SENATE RESEARCH COMMITTEE AGENDA DECEMBER 3, AM A CALL TO ORDER

Transcription

1 SENATE RESEARCH COMMITTEE AGENDA DECEMBER 3, AM A CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVALS 2.1. AGENDA MOTION: THAT THE AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 3, 2015 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED MINUTES* MOTION: THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 2015 BE APPROVED AS CIRCULATED. 3. BUSINESS ITEMS 3.1 STRATEGIC RESEARCH PLAN* BRAD WHITTAKER 3.2 RESEARCH EXCELLENCE AWARD (REA) UPDATE REVIEW OF SUB-COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 3.3 REQUEST FOR SRC REPRESENTATIVE AT APPC MEETINGS FOR SCOTT SHEFFIELD ISSUE BEING REVISITED AS TO WHO CAN BE THE REPRESENTATIVE ON THE APPC FOR SCOTT SHEFFIELD, AND WHO WAS NOMINATED AS A SRC DESIGNATE. 4. INFORMATION ITEMS 5. ADJOURNMENT NEXT MEETING: FEBRUARY 4, 9:00 AM, ROOM A225 * ATTACHMENT

2 Senate Research Committee MINUTES December 3, am Room A225 Present: Adrienne Chan, Scott Sheffield (Chair), Steven Marsh, Shelley Canning, Ali Fotouhi, Lucy Lee, Margaret Coombs (arrived late), Ken Brealey, Brad Whittaker, Deborah Block Recorder: Kelly Tracey Regrets: Absent: Mary-Anne MacDougall, Tyler Blackman (student) Olav Lian, Avneet Sohal (student), Betty Poettcker, Al Wiseman, Chelsey Laird (staff) 1. CALL TO ORDER Call to order by Scott Sheffield at 9:05 am. 2. APPROVALS 2.1. Agenda* MOTION: THAT the agenda for December 3 rd, 2015 be approved as presented. Steven/Shelley CARRIED 2.2. Minutes* MOTION: THAT the minutes of October 8 th, 2015 be approved as circulated. Shelley/Ali CARRIED 3. BUSINESS ITEMS 3.1 Strategic Research Plan * Brad Whittaker gave a power point presentation regarding the Strategic Research Plan Questions were addressed. The plan is going through various consultations. Once the Strategic Research Plan is complete it will need to be approved by SRC before going before Senate and the board. The draft plan will be ready for review in January 2016, with the hope to have it approved by June Research Excellence Award (REA) Update * Scott Sheffield outlined the changes to the REA procedures put forth by the Senate Awards and Honours Committee (SAHC). The draft changes are that the SRC will confidentially retain all scoring records regarding the Research Excellence Award for one year, and that nominees from the previous two years are automatically nominated for the award a subsequent year. Nominees may choose if they do not wish to be automatically nominated again. The SRC will Minutes SRC TBA Page 1 of 2

3 meet in February, review and confirm the REA Subcommittee recommendation before forwarding the decision to Senate. The REA sub-committee is finalized and includes Adrienne Chan, Scott Sheffield, Margaret Coombs, Olav Lian, Shelley Canning, Tyler Blackman (student) and Kelly Tracey (staff). MOTION: THAT the Senate Research Committee is in agreement with the Senate s revisions to the Research Excellence Award procedures. Shelley Canning/ Adrienne Chan CARRIED 3.3 Request for SRC Representative at APPC meetings for Scott Sheffield It was agreed that Shelley Canning will represent Scott if he is unable to attend APPC meetings. Kelly will notify the Senate and APPC. 4. INFORMATION ITEMS 4.1. Update on Research Capture Project Scott Sheffield shared that the Research Capture Project was brought to the Research Advisory Council (RAC) meeting in November with the intention of having the committee take over the project. The RAC will decide on how to move forward with this project at their December 2015 meeting. 4.2 Senate Research Committee Membership * There are still 2 faculty vacancies on the SRC, I staff and 1 grad student vacancy, as per the membership list. It is anticipated that the Secretariat will be sending information to SRC regarding any elections. 5. ADJOURNMENT MOTION to adjourn Shelley/ Lucy Meeting adjourned at 10:05 am Next Meeting: February 4, 2016 at 9:00am in A225. Minutes SRC Page 2 of 2

4 Senate Research Committee MINUTES TBA IN CAMERA Oct 8, :00 am Room A225 Present: Guests: Regrets: Shelley Canning, Ali Fotouhi, Olav Lian, Scott Sheffield, Lucy Lee, Tyler Blackman, Adrienne Chan, Margaret Coombes, Brad Whittaker, Jennifer MacDonald, Kelly Tracey. Recorder: Deborah Block Michelle Riedlinger, Victor Glickman Betty Poettcker, Avneet Sohal, Ken Brealey, Chelsey Laird, Mary-Anne MacDougall, Al Wiseman, Steven Marsh 1. CALL TO ORDER - Call to order by Scott Sheffield at 9:03 am. 2. APPROVALS 2.1. Agenda MOTION: THAT the agenda for October 8, 2015 be approved as presented. Two items were added: 4.4 Centres and Institutes - GDI and Report to Senate; and 4.6 Strategic Research Plan. Shelley/Lucy CARRIED 2.2. Minutes MOTION: THAT the minutes of April 30, 2015 be approved as circulated. Olav/Shelley CARRIED 3. BUSINESS ITEMS 3.1. Research Excellence Award (REA) eligibility An in camera discussion was held to form the REA Review committee Michelle Riedlinger left the room for this agenda item Research and Scholarly Activity Database Project Victor joined the meeting to facilitate discussion on opportunities, engagement with the data base EduData, and faculty participation. The discussion concluded with Victor agreeing to write up a proposal and send it to Adrienne Chan for review Review of Standing Committees of Senate The Senate Governance committee responded to the SRC request for changes to the Terms of Reference. Rules of Quorum the rules for conduct of business are to be followed regarding attendance and quorum. Staggering of Membership Terms - The issue of staggering membership has been resolved Request for SRC representative at APPC meetings for Scott Sheffield Scott asked for an APPC representative from the SRC as he is not able to attend this term. ACTION: Deborah Block to find out who can be the representative on APPC then send a call for a SRC designate. AGENDA: Revisit this at the next SRC to ensure representatives are available if needed SRC - Minutes TBA no IN CAMERA Page 1 of 3

5 3.5. Election of a Vice-Chair for SRC Nominations were called for a Vice-Chair of SRC: Shelley Canning was nominated. MOTION: THAT Shelley Canning be elected as SRC Vice-Chair. Adrienne/Lucy ACCLAIMED ACTION: Deborah will notify the Secretariat office. 4. INFORMATION ITEMS 4.1. Update on RAC Research Capture Project Michelle provided a brief update on the project RAC statement on UFV 2025 Visioning Scott Sheffield, Margaret Coombs and Satwinder Bains drafted a statement for the UFV 2025 Visioning. The input from SRC, RAC and departments was included Research Ethics TCPSII changes Michelle provided background on the changes in the TCPS. The HREB is aiming to develop new policy to support researchers experiencing ethical and legal conflicts regarding their data Centres and Institutes 4.4.a Global Development Institute The GDI will become a Centre as defined in Policy 211 Centres and Institutions. This will only require a name change as their work will remain the same. SRC had no issues with this change. MOTION: THAT the SRC recommendation for the Global Development Institute to become a Centre be forwarded to Senate for approval. Adrienne/Shelley CARRIED 4.4.b Report to Senate Adrienne reviewed the process of the summary report which has gone to Senate as information only. The process was changed and reports are now due before summer SRC membership At its June 5, 2015 meeting, Senate approved the following updates to SRC membership: Scott Sheffield, Chair, 1 year term Lucy Lee, Dean, Faculty of Science, 3 year term Ali Fotouhi, Faculty of Science, 2 year term Chelsey Laird, Staff, International Education, 2 year term (since withdrawn) 4.6. Strategic Research Plan Brad is in the process of developing the new plan for , and will hold forums in October. 5. ADJOURNMENT MOTION to adjourn Lucy Meeting Adjourned at 10:25 am SRC - Minutes TBA no IN CAMERA Page 2 of 3

6 Next Meeting: December 3, 9:00 am, Room A SRC - Minutes TBA no IN CAMERA Page 3 of 3

7 Strategic Research Plan Forum Research Advisory C0uncil November 12, 2015 Brad Whittaker Director, Research Services and Industry Liaison

8 Amelia Fairweather Born November 3 rd 7 lbs 11 oz

9 Jenn MacDonald MA Masters of Arts Health and Aging McMaster University November 20, 2015

10 Strategic Research Plan Forum Process UFV Goals Strategic Research Plan review Considerations: Education Plan Vision 2025 Strategic Enrollment Plan New Strategic Research Plan Next steps

11 Process Discussions with Senior Academic Management Discussions with Deans Open Forums Research Advisory Council Draft Plan Open Forums & Faculty Councils Senior Management Group Process for approval

12 UFV Strategic Goals Provide the best undergraduate education in Canada Be a leader of social, cultural, economic, and environmentally responsible development in the Fraser Valley, and Be innovative, entrepreneurial, and accountable in achieving our goals.

13 present plan supports these goals by Facilitating the integration of research and teaching and multiplying the number of research opportunities for students Promoting and supporting the research, scholarly, and creative activities of faculty members, and Supporting and developing multidisciplinary and collaborative research programs in six main priority areas.

14 Major Goals 1. Integration of research and teaching and increased research opportunities for students 2. Increased support for faculty members research, scholarly, and creative activities 3. Substantial increase of multidisciplinary and collaborative research programs and activities within six priority areas

15 Integration of research and teaching and increased research opportunities for students Supporting the development and implementation of research based or inquiry based curricula Encouraging innovative ways of integrating research and teaching Doubling each year, for three years, the number of opportunities for student involvement in research Increasing the number of paid research assistantships for students Supporting students presentations of their research at academic and professional conferences.

16 Increased support for faculty members research, scholarly, and creative activities Increasing faculty involvement and participation in research, scholarly, and creative activities Increasing faculty participation and success rates in seeking and securing funding from the major granting Councils as well as from other less traditional sources of research funding Ensuring that faculty have access to timely and useful information about research and research funding opportunities Pursuing research opportunities and funding in cooperation with industry and community partners Helping faculty increase their engagement in research and other scholarly activities by providing adjustments to their workload Supporting the dissemination and publication of the results of faculty research Enhancing technological and information resources, including library collections, in support of research and scholarly activities

17 Substantial increase of multidisciplinary and collaborative research programs and activities within six priority areas Increasing institutional support for research in the six priority areas Identifying and actively pursuing research opportunities for collaborative research Entering into strategic partnerships, locally, nationally and internationally, with academic and research institutions, governments, and the private sector Strengthening the role and capacity of the University s research centres and institutes as practical vehicles for interdisciplinary collaboration.

18 Priority Areas (in alphabetical order) Citizenship, Culture, Governance, and Human Rights Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Environment and Sustainable Development Human Development, Health, and Well Being Molecular Science Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

19 Considerations Vision 2015 Strategic Enrollment Management Plan Principles of Research Option / Scholarly Activity

20 SEM Basic Areas Digital Media Technology Agriculture and the Environment Health and Wellness

21 ROSA Principle #1 Faculty scholarship which provides direct and meaningful learning opportunities for UFV students will be prioritized. Students involved in faculty research or scholarly projects must, according to this principle, be involved, contributing, and learning at multiple points in the study (i.e. in data collection/entry, analysis, synthesis and/or presentation of results).

22 ROSA Principle #2 Faculty scholarship which is applicable or relevant to the social, cultural, economic, or environmental development and/or needs of the local region and/or its communities will be prioritized. In accordance with UFV's strategic direction and mandate, faculty scholarship is not 'geographically delimited ; rather, faculty scholarship will identify how it relates to, or informs, regional or community needs, aspirations or development.

23 ROSA Principle #3 Faculty scholarship which supports UFV s mandate to be innovative and entrepreneurial through bringing revenue into the university which enables other research, scholarship, and learning activities will be prioritized. The program of scholarly work would have already obtained a seed grant, established grant, or a response of interest to their work from industry or a funder.

24 ROSA Principle #4 Faculty scholarship which informs the university's mandate to deliver the best undergraduate education, reflects broad interdisciplinary opportunities, contributes to the scholarship of teaching and learning, and/or extends the application of the member s expertise into new areas, will be prioritized.

25 Potential Themes Community, Justice, and Cultural Engagement Environment and Sustainable Development Health and Wellness Teaching and Learning Technology, Modelling and Applications

26 Community, Justice, and Cultural Engagement o Criminology o Business o Social work o Social sciences o Humanities

27 Environment and Sustainable Development o Agriculture o Geography o Climate change

28 Technology, Modelling and Applications Science including CIS Digital media technology Mathematics and statistics Applied technology

29 Goals and Objectives

30 Themes

31 Research Excellence Award Procedures Purpose Number of Awards Eligibility Timelines In accordance with the Board policy, Academic Excellence Award (BRP ), this award will recognize and celebrate excellence in research at UFV. One annual award, however, it is possible to not hand out an award one year if no suitable candidate is found. 1. B Type faculty, including lab instructors, after probation period; 2. Sessional faculty with equivalent of two years of teaching (accumulation of 14 sections); 3. Winners cannot be nominated for five years following receipt of the award; 4. Those nominated previous years may reapply if not selected, as outlined in the nomination process guidelines. 5. Unsuccessful applicants from the past two years will automatically be considered as candidates for the research excellence award. Nominators will be invited to: Let the nomination stand as submitted; or Let the nomination stand and provide a brief update; or Withdraw the nomination upon the nominee s request. September/October: Call for selection committee members is made. November 1: 1. Research Excellence Award selection committee is formed and meets to review process and guidelines, establish a rating system for criteria, and set the meeting schedule. 2. Call for nominations for the academic year s award recipient is made by the selection committee: deadline for nominations is the second Friday in January. 3. As nominations are received, the selection committee prescreens applications to ensure all parts have been received and notifies the nominator of any omissions. September 2015 revisions include REA & TEA proposed changes and SAHC proposed changes

32 January 15 30: 1. Committee shortlists nominees based on completed information packages received by deadline. February 1: 1. The Chair will, on behalf of the committee, solicit further information as needed for each applicant. March 1 15: 1. Information is compiled. March 15 30: 1. Committee makes final selection, rating each nominee on each criterion. 2. Selection committee chair or designate meets with SAHC to present its recommendation for an award recipient, providing written documentation to summarize the process as follows: Number of applications received/eligible; Names and titles of the unsuccessful candidates; Parameters and details of the adjudication process in reaching decisions; this will include the individual adjudication sheets completed by all members as well as the final adjudication sheet completed by the committee, showing the scoring used in the selection of the award recipient to demonstrate how the winning candidate met the criteria; in reaching its decision; 3. How the winning candidate met the criteria and how the committee arrived at a final decision; The letter of nomination, all letters of recommendation, the letters of support, and the curriculum vitae of the successful candidate; The names and titles of the members of the REA selection committee.. 4. SAHC reviews the documentation e process to ensure procedural requirements have been met, in order to inform its and makes a recommendation to Senate in April. 5. The Chair of the selection committee will collect individual adjudication sheets from all members of the committee and retain them for a minimum period of one year. Call for Nomination Process 1. The availability and details of the award and a call for nominations will be initiated by the selection committee, in conjunction with the University Relations office, and other appropriate means. 2. Nomination information will be available through the deans offices, Faculty Services, the Research and Graduate Studies office and website. 3. Researchers may be nominated for a research excellence award by 'B' faculty, sessional faculty, or university administrators, but may not be nominated by (or letters of support provided by) any member of the Research Excellence Award selection committee. September 2015 revisions include REA & TEA proposed changes and SAHC proposed changes

33 Nomination Mechanism 4. It is the role of the nominator to complete the nomination form and gather the required supporting documents. 5. No one may solicit a nomination on his or her own behalf. The nomination package, which must consist of one hard copy and one electronic copy, is submitted confidentially to the Research and Graduate Studies office and consists of the following: 1. Letter of Nomination (1,000 words maximum): a. The nominator is responsible for describing the nominee's work in relation to his or her particular discipline in language which the multidisciplinary committee adjudicating this award can comprehend; b. This letter should lay out the broader research/creative program of the nominee over the previous 5 years; c. It should also highlight any outstanding creative or research achievement[s] in that same time period; d. Nominators should consider the following criteria in their description of the research/creative enterprise: Originality/addition to knowledge Disciplinary context and influence/reception of work among peers within the discipline concerned (reviews, stature of journals in which work was published, etc.) Impact/significance of the work for UFV/stakeholder groups/community at large Role for, and/or training of, students in relation to work or while conducting work Incorporation of creative/research achievement/knowledge into classroom and teaching Clarification of the researcher s role in any joint/multi-disciplinary projects 2. Letters of support (500 words maximum); The nominator will be responsible for soliciting letters of support from outside the UFV community. The nominee may suggest a list of colleagues from whom it would be suitable to solicit letters of support: Two letters should come from recognized scholars specializing in a similar field of research/creative endeavour who can speak to the quality and significance of the nominee's work in the field; Up to two additional letters may also come from non-academic sources who have a connection to, and comprehension of, the research/creative activity being nominated (i.e. government agencies, industry, community partners), or a former/current student who has experienced the nominees incorporation of research into the classroom. September 2015 revisions include REA & TEA proposed changes and SAHC proposed changes

34 3. CV from the Nominee: The nominator shouldwill request a CV from the nominee, highlighting his or her research/creative productivity over the previous 5 years, and not exceeding five pages; 4. Consent Form: The nominator must include a consent form signed by the nominee, indicating his or her willingness to stand for the award. Unsuccessful applicants will automatically be considered as candidates for the research excellence award for the next two years. Nominators will be invited to: Let the nomination stand as submitted; Or Let the nomination stand and provide a brief update; Or Withdraw the nomination upon the nominee s request. Selection Process 1. The committee will independently assess each nominee's package of materials and produce a score in each of the four criteria outlined in the Criteria for Selection of Award Recipient section, along with a brief written justification for the score. Each criterion is to be scored out of The average aggregate score from all committee members will be generated by the chair/facilitator: a. An average aggregate score of 10 must be obtained and a minimum score of 1 in at least 3 or 4 categories for the research/creative activity to be considered sufficient excellence to receive the award; b. Should two or more nominees qualify, the nominee with the highest score should receive the award unless the difference is less than a single point; Under these conditions, the committee must meet and re- September 2015 revisions include REA & TEA proposed changes and SAHC proposed changes

35 Reporting and Review Confidentiality Statement Conflict of Interest Statement evaluate the qualifying nominees, and reach a final decision by a simple majority; c. Should a nominee s average aggregate score fall short of the benchmark for consideration by 0.5 points or less, the committee should re-evaluate as above. First of April: 1. The Research Excellence Award selection committee brings the recommendation forward to the Senate Awards and Honours Committee (SAHC), which will confirm that all procedures were followed. SAHC will bring a recommendation to Senate for approval. Any recommendations by the selection committee for changes to the process are forwarded to SAHC. 2. Once the award recipient is approved by Senate, the President informs the Board, and the AVP, Research who, in turn, informs the award recipient. The recipient is publicly announced, with the award to be presented at an appropriate university event designated for award recipients. Until such time, the decision will remain confidential. 3. The Senate Research Committee office notifies the University Relations office to begin the interview process with the winning candidate for publicity materials. 4. The winner s nomination package is returned to the nominee once University Relations has had the opportunity to review the package for publicity purposes. 5. Other nomination packages are returned to nominees once the award recipient is publicly announced. Members of the committee and nominators will treat as confidential all nominee information as well as all deliberations concerning the rating of the contents of the nomination packages. The chair of the Research Excellence Award selection committee will review the Conflict of Interest policy with committee members to address any conflicts. In addition, committee members will be advised to take into account in their deliberations the possible bias created by the greater familiarity with some candidates or fields of research. Collaborators with the candidate are excluded from the committee. Both the Conflict of Interest policy and the Institutional Ethics statement will be provided electronically to committee members for review. September 2015 revisions include REA & TEA proposed changes and SAHC proposed changes

36 Criteria for Selection of Award Recipient Emphasis will be placed on work accomplished as a member of the UFV community, but achievements within the past five years that were achieved elsewhere will be considered. Nominees research/creative endeavours will be assessed based on the following four criteria, relative to the discipline: 1. Originality / Innovation 2. Academic Impact 3. UFV / Community Impact / Influence 4. Mentorship / Interface of Research and Teaching 1. The following are descriptive attributes of the main criteria: 1. Originality/Innovation o Uniqueness or transformative nature of work o Patents or monetary gains produced from work o Awards, notoriety from work o Initiation of new programs 2. Academic Impact/Influence Within the Discipline o Reception of work among peers within researcher s discipline (reviews, awards, etc.) o Profile of outputs (journal rankings etc.) o Record in securing funding from external sources o Numbers of citations from work o Membership in discipline-specific groups o Reviews of discipline-specific works 3. UFV/Community Impact/Influence/Scope of Research / Creative Activity o Impact of work for UFV community, institutional profile, etc. o Public demonstrations, showings, lectures, presentations of work o Utility/use of research / creative outputs to community groups o Securing internal funding from UFV o Membership in community / national / international groups o Press statements regarding work 4. Mentorship/Interface of Research and Teaching o Training students in research o Role for students in conduct of faculty research September 2015 revisions include REA & TEA proposed changes and SAHC proposed changes

37 o Incorporation of research into the learning environment and pedagogy o Evidence of student research accomplishments and testimonials September 2015 revisions include REA & TEA proposed changes and SAHC proposed changes

38 Award Recognition The award recipient will receive the award during an appropriate university event designated for award recipients. The award will include: 1. a plaque with the award recipient s name and the year of the award; 2. a framed certificate; 3. a research grant in the amount of $2,500 in a specially-created account administered by the university; these funds are accessible for a maximum of two years. September 2015 revisions include REA & TEA proposed changes and SAHC proposed changes

39 Appendices: Selection Committee Terms of Reference Terms of Reference The UFV Research Excellence Award selection committee (REASC), with the authority as delegated by the Senate, will take responsibility for selection of the recipient for the Research Excellence Award and report to the Senate Awards and Honours Committee (SAHC). SAHC will ensure the process and criteria are met, a selection committee is set up to for selection of a recipient, and relate any recommended changes to Senate. Members of REASC cannot nominate or provide letters of support for an instructor who is nominated for this award. Duties 1. To ensure the UFV community is informed of the availability of this award, the selection criteria employed, and application procedures; 2. To receive applications and nominations for the award and to select successful candidates according to criteria established, and may recommend one candidate to the Senate Awards and Honours Committee who then makes the recommendation to Senate. All deliberations will be confidential; 3. To recommend to the Senate Awards and Honours Committee appropriate administrative policies, regulations, and procedures with regard to the award. Composition of the Committee In September, the Senate Research and Graduate Studies office will call for nominations for members of the Research Excellence Award selection committee. Membership will include: 1. Four faculty members from the Senate Research Committee. 2. One staff 3. One student 4. VP, Research or designate chairperson The committee shall elect a chair from among its members. Terms of Office Committee members will serve for one year, with selection in November, and are limited to two consecutive terms. September 2015 revisions include REA & TEA proposed changes and SAHC proposed changes

40 SENATE RESEARCH COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 2015/16 AREA REPRESENTED TERMS OF OFFICE MEMBER Voting Members 7 faculty members approved by Senate, at least 2 from Senate Faculty member of Senate to Steven Marsh, Faculty of Social Science Faculty member of Senate to Shelley Canning, Faculty of Health Sciences (Vice-Chair) Faculty to Vacant Faculty to Vacant Faculty to Ali Fotouhi, Faculty of Science Faculty to Olav Lian, Faculty of Social Science Faculty to Scott Sheffield, Faculty of Humanities (Chair) 1 dean or associate dean, approved by Senate to Lucy Lee, Faculty of Science 1 staff member, approved by Senate to Vacant 2 undergraduate students, approved by Senate to Avneet Sohal, Criminology to Tyler Blackman, Geography 1 graduate student, approved by Senate to Vacant AVP, Research, Engagement, andgraduate Studies (ex officio) On-going Adrienne Chan Research Advisory Council Chair (or designate) (ex officio) On-going Margaret Coombes Ex-Officio Non-Voting Members Provost & Vice-President, Academic (or designate) On-going Ken Brealey (designate to July 31, 2018) Chief Financial Officer (or designate) On-going Betty Poettcker Director, Research Services On-going Brad Whittaker University Librarian (or designated Librarian) On-going Mary-Anne MacDougall (designate) University Secretary and Registrar On-going Al Wiseman Administrative Support Office of Research & Graduate Studies Deborah Block CURRENT MEMBERSHIP: 17 members - 14 voting members and 5 non-voting members Quorum: Fifty percent (50%) of voting membership (not including vacancies) Current as of October 19, 2015