The University Committee on Faculty Affairs is working to establish a policy to hold faculty members accountable for interests that could interfere with university business.
A faculty conflict of interest policy was drafted and presented to the Faculty Council last week, but was deferred until fall semester to allow more faculty input.
At the meeting, faculty members expressed concern about the language of the policy and a requirement to sign a letter of compliance each year.
The university currently does not have a conflict of interest policy. The proposed policy calls for faculty to divulge any potential conflicts of interest to unit administrators or deans of the college. If the administrator agrees a conflict exists, the two will develop a plan to manage the conflict.
A Conflict Review Committee will be composed of faculty peers to work with the vice president for Research and Graduate Studies to find a resolution to the conflict.
"The intent is for a faculty member to say 'I might have a conflict of interest' and if determined that is the case, this is to manage that," said Susan Melnick, co-chairwoman of the University Committee on Faculty Affairs.
Bob Noto, vice president for legal affairs and general counsel, said the language of the draft policy is standard with MSU's peer institutions.
"We felt we've come to a point where our position was so different from peer institutions and which needed to be pushed up on our agenda," Noto said.
Melnick said the university needed a conflict of interest policy to supplement other policy implementations.
In 2001, the university modified a 1930 patent policy and approved a new copyright policy to replace the one adopted in 1973. The committee also is working on a policy regarding outside work for pay.
"We were asked to consider guidelines for conflict of interest that would relate to all three policies," Melnick said.
Associate English Professor Shelia Teahan said the proposed conflict of interest policy is related to other university policies and contributes to alienation between administration and faculty.
"I see them as interrelated in attitude toward the faculty and I find the two policies - in the way that they are couched - patronizing and paternalistic," said Teahan, who is chair of MSU's American Association of University Professors' Committee on Teaching, Research, and Publication. "What this all has in common is a deep distrust between administration and the faculty."
Teahan said a concern of hers and others in the AAUP is the language of the draft policy.
"The red flags for me were the business about required annual statement of compliance and the disciplinary action," she said.
Melnick said the University Committee on Faculty Affairs opted for the letter rather than an annual questionnaire used at other institutions so that all faculty are aware of the policy.
"We chose just the statement (rather) than a full-blown questionnaire, because we thought the questionnaire was just too intrusive into privacy," Melnick said.
The "disciplinary action" wording allows the university to deal with conflicts of interest on a case-by-case basis.
