The
University of Iowa
FACULTY SENATE
December
4, 2001
100
Phillips Hall
Members
Present: J.
Aikin, J. Berg, D. Bills, P. Chang, D. DeJong, C. Dungy, L. Dusdieker, B.
Fallon, L. Geist, R. Hamot, J. Jew, V. Kumar, S. Kurtz, K. Marra, A. McCarthy,
J. Menninger, R. Miller, S. Moorhead, B. M uller, G. Parkin, A. Qualls, M.
Raymond, C. Ringen, T. Schmidt, H. Seaba, L. Snetselaar, C. Sponsler, W.
Stanford, S. Stromquist, K. Tachau, L. Troyer
Members
Absent: K.
Abdel-Malek, J. Altman, N. Bauman, C. Berman, T. Boles, R.Bork, M. Browning, H.
Cowen, K. Diffley, V. Grassian, R. Hegeman, R. Hurtig, M. Klepser, S. Larsen, J.
P. Long, T. Mangum, J. Moyers, W. Nixon, I. Nygaard, T. O’Dorisio,
J. Polumbaum, J. Ringen, P. Rubenstein, R. Slayton, R. Valentine, S.
Vincent, R. Weir, P. Weller
Members
Excused: S.
Armstrong, Z. Ballas, D. Brown, C. Colvin, J. Cowdery, J. Desmond, P. Heidger,
L. Hunsinger, P. Kutzko, R. LeBlond, P. Lloyd, C. Lynch, D. Manderscheid, P.
Muhly, C. Porter, E. Wasserman, J. Westefeld
Faculty
Senate Officers in Attendance: Amitava
Bhattacharjee, President; Jeff Cox, Vice President; Erin Irish, Secretary
Guests:
Jim
Jacobson (Iowa City Gazette), Alan
Nagel (Cinema and Comparative Literature), Heather Woodward (Press-Citizen), Mark Braun (Government Relations), Derek Willard,
Ruth Wachtel (Anesthesia/ AAUP), Jim Andrews (AAUP), Steve Collins (Electrical
Engineering), Vicki Hesli (Faculty Assembly), David Skorton (Research), Bill
Decker (Research), Doug True (Finance), Ted Yanecek (Finance and University
Services), Don Szeszycki (Office of the Provost), Lee Anna Clark (Office of the
Provost), Christopher Squier (Office of the Provost), Julie Thatcher (Faculty
Senate Office), Kristin Clark (Faculty Senate Office), Jael Silliman (Women’s
Studies)
I.
Call to Order
The
meeting was called to order at 3:37.
II.
Approvals
A.
Meeting Agenda
Prof.
Raymond moved and Prof. Miller seconded the following:
Motion:
To approve the revised agenda. The
motion carried.
B.
Minutes
The
minutes were approved by consensus.
C.
Recommended replacements
The
recommended replacements were accepted by consensus.
III.
Reports
A. Report
of the Faculty Senate President (Amitava Bhattacharjee)
President
Bhattcharjee reported to the Faculty Senate how the across-the-board budget cut
from the Governor has been distributed across various units on campus.
He began by reminding the Senate that the cut distributions were governed
by a set of principles that had been established by President Coleman and the
Vice Presidents group, with consultation from the Senate Budget Committee,
chaired by Prof. Muhly. Among the
principles, items 4, 5, and 6, especially the four-year graduation plan, have
been questioned by a number of faculty. Other principles, such as that of
protecting financial aid or the ability to garner external support, have not
been controversial.
President
Bhattacharjee presented a pie chart illustrating the budgeted revenue for the
General Education Fund. The chart
showed that state appropriations are nearly 58% of that budget.
The largest portion of that fund covers salaries.
The General Education Fund is a small part of university budget, in which
the component coming from state appropriations works out to 19%.
President Bhattacharjee observed that this 19% leverages a lot more
income. This money goes a very long
way, yet any reduction will make us less public and more private. Turning to a table showing “Appropriated Units,”
President Bhattacharjee reported on how the $13.3 million cuts had been
distributed among the units. Some
80% of the cuts occurred in the General Education Fund.
He pointed out that this is where we can find the “potholes.”
The
table also listed the strategic plans that will be specifically affected by the
cuts, which were particularly substantial in the both the Office of the Provost
and in the Office of the Vice President for Research, the latter suffering a cut
of $4 million. This forced the Vice President for Research to suspend five of
his six internal competitions. All six are expected to be restored next year, or
else in the long run we lose ability to attract new faculty.
Vice President Skorton added that the decision to suspend was made by him
and Vice President True, and that this action provided a third of the amount
that was needed to cover the budget cut. This
savings of $1.2 million for competitive grants is out of $7 million that his
office provides. Principle 6 had
been written very carefully by President Coleman.
Whether or not to suspend a program depended on two criteria: the least
amount of direct impact on faculty, such as providing summer salary, and having
no effect on the ability “to put grants out the door.”
Vice
President Skorton continued that, as indirect costs are returned in part to
colleges and departments as incentives, there was no sense cutting that. Using
the same reasoning, he has also maintained support for central research
facilities. He also did not touch grant-matching funds, as doing so would
inhibit the ability to submit grants. Bridging
funds (used when a PI loses a grant, barely missed funding, and would be
resubmitting the proposal) were also left untouched.
That left competitive grant programs, such as CIFRE and AHI.
[This year’s AHI funding, which had already been planned, was
maintained (for summer 2003)]. The only impact on faculty subsistence from
cutting CIFRE is funding for summer salaries; however, CIFRE is rarely used for
that. Vice President Skorton admitted that the loss of CIFRE does
affect programs where there is no real source of external funds, adding that
there is no question there is pain on that front. Next year, the Research Council will have a look with his
office at all of the competitive grant programs, and review them to see if they
should be streamlined, lumped into interdisplinary programs, etc.
Prof.
Tachau voiced her concern that, especially in humanities and the arts, there are
aspects of the university that legislatures do not understand.
She asked whether there is a danger that internal competitive grants
won’t be reactivated. Vice President Skorton answered that AHI receives
$60,000 out of the CIFRE fund, adding that the parts of campus that will be hurt
most will be everything except arts and humanities.
Prof. Tachau asked whether the funding will be restored in ’03.
Vice President Skorton responded that whereas they don’t have a budget
yet, it is a very high priority, to President Coleman as well as to his office.
They are working to ensure that there can be close to complete funding
next year. Unfortunately there were three new initiatives that were
pulled only 3 weeks after being announced, thus have no track record, but as
those programs were from faculty initiatives, rather than top down, it is likely
they will be preserved. Other
programs that his office supports have long track records.
President
Bhattacharjee then addressed the four-year graduation plan, explaining his
reasons for supporting it. There is
a strong connection between faculty lines and the budget.
If the four-year plan is taken away, we will lose faculty lines,
especially in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. With budget cuts there
are a number of problems: faculty lines are not filled, and visiting professors are not
hired. Class sizes increase, yet
the TA number does not, and, as a result, assigned work in classes will
decrease. With the four-year
graduation plan, we will not suffer further erosion in numbers of faculty lines.
Also, there is a high correlation between the four-year graduation rate
and quality of a university. Furthermore,
students are already feeling the pain of the cuts.
As we rely more and more on tuition, it is important to provide a quality
product. “Potholes” are not
where one might expect them but they are all over.
Efforts have been made to make them as painless as possible. He finds some consolation in the levels of cuts to college
budgets, which ranged from 1.05-2.96%, which is considerably lower than the
overall cut. Also, library
acquisitions have been preserved.
President
Bhattacharjee then opened the floor to questions. Prof. Tachau, reporting that she had heard that we have lost
170 faculty positions, then asked how many of those were in Liberal Arts. She is
worried about Item 2 of the cuts to the Provost’s Office, a $4.7 million
reduction. It is a question of what
we can afford versus what is needed for quality education and faculty research.
We need to know what we are talking about in the mix of tenure-track and
nontenure-track. Prof. DeJung asked
whether the state and governor has decided what they will do with higher
education. Vice President True,
responding first to Prof. Tachau, said that, assuming there is a turnaround,
they will be using revenues to increase faculty numbers, whether the funds come
from state appropriations or from tuition.
The state revenues do not look good at present, but we will find out more
in January. He is optimistic, as
our local representatives to the state legislature, Joe Bolcolm, Mary Mascher,
Bob Dvorsky, and Dick Myers, did an excellent job in restoring funds after the
governor announced his earlier targeted cuts.
He added that the four-year graduation plan is very popular among Iowans.
Whereas that is not a pedagogical reason, it is an excellent political
reason to protect it. President
Bhattacharjee reported that everyone facing this ordeal has worked with the best
wishes for the university in mind, and urged the Senate to look ahead and move
forward, and to view this current process as one that may guide us through
future catastrophes.
Don
Szeszycki (Office of the Provost) answered Prof. Tachau’s question, reporting
that about 20 faculty positions were lost in Liberal Arts.
Overall, 190 positions, including faculty and staff, have been lost, and
of those, 80 positions were faculty.
B.
Report of the Interdisciplinary Committee on Faculty Issues.
President
Bhattacharjee introduced this discussion by explaining that whereas it came up
at the last meeting of the 2000-2001 Senate, the discussion never ended as the
quorum question had been called. The
discussion was of the Report of Interdisciplinary Committee on Faculty Issues,
the committee having been chaired by Alan Nagel, with Lee Anna Clark serving as
an ex officio member.
Lois Geist was among the committee members.
Now with a new Senate this is technically a new issue.
The Faculty Council has addressed this report already. Appendix A (p. 12)
is now up for further consideration Prof.
Jew asked whether this is a motion or something we can discuss. She offered the following changes in language, which she
hoped would clarify the document without changing its intent.
AMEMDMENTS 1-4:
I.
A unit, with the approval of its dean, or if involving more than one
college the several deans or the appropriate vice president, and the provost,
may make 0% budget, renewable
faculty joint appointments from the university faculty, generally for a term of
one year or longer, not to exceed five years, and
renewable.
II.
A unit, with the approval of its dean, or if involving more than one
college the several deans or the appropriate vice president, and the provost,
may make adjunct (up to 3 years, renewable,
at less than 50%, and renewable) faculty appointments for purposes of
demonstrated teaching or other needs.
III.
A unit, with the approval of its dean, or if involving more than one
college the several deans, or the appropriate vice president, and the provost,
may make renewable, budgeted non-clinical-track,
non-tenure-track faculty appointments, generally for
a term of one year, not to exceed
three years and not renewable after a total employment period of three years.
or longer, for a specified term. Such
appointments may be made only to approved types of non-tenure-track faculty
positions (e.g., lectureships, or visiting appointments).
IV.
A unit, with the approval of its dean, or if involving more than one
college the several deans or the appropriate vice president, and the provost,
may make renewable, budgeted faculty joint appointments from the university faculty,
generally for a term of one year or
longer, not to exceed five years, and
renewable.
Prof.
Nagel acknowledged that at least some of the proposed changes were in the spirit
of what of the committee wanted, and agreed to moving “renewable” in items 1
and 4 if that makes them less ambiguous. He added that the Senate should take the report as a
recommendation from the committee. Prof.
Qualls wanted to know the purposes of Prof. Jew’s changes.
Prof. Jew replied that they would make the language consistent and less
ambiguous. Especially in item 4, it is not clear how renewable the appointment
would be. For item 2, again it would make the language consistent.
With regard to adjunct appointments, Prof. Jew did not understand why one
would not use the same language as used before in talking about a term of one
year. Associate Provost Clark
explained that it was written that way because adjunct positions are made for
up-to-3-year periods. Prof. Nagel added that it would be cumbersome to make
one-year appointments, a burden that speaks against the innovation that should
be encouraged by this document. This
would be especially important for a new unit that is likely to be small.
Prof.
Ringen asked whether Item 4 specified a single term of five years, and that is
it. Associate Provost Clark
responded that no, such a position can be renewed.
Prof. Raymond asked whether term “unit” excludes departments or, if
this report goes forward, it will constrain departments. Prof. Nagel pointed out that, as indicated by the appendix
title, this policy specifically is for nondepartmental units and does not affect
departments. The committee had
tried to diminish the impediments for interdisciplinary activity and the lack of
policy was the biggest impediment.
Prof.
Ringen asked whether the appendix covers all possible appointments, or just the
ones that are listed. Prof. Nagel
replied that it does not try to define new types of appointments that do not yet
exist. Prof. Ringen continued that
this means there are no possible appointments in nondepartmental units. But
there exists such appointments. LSA,
POROI, etc. are nondepartmental units. Prof.
Aiken added that she didn’t understand what a nondepartmental unit is – is
it a departmentalized unit? Prof.
Ringen asked whether accepting the policies described in this report will cause
appointments in an existing nondepartmental unit to become illegal. Associate
Provost Clark answered that it would not. Prof.
Ringen asked her to clarify what is a nondepartmental unit.
Associate Provost Clark directed her to paragraph 2, where it is defined.
She added that there would have to be unit bylaws and a faculty steering
committee that oversees these appointments.
Prof.
Tachau asked whether there is in this report a list of which units count as
nondepartmental units for the sake of reporting to the Regents.
Associate Provost Clark responded that at present there are no
nondepartmental units: the Provost
has not yet approved any. Prof.
Nagel explained that what the committee has done is to specify the procedure.
Associate Provost Clark continued that at present there are no
appointments to nondepartmental units; rather, there are affiliations. LSA is a
departmentalized unit. The point is
to get the horse attached to the cart and get moving.
President
Bhattacharjee thought he was hearing concerns that this report will provide the
flexibility to make appointments that are not currently permitted by the
Operations Manual. Prof. Jew stated
that language is very important, as intent
of the authors of the report may not be clear five years in the future.
President Bhattacharjee asked whether we should just add a sentence to
clarify that the intention is not to make appointments that the Operations
Manual doesn’t allow. Prof. Nagel
added that, given the discussion, paragraph 2 on page 11 is not doing its job.
Prof. Cox suggested a sentence (below) to be added as the third sentence
of that paragraph (before “Unless…”)
Amendment 5:
All
appointments authorized under this section, budgeted or nonbudgeted, must meet
all university policies and procedures governing such appointments, including
limitations on percentage appointment, renewability, and maximum length of
appointment.
Prof
Geist was not sure how this adds to sentence just before it.
She thought that the intent was already specified; but, she had spent a
lot of time with the report. Prof.
Seaba, inquired whether the intent in Item 1 is that one could make an
appointment for one or two or three years, etc., and that appointment could be
renewed? That is, that there would
be no limit to the number of renewals? She
felt that it is still not clear, and suggested that it be stated that the
original appointment could be renewed. Prof.
Nagel suggested inserting a period after “year” and adding the sentence,
“This appointment is renewable.” President
Bhattacharjee asked Prof. Jew whether Prof. Cox’s sentence addressed the
concerns behind her amendments. Prof.
Jew asked whether this section creates another nontenure-track faculty
appointment, and was told that this was not the intent.
Prof. Jew then asked whether these were the only kinds of nontenure-track
appointments. Associate
Provost Clark responded that there are several others, seven altogether, but the
others are rarely used. President
Bhattacharjee added that it seems cumbersome to list them all, and better to
refer to the Operations Manual. He
also thought that while Prof. Geist is correct in finding that Prof. Cox’s new
sentence does repeat, it emphasizes different things, and thus would be useful.
Prof. Tachau suggested that this is not a case of “either/or” with
respect to Profs. Jew and Cox’s amendments, since they both make the document
clearer. She thought that
redundancy is a good thing if it provides clarity, and suggested that we think
of Florida’s election laws and the mess last December.
Prof.
Nagel suggested adding Prof. Cox’s sentence to paragraph 3.
The sentence should make clear that this document does not allow the
creation of a new kind of position that doesn’t already exist.
Prof. Ringen voiced her concern that administrators wouldn’t know what
a nondepartmental unit is.
Prof.
Tachau made moved and Prof. Ringen seconded the following:
MOTION:
To accept the report as amended by Profs. Cox and Jew.
Prof.
Hesli spoke as a member of the Interdisplinary Committee, the only holdover from
the previous Interdisplinary Committee, and Chair of Faculty Assemby in the
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. She
felt that the amendments to Items 2 and 3 do change the document.
She suggested separating them out, as she is in favor of amendments to
Items 1 and 4 but would like those to Items 2 and 3 be considered more
carefully, as those changes would limit renewability.
Prof. Jew agreed to this, as she had unaware that adjunct appointments
could be made for more than 3 years. Associate
Provost Clark clarified that it is the case that visiting
appointments cannot be longer than 3 years, though there are some that have
been grandfathered in. Lectureships
can be indefinite. Prof. Tachau
suggested that she drop the amendment to Item 3 from her motion. Prof. Geist seconded this friendly amendment, and both
Profs. Tachau and Ringen agreed to the friendly amendment. Prof. Ringen asked for a clarification that the vote is on
the amendments only, and that the whole report would be voted on later, which
President Bhattacharjee affirmed.
Amended
MOTION: To accept the amendments proposed by Prof. Jew to Items 1, 2,
and 4 and by Prof. Cox. The
motion carried.
Prof.
Tachau suggested we discuss item 3 at the next meeting.
Prof.
Tachau moved and Prof. Jew seconded the following:
MOTION:
To table the discussion until the next meeting.
Prof.
Nagel then made a point about Item 3: there
are important differences in the Senate about renewable, nontenured
appointments. He suggested that
trying to resolve that in item 3 of this report may be missing the boat, and
that the Senate should be directing itself to this issue in the Operations
Manual, rather than bogging this document down over that broader concern.
Prof. Seaba suggested that as there are seven kinds of appointments that
vary with regard to renewability, they be listed in Item 3.
Associate Provost Clark responded that it is not necessary to get into
that kind of detail for this report. Prof.
Ringen felt that Item 3 looked contradictory and suggested striking “may make
renewable.”
The
motion to table the discussion failed.
Prof.
Ringen moved and Prof. Tachau seconded the following:
MOTION:
To strike “renewable” from the second line of Item 3.
Associate
Provost Clark made the friendly amendment that it be written at the end of the
first paragraph, with “renewable” removed from the first line:
“These
appointments are renewable, if consistent with university policy.”
Prof.
Tachau asked whether we want to specify any limits to such nontenure-track
appointments in nondepartmental units. Associate
Provost Clark responded that this gets at Prof. Nagel’s point, that this is a
larger issue beyond this document.
David
Bills called the question to vote on the amendments. The motion passed.
MOTION
(from above): To accept the amendments. The motion passed.
Prof.
Tachau moved and Prof. Geist seconded the following:
MOTION:
To accept the report as amended. The
motion carried.
IV.
Adjournment
The
meeting was adjourned by consensus at 5:21.
Respectfully
submitted,
Erin
Irish
Secretary
POLICY RECOMMENDATION REGARDING FACULTY APPOINTMENTS TO
NON-DEPARTMENTAL UNITS
A vital part of
University of Iowa traditions has long been the furthering of innovation in
service, teaching, and research. The
University, especially with its increased emphasis on interdisciplinarity,
carries the burden of providing sufficient faculty resources for all academic
units.
To facilitate
appointments in non-departmental units, we recommend the following policy.
FACULTY APPOINTMENTS TO
NON-DEPARTMENTAL UNITS
Appointments in
non-departmental units may serve the needs of students, faculty members, and
academic units alike, both meeting individual needs and recognizing common
interests between units
and departments. Other types of short-term agreements, e.g. "buyouts,"
for a semester or a year also contribute to productive interdisciplinarity
without the formality of appointment.
Non-departmental units
may make faculty appointments, budgeted or
non-budgeted as specified below, for such reasons as specific curricular needs,
special projects such as grant-funded programs, and the regularizing of unit
responsibilities. Such appointments
are subject to all university policies and procedures regarding faculty
appointment and review and must meet the approval of an established
overseeing faculty body of the unit, such as a faculty steering committee or
executive committee, according to the unit by-laws, as approved by its college(s)
and the Office of the Provost. Unless
otherwise specified, all appointments noted below must receive the approval of
the collegiate dean, or if involving more than one college the several deans, or
the appropriate vice president, and the provost.
Budgeted faculty
appointments are usually longer term and may recognize significant divergence
between a faculty member's efforts in a department and those in a
non-departmental unit, for example, interdisciplinary teaching and research.
I.
A unit, with the approval of its dean, or if involving more than one
college the several deans or the appropriate vice president, and the provost,
may make 0% budget, faculty joint
appointments from the university faculty, generally for a term of one year, not
to exceed five years, and renewable.
Terms of such appointments will be set in a letter of agreement, signed
by the faculty member’s DEO, the director of the unit, the dean(s) or vice
president and the faculty member, specifying the faculty member’s privileges
and responsibilities with respect to the unit, frequency and procedures for
review and renewal, allocation of funds, and the expected activities and
percentage of effort allocated to the unit in teaching, research, and service.
II.
A unit, with the approval of its dean, or if involving more than one
college the several deans or the appropriate vice president, and the provost,
may make adjunct (up to 3 years, at
less than 50%, and renewable) faculty appointments for purposes of demonstrated
teaching or other needs.
Terms of such appointments will be set in a letter of agreement, signed
by the appointee’s DEO (if any), the director of the unit, the dean(s) or vice
president, and the appointee, specifying the appointee’s privileges and
responsibilities with respect to the unit, procedures for review and renewal,
allocation of funds, and the expected activities in teaching, research, and
service.
III.
A unit, with the approval of its dean, or if involving more than one
college the several deans, or the appropriate vice president, and the provost,
may make renewable, budgeted non-clinical-track, non-tenure-track faculty
appointments, generally one year or longer, for a specified term. Such appointments may be made only to approved types of
non-tenure-track faculty positions (e.g., lectureships, or visiting
appointments). All appointments authorized under this section, budgeted
or nonbudgeted, must meet all university policies and procedures governing such
appointments, including limitations on percentage appointment, renewability, and
maximum length of appointment.
Terms of such appointments will be set in a letter of agreement, signed
by the director of the unit, the dean[s] or vice president, and the faculty
member, specifying the term of the appointment, the faculty member’s
privileges and responsibilities with respect to the unit, procedures for review
and renewal, allocation of funds, and the expected activities in teaching,
research, and service.
IV.
A unit, with the approval of its dean, or if involving more than one
college the several deans or the appropriate vice president, and the provost,
may make, budgeted faculty joint
appointments from the university faculty, generally for a term of one year, not
to exceed five years, and renewable.
Terms of such appointments will be set in a letter of agreement, signed
by the appointee’s DEO, the director of the unit, the dean[s] or vice
president, and the faculty member, specifying the faculty member's privileges
and responsibilities with respect to the unit, procedures for review and
renewal, allocation of funds, and the expected activities and percentage of
effort allocated to the unit in teaching, research, and service.