University of Iowa
February 20, 2007
~ DRAFT ~
Present: L. Boyle; M. Cohen; D. Drake; S. McGuire; F. Mitros; S. Moorhead; M. O’Hara; J. Sa-Aadu; L. Snetselaar; D. Thomas; B. Thompson; J. Tomkovicz
Absent: V. Grassian
Excused: C. Catney, D. D’Alessandro, V. Dominguez; P. Heidger; J. Woodhead, C. Ringen
Officers Present: J. Glass; S. Kurtz; V. Sharp
Officers Excusedt: R. LeBlond
Guests: B. Altman (Psych & Quant); S. Collins (Faculty Policies and Compensation Committee); C. Drum (University Relations); D. Heldt (The Gazette); M. Hogan (Provost Office); P. Kelley (Emeritus Council); A. Shurson (The Daily Iowan); J. Spratt (Pharmacology Emeritus)
I. Call to Order—The meeting was called to order at 3:34 pm
a. Meeting agenda— Professor Thompson moved; Professor Cohen seconded; voice vote; the agenda were approved.
b. FC Minutes, 1/23/07— Professor Thomas moved; Professor McGuire seconded, voice vote; minutes were approved.
c. Draft FS agenda, 3/20/2007— Professor Boyle moved, seconded by Professor O’Hara to approve the draft agenda; voice vote, motion approved.
A. Faculty Senate President, Sheldon Kurtz
1. Faculty Senate Elections
Only five colleges are having elections this time around: Business, Dentistry, Education, Liberal Arts & Sciences, and Medicine. The election opens at 8:00 am on Friday, March 2, through March 10 at midnight.
Kurtz explained a procedural matter concerning the election. Under current rules, there can be 2 nominees for every vacancy. Not every college will have enough nominees to fill vacancies. Medicine has a unique situation in that no more than 20% of your senators can come from clinical ranks. He proposed to have COM receive the names of 26 nominees (2 x 13 openings). Faculty will vote for 13 names; but only 4 of those may come from the clinical faculty.
Professor O’Hara moved to accept these rules; Professor Boyle seconded; there was a unanimous voice vote; motion approved.
2. NCAA Advertising and Promotion Standards – Professor Betsy Altmaier, UI’s faculty representative to the Big Ten.
Professor Altmaier was introduced. She has held this position for the past 5 ½ years. She is also the UI representative to the NCAA.
a. She commented on the reforms initiated by Myles Brand, President of NCAA involving academic progress rates (APR).
The goal for any team is to reach a score of 925 on this scale. Every student contributes to the score which is tallied on a yearly basis. If a student transferred out the year before, he/she would not be represented. The APR was developed in conjunction with penalties, for teams which did not meet certain standards. Historical penalties are more severe.
There is an additional component of an improvement review, which exists to serve students who are non-academically prepared. Iowa’s APR for this year has not been released; but we have done well in the past few years. UI scores and average of 943; one team had 1,000. The NCAA allowed a squad-size adjustment (for large teams).
Under Brand’s leadership, the NCAA has put together several task forces to address, from presidents’ perspectives, what their interests are in athletics. The issues range from values, diversity, transparency, and presidential leadership. President Skorton served on the Financial Task Force.
Altmaier said over the next 5 years this document will be given to various NCAA bodies. If there is something that can translate into legislative action, it will start happening now, she added. These task forces will set the agenda for the NCAA for the next 5 years.
b. TV Lottery promotion - Altmaier discussed the Iowa Lottery advertisement filmed at Carver Hawkeye Arena during a basketball game. She described a befuddled fan, scratching his lottery ticket while singing a parody of the Iowa Fight Song. She commented that Gary Barta had not seen the advertisement prior to its broadcast. This has brought Iowa’s relationship with the lottery to a higher degree of conversation.
Altmaier described the promotional relationship with the Lottery. She said she is utterly opposed to this tie; also to leasing stadium suites to casinos. The NCAA has its own standards for advertising, which they use for selecting their corporate partners. Lotteries, casinos, and other gaming activates are impermissible. But these are “best practices” and are not legislated for individual campuses.
As our representative, Altmaier says she represents UI faculty, so she wanted to know what the Faculty Council thinks about issues that she faces. The floor was opened to discussion.
She acknowledged that there was a difference on opinion on the Presidential Committee on Athletics (PCA). She explained that Barta expressed the thought that Iowa’s relationship with the Lottery is long-standing, and no problems have occurred up until this advertisement. He thinks it can be effectively managed. Because it is state-run, and benefits the UI indirectly, there should be a legitimate relationship.
She was asked to clarify how the proceeds from the Iowa lottery benefit education. They get deposited in the “state’s checking account”. The promise was made that it would go only to education but that has not been borne out. It supports many things. It is a problem if we violate the NCAA “best practices”; it brings embarrassment and shame to the university.
She added that we do not individually manage the promotional activities, but they are outsourced to Learfield Communications. They sell advertising that appears as stadium signage.
Asked if she sought a resolution from the Faculty Council, Altmaier responded that she did not think councilors were sufficiently informed yet. Kurtz asked if it would be appropriate to invite Professor Lynch, Chair of the PCA, to attend the Faculty Council to ask reasons for their decision. The councilors will proceed from there. Altmaier said it would be helpful for her to attend that session as well. She added there are some people who feel that the Lottery is a state-run institution and that we should be supportive of it. Some don’t see gaming as inimical to athletics. She encouraged councilors to email her with their ideas.
Kurtz said that he will invite Professor Lynch to address the Council.
3. Presidential Search Update - Dean David Johnsen, Chair, and Professors Gene
Parkin and Jay Sa-Aadu, committee members
Dean Johnsen thanked councilors for the opportunity to speak about the status of the presidential search. He briefly reviewed events that led up to this. He commented that great universities are resilient and that the UI is responding well. 98% of emails he receives are outpourings of encouragement and offers of help. He has received many suggestions and recommendations for candidates.
He asked councilors what issues he should be looking at to attract candidates. He thinks of his team as a recruitment committee who will go out and find candidates and convince them what a great place Iowa is.
By March 15, there should be four new Regents named. The committee is following those developments. He reports monthly to the BOR.
When the initial search was suspended; everyone was looking at how to get it restarted. There were frank discussions between Dean Johnsen and the Regents. Johnsen put forth a 3-point memo that, surprisingly, has become a compass for people. When the committee was formed, he wanted to appoint 5 other people.
The committee has moved ahead. There is a website. Johnsen tries to communicate openly with the campus. He will not be open about candidate names, however. They will be discussed in closed sessions. Meetings are being taped so “an agent of the court” might hear it later, if called for. They are now starting to contact people about submitting applications.
Dean Johnsen briefly reported on meetings he had with specific constituencies:
1. Several meetings with students to seek their input.
2. Hospital personnel – they do not think a health sciences background is essential (though might be beneficial). If someone is willing to learn and willing to work hard, that’s the most important thing.
3. Legislators- many felt unconnected with the university but would like to be more directly involved. They discussed economic development.
4. Athletics wants someone who is interactive and is a fan.
Dean Johnsen said he believes the UI is very attractive for a future president. He would like to be able to announce a new President by July 1 .
He said the salient points are (1) a reaffirmation of shared governance and (2) selection of a president with a compelling vision.
President Kurtz said it is extremely refreshing to receive Johnsen’s emails. He senses that people across campus are learning about the process and are clearer about what is being sought. He encouraged Dean Johnsen to continue in this vein. Kurtz said he fully supports the vision he has articulated, being open about the process but closed about the candidates.
Dean Johnsen said that everyone who is recommended, including former candidates, will be evaluated. He added that he is very pleased with the caliber of applicants; they are people of national stature who have already indicated that Iowa is a special place. He said we need someone who can lead strategically; we will look at how they manage resources; someone who will command the respect of the community. He added the process started and will end with the Regents.
Professor Sa-Aadu added that it is very clear there is a reaffirmation of shared governance.
Dean Johnsen asked councilors what the issues are that we should use to evaluate candidates. Kurtz offered to send him a copy of the compilation of emails sent from faculty to Regent Wahlert.
Professor McGuire raised the question of on-campus interviews. He added there is a great deal of confidence in the membership of the committee. Dean Johnsen commented that there are a range of models available from no campus contact to individual on-campus interviews, and that we should be open to alternatives in –between depending on the list of finalists selected.
President Kurtz commented that Iowa has a history of openness. He strongly believes that people want a process by which the campus community can interview candidates. The nature of the job is that candidates have to be used to being open with campus and off-campus constituencies. They have to have had some form of engagement.
Professor O’Hara said he wants our next president to be accountable to whatever they have said in the interview. They should stake out their territory so it’s a benchmark to follow what they say to the Regents and the search committee. This is what always worried him about the old process. It’s part of the UI culture to be open and know where we stand. Vice President Sharp added how important on-campus interviews are. Candidates will also get a chance to hear faculty, the ones who will sell the place.
Professor Thomas said that openness is the key thing. Renegotiating the place of education in the State of Iowa needs to be rethought in terms of income; and what goes out of the university. Johnsen agreed that he wants the next president to set an agenda with the state.
Professor O’Hara added that it is critical that the new president be able to identify good talents at senior levels and to be able to work well with these people. He/She has to be able to communicate effectively with the state and internally with his advisors.
Emeritus Professor Spratt said it a leader we are looking for, and we should be able to meet them face-to-face.
Dean Johnsen was thanked for speaking to the Faculty Council.
Tenure Clock Policy update — Shelly Kurtz
Kurtz explained the work of the task force charged with considering changes to the Tenure Clock Policy. Concerns came out of the College of Medicine that the current six-year track is not sufficient to allow tenure track members of that faculty to be able to build the kind of portfolio when they go up to tenure, taking into account outside funding, potential clinical responsibilities, and the tasks of doing research and scholarship. The Gender Equity Committee had made a number of recommendations related to the appropriateness of the existing tenure clock, especially when tenure-seeking faculty have new members of their family. Professors O’Hara and McGuire are also on the committee.
i. The core insight (proposals) are:
ii. Each college should be free to set its own tenure clock, but in no event should it exceed 8 years;
iii. There would be automatic extensions for each child who was born to a faculty member (or adopted; or a step child as result of marriage) during the probationary period. The maximum amount would be a two-year extension.
No expansion of a faculty member’s probationary period (as a result of an extension) shall result in any increase in the quantity or quality of the probationary faculty member’s expected scholarship from what would have been expected had that faculty member been considered for promotion or tenure in the final year of probationary service in light of the collegiate norms.
The committee is committed to the idea that it is up to each college to make this decision. There is still some tinkering that needs to be done.
Provost Hogan commented that he wanted the Senate involved in this committee. He said these were not unusual recommendations. We are probably behind the curve. Universities around the country have looked at this and have differentiated tenure clock policies. The imperative comes from certain areas connected to gender issues. It is getting harder and harder to opt for tenure track in medicine; it affects all faculty there. Competition for medicine grants has quadrupled. You can’t get tenure without an NIH grant, then this is compounded with having children. He added data shows it is getting more difficult for both men and women to stay on the tenure track.
At UI, very few colleges will have to make this adjustment. He thinks faculty in the colleges should have the opportunity to make a recommendation to the Provost’s Office.
At present, if a faculty member has a baby, you can ask for an extension, but under this new policy it is automatically granted. You don’t have to ask for it to be conferred. This avoids the stigma of having to ask for an extension and having this interpreted as a lack of commitment or ability.
Professor O’Hara said he would be concerned about having different policies for different colleges. He imagines that someone in CLAS who didn’t do this, but draws an analogy with a colleague in Medicine and says “this is not equitable treatment.” In the past we have had standard approaches to tenure, to have a homogenous policy. Professor Boyle said that people are already comparing themselves across colleges. There are different requirements for publications in different colleges, for example.
Professor Sa-Aadu called for an alternative by creating a uniform system where tenure is decoupled from promotion. Professor Thomas expressed concern about this within CLAS, although he felt the change within Medicine would not be too great. Professor Cohen said the committee had considered decoupling, but didn’t think it was the right place to go at this time. McGuire said it would affect governance structure.
Provost Hogan added that this is a conservative policy by comparison to other institutions. He did not think it would affect other colleges. Even the AAUP seems sympathetic, he said.
Kurtz did not want to proceed with a resolution until Susan Johnson was present. He said that some on the committee were worried about expanding the tenure clock. He wants to protect the benefits of tenure. We can still be creative in dealing with this issue, but it is best to have a policy in place to rely on.
Professor Cohen moved; seconded by Professor Sa-Aadu to adjoin the meeting; unanimous approval.
The meeting closed at 5:12 pm.
The next meeting of the Faculty Council will be Tuesday, March 6, 3:30 – 5:15 pm, Penn State Room, IMU.