The University of Iowa
April 15, 2003
pm – 5:15 pm
State Room #337 Iowa Memorial Union
Present: Judith Aikin, Edwin Dove, Rebecca Hegeman, Ronald
Herman, Patrick Lloyd, Teresa Mangum, Kim Marra, Katherine Tachau, Paul Weller,
John Westefeld, Jerold Woodhead
Richard LeBlond, Chuck Lynch, Mazen Maktabi, Sue Moorhead, Shelton
Senate Officers in Attendance:
Jeffrey Cox, President; Margaret Raymond, Vice President; Craig Porter,
Secretary; Amitava Bhattacharjee, Past President
Patch (Daily Iowan), Charles Drum (University Relations), Mark Janis
(Law), Al Hood (Emeritus Faculty Council), Gay Pelzer (General Counsel’s
Office), Grainne Martin (General Counsel’s Office), Kathryn Wynes (Provost’s
Office), Bill Decker (Research), Michael O’Hara (CLAS), Jon Whitmore
(Provost’s Office), Lee Anna Clark (Provost’s Office), Bruce Wheaton
(Research), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office)
Call to Order
The meeting of the University of Iowa Faculty Council was called to order by its president, Prof. Jeffrey Cox, at 3:36 pm. Pres. Cox immediately indicated that the announcement category on the agenda would be changed to item II and that proposed agenda item III.B. Campus Planning Committee would become item II.C. under announcements. Finally, Pres. Cox indicated that items A and B under the original agenda item IV. New Business will be interchanged.
Final Senate Meeting, April 29
final Senate meeting will conclude with election of the 2003-04 Faculty Senate
Officers. Following this election
the final 2002-2003 Senate meeting will adjourn and the newly elected Senate
officers will preside over a brief, first meeting of the 2003-2004 Faculty
Senate. Current and newly elected
faculty senators will attend both meetings.
Faculty Council/Administration Retreat, May 29
Cox announced that the current and new Faculty Council members may attend this
Campus Planning Committee
Cox indicated to the councilors the importance of faculty engagement in campus
planning discussions. Unfortunately
no one from the Campus Planning Committee was able to attend today’s meeting
as a consequence of conflicting public meetings.
This item was thus struck from the agenda.
Cox continued his announcements with a reminder that the AAUP meeting will be
Saturday, April 19, 2003. Pres.
Skorton will address this group at 11:00 am.
He encouraged all faculty to attend and also to join. Prof. Tachau made the point that the AAUP is not principally
a union. Rather it is a national
professional organization whose primary role is to protect and advance academic
freedom. A question was asked of
Pres. Cox as to whether or not clinical track faculty were eligible to join the
AAUP. The answer was yes.
Faculty Senate Replacement
Raymond moved and Prof. Tachau seconded the motion that “The Faculty Council
endorses the Senate replacement as recommended by the Committee on Elections and
forwards it to the Faculty Senate for approval”. Unanimous approval was given.
meeting agenda was approved as modified by Pres. Cox. The modifications are noted above in I. Call to Order
Faculty Council Minutes, February 25, 3003
Faculty Council minutes were unanimously approved as presented.
Faculty Senate Agenda, April 29
Faculty Senate agenda was approved as presented with one minor future
Raymond indicated that the title of her remarks listed as item III. will change
from “Inaugural Address” to something perhaps less pompous.
Faculty Senate President, Jeffrey Cox
Cox advised the councilors that the Faculty Senate Officers had met with the
Editorial Board of the Iowa City Press Citizen. He would like to see this become an annual event.
The Faculty Senate Officers found a considerable lack of knowledge among
the membership of the editorial board about what the 1,700 faculty of the
University of Iowa do for a living. Both
participant groups felt that the meeting was worthwhile.
The substance of the meeting was very much that of a continuation of the
discussion which has been had by the Faculty Senate Officers with the
legislative delegation, a discussion that has been summarized in earlier council
and senate minutes of the 2002-2003 academic year .
One result of the meeting was an invitation for faculty to provide
opinion pieces for potential publication in the Press citizen. These would be opinions of approximately 800 words on issues
of interest to the Iowa City community at large.
Committee on Elections, Julie Thatcher
Cox introduced Julie Thatcher. He
commended the efforts of Prof . Berman in developing electronic voting.
He also gratefully acknowledged the substantial help provided by Julie
Thatcher in this mammoth effort. Prof.
Berman subsequently resigned as chair of the Committee on Elections.
Julie Thatcher has assumed Prof. Berman’s role in the interim.
indicated that the Senate had recently completed its first electronic election.
Twenty-four new senators were elected and the process appeared to run
well. The impression is that
faculty participation increased with the initiation of electronic voting.
Confirmation of this impression will be sought in the fall.
Committee on Committees, Margaret Raymond
The attachment identifies the proposed slate of committee replacements for the 2003-04 academic year. There were no volunteers to serve on the Rules and Bylaws Committee. Prof. Raymond subsequently moved and Prof. Tachau seconded acceptance of the committee replacement as proposed. Additional discussion included a consideration of the consolidation of the Rules and Bylaws Committee with the Elections Committee. This discussion will move forward in the fall of 2003. Additional discussion occurred on the topic of how these vacancies are filled. The selection of chairs of Senate committees for the following academic year are made by the incoming Faculty Senate President in May. The Faculty Senate President makes recommendations for replacements for University committees and non-charter committees to the President. Custom dictates that students chair some committees, such as the Presidential Lecture Committee.
Policy on Intellectual Property, Bruce Wheaton
Cox informed the councilors that the proposed revision of the Policy on
Intellectual Property was the result of a two-year effort. He then
introduced Bruce Wheaton, the Executive Director of the University of
Iowa Research Foundation.
Wheaton echoed Pres. Cox’s comments in indicating that the revision committee
had been working for a long time. By
comparison, however, the committee has worked rapidly in that the national
average for the revision of intellectual property policies at similar
institutions is six to seven years. He
indicated that the committee had worked hard to assess the current policy, to
review peer university policies and to review policy and position statements
prepared by such organizations as the AAUP, etc. The finished document is not a fair use document, rather it
is intended to be a document that addresses products created at the University
of Iowa. It does not alter prior
policy regarding the ownership of patents or copyrights. The differences between current and new policy are
highlighted in the cover letter. Significant
differences include: the creation
of a new Intellectual Property Advisory Committee; an alteration in the formula
by which earnings from intellectual property are distributed; and the addition
of examples to illustrate potential applications of the policies.
The intent of the placeholder comment regarding the alteration of the
earnings distribution formula identifies an intent to increase the share to
inventors and authors but to maintain the current policy by which 25% of
proceeds are used by the Office of the Vice President for Research as a research
enrichment fund. An additional significant difference was noted in the cover
letter: the policy articulates the view that the University will not waive
ownership of patent rights allocated to it under law.
Wheaton expressed his interest in consulting with faculty over the newly revised
policy. He intends to make a
presentation similar to this at the Research Council in May and intends to
schedule additional meetings with the Faculty Senate and the University Student
Government. Pres. Cox then
commented that the Faculty Senate Officers had seen this policy in an earlier
iteration. The Senate Officers
offered no opinion about the change in earnings distribution percentages other
than to support the concept of stabilization of the percentage utilizable by the
Office of the Vice President for Research.
They did express concern, however, that faculty affected by the policy
need to have the right to use standard university faculty grievance procedures
for disputes arising from its application, something that was not included in
the earlier version they reviewed. Partly
in response to this latter comment, language was introduced to specify when
grievances could go to the President and when they would go through normal
faculty grievance channels. This
language can be seen at the top of page seven.
Vice President shall appoint an Intellectual Property Committee under the terms
of the policy. It is this committee
that will help to resolve disputes arising from the application of the policy.
Although committee membership will be at the request of the Vice
President for Research, appointments will be subject to consultation with the
Senate and the University Student Government.
Prof. Tachau, who was a member of the committee drafting this proposed
policy, advised that the Intellectual Property Committee has a necessary
requirement for membership with particular expertise in these complex matters.
She continued that in spite of this appropriate membership need, the
committee is not intended to supplant standard University faculty grievance
processes when they are deemed appropriate.
In response Prof. Raymond indicated that the attempt to remedy the
Faculty Senate Officers’ concerns regarding faculty grievance processes was
laudable. However, the language
used in the final sentence of the opening paragraph on page seven was much too
broad to effectively accomplish this goal.
Dr. Wheaton agreed and thanked Prof. Raymond for her comment.
Dr. Wheaton responded in the affirmative to a question regarding the
ability of the University of Iowa Research Foundation
(UIRF) to proceed or not to patent an invention.
Thus, he continued, a department or a
college can bear the costs of attempting to garner a patent but the
University of Iowa will own the patent. Prof.
Raymond asked how the distribution of profits will be made if the costs for
generating the patent are borne by the department or college and not the
University of Iowa Research Foundation. The
answer to this question can be found on page four under items 2.5 1 and 2. In essence, these sections indicate that whoever bears the
cost of generating the patent will be reimbursed before any additional financial
gains are distributed. Prof.
Bhattacharjee asked about distribution policy in the setting of multiple
inventors. In his reading of the
revision he found language addressing this likely event to be lacking even
though he opined that this would be a potential source of dispute.
Dr. Wheaton indicated that equal distribution would be accorded unless
there was an agreement otherwise amongst the inventors.
Prof. Bhattacharjee suggested that this should be spelled out clearly in
the policy and Dr. Wheaton concurred. Prof.
McFarland took the floor to make two comments.
In his first he opined that the document presented was “long on process
but not on intent”. As one
example he suggested the need for guidance to the committee involved with
resolving disputes. He went on to
indicate that the University should attempt to protect both its product as well
as its production and in so doing should favor licensing by local companies. He saw the absence of such language in the policy as a
shortcoming. His second point was
made based on his understanding of laws of ownership. In this regard he suggested that if the employer and the UIRF
were not interested in patenting a product, then the ownership should revert to
the inventor. He further opined
that the inventor ought to be in the best position to see the unique value of
his or her product and that it would likely be illegal for the University to
take that product and its patent and effectively “place it in the trash”.
Dr. Wheaton responded that historically there has been a policy to give
ownership of such patents back to their inventor.
The reason that the current committee was advised not to embrace this
policy was the inherent conflict of interest between personal gain and faculty
work in a public setting. Prof.
Janis responded that there is nothing in patent law that requires the reversion
of patents to their owners. These
issues, he continued, are a matter of policy and contractual negotiations.
followed a discussion about the relationship between the conflict of interest
policy, its rationale and issues of commercialization and exploitation of
copyrighted material for the benefit of the State of Iowa.
At this juncture Assoc. Provost Clark suggested that all pertinent,
related policies be listed at the end of the intellectual property policy.
Prof. Raymond asked Dr. Wheaton what the Disclosure Review Committee has
as its task. Dr. Wheaton indicated
that it is to review what the inventor believes s/he has invented.
Prof. Raymond then turned to the copyright policy and expressed concern
over paragraph 3.2, disclosure. She
pointed out that the wording places the onus on its creator of disclosing the
fact that the University has an interest in a new work.
Prof. Raymond then agreed to help Dr. Wheaton and his committee in
clarifying this section. Prof.
Bhattacharjee responded to the prompt disclosure requirement.
It was his suggestion that disclosure was the issue, not the rapidity
with which it should occur. Pres.
Cox continued about the problematic nature of the requirement for prompt
disclosure that derives from the fact that most faculty don’t look to invent,
have no patents but, indeed, do have intellectual property.
Prof. McFarland asked how the assignment of the right of patent ownership
to the University could be justified if it were to occur in a setting in which a
student, who pays to be, for example, a chemistry student makes a patentable
discovery. Prof. Tachau and Dr.
Wheaton both responded that the policy does not claim to make such assignment.
Prof. McFarland disagreed pointing to page three of the draft patent
policy, item 2.2.b. Dr. Wheaton
denied the intention expressed by Prof. McFarland, and Assoc. Provost Clark
pointed to item 2.1 wherein the suggestion is offered that the University may
assume ownership of patents on qualifying inventions made by students “in a
limited number of situations”. She
continued that such ownership is further limited by the need for the
“significant” use of University resources.
Prof. McFarland asked how “significant” facility use might be defined
if a student pays to use the Chemistry Lab.
It was then suggested that students pay tuition to be educated and not to
question was subsequently asked about both the date of institution of the new
policy and whether or not faculty will be able to opt in or out of the proposed
changes in benefits distribution. Dr.
Wheaton indicated that the answers to these questions continue to be discussed.
Pres. Cox then offered that these policies will need ample opportunity
for broad-based discussion and input prior to their actual finalization.
He then asked how the Council wished to proceed with respect to the
provision of advice to the committee and their response to the advice.
Following a brief discussion a decision was made to ask that the policy
be sent back to the Council following its revision.
Dr. Wheaton asked how significantly the membership of the Council would
change in the fall. Prof. Raymond responded that only four new members would be
seated. Prof. Aikin also requested
that the committee in future drafts address language and issues generated by
Regents Award for Faculty Excellence
Following a motion and its second, approval was unanimously given to the
slate of candidates as proposed.
Michael J. Brody Awards
Following a motion and its second, approval was unanimously given to the
slate of candidates as proposed.
Several offerings were then were made in an attempt to optimize the
process by which the Senate participates in the awards process.
A suggestion was made to create a standing Faculty Senate Award
Committee, one of whose charges would be to clearly delineate an awards process
in a written document to be presented to the Provost and the Associate Provost
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 pm.
Craig C. Porter, MD
Secretary, University of Iowa Faculty Senate