Minutes
Present: K. Alexander, M. Arbib, D. Bohlinger, F. Clark, A. Crigler, W. Dappen, W. Dutton, F. Feldman, J. Gates, D. Ghirardo, R. Goodyear, H. James, C. Julienne, H. Kaslow, B. Knight, P. Knoll, B. Kosko, J. Kunc, R. Labaree, W. Mack, J. Manegold, A. Mircheff, J. Moore, S. Murphy, P. Nosco, J. Nyquist, M. Renov, H. Schor, D. Stram, D. Walsh, W. Weber, M. Weinstein
Absent: M. Apostolos, D. Larsen, M. Omar, J. Peters, F. Potenza, B. Sarter, D. Sloane, S. Sobel, B. Solomon, M. Wincor, F. Zufryden, B. Zuckerman
Guests: L. Armstrong, G.
Blount, M. Levine, D. Oaxaca, P. Oaxaca, W. Petak, N. Petasis, R.
Rodriguez, C. Sullivan, C. Zachary
Senate called to order at 2:50 p.m. by President William Dutton.
Meeting adjourned at 4:46 p.m.
Action taken by the Senate:
Approval
of February 21, 2001 Senate Minutes (Agenda item #1)
Minutes were
revised and then approved without objection.
Approved minutes are attached.
Resolution
00/01-06: Intellectual Property Policy
The resolution endorsing
the policy was passed as modified (18 yeas, 4 nays, and 4
abstentions).
1.
The President thanked Senators for attending the 7 March 2001
Open House at the Senate Offices. About 60-70 individuals
attended.
2. Senate staff is planning an Academic Senate Recognition
Dinner for 9 May 2001 at 6 pm, probably at El Cholo’s
Restaurant on Western Avenue. This will follow our last
Senate meeting of the year. Recognition will be given to
recipients of Academic Senate Distinguished Service Awards,
Senate staff, particularly students who have worked for the
Senate, and new, departing and continuing Senators
3. President Dutton invited nominations for the Academic Senate Distinguished Service Awards. The Chair of the Awards Committee this year is Professor Hilary Schor, Academic Vice President. (Last year, this award went to William "Greg" Thalmann, Tu-Nan Chang, and J. Lawford Anderson.)
See:
http://www.usc.edu/academe/acsen/uscfaculty/service/service.html)
4. All contributions are now in for the next issue of the Faculty Forum, which is focused on the future of the library. As this is in press, further contributions are invited for the third issue that will focus on distance education and distributed learning. The fourth issue is planned to cover a wider variety of issues, including assessments of our international initiatives. (Contact President Dutton or the Forum Editors, Francesca Gardini (gardini@usc.edu) or Professor Douglas Thomas, if you have an interest in preparing a position paper or essay).
5. The Senate has agreed to co-sponsor a lecture as part of its Academic Senate Speaker’s Series, by Professor Mitchell Moss. (See: http://www.usc.edu/academe/acsen/calendar/speakerseries.htm). Professor Moss will speak on the role of creativity and connectivity in the future of cities. Professor Moss is a graduate of USC, where he received his PhD in public administration. He holds a chaired position at New York University, where he directs an urban research center. The lecture will be held on 19 April from 3-4:30 pm at Lewis Hall in the School of Policy, Planning and Development. It will be followed by a reception.
6. A vote on any resolution concerning an extension of the University’s tenure clock has been postponed to the April Senate meeting to enable more units to comment on the task force report (http://www.usc.edu/academe/acsen/issues/tenure_clock/). The President expects a resolution to be presented at the April meeting, with or without additional comments from various departments and schools.
7. An overview and summary of health care benefits for retired faculty endorsed by the Academic Senate in Resolution 00/01-05 (http://www.usc.edu/academe/acsen/about_senate/resolutions/res000105.htm) is being distributed for comments and corrections by the Senate. Senators were asked to review and provide comments to the Senate President or to the principal author, Professor James Manegold. The President underscored the need for a clarifying document to address confusion and questions raised by faculty.
8. The Handbook Committee will be reporting on a number of matters, including two issues that the committee has worked on tirelessly over the year:
a. Personal Conflicts of Interest: This is on the Web and available in the handouts. The Senate expects to have a resolution on this matter for the April meeting. See: http://www.usc.edu/academe/acsen/info_for_faculty/PERCON01.PDF
b.
Dismissal Language: After numerous drafts and
consultations, the Handbook Committee has a set of revisions to
the Handbook that up-date and improve on language tied to the
dismissal or demotion of faculty for cause. The President
expects a resolution on this matter at the April Senate meeting.
(http://www.usc.edu/academe/acsen/info_for_faculty/commentary_proposed_revisions.htm
The Nominating Committee’s report listed (in alphabetical order) the following candidates:
Peter E. Nosco (East Asian Languages and Cultures)
Marje Schuetze-Coburn (University Libraries)
Edwin McCann (Philosophy)
Michael Nichol (Pharmacy)
Gilbert Blount (Music)
Florence A. Clark (Occupational Therapy)
James Manegold (Business)
Gayla Margolin (Psychology)
Michael Renov (Critical Studies)
Katherine S-F Shing (Chemical Engineering)
Nancy Troy (Art History)
Provost’s
Comments (Agenda item #4)
Provost
Armstrong said he preferred to use this time to entertain
questions from the Senate. There were no questions.
Resolution
00/01-06: Revised USC Intellectual Property
Policy
(Agenda item #5)
There was
extensive discussion of the patent sharing arrangements of the
draft Intellectual Property (IP) policy. Cornelius
Sullivan, Vice Provost for Research, introduced the draft policy
by indicating that the Research Committee has spent a year of
intense work on the policy and the Committee has been responsive
to faculty and Senate input. He mentioned that courseware
would be covered by separate policy.
The goal of
the new IP policy is to encourage creative activities and
encourage dissemination of ideas and inventions. One
objective of this policy is commercialization of USC technology
and the generation of royalty income. Vice Provost Sullivan
highlighted the major provisions of the new policy:
1.
It applies to faculty hired after the effective date of the
policy.
2.
Current faculty may choose either the current or new IP policy.
3.
Under the new policy, patent sharing arrangements provide for 15%
of the proceeds to be applied to a Commercialization Incentive
Fund (CIF).
4.
After the CIF deduction, 33 1/3% of the revenues go to the
inventor(s), 33 1/3% to the University, 16 2/3% to the inventor’s
school, and 16 2/3% to the inventor’s department or institute.
Following
Vice Provost Sullivan’s remarks, Professor Arbib, Chair of
the Research Committee, stated that the new IP policy represents
a major commitment by the University to license technology.
With the new policy, the University will be able to help (through
the Commercialization Incentive Fund) inventors make productive
contacts. He stated that the new policy is better than the
current policy. Under the new policy, a faculty member
would more likely receive 33 1/3% of a bigger pie rather than 50%
of a smaller pie under the current policy. Professor Arbib
further stated that the new policy should stimulate deans and
department chairs to be supportive since they would directly
benefit from inventors’ efforts.
Discussion from the floor covered several issues. One issue is that the policy might possibly create two classes of faculty (those who could receive 50% vs. 33 1/3% royalty for inventions). There was a question about the actual percentage an inventor would be receiving (a faculty member would not be getting 33 1/3% of the royalties, but rather 33 1/3% after the first 15% is taken off the top). A Senator from Engineering asked Professor Arbib at which meeting of the Senate Research Committee did the committee approve the proposed IP policy? Professor Arbib said he did not remember. The same Senator then asked Vice-Provost Sullivan if he was present at the meeting when the IP policy was approved. Vice-Provost Sullivan stated he did not remember being present.
Provost
Armstrong responded by saying that he was convinced that the
Research Committee had created a policy to benefit both the
University and the faculty. He said that the new policy
provides more incentives to the University and the faculty than
the old policy and that he does not accept that the new policy is
a second-class plan. Current faculty can opt for either
policy.
Provost
Armstrong further mentioned that one goal of the new policy is to
change behaviors, so that there would be more commercialization
from patents at USC. He feels that the incentives for deans
and department chairs are large enough to encourage them to be
supportive of efforts towards commercialization of inventions.
Further
discussion centered around the belief that the current 50%
royalty sharing arrangement is sufficient to benefit the
University and it is not necessary to use 15% of the funds to
conduct marketing around the invention. It was pointed out
that the 15% CIF fund is not for marketing, but rather the fund
will be used to make awards to faculty with ideas that have the
likelihood of commercialization. It was further pointed out
that the Provost is placing substantial monies in the fund now so
that its benefits may be immediate.
From the
floor, it was mentioned that the new policy would not place USC
at a disadvantage; most universities have very similar royalty
sharing policies. However, one Senator said he felt that
the new policy might result in some new faculty choosing to file
patents outside of the University. One Senator said he felt
that the policy seemed a bit “fuzzy”; however, it was
pointed out that this policy could not be “written in stone”
since it will necessarily be subject to changes resulting from
future rulings by the courts.
Finally, it
was noted that the language in the third paragraph on the second
page of the draft was inconsistent and it was suggested that it
be changed.
New:
“Incidental use of University resources includes the
following: only a minimal amount of unrestricted funds have
been used; and only a minimal amount of time has been spent using
University facilities, equipment, or resources other than the
use of offices, libraries and routinely available office-type
equipment such as desktop personal computers, all of which
is regarded as incidental.
Old:
“Incidental use of University resources includes the
following:
-only a minimal amount
of unrestricted funds have been used; and
-only
a minimal amount of time has been spent using University
facilities, equipment,
or resources (use of offices, libraries and routinely
available office-type
equipment such as desktop personal computers not are
considered significant).
Vice Provost
Sullivan agreed to the modification of language and at this point
the question was called and the Senate voted to approve the
policy (see above for the vote count).
Discussion
of Draft USC Incubator Policy (Agenda item #6)
Professor
Arbib and Vice Provost Sullivan gave a progress report regarding
the status of the draft Incubator Policy. It was noted that
this policy came late to the Research Committee, so they are
still receiving comments from the faculty. It is hoped that
the Incubator Policy will be ready for the May Senate meeting.
Vice Provost
Sullivan noted that the separate Incubator and Courseware
policies are being developed in response to faculty concerns and
input. However, he went on note that the University is
moving ahead with its distance learning efforts, so that it is
important to develop these policies soon. Professor Arbib
took time to mention that the Courseware Policy is still under
development and has not yet made its way to the Research
Committee and not to expect to see a draft policy until sometime
the next academic year. It was noted that some faculty feel
there are many issues yet to be resolved before any document
could be put before the Senate
Report of
Faculty Handbook Committee (Agenda item #7)
President
Dutton noted that the Handbook Committee members are very
dedicated (having met nearly every week for the past year).
There was general applause regarding the Committee’s work.
Professor Austin
Mircheff, Chair of the Faculty Handbook Committee, summarized the
suggested changes to the Faculty. He encouraged all
Senators to carefully read the draft document distributed at this
meeting and to e-mail comments and suggestions to him. Draft
language from the Faculty Handbook Committee addressed the
following:
1)
Personal conflict of interest (a more detailed statement)
2)
Faculty responsibilities (to include service and clinical
responsibilities as subject to consultation with department
faculty in the same manner as teaching responsibilities)
3)
Conditions of tenure (contains several editorial changes)
4)
Dismissal procedures (proposed changes in several sections
including cause and procedures)
5)
Suspension of faculty (to permit withholding salary from a member
who has abandoned duties)
6)
Demotion of faculty (defines demotion as a reduction in rank)
7)
Sexual harassment (makes section dealing with faculty dismissal
correspond more closely to dismissal procedures in other sections
in the Handbook)
Prof.
Mircheff also reported that the Handbook Committee feels there
should be a University-wide mailbox privacy policy, but that the
policy should be apart from the Faculty Handbook. The
Committee does, however, endorse the spirit of the previously
passed Mailbox Resolution 96/97-07. Prof. Mircheff
discussed the fact that the University Administration has
rejected the above-mentioned resolution on a variety of grounds,
including that it is unenforceable. Vice Provost Levine
confirmed that the Mailbox privacy policy was verbally rejected
and his office will respond with a written statement since some
Senators expressed interest in seeing the Administration’s
response in writing.
It was
suggested that the Senate President should consider the formation
of a Senate Committee to formulate a privacy code for the
University.
New Business
(Agenda item #8)
No new items were
discussed
Handouts
at the Meeting:
1) Minutes of
February 21, 2001 Academic Senate Meeting for approval
2)
Resolution 00/01-06: Intellectual Property Policy for
approval
3)
Draft of University of Southern California Intellectual Property
Policy dated February, 2001
4)
Academic Senate Nominating Committee Report, March 21, 2001
5)
Draft Memorandum from Prof. Manegold regarding health care for
retired faculty
6)
Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and
Tenure, American Association of University Professors.
7)
Suggested changes in the Faculty Handbook: Draft language
from the Faculty Handbook Committee
a.
Personal Conflict of Interest
b.
Faculty Responsibilities
c.
Conditions of Tenure
d.
Dismissal Procedures
e.
Suspension of a Faculty Member
f.
Demotion of a Faculty Member
g.
Sexual Harassment
8) Memorandum from Prof. Mircheff regarding Mail Box Policy dated March 7, 2000
9)
Copy of e-mail, with attachments, from Prof. Moore to President
Dutton regarding amending draft Senate Minutes of February 21.
2001