Southeastern Louisiana University

Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes

March 3, 2004

Alumni Center


I.          The meeting was called to order at 3:03 p.m.  Senators absent: Blanchard, Bornier, Brewer-Plazinic, Corbello, Diez, Dranguet, Echols, Edwards, Hathorn, Lew, Noto, Ratcliff, Vidrine, Williams, and Wills.


II.         Senator Neuerburg moved to approve the February 3 minutes; Senator Ramsey seconded.  Unanimously approved.


III.       Invited Guests

A.        Kathy Pittman, Alumni Director, announced this year’s Rock and Roar celebration will be held on March 20 and invited all departments to participate in the many planned activities.  The event is purposely held in conjunction with the District Literary Rally so that University departments have access to the “crème de la crème” of high school students participating in Rally.  This year, a contest will be held for those departments represented at Rock and Roar; details soon.


B.         Dr. John Crain, Provost, addressed the Senate on two policies proposed as part of the ongoing preparation for SACS accreditation:

1.         Intellectual Property Rights Draft Policy (see Handouts at end of minutes)

a.         Two years ago, a University Committee was formed, chaired by Dean of the Graduate School Dr. Mike Kurtz, to draft an Intellectual Property Rights policy conforming to Louisiana System specifications.  The committee delayed writing a new policy for Southeastern, awaiting possible changes in the Louisiana System’s policy that might affect any policy Southeastern proposed.  These changes never occurred, so the committee completed a formal institutional policy for Southeastern.

b.         Dr. Crain requested the Senate review this draft and offer feedback, as will the various Department Heads and Deans on campus.  He asked that we keep in mind, however, that our policy cannot be at odds with the La. System policy.

c.         Crain admitted the document is a bit complicated, but it outlines perimeters by which intellectual property belongs to a faculty member, to the University, or should be shared by both.

d.         Senator Weaver asked whom we could call for legal advice in this issue.  Crain responded it would be best to call Dr. Kurtz, the Chair of the Intellectual Property Committee.

2.                  Copyright Draft Policy (See the following links:)



a.         Dr. Crain explained that this draft was finalized before the Christmas break, but, because of its complexity, is still being discussed.  The Committee has been working on it for a long time, even providing a flow chart to help determine whether information is copyrighted or not.  Now that the draft is completed, it is being sent to the Senate and Department Heads for input.

b.         Crain mentioned the issue has many gray areas that the Committee has tried to interpret as well as possible.

c.         Sen. Wyld asked if there is a UL System policy on copyrights.  Crain responded no System-wide formal policy exists.  Sen. Ply asked if this was part of the Intellectual Property Policy.  Crain answered that this is a completely separate policy.


C.        Dr. Michael Kurtz, Dean of the Graduate School, then addressed the Senate on two issues:

            1.         Plagiarism

a.         Kurtz admitted that the plagiarism issue came up in a conversation with Senate President Wyld in which both men noted increased plagiarism, both on the undergraduate and graduate levels.  The problem seems to be escalating with the advent of more high-tech methods like the use of camera phones and text messaging on phones.  Kurtz decided it might be something the Senate would want to consider, especially now that there are subscription services to aid in detecting plagiarism like  He remarked that the previous evening’s Channel 6 News ran a story on increased plagiarism on the Tulane and Loyola campuses.  He asked the issue be put under New Business.

2.                  Graduate Commencement:

a.                   Kurtz commented that the possibility of holding a separate commencement ceremony for the graduate school, including a hooding ceremony, has been discussed for years.  The College of Education and Human Development and the College of Nursing and Health Studies have held separate hooding ceremonies, and now Southeastern virtually cannot physically handle any additional graduates—the floor of the University Center cannot hold more than 1,000 graduates.  Kurtz would like the Senate to discuss the issue.  He added that several other Louisiana universities hold separate commencement ceremonies for each college, with the graduate school also separate.  Now Southeastern has the second-largest graduate school in the state, and it is getting bigger each semester.  Kurtz added, however, that faculty would only be asked to attend one of the commencement ceremonies, except those on stage.

b.                   Discussion:

                                                                                                   i.      Senator Gillen asked if the issue of a separate ceremony was strictly because of numbers.  Kurtz responded yes, it was, but also it would be intended to give the graduate students a special type of recognition.  By the time they walk across the stage now, many parents have already left.  Kurtz is hopeful that the doctoral program will soon be approved, and those graduates deserve special recognition.  But definitely, numbers are an issue, too.

                                                                                                 ii.      Sen. Ramsey commented that many graduate students are international students and never get the opportunity to walk across the stage since they must return home after summer school.  He asked if we might consider a graduate commencement at the end of the summer session, too.  Kurtz admitted it had not been discussed, but would definitely be something to consider.  He saw no reason not to have such a ceremony, other than economic factors.

                                                                                                iii.      Sen. Higginbotham recounted that his separate college graduation at the U of Georgia was the only one he enjoyed, since he could talk with the dean.  Other senators added personal anecdotes of the massiveness of their own graduations and how nice it would be to have a smaller ceremony to see those graduate students they worked with. 


IV.       Old Business

A.           Online Elections: Constitution and Bylaws

a.                   Sen. Gillan presented Resolution 19 to allow online senate elections but would also allow the option of ballot box voting. (See handouts). In composing this resolution, the Constitution and Bylaws Committee received suggestions from Kurt Corbello’s Elections Committee. 

b.                  Sen. Wyld instructed senators that we can introduce this issue at today’s meeting, but since it would change the Constitution, we cannot vote on the resolution until the April meeting.  Sen. Gillan moved approval; Sen. Boulahanis seconded.  Discussion:

1.                  After a question of whether it was a good idea to eliminate a departmental meeting about the election of a senator so that candidates in the department can discuss why they want to represent the department, Sen. Neuerburg clarified that the resolution eliminates the mandatory nature of the meeting but does not prevent a meeting if the department chooses to call one.

2.                  Sen. Root added that any candidate who would like to

mention why he or she would like to run for Senate could do so by email to colleagues.

3.                  Sen. Yeargain gave a bit of history on this item in

the Senate Constitution.  He added the necessity of a meeting to the Constitution because he himself lost an election because members of his department were not aware he wanted the position of senator.  The purpose of the departmental meeting, then, was to clarify the intentions of candidates.

4.                  Sen. Ply added that we can always amend this resolution;

she also noted that the resolution would move the responsibility of contacting senators who needed to hold an election in their departments from herself to the Elections Committee.

5.                  Sen. Ramsey thought a departmental meeting should be

held before voting in departments takes place.  He moved to defer the issue to the next meeting; senators unanimously agreed.

B.                 Sabbatical Leave: Sen. Schwab spoke for the Faculty Welfare Committee.  The Committee still has to meet on the issue; the issue was deferred until next month.

C.                 Daycare: Facilities and Planning

1.                  Sen. Gonzalez-Perez said she and Sen. Wyld met with Dr. Crain, contacted other universities asking how they conducted their daycare, and will try to have a resolution ready by next month.

2.                  Sen. Wyld added that their meeting with Dr. Crain was very fruitful, and the committee had very good ideas for things to do, including using a private contractor and establishing an Early Childhood Center as part of the College of Education and Human Development that would provide more opportunities for student contact hours.  Many question why no one has taken advantage of this good business opportunity—perhaps putting out publicity of the need we have will spur community interest.

D.                 Multiple Catalogues: Academic Committee

1.      Senator Ramsey presented Resolution 18 (see handouts) and reported for Sen. Edwards, who did most of the research on the issue.  Ramsey commented that Edwards met with Dr. Doucette and Mr. Soutillo about these changes in the catalogue, and though the changes might not seem significant, they are the result of much negotiation. 

2.      The Resolution eliminates the repetition of information about changing from a junior college to a senior college, since that is covered elsewhere in the catalogue.

3.      It also prevents a student who declares a second major from returning to another catalogue to fulfill his first major.  Now, when the student declares a second major, the student has no recourse to go back to an earlier catalogue.

4.      Sen. Ramsey moved the Resolution be accepted; Djamba seconded.  Discussion:

a.       Sen. Ply questioned allowing the graduating student to asking for a second major one week before graduation.  Sen. Bancroft suggested we amend the resolution to say a student must declare a second major before filing for graduation.  Sen. Yeargain thought that would not work—often students who file for graduation never graduate.  He recommended changing the word “including” to “except” the semester prior to graduation.

b.      Sen. Wyld asked if that could be a friendly amendment, but Ply thought the change was too substantive.  Wyld thought changes should not be made since Sen. Edwards was not here to discuss; Sen. Yeargain moved to defer the issue to next month’s meeting.  Sen. Ply seconded; unanimously approved.


            V.        New Business

            A.     Intellectual Property Rights Draft Policy (See handouts)

1.      Sen. Ply moved, Yeargain seconded, that the draft presented by Dr. Crain be approved to consider for New Business.  Wyld sent the draft to the Professional Rights and Responsibilities for study.

2.      Dr. Crain commented that Sen. Joe Burns was also on the Intellectual Property Committee that drafted the policy, so suggested the committee might ask him for help.

3.      Sen. Burns added that he put together the form a faculty member would fill out if he or she acquired a patent.  The question also arose about writing or editing a book if the work was done some time at school on a school computer.  Some universities specify a percentage the faculty member can receive up to the first $100,000, for example, then another percentage past that.  But Burns said the two or three forms so far submitted by faculty that the committee has looked at have all been passed through.

B.           Copyright Draft Policy:  Sen. Wyld also sent this to the Professional Rights and Responsibilities Committee to study the Copyright Draft Policy presented by Dr. Crain.  The links to this document and checklist are below:



            C.        Commencement Changes: Senator Wyld mentioned he has received

            emails asking what kind of changes would be considered.  The bottom line for faculty would be only one graduation attendance necessary except for those on the platform.  Also the question arose of adding a summer graduation to help ease the numbers. 

1.      Sen. Yeargain moved to send the issue to committee.  He also wondered if he could move to eliminate the Commencement Speaker.  He commented he has never remembered any commencement address.  Wyld added that Mr. Soutillo said no commencement speaker is a trend in universities.

2.      Several senators offered personal anecdotes on “memorable” commencement speakers, suggesting we avoid politicians using the podium to gain votes and philanthropists from whom we want large donations.

3.      Sen. Schwab asked if attendance at graduation is mandatory for graduates; the response was no.

4.      Sen. Mitchell commented that it would be an excellent idea to have a separate graduate school ceremony, since the ceremonies she has attended in the last 12 years have become less “ceremonial,” with air horns blasting and people leaving in the middle of the event.  Anything we can do to return dignity to the ceremony would be good.

5.      An Education senator agreed that the hooding ceremony means a great deal to their graduate students.

6.      The senate approved sending the issue to the Faculty Welfare Committee.

C.     Combating Plagiarism and High-Tech Cheating:

1.      Sen. Wyld commented that just today in his department, a faculty member was stunned when one of his students showed him just what he could do during a test with his camera phone in 10 seconds.  Wyld suggested we formally take up the issue of high-tech cheating. 

2.      Sen. Yeargain moved to send the issue to committee; Sen. Ply seconded.  Discussion:

a.       Sen. Dassau offered that students do cheat, but not everyone understands what plagiarism really is.  She cited a personal anecdote as example

b.      Another senator was shocked at students “working together” on a paper or test and not thinking it wrong.

c.       Sen. Rossano thought that plagiarism was covered in English 101.  Sen. Mitchell countered that this would assume the students were paying attention.

d.      Sen. Root mentioned that the problem is not only in undergraduate students—foreign students also have a problem understanding the concept of plagiarism.

e.       Sen. Stuart thought the library presentation her class receives when she takes them to the library for instruction has been very helpful.

f.        Sen. Yeargain mentioned that services like require a fee but then the entire faculty could use it.  He urged the committee that discusses this issue to recommend we subscribe.

g.       Wyld added the study should include the use of camera phones and other special methods.

h.       Ramsey said high tech advances are the biggest issue.

i.         Senator Higginbotham recounted a student who turned in work Higginbotham himself had written previously.  After reading his own work, Higginbotham decided to flunk himself.

j.        Sen. Wyld referred the issue to the Academic Committee.

D.                 Withdrawal Date: Sen. Yeargain had requested feedback from departments on whether they would prefer an earlier withdrawal date.  Because he only received Nursing and English comments, so he thought there was not enough interest to send the issue to committee.

Other senators offered comments from their colleagues, but when a vote was taken, the senate voted not to send the issue on.


IV.               Announcements:

A.                 Update on Academic Affairs Actions:  Sen. Wyld informed senators that

the 2 resolutions recently sent to the Administration on the Appeal and Change of Grade Policy and the Academic Dishonesty Policy did have an effect.  Both changes were approved, and because of Sen. Ramsey’s stand on the perjorative term “Dishonesty,” the policy was changed to “Academic Integrity.”

B.                 SGA Report: Karen Lew was unable to attend but sent a report to Sen.

Wyld.  She informed the Senate of free pizza and drinks (for students only) at the Monday, March 8 men’s basketball game at 7pm in the UC.

C.                 BOS/FAC Report: Louise Bostick reviewed the report (see handouts)

D.                 Chef’s Evening: Sen. Yeargain reminded everyone of the upcoming

Chef’s Evening, an opportunity to have all the gourmet food and wine one could want, and still claim a tax break for the ticket.

E.                  Senate Elections: Sen. Ply passed out a list of senators whose terms are

expiring (See handouts).  She will be contacting members of departments who need elections.  She reminded senators that the deadline to submit their names for Senate Officer is March 29, so they must be reelected by then.  She suggested anyone wanting to run for Senate Officer should email Kurt Corbello or David Wyld.

            F.         Sen. Wyld mentioned he recently attended a meeting of the University Art and Cultural Committee, and they were discussing artwork that could be incorporated in the Columbia Theatre.  Any suggestions for the type of artwork to be used can be sent to Wyld and he will forward them to Donna Gay Anderson and Roy Blackwood, in charge of the project.


            G.        The meeting adjourned at 4:31 p.m.



Respectfully submitted,


Joan Faust, Recording Secretary






D R A F T - 2/11/03



Southeastern Louisiana University

Intellectual Property Policy






Consistent with the policies of the University of Louisiana System, Southeastern Louisiana University’s Intellectual Property Policy provides the following objectives for the System institutions as they develop and implement their intellectual property policies in compliance with applicable state and federal guidelines:

1.                   To encourage research and scholarship as creative academic endeavors while recognizing that commercially valuable intellectual properties may result from such endeavors;

2.                   To delineate procedures to encourage creators to report discoveries with broad commercial potential and public benefit and to assist them, while at the same time safeguarding the interests of all concerned parties;

3.                   To make intellectual property developed in the course of academic research available to the public under conditions that will promote its effective and timely use and development;

4.                   To optimize the environment and incentives for research and scholarly activity and for the creation of new knowledge in the System institution;

5.                  To ensure that the educational mission of the University is reinforced.




This policy is intended to support faculty, staff, and students in identifying and protecting Intellectual property, defining the rights and responsibilities of all involved, administering intellectual property matters, and establishing support offices to provide the required assistance. It also stipulates how much income generated should be distributed to the creators or developers and to the University.

Southeastern Louisiana University recognizes that research and scholarship should be encouraged without regard to potential gain from licensing fees, royalties, or other such income; however, the University also recognizes that patentable inventions and discoveries may arise from faculty, staff, and student research. The policies governing the administration of such inventions should provide adequate recognition and incentive to inventors and at the same time ensure that the University will share in the rights pertaining to inventions in which it has an equity. Any incomes accruing to the University shall be used in the furtherance of the University’s academic mission, e.g., instruction, research, and public service. Decisions as to the disbursement of such funds shall take into account recommendations by the Intellectual Property Committee.



Applicable Intellectual Property - Any intellectual property developed with University resources, other than traditional academic copyrightable works, for which assignment to the University is required by law or by a written contract to which the Creator has previously agreed; or, for which the Creator seeks University assistance in commercial development (including protecting, marketing, assigning, or licensing).


Author- Copyrightable Works (as defined in Title 17 USC sect. 102) –


1.       Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship

fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:


a.         literary works;

b.         musical works, including any accompanying words;

c.         dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

d.         pantomimes and choreographic works;

e.         pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

f.          motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

g.         sound recordings; and

h.         architectural works.


Computer Software (as defined in System policy) - Shall include one or more computer programs existing in any form or any associated operational procedures, manuals, or other documentation, whether protectable or protected by patent or copyright.


Creator (as defined in System policy) - An individual or group of individuals who make, conceive, reduce to practice, author, or otherwise make a substantive intellectual contribution to the creation of intellectual property.  “Creator” shall include, but not be limited to, faculty, professional staff, administrative and support staff, and students. “Creator” shall also include the definition of “inventor” as used in the U.S. patent law and the definition of “author” as used in the U.S. Copyright Act.


Institution Resources Usually and Customarily Provided (as defined in System policy) - Shall include such support as office space, library facilities, ordinary access to computers and networks, or salary and shall be described in the policy as either “incidental” or “significant.” The phrase does not include use of students or employees as support staff to develop the work, or substantial use of specialized or unique facilities and equipment, or other special subventions provided by the institution unless approved as an exception.


Incidental Use - Usage that has little or no impact on the usage of institution resources by other persons at the University and results in minimal additional expenses for the University.


Significant Use - Usage that has a noticeable impact on the usage of institution resources by other persons at the University, and/or which results in additional expenses for the University.


Intellectual Property (as defined in System policy) - Inventions, discoveries, know-how, show-how, processes, unique materials, copyrightable works, original data, and other creative or artistic works that have value. Intellectual property includes that which is protectable by statute or legislation, such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, service marks, trade secrets, mask works, and plant variety protection certificates. It also includes physical embodiments of intellectual effort; for example, models, machines, devices, apparatus, instrumentation, circuits, computer programs and visualizations, biological materials, chemicals, other compositions of matter, plants, and records of research.


Inventor – One who creates inventions patentable.


Inventions Patentable (as defined in Title 35 USC sect. 101) – Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.


Net Income - Funds raised from the commercialization of applicable intellectual property that remain after the University and the Creator(s) have been reimbursed for resources expended in the creation, procuring, maintaining, and marketing of the intellectual property.


      Ownership (Copyright) (as defined in Title 17 USC sect. 201) –


  1. Initial Ownership - Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work.


  1. Works Made for Hire - In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.


3.   Contributions to Collective Works -Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series.


Scholarly Works (as defined in System policy) - Shall include all intellectual properties not covered in Technical Works that are of an artistic, scholarly, instructional, or entertainment nature.


System - Unless otherwise indicated, “System” or “the System” refers to the University of Louisiana System.


Technical Works - (as defined in System policy) -Shall include intellectual properties that are of a scientific, engineering, or technical nature such as patentable or unpatentable inventions (including biological materials), computer software, and institution collections.


Technology Transfer -The dissemination of intellectual property through commercialization or other means.


Traditional Academic Copyrightable Works (as defined in System policy) - A subset of copyrightable works created independently and at the creator’s initiative for traditional academic purposes. Examples include class notes; books, theses and dissertations; articles; non-fiction, fiction, and poems; musical works; dramatic works including any accompanying music; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; or other works of artistic imagination that are not created as an institutional initiative.


University - Unless otherwise indicated, “University” or “the University” refers to Southeastern Louisiana University.


Works Made for Hire (as defined in Title 17 USC sect. 101) -  A “work made for hire” is-


1.                  a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or


2.      a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. For the purpose of the foregoing sentence, a “supplementary work” is a work prepared for publication as a secondary adjunct to a work by another author for the purpose of introducing, concluding, illustrating, explaining, revising, commenting upon, or assisting in the use of the other work, such as forewords, afterwords, pictorial illustrations, maps, charts, tables, editorial notes, musical arrangements, answer material for tests, bibliographies, appendixes, and indexes, and an “instructional text” is a literary, pictorial, or graphic work prepared for publication and with the purpose of use in systematic instructional activities.





1.   The rights of Southeastern Louisiana University in intellectual property will vary depending on the proportionate contribution of the institution to the creation of the intellectual property or on the type of contract agreed upon with cooperating agencies.  Works of intellectual property can vary from those wholly financed by the University or by a University-administered fund to projects that receive no significant University support. 


2.   Southeastern Louisiana University shall assert ownership of intellectual property


a.                  When an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment or in official association with the University,


b.                  When an employee is hired or commissioned to create a specific work,


c.                  When more than incidental use of institution resources usually and customarily provided occurs,


d.                  When the intellectual property results from activities supported by federal funds or third-party sponsorship, or


e.   When the intellectual property results from activities involving the use of University information not available to the public or funds administered by the University.


3.   Southeastern Louisiana University shall not assert ownership of intellectual property


a.      When intellectual property is conceived, developed, and reduced to practice by a member of University personnel on his/her own time outside the scope of his/her employment or association with the University and with University facilities, materials, or resources, and where only incidental use of institution resources usually and customarily provided has occurred, or


b.      When the intellectual property is a creation of traditional academic copyrightable works in the creator’s field of expertise.


4.   Joint ownership may occur under certain circumstances such as when scholarly works involve the services of other institution employees (e.g., development of multi-media courseware).  


5.   Southeastern Louisiana University shall seek to negotiate ownership of inventions arising during performance of research sponsored by any private sponsor at Southeastern Louisiana University and/or government sponsor.  Southeastern Louisiana University retains the right to enter into such agreements whenever such action is considered to be both in its best interest and in the public interest.


6.   The Intellectual Property Committee shall consider special cases not covered by the above statements or which arise because of conflict of interest, and an appropriate recommendation will be submitted to the University administration.


  1. The provisions of this policy are subject to any applicable laws, regulations, or specific provisions of the grants or contracts that govern the rights in intellectual property created in connection with sponsored research.





In cases where the University exerts ownership, the distribution of monetary proceeds from applicable intellectual property shall be distributed as follows:


For all net income

·         the Creator shall receive 40%

·         the University shall receive 30%

·         the College shall receive 15%

·         the Department where the work was accomplished shall receive 15%





Philosophy Statement

New technologies have eroded barriers to the duplication and re-distribution of university courses and course materials.  Unlike traditional courses, electronic courses are easily copied and can be used for purposes beyond traditional instruction.  As a result, universities have begun to revisit policy on intellectual property and address issues related to electronic courses such as ownership rights, revenue sharing, and course commercialization.  At the same time, the fundamental tenets of academic freedom are compelling universities to search for mutually beneficial ways to protect the interests of all parties involved in the creation and delivery of electronic courses.  Depending on the circumstances surrounding development of an electronic course, ownership may reside with the university, the employee, or both.  So as to encourage the continued development of alternative delivery systems and to provide for the needs of students, it is incumbent upon universities to set forth policy that clearly states the rights, responsibilities and obligations of all parties involved in the delivery of electronic courses.


Definitions and Distinctions


            1.         Customary and Extraordinary


Customary conditions apply to situations in which faculty are provided normal support, such as standard office and laboratory space, library facilities, ordinary access to computers and networks, or salary.  Extraordinary conditions apply to situations in which substantial use of specialized or unique staff, facilities and equipment or other special subventions or compensation is provided by the University to the faculty to create online courses.  Under “Extraordinary” conditions, faculty enter into contracts with the University.


            2.         Intellectual Content and Commercialization


Intellectual Content refers to material contained within a course; namely, syllabi, lecture notes, bibliographies, readings, examinations, and other elements created by faculty.  Commercialization covers activities such as marketing, distribution, dissemination, licensing, and institutional management, among other services provided by the University.


            3.         Supplementary and Entirely Online


Supplementary refers to Web-based course modules created by faculty to supplement conventional classroom teaching.  Entirely Online are courses delivered to distance-learning students entirely over the Web.


            4.         Development and Teaching


Development refers to creation of online syllabi, lecture notes, bibliographies, readings, examinations, and other elements in advance of instruction.  The individual (or individuals jointly) engaged in these activities is called Developer.

Teaching refers to the activity in which faculty instruct distance-learning students Entirely Online.  The individual (or individuals jointly) engaged in this activity is called the Teacher.


            5.         Copyright Ownership and Transfer of Copyright


Under Extraordinary conditions, the Developer creates an Entirely Online course, Developer assumes “Copyright Ownership” and “Transfers Copyright” to the University for Commercialization.

Copyright rests with the faculty member when Supplementary modules for conventional classroom teaching are developed, without Transferring Copyright.




            1.         Portability


                        a.         Faculty members are free to use their Supplementary Web-based course materials at other institutions without the University’s prior approval.

                        b.         Entirely Online Web-based courses Developed at the University, created under Extraordinary conditions, may not be offered at other institutions without the University’s prior approval.

                        c.         Negotiated licensing fees may apply to other University’s when a former faculty member teaches Entirely Online Web-based courses Developed at Southeastern under Extraordinary conditions.


            2.         Unbundling Intellectual Property Rights


                        a.         Developer’s Right of First Refusal


In the event the University wishes to offer a course Developed by a Full-time faculty member under Extraordinary conditions, it is recommended that Developer be given the “right of first refusal” to teach the course.



                        b.         The University’s and Developer’s Licensing Rights


When the University licenses Entirely Online Web-based courses to third parties – such as other educational institutions, publishers, distributors, information providers, scholarly societies, corporations, and other commercial and nonprofit entities – Developer and the University may share the proceeds.


                        c.         Developer’s Scholarly Rights


Developers are given the right, without requesting permission from the University, to use Intellectual Content from their Entirely Online course – even those created under Extraordinary conditions – in scholarly contributions to books, articles, conventional courses, seminars, lectures, and similar scholarly activities in print and in person.  The same applies to Intellectual Content from Web-based material prepared as supplementary to conventional courses.


                        d.         The University’s Commercial Rights


The University has the right to Commercialize and License Entirely Online Web-based courses created under Extraordinary conditions.  In the event the University fails to Commercialize or License such courses in a mutually agreed schedule, such rights may revert to Developer.


                        e.         The University’s Digital and Other Electronic Rights


The rights to derivative digital and electronic works – such as television, film, video, CD-ROM, DVD, computer disc, audio, and other recordings derived from Entirely Online Web-based courses, created under Extraordinary conditions – rest with the University.  In the event the University fails to exploit such rights in a mutually agreed schedule, such rights revert to Developer.  Developer may seek permission from the University to use these rights in connection with his or her own scholarly activities.


Plain English Scenarios


Ownership of the electronic course may reside with the employee, the University, or both.  The following scenarios outline the criteria for deciding ownership of the course:


            1.         SCENARIO 1:  The copyright for an electronic course shall belong to the employee when the electronic course is created at the employee’s own initiative under Customary conditions (i.e., only incidental use of university resources have occurred).  This would apply to employees who create an electronic course during off-work hours and consumption of university resources (such as disk space, computer paper, etc.), if any, does not exceed that traditionally and commonly made available to the employee.


Example:  A faculty member has been approached by a textbook publishing company to develop an Internet course as a companion to a textbook.  This is an agreement between the faculty member and a third-party and the university has no involvement.  The course may or may not be used for instructional purposes at the university.


            2.         SCENARIO 2:  The copyright for an electronic course shall be jointly owned by the employee and the university when the electronic course is a) created by faculty and a party whose contribution would be a work for hire, or b) when substantial institutional resources were used to develop or produce the electronic course (i.e., both are Extraordinary conditions).


Example 1:  Distance education specialists hired by the University assist faculty by contributing labor and other university resources to the development of Internet courses, whether or not the course is to be used for instructional purposes at the university.


Example 2:  A faculty member creates an Internet course using resources exceeding that which is traditionally and commonly made available to faculty members.


            3.         SCENARIO 3:  The copyright for an electronic course shall belong to the University when the electronic course is created under a contract with the university (work for hire).  This would apply to non-faculty employees who create the electronic course within the scope of their employment (e.g., distance education specialists hired by the university), or faculty who create the electronic course as a condition of his or her employment.


Example 1:  A distance education specialist hired by the university develops an Internet course for a department to be delivered by faculty in future semesters.


Example 2:  A department head asks a faculty member to develop an Internet course to be delivered as part of the department’s course offerings in a future semester.


Example 3:  The University contains a statement in the employee handbook that states that development of Internet courses for instructional purposes at the university is within the scope of employment.





1.                  Acknowledgement of Institutional Authority


The President of Southeastern Louisiana University has the ultimate authority for the stewardship of intellectual property appropriate to the University’s role, scope, and mission.


2.                  Intellectual Property Committee


The Intellectual Property Committee shall have the following responsibilities:


a.      Devise, subject to approval by the proper authorities, institutional intellectual property policies, and advise the Provost on the implementation of those policies, and the status and conduct of the University’s technology transfer efforts.


b.      Serve as advocate to the University’s personnel for the institution’s technology transfer efforts.



c.      Recommend to the Provost the equitable distribution of income from the development and marketing of those intellectual property rights in which the University has a vested interest.


d.      Serve as the University’s Intellectual Property Advocate (IPA)


Intellectual Property Committee Membership and Selection


The committee shall consist of nine voting members.  The Provost shall appoint three administrators (department head or above) and one unclassified staff member.  The Provost shall appoint five faculty members, taking into consideration the recommendation of the Faculty Senate.


Intellectual Property Committee Procedures


1.                  All decisions shall be made by a majority vote of the members present, provided that a quorum is present.


2.                  Committee members shall maintain confidentiality of the specific issues brought before it.  Failure to respect that confidentiality shall result in immediate dismissal from the Committee.


3.                  By a majority vote, the Committee shall elect its chair each year.


4.                  The Committee shall meet at least once each fall and spring semester.


5.                  The Committee shall attach the following disclaimer to all policy recommendations that it makes:


“The above recommendation by the Intellectual Property Committee represents our decision based on the information available at the time the decision was made.  Any changes in the information, regardless of the recommendation, should be reported to the IP Committee.  We reserve the right to change our decision based on any new information.”





The responsibilities of the IPA shall be to:


1.      Encourage research and scholarly activities.


2.      Review and recommend to the Provost changes in procedure.


3.      Resolve questions of intellectual property ownership.


4.   Make such recommendations as are deemed appropriate to encourage disclosures and ensure prompt and effective handling, evaluation, and management of intellectual property opportunities while protecting the interests of the University, the University of Louisiana System, and the public.


Southeastern Louisiana University

Intellectual Property Disclosure Form


Note: The purpose of this form is to allow a person, or persons, to announce research projects and claim a level of ownership.  This form need only be filled out if the researcher wishes to negotiate an ownership agreement with the University that differs from the standards set forth in the University’s Intellectual Property Policy and the faculty handbook.  Researchers who create intellectual property without completing this form agree by default to accept all standards set forth in the University’s Intellectual Property Policy and the faculty handbook.  Authors may also want to complete this form simply to have a record of starting a project, those who are a part of the project, and/or percentage of work performed in said project.


1.      Title of Research Project: ___________________________________________ __





2.  Researcher(s) / Author(s) / Inventors / Participants / Artists

(Herein known as “Researcher(s)”)


Name:__________________________  Name:__________________________

Department:_____________________   Department:_____________________

Email:__________________________   Email:__________________________

Phone:_________________________    Phone:_________________________

Percentage of Contribution:_________    Percentage of Contribution:_________


Name:__________________________  Name:__________________________

Department:_____________________   Department:_____________________

Email:__________________________   Email:__________________________

Phone:_________________________    Phone:_________________________

Percentage of Contribution:_________    Percentage of Contribution:_________


Name:__________________________  Name:__________________________

Department:_____________________   Department:_____________________

Email:__________________________   Email:__________________________

Phone:_________________________    Phone:_________________________

Percentage of Contribution:_________    Percentage of Contribution:_________


Name:__________________________  Name:__________________________

Department:_____________________   Department:_____________________

Email:__________________________   Email:__________________________

Phone:_________________________    Phone:_________________________

Percentage of Contribution:_________    Percentage of Contribution:_________

3.      Are there any outside companies assisting or funding this project?


No / Yes: _______________________________________________________________






4.  Give a narrative description of this project.  Specify University Resources to be used for this project.

(Attach additional pages if necessary)





































5.  Where and/or how will this idea be used/implemented?  Include possible uses. 

            (Attach additional pages if necessary)




















6.  Provide a schedule of research in months/years format.

(Attach additional pages if necessary)
























7.  What, specifically, is expected to happen once research is complete?

(Attach additional pages if necessary)
























8.  What percentage of intellectual property already dedicated to this project was brought to Southeastern prior to creating this document?________________


8a.  Please explain this information/research, if any, and how you feel it should be handled in terms of any possible monies from this project’s completion.

(Attach additional pages if necessary)



















9.  How would you like the Intellectual Property aspect of this project to be handled?


____ Researcher(s) agree to Southeastern’s Intellectual Property Rules and Regulations and agree to them fully.


____ Researcher(s) do not agree with Southeastern’s Intellectual Property Rules and Regulations and wish to have this project brought before the Intellectual Property Committee.


Please explain the concerns and/or suggestions the researcher(s) would like to bring before the committee.  (Attach additional pages if necessary)




































10.  Please sign below to state that all information, to the best of your knowledge, is true.  By signing you are also affirming that you have been made aware of, and understand, Southeastern’s Intellectual Property Rules and Regulations contained within this document and the faculty handbook.


Sign Full Names:


_________________________________________  ___/___/___



_________________________________________  ___/___/___



_________________________________________  ___/___/___



_________________________________________  ___/___/___



_________________________________________  ___/___/___



_________________________________________  ___/___/___



_________________________________________  ___/___/___

Department Head as witness*


*If researcher(s) span departments, only one department head signature is required to act as witness.






















Rev. 4/8/02




Faculty Senate Resolution 2003-2004-19

Constitution Amendment to Allow Electronic Voting



Whereas faculty schedules often make it difficult to conduct departmental senate elections, and


Whereas the Nominations and Elections Committee has been assured that on-campus electronic voting is secure, and


Whereas the occasion may arise where the use of a ballot box would be the desired method of voting,


Be it therefore resolved that the Southeastern Faculty Senate recommend the acceptance of an amendment to the Faculty Senate Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 3 to read:



When the election for a Senator has more than one candidate, the Nominations and Elections Committee shall designate one of its members, or any other Senator whose term is not up for renewal, to facilitate voting by faculty of an academic department.  Voting will occur via one of the following methods, to be determined by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, in consultation with the Nominations and Elections Committee:


A.     Web-Based Voting

1.       Web-Based voting will occur, at a clearly designated time, through secure and anonymous web-based software approved by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, in consultation with the Nominations and Elections Committee.


B.     Ballot Box

1.       At a clearly designated time and place, a Ballot Box will be provided in each department.  The Ballot Box will be closed, except for a slot used to place ballots inside.  The box will be clearly marked “Ballot Box.”

2.       Numbered anonymous ballots will be provided to all eligible voters in a department.  The anonymous ballots will include only the names of the candidates, the office for which all are running, and a box or line marked “FOR” preceding each candidate’s name.

3.       Near the Ballot Box, a sign-in sheet will list the names of all eligible voters in the department.  In the presence of the person facilitating the election in each department, eligible voters must sign their name to the sign-in sheet, and then deposit their completed ballot into the Ballot Box.

4.       Proxy votes are allowed, but only if a Faculty Senate proxy form is deposited into the ballot box.  The proxy voter must also sign-in with their own signature, clearly indicating for whom they are casting the ballot.

5.       The person facilitating the voting will then count the ballots and report the results to the Nominations and Elections Committee.

Existing constitutional wording:

Article IV. Elections.

Section 1. Nominations for Senators. A candidate for the Senate must submit or have submitted to the Nominations and Elections Committee of the Senate a nomination petition which shall include a declaration of his/her willingness to serve. All nominations must be received by the Nominations and Elections Committee of the Senate at least two weeks prior to an election.

Section 2.Election of Senators. All members of the General Faculty, as defined in Article IV. Section 2 of the Constitution, are legal voters. In cases in which voters have affiliation with more than one academic department, voting shall take place in only one department.

The Nominations and Elections Committee of the Senate shall supervise elections of Senators in each academic department and shall certify the election of each Senator.

When the election for a Senator has more than one candidate the Nominations and Elections Committee shall designate one of its members or any other Senator whose term is not up for renewal to call a meeting of the voting faculty of the academic department. At the election meeting each candidate shall be given five minutes to present his/her goals, philosophy, etc. and to respond to questions from the electors. At the end of the presentations the supervising senator shall distribute ballots which shall only contain the names of the candidates and a box marked "For" preceding each candidate's name. The ballots shall be cast at that time and returned to the supervising senator for immediate counting. The results shall be announced at the conclusion of the tabulating. The Nominations and Elections Committee shall certify the election of each senator. [Amended May 1994]

Section 3. Election of Officers. The Nominations and Elections Committee shall at the April meeting of the Senate, submit at least one name for each office of the Senate and, after other nominations have been called for from the floor, the vote shall be taken in accordance with Article VIII Section 2 of the Constitution. [Amended September 1985]





To: Faculty Senate

From: Louise Bostic, FAC  representative

Re: Report of February 26, 27, 2004  FAC and BOS meetings


The FAC met at 4:30 in the Claiburn Building, Baton Rouge, with four

representatives present, UL-Lafayette, McNeese, Southeastern, Grambling.


Two items were discussed. Invited guest at the meeting was Caroll Falcon,

chair of the BOS academic policies committee.


1.  Reviewing removal-for-cause procedures & financial-exigency guidelines.

This issue was tabled by the BOS in consideration of providing time for

input from respective senates.  An updated draft of the policy presented at

the October 2003 meeting is being developed by BOS and will be circulated

among the universities.   Questions or exceptions entertained by senates,

must be addressed  "as soon as possible" but the previous deadline of

January 9, 2004 BOS meeting has been postponed. Dr Falcon in attendance of

our FAC meeting had no comment as to the particular reasons for this



The October Draft:

        1. There is factuly (and student) participation in consideration of

possible discontinuance (of programs)

        2. There is consultation with appropriate faculty in the discipline

regarding recommendations on termination of appointments

        3. Faculty with tenure are not considered for termination until

non-tenured faculty have been considered.

        4. One year's formal notice is provided for termination of tenured


        5. All efforts are made to allow enrolled students to complete

degree programs.

        6. Reasonable efforts are made to relocate tenured faculty from

terminated program to other suitable programs within the university

        7. If program is reinstated within three years, tenured faculty

terminated have first right to reinstate.


2. The second item was the newly developed policy for university selection

and hiring of administrators above the level of department chair.


        The final copy of this policy is posted on the BOS website and is

basically the same as that circulated in January. Changes include:


        1. A clause was added at the beginning of the policy which states

(roughly): If an institution has an approved policy regarding the hiring of

administrators, the institution's policy will be allowed to take precedence

over the BOS guidelines, provided basic guidelines and principles are

observed in the policy.

                It seems that some state institutions have no written

policy regarding the hiring of administrators, of selecting the search

committee, of calling in candidates, of advertising, etc. It seems that

some of those same institutions have bordered on bedlam in their attempts

to fill administrative positions and as a result have spent years having

interim administrators. One example involved the chairman of the search

committee submitting her own name as a candidate after the search was in

progress for several months. It was pointed out that the institutions

without written policies will be most benefited by this policy and those

institutions who have had working policies in place will not be

particularly affected.


        2. Minor editorial and word-preference changes were made at the

request of the English professor on our committee: "select" to "appoint",

elimination of bullets to paragraph format, etc.


Respectfully submitted,


Louise Bostic, FAC

BOS Report: 

Three items relative to Southeastern were approved and reported.


1. BOS reported the BOR approval of two expenditures for improvement of

parking at Southeastern: $180,000 for improvements to North Campus parking

from internal funds and $140,000 parking improvements also internal funding.


2. Of the 39 professorships approved statewide, two professorships in

education were approved for 2004-05 year at Southeastern.


3. Two PSA's were shown. One (which will be aired beginning Monday March 1

by Cox cable) promoting the BOS "College Begins in Preschool" campaign and

the middle school campaign "Are You Ready".   These campaigns were the

primary focus of the February BOS meeting.






















































[Note:  Because the number of full-time Nursing faculty has declined, the department is entitled to only four senators.  Therefore, while two terms expire now, only one senator will be elected.   Coxe/Brown, Hathorn, and Vidrine all are in the first year of the two-year term, so their seats will continue.]