The University of Iowa

FACULTY COUNCIL

Tuesday, September 10, 2002

3:30 PM – 5:15 PM

Penn State Room #335 Iowa Memorial Union 

Members Present: Edwin Dove, Rebecca Hegeman, Ronald Herman, Richard LeBlond, Chuck Lynch, Teresa Mangum, Kim Marra, Sue Ann Moorhead, Shelton Stromquist, Katherine Tachau, Paul Weller, John Westefeld, Jerold Woodhead 

Members Absent:  Patrick Lloyd, Mazen Maktabi 

Faculty Senate Officers in Attendance:  Jeffrey Cox, President; Margaret Raymond, Vice President; Craig Porter, Secretary; Amitava Bhattacharjee, Past President 

Guests:  Phil Davidson (Daily Iowan), Heather Woodward (Iowa City Press Citizen), Kathryn Wynes (Office of the Provost), Al Hood (Emeritus Faculty Council), Della McGrath (University of Iowa Foundation), Sam Becker (Communication Studies), Richard Randell (Mathematics), Jonathan Carlson (Presidential Search Committee Chair), Roberta Marvin (Academy of Distinguished Teachers Committee Chair), Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost), Nick Colangelo (Board in Control of Athletics), Mark Schantz (General Counsel), Fred Antczak (College of Liberal Arts and Sciences), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office) 

I.          Call to Order

            Functioning in his capacity as the newly installed University of Iowa Faculty Senate President, Prof. Jeffrey Cox called the first University of Iowa Faculty Council meeting of the 2002-03 academic year to order at 3:36 PM.   

II.         Approvals 

A.        Meeting Agenda 

President Cox opened the discussion of the meeting agenda by suggesting the need for its change, pending approval by the members of the Council.  Before outlining the proposed agenda changes he digressed and announced that the proceeds raised by the university faculty from their bake sale of late Spring were provided to the Office of Student Financial Aid to fund scholarship programs.  Undergraduate Sarah Nielson and graduate student Deena Thomas were each awarded a $410.00 scholarship.  Again, digressing briefly, President Cox reminded the councilors of today’s elections for the school board, encouraging their participation.  Following these announcements President Cox introduced Prof. Al Hood, Emeritus Faculty Council Representative.   

President Cox subsequently informed the council that items III B and C of the proposed agenda would need to be taken out of order. 

III.       Reports 

A.        Campus Campaign 

Prof. Cox introduced Sam Becker, Emeritus Professor of Communication Studies, and Della McGrath from the University of Iowa Foundation and Director of the Campus Campaign.  Prof. Becker was grateful for the opportunity to describe GOOD.  BETTER. BEST.  IOWA., the campaign to advance our great university.  This campaign is a campus-wide component of the larger capital campaign whose goal is to secure $850,000,000 in pledges.  It is not only the largest fundraising effort ever mounted by the University of Iowa but it is also without historic parallel in the breadth and scope of projects, which it will support including academic, building and scholarship programs.  The larger campaign kickoff was in June of 2002.  The Campus Campaign kickoff is set for October 9, 2002, 4-6 PM.  The expression of financial commitment by its faculty and staff is important to the University of Iowa community as an expression of our faith in the missions of our university as expressed to our external constituencies.  The goal of the Campus Campaign is 100% faculty and staff participation.  Contributions in any amount will help to achieve this goal.  In addition, the Campus Campaign is expected to help build a finer sense of community amongst the faculty and staff of the University of Iowa.  In his concluding remarks Prof. Becker encouraged the University of Iowa Faculty Council membership to “talk up” the campaign and to address any future questions or comments by e-mail to either him or to Della McGrath.  

B.         Report of the Presidential Search Committee (Jonathan Carlson) 

President Cox reminded the Faculty Council that the resignation of former president Mary Sue Coleman occurred following the adjournment of the University of Iowa Faculty Senate for the 2001-02 academic year.  Nevertheless, the membership of the Presidential Search Committee was selected following extensive consultation with the Faculty Senate leadership and Pat Currie from the Committee for the Selection of Central Academic Officials.  In its completed form, the Presidential Search Committee includes two former University of Iowa Faculty Senate presidents, Profs. Donald Heitstad and Jonathan Carlson and also the incoming president for the Committee for the Selection of Central Academic Officials.  At the conclusion of these comments President Cox turned the podium over to Prof. Carlson, the current University of Iowa Presidential Search Committee Chair.  

Prof. Carlson began by indicating to the Council that he wanted to share with them the current activities of the Presidential Search Committee and that he hoped that his remarks would prompt feedback from the Council membership.  The Search Committee has been working hard to establish the evaluative criteria, which they will use during the search process.  They anticipate finishing this task on the evening of September 10, 2002.  Over the subsequent two to three weeks they will activate their advertising and solicitation campaigns.  They will then actively pursue nominations.  Prof. Carlson encouraged the Council membership to submit nominations.  He is hopeful that the committee will begin to review applications very shortly.  By January 2003 the committee plans to submit to the Board of Regents a “handful” of names of individuals who might be brought to campus for on-site interviews.  

Prof. LeBlond questioned Prof. Carlson regarding the prioritization of the list of candidates to be presented to the Regents.  In response Prof. Carlson indicated that the Board of Regents were clear in their instructions that they did not want a rank ordered list but they did expect that the committee would forward along with the name of each candidate proposed to them an extensive narrative description of the candidate for regential review.  Prof. Tachau continued Prof. LeBlond’s line of questioning by asking whether the Regents would reconsider their instructions.  Prof. Carlson indicated that he did not know how such a request for reconsideration would be received.  He suggested that the ability to give an extensive narrative description would effectively allow the Search Committee the opportunity to offer an opinion regarding each candidate.   

Past President Bhattacharjee recounted a discussion with former president Mary Sue Coleman in which she indicated that the privacy of the University of Michigan search process was extremely important to her as a candidate for that position.  Reflecting on this comment Prof. Bhattacharjee suggested that if we wish to seek outstanding candidates who might be seated provosts or presidents of other universities we should strongly consider changing our selection process by making it more private.  Prof. Carlson responded that the competing desires for top candidates and an open process are difficult to balance.  In follow up Prof. Bhattacharjee stressed the need for confidentiality during the process and was assured that up to the point of public campus visits the selection process will be pursued with utmost respect for complete confidentiality.  Prof. Tachau offered the opinion that selected university individuals might perform “incognito” site visits as part of the interview process.  Prof. Mangum elaborated that confidential, off campus interviews would be a good way to gather information about candidates without violating the need for confidentiality.  Prof. Carlson indicated that it was likely the Committee would behave in this way.   

In reflecting on the seemingly profound escalation of university president salaries in the current environment President Cox asked Prof. Carlson whether the Board of Regents would consult the University of Iowa Faculty Senate in putting together its salary package.  Prof. Carlson did not know the regent’s intent in this regard.  However, he also indicated that a recent survey in the Chronicle of Higher Education places the University of Iowa presidential salary range in a competitive position.   

In response to a question by Prof. Stromquist Prof. Carlson identified Korn/Ferry as the external agency that will be providing help with the presidential search.  They are a well-respected search firm whose database includes many individuals with qualifications suitable for university presidencies.  They will also assist in the advertising and recruitment campaigns.   

Particular qualifications that might be rising to the top of the Search Committee’s expectations were the subject of a question by Prof. Lynch.  Prof. Carlson replied that the selection criteria assembled by the selection committee are a laundry list and nothing more.  That having been said, he further elaborated that feedback from university constituencies suggests to the committee that the successful candidate will be a talented advocate capable of appealing to broad constituencies.  Furthermore, although the Regents have not specifically identified these qualities as necessary in a successful candidate, he believed that they will probably endorse these criteria as well. 

In his closing remarks Prof. Carlson expressed his satisfaction that Regent’s President Owen Newlin and the Board of Regents Office have been assuring that the campus remains involved in the presidential search, an involvement that could be overridden by State statue wherein the Board of Regents technically control the process of the selection of university presidents.  In reflecting over some of the opening questions regarding the search process Prof. Carlson also suggested that now is a good time to think about the procedures for the next presidential search.  He solicited future comments on this topic as well as any others related to the Committee’s efforts and offered to consider them all in making recommendations to the Board of Regents.  

IV.       Unfinished Business 

A.        Proposal for the Academy of Distinguished Teachers (Roberta Marvin) (Attachment 4) 

President Cox next introduced Roberta Marvin, Chair of the Ad Hoc Faculty Senate Committee to Establish an Academy of Distinguished Teachers.  His introductory comments reminded the Council that the Faculty Council had previously considered several versions of this proposal and Prof. Marvin’s return was to respond to the criticisms of the last proposal presented in the Spring of 2002.  President Cox also reminded the Council of the Provost’s commitment to help fund such an organization.  Prof. Marvin limited her introductory comments to a summary of the concerns that had been previously expressed by council regarding eligibility for membership, membership terms and the apparent conflict between the honorific nature of the Academy versus the possibility of its membership causing an increase individual faculty member’s service commitments.  Each of these points was addressed in the proposal provided to the councilors in advance of this meeting.  Prof. Marvin indicated that the intent of the committee during the revision process was to preserve the spirit of camaraderie and celebration at the heart of the proposal.  Thereafter Prof. Marvin responded to a series of questions indicating that:  1) membership is intended to be permanent; 2) the Academy of Distinguished Teachers has the full endorsement of the Council on Teaching; 3) the administrative board of the Academy of Distinguished Teachers will be separate from the Council on Teaching because it cannot be assured that all Council on Teaching members would be members of the Academy of Distinguished Teachers; 4) the responsibilities of the Board would be the selection of membership, control over funds allocated to the academy and activities that would serve to identify, contact and designate new members of the Academy.  At the conclusion of these remarks Prof. Magnum offered a motion to endorse the revised proposal and send it to the Faculty Senate for additional discussion and/or endorsement.  Prof. Marra seconded the motion and it was met with unanimous approval.  At the conclusion of this vote Fred Antczak, Associate Dean in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences asked if lifetime membership in the Academy of Distinguished Teachers might place the Academy in a less than distinguished position should the behavior of any of its members be incongruous with the goals and aspirations of the Academy itself.  Prof. LeBlond began the process of exploring this with the question regarding whether or not the Academy of Distinguished Teachers would establish its own bylaws.  If so, one of their initial duties might be to include provisions in the bylaws that would specifically address concerns over faculty activities that might not reflect well on its goals.  Prof. LeBlond opined that it would be reasonable to assume that this group would want to create a process in defense of its own reputation and Prof. Lynch agreed.  President Cox identified Council on Teaching as the overseeing organization with the responsibility for approving the Academy of Distinguished Teachers’ bylaws.  Not only did Prof. Marvin agree but she also speculated that a time might rise in the future when the Council on Teaching would actually draw its membership directly from the Academy of Distinguished Teachers.  The final question in exploration of the administrative structure was to whom the Council on Teaching reports.  It is a charter committee with elected membership, and Associate Provost Lola Lopes is the administrative liaison.   Prof. LeBlond motioned and Prof. Lynch seconded a proposal that the bylaws of the Board of the Academy of Distinguished Teachers be subject to approval of the Council on Teaching.  Assoc. Provost Clark interjected that the term “bylaws” is inappropriate for an organization that is not functionally independent and Counsel Schantz offered a friendly amendment that “operating” or “written procedures” be substituted for the word bylaws in the motion.  At this suggestion the motion was amended to state that the Academy of Distinguished Teachers, through its Board, shall develop policies and procedures subject to the approval of the Council on Teaching.  The motion passed with unanimous approval.  At the conclusion of the vote President Cox thanked Roberta Marvin and her committee members, Christi Ferguson, Susan Lawrence, Irwin Levin, Tom Rocklin and Amitava Bhattacharjee, ex officio for their work.  

V.        Approvals (delayed)

A.        Minutes – Faculty Council, April 16, 2002 (Attachment 1) 

Profs. Raymond, Clark and Lynch identified the need for numerous, non-substantive, revisions in the minutes.  A motion was put forth by Prof. Raymond that the minutes be approved subject to the non-substantive revisions to be provided Secretary Porter.  Prof. Woodhead seconded the motion and it passed with unanimous approval.  

B.         Proposed Senate Agenda – September 24, 2002 (Attachment 2) 

Unanimous approval was given to the proposed agenda following a motion by Prof. Lynch that was seconded by Prof. Bhattacharjee. 

 C.        Approval of Recommended Replacements (Attachment 3) 

President Cox indicated that an honest mistake had occurred in nominating a replacement for Prof. Aikin on the Faculty Council.  Two individuals, Profs. Randell and Mallik had both been nominated and had agreed to serve.  Prof. Bhattacharjee advised the Council that Prof. Mallik had indicated her willingness to graciously decline her nomination in light of the error in process.  At this the Council unanimously agreed to accept Prof. Randell as a replacement for Prof. Aikin on the Faculty Council following a motion by Prof. Tachau and a second by Prof. Mangum.  Prof. Raymond then motioned for approval of the corrected set of proposed replacements, Prof. Lynch seconded the motion and unanimous approval was given to the motion.  At that President Cox expressed thanks on behalf of the Council to Profs. Berman and Raymond for their work in providing the proposed replacements for its consideration 

VI.       Reports (delayed) 

A.        Report of Faculty Senate President (Jeff Cox) 

President Cox notified the Faculty Council the Senate Office had a particularly busy summer in that it moved its residency from the IMU to the Jefferson Building.  This disruptful move was deftly handled by Julie Thatcher and President Cox expressed his deep appreciation to Julie on behalf of the entire Senate.  

President Cox then presented to the Faculty Council a list of topics that will be discussed at the Council and the Senate in the upcoming year(s).  The items include:  1) the research track faculty report; 2) a proposal to create a joint faculty and staff budget committee (This proposal was developed by Ex-President Coleman and has been approved by the Staff Council.  Its result will be the abolition of the Faculty Senate Budget Committee.); 3) the proposal of an ad hoc committee charged by the VP for Research with developing changes in University policies regarding patents and copyrights; 4) of the proposal of the Dispute Resolution Committee to change the university policy on violence in the workplace; 5) the proposal of the Human Rights Committee to change the university policy harassment; 6) the creation and report of a committee to review procedures governing the promotion of clinical track faculty; 7) a review of the procedures governing promotions and tenure policy.  Prof. Bhattacharjee reminded the Council that the original draft proposal of changes to the Budget Committee arose out of work of the University Faculty Senate.  It was the final version of the proposal that arose out of work by Ex-President Coleman and the Vice Presidential group.  In response to a question as to whether or not the office of the Vice-President and General Counsel was up for review this year President Cox provided an affirmative answer.  In addition he noted that the reviews of the offices of Vice President Jones and True are on the University web site and the review of the provost’s office will be posted soon.  

VII.      Unfinished Business (delayed) 

A.        Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) Faculty Action on Athletic Issues (Attachment 5) 

President Cox introduced this topic by stating that there was no action proposed.  The item was placed on the agenda for two reasons:  1) time already spent in its discussion; 2) the November meeting of the Faculty Senate leaders of the CIC is upcoming and will be devoted exclusively to athletic issues.  (The athletic directors of the participating institutions are also expected to attend.)  Prof. Eno, President of the Faculty Senate Leadership Group of the CIC has been in contact with President Cox and has requested additional input on the revisions made by the council to the CIC proposal previously discussed at the Faculty Council and Faculty Senate during the late spring of 2002.  He reminded the Council that one specific request that arose out our deliberations was that the Board in Control of Athletics report back to the Faculty Senate in the 2003 academic year on four areas of concern.  These include: 1) what general funds of the State have been used to support the athletic department and why; 2) what steps have been taken to reduce inappropriate commercialization of athletics including (but not limited to) a reduction in the use of corporate logos on University athletic equipment and uniforms; 3) what steps have been taken locally and/or nationally to reduce the “arms” race between institutions over facilities and coaches’ salaries; 4) what steps have been taken locally and/or nationally to eliminate alcoholic beverage advertising on radio and television broadcasts of UI athletic events?  In spite of vigorous senate and council discussion during the spring over area of concern #3 above, during the summer months of 2003 substantial athletic salary increases were made by central administration.  Anticipating a discussion over these changes, Nick Colangelo, the chair of BiCOA, was invited to attend today’s meeting.  In response to a question by Prof. Bhattacharjee, Prof. Colangelo indicated that BiCOA was not consulted on salary policies that were established over the summer but felt strongly that they should have been and that they should be involved in future salary discussions.  A tight relationship between BiCOA and the University of Iowa Faculty Senate is Chair Colangelo’s strong desire and he intends for there to be a productive discussion over the issues addressed by the Faculty Senate and Council in the CIC modifications.  Chair Colangelo reflected that we need to learn when we can say no to the “arms” race in collegiate athletics.  Although it was not a race started by the University of Iowa he stated that we created a very good example of the nature of this problem over the summer.  In its capacity as an advisory body, BiCOA would be in a good position to make recommendations regarding salaries to the Office of the President as well as the athletic program if it were only asked to participate in these discussions.  He also reminded the council that many forces converge at the point of decision making regarding athletic salary policies and some are frankly better appreciated than others.  Examples include not only BiCOA and the University of Iowa Senate, but also include powerful on and off campus forces that believe that keeping a coach and his or her associated staff is a more cost effective arrangement than replacing them over salary disputes.  An additional force that enters the discussion is the idea that if athletic programs are capable of bringing money in to the University and its local the community, they should be offered the ability to build on this capability.  At this point Vice President and General Counsel Schantz reflected that he is pleased that faculty are directly involved in discussions regarding athletics.  He summarized the salary structures of the three coaches in “revenue” sports as being very complex and the result of a series of decisions made with the participation of the president and the athletic director.  He brought to the table the difficult reality that in order for athletics to be self-supporting the “revenue” sports will have to grow.  He concluded his remarks by reaffirming his commitment to discuss details regarding athletic salary structures directly with the Council and Senate.  

Prof. Tachau spoke passionately regarding the distribution of monies to athletic programs.  She recommended the book Game of Life:  College Sports and Educational Values by James Shulman and William Bowen, the former president of Princeton University.  In this text there is a persuasive argument presented that successful football teams are more expensive to their parent institution than losing football teams.  In a report prepared by the University of Iowa and presented to the Board of Regents this past spring, the athletic programs at the University of Iowa are identified as not being self-supporting (the report can be found on the Regent’s web site).  In light of cuts that have, for example, eliminated the budget of the medical museum, Prof. Tachau suggested that we look at ways to use our limited revenues differently in the context of sports programs.  She concluded these comments by suggesting that change in the budget of the medical museum as well as a reduction university support for university performances, may actually be out of line with the centrally espoused proposal to target budget cuts in light of the university strategic plan.  Prof. Bhattacharjee reminded the councilors that at the time of last discussion of the CIC Resolution on Intercollegiate Athletics at the Faculty Senate, the suggestion was made to completely eliminate the delivery of general fund monies to the athletic departments.  The leadership of the University then suggested that the University of Iowa was already ahead of the curve in trying to limit the “arms” race.  Prof. Bhattacharjee was sorely disappointed that the actions of this past summer were clearly against the spirit of the CIC resolution and occurred even though the central university administration verbally espoused its embrace.  He ultimately requested reconsideration of the CIC resolution on intercollegiate athletics.  At the conclusion of Prof. Bhattacharjee’s remarks Vice President and General Counsel Schantz reminded the faculty councilors that it is very costly to the University to replace a coach and in light of this it would be difficult to suggest that the University of Iowa participation in the “arms race” over the course of the summer was “major”. 

Prof. Lynch suggested that the Faculty Council find a broader context for further discussion of this issue.  It was his view that it should be how one handles a large revenue generating business in the context of a broader university budget.  He elaborated that issues of athletics suitable for discussion within this context would be their actual role within a university, the morality surrounding athletic salaries and delineation of actual funds flow in athletics.  In illustration of the need for such information, Prof. Lynch offered that not all funds that flow to a given unit are directly available to the general university (e.g., grant dollars). 

Prof. Mangum turned the discussion to that of general funds allocation to the athletics programs.  She reminded the council that previous discussions in the senate and in the council were influenced by the belief that maintaining general funds allocations to the athletics programs would assure that the larger university community would continue to remain participants in discussions of its finances.  The activities of the Summer of 2002 made many faculty feel without agency in these decisions.  She and Prof. Lynch drove the line of discussion that developed the premise that a year-by-year description of general funds allocation to athletics is unhelpful if the goal of the analysis is to understand the return on investment.  If a larger time frame is examined, it should be possible to generate data on what we have bought for the general funds dispensation as well as project where we might be going with future allocations of these precious monies.  With additional discussion Prof. Tachau pleaded that we must be careful that we do not use this discussion and these arguments to start thinking of non-self-supporting units as if they should be self-sustaining.  In particular she hopes that we do not think of intramural sports as a business.  

At the conclusion of this lengthy discussion agreement was reached that we would use our relationship with the CIC to generate points of emphasis between universities at the same time that we will continue to establish a working relationship with BiCOA.  It was agreed that de-escalation of the “arms” race and discussion the specifics of budgetary constraints at the University of Iowa would require input from central administration and input and leadership from the athletic director and the Board of Regents.  The Council agreed that Bob Bowlsby and Betsy Altmaier would be appropriate individuals to invite to the Faculty Council for additional discussion.  

VIII.     Announcements 

A.        University Convocation 

The University convocation will occur on October 1, 2002.  The Michael Brody Award will be given at that time.  

B.         Next Council and Senate Meetings 

The next meeting of the University of Iowa Faculty Senate will occur on September 24, 2002 in the Lucas Dodge Room (IMU 256).  The next Faculty Council meeting will occur on October 1, 2002 at 3:30 PM in the Penn State Room (IMU 337). 

IX.       Adjournment 

In the absence of additional discussion President Cox adjourned the meeting at 5:15 PM.