldn't be limited by such interests.!What does this mean in real time?How in the world are we going to increase research productivity to the degree suggested with existing deficits in full-time tenure stream faculty? Secondly, I just don't see the voices of faculty in the social sciences and humanities clearly enough in this plan. It is oddly dull in suggesting ways to grow scholarship and granting in non-MEIF areas and in particular the social sciences and humanities. It doesn't clearly articulate how a non-strategic area can become a strategic area. Finally, although untentured asst. profs should be well supported, the majority of faculty are older, so don't forget them in targeting incentives. Awards are fine sometimes but they also take time to administer and there are other ways to show gratitude for those working away. For instance, if I work really hard, publish in difficult venues, involve students, I really don't want an award, I want someone to say thanks. And,on occasion a merit raise is nice. In some ways, this plan entirely misses some very simple issues.2012-04-17 14:59:04xWe desperately need a program to coordinate funding needs with RFP's etc. PIs simply do not have adequate time for this!2012-04-17 14:54:57$We need TAs, not more administration/PIs have to do most of it themselves already...Spend the money on more TAs2012-04-17 15:31:22This value is unrealistic.(Why is this limited to non-tenure track? Is there really a question here?"What will these funds be used for? Why is this program singled out?It won't help much.LNot realistic - look at the teaching buildings that continue to deteriorate.XDepends on what monies will be used for. Largest % should go back to PI who bring it in.eUnfunded awards are suppose to provide impetus to faculty to do the work they're hired to do? Really?Communication between who?2012-04-17 15:31:30ZWe need to invest in research in core academic departments, such as physics and chemistry.$$ should be provided to ALL faculty! Many of us who have been bringing in grants for years have never had a penny of support.My department used to have 16 tenure track faculty. Now we have 11. We cannot possible offer courses required for our majors and graduate students and increase research productivity at the same time. Not enough!Our program has required research and a thesis from all majors for years, funding this work from our limited departmental and personal resources.?ORS does not write grant proposals. Hire more faculty instead.5Make it 4%; instrument repair is extremely expensive!I have been here 27 years. This ideas has been discussed, promised, and then ignored at least 15 times over that period. DO IT!)Current rewards are strongly politicized.We are not in the vocational education business. If we do a good job of teaching and research the benefits to Maine will follow automatically.See comment above.I have no idea what this means.Research suppport is far to targeted to technology and claims of job creation. Basic science research and scholarly endeavor in the humanities are starving.2012-04-17 15:54:26Bat present, we are not adequately funding the ones we alrea< dy havenot only would this help soft money faculty expand (or maintain) their programs, it is also a good recruiting tool, and would increase the number of graduate students!Is this a focus area for U Maine?RI think the money should be split 50/50 towards attracting/recruiting NEW students{At present there is NO direct benefit to bringing in more / writing more research grants beyond the immediate grant itself I think getting indirect costs returned to the PI and his/her unit are reward enough. I worry about who chooses / judges the winners of any such awards .... 2012-04-17 15:56:312012-04-17 16:04:490This will be impossible to accomplish, however.!Who is giving back a return on tuition? If more money flows to research success, no one will want to teach for no special award. Let's face it, some people are 75% research. When they get a grant they are simply doing their job. When someone teaches a new course to 200...who rewards that?2012-04-17 16:51:242012-04-17 16:58:03The Forest Bioproducts Research Institute has been a great success. The Sustainabilty Science Initiative has been a boondoggle. What can be done to ensure these are efficient and effective investments?Wouldn't this be unfair to tenure-track research faculty? Those of us who bring in large grants could potential do better as non-tenure track, especially if it meant no teaching. GDepartment chairs are not as supportive of buy-outs as they should be. (I'm worried that we're losing sight of good MS programs. In my opinion, my School can't provide a solid PhD program and we contribute to our scientific community by providing a solid MS education. Why produce PhDs if they can't get the necessary coursework, or jobs at the end of their programs? .I actually thought this already was the case! .I don't feel like there is much admin burden. I have collaborated with 3-4 Cooperative Extension people on research projects and their contributions have been less than adequate. Their science is hokey at best. Perhaps CE staff could be offered more research training. 2012-04-17 17:02:21]Unless of course UM actually loses money on MEIF investment, in which case, what's the point?Unless the funding comes indirectly or directly from other instructional units, in which case we are robbing Peter to pay Paul, as they say.?This looks like a good idea, but what's the source of the $75K?CUnless of course the resources come from other instructional units. Paid for how? Funded how?%It's not clear to me what this means.cThis is hard to disagree with, but it's also hard to know what it means, what the implications are.bMy objection to this strategic plan is that we receive the various strategic plans piecemeal. This research strategic plan has costs, not doubt, but they are suppressed and the revenue sources unknown. If we pay for these enhancements by increasing our dependence on adjunct teaching--a perceived cash cow-we are making bad investments in the university.2012-04-17 16:59:169only if non-STEM disciplines are included in the funding.faculty positions must be restored but who will decide which are strategic areas? In some areas that benefit the entire campus, what is most desperately needed is restored teaching capacity.,It would depend upon how the money was used.:only if non-MEIF students were also supported in this way.?one of these positions should have expertise in non-MEIF areas.3Only if all disciplines are encouraged in this way.0who could disagree? this is a leading question.I would be in favor of a more general policy on the return of indirect costs to all faculty, whether they are on soft money or not.2012-04-17 17:23:02GHow about putting more money in existing programs, like the humanities?Only if there is an increase in faculty lines at the same time. Our unit, for example, could not handle more graduate students with the loss of so many lines in the last 5 years.,Money would be better spent on faculty linesOI notice there was not one member of the committee representing the humanities.2012-04-17 17:54:59Tenured faculty as well< 2012-04-17 18:18:41Should be a greater investmentIt's a vastly expensive area, and I just don't think Maine can compete in it. We should be looking at other niches that are opening up, that are more affordable, and where we can competeWe already have a CLAS award and a Presidential Award. Is another award really going to be much of an incentive? Also, it comes with yet more bureacracy.'No! For heaven's sake: business already gets tons of breaks in this economy; and we have to be concerned about the nation and the world, not just about Maine. By all means, we can do some Maine-related research, but this is a university. We need to look beyond our little corner of the universe!I am dubious. Is this just another way of subsidizing business and industry at the expense of unbiased research. It's a dangerous direction.@A bit difficult to figure what precisely you're suggesting here.`I am a little dismayed at the bias in these proposals. They seem largely to have been written by people in the physical and technological sciences. There seems little awareness by the authors that there are human dimensions to the problems that face us. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding the intent, but I've been here a long time, and this is SOP at UMaine: focus on the physical and technical sciences and sweep aside the social sciences. Why, for example, is there no mention of psychology, economics, Canadian-American Center, etc - bring in big grants, they deal with human-created issues, and its in the social sciences that the really heavy lifting, research-wise, starts. Again, my apologies if I'm being unfair, but these proposals read very much as though they are designed to advance the disciplinary well-being of a big chunk of folks on the committee.2012-04-17 18:30:362012-04-17 19:53:58AInvestments should be based on merit and should not be automatic.|There are foundations such as AAUW which have specific grants for such cases. Our students and faculty should go after them.vAny such equipment should provide access to the larger body of researchers in Maine that need to use such facilities. /I think that non-monetary rewards will suffice.We need a VP of research that 'works is butt off' in Augusta and DC to promote our research enterprise, in consultation with the directors of our research units on campus. We should bring Space Grant from an office in Augusta to campus. We are the only state in the union where it is not on a campus. We are the center of NASA research in Maine and have a track record of working well with other institutions with our Sea Grant and Land Grant endeavors. It makes sense financially (reduced administrative costs) and programmatically (we do the most in terms of relevant teaching and research). It will enhance our ties with other institutions in Maine (by having them come from time to time to meetings in Orono) and spur collaborations.2012-04-17 23:07:12sThe clear halo effect of research money on the state at large demonstrates that this is an investment, not charity.The role these researchers play in facilitating research for the University at large and tenure track faculty would be greatly increased.I agree broadly, but the University would be better off putting this money into graphic artists/web specialists/data management to enhance proposal submissions.Finding ways to integrate research into undergrad curriculum is a way for the university to optimize its clear advantage over Universities and colleges in the area. The University should not have to think of undergrad education and research as a zero sum game.2012-04-18 06:54:56WHY?RSponsored Program performance is the weak link in the system. They are overworked8If you can't write a grant proposal, get a job elsewhere2012-04-18 07:14:20Not without new hires.mWhy the push for undergrad research? Do we have the faculty resources to do this along with everything else?2012-04-18 07:50:502012-04-18 10:14:36zUMaine should focus more of its resources towards undergraduate education instead of increasing research. Class sizes are increasing, tea< ching faculty have been reduced and it is clear that while are institution makes money teaching undergraduate students (the majority of which are Maine residents), we lose money on our research programs (while supporting foreign nationals).2012-04-18 10:48:432012-04-18 11:48:47And FORGET the recent senatorial initiative to "equitably" divide the MEIF funds among the 7 campuses. Just because you name your dog "Seabiscuit" doesn't make him a horse, and especially doesn't make him likely to win the Kentucky Derby.6I presume that means for maintenance and amortization.rIt's not all about jobs. Basic research is important to the state, the nation, our students, and faculty careers.2012-04-18 12:26:572012-04-18 12:45:232012-04-18 13:28:37;But ONLY if it doesn't decrease E&G funding from the State.UMaine should concentrate on fixing the myriad problems in its existing programs first -- the core of the University -- before heading after the research program du jour.7Only if the results so far from that School warrant it.lThere is often a gap in funding for students, and often as they are finishing -- this would be a great idea.LLet's not forget post-award support as well, which is well-nigh nonexistent.wBUT we should not be dragged around by the current needs; a University is supposed to be forward-looking, not reactive.FThis is kind of Mom-and-apple-pie, isn't it, but with no real details?2012-04-18 14:19:33I agree, as long as traditional programs are not neglected, shortchanged or eliminated - there is still a great need for these in the 21st century world!As a scholar in a dept. that teaches 3 and 3, I have never had the opportunity to research to the point of production that would make me eligible to be full professor. Exhaustion does not make for clarity or creativity.Attention to the IPhD especially is important. These are cutting-edge programs and students, and they have NO support, unless they can cobble something together.nMany qualified out of state students, because of our funding situation, simply cannot afford to attend UMaine..I have no data on the success of this program.-I have no data on the success of this effort.There should also be much greater support for the arts and Humanities, and perhaps an expanded definition of "research" appropriate to these fields.I agree if these specialists are assigned to areas that receive very little funding, such as the Humanities and the Liberal Arts. This is where the research profile needs the most help.GEspecially in the underserved areas of the Liberal Arts and Humanities.,I have lost grants because of our indirects.As a person who writes many grants and receives very little in return, this effort goes completely unrewarded. It is demoralizing, to say the least.The Division of Life Long Learning is often overlooked as an excellent source for this. Their academic and community outreach efforts should be utilized.,The lack of communication is a real problem.`The Liberal Arts and Humanities needs to be an equal partner and needs support in these efforts.2012-04-18 16:02:58Agree, but the myopic view of what constitutes research and what its purpose is, implied in the plan should be widened so that it explicitly integrates social sciences, arts, and humanities with the natural sciences that are currently included.2012-04-19 08:41:52APLEASE! This is standard at so many universities. We are hobbled by having no discretionary funds to pay for time publishing/revising manuscripts after a grant has ended, travel to present at conferences, etc. End up donating time almost every night and weekend to get things done and sometimes donate supplies or travel.Research assistantships needed! Have plenty of projects for students, just need some funding. Or provide matching funds if part but not all of a PhD salary can be covered in a grant._Yes! We cannot be teachers, scientists, project managers, AND accountants! This is inefficient.What would be useful is someone who can simply screen funding opportunities and send them to the faculty working in those areas< . Have several projects ready to submit but it's hard to spend time looking for the funding sources.EPilot data are pretty much a requirement for any successful proposal.Campus-wide inventory of equipment that all faculty can see would be nice, figuring out who has what and where there are redundancies. 2012-04-19 10:10:20Each college should have such a person, if only as a 50% position within another administrative appointment. One for the whole university is inadequate.Is 2% enough? What is the relationship of this fund to service contracts paid for by the grant monies? Is this part of indirect costs, or how is it funded?A transparent criteria for ranking the need and schedule should be developed, based on productivity, potential risk, or other measurable factors.JThis may assist with the issues of equipment replacement and other issues./Relevance to the local situation will aid the support to UMaine from the legislature. However, important research does not have to be directly relevant to Maine: and may lead to "near-sightedness" in the big picture. Extension can be engaged in the process of active feedback with Maine's population. =As above; this approach should be available but not required.>Increased support for University Communications may be needed.2012-04-19 10:25:09$16.7M or more....,but not at the expense of existing programs.Cyes! while most research-active faculty also are ranked among the best teachers, one cannot maintain high levels of commitment in both at the same time. there should be a way to adjust one's position across time to reflect when a researcher must invest significant time in securing funds and getting new research programs going, and when, once these are underway, they can redirect time and energy back towards teaching. Trying to do both at a high level results in major 'burn out', resulting in lowered performance in these as well as other components of faculty activities.the concept of 'in-state - out-of-state' designation for graduate students seems to serve little function. The criteria that graduate students use to select a particular mentor are different from those used by undergrads when selecting an institution. At the graduate level, we should always be recruiting the best graduate students, regardless of where they are from as these serve a very different role in the continued development and support of research. Do away with this silly designation altogether at this level. Why should faculty be penalized (by having to cover higher tuition out of external funding) for recruiting good graduate students? Doesn't this ability to bring students from all over add to the prestige and strength of our program? too many eggs in one basketyes! Many faculty continue to be creative in finding ways to support undergraduate research activities. The monies needed to support these activities may be less than those at the graduate level, but they are not always available from externally funded projects because many undergrad projects are ad hoc and, frankly, serve a different purpose (undergrad research experience) than the original goals of the funded project. 1I'm not that familiar with the current work load.Yes! I'm not trained as an accountant, nor can I decipher the cumbersome account outputs. I wouldn't expect someone in the grants accounting office to come to my lab and run an assay reliably and safely. People hired by ORSP are presumably hired for their ability to do these administrative activities. This is not something inherent in the training that most faculty experience or are expected to know. And, it takes important time away from what PIs should be doing - research and mentoring!the university should cover service contracts on equipment. these costs are not always allowed in some program budgets. and some service agreements can be as high as $3-10K/year.yes - I do get tired of having to scrape off dirt and rainwater that gets blown onto my analytical lab benches during storms. the backup of sewer gas is particularly disturbing in one of my rese< arch labs.it would be nice if PIs had some control over some of the indirect costs recovered - perhaps encouraged to help support undergraduate research with it.I don't like 'competition' in science in the campus community. "Recognition" is fine. Competitive funding is fine. but I doubt anyone is steering their research program with an eye to outcompeting others on campus..../I thought that was a mandate of the University?2012-04-19 10:32:08%Are we seeing eh benefits of this? they seem to have very low profile and we do not seem to be attracting graduate medics or seeing many of the graduate students entering medical school. If we had plans for a medical/veterinary school here in Maine then this would be more prudent investment.2012-04-19 10:55:202012-04-19 17:24:59lI would only agree if these strategic areas included fields in the arts and humanities that are underfunded 2012-04-19 17:21:152012-04-19 17:23:502012-04-19 17:26:53xsuch funding is divisive since it prioritizes research over teaching and service and thereby them "unworthy" activities.\such activity prioritizes research over teaching and makes teaching a second class activity.2012-04-19 17:27:35what is MEIF?? what is meif2not sure if I have a handle on "creative activity"2012-04-19 21:01:43MEIF supports core missions of the institution and can be used flexibly to support up and coming projects that need help NOW while also providing backbone to areas losing ENG funds.ASTEM education research and the learning sciences, for example...I don't know the mechanism - this is the equivalent of fringe and overhead, kicked back to soft money positions? Why only soft money, not hard money positions? But anything that helps research programs is a good thing. :we are a research institution and should support research.%I know too little about GSBS, sorry. (This is often when funds have run out...You know, undergraduate research is great, but rarely leads to publications. We need to be more clear about what we seek with CUGR - is it a teaching or a research activity? I hate saying yes to more admin positions, but we really need these. Mike H is doing a great job with too little staff, and they could use more..See above for needing 2 new people, I guess...[Do grant writers really help? I write my own, because I'm the person with the idea, right? OI have no idea about the details of this, not working with high tech equipment.%support for research is always good. <This whole campus needs to be upgraded, thank you very much.Please. Christ, the infrastructure involved in awarding these things would lead to how many new admin positions, how much extra work? Is that cost worth the incentives?Sure - we're a land grant with all that entails in terms of mission and responsibility toward the state. And also, basic research might not address challenges, and should not.Collaboration is good at the applied level. But we should not be solely applied - there is a place for basic research that should not be undermined..Look to the RiSE Center for this, for example.PGiven the goals of expanding our research productivity, graduating more PhDs, and so on, could we please build an administrative structure that makes sense? Why are departments reporting to deans and the provost while research institutes report to the VPR? It doubles the administrative infrastructure, taking money away from faculty and students who are on the front lines of fulfilling the university's mission. All administration is in service to the work of faculty and students, in some fashion, yet when admin grows faster than the rest, it turns into a bullshit battle for resources. 2012-04-19 17:27:512012-04-19 17:29:042012-04-19 17:57:33rnot necessarily new programs, rather greater depth to existing programs such as the Aquaculture Research InstituteXIf this is implemented I think it should be expanded to include tenure-track faculty tooYthis question needs to be separated into 2; restore faculty, and find creative solutions uit is a poor reflection on the university that it does not fe< ature higher up the University listings because of the lack of PhDs. Adding an additional $75,000 is a band-aid solution only. This area needs substantial new funding. Such a positive initiative would greatly increase the profile of the university which would lead to greater enrollment, especially out-of-stste see above commentYuse this money to increase doctoral student opportunities beyond just biomedical sciencesthis is still band-aid funding for an issue that has such fundamental impact on perception of the university in a wider environmentyes, yes, yes, but don't pay the administrators to administer, pay for students to get real hands on experience of research, longer, better funded capstones and honors. Begin these in the junior year+yes, but only if they have substantial experience of the format and process of the major funding bodies. Adding a couple of people who can complete the PARS forms is missing the point. Familiarity of the specific requirements would be of significant benefit. But hats off to ORSP, they do a good job|no, more targeted knowledge of proposal mechanisms would make both sides more efficient. Lets stop reinventing the wheel!!!!-especially the Aquaculture Research Institutelabs and offices1but this should be across the board, not targeted^it is elitist. If you believe all your current faculty should be in post then support them all2012-04-19 17:42:58They torque the whole system in poorly planned ways. The faculty are hired for research purposes but have to find teaching homes.)$75k is a pittance that won't do the job.~Biomedical sciences are so expensive that UMaine cannot do them well. The medical infrastructure in the area is insufficient.Recruiting-year support is much more effective than a year to finish. I would do a match with grant funds (50/50) to stretch the money and predicate it on recruitment.OFaculty who can provide genuine research experience in STEM fields have grants.=If you can't propose and spend, you won't get the next grant.I'm not sure this is a problem.;I'm not convinced it is useful. Are there success stories?1Delayed maintenance is a euphemism around here...I'm not sure it is needed. Making proposals easy to submit and grants easy to spend is a much higher priority. PIs get real satisfaction from supporting their labs.EThis place already spends too much effort on too many small awards. #No brainer for a land and sea grant No brainerPut together a flyer annually with success stories of recent Ph.D.'s who make a difference to the state. One page, glossy, two sides. None of this 20 unreadable page stuff.2012-04-19 17:35:352012-04-19 17:35:202012-04-19 17:47:21hWe are the primary research organization in the system, and have the highest number of graduate stduents7This school has not performed at the anticipated level.OStudent need assistance to finish their degrees and move into their profession.An undergraduate thesis requires a great deal of time...in guidance, assistance, and preparation of the thesis/report and final presentation. We are increasingly asked to act as our own technicians and deal with the upkeep and repair of complex equipment...time that is NOT spent writing papers and proposals. The productivity of our colleagues here and abroad that have technical help is significantly enhanced by assistance.2012-04-19 17:49:342012-04-19 19:19:59NI think the State needs to invest more at UMaine if the State wants more jobs.dI agree if it is done right these 2 programs would be very valuable to the State of Maine and the University. However the University will have to either make strategic cuts are get outside funding to start these programs. Perhaps industries might support the first program on Bioproducts and maybe some foundations could help with the science initiative.We have some excellent research faculty here at Maine and I think this would be a good incentive for even hiring new non-tenured research faculty. A key to UMaine's future could be non-tenured research faculty.pAn investment that has been needed for a long t< ime. Good Ph.D. students are a backbone to any research program.I am only neutral because I do not know how effective this program is without a medical school in the State except the one at the University of New England.This helps faculty that have research grants to be able to hire a new Ph.D. student. The last year for Ph.D. students involves writing which is great but research needs to continue.fYes it is important for universities of Maine size to get its undergraduates involved in research. It takes money to do this and grants can not cover everything. I know our department are trying to set up endowments for undergraduates to do research. But it would be good to see the University help, too. It could be a market tool for attracting students.This office is understaffed and if you want faculty to get more grants such staff is needed. To many administrators and faculty forget how important the classified and professional staff are to making the University function with very little pay.UMaine has always had a problem in certain areas of research to help fund research equipment. There are only a few granting agencies that have competitive funds for equipment and he University has limits on who can apply. Without the state of the art equipment it is difficult to get grants in the life sciences and chemistry areas. Maybe there should be a central lab that contains some of this new equipment.GThis has been a problem here for a long time in certain research areas.After all we are the State's Land Grant and Sea Grant University,but to do this type of research Maine businesses and government would have to support this type of research.I grew up in Maine and it is difficult to get Maine people to understand how the University can help them. If you could reach these people it should help but it will take a lot of creativity to be sucessful.See my comments abovexIf you are able to do many of the things in this survey it will be so beneficial to the State and University. Good luck2012-04-19 18:44:27MEIF does not support all creative activity- esp. activity /research in the arts. Stronger investment and support is needed in the arts.Agreement depends on the specific strategic areas. Question is too vague as to where priorities will be. My agreement only comes with inclusion of CLAS, and the arts.Xfirst priority should be appropriate support of existing programs, and existing students$need more information and backgroundnot at the expense of terminated faculty positions, and not if added grant specialists cater to MEIF only. Grant support in the arts has been non-existentonly if the arts are includedQneed more information as to why maintenance expenses are not covered in the grantQsuch investment should be fairly distributed in all areas - not just the sciences3agree only if research labs also extend to the artsMost questions clearly expressed bias to MEIF areas - UMaine needs to better support the liberal arts, non-MEIF faculty, researchers and undergraduate departments.2012-04-19 18:30:182012-04-19 18:37:01{I don't think we should expand the number of these investments, but support the investments and programs we currently have.mWe need to incentivize productivity and we can't do it all. We should focus on our strengths and fund those.I agree, but the budget for these high-tech proposals should be included in the proposals themselves. What happens here is that the cost of research is very high and if it is not covered by the proposal, these costs can end up coming out of the academic side. Research costs money and it has to come from somewhere. Football costs money and it has to come from somewhere. The Academic side of the house pays for these costs.As everyone knows, we have been working on this for decades. I don't know what the hold-up is, but I am sure that cog in the system is still holding it up.2012-04-19 18:54:48bI don't see how I can answer this without knowing about costs and implications for other programs.IHere too I don't have enough information. Where is that money going n< ow?*It will depend on what "creative" means. =How would this money be used? What difference would it make?3I do not know enough about the work of this School.How is this money used?5Recognition seems espeically important--and possible.'Are the current specialists overworked?-If this can be done without increasing costs.8Where would this money come from? what would we not do?2012-04-19 18:54:16ODifficult to answer; feel strongly about accepting responsibility for expenses.PWords like ooperation and collaboration do not seem to be in Maine's dictionary.lIssue is not more communication; we need better and more effective communication and sharing of information.2012-04-19 18:57:362012-04-19 18:59:032012-04-19 19:05:442012-04-19 19:20:542012-04-19 19:40:20UMaine should ensure that research in humanities, arts, and the social sciences are supported and communicated to the broader Maine community.2012-04-19 19:56:21I am pleased that the University is considering policies that will improve the research environment. Such policies complement the University's teaching role and always have the potential for important economic spin-offs for the state.2012-04-19 20:05:582012-04-19 20:42:14Hnot clear if this is suggesting support of these two programs or others.5But only if it is also done for tenure track faculty.Continuing to pull resources from core departments does advance the university in the long run. Many of the suppported areas are trendy and will die in a few years.KOnly if the person would work with all faculty, not just the "chosen" ones.)Continuing current trends of supporting only the trendy fields of research at the expense of the core departments is going to result in UM being a community college with classes taught by adjunct faculty combined with a technical school. Is that what the state flag-ship campus is supposed to be?2012-04-19 21:09:17Currently the lack of financial support for the departments is a disincentive for research. Since fixed and declining E&G funding has to be redirected toward grants management, the burden for management increases with an increase in research funding, and no support (only demands) come from the administration. Rational decision makers with REDUCE research activity in their departments.The marginal utility of money means that funding should be aggregated at a level where the amounts are large enough to have an impact. First, the disincentives for research such as additional workload on the department due to grant activity must be removed. Second, indirect should be returned at a level where an impact can be seen. Small amounts to PI's is worthless and will not generate additional benefitsTop down initiatives have not worked in the past and will not in the future. The administration has a very poor track record of getting buy-in from high productivity faculty. One key element in the process is that we have deans who do not have sufficient research activity to be awarded tenure in the departments in their colleges. These folks will be picking the winners and losers. Bad idea,The strategic plan lacks recognition of the financial realities of the university. It is time that the VPR and the Provost demand accountability from those in whom they invest. Currently the deans and chairs focus their efforts on punishing faculty who continue to be productive while not fitting into the poorly conceived top down initiatives. Entities like the AMC, AEWC and other large enterprises need to demonstrate that they provide a return to the research enterprise and the educational mission as they suck up precious facility funding and MEIF funds in a period of difficult finances. The current lack of transparency and accountability means that arbitrary criteria are used to evaluate these programs and the failures are perpetuated for political reasons. At the same time programs which thrive in poor soil are discouraged. We are marching headlong into a future of unfocussed mediocrity. We need to focus the same demands for excellence on our students and on our in< stitutional investments.2012-04-19 21:00:07Maybe was a good investment as a 'start-up' but limited resources should be more equally divided between different promising graduate programs.DOther resources for grad students should also be thought--e.g., AAUW2012-04-19 21:01:47Yes, but what will UMaine promise to deliver in return? Why should MEIF invest in the University? Basic question, but one that should be answered in the request.Is more better? Are these the areas that UMaine does best? Are these the areas that provide the best return to the state? What have these programs delivered to date? All questions that need to be answered from a strategic perspective before going forward.That is probably the only way that facility and other infrastructure improvements will be made. UMaine has many many antiquated research facilities that restrict the ability to compete for funds.If they also make the commitment to have a research facility that is up to date. Will nonstrategic research areas be reduced and teaching loads for those increased?VAre we really a PhD institution? or can we do a much better job at the master's level?<I don't know enough about the performance and return to date<This question doesn't clarify what the $100,000 is used for.BThese responsibilities have been shifted to researchers for years.I doubt this will happen. PIs have increasingly been asked to lift the load on proposal/budget development, copying,submission. no, no noShouldn't we also reward mentoring, collaboration, etc. Otherwise, it becomes a group of individuals rather than a research community.2012-04-19 20:54:532012-04-19 21:02:312012-04-19 21:58:14One of the limitations we face is personnel. Additional MEIF funds that could target personnel would dramatically affect productivity.These projects/programs can be somewhat unwieldy and inefficient. Investment in slightly smaller efforts would likely be more effective.8This seems like a no-brainer for a return on investment.DPhD students are well worth the investment in terms of productivity.PI see no reason not to do this, but i am not sure how much impact it would have.#This is their most productive time.Financial incentives to the facuty member would help. Undergraduates do not often return the investment of time with productivity.<I have not felt any negative impact of the current staffing.$I have not felt negatively impacted.The most useful person would not necessarily be a writer, but an assistant who can perform many of the administrative tasks related to grant preparation (e.g., reference lists, gathering collaborative letters, preparing the budget)KVery hard to evaluate, and I am not sure competition would affect outcomes.$A tough balance of time and results.2012-04-19 22:03:022012-04-19 22:27:192012-04-19 23:39:082012-04-20 05:11:352012-04-20 05:59:59This is a difficult time to request an increase in a budget, but these funds are important to maintain research opportunities, particularly for students.However, research and teaching need to be conducted hand-in-hand so the definition of "teaching loads" needs to be re-defined to give credit to faculty who teach students through hand-on learning experiences that are not necessarily classroom based.Graduate student quality and number is not always linked to funding opportunities. Finding the right/qualified person for a doctoral program (even with funding in hand) can be a challenge.2012-04-20 07:50:10aHow funding is secured determines the actual educational and societal value of these initiatives.'Do not know what the current policy is."Where would this 2% be drawn from?2012-04-20 07:48:502012-04-20 07:57:29Why limit the return of indirect to soft-money positions? I do not understand why contracts granted to non-tenure track faculty would be placed at an advantage over grants to tenure-track faculty. 2012-04-20 07:58:27Why not tenure-track too?2012-04-20 08:26:08zAll UM employees should be introduced to and have a basic understanding of the UM Land Grant responsibilities and mission< .2012-04-20 08:33:54fOnly if the administration makes clear that other funds will be allocated to disciplines outside MEIF.'The special emphasis on non-MEIF areas.Without significant support for non-MEIF areas, such recommendations as those made in the plan will lead only to a highly efficient tech school.2012-04-20 08:54:522012-04-20 08:58:33The problem with MEIF is that it is only available for faculty in engineering and the sciences. No money has been made available to humanists and social scientists who also need match for federal grants. uAgain, the science tail is wagging the university dog. The humanities and social sciences are massively underfunded.CWhat strategic areas? Science and engineering yet again, I expect.{Grants require such specialist knowledge of the field that I am not convinced by having a generic grant-writing specialist.cAfter 25 years of getting federal funds and receiving no indirect this would a welcome development.!This needs a clearer explanation.MWe've been doing this for decades and had no recognition from the university!The shift of resources from the humanities and social sciences to science and engineering has to be addressed. And it has to be more than lip-service. Matching funds have to be made available to allow the humanists to compete for federal grants. And we have to support innovative digital research, teaching, and outreach in the humanities and social sciences on campus. We are already way behind!2012-04-20 09:10:46Honestly I believe tenure track professors- need to teach. There is time for teaching, research and service. Plenty of time. MDoctoral students are critical to keeping professors young and researching! 4Again, this helps bring them in to the University. &I am not familier with this program. ZI am not familiar with this program, but it seems like it would be really a great thing. .Yes, but only if tied to the strategic plan. 2012-04-20 09:20:072012-04-20 09:32:032012-04-20 09:48:47I agree, except that I'm aware of the recent change in Augusta that now the MEIF funds are being split between all campuses, so I think granting this request is unlikely. 4With the inclusion of humanities and social sciencesIf faculty are expected to research, they should be supported to do so, or not penalized for lack of productivity with research if teaching loads are higher. .If faculty are not overburdened with teaching!Depends on which areas2012-04-20 10:15:53IThese are separate questions. I strongly agree that UMaine should restore faculty positions; I strongly disagree that a reduction of so-called teaching "loads" (2/1? 1/1?) will do much to increase productivity. Faculty should rather work to make their teaching at all levels useful extensions of their research, and vice-versa. iI haven't heard of the GSoBS, so I can't say whether they've done much to return that investment so far. As long as that investment has something to do with actually facilitating the writing of their dissertations and not simply with providing a living stipend. see above.No, UMaine should spend this money on developing grantsmanship abilities among the doctoral students and junior faculty who already know the subject matter. Anything to reduce the burden of non-specialist details would be welcome. It is, however, a mistake to think that the "writing" of the grant can be separated from the knowledge of the grant-seeker. This is a strange question. You're asking me, in effect, if I believe that I ought to be a researcher at a US public land-grant.JWho could possibly disagree? This is starting to sound like a push-poll. 2012-04-20 10:11:172012-04-20 10:25:56The restrictions on MEIF funds make it of limited utility to my research. I would like to see more investment in U Maine research but I think there are other areas besides economic development that are of import to the citizens of Maine (i.e. drug use, aging, mental health, health). bThese initiatives build lasting interdisciplinary collaborations vital to obtaining grant funding.Do you want to further<  discourage your tenure track faculty from obtaining grants? Already we are upset that indirects dont come back to our departments. Now I would be disadvantaged relative to non tenure track faculty? Why get a grant?(Selectively increasing stipends reduces I agree with the idea of increasing out of state graduate students and trust that this would do so. The way it is worded sounds like the opposite.EVery important to demonstrate the value of research to undergraduates#YES ABSOLUTELY! Incentivize grants!2012-04-20 10:19:22We really need to have a support for research. Such as a grant-writing specialist and statistical support (eg. SPSS software and statisticians).Supporting for research works at UMaine is not enough. And all the computer network system for faculty teaching and research is very weak. We should have a central network system and make faculty much easier and effective to teach and do their research work. 2012-04-20 10:20:072012-04-20 10:22:272012-04-20 10:27:502012-04-20 10:34:48*This would require careful consideration. zThe question is a bit misleading for unless the definition of MEIF changes it by definition excludes most creative fields.JDepends on the programs, more diversity in the type of programs is needed.2012-04-20 11:09:472012-04-20 11:24:55this is a double barrel question. I would agree that undergrad research is important but that the methods suggested are not usefulDOr at least make this department more productive however it is done.6Include lab accessibility for diverse students as well2012-04-20 11:23:16My agreement is provisional. If this means that funds will be reduced or not increased in other non-MEIF areas, then I would change my answer to "disagree."2012-04-20 12:00:29,Agree with the first part but not the second`This is a waste of our limited funds (we will never have enough funding to compete in this area)VOnly if there can be performance metrics to show that there is a return on investment.HNot just in science areas but should be for any area that has such needsVbut this should not be a limit to other kinds of research and support for other kinds.Need more support and emphasis of research that is not NSF or NIH funded but valuable for universities to do, such as Humanities research and Creative works in the Arts2012-04-20 12:04:392012-04-20 13:21:442012-04-20 13:59:45/I agree, but with the caveat that the investment be sufficient to yield results. It might be worth finding out about the NSF engineering and science centers as to what works, what the expectations are, and what a reasonable time frame is for productivity. Plan on hard ball reviews of the investments.Attracting and keeping non-tenure track research faculty is critical for new ideas and new interactions, since few teaching faculty are replaced on retirement.BUMaine can't excel at everything. We need some landmark programs.'Let's be realistic. What does $100K buy? 5 RA's? A strategy might be 3 - 5 times that much. Justify it based on more TAs in landmark programs, where the TAs supervise peer learning and entrain undergraduates in their research. I agree - increase the investment, but don't do it as a token.9I did not know that we did. Is that for tuition waivers?wMentoring undergraduates is a hugh time investment. It can be rewarding, but having credit for doing it would be nice._If we miss deadlines for submission, that is not much help to the University's research agenda.fFew of us are good at everything. Should I put my effort into creativity? or reading rules and regs? Hiring trainable staff in ORSP to speed up submissions would help. I am not sure if hiring a grant-writing specialist would. Maybe hiring a GOOD consultant for grant writing workshops would help; there are some out there. Presumably for maintenance and calibration? One observation from recently sitting in on infrastructure panels is the question - 'can the PI maintain the equipment?'aor fund the PI to travel and work at a lab where they have the equipment, to get preliminary data3This is a tricky one.<  Some PIs want indirect cost returned, even if it is only a couple of thousand dollars. I'd rather see the funds go into something that would help everyone in the department. For example, funding for graduate students or hiring research faculty with two years of hard money to start.Helping young faculty is important. In humanities, a very small award makes a hugh difference. In sciences, a small award does not have much impact. vThat also helps with competitive grants (such as NSF), since many agencies look for a human dimension to the research.2012-04-20 15:23:59While we should seek this increase, we should also consider how we might seek other investment funding from the state in other areas than MEIF. Given the choice between increased MEIF and support for other areas, I'd rather ask for the latter.9Yes, we need new Major Program Investments; however, why only in the Big Science and Technology categories? We need look to develping research funding for all of the University's disciplines, particularly those which we have for so long ignored in the Humanities, Arts, Social Sciences, and Theoretical Sciences.oWhile I understand the additional incentive it would offer them, it would also tacitly steer University already scarce funds to subsidize them. Instead, we need award any additional university funding, covering lab-space, heat, light, and power, library support, and so on, which the indirect overhead would have covered, through a competaitive application process. While I agree, I worry about the mechanisms that will identify the strategic positions in research, for so far we've favored technologies at the expense of all else. Also, I would agree to "creative ways to reduce teaching" only if they are guaranteed not to weaken our programs.I could only agree if i first knew from where this additional $75,000 would come from, given the Financial constraints on us all, which have precipitate our losses of faculty positions.Could we have a clearer sense of what other programs could benefit from that dedicated investment? Since our original commitment to this funding, what other programs have evolved that might better use the funding?AI presume that recognition would stem from a peer review process?(Not at the expense of faculty positions.\Not while we have so many departments needing faculty replacements, so long deferred so far.The high-technology budgets have drained far to much from other programs already. Why have we so long endured such an on-going subsidising of these programs from the traditionally self-sustaining fields?2Again, by drawing from what other field's budgets?QThe key word here: self-sustainable, not made sustainable by drawing from others.9But not at the expense of faculty positions and teaching.Yes, but not by looking only to large industries, when we remain a state whose principal economy is generated by small businesses. We need develop a mechanism to work far more closely with these smaller, and far more numerous, businesses, non-profits, and other groups.Again, as long as it refocuses to smaller players, and not the unusal large industries that are ultimately not self-sustaining.nWe need connect with each community through their core infrastructures, including their libraries and schools.We need to expand as a research institution in all fields, not just a select few favored by large businesses, just as the top research universities do.2012-04-21 09:23:04iThis is critical to keeping us competitive for new hires and for continued investment in current faculty.kI think this is generally a good idea, although I wonder how many of these centers can really be sustained.Incentives like this should be expanded- the University and the research faculty member both benefit from incentives like this.This is critical to sustaining key programs, and reduced teaching loads are a key asset to recruit new faculty to UMaine over other institutions.yA stronger doctoral program is a key component of a strong research university, so anything to bolster that is important./This would be < a good benefit for many students.It's a strong program and great model, but it's unclear to me why that program is supported over others when they have an entire, well-funded federal agency (NIH) to tap into.Investing in undergraduate research is important. I do think the best results with internal funding, though, will not come from spreading resources thinly across many people who may or may not have much experience with undergrad mentoring, but rather, focus it on a successful group of faculty spanning disciplines. I think that would be the most effective model for initially solidifying the culture of undergrad research on this campus.CI submit numerous proposals every year, and have had no issues yet.No problems in my experience.aEquipment maintenance is a real problem on this campus, and this sounds like it would help a bit.qIt's unclear to me how successful this program has been to date, and whether this is the best use of these funds.hThis is another critical area for which we appear to have no plan at present, so this is greatly needed.Investing more in the Faculty Awards Program is key- seed money such as this is so important for garnering large federal grants, and I know public, primarily undergraduate institutions that invest more in these programs than we do.>I can think of better investments of money and time than this.lI believe we already do quite a bit of this, and this is one function of our research, but not the only one.%Again, I thought we already did this.2012-04-21 09:48:12We can demonstrate a very high return on investment to the statefrom past reseach. Also investment in research that benefits small local businesses, like farms, should be empohsiszed as this meets previous objectives stated by the govenor.A great idea and provides more incentive to persue soft money, which presently taxes faculty due to time spent writing, bookkeeping and reporting on sponsored research.NOne of the reasons our undergraduate and graduate students are becoming discouraged in some of the sciences is that too few faculoty are willing to teach, especially in the basic level courses. Much of the reason is because they are under too much pressure to get outside funding and get too little credit towards tenure for teachinguEncourage experience with outside businesses working with researchers to support undergraduates (apprentice programs)I woulod prefer to see such specialists working at the college or departmental level where they could better understand the projects and be of more direct help in developing grants. @Time spent on administrating grants is the biggest disincentive.jAgain, I believe this would be most effective if they were posioned at the college or departemental level.\Use the instraments already in the field to help determine the potentail value of a proposal2012-04-21 11:11:562012-04-21 13:47:44The Department of Public Administration should be returned to the Department of Political Science, where it began. The State of Maine needs ethically trained administrators to carry out UM's mission.2012-04-21 15:47:20gThis is a key area of the research and education that Cooperative Extension does, and it needs support.2012-04-21 18:02:50.Why should this program get special treatment?Perhaps better funding of current positions would serve the goal better. The problem is that ORSP is not much help, not because it is understaffed but because it is not up to the job. Provide competitive salaries so that good staff is attracted to the positions.But 2% is not sufficient for service contracts. Indirect funds should ALWAYS, by definition, be used to support research infrastructure, including covering service contracts. Why the System Office thinks it can keep these funds, why it's even legal for it to do so, is beyond me.Missing from this aspect of the plan is that centers for research---centralized research facilities---should be a priority. Too often major equipment is duplicated in independent labs and goes underutilized and undersupported.As I noted above, indirect funds should be used < for supporting research infrastructure, not held for who knows what at the System Office.ZBut a business perspective is not the sole one to follow. Basic research has nobler goals.iIsn't this required by federal granting agencies? It is seen as increasingly important by many interests.Consolidation of effort on central research facilities and minimizing duplication of facilities in individual labs should be a priority.2012-04-21 20:57:55uBut I believe that the Trustees want these funds allocated in part to all seven campuses, regardless of their needs. But what constitutes "specific strategic areas" obviously differs from discipline/dept./college to another, and, traditionally, this leaves out Humanities altogether--the dream of former Pres. Kennedy and most Trustees, to be sure. But only if doctoral programs outside of science/engineering get crucial support for their grad students, many of whom have no other funding available. This has been a fiasco, as most concede. It was part of Robert Kennedy's facade of making UMaine into a high-tech institute and little else (save big athletics)EPresumes that these doctoral students have making expected progress. To the extent possible, yes. eIf needed. But surely our first priority is to keep Athletics fully staffed, esp. for Tim Whitehead. I don't know what this means. 'This would be an excellent investment. But what constitutes "research excellence" in different disciplines/depts./colleges? Always a problem, and obviously an issue at all research universities. Of course, but not in the name of de facto vocational training favored by the legislature and many System Trustees. Our purpose is not exclusively job creation and never has been. Excellent questions, excellent annotations in most cases. But if the depleted faculty (non-coaching) ranks are not remedied, these plans/policies/goals will surely not be fulfilled or reached.2012-04-22 00:29:032012-04-22 10:27:09>As long as funding is available to support these new programs.All departments/researchers, not just soft money faculty, should receive 40% 0f their indirect costs to invest in their research.As we have lost faculty and especially staff positions our individual workload has increased dramatically. Faculty are now expected to do all their own work plus the work formerly done by their staff members. Combine this with increased student numbers that increases our teaching workload and something has to give, which is our research productivity. We need non-faculty positions to help reduce our teaching and advising workload.+Coordinating large classes (25 to 35 students) where every student is performing some type of senior research project is extremely time consuming and requires significant funding to support the research. Individual classes need this financial support even if they are not associated with the CUGR.RIndirect costs recovered should go to the researcher, not to upper administration.`Faculty at UMaine have received far too little reward or recognition for their outstanding work.Aiding the people of Maine and their industries/businesses by our research and education is a required goal of MAFES and should be an objective of the entire UMaine operation.Aiding the people of Maine and their industries/businesses by our research requires their involvement in our research and grant planning processes.2012-04-22 17:28:162012-04-22 22:03:30Concern: Where will this money come from? Does the State have it? The return on investment is good, but is there money to invest?tNot sure - how is the rest of the University faring from these programs? Is there an investment "conservation law"?Only if tenure-track faculty consistently get some similarly substantial percentage. Why only research faculty? Tenure-track faculty could use those recovered costs for programs as well.Again, does this come at the cost of strained situations in non-strategic areas? Restoring positions in departments that are vital to teaching as well as research is important.Research graduate students should not be co<nsidered out-of-state after the first year - they live here year-round if they do research in the summer. They are Maine residents, have Maine licenses, etc. What has that investment returned? The results are not obvious to the community. I don't know enough to say whether it's worth it or not. I could believe that other areas could use the support...This is an excellent idea. Even partial support (1/3 or 1/2 RAs) rather than full-year funding would be helpful, and could be spread among more students.OSummer funding for undergraduates? Subsidize grant funding for UG researchers?:Not clear what the need is or what their purpose would be.WMake MaineStreet easier to extract information from about budgets, and to bill to, etc.I would expect that this person may not be useful for all grants (science, engineering, humanities, etc.), so it's not clear this would make sense. And it may seem like the rich getting richer if this person is used for the Major Programs that are already getting the lion's share of attention and support from the University. What they need are some well-written boilerplate bits for grant proposals, and data that are typically included in proposals (e.g., to NSF, NIH, etc.) to prevent each PI from gathering the necessary information themselves. E.g., synergies on campus - small paragraphs about different research centers or facilities that are already written to highlight important and relevant features.3Not enough detail here to have an informed opinion.dBased on grants received? People bringing in large overhead amounts should be rewarded in this way.YES.eNot sure the award would be a sufficient motivation - merely an "attaboy" after the fact. Most academic researchers aren't in the research for internal awards. And how is this different from the Presidential Research and Creative Achievement Award? (That's a career award?) Would the award be research funding? Travel funds and other unrestricted funds?+Not sure what this means - it's very vague.fIf relevant, and the industry/community has some other investment or reason to gain from the research.Sounds good, but not sure what this means. And often educational outreach may not be effective in any learning, just a gee-whiz.2012-04-22 22:54:14  A*+&?'?(?)?"d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`@ / 0 1 0  0  0 0 4 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 a  1 "0 $1 &1 (1 *17@ b@ / 0 1 1  2  1 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 2 2  1 "1 $1 &0 (0 *08@ c@ / 1 1 1  1  0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 d 0  1 "0 #e $1 &0 'f (0 *09@ g@ / 2 h G i 1  j  2  k  4  l 1 G m G n 0 o 0 p 0 0 q 2 2  1 "0 $4 %r &0 (0 *0 ,s:@ t@ / 0 1 0  0  0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0  0 "1 $0 &1 (1 *1;@ u@ / 2 1 1  0  v  0 0 1 1 1 0 w 0 2 x 2 2  1 "0 #y $0 &0 (0 *0 ,z<@ {@ / 0 0 0  0  0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1  1 "1 $0 &1 (2 *2=@ |@ / 0 1 0  0  0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0  0 "0 $0 &0 (1 *0>@ }@ / 0 2 0  0  2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2  2 "0 $2 &0 (0 *0?@ ~@ / 1 1 1    1    4   0  G 1 4 0 0  4 1 1  0 "1 $1 &1 (1 *1@@ @ / 1 2 2  1  1 1 G 2 1 1 1 1 2 2  2 "2 $2 &1 (1 *1@@ @ / 0 4 0  0  0 2 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1  2 "1 $0 &0 (1 *2A@ @ / 1  1 4    1  1 4 2  2  1 0 1  4  1  1  2 ! "1 $1 &0 (0 ) *0 ,A@@ / 0B@ @ / 0 2 2  2    1   0 2 2 0 0 0 1  1 1  1 "1 $1 &2 ' (1 *2 + ,B@ @ / 0 2 0  0  0 0 4 0 G 0  0 0 0 0  0 "0 $2 &2 (2 *0 C@  @ / 1 2 2 1 0 2 4 1 0 G  1  G  1 0 1 "0 $G % &0 (1 *0!C@ !!@ !/ !2 ! !G !1 !  ! 0 !  ! 2 !  !0 !0 ! !0 !0 !1 !0 !4 ! !2 !1 ! 4 !! !"1 !# !$G !% !&1 !(2 !*2 !+"D@ ""@ "/ "0 "4 " "G "  " 0 "  " 1 "  "0 "1 "1 "0 " "4 " "0 "1 "0 " "1 " 0 ""0 "# "$0 "% "&4 "' "(4 ") "*2 "+ ",#D@ ##@ #/ #0 #4 # #0 #  # 0 # 0 #0 #G # #G # #0 #0 #0 #2 #1 #1 # 0 #"0 ## #$4 #% #&0 #(0 #*0$E@ $$@ $/ $0 $0 $1 $ 0 $ 0 $0 $1 $2 $0 $4 $0 $1 $1 $1 $ 0 $"1 $$1 $&0 $(0 $*0%E@ %%@ %/ %0 % %1 %0 % 4 % 0 %0 %G %0 %4 %N %1 %2 %G %0 % 0 %"G %# %$2 %&1 %(1 %*1&F@&@ &/'F@ ''@ '/ '1 '2 '2 ' 1 ' 2 '2 '2 '2 '1 'N '1 '4 '2 '2 ' 2 '"2 '$4 '&0 '(0 '*1(G@ ((@ (/ (0 (1 ( (4 (  ( 0 (  ( 4 (  (0 ( (4 (0 (0 (1 (4 ( (1 (G (G ( 4 ("0 ($0 (&0 ((G () (*0)G@ ))@ )/ )1 ) )2 )1 ) 1 )  ) 2 )  )1 )2 )1 )1 ) )N ) )1 )2 ) )2 )2 ) 2 )"2 )# )$2 )% )&1 )' )(1 )*1 ),*H@ **@ */ *1 * *2 *1 * 2 *  * 2 *  *2 *2 *2 * *1 *1 * *2 *1 *2 *2 * 2 *"1 *$2 *% *&1 *(1 **2 *++H@+@ +/ +1 +1 +2 + ,I@ ,,@ ,/ ,1 ,2 , ,1 , 0 , 0 ,  ,2 ,4 ,2 ,1 ,4 , ,1 ,G ,2 ,2 , 1 ,"2 ,$1 ,&1 ,(1 ,*1 ,,-I@ --@ -/ -0 -G -0 -  - 0 - 0 -0 -G -0 -G -0 -0 -0 -0 -G - 0 -"0 -$0 -&G -(G -*G.J@ ..@ ./ .2 .2 .0 . 0 . 0 .  .0 .4 . .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .4 .2 . 2 ."0 .$2 .% .&G .' .(4 .) .*2 .+ .,/J@/@ // /10K@ 00@ 0/ 00 02 01 0 0 0 2 00 04 01 01 0N 00 00 02 02 0 1 0"1 0$0 0&0 0(1 0*G1K@ 11@ 1/ 11 12 11 1 1 1 1 11 14 1 12 1 11 10 10 12 12 11 1 1 1! 1"1 1$2 1% 1&1 1(2 1*1 1,2L@ 22@ 2/ 20 2 21 20 2  2 1 2 1 21 22 20 20 21 20 21 2 22 21 2 0 2"0 2$0 2&0 2(1 2*0 2,3L@ 33@ 3/ 31 31 30 3 1 3 1 34 3G 3 32 31 30 3 32 34 3 32 31 3 0 3"1 3$1 3&1 3(1 3*14M@ 44@ 4/ 40 44 44 4 1 4 4 4  41 44 41 42 4 41 41 41 42 44 4 1 4"1 4$2 4&1 4(1 4*25M@ 55@ 5/ 50 51 52 5 0 5 0 52 52 52 52 51 52 52 52 52 5 2 5"4 5$1 5&0 5(0 5*26N@6? 6/7N@ 77@ 7/ 7G 7G 7G 7 0 7 G 7G 7G 7G 70 7G 71 7G 7G 72 7 2 7"0 7$0 7&0 7(0 7*2 7,8O@ 88@ 8/ 81 81 82 8 4 8 2 81 84 81 81 81 80 80 82 81 8 1 8"0 8$4 8&1 8(1 8*19O@ 99@ 9/ 90 9 91 91 9 0 9 1 90 94 90 91 90 90 91 91 9 91 9 0 9"0 9$1 9&1 9(1 9*2 9,:P@ ::@ :/ :0 :1 :1 : 0 : 2 :2 :2 :1 :1 :4 :0 :1 :1 :1 : 0 :"0 :$0 :&0 :(0 :*0;@P@ ; ;@ ;/ ;1 ;4 ;1 ; 4 ; 4 ;2 ;4 ;1 ;0 ;4 ;4 ;1 ;1 ;1 ; 1 ;"1 ;$1 ;&1 ;(1 ;*1<P@ < <@ </ <0 <  <G <  <2 < 1 < 0 <0 <2 <  <0 < <0 <0 < <0 <1 <0 <0 < 0 <"0 <$2 <&1 <' <(2 <*1 <+=P@ ==@ =/ =0 =1 = =1 = 0 =  = 0 =  =0 = =2 = =2 = =0 = =1 = =0 =1 = =0 =0 = 0 ="0 =# =$0 =% =&1 =(1 =) =*0 =+ =, >Q@ >!>@ >/ >1 >1 >" >1 > 4 > 4 >4 >4 >1 >0 >4 >0 >4 >2 >2 > 2 >"0 >$0 >&0 >(1 >*0?@Q@ ?#?@ ?/ ?0 ?4 ?0 ? $ ? 1 ? 0 ? % ?2 ?G ?1 ?1 ?0 ?0 ?& ?2 ?' ?2 ?0 ?( ? 2 ?!) ?"0 ?$0 ?&1 ?(0 ?*0@Q@ @*@@ @/ @0 @2 @0 @ 0 @ 0 @0 @2 @0 @0 @0 @0 @G @+ @0 @, @0 @ 0 @!- @"0 @#. @$0 @&0 @'/ @(0 @)0 @*0 @+1AQ@ A2A@ A/ A0 A3 A1 A4 A1 A 0 A 5 A 0 A0 A6 A4 A7 A0 A0 A8 AN A9 A0 A: A1 A1 A; A0 A 0 A!< A"0 A#= A$2 A%> A&0 A'? A(0 A*0BR@ B@B@ B/ B0 B1 B1 B 0 B 0 B1 B4 BA B0 B1 B0 B1 B0 B0 B0 B 1 B"1 B$1 B&1 B(1 B*1C@R@ CBC@ C/ C0 C0 C0 C 1 C 2 C2 C2 C2 C1 C1 C0 C0 C2 C2 C 1 C"1 C$1 C&0 C(0 C*0DR@ DCD@ D/ D1 D2 D2 D 2 D D D 4 D1 D4 D2 D4 D1 D2 D4 D4 D2 D 4 D"1 D$1 D&1 D(1 D*1ER@ EEE@ E/ E1 EG E2 E 0 E 0 E1 E1 E1 E2 EG E2 E2 E2 E2 E 2 E"2 E$1 E&2 E(1 E*1FS@ FFF@ F/ F0 F0 F1 F 2 F 1 F1 F1 F0 F0 F1 F0 F2 F2 F1 F 1 F"0 F$1 F&1 F(2 F*1G@S@ GGG@ G/ GG GH G2 G2 G 4 G I G 2 G1 G2 G2 G2 GN G2 G2 G2 G2 G 2 G"2 G$2 G&1 G(1 G*2HS@ HJH@ H/ H1 HK H2 H1 H 1 H 1 H2 H2 HL H2 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H 0 H"2 H$1 H&1 H(1 H*1 H,MIS@ INI@ I/ I0 IO I0 IP I0 I Q I 0 I R I 0 I0 I2 IS I0 IT I1 IU I0 IV I0 IW I2 IX I2 IY I1 IZ I 1 I![ I"0 I#\ I$4 I%] I&1 I'^ I(1 I)_ I*0 I+` I,aJT@ JbJ@ J/ J0 J4 J0 J 0 J 0 J0 J0 J0 J0 JN J2 J0 J0 J0 J 0 J"0 J$0 J&0 J(0 J*0K@T@ KcK@ K/ K1 K1 K2 K 1 K 1 K2 K2 K2 K1 K1 K2 K1 K1 K0 K 1 K"1 K$2 K&0 K(0 K*0LT@ LdL@ L/ L0 L2 Le L2 L f L 4 L g L 0 L h L2 Li L4 Lj L4 Lk L0 Ll L1 Lm L4 Ln L0 Lo L4 L4 L 0 L!p L"1 L#q L$4 L%r L&1 L(1 L*1MT@ MsM@ M/ M0 M4 Mt M0 M 1 M G M u M0 MG Mv MG Mw M4 Mx M0 My M1 M2 Mz M1 M2 M{ M 0 M!| M"2 M#} M$G M%~ M&0 M' M(0 M) M*0 M+ M,NU@ NN@ N/ N0 N1 N1 N 1 N 1 N1 N1 N1 N2 NN N1 N1 N1 N4 N 1 N"1 N$1 N&1 N(1 N*2O@U@ OO@ O/ O1 O1 O1 O 0 O 1 O1 O2 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O 0 O"0 O$0 O&0 O(0 O*0PU@ PP@ P/ P0 P P0 P0 P 0 P 0 P1 P4 P P0 P P0 P P1 P0 P2 P0 P P2 P 1 P"0 P$1 P&1 P(1 P*1QU@ QQ@ Q/ Q1 Q2 Q2 Q 2 Q 4 Q4 Q2 Q2 Q4 QG QG QG Q4 Q2 Q 2 Q"0 Q$2 Q&0 Q(1 Q*1R@V@ RR@ R/ R0 R R1 R R0 R  R 1 R 0 R  R0 R2 R R1 R R0 R R0 R R0 R0 R0 R R0 R 0 R! R"0 R$0 R&0 R' R(0 R) R*0 R+ R,SV@ SS@ S/ S1 S S4 S2 S 1 S  S 4 S  S2 SG S2 S S0 SN S S2 S2 S S2 S SG S S 1 S! S"0 S$0 S&1 S(1 S*1 S,TV@ TT@ T/ T0 T0 T0 T 0 T 0 T0 T2 T0 T1 T0 T0 T2 T0 T4 T 0 T"0 T$0 T&2 T(2 T*2UW@ UU@ U/ U0 UG U U0 U 0 U  U 2 U1 U2 U0 U0 U0 U0 U0 U1 U U1 U 0 U"0 U# U$0 U&1 U(1 U*0V@W@ VV@ V/ V1 V2 V V2 V  V 2 V  V 2 V  V1 V2 V V2 V V1 V VN V V2 V V1 V2 V2 V V 1 V"2 V$2 V&1 V(1 V*1WW@ WW@ W/ W0 W1 W0 W 1 W 1 W4 W1 W1 W2 WN W4 W W1 W2 W1 W 1 W"1 W$1 W&0 W(1 W) W*4 W+XW@ XX@ X/ X1 X1 X1 X 0 X 1 X2 X2 X2 X1 X1 X1 X1 X1 X1 X 1 X"1 X$1 X&1 X(1 X*1YX@ YY@ Y/ Y1 Y4 Y1 Y 1 Y 2 Y2 Y2 Y1 Y0 Y1 Y1 Y2 Y1 Y1 Y 0 Y"1 Y$1 Y&1 Y(1 Y*1Z@X@ ZZ@ Z/ Z0 Z2 Z0 Z 1 Z 1 Z2 Z2 Z0 Z0 ZN Z0 Z2 Z0 Z0 Z 0 Z"0 Z$0 Z&1 Z(2 Z*0[X@ [[@ [/ [0 [2 [1 [ 1 [ 1 [1 [2 [1 [0 [0 [0 [0 [2 [1 [ 0 ["1 [$1 [&0 [(0 [*0\X@ \\@ \/ \0 \2 \2 \ 4 \ 1 \1 \2 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \2 \1 \ 1 \"4 \$1 \&2 \(2 \*0 \,]Y@ ]]@ ]/ ]0 ]1 ]0 ] 0 ] 0 ]2 ]2 ]1 ]1 ]1 ]1 ]1 ]1 ]1 ] 1 ]"0 ]$1 ]&0 ](0 ]*1 ],^@Y@ ^^@ ^/ ^2 ^1 ^1 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^2 ^1 ^0 ^0 ^4 ^1 ^1 ^1 ^2 ^ 1 ^"1 ^$2 ^&0 ^(1 ^*2_Y@ __@ _/ _0 _2 _ _1 _  _ G _  _ 1 _2 _4 _1 _1 _4 _0 _4 _ _1 _1 _ 0 _"1 _$2 _&1 _(1 _*1 _,`Y@ ``@ `/ `0 `4 `0 ` 0 ` 0 `1 `G `0 `4 `1 `0 ` `4 `1 `2 ` 1 `"1 `# `$1 `&G `' `(2 `*2 `,aZ@ aa@ a/ a0 a1 a0 a 1 a 0 a1 a4 a a2 a a0 a0 a0 a0 a1 a0 a 1 a"0 a$1 a&1 a(1 a*0b@Z@ bb@ b/ b0 b b1 b b0 b  b 0 b  b 4 b  b4 b2 b b2 b b0 b4 b b1 b bG b b1 b1 b 0 b"1 b$1 b% b&0 b(0 b*0cZ@ cc@ c/ c1 c2 c1 c 0 c 0 c4 c1 c1 c2 c1 c0 c1 c2 c2 c 1 c"1 c$0 c&1 c(1 c*1dZ@ dd@ d/ d0 d2 d2 d 2 d 2 d2 d2 d2 d0 d0 d0 d2 d2 d2 d 0 d"0 d$0 d&1 d(1 d*1e[@ ee@ e/ e0 e e4 e e0 e  e 0 e 0 e  e2 e e2 e0 e e1 e eN e e2 e e2 e e0 e1 e 1 e"0 e$2 e% e&1 e(2 e*2 e+f@[@ ff@ f/ f0 fG f0 f 0 f 0 f0 f2 f0 f0 fN f0 f1 f0 f0 f 0 f"0 f$0 f&2 f(2 f*1g[@ gg@ g/ g0 g1 g0 g 0 g 2 g2 g0 g2 g0 g0 g0 g0 g2 g0 g 2 g"0 g$0 g&2 g(2 g*2h[@ hh@ h/ h0 h1 h1 h 1 h 2 h2 h1 h1 h1 hN h0 h1 h1 h1 h 1 h"0 h$2 h&0 h(1 h*0i\@ ii@ i/ i1 i1 i1 i 2 i 1 i1 i0 i1 i0 i1 i1 i1 i1 i2 i 1 i"2 i$1 i&1 i(1 i*1j@\@ jj@ j/ j1 j j2 j0 j 1 j  j 2 j  j0 j4 j0 j0 j0 j0 j1 j1 j1 j 0 j"0 j$0 j&0 j(0 j*1k\@k@ k/ k0 k4 k0 k 1 k 0 k1 k4 k1 k0 kN k0 k2l]@ ll@ l/ l1 l2 l l2 l  l 1 l 0 l0 l2 l0 l0 lN l0 l2 l2 l l1 l 1 l"1 l$1 l&0 l(0 l*0m@]@ mm@ m/ m2 m1 m1 m 1 m 1 m2 m2 m1 m0 mN m1 m1 m2 m2 m 1 m"1 m$1 m&1 m(1 m*1n]@ nn@ n/ n0 n4 n4 n  n 1 n 1 n1 n4 n2 n1 n1 n2 n0 n1 n1 n 2 n"1 n$1 n&1 n(1 n*1o]@ oo@ o/ o0 o1 o4 o  o 2 o 0 o1 o2 o1 o1 oN o2 o1 o1 o1 o 0 o"0 o$2 o&0 o(1 o*1p^@ pp@ p/ p1 p1 p0 p 2 p 1 p0 p2 p4 p0 p4 p4 p4 p2 p2 p 2 p"0 p$1 p&1 p(1 p*1 p,q@^@ qq@ q/ q0 q q2 q0 q 1 q 0 q0 q2 q2 q1 qG q0 q4 q2 q2 q 2 q"0 q$0 q% q&1 q(1 q*1 q,r^@ rr@ r/ r2 r4 r1 r 4 r 4 r4 r2 r2 r2 r4 r1 r4 r1 r1 r 2 r"4 r$2 r&0 r(1 r*1s^@ ss@ s/ s2 s s4 s s2 s 2 s  s 1 s1 s2 s2 s1 s1 s1 s2 s s2 s2 s 2 s"0 s#  s$2 s%  s&1 s(2 s*0 s+  s, t_@ t t@ t/ t0 t2 t2 t 4 t  t 0 t  t0 t t2 t t2 t1 t t4 t2 t2 t2 t2 t 1 t"1 t$0 t&0 t(0 t*0 t+u@_@u@ u/v_@ vv@ v/ v0 v1 v1 v 0 v 1 v2 v1 v2 v0 v0 v0 v0 v2 v1 v 1 v"2 v$0 v&0 v(0 v*0w_@ ww@ w/ w0 w1 w1 w 0 w 0 w1 w2 w0 w0 w0 w0 w0 w2 w2 w 2 w"0 w$0 w&0 w(1 w*0x`@ xx@ x/ x1 x x1 x x0 x 0 x  x 2 x1 x2 x1 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x2 x 0 x"0 x$1 x% x&0 x(0 x*0y `@y@ y/ y0 y2 y2 y 4 y  y 1 y2 y2 y1 y2 yN y1 y1 y2 y2 y 2z@`@ zz@ z/ z0 z0 z0 z 0 z  z 0 z0 z2 z z0 z z0 z  zG z! z0 z0 z" z2 z0 z 1 z"0 z$0 z&0 z'# z(0 z*0 z+${``@ {%{@ {/ {0 {0 {1 { 0 { 1 {1 {2 {2 {1 {N {2 {1 {1 {1 { 1 {"1 {$1 {&0 {(0 {*0|`@ |&|@ |/ |4 |' |0 |( |G | ) | 0 | 0 | * |0 |+ |2 |0 |0 |, |0 |0 |2 |0 |0 | 0 |"0 |#- |$0 |&2 |(2 |*2}`@ }.}@ }/ }0 }2 }2 } 0 } 0 }0 }0 }0 }0 }0 }0 }0 }/ }0 }0 } 0 }"0 }$0 }&0 }(2 }*0 },0~`@ ~1~@ ~/ ~0 ~1 ~0 ~ 0 ~ 2 ~2 ~2 ~1 ~1 ~N ~1 ~1 ~1 ~1 ~ 0 ~"1 ~$1 ~&2 ~(2 ~*2`@ 2@ / 2 2 2  1  2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2  2 "2 $2 &1 (1 *1a@ 3@ / 1 2 1 2 2 4 4 2 2 N 1 2 1 1 1 "1 $1 &1 (1 *1 a@ 4@ / 0 0 2 2 5 0 1 2 1 0 4 1 1 2 2 2 "0 $1 &0 (0 *0@a@@ / 0 6 1 7 1`a@ 8@ / 0 G 4 4 1 2 2 2 1 4 1 G 4 2 2 "1 $4 &1 (1 *1a@ 9@ / 0 1 4 4 1 2 4 4 4 : 1 ; 2 4 2 1 0 !< "1 $4 &2 (2 *2a@ =@ / 1 > 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 N 2 2 2 2 1 "0 $1 &1 (1 *1a@ ?@ / 0 6 1 7 1 1 @ 1 1 G A 1 1 1 B 1 2 1 1 C 1 "1 $0 &1 'D (0 *0 ,Ea@ F@ / 0 2 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 4 1 4 4 2 2 "0 $4 &4 (1 *2b@ G@ / 1 2 2 4 1 2 4 4 2 N 2 1 2 2 1 "2 $2 &1 (2 *1 b@ H@ / 0 1 I 0 J 0 K G L 1 G 2 M 0 N 0 O 0 P 2 Q 1 R 2 S 1 "1 #T $2 %U &0 'V (0 *0@b@ W@ / 1 X 0 Y 4 Z 1 [ 2 \ G 2 ] 1 0 ^ 4 _ 2 4 ` G a G b G !b "1 #c $1 %d &1 'e (1 )f *0 +g ,h`b@ i@ / 0 j 1 k 0 l 0 m 0 n 0 o 1 p 0 0 q N r 2 s 1 1 t 2 u 0 !v "0 #w $2 %x &2 'y (2 )z *1b@ {@ / 0 1 | 1 } 4 ~ 1 1 1 1 0  1  0  1  1 1 1 "2 $2 &1 (0 ) *0b@ @ / 1 1 2 4 1 1 4 1 2 4 2 2 1 1 2 "1 $4 &1 (1 *1b@ @ / 1 0 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 G 2 "1 $0 &G (1 *1 ,b@ @ / 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 "2 $1 &0 ' (0 *0c@ @ / 1 1 1 1 1 4 4  1 1 N  1 1 1  1  0 "1 # $1 &1 ' (1 *0 + , c@ @ / 0  0 0 0  0  0 G  0  0  1  2  0  0 1 0 "0 $0 % &1 ' (0 *0 ,@c@ @ / 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 0 N 2 2 2 2 2 "1 $1 &1 (1 *1`c@ @ / 0 1  1  0  1 1 G 0 0  G 0 G 1 1 1 "0 # $0 % &0 ' (0 ) *1c@ @ / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 "1 $1 &1 (1 *1c@ @ / 1  2  2  1  1 0  2  0  1  N  0  2  1 2  0 ! "0 # $2 % &2 ' (1 ) *1 +c@ @ / 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 N 1 1 2 1 2 "1 $2 &1 (1 *1>@ Root Entry F =.! =.!Book  FRV  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~