The University of Iowa
October 1, 2002
pm – 5:15 pm
State Room #335 Iowa Memorial Union
Dove, Rebecca Hegeman, Ronald Herman, Richard LeBlond, Patrick Lloyd, Teresa
Mangum, Kim Marra, Sue Moorhead, Richard Randell, Shelton Stromquist, Katherine
Tachau, Paul Weller, John Westefeld
Lynch, Mazen Maktabi
Senate Officers in Attendance:
Jeffrey Cox, President; Margaret Raymond, Vice President; Craig Porter,
Secretary; Amitava Bhattacharjee, Past President
Kristen Wade (Student), Tom Walsh (Iowa City Gazette), Charles Drum
(University Relations), Jon Whitmore (Office of the Provost), Chris Squier
(Office of the Provost), Jim Andrews (Emeritus), Al Hood (Emeritus Faculty
Council), Heather Woodward (Press Citizen), Paul Muhly (Budget Committee), V.C.
Patel (Engineering), Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost), Jim Spratt
(Emeritus), Peter Rubenstein (Biochemistry), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by President Jeff Cox at 3:35 pm.
alerted the Council membership that President Boyd had requested that new
business item IV.A, Proposal for Research Faculty Track (Attachment 4) be
removed for consideration and discussion at this Faculty Council meeting.
His request was relayed through the Provost to President Cox.
The request engendered much discussion.
requested clarification as to the reason for withdrawal and therefore the status
of the report. Provost Whitmore
identified concern that there had been a lack of opportunity for broad
discussion at the collegiate and unit levels and that this lack of local
discussion will be an impediment to an informative discussion at the present
time. In addition Provost Whitmore
identified a lack of compelling reason for the discussion to happen at the
present time. It was thus that the
recommendation to President Cox was made to withdraw this agenda item with the
expectation that prior to its reintroduction there would be an opportunity for
campus wide discussion. Provost
Whitmore was clear in his intent to bring this item back to the Council and to
the Senate for full and open discussion in the future.
Immediate Past President Bhattacharjee suggested a different approach.
He expressed his belief that since the Council membership had had the
opportunity to study the proposal that a discussion within the council chambers
might be beneficial. In deference
to the request from the president through the provost, however, he further
suggested that following discussion the Council could agree not to proceed with
any action. Provost Whitmore
responded that there was certainly no reason that the proposal could not be
talked about but agreed, for the reasons noted above, it would be prudent to
avoid action. He further reminded
the councilors that when the report was requested by then-President Mary Sue
Coleman and Vice President Skorton that their charge to the committee was to
provide an opinion regarding the feasibility of further pursuit of a research
track faculty. The report was
received in the spring of 2002 but because of the already-packed Senate and
Council agendas the discussion of the report was delayed until the present time. In listening to concerns and opinions expressed publicly and
in private by their faculty colleagues, however, it has become clear to members
of the central administration that inadequate lead time has been left for the
development of an informed discussion amongst the members of the faculty
advised her fellow councilors that there was wisdom in each attempting to seek
an informed view from their constituents. Prof.
Herman questioned whether it might be valuable to discuss this in some detail in
council in order to better inform the discussion with the councilors’
constituents. Emeritus Prof. Spratt,
a guest of the Faculty Council, shared the recollection that approximately 30
years ago then President Willard “Sandy” Boyd “put out a dictum that there
be no more research professors on campus”.
His question followed that why had this not been included in the
materials distributed for further discussion?
Prof. LeBlond was interested in pursuing a discussion in order that the
councilors be alerted to potential problems with the proposal and, as such, be
better prepared for future discussions.
President Cox, attempting
to refocus the matter before the councilors, reminded them that the proposal he
made was to remove this item from today’s agenda only as an attempt to
postpone the discussion for a later date. In
response to a question from Prof. Dove he reiterated that the intent of the
request included bringing the item back for full discussion before the Council
and the Senate. Following
additional, non-informative discussion, Prof. LeBlond moved removal of item IV.A.
from the agenda as an action item. Prof.
Tachau seconded the motion. Following
additional brief discussion the motion passed by unanimous vote.
then asked that the Council consider the postponement of the approval of the
Faculty Senate agenda at this meeting. Permission
was granted for this request.
Minutes – Faculty Council September 10, 2002 (Attachment 1)
Bhattacharjee moved and Prof. Westefeld seconded approval of the minutes.
A unanimous vote was received.
Proposed Senate Agenda – October 15, 2002 (Attachment 2)
Approval of Recommended Replacements (Attachment 3)
moved that the Faculty Council endorse the Faculty Senate committee replacements
as recommended by the Committee on Committees and that it be forwarded to the
Faculty Senate for approval. Following
a second by Prof. Dove the motion passed by unanimous vote.
Report of the Faculty Senate President (Jeff Cox)
President Cox reported
that the Governmental Relations Committee met with President Boyd.
At their meeting President Boyd took the opportunity to review his
ambitious plans to reach out to constituencies in concert with our sister
regents institutions. He further
reported that the Governmental Relations Committee and Faculty Senate Officers
would be meeting with Governor Vilsak on October 4, 2002.
Vice President Raymond requested that in advance of this meeting the
councilors provide the Faculty Senate officers with anecdotal evidence of the
impact of the budgetary cutbacks that have occurred over the last 2 or so years.
Prof. Mangum responded with a report of three students who had been
forced to withdraw from enrollment at the University of Iowa because of fiscal
considerations related to tuition increases driven by the budgetary cutbacks.
In addition to the upcoming meeting with the Governor of the State of
Iowa, President Cox also identified a Governmental Relations Committee sponsored
forum with our local legislators.
then occurred of some interim discussions regarding athletic department support.
President Cox had been asked to comment to TV channel 7 on the suggestion
that the athletic department should be self-supporting.
This topic was also addressed at a budget meeting in which President Cox
reported that Vice Presidents True and Schantz expressed some disagreement
regarding whether or not the increases in coaches salaries that were approved
over the course of this past summer were generated from self-supporting revenue
sources. The conclusion of this
discussion was that there would be distribution of detailed athletic department
budget information at a future budget meeting.
Proposal for Research Faculty Track (Attachment 4)
Research Track Faculty Table (Attachment 5)
AAUP Response (Attachment 6)
Statement of Tenure and Academic Vitality (Attachment 7)
reintroduced discussion of the proposal for the research faculty track, taking
the opportunity to remind the councilors that no action was contemplated.
In response to an opening question, President Cox indicated that the
reports referred to as Attachments 4-7 could be found on the Faculty Senate web
page under the October 1 agenda. Provost
Whitmore added that his office would assure that there would be widespread
distribution of the URL for the aforementioned reports via e-mail.
Representing the Research Faculty Track committee, Prof. Squier was given
the opportunity to address the Council. He
indicated a willingness to respond to questions, but began by informing the
Council that the primary impetus for the request that such a track be considered
came directly from research scientists themselves.
Their request, in turn, was strongly supported by the Colleges of
Medicine and Engineering. Because
the request seemed to come from a relatively defined part of the university, the
committee members who were appointed to consider this request were drafted in
order to provide broad representation from all portions of the university. The conclusion of that committee was that there was
sufficient merit to the proposal that it be given further consideration.
of the College of Engineering voiced his surprise at the tone of and editorial
response to the recent article on the research faculty track proposal in the
Iowa City Press Citizen. His
surprise derived from the lack of a campus-wide discussion before this issue
appeared in the press. As such, and
having listened to the opening comments of the Council and guests on the merits
of taking action on this proposal, he supported the concept of wider discussion
prior to action. Indeed, he
indicated that his own College of Engineering had yet to discuss the merits, or
lack thereof, of this proposal. In
his view, the discussion needs to be informed by the reality that the paradigm
of research is rapidly changing and the university needs to explore mechanisms
of increasing flexibility to respond to this paradigm shift.
Prof. Dove, a Faculty Council member from the College of Engineering,
echoed Prof. Patel’s comments by suggesting that he had no idea whether his
fellow engineering faculty were supportive of the proposal.
identified that on page five of the proposal there was a comment that the total
number of research scientists was expected to be small and wondered the source
of that comment. Prof. Squier
responded by identifying that it was primarily administrators in the colleges
who would be responsible for appointing the research-track faculty that expected
that the number would be small and that this likely would reflect the current
reality of the small number of research scientists currently appointed in
various colleges. Prof. Tachau
wondered before the Council whether or not this expectation might be borne out,
pointing out that it might become an irresistible temptation to expand the
number of research faculty should the proposal ultimately achieve approval.
This question prompted a review of the way that the clinical track
expansion has occurred. Its cap and the fact that its use and faculty numbers
parallel those of other institutions with similar tracks was discussed.
Prof. Lloyd suggested the wisdom of using the promotions model proposed
for the clinical track faculty as a point of discussion for advancement of
research faculty. In response to a
request that the Council have further discussion of the history of the research
scientists on campus as reviewed by Emeritus Prof. Spratt, Prof. Porter reminded
the councilors that there was little relationship between the university
research enterprise of 30 years ago to that of today and thought that there
would be no need to do so.
Bhattacharjee questioned the need for reclassification of individuals as
research scientists when there were many people in research programs currently
appointed as P&S staff. Associate
Provost Clark responded that the psychology of reclassification would certainly
be important. In addition, the
supervisory and administrative structures for P&S staff are substantially
different from those for faculty. Furthermore
there are rigid salary tables for P&S staff that may be inappropriate for
successful research faculty members. Prof.
Bhattacharjee recounted his personal experience in the supervision of six
P&S research scientists in his interdisciplinary center.
It was his opinion that salary ranges have never seemed problematic in
their appointment and that these individuals were treated with such respect that
the psychological need for reclassification did not, again in his opinion,
exist. Prof. Tachau and Emeritus
Prof. Spratt echoed the sentiment that the circumstances of the university
remain constant even though the research paradigm is shifting.
Prof. Porter reminded the councilors of the fact that the university
strategic plan calls for increase in interdisciplinary efforts and that a move
toward the creations of multiple research institutes would be one way that such
interdisciplinary desires could be met. He
further opined that such institutes could lend themselves to areas wherein
research faculty could make enormous contributions to the betterment and welfare
of the university. In addition the
current P&S appointments have precluded certain productive members of our
current research community from being able to compete successfully for NIH or
other governmental funding opportunities.
Rubenstein of the College of Medicine reiterated the need for a broad-based
discussion. He questioned the
wisdom of expanding the ranks of non-teaching faculty at a time when our budget
is being cut repeatedly and we have suggested to the Regents and the public at
large that our ability to teach is being compromised by budgetary shortfalls.
In a somewhat
delayed response to Past-President Bhattacharjee’s comments, Prof. Patel
offered that a fundamental difference between those individuals appointed in
P&S positions and those appointed as research faculty would be their need
for supervision. Appointment as a
research faculty member in his opinion would be one way to recognize the
independent nature of the partnership of these faculty with tenure-track faculty
and, as such, help to assure success of the research enterprise.
He emphasized the independent nature of research faculty and by
way of illustration he reminded the councilors that assistant professors do not
work for associate professors any more than research faculty should be
expected to work for tenure track faculty.
This reality drives the distinction between the sorts of individuals who
would be appointed to this classification and also emphasizes their ability to
add to the university. In
recognition of the fact that different areas of the university have very
different needs and that the creation of a research track could have potentially
corrosive effects in some portions of the university, Prof. Magnum asked how we
might have a discussion about proposals that are meant to impact specific areas
when the policy will be a broad policy that could effect all units of the
university. Prof. Patel responded
with the suggestion that members of the department should be viewed as part of a
team and that it is also important to remember that it is increasingly difficult
to find funding sources that support the formal prototype of “one faculty
member plus two graduate students for $70,000.
Stromquist asked for help in interpreting the data included in Attachment 5.
His interpretation of the data suggested that the more prestigious CIC
institutions have not created such tracks and wondered why they would be
included as evidence for extra-institutional support for the concept.
Prof. Bhattacharjee asked the councilors why it is that we can’t
perform the functions of the research faculty track within the constraints of
systems currently in existence. Prof.
LeBlond responded to Prof. Bhattacharjee’s question by asking the additional
question of whose problem we are trying to solve with this proposal. It was his opinion that individual problems would not be
solved by the proposal but that the faculty as a whole and the university might
benefit from the proposal. Because
the psychological impact of appointment as a research faculty member would be
seen as an individual problem, it was Prof. LeBlond’s opinion that this
rationale for the creation of a research faculty track was not compelling.
Similarly, his view of the personal nature of the argument that the
proposal would be advantageous in obtaining funding was also not compelling.
Those arguments that rise to the level of being important, in his
opinion, had to do with: the availability of faculty lines in an environment
where they would otherwise be unavailable; the importance of a different
administrative hierarchy with different expectations for these faculty, and the
individual faculty standing and participation in unit enterprises.
In summation Prof. LeBlond suggested that these three latter
considerations of significant importance should be the focus for further
discussion. With respect to
discussions regarding the ultimate size of the group of research faculty, Prof.
LeBlond reminded the councilors that we all have a poor ability to predict the
future and that the focus of our discussion should be on the principals that
will guide the needs and help to define the roles of such faculty.
At this point
in the discussion Associate Provost Clark identified the fact that faculty
retention is related to psychologic and salary issues.
Furthermore under current systems of classification salary is, indeed,
capped by title. Associate Provost
Clark also responded to Prof. Stromquist’s previous assessment of the data
provided as Attachment 5. Her
interpretation of that data would suggest that our peer institutions are all
struggling with this very question. She
further elaborated that there are many institutions of great prestige that have
research faculty but a decision was made that since the committee could not
sample all institutions to eliminate selection bias in their report, they would
restrict their sampling activities to CIC institutions.
In conclusion of this discussion there was unanimous agreement that item
II.C., the proposed senate agenda for October 15, 2002, would not include a
discussion of the research faculty track until such a time as there could be
robust collegiate and other unit-level discussion of this important topic.
Proposal for Faculty Senate/Staff Council Budget Committee (Attachment 8)
President Cox provided
background with respect to this agenda item.
A draft proposal was written by Mary Sue Coleman last spring according to
his rendition and that draft was created with input from the Faculty Senate. Subsequently the Staff Council adopted the proposal.
Discussion at the Senate level added one item to the proposal and that
was item #6, which envisions the possibility of the creation of subcommittees,
whose membership could be restricted to either faculty or staff.
Endorsement of this draft proposal would involve the elimination of the
Faculty Senate Budget Committee. President
Cox envisioned that should the proposal not be endorsed by the Faculty Senate
that combined budget meetings may continue by invitation.
He concluded his remarks before opening the topic for discussion by
reminding the Council that the chair of the Faculty Senate Budget Committee is
currently appointed by the Faculty Senate president. In the proposal for a combined budget committee the chair
will be appointed by the president of the university.
Prof. LeBlond initiated
Council discussion by requesting input from the Budget Committee chair. In response, Prof. Muhly added to the history of the proposal
previousl7 provided by President Cox. To
his recollection, the proposal for a combined budget committee was an outgrowth
of the Carlson Report. In his then
role as Senate President, Prof. Bhattacharjee responded to this report and
provided a rough draft of a proposal for a new budget committee which
subsequently was revised by then President Mary Sue Coleman. In Prof. Muhly’s opinion the charge to the Senate Budget
Committee and the charge to the proposed combined committee are essentially
identical. In reality, however, the
Senate Budget Committee really didn’t follow its charge in Prof. Muhly’s
opinion. The Carlson Report
identified the fact that the Senate Budget Committee needed to be more involved
in comprehensive budget planning. The
proposed combined committee envisions the opportunity to provide direct
budgetary planning advice to the president.
Prof. Tachau questioned whether item I.A. restricted the scope of the
committee. Prof. Muhly’s response
was that it did and in his opinion should be removed. He reminded the councilors that the general education fund
comprises approximately 20% of the university budget. In the ensuing discussion regarding item I.A. a suggestion
was provided by the Senate President that the “and” on the third line could
be changed to “as well as other”. Prof.
Tachau suggested that the term “general fund” be stricken from I.A. and that
item #6 be changed to include co-chairs. Prof. Raymond suggested that this
proposal was driven by the specific desires of a specific president and that
those specifics have changed subsequently.
For this set of reasons she did not see a specific indication for
changing the process, which is currently in place.
gently corrected Profs. Muhly and Cox’s history of this proposal.
In doing so, he expressed his doubts as to the wisdom of creating a
combined committee. He suggested to
the councilors that the Carlson Report did not specifically recommend a combined
budget committee but did discuss such a possibility. His recollection was that the proposal was driven by
President Coleman’s desire to give additional voice to the staff members of
the University. One reason to
combine the budget committee would be to cut down the time commitment involved
in budgetary planning. However the
combined committee as currently envisioned would be too large and because of the
potential for many differing views being expressed in a large committee could
ultimately have the effect of cutting down the impact of the budget committee in
budget planning as well as increase the time commitment of its members.
In its combined configuration it was Prof. Bhattacharjee’s opinion that
the committee had become substantially less functional.
Prof. LeBlond offered that a way to improve the impact of the committee
would be to lengthen the term of the committee members.
In Prof. Porter’s absence, Prof. Raymond
continued to record the minutes.
Muhly, chair of the Faculty Senate Budget Committee, commented that he
remembered Prof. Bhattacharjee’s comment that he had visited the University of
Minnesota and that there you could walk into the office of the President of the
Faculty Senate and open the university budget, and he could tell you all you
need to know. That would be
Prof. Mangum noted that she felt she
did not have a strong understanding of what is involved in the budget committee.
She believed it would be important to meet with Jon Carlson and others
who have served on the budget committee so we could get input about what would
make the committee work best.
President Cox noted that we could adopt
the proposal, could vote it down, or could table it for further discussion at
the Nov. 12 meeting. Prof.
Stromquist voted to table the proposal, Prof. Mangum seconded.
The council voted unanimously to table the proposal.
President Cox then noted that this left no agenda items for discussion
at the next scheduled Faculty Senate meeting.
He asked whether the meeting should be canceled unless Pres. Boyd,
legislators, or others wished to speak with the Senators. The matter was
discussed. Pres. Cox decided he
would use his discretion to shape the agenda for the Senate meeting or to cancel
it. Ron Herman suggested that it
might be a good opportunity for an open discussion on the research professor
proposal, and Jeff Cox indicated that he would consider that.
Prof. LeBlond noted that it would be
useful to obtain a written report from the Faculty Senate Budget Committee on
the committee's views of the budget proposal, a thought piece about what the
problems are and how the proposal speaks to those problems.
Meeting adjourned by consensus at 5:20
Craig C. Porter, MD Margaret Raymond, JD
Secretary, University of Iowa Faculty Senate Secretary Pro Tem