»Ê¹ÚÌåÓý

A Working Paper Prepared by the Government Issues Committee of the Alma Mater Society

Sarah Corman
Rodger Scott
Christopher Henderson
Neil Thompson
John Brodhead
Andrew Cowan
Erin Young
Dave Contant
Scott Affleck

April 2000

This paper received the unanimous approval of AMS Assembly on April 6, 2000.

---

Contents

Part One: The Issues

• 1.1 Introduction
• 1.2 Corporate Involvement at Universities
• 1.3 The Absence of Guidelines and the Slippery Slope
• 1.4 The Purpose of this Paper

Part Two: The »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's Landscape - A Survey

• 2.1 Introduction
• 2.2 Gifts
• 2.3 Naming
• 2.4 Research Funding and Agreements
• 2.5 Corporate Sponsorship
• 2.6 Contracts
• 2.7 Investments
• 2.8 Conclusions

Part Three: Recommendations and Issues Requiring Exploration and Policy Development

---

Part One: The Issues

1.1 Introduction

The recent decrease in public funding for universities has created an environment in which institutions must actively pursue alternative sources of revenue. This net decrease in federal transfers to provinces coupled with decreased provincial support for Ontario universities has called the "public" nature of our universities into question. Universities are scrambling to obtain support from the private sector to make up for the lost revenue from government grants. The AMS hopes that as universities become more successful at garnering private support, they do not undermine their case for increased public funding. We hope the "Public" Ontario University does not become a thing of the past.

Ontario universities are dependent on a continuous flow of funds from four distinct sources: government, tuition and ancillary fees paid by students, private donations, and corporate support. The proportion of funding obtained from each continues to shift as students, private donors, and the corporate sector take on much of the funding that used to be provided by the government. This paper will focus on the issues relating to the increased involvement of the corporate sector in the funding of universities.

1.2 Corporate Involvement at Universities

Many members of university communities are concerned about the increased commercialization of their institutions. As universities become more dependent on private funds, they become increasingly subject to influence by private interests. It is possible that the academic integrity of institutions will suffer and they will waver from the path to achieving their mission. On the other hand, since a large increase in public support of Ontario universities is unlikely in the near future, it is probable that growth in corporate support will become necessary for universities to achieve their goals. However, universities have a critical responsibility to ensure that this increased corporate involvement does not erode their fundamental character as a place of academic freedom and intellectual development.

The government has not only passively encouraged universities to seek corporate support by decreasing grants but has actively encouraged, if not forced, this support through specific joint-funding initiatives. Universities have been pressured to develop corporate partners through both federal and provincial matching programs. Increasing proportions of resources are tied to the university's ability to obtain corporate partners. The Canada Foundation for Innovation has recently received $900 million that can only be accessed by universities that can provide matching funds to cover 60% of their project. This type of program has sparked concerns about the power that private corporations are given over the ability of institutions to obtain public funding. On the provincial level, the Ontario Student Opportunity Trust Fund initiative and the Access to Opportunities Program , both provided large amounts of money to universities contingent on matching funds from the private sector.

Universities, including »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's, are also pursuing their own independent, unique relationships with corporations. The »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's Principles and Priorities document (1996) states in Recommendation 14:

That units be encouraged to explore non-traditional funding opportunities in support of core activities and that the Advancement Office continue to link with academic units in developing Faculty and University-wide priorities for fundraising.

In the current funding climate, the AMS believes that it is appropriate for »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's to pursue these sources of funding in order to ensure the highest quality of education for students in conjunction with the lowest fees possible.

1.3 The Absence of Guidelines and the Slippery Slope

The widespread concerns about corporate involvement in universities often stem from the fact that many Canadian universities lack broadly-recognized and accepted institutional principles, policies, and guidelines to regulate and direct corporate involvement. In some cases, the results of this lack of central direction have been quite detrimental to universities. An excellent example of the negative ramifications of the laissez- faire mentality occurred at the University of Toronto during its recent fundraising campaign, The Campaign of Campaigns, which raised an unprecedented $400 million from 1995 to 1999. At the end of this fundraising initiative, some U of T Faculty members became increasingly concerned that the administration had compromised the academic freedoms of the University by infringing upon "[the] right to raise deeply disturbing questions and provocative challenges to the cherished beliefs of society.¹ This conclusion was reached when reports surfaced about an agreement between The Energius Incorporation and U of T's Faculty of Applied Science. Apparently, the incorporation donated money to purchase an endowed chair and professorship, and as a result, was given the power to choose who would be hired for these positions and what type of research they would undertake. In the end, the company was able to inappropriately out-source a large amount of work to U of T professors. This arrangement violates the fundamental principles on which universities pride their operations.

Another example of the ramifications of the lack of guiding policy with respect to corporations can be found at the University of Victoria. The University recently rejected a $2,000 scholarship from Shell Canada after a student senator raised objections about accepting donations from a company that engaged in questionable human rights practices. The Senate decided to reject the scholarship and ensure that some form of representative body would be established in the near future to ensure that a corporation's ethical practices are screened before the decision to receive monies is considered. David Cohen, Dean of Law and Vice-Chair of the Senate, agreed that "the University needed to establish principles and processes for making decisions on private sector funding."² This situation was embarrassing for the University and may deter other corporations from attempting to establish scholarships and bursaries - an unintended outcome of ill-preparedness.

Back to Top

1.4 The Purpose of this Paper

The Government Issues Committee (GIC) of the Alma Mater Society has developed this paper, over the course of this year, out of a concern for ensuring that »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý is not forced into a compromising situation with respect to the involvement of corporations in the University. GIC is a standing committee of the Assembly of the Alma Mater Society. The Assembly is the highest legislative body of the AMS and the representative body for 12, 000 undergraduate students at »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: (1) to provide the thoughts, opinions, and recommendations of the AMS concerning corporate involvement at »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý, and (2) to begin discourse at the student, administrative, faculty and governance levels in order to develop a widely-recognized and accepted framework of highly regarded principles, policy and procedures to guide »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's involvement with corporations.

The »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's Landscape - A Survey

2.1 Introduction

»Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's has a variety of policies concerning corporate involvement in different areas of the University. The University has built relationships with outside corporations through research agreements, receipt of various gifts, establishment of endowed chairs, professorships and lectureships, exclusivity contracts and sponsorship. The goal of this section of the paper is to present and explore the relevant »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's policy and practice relating to all areas of corporate involvement.

The following »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's policy documents are relevant to this paper and may be referred to throughout this section:

• Gift Acceptance Policy, Nov. 1997 (G.A.P.)
• Final Naming Policy, Oct. 1996 (F.N.P.)
• Policy on the Establishment and Designation of Endowed Chairs, Professorships, and Lectureships, May 1995 (P.E.P.L.)
• Policy on Administration of Research Funds, Feb. 1995 (P.A.R.F.)
• Guidelines Concerning Publication of Research Results, Nov. 1972 (G.C.P.R.R.)
• »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's Research Agreement
• Report of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Intellectual Property, 1991
• Mission Statement of »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý, Jan. 1996
• Report on Principles and Priorities, Jan. 1996 (R.P.P.)

These documents are all available on the »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's website.

2.2 Gifts

»Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's gift acceptance policy states that,

[The]University welcomes gifts which enable it to fulfil its mission of teaching, research, and community service. Through the promotion of voluntarism and philanthropy, the Office of Advancement provides central friend-and-fund-raising support to assist the University. Federal and provincial governments encourage voluntary gift support of charitable organizations such as »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý, and allow substantial tax relief to donors. "(G.A.P.).

Increased resources have been devoted to seeking gifts for the University in recent years and are at a historical maximum with the current Campaign for »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's.

The material from the "Gift Eligibility" and "Gift Limitations" sections of the Policy for Gift Acceptance is as follows:

The ultimate decision to accept or reject a particular gift rests with the Board of Trustees. The Director of Development consults with the Principal and Vice-Principals on particularly difficult cases when formulating a recommendation about the gift.

The policy on Gift Acceptance states that:

The »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's Fund Council of the Board of Trustees used to review the gift arrangements obtained by the Department of Development on a regular basis. The Campaign Cabinet is currently reviewing arrangements that are a part of the Campaign for »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's and is reporting directly to the Board of Trustees.

Back to Top

2.3 Naming

»Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's Naming Policy makes no direct reference to corporations. The "background" to the policy states that:

The naming of university activities or property is a well-established custom at »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý. From named Chairs and awards to named buildings and gardens, »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý welcomes the opportunity to honour those who have rendered outstanding service to the University, the Province of Ontario, or to Canada. It also welcomes the opportunity to honour individuals whose generous benefactions make possible the construction or restoration of buildings, the establishment of endowed chairs, the development of programs.

The "Scope" section of the policy states that:

The Board of Trustees has the ultimate authority to accept or decline a naming proposal. Naming options include the things listed in the "Scope" above and are generally to be held in perpetuity although there is the option of offering named recognition for a limited amount of time.

The guidelines for gifts that may involve naming include:

• It is the responsibility of individuals negotiating on behalf of the University to consult with the Department of Development when gifts involve a proposal to name.
• It is the responsibility of individuals negotiating on behalf of the University to advise potential benefactors that the acceptance of any gift contribution which involves a proposal to name is conditional upon final approval of the naming by the Board of Trustees.

Facilities

In order to name a facility or activity the donor is expected to provide all, or a major part, of the funding. The "Guidelines for Naming Buildings and other Facilities" makes no reference to naming by corporations. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's does not currently have any facilities named for corporations.

Endowed Chairs, Professorships and Lectureships

»Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's has, however, accepted corporate names for endowed Chairs, Professorships and Lectureships. Corporations involved include the Bank of Montreal and Alliance-Atlantis Film Productions. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's Policy on the Establishment and Designation of Endowed Chairs, Professorships and Lectureships (May 1995),

The University requires that adequate funding be in place prior to the commencement of the Chair, Professorship or Lectureship to ensure it is sustainable. The Senate Budget Review Committee and the Senate Committee on Academic Development review all proposals and pass recommendations on to the Senate. In order for a naming to take place, the funding agency is generally expected to have contributed at least 51% of the value of the endowment. The funding agency is involved in establishing the terms for the use of funds but is generally not expected to have further involvement after the original terms are approved. The policy states:

The benefactor(s) or funding agency may participate with the Vice-Principals, Deans, or Directors in establishing the terms of reference for the Chair, Professorship or Lectureship. These terms will include guidelines for the use of funds, area of appointment, and, in the case of fixed term appointments, length of appointment.

Back to Top

2.4 Research Funding and Agreements

»Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's has well-developed guidelines for its research-based involvement with corporations and has been participating in these types of relationships for a long time. The »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's Research Agreement, or a substitute with the same components, is used whenever the University is entering such an agreement. The Policy on Administration of Research Funds (Feb. '95) identifies the various types of funding and the general policies governing the conduct of researchers and the University with respect to this external funding. According to the policy:

• all funds received in support of research which utilizes University facilities are administered on behalf of Researchers by the University
• research gifts are funds with no attached expectation of return or direct benefit to the donor
• research contracts/agreements "are agreements negotiated with the University to provide research on a project defined by the funder in which all direct and indirect costs are paid by the sponsor. Research contracts normally include a work plan, deliverables, conditions related to publication of results, clauses related to ownership of intellectual property and its commercialization. All research contracts require the approval of the Head of the Department/Academic Unit and must be signed by the Director of Research Services or designate prior to implementation." (P.A.R.F.)
• the Director of Research Services and the Head of the Department/Academic Unit to which the researcher belongs oversee all research contracts
• the minimum indirect cost rate on research Contracts/Agreements with the private sector is 40% of the total direct cost of performing the research (the recovery rate for indirect costs is higher for the private sector than other sectors)

Publication of Results

»Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's is firm in its commitment to its role as a centre for scholarly research, and as such, the need to maintain the right to publish research information. The Guidelines Concerning Publication of Research Results (Nov. 1972), prepared by the Presidents of Universities of Ontario, states:

The classification of research findings at the sole discretion of the sponsoring agency does irreparable violence to the most fundamental objectives of academic research. Classified research is not subject to the open judgment of scholarly and scientific peers and accordingly fails one of the most crucial tests of a true accretion to knowledge - universal accessibility. While we are sensitive to the claim that classified research findings may on occasion be in the public interest, we cannot reconcile this claim with the greater public interest that universities serve as our society's principal repository of open inquiry. Universities exist to maintain a free flow of ideas and observations and to examine critically all aspects of man and the universe. They provide through research and criticism the catalysts of change, and they are by tradition and mandate the mainstream of renewal in society. It is a simple fact that these functions are undermined when academics within the jurisdiction of the university engage in work whose findings do not become universally accessible. To the limited extent that academics feel called upon to do such work, they should seek leave of absence from the university and should conduct their work entirely on the premises of the sponsoring agency.

Article 13 of the »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's Research Agreement states:

The parties agree that it is part of »Ê¹ÚÌåÓý's function to disseminate information and to make it available for the purpose of scholarship. It is further recognized that the publication of certain technic