1993-94 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA No. 3
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
FEBRUARY 17, 1994
The third meeting of the Faculty Senate for 1993-94, was convened in 25
Law Center, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, February 17, 1994, at 3:15 p.m.
(immediately following the University Senate meeting). Coordinate campuses
were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 131
voting faculty members. President Nils Hasselmo, presided.
I. MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 18, AND DECEMBER 2, 1993
Action
Correction to the November 18 minutes (page 5, sixth bullet):
III. University of Minnesota Strategic Planning
. . .
- It appears the document does not give the same
rewards in performance measurements to applied and
interdisciplinary work as to basic research.
. . .
APPROVED
II. FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Conflict of Interest Policy
Discussion and Action
MOTION:
To approve the proposed Conflict of Interest Policy:
CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY
---------------------------
NOTE: This policy ultimately is intended to address both Conflict of Interest
and Conflict of Commitment. At this point, we are seeking to move forward only
those portions dealing with Conflict of Interest. The Conflict of Commitment
sections will be added later, after consultation, review, and approval by the
appropriate groups, and the policy will be retitled "Conflict of Interest and
Conflict of Commitment." Until these sections are approved, the existing
"Regents' Policy on Consulting and Outside Affiliations:Outside Consulting,
Service Activities and Other Outside Work" will remain in effect. When the
combined policy is approved, it will be published in a booklet that will also
include a section on responsible conduct, the Academic Misconduct Policy,and a
new policy on ownership of, access to, and retention of research data.
1. INTRODUCTION
The University of Minnesota actively encourages and
participates in interaction with both the public and private
sectors as an important component of its research,
education, and public service activities. The University
encourages the recruitment, retention, and recognition of
individuals with creative abilities who can contribute to
technology transfer and interactions with BUSINESS*1 and
public entities consistent with their primary commitment to
the University. ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs involved in such
interactions may receive personal financial compensation in
accordance with the principles and guidelines provided in
this policy. Research activities supported by grants,
contracts, or GIFTs from public and private entities as well
as individuals provide a valuable source of funds,
equipment, and topics for University research. Professional
interactions, including consulting arrangements, between
ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs and public entities and privat BUSINESSes
advance the University's ability to provide a high-quality
research and educational experience for students and enhance
employment opportunities for students. University licensing
of technology, ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE's consulting, assisting in
new BUSINESS start-ups, and other forms of technology
transfer to both public and private entities are critical to
meeting society's needs. The University is committed to
fostering the welfare of the State of Minnesota through
interaction by the University with other public entities and
the private sector.
At the same time, the University and its employees are
committed to conducting themselves and University
activities in accordance with the highest standards of
integrity and ethics. This includes the identification of
the potential for conflicts of interest and the assurance
that they do not improperly affect University activities.
It is the purpose of this policy to set forth the principles
for identifying such potential for conflicts and the
procedures for reviewing and addressing the potential for
conflicts that occur.
2. CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS
A conflict of interest occurs when an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE
compromises his/her professional judgment in carrying out
University teaching, research, outreach, or public service
activities because of an external relationship that directly
or indirectly affects the FINANCIAL INTEREST of the ACADEMIC
EMPLOYEE, any FAMILY*2 member, or any ASSOCIATED ENTITY.
The potential for conflicts arises because of the nature and
scope of activities engaged in by the University and its
employees. The University assumes that potential for
conflicts will occur regularly in the normal conduct of
activities. However, it is essential that the significant
potential for conflicts be disclosed and reviewed by the
University. After disclosure the University can then make
an informed judgment about a particular case and require
appropriate oversight, limitations, or prohibitions on the
activity in accordance with this policy. ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES
may not engage in activities in which an actual conflict of
interest occurs.
ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES are encouraged to PARTICIPATE in
technology transfer activities and interactions with other
public entities and with BUSINESS. Such activities,
referred to in this document as external relationships, may
have the potential for conflicts of interest. However, no
wrongdoing is implied by the existence of external
relationships.
SIGNIFICANT COMBINATIONS OF ACTIVITIES AND EXTERNAL
RELATIONSHIPS
The potential for a conflict interest arises when certain
coupled to the existence of certain external relationships.
Some combinations (Category I below) are assumed to not
represent a conflict of interest. Other combinations
represent sufficient potential for conflict of interest
(Category II below) that they require review and prior
approval by the University before the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE can
engage in the activity. Category III below addresses an
activity combined with an external relationship that is
presumed to be a conflict of interest and is therefore not
allowed.
The following is a representative, though not inclusive,
list of activities and external relationships covered by
this policy. The categories are general guidelines, and
application of appropriate review and oversight will always
be in accordance with maintaining the full integrity or
reputation of the University and its employees within the
context of academic freedom.
Any combination of activity and external relationship not
specifically represented in Categories I-III that an
ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE reasonably believes constitutes a
potential conflict of interest must be reported in writing
to the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE's department head.*3 The
department head will determine whether the relationship
represents an activity requiring further review.
CATEGORY I - ALLOWABLE COMBINATIONS OF ACTIVITIES AND
EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS: The following are not considered
conflicts of interest and do not require disclosure. They
are allowable, if they are consistent with other policies of
the University including the Consulting and Patent and
Technology Transfer policies:*4
a) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE receiving royalties and honoraria
for published scholarly works, occasional lectures,
and other writings or creative works.*5,*6
b) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE receiving honoraria for serving
as a special reviewer or serving on review panels for
academic, governmental, or not-for-profit entities.
c) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE receiving royalties under the
University's or another academic institution's
royalty-sharing policies but the employee does not
have any other relationship with the royalty-granting
entity as specified in Category II.
d) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE participating in a Private
Practice Plan pursuant to policies adopted by the
Board of Regents.
CATEGORY II - COMBINATIONS OF ACTIVITIES AND EXTERNAL
RELATIONSHIPS THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT OF
INTEREST: The following combinations range from those that
are considered to have minimal to moderate potential for
conflict of interest (Section A) to those that have a
moderate to high potential for conflict of interest (Section
B). The activities in Section A are ordinarily allowable
following disclosure and, where necessary, the
implementation of oversight or other management procedures.
The activities and external relationships listed in Section
B require case-by-case review and only some of the specific
relationships may be approved. Special oversight or
management procedures are likely to be required (see Section
3 for disclosure and approval procedures).
SECTION A - Combinations of activities and external
relationships in which there is a minimal to moderate
potential for conflict of interest.
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
a) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE participating in research on a
technology, process, or product developed in whole or
in part by that ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE in which the
employee, a member of his/her IMMEDIATE FAMILY, or an
ASSOCIATED ENTITY is entitled to receive royalties
from an existing agreement with a BUSINESS under the
University's or another academic institution's
royalty-sharing policies, but has no other FINANCIAL
INTERESTs in the project.
b) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE assigning students, postdoctoral
fellows, or other trainees to research projects in
which the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE, a member of his/her
IMMEDIATE FAMILY, or an ASSOCIATED ENTITY is entitled
to receive royalties from an existing agreement with
a BUSINESS under the University's or another academic
institution's royalty-sharing policies, but has no
other FINANCIAL INTERESTs in the project.
INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES
c) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE assigning students or
other trainees to instructional projects, for
example, design projects, in which the ACADEMIC
EMPLOYEE, a member of his/her IMMEDIATE FAMILY, or an
ASSOCIATED ENTITY has A FINANCIAL INTEREST.
SECTION B - Combinations of activities and external
relationships in which here is a moderate to high potential
for conflict of interest.
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
a) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE participating in clinical trials
or evaluation or development of a technology,
process, or product owned or controlled by a BUSINESS
in which the employee, a member of his/her FAMILY, or
an ASSOCIATED ENTITY has a FINANCIAL INTEREST.
b) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE assigning students, postdoctoral
fellows, or other trainees to projects supported by a
BUSINESS (through SPONSORED RESEARCH or a GIFT) in
which the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE, a member of his/her
FAMILY, or an ASSOCIATED ENTITY has a FINANCIAL
INTEREST, other than royalty income or the
entitlement to future royalty income under university
royalty-sharing policies.
c) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE receiving University-supervised
SPONSORED RESEARCH support or GIFTS (whether in
dollars or in kind) for research from a BUSINESS in
which he/she, a member of his/her FAMILY, or an
ASSOCIATED ENTITY has a FINANCIAL INTEREST, other
than royalty income or the entitlement to future
royalty income under university royalty-sharing
policies.
BOARD MEMBERSHIPS
d) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE receiving research support
(SPONSORED RESEARCH or a GIFT) from a BUSINESS in
which the employee or a member of his/her FAMILY
serves on the board of directors or advisory board.
EXTERNAL ACTIVITIES
e) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE holding an EXECUTIVE POSITION in
a BUSINESS engaged in commercial or research
activities directly related to his/her University
responsibilities.
ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
h) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE taking administrative action on
behalf of the University with respect to the
University or any University-affiliated organization
that is beneficial to a BUSINESS in which he/she, a
member of his/her FAMILY, or an ASSOCIATED ENTITY has
a FINANCIAL INTEREST.
i) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE taking administrative action on
behalf of the University with respect to any supported
research activity (SPONSORED RESEARCH or a GIFT) in
which the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE, a member of his/her
FAMILY, or an ASSOCIATED ENTITY has a FINANCIAL
INTEREST in the sponsor or donor.
PROFESSIONAL REFERRALS
g) With the exclusion of consulting activities that
conform to the consulting policy, an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE
while acting in the context of his/her University
duties making professional referrals to a BUSINESS in
which he/she, a member of his/her FAMILY, or an
ASSOCIATED ENTITY has a FINANCIAL INTEREST of which
the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE is aware or reasonably should be
aware.*7
CATEGORY III - A combination of an activity and an external
relationship that is prohibited: The following activity creates a
conflict of interest and is not allowed for ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES:
PURCHASING GOODS OR SERVICES
a) ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES involved with or who may influence purchasing
decisions or contracting on behalf of the University must comply
with Minn. Stat. § 15.43, Acceptance of Advantage by State
Employee, which is fully set forth in Appendix D.
3. IMPLEMENTATION - CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Successful implementation of this policy assumes a shared responsibility by
all ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES and the administration of the University. ACADEMIC
EMPLOYEES are expected to comply with all the disclosure requirements
described below. Once proposed activities have been administratively
reviewed with a plan of action completed and approved, University
administration has the responsibility to vigorously defend the activity so
long as the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE complies with the plan of action and the
disclosure requirements.
A. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Any time an ACADEMIC
EMPLOYEE plans to initiate an activity that may be classified under Category
II of this policy, the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE must obtain approval of the proposed
activity before commencing the activity. For the purposes of this policy,
disclosure is required when the interest in a BUSINESS by an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE
or by an IMMEDIATE FAMILY member exceeds $5,000 in annual income of all types,
equity or ownership interest valued at 1 percent or more, or commitment for
any future royalties. Disclosure is also required when an EXTENDED FAMILY
member holds an EXECUTIVE POSITION in a BUSINESS, or holds equity or ownership
interest valued at ten percent or more in a BUSINESS.
DISCLOSURE AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL FOR SPONSORED RESEARCH OR
RECEIPT OF A GIFT: All ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs must disclose relevant FINANCIAL
INTERESTs to their department heads at the time of their application for
research support (from internal or external funding sources) or technology
transfer, or upon receipt of a GIFT if the proposed falls under the provisions
of this policy. Funding for the project will not be accessible to the
ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE until the disclosure of FINANCIAL INTEREST is reviewed and
approval is given, and other appropriate measures have been implemented in
accord with this policy.
ANNUAL DISCLOSURE: All ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs are required annually to complete
and submit to their department heads the Disclosure Form reporting all
FINANCIAL INTERESTs related to research activities and consulting activities.
Whenever substantial changes occur that the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE believes may
alter the FINANCIAL INTERESTS previously disclosed, an updated form must be
submitted within thirty (30) days.
DISCLOSURE WHEN INVOLVED WITH REVIEW OR ADVISORY ACTIVITIES: All ACADEMIC
EMPLOYEES must temporarily excuse themselves from any University committee or
review process that is considering an activity in which they have a FINANCIAL
INTEREST.
In addition, ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES must also disclose to committee chairs or the
appropriate administrator any interest (BUSINESS, FINANCIAL, OR FAMILY) that
might cause the employee to compromise his/her judgment while serving as a
committee member or making administrative decisions. An example is serving in
an EXECUTIVE POSITION for any organization that does business with the
University or sets policies or rules that affect the University's activities.
Disclosure when involved with technology transfer: When ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES
are involved with transferring technology through patents or licensing to a
BUSINESS in which the employee has a FINANCIAL INTEREST, the employee must
also disclose the FINANCIAL INTEREST to the Associate Vice President, Office
of Research and Technology Transfer.
DISCLOSURE TO EXTERNAL ENTITIES: ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs must disclose relevant
FINANCIAL INTERESTs to sponsors of research and in reporting by either written
or oral communication research results.*8 Disclosure must also be made by any
employee who makes an appearance, either in person or by way of a written
communication, before any public body, commission, group, or individual, to
present facts or to give an opinion respecting any issue or matter up for
consideration, discussion, or action.*9
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: When considering approval of Category II activities
or monitoring Category III activities, the department head, dean, or
appropriate academic vice president/vice chancellor may require the ACADEMIC
EMPLOYEE to submit additional clarifying information pertinent to the activity
under review. This supplemental information will be treated as non-public
information to the extent allowed by law.
WAIVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INTEREST: In special
situations, ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES may request a waiver of the requirement to file
a financial disclosure to participate in a specific activity if they can
document that they are not in a position to influence the accuracy of the
outcome of the research or the timely and accurate dissemination of the
results of the research. A request for a waiver must be submitted to the
ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE's department head. The administrative review process should
follow the procedure described below for Category II - Section A activities.
If the request for the waiver is denied, then the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE must
either comply with the disclosure requirements or not participate in the
proposed activity.
B. REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERNAL SUPPORT OR RECEIPT OF GIFTS
REVIEW PROCESS: The general purpose of reviews is to assist employees and the
University in avoiding or controlling risks to integrity and reputation
engendered by such relationships, while at the same time protecting and
furthering the interests of employees, the University, and society in the
activities supported by SPONSORED RESEARCH and GIFTS (see Appendix B,1,b for
general guidelines for the review process).
CATEGORY II - SECTION A: The department head is the responsible administrator
for this section. When a department head receives the disclosure form, he/she
will consider the appropriateness of the activity and will determine a course
of action that will be reported in writing to the dean to whom the department
head reports. The dean will either approve the department head's action or
submit the disclosure for review following the Category II - Section B
procedure. In those instances when the dean does not concur, the activity may
not proceed until approval is obtained by the Category II - Section B review
procedure. Review and decisions on proposed activities for this section must
be completed within twenty (20) working days after the department head
receives the written disclosure.
CATEGORY II - SECTION B: The dean is the responsible administrator for this
section. When a department head receives the disclosure form, he/she will
consider the appropriateness of the activity and will recommend a course of
action that will be submitted to the dean to whom the department head reports.
The dean will refer the proposed activity to the appropriate Conflict Review
Committee (described below) with or without his/her specific recommendation.
The Conflict Review Committee will either endorse the dean's recommendation or
suggest to the dean a course of action. The dean will then determine the
course of action for the proposed activity and submit the decision to the
academic vice president or vice chancellor to whom the dean reports. The vice
president/vice chancellor will either concur or return the plan of action to
the dean for revision. For those proposed activities that would benefit from
an additional perspective, the vice president/vice chancellor will forward a
request to the Vice President for Research to refer the activity to the
Public-Private Partnership Committee (PPPC). The advice from the PPPC will be
submitted to the dean, who will determine the course of action and submit the
decision to the vice president or vice chancellor to whom the dean reports.
The vice president/vice chancellor will either concur or return the plan of
action to the dean for revision. Review and decisions on proposed activities
for this section must be completed within thirty (30) working days after the
department head receives the written disclosure except for those activities
referred to the PPPC. The proposed activities that are reviewed by the PPPC
must be completed within an additional thirty (30) working days.
CONFLICT REVIEW COMMITTEES (CRCs): Each academic vice president or vice
chancellor will determine whether the review committee(s) should be organized
at the collegiate level or by area (multiple colleges) and, in consultation
with appropriate deans, will be responsible for appointing review committee
members (see Appendix B). ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs will have the opportunity to
meet with the CRC to discuss the situation and possible actions.
APPEAL/RECONSIDERATION PROCESS: If an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE believes the
determined course of action is inappropriate, the employee may appeal or ask
for the decision to be reconsidered by the dean. The dean will then refer
the appeal to the Conflict Review Committee to have the activity reconsidered.
Upon completion of the review, the dean will act on the recommendation.
RECORD RETENTION: Each dean will maintain records of all financial disclosure
statements filed and all actions taken by the institution, on an award-by-
award basis, for at least three (3) years beyond the termination of the award
or until resolution of any action by the University or governmental agencies
involving the records. All records will be maintained in a manner to protect
confidentiality.
C. REPORTING AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RELATIONSHIPS
Each dean annually will submit a written report to the appropriate academic
vice president/vice chancellor summarizing all requests and actions regarding
Category II external relationships. In addition, the dean must report on
ongoing Category II relationships to ensure that management and oversight
activities are being carried out as required. These reports will be forwarded
by the vice president or vice chancellor to the Vice President for Research
for transmission to the Public-Private Partnership Committee, which will
review activities for consistency and make suggestions for modification of
operating principles and procedures. On behalf of the committee, the Vice
President for Research will communicate its recommendations in writing to the
vice presidents and vice chancellors, who in turn will communicate in writing
with their deans. The Vice President for Research also will consult with
appropriate faculty governance committees regarding proposed changes in the
operating principles and procedures.
4. COMPLIANCE
The University expects ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs to comply fully and promptly with
all the requirements of this policy. Breaches of this policy include, but
are not limited to, failure to file, intentionally filing an incomplete,
erroneous, or misleading disclosure form, or failing to provide additional
information as required by the approving authority. A violation of this
policy may be the basis for discipline of an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE. If
sanctions are necessary, they will be imposed in accordance with the
Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure and the Academic Professional and
Administrative Staff Policies and Procedures. The potential sanctions may
include, but are not limited to, the following:
* Letter of admonition;
* Ineligibility of the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE for grant applications,
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, or supervision of graduate
students;
* Suspension;
* Nonrenewal of appointment;
* Dismissal.
5. OTHER APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS
The statement of principles contained in this policy complements the
provisions of other applicable policies, regulations, and laws. These
include Regents' policies on "Patent and Technology Transfer"; "Consulting
and Outside Affiliations: Outside Consulting, Service Activities and Other
Outside Work"; and the "Faculty and Staff Grievance Procedure." Other
relevant guidelines include the "Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure";
Purchase of Services Policies and Procedures, and applicable state and
federal law. This policy is intended to help implement and expand upon
these other related requirements.
This policy supersedes all others with respect to matters covered herein.
===========
FOOTNOTES
===========
1. Definitions of terms appearing in small capital letters are listed in
Appendix A.
2 See definition of FAMILY (IMMEDIATE FAMILY and EXTENDED FAMILY) in
Appendix A.
3 Department head is used as a generic term for the immediate administrator,
which is normally the department head, department chair, or director.
4 This Conflict of Interest Policy does not supersede the "Patent and
Technology Transfer Policy" or any future policies on intellectual property.
5 Products produced for a specific University job assignment are excluded and
remain the property of the University.
6 Consistent with the Academic Personnel Policy on "Use of Educational
Materials, the Sale of which Benefits Personally Faculty or Staff Members,"
the approval of the appropriate department head or dean is required when an
ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE selects materials for assignment to University students
the sale of which will provide personal income to the employee.
7 Only in special situations should full-time ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES be permitted
to engage in this type of activity, for example, when the function is not
generally available from other sources and the employee fully discloses
his/her relevant FINANCIAL INTEREST to prospective clients.
8 When submitting a paper for publication, an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE must disclose
to the editor any FINANCIAL INTEREST that may be affected by publication.
This provision also applies to release of information to news media.
9 This is taken from the Regents' Policy on "Presenting Testimony -
Identification of Affiliations." The intention is to replace that policy by
including its basic provisions in the conflict of interest policy and also
in the conflict of commitment policy.
APPENDIX A - OPERATING DEFINITIONS
a) ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE means any person possessing either a full-time (any
employee holding an appointment of more than 66 percent time) or part-time
academic or staff appointment at the University and includes all persons
with the following class numbers: Academic Administrative 93xx; Faculty
94xx; Minnesota Extension Service 96xx; and Academic Professionals 97xx.
Also included in this category are those individuals, whether salaried or
not salaried, who on behalf of the University are responsible for writing
and submitting grants.
b) An ASSOCIATED ENTITY of an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE means any trust, organization,
or enterprise over which the employee, alone or together with his/her
FAMILY, exercises a controlling interest.
c) BUSINESS means any corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, firm,
franchise, association, organization, holding company, joint stock company,
receivership, business or real estate trust, or any other nongovernmental
legal entity organized for profit, not-for-profit, or charitable purposes.
d) EXECUTIVE POSITION refers to any position that includes responsibilities
for a significant segment of the operation or management of a BUSINESS.
e) EXTENDED FAMILY of an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE includes children who do not
qualify as dependents for tax purpose, parents, and siblings.
f) The FAMILY of an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE includes both IMMEDIATE FAMILY and
EXTENDED FAMILY.
g) A FINANCIAL INTEREST is an interest in a BUSINESS consisting of: (1) any
stock, stock option, or similar ownership interest in such BUSINESS, but
excluding any interest arising solely by reason of investment in such
BUSINESS by a mutual, pension, or other institutional investment fund over
which the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE does not exercise control; or (2) receipt of,
or the right or expectation to receive, any income from such BUSINESS
whether in the form of a fee (e.g., consulting), salary, allowance,
forbearance, forgiveness, interest in real or personal property, dividend,
royalty derived from the licensing of technology or other processes or
products, rent, capital gain, real or personal property, or any other form
of compensation, or any combination thereof. For the purposes of this
policy, disclosure is required when the interest in a BUSINESS by an
ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE or by an IMMEDIATE FAMILY member exceeds $5,000 in annual
income of all types, equity or ownership interest valued at 1 percent or
more, or commitment for any future royalties. Disclosure is also required
when an EXTENDED FAMILY member holds an EXECUTIVE POSITION in a BUSINESS,
or holds equity or ownership interest valued at ten percent or more in a
BUSINESS.
h) GIFT means an unrestricted donation of assets to the University or any
portion of the University. The donor may specify the general purpose for
which the gift may be used, but there may be no other terms and conditions
concerning the use of such assets. Assets may be in the form of cash,
securities, tangible personal property, partnership interests, or pledges
for acceptable assets that are assigned to the University. For the
purposes of this policy, disclosure is required when (a) a GIFT is from a
BUSINESS in which an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE has a FINANCIAL INTEREST or (b) the
value of the GIFT exceeds $1,000 in a given year.
i) IMMEDIATE FAMILY includes the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE's spouse or domestic
partner, and children who qualify as dependents for tax purposes.
j) PARTICIPATE means to be part of the described activity in any capacity,
including, but not limited to, serving as the principal investigator, co-
investigator, research collaborator, or provider of direct services or
patient care. The term is not intended to apply to individuals who provide
primarily technical support or who are purely advisory, with no direct
access to the data (e.g., control over its collection or analysis) or, in
the case of research with human subjects, to the study participants, unless
they are in a position to influence the study's results or have privileged
information as to the outcome.
k) SPONSORED RESEARCH means research, training, and instructional projects
involving funds, materials, or other compensation from outside sources
under agreements that contain any of the following: The agreement binds the
University or an affiliated institution to a line of scholarly or
scientific inquiry specified to a substantial level of detail; a line-item
budget is involved; financial reports are required; the award is subject
to external audit; unexpended funds must be returned to the sponsor at the
conclusion of the project; or the agreement provides for the disposition of
either tangible or intangible properties that may result from the activity.
APPENDIX B - CONFLICT REVIEW COMMITTEES
1) CONFLICT REVIEW COMMITTEES
(a) FORMATION AND MEMBERSHIP
Academic vice presidents and vice chancellors will form one or more
Conflict Review Committees (CRCs) for their areas to review the
potential for conflicts of interest respecting SPONSORED RESEARCH,
funding and GIFTs. Committees may be organized by area (multiple
colleges) or for particular colleges where the number of such cases or
their nature justify a separate committee. Three-quarters of the voting
member-ship of each CRC will be faculty members from the area or
college(s) to be served. The remaining one-quarter of the voting
members will include faculty from outside the college(s) and
representatives from outside the University. Some of the members should
be individuals who have participated in approved external relationships.
Each CRC will also include nonvoting staff representa-tion from the
Office of Research and Technology Transfer. The academic vice
president/vice chancellor will decide on the composition of each CRC and
select its members in consultation with the appropriate deans.
(b) GUIDELINES
The principal objective for the review committees and responsible
administrators is to help guard ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs and the University
from engaging in activities where the risk to integrity and reputation
as a result of an external relationship outweighs the value of the
activity to academic and societal goals. Relevant factors for the
review committees and responsible administrators to consider are the
size of the FINANCIAL INTEREST, when the relationship commenced, whether
the conditions of the relationship have changed during the past year,
the likelihood of actual conflict (will the results of the activity
likely be affected by or affect the FINANCIAL INTEREST), mechanisms to
ensure integrity (peer review, other independent research sites, and
independent monitors or controls), the importance of the proposed
activity, and the availability of alternatives to avoid the conflict or
apparent conflict.
One possible recommendation as a result of the review is approval of the
activity as proposed if it is concluded that the potential for conflict
is so remote or inconsequential that there is minimal probability for
biasing the objectivity of the activity. Other possible recommendations
are to require periodic peer review of the activity (oversight) by
individuals independent of the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE, outside monitors for
the activity, divestiture of the FINANCIAL INTEREST, modification of the
plan of work, or assignment of different ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs without a
FINANCIAL INTEREST to control the activity. To the extent possible and
reasonable under the circumstances, and in light of the importance of
the activity, the review committees and responsible administrators will
work with ACAD-EMIC EMPLOYEEs to develop means for the activity to take
place while protecting the integrity and the reputation of the ACADEMIC
EMPLOYEEs and the University. In special circumstances upon receiving
advice from the PPPC, the academic vice president/vice chancellor may
approve the activity for a limited period of time due to the potentially
great benefit from the activity even though there is a high potential
for conflict of interest.
2) PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE
(a) FORMATION AND MEMBERSHIP
The Vice President for Research will form a Public-Private Partnership
Committee (PPPC) to advise the University administration on complex
ethical issues that cannot be resolved by direct application of existing
policies. Although some members of this committee will be drawn from
within the University to provide relevant information and guidance, the
majority will represent a broad spectrum of constituencies outside the
University.
(b) GUIDELINES
The PPPC will provide advice on how to handle proposed activities that
require an additional perspective beside that provided by the CRC. The
PPPC will also annually perform a retrospective review of all decisions
involving Category II relationships and provide advice on how policies
and procedures might be modified to maintain the integrity of the
institution. The Vice President for Research will serve as the liaison
between the PPPC and the other vice presidents/vice chancellors. The
Vice President for Research also will confer with appropriate faculty
governance committees regarding proposed changes in the operating
principles and procedures.
APPENDIX C - EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS
This policy takes a broader view of the potential for conflict of interest and
contains more stringent guidelines than the policy it replaces. As a result,
it is expected that certain existing relationships of ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs will
have to be modified. In order to implement the policy, ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES
must disclose all existing external relationships to department heads for
review as specified in Section 3. This provision also applies to all new
ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs hired after this policy is adopted. The following section
sets forth transitional rules for removing identified conflicts. They apply
to activities department heads and deans have determined to be unallowable.
MECHANISMS FOR REMEDIATION
If a department head or dean decides an existing combination of an activity
and external relationship is unallowable, the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE can do any of
the following to remove the potential for conflict of interest:
* Divestiture of FINANCIAL INTERESTS in publicly traded BUSINESSes: Within
three months following the administrative decision, the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE
must divest at least 75 percent of relevant stock holdings; 100 percent of
the stock must be divested by the end of the sixth month.
* Divestiture of FINANCIAL INTERESTs in privately held BUSINESSes: The
ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE will be required to divest himself/herself of his/her
interest at the earliest reasonable time in the judgment of the department
head or dean. The University must be assured that the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE
will not be obligated to future activities or responsibilities for the
BUSINESS.
* Retaining FINANCIAL INTERESTs but withdrawing from University activity: In
lieu of divestment of a FINANCIAL INTEREST, an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE may retain
the interest and instead discontinue the University activity in question.
In such circumstances the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE may continue to participate in
the research for a period not to exceed six months following notification
that the combination of activities and external relationships is not
approved. Under such circumstances, the implementation of appropriate
monitoring procedures may be warranted during such period.
* Resigning or taking a leave from an EXECUTIVE POSITION in BUSINESS related
to an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE's University activity: A full-time ACADEMIC
EMPLOYEE with an EXECUTIVE POSITION in a BUSINESS that is deemed
unallowable must resign or take a leave of absence from the position within
a period determined to be reasonable under the circumstances. In no case
will this period exceed six months from the determination that the
relationship is not acceptable. In making these arrangements, efforts will
be made to minimize the disruption the change might create for the parties
involved.
APPENDIX D - MINN. STAT. 15.43, ACCEPTANCE OF ADVANTAGE BY STATE EMPLOYEE
SUBDIVISION 1. Financial interest of agents. No employee of the state or of
the University of Minnesota in direct contact with suppliers or potential
suppliers to the state or the university, or who may directly or indirectly
influence a purchasing decision or contract by establishing specification,
testing purchased products, evaluating contracted services, or otherwise has
official involvement in the purchasing or contracting process may:
(1) Have any financial interest or have any personal beneficial interest
directly or indirectly in contracts or purchase orders for goods or
services used by, or purchased for resale or furnished to a
department or agency of the state or the university; or
(2) Accept directly or indirectly from a person, firm, or corporation to
which a contract or purchase order has been or may be, awarded, a
rebate, gift, money, or anything of value other than items of nominal
value. No such employee may further accept any promise, obligation
or contract for future reward.
SUBD. 2. TEXTBOOKS EXEMPTED. Textbooks authored by an employee of the
state's education systems or of the University of Minnesota may be used as
required course material upon receipt of written approval from the head of the
department. Instructors in state institutions and at the university may
accept free samples of textbooks and related teaching materials.
SUBD. 3. OTHER EXEMPTIONS. The commissioners of human services and
corrections, and the chancellors of the state university and community college
systems may by rule prescribe procedure for the acceptance of gifts from any
person or organization, provided that such gifts are accepted by the
commissioner or chancellor, or a designated representative of the commissioner
or chancellor, and that such gifts are used solely for the direct benefit of
patients, inmates or students under the jurisdiction of the accepting state
officer.
Subd. 4. Penalties. A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
History: 1973 c 349 s 2; 1973 c 400 s 1; 1975 c 321 s 2; 1982 c 560 s 7; 1984
c 654 art 5 s 58; 1986 c 444
JUDITH GARRARD, Chair
Faculty Consultative Committee
CARL ADAMS, Chair
Faculty Affairs Committee
DISCUSSION:
Professor Carl Adams introduced the proposed Conflict of Interest Policy.
The proposed statement of policy is concerned with academic employees'
activities and their related external relationships. The existing policy
statement simply does not meet the University's current and future needs. It
should be noted that the proposed statement is part of a larger effort to
develop a comprehensive, coherent, and complimentary set of policies to guide
and protect academic employees. The purposes of the Conflict of Interest
Policy are: 1) to establish the essential desireability of many activities and
related external relationships engaged in by the University's academic
employees, 2) to acknowledge the possibility of abuse in some activity in
external relationship combinations, and 3) to establish guidelines and
procedures to protect the actual and perceived integrity of each of the
academic employees of the University and that of the University as a whole.
Some may feel the policy represents an intrusion on rights and privacy,
however, major Federal agencies have made it clear that they will soon require
the University to have a policy of this type if it is to continue to receive
its support. Others, Professor Adams said, may feel the policy is too
limited; however, it is important that essential freedoms of academic
employees not be infringed on unnecesarily.
Professor Adams assured the Faculty Senate that the proposed policy
received major faculty input in its development. It received extensive review
by the Faculty Affairs Committee, the Research Committee, and the Faculty
Consultative Committee. In addition, there was strong faculty representation
on the Academic Integrity Committee (AIC) which developed the policy.
Professor Seashore Louis, member of the AIC, said the committee was
concerned about the complexity of the policy but believed the University, as a
land-grant institution, has a responsibility to help move the results of its
reseach into the public and private sector. Therefore, if the policy is going
to protect the faculty's interests, that is to ensure that the University will
stand behind its academic employees, the policy needed to be complex enough to
include several layers of review and adequate oversight.
The policy, said the AIC chair Dr. Mark Brenner, attempts to present with
some clarity the types of interactions of internal activities with
associations of external relationships that are generally acceptable and/or
require disclosure and review. Dr. Brenner expressed appreciation to the many
groups and individuals that worked for so long and so diligently on its
development.
A question was raised about the reference to "academic employees"
throughout the policy. Why are non-academic employees not included in this
policy? Dr. Brenner responded that all individuals in the University who are
in a position to influence the outcome of research or other activities and who
have a financial interest should be covered by some type of policy. The AIC,
which was primarily a faculty committee, believed it needed to address in a
comprehensive way the faculty issues. There should be a companion policy for
civil service employees. Efforts will begin soon, with participation by civil
service employees, to develop such a policy. Similarily, there needs to be a
policy addressing graduate assistants. A policy for administrators is already
in the advanced stages of development.
An inquiry about the following phrase was also raised: "...University
administration has the responsibility to vigorously defend the activity so
long as the academic employee complies with the plan of action and the
disclosure requirements." Does this mean the University will not only
ethically and morally defend the individual, but also provide financial
resources for legal defense? And, if so, does the academic employee have the
right to select his/her own legal representation? Dr. Brenner responded that
the AIC did intend that the University should both morally and legally defend
its faculty. President Hasselmo added that the Board of Regents has
authorized him "to provide legal counsel for all members of the University
community in their proper exercise of their responsibilities within the
University community." That means, he said, that a faculty member who
complies with appropriate rules and regulations will be defended legally by
the University. The individual would be allowed to participate in the
selection of the legal counsel. If there is a clear violation of University
policy, the University will not pay for legal representation.
It was suggested that footnote 3 be expanded to include those units that
do not have operating department heads, chairs, or directors. It was further
suggested that Footnote 5 be clarified.
Under Category II-Section B, a clarification was made that reviews could
take up to 3 months for completion. Dr. Brenner responded that that would be
the extreme situation. He believes the norm would be within 20 days, as
outlined in Category II-Section A. Some faculty felt 90 days of University
bureaucracy would be enough to send companies or organizations to another
institution. Dr. Brenner underscored that the timelines are outer limits.
Also, the extra review required under Section B is done only in sensitive
situations and will more than likely help the credibility of the activity.
One person inquired whether the criteria for Review Committee members,
which are clearly articulated in the document, are meant to apply to other
reviewers as well? Dr. Brenner said that they are and agreed that should be
clearly identified in the policy.
THE FOLLOWING MOTION WAS THEN PRESENTED AND ACCEPTED AS A FRIENDLY
AMENDMENT:
TO ADD IN LINES 412, 415, AND 431/432 THE WORDS "AND
RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATORS" AFTER THE WORDS "REVIEW
COMMITTEES."
Another senator suggested including grandparents and children under the
definition of "immediate family." While it is a rationale idea, Dr. Brenner
said, implementation is too cumbersome. It is not practical to expect faculty
to keep track of the investment portfolios of people outside their immediate
household.
BECAUSE THE TIME LIMIT FOR DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM HAD EXPIRED, A
MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME WAS APPROVED.
The next issue focused on the definition of "business" under Board
Memberships, and whether the document should distinguish between proprietary
and non-profit organizations. The AIC did not make that distinction because
there are so many unusual situations, particularly in how foundations channel
funds. One senator argued that leaving the language as written is a
bureaucratic infringement on the faculty, requiring them to get permission
just about every time they submit grants. Professor Louis said it is her
understanding that government agencies are not included in this section. If
that is the case, said the senator, then the document should say that.
THE FOLLOWING MOTION WAS THEN PRESENTED BUT FAILED TO RECEIVE MAJORITY
APPROVAL:
TO ADD IN LINE 145 THE WORDS "FOR PROFIT" BEFORE THE
WORD "BUSINESS."
A FINAL MOTION TO ADD IN LINE 352 THE WORD "NON-GORERNMENTAL"
BEFORE THE WORD LEGAL WAS ACCEPTED AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
Hearing no further discussion, the President turned to the main motion--
the proposed policy as amended.
A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY, AS
AMENDED, WAS OVERWHELMINGLY APPROVED ON A VOICE VOTE.
APPROVED
III. OLD BUSINESS
NONE
IV. NEW BUSINESS
Professor Garrard distributed and reviewed the Faculty Consultative
Committee's quarterly report to the Board of Regents. The text of the report
follows:
REPORT TO THE FACULTY SENATE
The FCC presents a report to the Board of Regents on a quarterly
basis. My report to you today is the same one presented at the
February Regents meeting.
Before giving you this report, I want to give you a bit of
background information. This year marks the first time that the
administration and the regents have established a new process for
preparing the annual budget. A planning process was introduced
that consists of budget targets, called Resource Allocation
Guidelines. These targets were presented to the Regents in
January, but the budget will not be finalized until May.
Central administration's target budget included five major
components: (1) a 5% tuition increase, (2) a 6% salary increase,
(3) a strategic investment pool of $8.5 million to support U2000,
(4) a continuation of the retrenchment and reallocation, and (5) a
deficit of $7.5 million. The administration consulted with the
Senate Committee on Finance and Planning and with the FCC in the
preparation of this proposed budget.
When the proposed budget was presented to the Regents in January,
the Regents said that they wanted a new set of guidelines that cut
the tuition request from 5% to 3% which amounted to approximately
$3 million, left the salary increase at 6%, and left the strategic
investment pool at $8.5 million. This meant that the deficit grew
from $7.5 million to $10.2 million. These are still planning
guidelines, and in that context, let me describe to you the FCC
Chair's February report.
FCC REPORT TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS
FEBRUARY 19, 1994
This FCC report to the Board of Regents consists of one item: the
future of U2000.
Since the regents' retreat last September, the academic community
has engaged in a discussion about the strategic plan. From the
perspective of faculty involvement, these activities fall into
three distinct stages.
- Stage 1 lasted throughout fall quarter and consisted of
discussion and consultation about the need for a strategic
plan and its broad characteristics. In December, the
Faculty Senate approved the administration's proposal for
the framework for U2000.
- For the past two months, we have been in the midst of Stage
2, in which planning is being developed at the collegiate,
departmental, and unit levels. Specifically, we are filling
in the details of the framework for U2000.
- Stage 3 is in the future and will consist of a translation
of these plans into action.
The implementation of U2000 requires resources. Some of the resources were
woven into the Resource Allocation Guidelines presented by the Administration
at the January meeting of the Board of Regents. We note, with approval, that
there is a proposal that additional resources will be requested from the
Legislature in the form of extra appropriations.
Let me return to the proposal for the 1994-95 Resource Allocation Guidelines.
Prior to the January regents meeting, FCC and the Senate Committee on Finance
and Planning had engaged in consultation about these Guidelines. We agreed on
the following points:
- The Guidelines represented a balanced budget proposal
consisting of five major components: tuition, salary,
retrenchment and reallocation,a strategic investment pool,
and, by necessity, a deficit.
- The Guidelines also emphasized long term investments in the
institution over short term solutions.
- Following consultation and discussion with President
Hasselmo and Vice President Infante and Erickson, the FCC
and the Senate Committee on Finance and Planning were agreed
that the proposed budget guidelines represented a shared
sacrifice approach to carving out some of the needed
resources for U2000.
In the administration's proposed guidelines, all members of the academic
community would be called upon to make sacrifices in order to generate a
Strategic Investment Pool (SIP). Let me outline these contributions:
- We note with appreciation the commitment of the
administration and the enthusiastic support by members of
the Board of Regents to the proposed salary increase.
However, an increase of 6%, proposed for continuing, non
represented faculty, or even the 7.2% increase for
continuing civil service and bargaining unit employees
represents a sacrifice by all members of the University
community, faculty, staff, and student employees in light of
no salary increases in 2 of the past 3 years.
- Faculty, staff, and student employees will also make a
contribution through programmatic cuts due to retrenchments
made this year and last year in support of the on-going
retrenchment and reallocation process and in the proposed
deficit of $7.5 million. The administration has estimated
that $1 million is equal to approximately 35 positions. On
that basis, a $7.5 deficit means the loss of about 250
employee jobs.
- The proposed guideline of 5% for tuition increase
represents a reasonable contribution to the future of their
university by its students. The FCC and the Finance and
Planning Committee agreed with the administration's
rationale that a 3% tuition increase plus an additional 2%
to support the SIP was justified.
Thus the proposed guidelines represented a balanced approach to providing the
resources needed to begin to implement U2000. Faculty and staff are called
upon to make contributions through reductions in terms of compensation
increases and programmatic cuts. The students' contribution, in terms of a
modest tuition increase, represents a down payment on their improvements in
student education envisioned by U2000.
The Regents' action at the January meeting would require another $3 million in
retrenchment, approximately 2% of budget. in the minds of many faculty, a 2%
retrenchment this year on top of a 2.4% retrenchment last year, brings into
question the long term commitment of the University to the quality envisioned
by the strategic planning process that is underway. A proposed reduction in
tuition would save only $69 per year for an average full time student, but it
would cause the loss of the equivalent of an additional 95 employee positions.
We are deeply concerned that continuing programmatic cuts will undermine the
base from which U2000 is to be built. If the strategic planning process is to
be realized and implementations for U2000 is to begin, then a commitment must
be made to the underlying quality of the academic programs, with long term
investment in competitive salaries, a strategic investment pool, and realistic
tuition levels.
For decades the physical infrastructure has been undermined through
underfunding of the facilities budgets, and we are now paying the cost of the
neglect in terms of deferred maintenance. We should not make the same mistake
in underfunding the intellectual infrastructure of the University, especially
when planning for the future is just beginning.
We urge you, the Regents, to make this commitment to the future of U2000 by
making the hard decision to hold retrenchments to the level contemplated in
the Resource Allocation Guidelines as originally proposed by the
administration in January.
V. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
Martha Kvanbeck
ABSTRACTOR