COI Policies

Saint Louis University (https://sites.google.com/a/slu.edu/coi)

Institutional:

    • Conflict of Interest (COI) may exist at an institutional level (an ICOI) and a formal review will be warranted where the University has a Significant Organizational Interest, or any of its Institutional Officials have a Significant Personal Interest, in an External Entity that itself has a financial interest in research, education, clinical care, or business activities conducted at or under the auspices of the University.

Research:

    • Decisions concerning the nature and direction of scholarly research at the University should be governed by judgments of scholarly merit and intellectual importance. A faculty member's involvement with, or interest in, outside commercial or professional applications of research should not bias judgment concerning the faculty member's own scholarly research or that of other faculty or students.

Faculty Manual: (https://www.slu.edu/provost/policies/faculty-manual/faculty-manual_2017.pdf)

    • Each member of the University community also has an obligation to act in the best interest of the University and must not let outside activities or outside financial interests and relationships interfere with his/her obligation to avoid or effectively manage potential, apparent, and actual conflicts of interests in funded research. Additionally, all labor charged to federally sponsored programs must be reasonable and reflect actual work performed. Any changes in actual effort must be reported when it differs significantly from the individual’s planned effort. In furtherance of these principles, the University has adopted its Policy on Conflict of Interest and Effort Reporting Policy, both of which are available on the Web site of the Office of Research Services.

Board of Trustees?

Higher Learning Commission (https://www.hlcommission.org/Policies/criteria-and-core-components.html)

    • The institution’s educational responsibilities take primacy over other purposes, such as generating financial returns for investors, contributing to a related or parent organization, or supporting external interests.

    • The governing board preserves its independence from undue influence on the part of donors, elected officials, ownership interests, or other external parties when such influence would not be in the best interest of the institution.

Association of Governing Boards (AGB) (https://www.agb.org/statements/2012/agb-statement-on-external-influences)

    • Although boards should respect, encourage, and welcome the input of all stakeholders in considering a policy, they must ensure that their decision making processes are free of any undue pressures from external stakeholders—from policy makers (including appointing authorities and regulators), donors, alumni and boosters, corporate sponsors, or political-interest groups/organizations.

  • Boards have ultimate responsibility to sustain higher education’s inherent values—academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and self-regulation—and protect them from those who attempt to leverage influence to affect institutional policy.

Council for Advancement and Support for Education (CASE) (https://www.case.org/Samples_Research_and_Tools/Ethics_Resources_and_Issues/CASE_Statement_on_the_Management_of_Conflicts_of_Interest.html)

    • Conflicts of interest may occur when the interests of the institution differ from those of a constituent or when the interests of an institutional representative differ from those of a constituent or the institution itself. Conflicts of commitment may occur when institutional representatives also have other professional obligations. Not all such conflicts are inappropriate, but they all must be managed thoughtfully, carefully and transparently to serve the greater good and to preserve the mission and values of the institution.

  • As the premier association representing educational advancement (i.e., alumni relations, communications, fundraising, marketing, and related areas), CASE offers member institutions and professionals the following guidance regarding the management of conflicts of interest in their advancement operations:

      1. Clear institutional policies regarding conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment should be in place and should identify for faculty, staff, officers and trustees their fiduciary and ethical responsibilities with regard to the interests of the institution and its primary constituents.

    1. Those institutional policies should include a process for disclosing conflicts at least annually, as well as a process for reviewing and acting upon those disclosures.

    2. In addition to establishing and implementing these policies, institutions should clearly disclose to their primary constituents the process by which conflicts are managed.

    3. Moreover, institutions should be transparent in their communications about institutional decisions that directly affect the interests of their primary constituents, including the process and criteria for the selection of third-party service providers.

    4. Advancement offices should regularly review their relationships and agreements with service providers to ensure they are in keeping with prevailing laws, institutional policies, professional standards and the best interests of their primary constituents.

Association of Donor Relations Professionals (ADRP) (https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.advserv.org/resource/resmgr/draft_best_practices/Gift_Acceptance.pdf)

    • Organizations should have an internal review process to determine the nature of most cash gifts and gifts-in-kind that are valued at a major gift level. This review may include multiple internal units at larger institutions, such as counsel and financial affairs, but in all cases, general counsel is recommended to review all legal documents before they are executed by an authorized signature authority for the institution. For the benefit of the donor, it is encouraged to include language regarding the definition, policy and guidelines for each type of gift accepted in the Gift Acceptance Policy of an organization. Collaborating with Development, Finance and Legal are recommended when considering to accept, what your institution has defined as, a major level gift.

American Association of University Professors (AAUP) (https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/files/Principles-summary.pdf)

    • Every university should have a comprehensive, written COI policy, covering both individual and institutional COI. The policy or its accompanying guidelines should specify how all conflicts of interest (COI) and financial conflicts of interest (FCOI), in particular, will be reported, reviewed, managed, or eliminated. The guidelines should identify which FCOI must be reported, which are prohibited, and what actions will be taken if faculty members do not comply with COI disclosure and management policies. Enforcement actions for non-compliance may include a faculty-led investigation leading to possible censure, federal-grant agency notification, a temporary hold on interactions with conflicted sponsors, or a temporary ban on receipt of outside research funding.

George Mason University - Review of Gift Policies (policy summaries regarding COI)

Academic Freedom

    • Gifts that interfere with or influence the University’s academic freedom or its capacity to fully control the management, operations, and direction of its affairs, including admission procedures, academic programs, and their integrity, shall not be accepted.

    • While gifts that support research or study in a particular subject matter or discipline are welcomed, gifts directed toward a particular result or conclusion of scholarly work should not be solicited and shall not be accepted.

    • Gifts that impede the work or scholarly activity of a faculty member, fellowship holder, or student shall not be accepted.

    • Gifts that are offered for purposes inconsistent with its missions of education, research, and service shall not be accepted.

Outside Party Influence

    • Donors have the right to be appropriately acknowledged, recognized, and assured that their gifts are being used as intended, but they may not direct or participation in the direction of appointments, research, or other activities.

    • The convening of donor oversight or advisory committees should not be a condition of a gift. If such a committee is included, the University should appoint the majority of the members, and any donor designees should be limited to a nonvoting role and have the option to recuse themselves. Moreover, if such a committee is created and has influence on activities or personnel, the gift should undergo a thorough review by the Gift Acceptance Committee to determine if the role specified for donor designees is acceptable.