Without quorum present, faculty endorse new intellectual property policy
Vote might have been void; Corporation must approve controversial policy next
Eric Beck
Issue date: 4/6/05 Section: Campus News
After contentious debate lasting more than an hour, the faculty voted 33-22 at its Tuesday meeting in favor of a resolution endorsing a new policy on patents, inventions and copyrights - but the result might have been illegitimate because procedure at the faculty meeting appeared to violate faculty rules.
At issue was whether the University should be able to claim rights to inventions and discoveries made by professors while away from Brown and without University funding, such as during summers, breaks, sabbaticals and in independent consulting projects.
Sixty-four professors were present for the vote - short of the required quorum of 100 voting faculty members. In a last-ditch effort to block the passage of the resolution after it passed a faculty vote, opponents quickly pointed out that a quorum was not present. But the meeting's parliamentarian, Professor of Engineering Peter Richardson, said that a quorum is assumed unless a count is first requested. Because a request for a count was not made before the vote, Richardson said the passing vote was legitimate.
With Richardson's assertion, the meeting continued to other business.
But the faculty rules and regulations that govern faculty meetings suggest that the vote should have been voided.
Part 1, Section 1, Clause IV-B-7-a of the faculty rules and regulations reads, "Business that has been transacted in the unascertained absence of a quorum is legal unless it is ascertained that there is an absence of a quorum before other business has intervened. If no other business has been taken up, the business that has been transacted just prior to determining the absence of a quorum is automatically null and void."
In other words, any action taken immediately prior to a count finding a lack of a quorum is null and void. Tuesday's vote supporting the resolution to endorse the policy occurred immediately prior to the count finding that a quorum was not present.
Richardson could not be reached for comment Tuesday evening.
At issue was whether the University should be able to claim rights to inventions and discoveries made by professors while away from Brown and without University funding, such as during summers, breaks, sabbaticals and in independent consulting projects.
Sixty-four professors were present for the vote - short of the required quorum of 100 voting faculty members. In a last-ditch effort to block the passage of the resolution after it passed a faculty vote, opponents quickly pointed out that a quorum was not present. But the meeting's parliamentarian, Professor of Engineering Peter Richardson, said that a quorum is assumed unless a count is first requested. Because a request for a count was not made before the vote, Richardson said the passing vote was legitimate.
With Richardson's assertion, the meeting continued to other business.
But the faculty rules and regulations that govern faculty meetings suggest that the vote should have been voided.
Part 1, Section 1, Clause IV-B-7-a of the faculty rules and regulations reads, "Business that has been transacted in the unascertained absence of a quorum is legal unless it is ascertained that there is an absence of a quorum before other business has intervened. If no other business has been taken up, the business that has been transacted just prior to determining the absence of a quorum is automatically null and void."
In other words, any action taken immediately prior to a count finding a lack of a quorum is null and void. Tuesday's vote supporting the resolution to endorse the policy occurred immediately prior to the count finding that a quorum was not present.
Richardson could not be reached for comment Tuesday evening.