Dan Stockford, the school attorney, told us that very few schools have an intellectual property policy. He shared a draft Intellectual Property policy that looked like it came from industry that basically said everything you create while you’re employed by us belongs to us. All members present expressed the desire that anything a facilitator creates should belong to them as long as they used their own creativity and no school resources.

The Governance Committee recommends that we not establish an Intellectual Property Policy but rather recommend that all employees sign a conflict of interest statement at the beginning of each school year (not unlike the one that Board Members sign). The form will define Intellectual Property and Conflict of Interest (using the same definitions that are in the current conflict of interest policy). The form will ask whether the employee does or does not perceive a conflict of interest between their outside activities and their school responsibilities. If they have any possible conflicts, they will meet with the ED and determine if indeed it is a conflict or not. If it is a potential conflict, they figure out what needs to be done so that it’s not a conflict of interest. (This is all spelled out in our current conflict of interest policy.)

The piece that’s not covered is intellectual property when two or more employees contribute to the creation of a product. AI recommends

Where multiple employees contributed to the creation of a product, the School may require a written agreement identifying:

•            All contributors;

•            Ownership interests;

•            Licensing rights;

•            Revenue-sharing arrangements, if any; and

•            Rights granted to the School.

If an Employee-Created Product is substantially derived from School-developed processes, educational materials, operational workflows, or collaborative efforts of multiple employees acting within their employment duties, the School reserves the right to assert ownership or licensing interests in such product.

It’s recommended by the committee that addressing the multiple employee product be handled in a description of the process in the staff handbook and that at this time, it not be a board policy.

Committee looked at a draft of policy IJNDD - Artificial Intelligence policy and draft policy IJNDD-R AI Use Guidance and had a discussion of some proposed changes. 

Committee also reviewed the Software & AI Tools Inventory.

Committee is looking to work with school administration to get a technology review committee up and running to help and charged them with the vetting software and hardware to be sure that all legal confidentiality is in place especially with AI. Committee can be a fluid group. Committee will work with the draft of the Software & AI Tools Inventory document.

Committee will bring forward the proposed changes to the policy to the board meeting on August 12th for the board to review as a first read of the policy and give feedback.

Technology Procurement and Development Committee

Membership:

At least three employees (not restricted to administrators) with multiple perspectives including

• Knowledge of FERPA, COPPA, Data Privacy, and other legal requirements
• Early childhood development and learning needs
• Adolescent development and learning needs
• Administrative procedures and needs of CRCS
• Innovative and appropriate use of technology 

The committee can be supplemented by learners, family members of learners, and/or community members who believe in CRCS’s Core Values and have at least one of the perspectives listed above

Purpose:

Develop and implement a procedure for evaluating hardware and software for potential use at CRCS for its safety, accountability, data privacy protections, educational effectiveness, child development appropriateness, alignment with CRCS Core Values, and financial feasibility. 

Outcomes:

• An evaluation process that can be consistently carried out in a simple and timely fashion
• A list of “approved” software and hardware for facilitators and other employees to use
• A list of software and hardware that did not pass the evaluation process with explanation of why it was deemed not appropriate
• A simple process by which facilitators and other employees can request evaluation of any hardware or software not already on the approved list
• Guidelines for when software or hardware will be re-evaluated to keep the lists “current” (e.g., when changes to terms of agreement are announced; when a product goes from one-time purchase to subscription pricing, after a certain number of years)

Postpone to the September Governance Committee Meeting.

Postpone to the September Governance Committee Meeting.

Postpone to the September Governance Committee Meeting.

Committee agrees upon the minutes for tonight's meeting.