Regarding Lack of Consultation on Drafting a California State University (CSU)
Intellectual Property Policy

 

AS-3296-17/FA

 

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (ASCSU) affirm that CSU faculty were not consulted at any point during the drafting a CSU Intellectual Property (IP) Policy—despite a history of the senate’s requests for collaboration in this process1; and be it further

 

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU contend that an invitation to react after the fact to a fully-formulated policy so central to faculty rights and responsibilities is not “shared decision-making” as instantiated in law through the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act
(HEERA)2; nor does it constitute consultation within the scope of shared governance as generally understood throughout academe; and be it further

 

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU recognize that, because the administration’s draft policy, communicated within a timeline that precludes genuine consultation with the ASCSU and campus senates, is a statement of the terms and conditions of employment intended to be presented in July at the bargaining table, the faculty’s best interests may be more appropriately served there by the California Faculty Association (CFA); and be it further

 

RESOLVED: That given insufficient time to craft a formal response, the ASCSU does not proffer formal comment on the administration’s recently proposed IP policy; and be it further

 

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU acknowledge receipt of formal and informal expressions of concern from CSU faculty and campus senates; and be it further

 

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU maintain that campus senates have the right to weigh in independently on the draft policy and need not do so only through the ASCSU, as the General Counsel has asserted3; and be it further

 

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU forward campus resolutions and responses that it has received by the June 16, 2017 extended deadline to both the CFA and the Chancellor’s Office; and be it further

 

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU distribute this resolution to the CSU Board of Trustees, CSU Chancellor, CSU campus Presidents, CSU campus Senate Chairs, CSU campus Senate Executive Committees, CSU Provosts/Vice Presidents of Academic Affairs, the California Faculty Association (CFA), the California State Student Association (CSSA), and the CSU Emeritus and Retired Faculty Association
(CSU ERFA).

 

RATIONALE:  The “Statement on Intellectual Property” approved by Committee A and adopted by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in November 2013 affirms the following principle: “The faculty senate, or an equivalent governing body, should play a primary role in defining the policies and public-interest commitments that will guide university-wide management of inventions and other knowledge assets stemming from campusbased research.”4 Bearing in mind AAUP’s statement, the ASCSU has actively sought to partner with the administration in drafting the IP policy. Administrative representatives have consistently demurred, claiming that the policy involved bargaining issues beyond the purview of the ASCSU. Thus, the administration’s eleventh-hour invitation to seek input from the ASCSU rings hollow

 

Further, the timing puts undue pressure on the ASCSU that could have been avoided had the administration first sought consultation while drafting the policy rather than requesting input after the fact. The ASCSU cannot participate in a process that can only be described as a travesty of shared governance.

 

 

 

Approved Without Dissent – May 18-19, 2017

 

______________________________________

 

1 See, for example, http://www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/Committees/faculty_affairs/documents/FAminutes-Nov.42015.pdf 
   

2 HEERA, Article 1, 3561 (b): The Legislature recognizes that joint decisionmaking and consultation between administration and faculty or academic employees is the long-accepted manner of governing institutions of higher  learning and is essential to the performance of the educational missions of these institutions, and declares that it is the purpose of this chapter to both preserve and encourage that process. 
3 In an email to the San Jose State Senate Chair, in response to that campus’s own resolution regarding the draft IP policy, the CSU’s General Counsel, has written the following: “Please be sure to provide the SJAS input to the CSU Systemwide Academic Senate, who we understand is collecting feedback and input from campus academic senates and others, and is scheduled to provide the CSU with feedback on the draft IP policy very soon. As I am sure you are aware, because the draft systemwide intellectual property policy includes terms and conditions of employment that are within the scope of bargaining, CSU is prohibited from consulting with individual faculty members or with other faculty groups in preparing its draft policy. Instead, CSU is required by law to negotiate only with CFA regarding such a policy. In fact, CFA recently transmitted correspondence to the CSU making clear that CFA does not waive its right to bargain over the draft IP policy. That said, the HEERA (the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act) does permit the CSU the limited ability to consult with its AS regarding a matter within scope, which is why CSU is seeking input from the AS prior to bargaining with CFA. We very much look forward to receiving any feedback from the CSU AS as part of that consultation - and to considering it in conjunction with our negotiations with CFA going forward.   

4 https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-intellectual-property-0

 

 

 

 

 

 


 
Academic Senate Home | Calendar | Search Resolutions | Contact Us | Helpful Links