Keep accurate minutes of meetings, both formal and informal. Minutes are an essential part of organization life. They maintain an institutional memory of all actions taken or proposed and the key points of discussion. They also inform appropriate individuals who were not present at the meeting of the key action and discussion items.
Minutes can be formal or informal. Formal minutes are often required by federal, state, or local law, by-laws, charters, or regulations. They are usually distributed to the members of the group before the next meeting, and then approved (sometimes after being amended).
Some minutes are legally parts of the public record and available to anyone. Often, however, organizational minutes are private and confidential documents, which should be distributed only to appropriate individuals. If the minutes are confidential, each page should be stamped with a message such as "CONFIDENTIAL--DO NOT DISTRIBUTE."
The following information, adapted from Robert's Rules of Order, is usally included in formal minutes:
Informal minutes also include the date of the meeting and the names of all members attending or absent, but they focus more on summarizing key points of discussion and listing all action items to be performed by individuals or the group.
| TO: | Copyright Issues Group |
| FROM: | Paula Stanley |
| DATE: | July 9, 1996 |
| SUBJECT: | Copyright Committee, Greenhill College
Minutes of Regular Meeting, July 9, 1996 |
Members Present: Ms. Appelbaum, Dr. Blackburn, Dean Chan, Professor Garcia, Professor Greenberg, Professor Kozowski, Mr. Smith, Professor Snow, Ms. Stanley, Dr. Washington
Members Absent: Professor Keynes
Guest: Professor Arnold Alexander, Chair of the Faculty Senate
Dr. Blackburn called the meeting to order in the Library Conference Room at 1:15 p.m.
The minutes of the 14 June 1996 meeting were approved unanimously without comment or amendment.
Professor Greenberg and Ms. Stanley summarized the report of the legal review subcommittee (included with the meeting agenda) that Greenhill College owns any intellectual property developed by a faculty member in his or her major field except for textbooks, which are specifically excluded in the College's Policies and Procedures. The subcommittee report recommended that Greenhill College should also waive ownership interest in 1) artistic works that are not accomplished under a program of research and do not use Greenhill College facilities, and 2) intellectual property developed pursuant to a preexisting consulting agreement where there are no sponsored research obligations and there is little or no use of Greenhill College facilities.
Professor Snow moved to accept and endorse the subcommittee's report. With no discussion, the motion was passed with seven members voting yes, two members voting no, and one member abstaining.
The Committee then reviewed the "close-to-final" draft of the new Intellectual Policy Guidelines. Dean Chan moved to amend the Guidelines to add a statement that Greenhill College will retain a "shop right" in all intellectual property developed at Greenhill College, including journal articles and textbooks.
Dr. Washington expressed concern that such shop rights might encourage circulation of pirated copies of copyrighted works. There was then considerable discussion on possible protections that might be placed on journal articles and textbooks to ensure that copies made pursuant to Greenhill College's retained shop right do not proliferate outside Greenhill College.
Ms. Stanley suggested including notices or markers on both the electronic and printed forms of the articles and placing electronically distributed copies on a protected server. Dean Chan suggested that the acknowledgment that Greenhill College has a responsibility to make such efforts at protecting the material should be placed in a statement accompanying the Greenhill College reservation of shop rights.
With such protection built in, the Committee agreed that Greenhill College's shop rights should apply to the published version of a work. Julio Garcia felt that publishers might want to negotiate this. He volunteered to revise the motion to reflect the Committee's discussion and then to send it to the Copyright Committee of the AAP for their comments.
Professor Alexander felt that the "shop right" wouldn't be much of a problem for faculty but the change in the ownership policy might be, especially if it were perceived as a "give-back" by the faculty. He suggested we poll other colleges and universities to find out what their policies are. Alexander also suggested that the Faculty Policy Committee should also review the revised "shop right" provision before the Committee votes on the final guidelines at its next meeting on 5 August 1996.
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Next Meeting: August 5, 1996
