A bill restricting state employees from accepting outside compensation for work done as part of their jobs has raised concerns about its impact on faculty members who receive compensation for university-related work.

At the Feb. 19 Board of Regents meeting in Iowa City, regents voted to oppose the bill after a recommendation from the board office.

The bill also provides changes to nepotism, conflict of interest and prohibited activities provisions for public employees. The area that has raised concerns for universities restricts public employees from accepting outside compensation for performing job duties.

“The reason the board office would have concerns about this bill would be for the number of activities our faculty engage in that help them be better teachers or researchers or public servants, and it might limit those activities,” said Board of Regents Communications Specialist Barb Boose.

Boose and Vice Provost for Research and Advanced Studies James Bloedel said the way the bill is currently worded, faculty members could be restricted from receiving honoraria for speeches or serving on study panels.

Additionally, Boose said faculty working on joint projects and receiving grants from a different institution could be restricted from receiving that money. The bill could also keep faculty members from receiving money when technologies they have licensed are commercialized, she said.

“Based on my understanding … this would be, in my view, very, very discouraging to the faculty and much more restrictive than rules that govern this kind of activity at other universities,” Bloedel said.

The bill, currently in subcommittees in both the Iowa House and Senate, was drafted by the Ethics Campaign and Disclosure Board after a situation last year involving a questionable salary increase given to a department director, said the board’s executive director and legal counsel Charlie Smith.

Smith said no one from the universities or the Board of Regents had contacted him about their concerns. “I think some people are confusing what the bill really does,” he said.

Smith said the bill is meant to improve the state ethics code and address confusion that exists about the number of years state employees and officials must wait before engaging in certain activities.

Boose said the bill could be harmful to the state as a whole by stifling university activity, which has direct ties to the state’s economy. “At a time when we are trying to help the state by encouraging the transfer of technology and university research in university endeavors, this bill might discourage that,” Boose said. “I don’t know if that’s the intent of this bill … but that’s the possible implications.”