2025-2026 MELA Minutes

the institution moved forward with a one-year contract, with the understanding that it would serve as a continuation for the remaining two years once the legal review of the MRA was completed. Dr. LeBrun highlighted that the negotiation process with Turnitin has been challenging, involving multiple phone calls with ITS, the ITS legal team, MCCB’s lawyers, and Turnitin. She expressed transparency with the group about her significant concerns regarding the terms of the MRA, alongside similar concerns raised by ITS. This week, ITS received a draft of the MRA and marked it up extensively due to issues, particularly regarding data requests and the sharing of information that Turnitin is requiring. These concerns were escalated to Jonathan, MCCB’s lawyer from the Attorney General’s office, for review. Dr. LeBrun ensured that all her concerns were communicated to him. Additionally, she consulted with ITS for their recommendations, as MCCB would bear the liability associated with the contract. Dr. LeBrun noted that the institution has been using Turnitin since 2009, but the current situation is unprecedented. Turnitin has been adamant about having their MRA signed and has refused to sign ITS’s standard contract. This lack of flexibility from Turnitin has made negotiations particularly difficult. At this time, Dr. LeBrun is concerned about whether an agreement on the terms of the contract will be possible, given the significant issues and liabilities involved. Under contract with Turnitin until June 2026. Dr. Wilhite shared her feedback on the Turnitin contract, emphasizing that the language is very strong and raises significant concerns. One of the most troubling aspects is that Turnitin is requiring the institution to agree to all terms in the current contract while allowing themselves to make updates at any time. The institution would be responsible for tracking any changes to their usage rules and ensuring compliance. Failure to comply could result in Turnitin pursuing action against the institution.  Another problematic clause in the contract prohibits the use of Turnitin's product for comparison or evaluation of similar products or partnerships with competitors. This restriction poses challenges from a state agency perspective, especially if the institution decides to issue an RFP or pilot an alternative product in the future.  Dr. Wilhite also noted that Turnitin is currently compliant with 2.0 standards, not 2.1, which is another area of concern. Additionally, there is no contract in place yet for fiscal year 2027-2028. The current draft of the contract is with the Attorney General’s office for review, and MCCB is awaiting their opinion to determine whether the liability associated with Turnitin’s terms is acceptable.