University of Iowa
February 5, 2002
State Room, 337 Iowa Memorial Union
Members Present: Richard
LeBlond, Patrick Lloyd, Chuck Lynch, Kim Marra, Ann Marie McCarthy, John Moyer,
Paul Muhly, Gene Parkin, Craig Porter, Margaret Raymond, Hazel Seaba, Lisa
Troyer, John Westefeld
Members Absent: Vicki Grassian
Members Excused: Joyce
Berg, Rebecca Hegeman, David Manderscheid
Officers in Attendance: Amitava Bhattacharjee, President; Jeff Cox, Vice
President; Erin Irish, Secretary; Carolyn Colvin, Past President
David Ricketts (Parking and Transportation), Nancy Baker (Libraries),
Edward Shreeves (Libraries), Linda Noble (Parking and Transportation), Dave
Martin (Staff Council), Ed Norbeck (Physics), Jim Jacobson (Gazette),
Charles Drum (University Relations), Heather Woodward (Press-Citizen),
Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost), Jon Whitmore (Provost), Julie Thatcher
(Faculty Senate Office), Raul Curto (Liberal Arts and Sciences)
Call to Order
meeting was called to order at 3:35.
Minutes: Faculty Council, January 22, 2001
minutes were accepted by consensus.
February 12, 2002 Senate Agenda
agenda was accepted by consensus.
Report of the Faculty Senate President: Initiative to add a faculty
member to the Board of Regents (Amitava Bhattacharjee)
Bhattacharjee introduced this topic by reporting that, with the recent budget
crisis, many of us took special initiatives to invite local representatives to
come visit us. He had relayed the success of the special meeting of our Faculty
Senate and Johnson County legislators to Faculty Senate colleagues at ISU and
UNI, who then invited their legislators in for similar meetings.
One result of this is a proposal from Representative Barbara Finch of
Ames to the Iowa State Legislature that a faculty member be added to the Board
of Regents. President Bhattacharjee explained that the State Board of
Regents governs the following institution: SUI, ISU, UNI, the Iowa Braille and
Sight-saving School, the State School for the Deaf, the Oakdale campus, and the
State Hospital School. There are
currently nine members of the Board of Regents. One member of the Board of Regents is a student, who has full
voting membership. All terms are 6
years, even for the student (who will have graduated by the time her term is
up). Rep. Finch put to her
subcommittee a proposal that there be a tenth member added to the Board of
Regents, who shall be a faculty member. President
Bhattacharjee has talked to President Coleman and others in Jessup Hall about
this proposal. He has been informed
that the administration at UI is completely neutral about this. Faculty
sentiment is another matter: faculty
at ISU and UNI are firmly in favor of this proposal. It is not unheard of for faculty to be members of a Board of
Regents. There can be certain
advantages to having such a membership. This resolution would have to be passed
by the state legislature, and if it passed, the Governor would ultimately
appoint the new member. President
Bhattacharjee reported that he has been dragging his feet on this matter.
He would like to have the input of the Faculty Council.
Muhly asked President Bhattacharjee why he has been dragging his feet.
The latter answered that knowing that the Faculty Council is a very
thoughtful group; he wanted to find out what exactly had been proposed, but
found it had not been clearly articulated.
He also wanted President Colemanís input before taking action. He
wanted to know how the Board of Regents felt about this proposal. Furthermore, he didnít know when the vote would come about.
Prof. Porter suggested that before we go further, he would like to know
what the charter of the Board of Regents specifies. Having
anticipated such a question, President Bhattacharjee had previously examined the
32-page charter. He reported that
the Board of Regents deals with everything to do with the administration of the
seven institutions, including budgets, buildings, the Operations Manuals, and so
on. They also generally like to formulate uniform policies across the different
institutions, especially among the three universities.
The Board meets monthly, for one or two days each time.
The Board of Regents approves many of the resolutions passed by the
Faculty Senate that are incorporated in the Operations Manual.
Whereas sometimes it is simply pro
forma, with other issues, such as budget, they have real input into the
Porter asked how much the Board of Regents is like a business.
How much input do they have in academics?
President Bhattacharjee answered that the gamut of business that they
consider is fairly broad. The
student member has been able to make valuable contributions in many manners.
For example, when communication technology was presented to the Board of
Regents, the student was able give good advice on how helpful various options
would be. A second example of when
additional input to the Board would have been valuable is when the issue came up
regarding how much time a faculty member spends at work.
Associate Provost Clark was able to tell them that on average we spend 58
hours per week. The Board members asked lots of probing questions.
A faculty member could explain why it takes so much more than 40 hours a
week, dividing our efforts among teaching, research, and service.
Or, on the issue of semester assignments, what they do and how they
invigorate our research programs: a faculty member can provide a perspective
that is missing from the Board of Regents, as many of its members, although
having many advanced degrees, do not come from a background of academia. President Bhattacharjee was ambivalent about the
proposal: maybe it would be a good
thing. But, if we add a faculty
member, then perhaps staff would also like a member, with the net result that
the Board could get so large as to be unwieldy. It would then be able to work
only in subcommittees, which defeats the purpose of having a unified Board.
So, there could be advantages and disadvantages to adding a faculty
member to the Board.
Prof. Troyer asked about
Rep. Finchís motivation, wondering what is broken.
President Bhattacharjee answered that is was more that Iowa State
colleagues feel that this would be beneficial for having the faculty voice
heard. Prof. Westefeld asked
whether this type of arrangement exists for other Boards.
President Bhattacharjee answered that he did not have precise statistics,
except that when President Coleman reported that she had served on Kentuckyís
Board of Regents when she was a faculty member there, and that this arrangement
was not unique. He added that this
proposal is loosely defined, and is being left to the legislature, and to the
Governor to define. Prof. LeBlond
said that seemed to him that this issue is one of communication, and that he
would support any initiative that would enhance communication among Board of
Regents and its constituent faculties. He asked how often do Faculty Senate
Presidents attend Board of Regents meetings.
President Bhattacharjee answered that he has gone to most of them but has
missed a few because of research responsibilities that have taken him elsewhere.
He has made presentations twice, at invitation of Board of Regents. He
added that no doubt that it would expand their understanding of what faculty do.
Prof. Porter asked who does show up from this university regularly at
their meetings. President
Bhattacharjee listed President Coleman, Provost Whitmore, and Vice President
True as always attending. Other
regular attendees include Associate Provost Lee Anna Clark, as well as others
from the Office of the Provost and some Deans as well, depending on what is
Porter thought that whoever is appointed as a faculty member to the Board of
Regents should be able to represent the faulty adequately.
Could a clinical track faculty from here or a professor from UNI do the
job? He could see having a
representative from each university.
Prof. Marra noted that the governor would choose this person and thus it
would be a political appointment. A result of that could be that it would change
the nature of the faculty memberís participation.
President Bhattacharjee responded that the guidelines for determining
membership to the Board of Regents specify only that no more than five members
are to be of the same political party. Prof.
LeBlond thought that it would be difficult for one person to represent all seven
institutions, with the undesirable consequence that we could wind up losing
representation. Prof. Moyer asked
whether the faculty member of the Board would vote.
If so, that would enforce the political aspect.
One could pressure the member to vote a certain way. Would the member be tenured?
He needed to know more what the position would be, while he is in favor
of considering it: a student plus a
faculty member would constitute 20% of the Board. President Bhattacharjee answered that the details have not
been worked out, adding that the problems that Prof. Moyer raised is already a
problem for the student member. Prof.
Moyer asked if the student and faculty member should be from same school.
Prof. Troyer saw conflict of interest issues that are serious, and real.
She asked how a single individual could do this effectively, and
represent all seven institutions fairly. Prof.
Moyer replied that they would have to be serving as a member of the Board of
Regents, and not be acting as a representative to the Board of Regents;
otherwise we would need representatives from all the various factions of each
institution. Prof. Parkin explained
that ISU wants faculty representation: isnít that their motivation?
He asked whether other constituents represented by various members of the
Board of Regents.
LeBlond thought this change would be a mistake. Having a faculty member on the Board of Regents is not the
same as having a student member. He
would rather keep representation as it is, with Faculty Senate President
attending regularly with members of the central administration. Prof. Porter agreed that there is a lot more homogeneity
among the student experiences than there is for faculty. And Faculty Senate Presidents receive counsel from lots of
groups. Prof. Lloyd was concerned
that there would be confusion about whether a statement was a personal opinion
vs. a considered representation. Prof.
Lynch admitted that he would be reluctant to serve as a representative himself.
It would be very hard to represent the interests of your own institution
if you were member of Board of Regents. Also,
it would be very hard to represent faculty at institutions we know little about.
Prof. Muhly asked how much Board of Regents meet outside of the public meetings. President Bhattacharjee responded that they meet a fair
amount. Prof. Muhly concluded that
we would gain representation there. Prof.
Lynch added that they also know that they can go for information.
Bhattacharjee asked Prof. Colvin what she thought about this resolution, with
her experience working with the Board of Regents. She answered that she is not in favor it.
She pointed out that these are six-year terms, which could be an onerous
burden on top of our regular responsibilities as faculty members. If a faculty
member were a member of the Board of Regents, (s)he might be put on the spot to
come up with information that the Provost, or others, would be better able to
provide. There wouldnít be much
opportunity to speak at length about issues of concern.
Regarding a term of six years: we
would have to be content if a professor from UNI was representing us.
Prof. Lynch asked whether we should have representatives from UNI and ISU
come tell us why they were so strongly in favor of the resolution.
President Bhattacharjee replied that he would be glad to do so, but we
have to do something today. Prof.
Marra would prefer that the tenor of the report be that we have serious
reservations and need more information, without which we were unlikely to be in
favor of the proposal. Prof.
LeBlond presented a competing resolution that he later withdrew.
Moyer suggested that President Bhattacharjee instead of reporting yes/no, just
listed our concerns. Prof. Seaba
inquired if the student member is only Regent with a constituency.
President Bhattacharjee answered that the student Regent is not chosen to
represent a constituency per se but rather is there to give a studentís viewpoint.
Prof. Seaba followed up by asking what the faculty representative would
add. Prof. Porter asked what
additional information would help us come to a decision.
President Bhattacharjee answered that the information is such that no one
can give it to us now. He could go
back and say that the discussion was inconclusive, based on our desire for
additional information. Prof. Cox
was reluctant to proceed on this, and was very curious why there had been
unanimity on the other campuses. He
pointed out that the Board of Regents approves our Operations Manuals, grants
tenure, etc. Prof. Westefeld agreed with him, wondering what was the
rationale for supporting this so strongly at other universities.
President Bhattacharjee agreed to go back to those Faculty Senates, to
learn their reasons. Prof. LeBlond
asked President Bhattacharjee what he planned to do with respect to the answer
he had to give in the next few hours.
The latter responded that he would report that there had been some
positive responses to the proposal, but also some questions.
Prof. LeBlond voiced his concern that by not favoring this, we will come
off looking like we donít want representation, when in fact we are concerned
that our perspectives be heard.
Report of the Parking and Transportation Committee (David Ricketts)
Ricketts presented a proposal for increases in parking rates.
The last time there had been a proposal for increases was in the spring
of 1997. That had been presented as
a four-year plan; now five years later, they have a plan for the next three
years. There will be a final vote on February 14, so that they can take the
proposal to the March Board of Regents meeting. The proposal covers increased
parking and ticket rates. It will
also address the problem that at the hospital about 500 faculty members use the
ramp that is designated for patients. To
discourage this practice, an increasing rate of penalties has been proposed.
Lynch asked what the rationale is for the $6 increase. Ricketts replied that it is a compromise.
If you charge what it actually costs, that would drive most people away.
All the fees they collect go back to Parking.
Prof. Raymond was concerned that these rates will drive away staff in
particular, and wondered if they ever have considered charging different rates
to faculty and staff. Ricketts
replied that they had considered that, but each time have ultimately come to the
conclusion that it isnít fair to do so. Prof.
Porter was confused with their claims that they are self-supporting but need
more money. Ricketts replies that
expansion is one reason. The university needs more parking for patients, at a
cost of $7.5 million. He also reported that Athletics will move their practice
facility, and that Parking will expand into their old space.
Prof. LeBlond asked whether Parking oversees parking for athletic events.
Ricketts replied that they do: they
collect the money, pay the bills, and pass the excess to athletics.
Prof. LeBlond followed that by asking whether Parking really isnít
independent. Ricketts replied that
although athletic event parking is under their purview, he would be happier
without it: they work a lot of overtime, and it generates more trouble than
revenue. President Bhattacharjee
was curious about the four-year plan in the context of a longer-term plan,
adding that there seemed to be a certain ad
hoc-ness to this. Ricketts
responded that they are very dependent on decisions made across a decentralized
campus. A lot of times a new
building is planned, and there goes a parking lot.
It is hard to have a grand plan, but they try.
He predicted that the real growth would be in peripheral parking, with
maybe a monorail down the line. They
also have good commuter plans, vanpools or bus passes, for people who donít
drive. Prof. Cox asked whether the
cityís free shuttle has helped. Ricketts
responded that it has, and that they work closely with the city on this.
The city is very supportive. He
also pointed out that mass transit has not faired well in the past 20 years in
Lynch asked for clarification of the rationale for how increases are done.
Ricketts responded that with regard to violations, meter violation fees
have no effect any more. Parking
doesnít tow offenders, so people build up fines of $500, $1000.
The new fines will make it worth our while to feed the meter. Prof. Lynch asked why hourly rates are being changed.
Ricketts replied that it was because they hadnít changed it in a long
time. They are moving away from
hourly fees that support permit parking. Prof.
Moyer asked if one rate doesnít go up, then would another have to go up more?
Ricketts answered that they are trying to influence how we use the
parking facilities. Prof. LeBlond
asked how we compare to other institutions.
Ricketts replied that it is difficult to make a perfect comparison, but
roughly we are average to low. Prof.
Lloyd asked when the new athletics lot would open. Ricketts answered that it would be open in late August.
This will be the first new ramp in three years.
Prof. Porter, coming from the College of Medicine, said that he hears
many complaints there about parking, but nonetheless suggested that Parking be
much more punitive regarding employees using patient parking.
Ricketts was sympathetic to that idea, pointing out that the fees will go
from $10 to $25, but added that it
is hard to confirm that someone is an employee. Prof. Porter reported that he used to pay ten times more to
park at another university, and sees room for bigger increases here.
Prof. Lloyd asked if the graduated rate is being considered for dental
school, to which Ricketts replied that it is not, at the schoolís request.
Report on Library Acquisitions (Nancy Baker and Edward Shreeves)
Bhattacharjee introduced this topic by reporting that when we went through the
most recent budget crisis, Provost Whitmore did not cut the library acquisitions
budget at all. Recently we all
received an e-mail message from Nancy Baker reporting a $300,000 cut to that
budget. This cut is really the
result of a flat budget in face of increasing costs.
Ms. Baker confirmed this: their
budget has increased, but not at a sufficiently high rate.
Whereas they donít know the budget in í03 will be, the real problem
is that it takes so long to work with departments to find out what can be
eliminated, so that if cuts come they can respond in a timely fashion. She
agreed that Provost Whitmore is committed to the library and had told them not
to plan for a cut of any more than $300,000.
Mr. Shreeves agreed that it is a loss in purchasing power, not a loss in
actual dollars. Their budget is $8 million. If they get anything more, it will
have to be reallocated from elsewhere in university.
Prof. Lynch asked whether inflation rate is still so bad.
Shreeves answered that it is not as bad as it has been.
Inflation is a small part of it, there is publisher greed, and then there
is the strong dollar vs. the cost of foreign journals. Also, as some
universities have cut subscriptions, publishers pass on costs to the rest of us.
And, electronic journals also cost more.
There is more material to buy, even publications in print:
despite predictions that the book will become extinct, there are more of
Colvin asked if the library budget is a separate line.
Shreeves answered that it is, and that the legislature previously, and
this year the governor, zeroed this out. Prof.
Cox agreed that this is the governorís action.
Prof. Colvin thought that this is an area that the Senate should take up
and call attention to it. Baker
pointed out that is an issue for Senates of all three institutions. Prof.
LeBlond suggested that we need more faculty members on legislature, not on the
Board of Regents. Prof. Cox stated
that previously, the monograph budget went down as result of the escalation of
serials costs. Shreeves agreed,
adding that Iowa has done better than most in protecting serial acquisitions. Prof. Cox concurred: our
administration has been great in protecting our library acquisitions. Baker
remarked that there was not much low-hanging fruit left with regard to
responding to budget cuts. A lot of
e-journals come as packages within the CIC, so that they get a slightly better
deal. The library needs to consider
whether we will keep both paper and electronic versions.
In some cases we donít have much choice as they come in packages.
E-journals are favored by a lot of faculty.
Prof. Lynch asked whether they are considering electronic instead of or
in addition to hard copies. Shreeves
answered that it is usually both. Each
publisher offers a different deal.
Norbeck (Physics) was invited to provide some information.
He explained that the use of journals is essential to PhD students.
The University of Iowa ranks 96 out of 110 universities with regard to
number of journals per graduate student. Undergrads
need books. The University of Iowa
pays $102 per year per student. He suggested we compare that number to what each student pays
for textbooks each year. President
Bhattacharjee added that in his discussions with Provost Whitmore he finds that
this is a gloomy topic, but nothing
new. It is a problem at the
governorís level. Prof. Muhly
pointed out that this is a state resource, and asked if there was any
information for outside-of-university service.
Baker answered that she has the data showing that we lent to more than
libraries, in all counties of the state, last year. We are a resource for the
state. Prof. Seaba, asking about
the state medical library, wondered whether that library has been cut back so
much that now ours is de facto the
state medical library. Baker agreed
that that was likely, and added that last year the VA hospital got rid of its
library and now uses ours instead.
Business: Policy on Sexual Harassment (Lee Anna Clark)
Bhattacharjee reminded the Council that we had considered this policy
previously. The committee drafting
the policy has acted on the comments inspired by our previous discussions.
Associate Provost Clark confirmed this, stating that the comments made in
the last meeting were very helpful and had resulted in a much-improved document.
Lacking the time to go through the whole document, Associate Provost
Clark identified the three biggest changes.
One, throughout the document it is clarified that complaints would not be
acted upon unless they were ďspecific and credibleĒ.
A second change addressed the concern that that oneís name might be out
there yet one wouldnít know that allegations had been made.
They made the decision to tie completely together the requirement for
notification that an allegation had been made with the use of names.
The third big change is that they have identified places on campus where
you can go with concerns about sexual harassment.
These will be completely confidential; avoiding the legal reporting
requirement. As she understood it,
if the university knows about it but doesnít act, the university can be
liable. As they have constituted
this policy, these people will not be considered ďUniversity.Ē
There are enough different people to go to with complaint.
The last issue of who is considered an academic officer for the purposes
of this policy is spelled out (p.3). This
section clarified who is and who is not a mandatory reporter.
Seaba agreed that this version was much better, but was concerned that she
didnít see anything about a time limit. Associate
Provost Clark said that the committee had thought that it fell under ďspecific
and credible.Ē Prof. Seaba
suggested that this would be good to go out in educational material.
She thought highly of the part on education, and asked if there was any
way to make it stronger, wanting to see some real requirements, just like there
is for safety and fire training. As
each year the ombudspersons office sends out an annual report, her last point
was that she would like to see similar reporting from Affirmative Action.
Associate Provost Clark thought that maybe this is already being done.
There are annual reports, but perhaps they donít go out widely.
President Bhattacharjee asked Prof. Seaba whether she wanted wider
distribution, which she did. Prof. Raymond agreed that the policy was much
improved, and asked if there was room for tinkering. President Bhattacharjee suggested since time was short, that
we endorse the policy in principle and forward it to the Senate.
Prof. Colvin preferred not taking it up right away, feeling that we need
more time to consider it. She
suggested that we reexamine it during the February 26 Council meeting.
Marra still had a grave, substantive concern regarding when third party
complaints are allowed. She agreed
that this document is much better, but would like to know who determines
ďcredible and specific.Ē She
was especially concerned about members of sexual minorities. In a phobic
environment, the system is there for orchestrating repeated complaints:
will one individual decide? Associate
Provost Clark answered that the person to whom the complaint is brought is the
one who first makes that judgment. That
person could contact the Office of Affirmative Action for guidance in making
that judgment. So, at minimum that
person plus the Office of Affirmative Action, who has a lot of experience
judging, would decide. Referring to
the section on page 4, Prof. Marra asked what if a person calls Affirmative
Action and reports a rumor, giving a name.
Then, if someone else mentions the same name, the first report will add
weight to the report, even if the first report had been unfounded.
Associate Provost Clark expected this to be part of the education
process: what is the policy and how to be extraordinarily careful when it comes
to confidentiality. We canít
write a policy that will cover all possible events.
However carefully we write the policy it wouldnít be perfect, but it
should cover the vast majority of cases. Prof.
Marra asked whether any member of the community could contact the Office of
Affirmative Action, to which Associate Provost Clark answered that anyone could.
Prof. LeBlond thought it sounded like mandatory education for those who
would make reports is important. Associate
Provost Clark agreed, but pointed out that mandatory training for DEOs is hard
to enforce. Prof. Porter asked if
the university had a policy requiring DEO training, a DEO refused to take part,
then a complaint comes from that department, would university be any more
liable? Would this concern be a way
to make training more mandatory? Associate
Provost Clark saw his point but was concerned if you put too many demands on
DEOs, you drive away the people you want.
Announcements: The Faculty Council/Administration Retreat will be Thursday,
May 23, 2002 in the Gold Room of Oakdale Hall, Oakdale Campus.
meeting was adjourned by consensus at 5:28.