One standard approach (not the only one) is to give the sponsor a veto power
only for specific reasons and purposes - e.g., protection of patents, or for
specific audiences - e.g., the news media.  They should not have unlimited
power of control over dissemination.  We had a similar situation recently
with a three-year cooperative program (not evaluation or testing, though) --
the final agreement provides that the university has unlimited rights to
dissemination in scientific journals, the sponsor has complete veto power
over publicity in the media, and we mutually agreed not to try spelling out
all the intermediate cases like informal talks to community groups.  It
seems to be working out.

Stuart Ross
California State University, Fullerton

 -----Original Message-----
 From:   Chris Woodroffe [mailto:xxxxxx@BRANDEIS.EDU]
 Sent:   Friday, February 18, 2000 11:03 AM
 To:     xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG
 Subject:        Negative Publicity Clause Restrictions

 I'm currently working on an agreement where the  (private)
sponsor has
 included broad language restricting the university's right
to "any use of
 the project elements (i.e., data, finding, etc.).  Our PI is
carrying out a
 survey and evaluating the sponsor's program.

 Here is the language included in the agreement:

 "Notwithstanding the above, should xxx or anyone associated
with xxx desire
 to make any use of the project or any of its elements
(including data,
 findings, etc.), xxx shall first request sponsor's
permission, and sponsor
 shall review the request within a reasonable time.  Any such
use shall be
 subject to receiveing sponsor's prior written approval."

 The agreement also has the use of name clause which requires
that both
 parties obtain the other's permission in using the name of
the other Party
 in any advertising or public relations materials.

 The sponsor's key concern is that they need to control
negative publicity
 or dissemination which could be harmful to their project.
Our concern is
 that (a) since the purpose is to evaluate the project, that
our PI be able
 to carry out a true evaluation (i.e., the sponsor cannot
influence the PI's
 findings/results) and (b) that the PI/university have the
usual ability to
 publish and use for his/her work and academic purposes.

 I thought that one way to get around this, is to instead
suggest specific
 language under the use of name (advertising and publicity)
clause that
 would protect both parties from negative publicity.

 I'd appreciate any ideas out there on this?

 Thanks,
 Chris

 Christine R. Woodroffe
 Associate Director
 Office of Sponsored Programs
 Bernstein Marcus Building, Rm. 117
 Mailstop 116
 Email:  xxxxxx@brandeis.edu
 Phone:  (781)736-2120

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List,
including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are
available
 via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on
"Listserv Lists")

======================================================================

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
 via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================