UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA
16 January, 2002
1.Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order
at 3:10 p.m. with a quorum at 3:15
Barik, Boggs, Bracken, Broome, Brown, M. Cohen, Dagenais, Ellis, Foster,
Gifford, Gray, Guest, Hanks, Hermanson, Hill, Hsu, Kayes, Longenecker, Matheson,
Mozur, Murray, Perkins, Rogers, Rowe, Shardo, Slagle, Spector, Swofford, Vest,
Weitzel, Wesenberg, Wheeler
(Excused): Bailey, Bowers,
Broughton, Garmon, Kimball, Miller, Olsen, Painter, Sylvester,
(Unexcused): S. Cohen, El-Saba, Figarola, Hamm, Kwiatkowski, McNair, Pettyjohn,
Temple, Townsley, Wilson
3. Approval of Minutes:
The minutes from the
November 28, 2001 Faculty Senate meeting were presented and approved.
Nicole Baute came to the Faculty Senate meeting to discuss the proposed
Copyright Policy with the faculty. Senators
asked questions for clarification before voting on the policy.
first question asked about the “Significant Use of University Resources” and
sabbatical leave. Nicole answered
that simply being on sabbatical was not a significant use.
That it is the same as being at work.
What is important is WHAT is being used, not when.
people felt online classes were still a problem.
That any eCollege course is automatically owned by the University.
Nicole said that is part of the eCollege license that the University has
agreed to with them. She also said
that faculty may reuse materials and change it for use in a textbook or another
course. The changes make it a new
wanted to know who decides what significant use is.
Nicole said she is the main person if there is a question.
If a faculty member uses something they don’t normally use in the
course of their daily work, it is probably significant use.
If a faculty member uses Media Productions Services or Publications and
it is paid for with University funds or a grant then it is probably significant
use in the case of University funds. In
the case of a grant, the grant probably tells who owns what rights.
the definitions section under “Institutional Work” in part 3 on
‘Collaborative Works’ there should NOT be the word ‘or’.
Collaborative works between colleagues would belong to them, not the
University unless no discrete creators can be determined (such as a work that
went over semesters with multiple faculty, staff, and student input).
the present online contract that faculty have objected to, the copyright policy
includes in section 8.5 that the University shall assume responsibility for
liability for institutional works.
there is a question about ownership, section 8.3 covers the administration of
decision making. First the director
and the creator and the dean of the creator’s school/college will attempt to
decide who has ownership. If there
is no agreement it will go to a University Intellectual Property Policy
Committee whose decision will be final.
asked who would be on this committee, Nicole said that there was a draft
proposal of who would comprise the committee as follows: “The Intellectual
Property Policy Committee is appointed by and reports to the President to serve
as a resource with respect to matters involving the general subject of
intellectual property in patents, inventions and copyright.
The Committee will be comprised of both administrative and faculty
representatives, with a faculty majority. The
Director of Technology Development will serve as a non-voting member of this
Committee. The Committee will have an advisory role in the
interpretation and application of the University's patent and invention and
copyright policies, and will periodically review these policies and recommend
changes to the President as necessary. The
Committee will also consider any other special circumstances or appeals which
may arise as a result of these policies.” The Faculty Senate wanted some input
as to the faculty members on this committee.
deciding who would own something, Nicole said that when faculty was requested to
produce something, there will ordinarily be a contract to sign which will
signify who will have ownership.
some faculty wanted to know the impact of voting for or against the policy. If
we vote for the policy, it will become part of the faculty handbook and binding.
If we amend the policy, it will be sent back to the dean’s council to
be refused or accepted.
was a motion to end debate, accept the policy as written and take a vote on the
copyright policy. This was seconded. This
motion passed with one opposing vote.
was a motion to propose a resolution for the makeup of the Intellectual Property
Policy Committee and to hold off on voting until this was accepted or denied.
Since the first motion, to vote on the proposal as written, had already
been voted on, procedure was decided that the senate needed to vote on the
proposed policy was voted upon with 23 voting to accept as written, 3 opposed,
and 2 abstentions.
Discussion of Proposed Sick
Leave Donation Policy:
The intent of the policy is to help
people with catastrophic illnesses.
was a question of why the policy recommendation was for faculty and other
employees with more than 1 year of service.
If someone had worked here for less than a year and had a catastrophic
illness why couldn’t they be covered?
was mentioned that Section 1 should include maternity leave (which wouldn’t be
covered under catastrophic illness or injury).
‘new’ sick leave could be used to donate, not the other hours that faculty
received when the sick leave policy went into effect.
Only those hours which might be used at retirement.
policy will be discussed and reviewed further in February’s meeting.
5. New Business:
Ellis is going to Slovakia on a Fulbright
fellowship. Isabel Brown will be
the new Committee on Academic Policy & the Faculty Handbook chair in
David’s absence. The vote was
unanimous to accept her nomination. Arts
and Sciences will need a new caucus leader.
Joe Mozur made a proposal for a resolution that states: “Whereas on 16 January, 2002, the Faculty Senate voted to endorse the current draft of the USA Copyright Policy, and whereas Section 8 paragraph 2 provides for the creation of a University Intellectual Property Policy Committee, the Faculty Senate resolves that faculty shall constitute a majority of said committee and that the faculty serving on said committee shall be selected by the President of the University from a list submitted to him by the Faculty Senate.“ The vote was unanimous to accept the resolution.
6. Report from the Chair:
Senate Chair Rogers made a statement that
the Faculty Senate Executive Committee met with President Moulton.
President Moulton said that raises were a high priority and that we
should find out more in April as to the possibility of raises.
Enrollment was excellent, the highest spring enrollment in the history of
was some discussion of football. The
club football coach resigned and the Athletics
Council looked at football again and adopted the same policy decision as
last year that the question of considering
moving to Division IAA non-scholarship football will be looked at later.
Foundation will be giving some money to the library and deeding some Knollwood
land to the University.
the meeting with President Moulton and Dr. Covey, the faculty survey was
discussed. There was a question as
to whether the funding crisis lowered administrators’
7. Reports from Standing Committees:
No further reports.
8.Reports from Caucus Leaders:
was broken on the University Library expansion.
There were no other reports.
The meeting was adjourned at
approximately 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
S. Murray, Secretary