The
FACULTY
COUNCIL MINUTES 2001-2001
Tuesday,
September 11, 2001
Penn State
Room (335),
Members
Present: Joyce
Berg, Lois Geist, Vicki Grassian,
Richard LeBlond, Chuck Lynch, David Manderscheid, Kim Marra, Ann Marie
McCarthy, John Moyer, Paul Muhly, Gene Parkin, Craig Porter, Margaret Raymond,
Hazel Seaba, Lisa Troyer, John Westefeld
Members
Absent: Rebecca
Hegeman
Members
Excused: Howard
Cowan
Faculty Senate
Officers in Attendance: Amitava Bhattacharjee, President; Jeff Cox, Vice President;
Erin Irish, Secretary; Carolyn Colvin, Past President
Guests:
Jean
Jew, Charles Green (Director of Public Safety), Connie Tipsword
(University Safety and Security Committee), Steven Hoch
(Office of the Provost), Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost), Lola Lopez
(Office of the Provost), Steve Parrott (University Relations), Vicki Hesli (Faculty Assembly), Nick Klenske
(UISG), Dan Rossi (UISG), Raul Curto (CLAS), Julie
Thatcher (Office of Faculty Senate), Kristin Clark (Office of Faculty Senate)
I.
Call to Order
II.
Approvals
A. Meeting Agenda
President Bhattacharjee began the
meeting by asking for approval of the agenda.
Prof. Colvin moved and Prof. Seaba
seconded the following:
Motion: The Faculty Council approves the agenda. The
motion passed.
President Bhattacharjee, mindful
of the day’s events, alerted the council that the agenda may not be completed.
B. Minutes
The minutes of April 10, 2001 were
approved as amended by consensus.
C. Proposed
Senate Agenda—September 25, 2001
President Bhattacharjee asked for
approval of the revised agenda for the Faculty Senate meeting.
Prof. Muhly moved and Prof. Grassian
seconded the following:
Motion: The Faculty council approves the agenda. The
motion passed.
D. Approval of Recommended
Replacements
Prof. Raymond moved and Prof. Westefeld seconded the
following:
Motion: The Faculty Council endorses the Council and
Senate replacements as recommended by the Committee on Elections and forwards
them to the Faculty Senate for approval. The
motion passed.
Prof. Colvin moved and Prof. Muhly
seconded the following:
Motion: The Faculty Council endorses the committee
replacements as recommended by the Committee on Committees and forwards them to
the Faculty Senate for approval. The
motion passed.
III.
Reports
A. Report of the
Faculty Senate President (Amitava Bhattacharjee)
President Bhattacharjee revised his
report in view of today’s traumatic events.
He reported that an announcement has been prepared by Steve Hoch and Steve Parrott, addressing the attacks in New York and Washington. This announcement will be signed by President
Coleman, the mayors of Iowa City and Coralville, and the leaders of student,
faculty, and staff governments, and will be sent out to the university
community. President Bhattacharjee read the announcement aloud to the Council,
and also reported that the UI home page has been updated to aid students in
finding counselors, if needed. Prof.
Westefeld reiterated that the information on the web site is very complete and
useful in guiding students to help that they may need. Associate Provost Clark inquired about
counseling sessions at IMU. Chuck Green
replied that two rooms are open at present in IMU for use in counseling.
Additional announcements: Vice President Cox and President
Bhattacharjee were invited to and visited the University of Minnesota last
spring. They were very much impressed by
the structure of the Faculty Senate there and hoped to implement some of the
practices of that organization at our university. One such practice was the establishment of an
Academy of Teaching Excellence, into which each year those who have received a
teaching award would be inducted permanently.
The function of the Academy is to celebrate teaching, and it does so by hosting
a yearly banquet. President
Bhattacharjee mentioned that such an
academy had been previously proposed here by Provost Whitmore. It was not adopted at that time because it was thought that it
would require more work from the inductees, rather than rewarding them.
President Bhattacharjee has met with the Council on Teaching to discuss this
issue, and will appoint an ad hoc Committee, with the assistance of Marcy
Rosenbaum (Chair of the Council on Teaching), to bring a proposal to the
Faculty Council and Senate. President
Bhattacharjee then briefly mentioned that the bulk of the discussions between
the Faculty Senate Officers and Provost Whitmore during the summer months
concerned the budget, and concluded his report by proposing that he would
discuss these
matters in future meetings.
B. Report of the
University Safety and Security Committee (Charles Green and Connie Tipsword).
President Bhattacharjee introduced this topic by reporting
that President Coleman advised the Faculty Senate Officers during their meeting
with her on August 27 that she is considering a proposal to arm Division of
Public Safety (DPS) officers with tasers. Even though the implementation of the
proposal is at an advanced stage, President Coleman seeks the input of the
University community. To inform the
decision of the Faculty Council, Chuck Green, Director of DPS, was invited to
make a presentation, which he began by passing out additional handouts. Green then summarized his training and
experience and stated his philosophy on law enforcement and security as
Director of DPS. He then went on to
outline the organization of the DPS. He emphasized that the role of DPS
officers was not just security, but also law enforcement. In his seven years as Director of DPS Green
has been increasingly convinced that his officers cannot perform the latter
function safely and effectively without arms.
The Regents and top administrators at all three Regent’s universities at
present are steady in their rejection of arming DPS officers with lethal
arms. As an alternative he strongly
promoted the use of tasers, as less-than-lethal
weapons, and spoke eloquently to promote his case. He gave several examples of incidents on
campus in the recent past in which he felt that the arming of DPS officers with
such devices would have been beneficial.
His second proposal is to change the name of DPS officers to police
officers. He has taken these proposals
to the VP group and to the campus security committee which has approved both
proposals.
President Bhattacharjee then opened the
floor for discussion. Prof. Muhly
inquired whether DPS was constituted just like the Iowa City Police Department
(ICPD). Green replied that it was, with
the same rights and responsibilities. He
continued that authority is a constant concern for them, and gave the example
of the recent apprehension of Memmer, a suspect in two murders, in the
field house by DPS officers. The suspect
assumed incorrectly that they were armed because they were in uniform. He added that another advantage of a TASER is
the ability to download information after its deployment as a record of its
use, something that cannot be done with a nightstick. Prof. Marra inquired whether, since they have
the same training, ICPD and DPS have different philosophies with regard to law
enforcement vs. security. Green answered
no, and added that at present DPS is doing both but really needs to clarify and
choose one or the other. He no longer
feels he can expect officers to risk themselves without being armed: they are
at too much of a disadvantage without proper equipment. One can’t expect a
person to obey just because they see the uniform, although so far that has been
the case here. He is concerned about
changes in atmosphere. He pointed out
that DPS officers have been carrying nightsticks for years, and that the lack
of arms is unique to Iowa. Up until the
1960’s campus police here had been armed, but that changed as a result of a
philosophical decision, not the response to some specific incident. He continued that he fervently hoped that
there would never be an incident on this campus that would prove the need for
lethal weapons. Nevertheless, his
officers need to have something, especially in cases of attempted suicides. He views tasers as
less dangerous than a nightstick.
President Bhattacharjee reminded the
Council as a point of information that two years ago the Faculty Senate unanimously endorsed the
decision not to arm the DPS. Green asked
what the basis of that decision was.
Prof. Colvin replied that it was based on the lack of evidence that a
change was necessary. Furthermore, the
decision against arming the DPS was made by President Coleman, and the Senate
merely affirmed President Coleman’s decision.
President Bhattacharjee reported that the executive committee of UISG
was very concerned about the present proposals, and will cast votes on
September 18.
Prof. Lynch asked what DPS officers will do, if tasers are not effective against guns. Green replied that, as is done now, the ICPD
would be called. Prof. Lynch followed up
by asking whether, if armed with tasers, DPS officers
would be more likely to be sent in against guns? Green answered that no, ICPD would still be
called in. He pointed out that most of
the time, they don’t know ahead of time whether or not a weapon is there before
they show up and engage. Prof. Lynch
continued his questioning, asking if someone is attempting suicide, how much
time does DPS have to respond. Green
answered that it varies—sometimes you can respond in time, sometimes you can’t.
Prof. Lynch then asked what happens if someone is shot in the face, especially
in the eye, with a taser. Would he be blinded? Green answered that he didn’t know, but
reiterated that it would be used only in lethal force situations. It is not useful for crowd control.
President Bhattacharjee then introduced
the table compiled by Prof. Irish, and asked her to explain it. Prof. Porter stated that he thought the
correct designation for the taser was less-lethal,
not less-than-lethal, and added that he thought the DPS was doing a terrific
job without tasers.
Green challenged him by asking why municipal forces are armed, and Prof.
Porter responded by asking why we have been so successful without them? Green replied that we are successful but we
still need them. He suggested we think
of them as we do home insurance. Most of
the time we don’t use it, but are very happy to have paid for it in that one
time that we need it. Prof. Porter
continued his questioning by asking how tasers are used
on other campuses. Green reminded him
that on all other (except ISU and U. Del.) campuses, campus police officers are
armed. Prof. Porter asked about the
frequency of review boards on other campuses finding appropriate vs.
inappropriate uses of tasers. Green replied that he didn’t know.
Prof. Grassian inquired whether the two
proposals were in order and dependent.
Green answered that they were.
Prof. Grassian then asked how often you might need such a device. Green replied that it is variable, and often
incidents come in waves. Prof. Grassian
suggested 0-5 times per year, which Green confirmed. Prof. Grassian continued that it is important
to be able to identify police officers.
Green agreed, stating that he doesn’t like the term security, as it
means something different from what his officers are doing. He continued that
he is especially concerned about his young officers, that it is an officer
safety issue. Community policing is a relationship. His officers have an emotional bond with this
campus. If they are not safe, Green
cannot get what he wants from them.
Ms. Tipsword
spoke on behalf of the Safety and Security Committee. She said that her committee has had these
kinds of discussions every meeting for the past two years. The vote in June was unanimous, save
one. She pointed out that it is we and
the students who the officers are trying to protect. She brought up the fact
that once ICPD has been called in, DPS loses control of the situation and any
university philosophy is out the window.
Also, ICPD response time can be long, as they don’t know the campus as
well and do have other responsibilities.
She cited a serious example in which ICPD was called in but never came,
ending that there have been no problems so far because we have been really,
really lucky. Green added that incidents can be so unpredictable, and that they
are called on to act in potentially deadly situations.
Prof. Jew inquired about who has
jurisdiction on campus, DPS or ICPD, if they both have the same training. Green replied that once ICPD has been invited
on campus, his office can’t tell them what to do: ICPD becomes responsible for
dealing with an incident. Prof. Jew
followed up by asking about liability, and how it would change for the
university if DPS officers were armed with tasers? Does liability transfer to ICPD when they
come in and take over? Green answered
that it did. Prof. Seaba noted that the taser has been on the market for over 27 years, yet from
the material presented she cannot determine how much safer an officer is when
armed with one. She agreed that its
utility in cases of attemped suicide was obvious, but
thought that if someone had a weapon, an officer would not feel safe with just
a taser. How
would protocols be written for officers to allow them to determine when they
are safe enough with a taser to proceed alone vs.
when they should call in ICPD? Ms. Tipsword replied that protocols are already in place for
deadly force. If there is advance
warning of deadly force, ICPD is brought in; however, so often one has no
knowledge of what weapons are involved.
With a TASER one has the opportunity to drop an assailant long enough to
cuff them. Without the TASER, the only
alternative is the ICPD dropping them with a bullet, as it would be used only
if deadly force is the threat. Prof.
Troyer noted that while she can see that many campuses are using tasers, she didn’t know the actual frequency of their
use. Green replied that every
organization that uses tasers reports back to the
manufacturer. Prof. Troyer continued
that of course we are all concerned for DPS officers, but it just seemed to her
that it wouldn’t work with guns, to which Green responded by pointing out that
there are a lot of knives, too.
After Green and Tipsword
departed the discussion of the proposals continued. Prof. Cox began by
reminding the Council that the University has a 35-year history as an unarmed
campus, and said that he would hate to give it up without a more compelling
case. Putting this issue in the context
of the broader community, he reviewed an attempt six years ago to put armed
officers in the public junior high schools, which was abandoned as a result of community
outcry. Similarly, the DARE officers in
the public schools were pitched out last year.
He stated that the values of the police conflict with those of the
community. We live in a low crime
community yet the relationship between the ICPD and the community is raw. This is in stark contrast to the relationship
with DPS. He predicted that if you give
them (DPS) something that looks like guns, the relationship will change.
Prof. LeBlond responded that we do in
fact already have armed officers on campus.
The real decision is whether they should be ICPD or our own. He maintained that we should have our own,
who can be trained with our philosophy.
Prof. Troyer worried that there was no evidence presented that tasers actually work, as such data should be
available. Prof. Raymond added her
concern that in incidents where
tasers would be used, ICPD would still be called in,
too. Prof. LeBlond stated his concern that Green won’t send his people into
dangerous situations, resulting in his calling in ICPD more often and earlier,
with the outcome that we will have more control by ICPD instead.
Prof. Lynch brought up the frequency of
incidents in the past six years, seeing that the data supported an increase in
incidents. Profs. Troyer and Irish
countered by stating that it is not known whether the level of vigilance has
remained constant, and the latter added that she suspected, based on Green’s
presentation, that vigilance has increased.
Prof. Muhly confessed that he was conflicted. On one hand, he is attracted by the idea of
extending the 35 unarmed years. On the
other hand, he recognizes that we are now a community of 32,000 people, and
wondered how many communities of that size have unarmed police. He fears that tasers
may invite trouble. Prof. Moyer
countered that we are living in an ever increasingly violent society. He felt that he had to trust the training of
the officers, especially if they are all like Chuck Green.
Prof. Seaba stated that she sees no evidence in the big
packet that was prepared for Faculty Council members that convinces her that
DPS officers will be safer with tasers. Prof. Colvin added that she sees no evidence
that this campus is becoming more dangerous.
While we can be scared by some of the stories about recent incidents,
her bigger concern was the chance that we will lose our good DPS officers if we
deny them tasers. Prof. LeBlond, addressing Prof. Seaba’s point, replied that there would be no data. He felt that we should give DPS officers the
tools to do their jobs, jobs that are nothing like what any faculty member has
to do, let alone do it every day. His
question was who was going to control the people with the deadly force. Prof. Westefeld offered that having tasers seems like a morale issue for the DPS, and this
decision could have a dramatic effect.
Vice President Cox added that it’s a standard of professionalism, but
one which could threaten the admirable state we have here. The DPS is trusted, unlike the ICPD which is
not trusted by many Iowa City community members. He feared that arming DPS officers will cause
a deterioration of the relationship.
Prof. Lynch moved and Prof.
Manderscheid seconded the following:
Motion: The Faculty Council endorses Proposal 1. The
motion failed (9 in favor, 10 opposed, 1 abstained).
Vice President Cox proposed and Prof.
Colvin seconded the following:
Motion. The Faculty
Council passes on Proposal 1 to Faculty Senate with a report on our vote, that
we were divided 10-9. The motion carried.
Prof. LeBlond inquired whether the two
proposals were linked. Vice President
Cox responded that his motion was to report specifically the action on proposal
1 (adoption of tasers) to Senate, as he assumed that
the second proposal was moot. Further
discussion indicated that the Council wished to vote on the second proposal.
Prof. Colvin moved and Prof. Porter
seconded the following:
Motion: The Faculty Council endorses Proposal 2. The
motion passed (11 in favor, no
opposed, 7 abstaining).
IV. Unfinished Business, New Business, and
Announcements
In view of the lateness of the hour,
President Bhattacharjee suggested that any further business and announcements
be postponed to the next council meeting.
VII. Adjournment
Respectfully
submitted,
Erin
Irish
Secretary