A Research and Service Organization (RSO) is an academic entity the University has established to provide a supportive infrastructure for activities complementary to the mission and goals of the University and of specific academic/administrative units. Functions of an RSO are to facilitate instructional and research collaborations, disseminate the results of research and scholarly and creative activities through conferences, meetings and other activities; strengthen graduate and undergraduate education by providing students with training opportunities and access to facilities; seek extramural support; and carry out university and public service programs related to the RSO's expertise. An RSO may not offer degree programs or formal courses for credit for students of the University or for the public, except when specifically empowered to do so by the President or his designee.

The Associate Vice President for Research and Sponsored Programs (AVP (ORSP)) maintains a directory of RSOs at the University and is responsible for stewardship and monitoring of programmatic and fiscal activities of all RSOs. The AVP (ORSP) will work with the Chief Financial Officer of SFSU to insure compliance with university, system, and state policies and procedures. The College Dean(s) will be most directly responsible for the operational activities of RSOs under their jurisdiction. The Dean will review all requests for the establishment of RSOs (in consultation with the appropriate department chair/s) and submit the request to the Provost. The Provost will review the RSO request, consult with the AVP (ORSP) and the Senate, and then forward his recommendation to the President for final review and consideration of establishment of the RSO. The RSO policy is SFSU's implementation of CSU Executive Order 751 on Centers, Institutes, and Similar Organizations.

It is important to distinguish between formally established and approved RSOs and other units of less formal character. Other units such as special library collections, art galleries, museums, and departmental laboratories are not RSOs, unless they have been officially approved as such. In the solicitation of extramural funds for a project by a unit that has not been granted RSO status, care should be taken not to use terminology nor make presentations which suggest that the proposing unit is in fact a university-approved RSO or is about to become one. The designations enumerated in the following paragraphs shall only be used as formal labels for units that are designated RSOs. If a unit is likely to evolve into a RSO after a trial period of operation, the possibility should be mentioned at a suitable stage in the planning; in such a case, the designation Project may be suitable.

RSOs normally carry the designation Institute, Laboratory, or Center. An RSO that covers a broad area may in turn contain other more specialized units; for instance, an Institute may be comprised of several Centers, or a Station may be comprised of several Facilities. It is recognized that some established units have designations that do not conform to the definitions that follow (some Centers are rather like Institutes in their activities). However, insofar as possible, designations of new units shall be taken from those defined below.

Institute: a major unit that coordinates and promotes faculty and student research and scholarly and creative activities on a continuing basis over an area so wide that it extends across department, school or college, and perhaps even beyond campus boundaries. The unit may also engage in public-service activities stemming from its activities, within the limits of its stated objectives.

Center: a unit, sometimes one of several forming an Institute, that furthers research, scholarly and creative activities, and public service in a designated field; or a unit primarily providing facilities for other units and departments.

Laboratory: a non-departmental organization that establishes and maintains facilities for research and scholarly and creative activities in several departments.

Station: a unit that provides physical facilities for interdepartmental research and scholarly and creative activities in a broad area, sometimes housing other units and serving several campuses.

II. Directors, Committees, and Memberships

A. Director

Each RSO is headed typically by a Director, who is a tenured member of the faculty. The appointment of a Director shall comply with Academic Senate Hiring Policy S03-158. A selection committee appointed by the Dean of the College/Administrative unit in concurrence with the AVP (ORSP) and the Academic Senate shall advise the Dean of the College/Administrative Unit in the selection process. The jurisdictional Dean(s) shall make the final recommendation for appointment to the Provost and President.

B. Advisory Committee

The Director is aided by a standing Advisory Committee, chaired by a faculty member other than the Director. The Committee should meet at least twice a year, participate actively in setting the unit's goals, determine criteria for membership in the RSO, recommend changes in the unit's membership, advise the Director on major decisions affecting the unit, and critically evaluate the unit's effectiveness on a continuing basis. The Chair of the Advisory Committee, and as many other members as practical, should meet with the five-year and sunset review committees (see sections V and VI) and otherwise be available for consultation by five-year and sunset review committees during the course of their review. The Advisory Committee should be comprised of faculty members, and members from outside the University, as appropriate.

C. Membership

RSOs may have one or more of the following types of membership. The RSO's Advisory Committee determines membership criteria.

1. Full members: active SFSU faculty (including adjunct professors) and project researchers/scholars.
2. Associate members: faculty and academics from other universities, non-profit institutes, and federal laboratories who are collaborators on projects of the RSO.
3. Academic Affiliates: faculty from SFSU, other universities, non-profit institutes, and federal facilities, who are interested in the activities of the RSO, but who are not collaborating on the RSO's research projects.
4. Industrial affiliates: companies with an interest in the RSO's activities. Typically pay an annual fee and gain defined privileges.
5. Public Service Affiliates: non-government organizations who are interested in and supportive of the RSO's activities.

III. Procedure for Establishment.

A. Proposal

At an early stage of development, proposed RSO core faculty are encouraged to consult with the AVP (ORSP) and with department chairs and Dean(s). In developing a proposal, RSO faculty should address the following:

1. Goals and Objectives.
2. Proposed research, scholarly and creative activities, and public service activities.
3. Discussion of the added value and capabilities to be brought by the new RSO and an explanation of why they cannot be achieved within existing campus academic units.
4. Impact on existing academic programs and units.
5. Names of faculty members who have agreed in writing to participate in the RSO's activities.
6. Name of proposed director, who must be a tenured faculty member. (see Academic Senate Policy S03-158, Revised Hiring Policy for Tenure Track Faculty).
7. Role of advisory committee and proposed membership for first year.
8. Projected numbers of faculty members, graduate students, professional appointees, and other personnel who will participate in the RSO's activities.
9. Resource needs and anticipated sources of funding with plans and time lines to achieve a level of self-support acceptable to the AVP (ORSP) and the Dean(s) of the jurisdictional College(s).
10. Immediate space needs and how they will be met for the first year, including anticipated building and room number if known; realistic projections for future space needs.
11. Proposed organizational location/reporting line, i.e. to what position will the director report for RSO related questions and support?

B. Review Process.

The proposal is submitted via the Department Chair or School/Program Director to the College Dean (or Director of Administrative Unit, as appropriate) most directly affected by the proposed unit. After review and approval at these levels, the proposal is forwarded to the Provost who, in consultation with the Academic Senate and the AVP (ORSP), makes a recommendation to the President, who may establish an RSO.

IV. Annual Report.

By October 1 of each year, each RSO submits a report on the RSO's activities for the past fiscal year to the AVP (ORSP) and the appropriate College Dean or administrative unit director. The Chair of the Advisory Committee is to be consulted in the preparation of the report. The report is to include the following:

1. Brief summary of major activities during the past year.
2. Names, titles, and organizational affiliations of persons serving on the unit's advisory committee.
3. Names of faculty members actively engaged in the RSO's research and scholarly and creative activities or its supervision.
4. Names of undergraduate and graduate students and postdoctoral fellows directly contributing to the unit who (a) are on the unit's payroll, participate through assistantships, fellowships, or traineeships, or are otherwise involved in the unit's work.
5. Extent of student and faculty participation from other CSU campuses or universities.
6. Extent of participation by industry and non-governmental organizations.
7. List of publications developed by the unit, including books, journal articles, and reports and reprints issued under its own covers, showing author and title.
8. Sources and amounts (on an annual basis) of income including contracts and grants, gifts, University support, service agreements, and income from sale of publications and other services.
9. Expenditures from all sources of support funds, distinguishing use of funds for administrative support, direct research, and other specified uses.
10. Description and amount of space currently occupied.
11. Any other information deemed relevant to documentation of a RSO's achievements.

V. Five-Year Review

Each RSO is reviewed at intervals of five-years or less, and no RSO may be continued without periodic review. The review considers the RSO's original goals, present functioning, future plans, and continuing development. The RSO is reviewed to ascertain whether it is functioning in a manner that justifies the space and support it receives. Its success in meeting previously established objectives and plans to meet new challenges also are examined. The effectiveness of the RSO Director likewise is reviewed at the same time as the RSO. Procedures for evaluating the RSO Director shall be in compliance with Academic Senate policy S00-122.

A. Review Process.

The AVP (ORSP) coordinates the review.

1. The RSO Director prepares a profile (see Appendix) covering the RSO's mission and history, resources, staff, research and scholarly and creative activities, and administration. After review by the Advisory Committee, the materials are forwarded to the AVP (ORSP).
2. With the concurrence of the appropriate Dean(s), the AVP (ORSP) appoints a review committee composed of three faculty members and two administrators. Procedures for reviewing the director shall be in compliance with Academic Senate Policy S00-122.
3. The review committee examines the materials provided to them about activities and accomplishments of the RSO, including annual reports covering the five-year period under review; interviews with the RSO Director, Advisory Committee members, associated faculty, the appropriate College Dean/s, and other individuals deemed pertinent to the review, including non-SFSU faculty and personnel; tours the RSO's physical facilities; and submits a report of its findings to the AVP (ORSP).
4. The AVP (ORSP) meets with the Director to discuss the report.
5. The Director prepares a written response to the review report after consulting with members of the RSO and the RSO Advisory Committee.
6. The RSO Director, AVP (ORSP), and Dean/s of the cognizant College meet to discuss the report, the director's response and future plans for the RSO.
7. The AVP (ORSP) prepares a summary report of the review and recommendations regarding continuation, the directorship, and other matters raised in the review, and submits them to the appropriate department chair(s), the jurisdictional Dean(s), the Provost and the RSO Director for consideration and written comment if warranted.
8. In consultation with the jurisdictional Dean(s), the Provost considers the comprehensive findings and recommends to the President to continue or disestablish the RSO. He/she also makes a recommendation for the retention/termination of the RSO Director.

B. Report of Five-Year Review Committee

The report should speak to the positive as well as negative aspects of the committee's findings. Good work needs the reinforcement of recognition, but the committee may wish to recommend changes in organization and policy, or recommend disestablishment of the RSO if it no longer seems to be filling the needs or if it seems unable to maintain an adequate level of activity.

Every effort should be made to coordinate the report with the academic program and/or accreditation review of the appropriate academic department, school or program.

Justification for continuation of a RSO must be documented carefully. The review committees should consider and make specific recommendations on the following range of alternatives to the status quo: a change in funding from state or University resources; a change in other resources (such as space, etc); a change in the mission of the unit; a merger of the unit with one or more units on campus; discontinuance.

Directors of RSOs are normally appointed for five-year terms, the appointment period coinciding with the RSO's review period. Normally, directors are limited to ten years of continuous service. The review committee should look critically at the stewardship of the organization and comment on its quality. An evaluation, in the form of a written document, will be completed before the committee makes a recommendation for reappointment or termination of the Director.

The review committee should include any other suggestions for improvement in policy or activities.

The review committee may, if it thinks appropriate, prepare a confidential statement to the AVP (ORSP) and jurisdictional Dean(s). It may also provide the AVP (ORSP) and jurisdictional Dean(s) with confidential letters received from individuals during the review process.

VI. Sunset Reviews

The life span of a RSO cannot extend beyond 10 years without it submitting a formal proposal for continued RSO status, support funds, and space in the context of the University's needs and resources at the time. The RSO may not be continued beyond the sunset period without the approval of the President.

All RSOs must establish a rationale for continuance, in terms of scholarly or scientific merit, self-sufficiency and campus priorities, at 10-year intervals.

The sunset review processes are the same as those for 5-year reviews and continuance proposals should incorporate items covered in five-year reviews.

VII. Procedure for Disestablishment

1. Five-year and sunset review committees recommend, among other recommendations, continuation or disestablishment of the RSO. In addition, an ad hoc review committee or a RSO director with the concurrence of the RSO's advisory committee may recommend disestablishment.
2. A recommendation to disestablish receives careful review by the RSO director, RSO advisory committee, department chairs, directors of other RSOs that would be affected by the disestablishment, relevant Dean(s), the AVP (ORSP), and the Provost.
3. After reviewing comments from all the committees and individuals listed in VII B, and if the jurisdictional Dean(s), in consultation with the AVP (ORSP), determines that disestablishment is the best course of action, then the jurisdictional Dean(s) recommend(s) such disestablishment to the President via the Provost.
4. The President issues a letter formally disestablishing the RSO.

VIII. Procedure for Name Change

The request for a new name usually reflects new directions in the research or scholarly and creative activities, the expansion or addition of new knowledge or fields of research and scholarship to the RSO's mission, or the institutionalization of new methodologies of study. Procedure for Name Change:

1. Director of RSO, after consulting with the RSO's advisory committee prepares a proposal describing the rationale for requesting a new name for the unit and submits the proposal to the AVP (ORSP). The AVP (ORSP) submits the name change to appropriate campus administrators for review and comment.
2. After review and approval by appropriate campus administrators, AVP (ORSP) recommends the name change to the President via the Provost.
3. President issues a letter formally approving the name change.

Approved by Academic Affairs Council:
November 10, 2003
Approved by President Corrigan:
November 11, 2003

APPENDIX
RSO Profile

1. RSO Overview

A brief, concise statement detailing history of the RSO, its mission and scope, and its relationship with academic departments on the campus, achievements, and plans for the future.

2. Academic and Public Service

1. SFSU faculty who were members of the RSO, including departments and dates of affiliations.
2. Description of seminar, lecture, and conference programs.
3. Listing of all publications that have appeared under the auspices of the RSO.
4. Direct and indirect contributions of the RSO to graduate and undergraduate teaching programs at SFSU.
5. Description of any university-industry activities.

3. Administration

1. Directors, Acting Directors, and Associate Directors, including tenure of appointments.
2. Members of Advisory Committees, including members' titles, committee positions, departments, and dates of membership.

4. Physical Facilities and Space

Description of physical facilities housing the RSO, including the type of space (laboratories, seminar rooms, professional staff offices, administrative offices, assignable square footage, and location).

5. Financial Data

1. All income received by the RSO for each fiscal year since it was last reviewed from: Federal and State grants and contracts; sources such as foundations and private gifts, and SFSU and CSU-derived funds.
2. Expenditures for personnel in both FTE and dollars for each fiscal year since last review.

1. Research and scholarly and creative activity personnel
2. Graduate students
3. Technical staff
4. Administrative staff by title
5. Equipment purchases
6. Supplies and expense