Professor Mark W. Rosenberg, Chairperson
Committee on Corporate Involvement at Queen's University
25 February 2002
The Committee on Corporate Involvement at Queen's University: Checks and Balances for the New Millennium CCI) was formed on 1 December 2000 at the request of Vice-Principal Suzanne Fortier. It was created out of a belief that corporate involvement at Queen's and indeed at every university across Canada is becoming an increasingly complex and pervasive issue. Corporate involvement goes well beyond corporate giving. While there has already been considerable and sometimes heated debate about some aspects of corporate involvement at Queen's, there was a sense that the CCI needed to examine all aspects of corporate involvement or the potential for corporate involvement at Queen's University and ask whether the policies that exist are sufficient to deal with issues, which might arise. It also needs to be noted that other groups on campus have given considerable thought to some aspects of corporate involvement (see AMS, 2000).
The CCI is made up of 15 members. It consists of faculty members from diverse departments across the university, representatives from the Alma Mater Society and the Society of Graduate and Professional Students, representatives from various parts of the university administration including the advancement office, student affairs, and research and representatives from the Board of Trustees and the Queen's University Council (See Appendix 1). The committee met four times between January and March, 2001 and three times between September and December 2001.
The mandate of the committee is to identify any deficiencies in current practices, and to recommend appropriate policies and procedures that will define and clarify the University's relationship with the corporate sector. The committee, however, has recognized that given the current nature of corporate involvement and the potential for future corporate involvement, it is probably too much to ask one committee to develop policies in every area where corporate involvement is already taking place or likely to take place. The committee, therefore, does not try to propose specific policies for every aspect of corporate involvement at Queen's per se, but to identify the most appropriate persons and bodies who need to take responsibility for the development of policies in their particular area.
As part of this strategy, the CCI identified numerous areas where corporate involvement now takes place at Queen's or is likely to in the future. These areas were grouped into six themes and sub-committees of the CCI were formed to investigate them in detail:
In virtually all of the areas that the sub-committees examined, we found gaps in various forms ranging from no policies at all, to policies which need improving to practices having no written policies, to policies that are clearly articulated.
There is no over-arching, institution-wide policy on corporate involvement. One of the challenges for the committee was to decide whether it was possible to have such an over-arching policy and if so what might be the principles that should guide it.
The report is organized in eight sections. Section One provides data on corporate involvement to provide a context in which to place the findings of the Committee. Sections Two to Seven are organized in terms of the six themes: Philanthropy; Suppliers, Sponsorship, Commercial Activity on Campus and Trademarks and Licenses; Research and Graduate Students; Parteq, Consulting and Creating Businesses Related to Research; Teaching, Professional Development and Recruitment; and Investments. In the final section of the report, the CCI summarizes its recommendations and suggests the directions, which will need to be taken to create the appropriate checks and balances for corporate involvement at Queen's in the 21st century.
It is difficult to determine exactly how much money flows into Queen’s as a result of corporate involvement. What we do know is that in 1999/2000, private giving to Queen’s totalled $37,443,000. Of this total, $10,839,000 was designated as corporate giving or approximately 29 percent of all private giving in 1999/2000 (see Table 1). In 2000/2001, corporate giving represented 15 percent of all private giving. Differences from year to year can be explained by the timing of the major fundraising campaigns at Queen’s and individual major donations, which occur without predictability. The point, however, is that corporate giving is an important and significant source of funding for the university.
Table 1: Private Giving by Constituency, 1999/2000 and 2000/2001
|Amount||% of Total||Amount||% of Total|
|Board of Trustees||$12,197,000.00||32.6||$190,880.00||0.5|
Source: Annual Report of Contributions, 1999/2000 and 2000/2001
In support of research at Queen's, corporations provided $14,201,000 in 1999/2000 or almost 19 percent of all funding. Only NSERC and Foundations provide more support for research than the corporate sector at Queen’s. In 2000/2001, corporate support of research grew to $15,548,000 even though as a percentage of the total, corporate support declined marginally.
Table 2: Research Funding, 1999/2000 and 2000/2001
|Amount||% of Total||Amount||% of Total|
|Less 75% SNO||-$2,360,000.00||-3.1||-$2,385,000.00||-2.7|
Source: Queen's University Annual Financial Report, April 30, 2001, Pg. 9.
A third visible measure of corporate support to Queen's is the number of research chairs sponsored by the corporate sector. There are now 6 chairs funded through corporate donations and an additional 12 chairs endowed through private estates.
A fourth visible measure of corporate involvement at Queen's is the growth of PARTEQ (see Section 5.0).
In addition, there are various less visible measures of corporate involvement in the decisions made as to where to invest endowment funds and pension funds, who receives contracts to provide goods and services to Queen's, who pays to use Queen's services and facilities and even who pays to use the logos and symbols of Queen's.
Corporate involvement in philanthropy is currently guided by the following policies:
The gaps identified in the Gift Acceptance Policy include:
From the University of Toronto guidelines on Gift Acceptance Policy.
Within the Gift Acceptance Policy, there are also the policies for the acceptance of scholarship, bursary or award donations. These are essentially gifts that are targeted towards specific student use. The CCI noted the following gaps:
The CCI found:
The CCI recommends that the Board of Trustees review the Naming Policy.
This section covers corporate suppliers (i.e., companies that supply Queen's with products & services – insurance, banking, retail, food service, travel, supplies, etc.), sponsorship and advertising, commercial activity (i.e., companies wishing to do occasional business on campus), and trademarks and licences.
The university's relationships with corporate supplies are guided by the following policies:
With respect to these policies and processes, the CCI notes that over-arching these policies are Board of Trustees Policies and PPS Procedures/Policies (e.g., Architect selection, tendering process) and the University adheres to the Purchasing Management Association of Canada's Code of Ethics. The CCI, however, also notes:
The CCI recommends that the Vice-Principal (Operations & Finance) and the Director (Department of Financial Services) develop a written policy to guide the contract approval process with a view to a particular focus on exclusivity and transparency.
With the exception of sponsorship and advertising by alcohol manufacturers, the CCI found few policies or guidelines in this area of corporate involvement at the University. The only existing policy is:
An advertising policy was drafted (circa 1996), but never approved.
The CCI believes:
The CCI recommends that the Vice-Principal (Operations & Finance) and the Dean of Student Affairs work together to develop a comprehensive written policy on advertising and guidelines regarding corporations that might be permitted to advertise or sponsor events at Queen's.
Only the John Deutsch University Centre and its sub-centres have an explicit policy for companies wishing to do occasional business on campus (e.g., poster sales, distribution of their products, selling long-distance phone service, offering LSAT/GMAT courses, etc.):
A draft set of "Working Principles/Recommendations" was produced circa 1997 by a Subcommittee on Commercial Activities. Recommendations included the establishment of a clear point of entry at the university for inquiries related to commercial activity and the creation of a Commercial Activities Review Board.
The CCI recommends that the Vice-Principal (Operations and Finance), the Dean of Student Affairs and the AMS work together to develop and implement a campus-wide policy for businesses wishing to do occasional commercial business on campus.
Organizations wishing to use Queen's trademarks must be licensed, whether or not the use is for commercial purposes. This is administered through the Office of the Dean of Student Affairs and includes the following guidelines and policies:
A Code of Conduct for Trademark Licensees is under consideration. The Office of the Dean of Student Affairs is in discussion with the university solicitor and with other institutions. The CCI also believes:
The CCI recommends that the Dean of Student Affairs and the AMS continue to work together to develop a Code of Conduct for Licensees.
Corporate involvement with graduate students and in research is addressed in a multiplicity of places within the university:
In addition to the above policies and guidelines, there are a set of procedures in place for research agreements, which include:
Similarly, graduate student involvement in research funded through corporate involvement is indirectly covered under the policies and guidelines listed above and more directly through
Even with this vast array of policies and guidelines, there remain gaps identified by the CCI. They include the need:
There is also the issue of the lack of specificity in many of these documents. While Queen's has taken a general approach to issues such as conflict of interest and conflict of commitment, other universities provide much more detailed criteria to guide their researchers (e.g., see Appendix Two abstracted from Harvard University's guidelines on conflict of interest).
The CCI recommends that the Vice-Principal (Research) take overall responsibility for the seven gaps in policies and guidelines identified above. In those areas where there is overlap with the Collective Agreement (e.g., Conflict of Commitment), the Vice-Principal (Research), the Vice-Principal (Academic) and QUFA should work together to develop policies and guidelines to address the gaps noted within the framework of the Collective Agreement. In those areas where graduate students are directly or indirectly affected, the Vice-Principal (Research), the Dean of Graduate Studies and the Society of Graduate and Professional Students should work together to develop policies and guidelines to address the gaps noted that affect graduate and professional students.
PARTEQ Innovations is a not-for-profit corporation formed in December 1987 to act as the technology transfer agent for Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario. PARTEQ has the exclusive rights to all intellectual property owned outright by or assigned to the University. Intellectual property includes such things as inventions, software, models, designs, know-how, trademarks, copyrights, patents and plant breeders' rights.
PARTEQ's mission is to stimulate and facilitate the commercialization of intellectual property generated at Queen's and to enhance and foster linkages between the university research community and industry. The mission is driven by social responsibility and potential economic return.
There are currently 11 PARTEQ start-up companies and 14 companies founded based on technology licensed by PARTEQ.
In February of 2001, PARTEQ Innovations announced the establishment of the Queen's University Internet Ventures Fund. PARTEQ Innovations is also the manager of the $7 million Queen's Working Ventures CMDF Scientific Breakthrough Fund, and is responsible for identifying, evaluating and qualifying investment applications for presentation to the Fund's Board of Directors. Thus far, the Fund has invested in 10 companies.
With the process PARTEQ uses to create start-up companies and companies based on technology licensed by PARTEQ, it is possible that this will lead to conflicts between what the Queen's community sees as its values and the firms see as their goals. The CCI has some concerns about PARTEQ venture capital funds and the licensing of intellectual property to firms beyond the scope of Queen's. There do not appear to be any policies beyond financial considerations governing PARTEQ and its fund managers' decisions in choosing firms in which to invest. It is also not clear what policies govern decisions about licensing beyond financial considerations.
The CCI recommends that the Vice-Principal (Academic), Vice-Principal (Research) and the Board of PARTEQ review this issue and develop guidelines and policies to avoid such conflicts.
While the focus of this section has been on PARTEQ, the growth of other groups on campus with similar aims appears to be the trend (e.g., Queen's Centre for Enterprise Development). This also raises the issue of whether there needs to be policies and guidelines for the creation of such groups on campus.
The CCI recommends that the Vice-Principal (Academic) review the policies and guidelines for the creation of centres and other similar enterprises on campus.
The CCI identified five areas where corporate involvement in professional development and recruitment exists or is likely to exist in the future. In most of these areas, there is no evidence to suggest that Queen's has had to deal with the specific circumstance described. However, in some areas (such as teaching materials), it is next to impossible to make this statement with certainty unless every faculty member were contacted for information.
Generally, in the areas noted above, there does not appear to be any formal policies in place. Specifically, the CCI believes:
The CCI recommends that the Senate Committee on Academic Development (SCAD) consider this issue.
The CCI recommends that the Vice-Principal (Academic) develop policies to cover all potential corporate involvement linked to undergraduate and graduate training.
The CCI recommends that the Vice-Principal (Operations & Finance) and the Dean of Student Affairs formalize a policy to cover requests for the use of university facilities.
There has been ongoing concern among some constituents within the university community about where Queen's invests its money through its endowment and the pension plan. The position of the Board of Trustees and the Pension Plan Committee is that they have a fiduciary responsibility to manage the financial legacies of the university in such a way that they balance risk and return.
For management of the pension plan, there is:
The above statement is silent on the matter of ethical investments.
The CCI believes that a broad review of the policies and goals, which guide the investments made by Queen's should be carried out. Such a review will need to take into account all parties who might be affected by University investment policies with respect to the endowment and pensions and they will need to be consulted.
The CCI recommends that the Board of Trustees and Pension Board be responsible for carrying out such a review.
It is clear from the above sections, that corporate involvement at Queen's University is important to all aspects of the life of the university. In many areas, the CCI found policies that ensure corporate involvement is consonant with the mission of the University. There are, however, many areas where policies need updating, formalizing or do not exist. There is also a lack of consistency across the policies that exist (i.e., there does not appear to be a set of common principles guiding the policies that exist). In this last section, the CCI suggests two over-arching principles that might act as the basis for policies and guidelines, which all units need to take into account.
The Board of Trustees, Senate, AMS, SGPS, QUFA , CUPE and the Staff Association should work together to develop a set of ethical standards consistent with the mission of the University which all private firms and corporations must meet if they wish to play a role at Queen's.
Policies and guidelines need to be written down, speak directly to the role of corporate involvement and be readily accessible to all groups at Queen's and to private firms and corporations that wish to play a role at Queen's.
It will be a challenge to all groups at Queen's to develop these principles and put them into operation in developing policies and guidelines to ensure the continuing positive role that private firms and corporations play on campus. It is, however, a challenge, which must be met.
|Name||Title and Affiliation|
|Mark Rosenberg (Chair)||Professor, Department of Geography|
|James Archibald||Professor, Department of Mining Engineering|
|Judith Brown||Director of Development, Donor Relations and Stewardship|
|Robert Crawford||Dean, Student Affairs|
|Sandra Crocker||Director, Research Services|
|Paul Heisler*||President, Alma Mater Society|
|Madan Joneja||Professor, Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology|
|Robert Kisilevsky||Professor, Department of Pathology|
|Merle Koven||Member, Board of Trustees|
|Robert Malcolmson||Professor, Department of History|
|Eleanor Macdonald||Associate Professor, Department of Political Studies|
|Kerry Rowe||Vice-Principal Research|
|Christine Sypnowich||Professor, Department of Philosophy|
|Margaret Thompson||Society of Graduate and Professional Students Representative|
|Kathy Wood||Member, Queen’s University Council|
* Replaced by Scott Courtice
A Faculty Member Participating in Clinical Research on a Technology owned by or contractually obligated(1) to a Business(2) in which the Faculty Member, a member of his/her Family, or an Associated Entity has a consulting relationship, holds a stock or similar ownership interest, or has any other Financial Interest, other than receipt of University- or Hospital- supervised Sponsored Research support or royalties under institutional royalty-sharing policies.
A Faculty Member receiving University- or Hospital-supervised Sponsored Research support (whether in dollars or in kind) for Clinical Research or research which does not involve human subjects, from a Business in which he/she, a member of his/her Family, or an Associated Entity holds a stock or similar ownership interest.
De Minimus Exception to Category I (a) and I (b) Conflicts
A Faculty Member may continue to hold stock or similar ownership interest in a Business in a situation which would otherwise create an impermissible Category I (a) or I (b) conflict only if all of the following conditions are met:
The stock or similar ownership interest must be in a publicly held, widely traded Business.
The current value of the stock or similar ownership interest may not exceed $20,000 at any time.
There must be no relationship between acquisition of the stock or similar ownership interest and research to be conducted. Situations that satisfy this requirement include stock or similar ownership interest acquired in arms-length transactions or by family gift sufficiently prior to the beginning of the research to assure the lack of a relationship and stock or similar ownership interest acquired by inheritance. In any such situation there must be complete independence between a purchase decision or other acquisition and the research.
A Faculty Member who is a successful applicant for Public Health Service and/or National Science Foundation funding in a situation which would otherwise create an impermissible Category I(a) conflict can continue to hold stock or similar ownership interest in a publicly held, widely traded Business if the value of the ownership interest, when aggregated with that of spouse and dependent children, does not exceed $10,000 and the ownership interest was acquired in a manner unrelated to the research.
While meeting the above criteria excepts a Faculty Member from what would otherwise be an impermissible Category I (a) or I (b) conflict, it does not except a Faculty Member from other conflict categories such as Category I (h) which imposes an obligation to disclose a Financial Interest in the research in any publication or presentation.
A Faculty Member may consult for a Business in a situation which would otherwise create an impermissible Category I (a) conflict only if all of the following conditions are met:
The amount of money received by the Faculty Member for consulting relationships or honoraria from a given Business should not exceed $10,000 a year. Consulting relationships include contractual relationships with a Business (or from an agent or other representative of such Business), service on advisory boards and any other relationship whereby the Faculty Member receives, or has the right or expectation to receive, income from a Business in exchange for services. Honoraria include commissioned papers and occasional lectures (no more than four lectures a year) for which money is received, either directly or indirectly, from a given Business (or from an agent or other representative of such Business).
While meeting the de minimis criteria above excepts a Faculty Member from what would otherwise be a Category I(a) conflict, it does not exempt the Faculty Member from other possible conflict categories such as Category I(h) which imposes an obligation to disclose a Financial Interest in the research in any publication or presentation.
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.)
Queen’s Research Agreement
Report of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Intellectual Property, 1991
Mission Statement of Queen’s University, Jan. 1996
Report on Principles and Priorities, Jan. 1996 (R.P.P.)
Conflict of Interest and Conflict of Commitment, May 1986
Proposed Format for Endowments Made by Groups of Constituents in the University, Oct. 1991
Procedures Governing the Establishment, Reporting and Review of Centres, Institutes, and other entities at Queen’s University, March 1995
Technology Transfer, May 1993
Procedures for the Preliminary Approval of Endowed Chairs and Professorships, Oct. 1990
Faculty of Medicine, Harvard University – Faculty Policies on Integrity in Science (Oct. 2000)