The University of Iowa

FACULTY SENATE

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

3:30 pm – 5:15 pm

Terrace Room, 166 IMU

 

Members Present: Judith Aikin, David Asprey, Susan Birrell, Linda Boyle, Garry Buettner, Gloria Bulechek, Micheline Chalhoub-Deville, Jay Christensen-Szalanski, William Clarke, Edwin Dove, David Drake, Michael Flanigan, Sonya Franklin, Richard Fumerton, Jennifer Glass, Frederick Goodman, Judith Heggen, Paul Heidger, Ronald Herman, Julie Hochstrasser, Mark Karwal, Lance Lichtor, Thomas Loew, Philip Lutgendorf, Donald MacFarlane, Usha Mallik, Teresa Magnum, Frank Mitros, James Nepola, Christine Pawley, Beth Pelton, Bradley Phillips, Daniel Quinn, Mary Hall Reno, Catherine Ringen, Thomas Schmidt, Victoria Sharp, Linda Snetselaar, Karin Southard, Janet Specht, Shelton Stromquist, Colby Swan, Downing Thomas, Geb Thomas, Steve Thunder-McGuire, Tuong Ton-That, Steve Vincent, Carolyn Wanat, John Westefeld, Jerold Woodhead, Catherine Woodman

 

Members Absent:, Michael Cohen, Steve Collins, Corey Creekmur, Jane Desmond, Thomas Grabowski, Carin Green, William Johnson, Michael Kelly, Sheldon Kurtz, Kevin Leicht, Mazen Maktabi, Jose Morcuende, Andrew Nugent, Lisa Oakes, Thomas O’Dorisio, Harry Paarsch, Todd Pettys, Gary Russell, William Sharp, Marcia Ward, Paul Weller, Duane Whitaker

 

Members Excused: Sue Moorhead, Craig Porter, Richard Randell

 

Faculty Senate Officers in Attendance: Katherine Tachau, President; Richard LeBlond, Vice President; Claibourne Dungy, Secretary; Margaret Raymond, Past President

 

Guests: Elaine Fabian (Daily Iowan), Kristen Schorsch (Press-Citizen), Kathryn Wynes (Office of the Provost), Grainne Martin (Office of General Counsel), Bruce Wheaton (UI Research Foundation), Gary Pelzer (Office of General Counsel), Eugene Spaziani (EFC), Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost), Lola Lopes (Office of the Provost), Bill Decker (VP Research), Michael Hogan (Provost), Christopher Squier (Office of the Provost), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office)

 

 

I.                   Call to Order

 

Faculty Senate President, Katherine Tachau, called the meeting to order at 2:36pm.

 

II.                Approvals

 

A.                 Agenda

 

Professor Tachau requested permission to alter the order of the New Business items, moving Instructional Technology Fee Parity to ‘A’ and Proposed Policy on Intellectual Property to ‘B’.  This will allow interim VP Decker to be present for the discussion of the intellectual property proposal.  The change in order was accepted by the Senate.

 

B.                 Approval of Minutes

 

Professor Loew moved, second by Professor Dove, to approve the minutes with three corrections offered by Professor Collins.  Approved by voice vote.

 

C. Recommended Replacements

 

Senate Vice President LeBlond presented the recommended committee replacements or appointments to the Senate (attachment 1).  Professor LeBlond moved, second by Professor Loew, to accept the replacements and appointments.  Approved by voice vote.

 

III.             Report: Faculty Senate President, Katherine Tachau

 

Senate President Tachau expressed her concerns about the recent violent attacks on the laboratories and offices of faculty in the Department of Psychology.  She called Senate members’ attention to the draft statement distributed by e-mail and available at the 11/30/04 meeting to be submitted as an ad to local newspapers.  She invited comments from the Senate.  It was recommended that ‘damaging computers’ be replaced with ‘destroying computers’, and ‘releasing research animals’ be changed to ‘removing research animals’.  Professor Bulechek moved, second by Professor Collins, that the Senate pass by voice vote.

 

IV.              New Business 

 

A.                 Instructional Technology Fee Parity

 

Since no representative from the student government was present, Professor Tachau led the discussion on the instructional fee parity resolution.  The University of Iowa Student Government (UISG) recognized a disparity in computing fees of nearly $250 paid by the Colleges of Business and Engineering to slightly more than $100 for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.  There was also concern that course fees have been used to compensate for the shortage in computing fees.  The course fees have placed hidden costs on financial aid packages.  One of the purposes of the resolution is to support the efforts of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences to gain parity with other Colleges at the University in instructional technology fees.  Professor Thunder-McGuire spoke in support of the resolution indicating the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences has an equivalent of only 30 full time equivalent technicians.  This shortage decreases access to technicians and equipment and negatively impacts the teaching and research missions of the faculty.  Professor Glass moved, second by Professor Aiken, that the Faculty Senate endorse the UISG resolution to support instructional technology fee parity across Colleges.  There was considerable discussion among the members of the Senate on how the fees would be dispersed, the impact increased computing fees would have on existing course fees, and whether departments potentially affected by this resolution have been contacted and asked for their input.  There was also discussion whether this was an appropriate item for a Faculty Senate vote since it primarily affected the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.  Associate Provost Lopes stated that this was not an issue that just affected the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, but all undergraduate programs with the exception of Business and Engineering would be affected.  A friendly amendment to alter the motion to “support” the student resolution if endorsed by the affected Colleges was not accepted by Professor Glass.  Several Senate members commented that a Faculty Senate vote endorsing the resolution would be helpful to the University administration in discussions of the resolution at a Board of Regents meeting.  The motion passed by voice vote with one senator voting against the motion.

 

 

 

B.                 Proposed Policy on Intellectual Property

 

President Tachau acknowledged the arrival of Interim Vice President for Research, William Decker and also introduced the Policy on Intellectual Property Committee Co-Chairs, Bruce Wheaton and Grainne Martin.  Before the presentation by Mr. Wheaton, President Tachau presented an overview of issues related to intellectual property (Attachment 2).  She stated that other major concerns of the committee were to “establish good processes involving faculty, staff, and students for administering the policy and good processes, that don’t simply end up where they started, for adjudicating conflict and for grieving decisions.  Those are the concerns underlying the creation of the Intellectual Property Committee and is subcommittees.”

 

Intellectual Property Committee co-chair Wheaton thanked the Senate for the opportunity to bring the revised UI policies on intellectual property to the Senate for their consideration (Attachment 3, PowerPoint presentation).  Mr. Wheaton provided the rationale for undertaking the review and revision of the policy.  Current UI patent policy dates from 1975 and the UI de facto copyright policy dates from 1982.  Since the adoption of the patent and copyright policies, federal laws have changed and there has been an increased use of digital technologies, which challenges the old policies.  Mr. Wheaton acknowledged the members of the committee, Katherine Tachau; Mark Janis, Nancy Baker, Michael Kienzle, Bill Decker, Gary Pelzer, LeeAnna Clark, Grianne Martin and Bruce Wheaton.  He reviewed the actions the committee took to review existing policies at other institutions and agencies and discussed the guiding principles adopted by the committee.  The stakeholders in the policy include University of Iowa faculty, staff, undergraduate, graduate and post-doctoral students, UI academic units and UI administrative units.  Other stakeholders include the scholar and research community and the public at large.

 

Several changes have been made in the intellectual property document since it was last presented to the Senate.  Among the changes are the committees response to the broadly-shared concerns over the “no waiver” language.  The concept was removed from the current draft.  In addition, there was language clarification.  Similarities and differences between the existing and proposed policies were discussed.  Similarities include: allocation of patent ownership is unchanged, the UI/UIRF may take ownership of patents arising from or directly related to UI work by its employees and the process for licensing is unchanged.  Differences include the revenue distributed to individual inventors is increased, a portion of license earnings is directed to the Colleges and the institutions, increased opportunity for faculty/staff input on policy matters via a proposed advisory committee and examples were added to clarify intentions.  The academic principles of copyright and ownership by individuals were retained.  The new policy also clarifies institutional ownership of certain copyright works.

 

Mr. Wheaton noted that situations generating institutional ownership are more clearly defined and divided into two circumstances:  1) works in which UI has direct ownership, and 2) works in which the UI may take ownership.  In case where the University takes ownership of a copyright work, the greater share of eventual revenue is devoted to individual authors.  Examples were added to the policy to clarify intentions. 

 

Concerning the effects of the proposed policy on activities of inventors and authors, Mr. Wheaton stated that inventors are unlikely to perceive changes in normal course of events, though they will receive greater compensation in the event of successes.  Authors are unlikely to perceive changes in the normal course of creative or academic pursuits.  There will be some increased need for authors to consult on handling work that will arise from significant public funding or that are not obviously related to research pedagogy or creative pursuits.  Finally, Mr. Wheaton stated the underlying principles of the proposed policy are carried forward from existing policies.  As a result of the committees activity, there is greater similarity between the proposed UI policies and those of other research institutions.  He also stated there will be opportunity for review and comment by many constituent groups, including Faculty Council/Senate, Staff Council, Student Government, Research Council, Dean’s Group and VP Work Group.  In conclusion, he noted the creation of an advisory body to monitor the efficacy of the policies.  A discussion of the proposed policy ensued.

 

Mr. Wheaton was asked to comment on the similarity of the proposed policy with the policy at other institutions.  He stated that it was difficulty to compare precisely with other institutions because of the many variations in policy, however he felt that the proposed policy was “in the middle of the pack” for distributions.  More people will receive more money under the proposed policy than if the fraction that they received was higher.  Professor Collins raised the question concerning the appeal process.  He noted that there were two avenues for appeal, one which goes through the President and one which does not.  In response to his concern, committee co-chair Martin indicated that there are some issues controlled by contract or law, in which the appeal would go to the President, where other cases would use existing processes.  Associate Provost Clark felt that some processes would bring faculty into the faculty grievance process.  Interim Vice President for Research Decker stated that the concerns from the Senate indicated there was still confusion regarding this section and stated the committee would review and rewrite the section to clarify areas of concern.

 

Professor McFarlane stated a concern that the committee did not include faculty activity engaged in research of patentable products.  He was also concerned that the proposed policy has no philosophical statement addressing over arching principles.  In addition, he was concerned there was nothing in the statement reflecting benefit of the intellectual efforts of faculty to the State of Iowa.  Vice President Decker stated the policy is about an intellectual policy and its protection.  He felt it was inappropriate to extend it to include commercialization of property.  Vice President Decker felt that the issues of commercialization of the product as discussed by Professor McFarlane should be addressed, but as an item separated from the intellectual property policy.  Professor McFarlane disagreed and felt any policy on intellectual property must include a statement of goodness for the State and society.  Professor McFarlane moved, second by Professor Flanigan, to disapprove the proposed intellectual property policy until it contains statements concerning faculty entrepreneurship.  After a spirited discussion, a vote by a show of hands was taken.  11 supported the motion, 34 opposed the motion.  The motion failed.  Professor Ringen moved, second unidentified, to accept the proposed intellectual property policy.  By hand vote, 24 supported the motion and 8 voted in opposition.  The motion passed.

 

C.                 Proposed Promotion and Tenure Revisions, Associate Provost LeeAnna Clark

 

Professor LeeAnna Clark stated the current promotion and tenure procedures are silent on the role of associate deans and associate provosts in the promotion and tenure process.  Currently, practices vary across Colleges.  The proposed revision (Attachment 4) defines the level at which faculty administrators participate to be at the highest level.  There was considerable discussion that this would be a major change within the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.  Several senators felt that rather than faculty administrators participating at the highest level, that they would want to vote at the department or unit level.  There was a strong feeling among the Senate that exclusion of faculty administrator’s participation at the lowest level of decision making would be detrimental to the process.  Associate Provost Clark requested that the proposal be tabled until such time as Provost Hogan could be present to participate in the discussion.

                                         

V.                 Announcements

 

Professor Tachau encouraged Senate members to participate in open forums for the Vice President for Research candidates, who will be on campus over the next several days.

 

A.                 Legislative Reception, December 8, 4:30, Sunporch IMU

B.                 Faculty Senate, February 8, 3:30 – 5:15, Terrace Dodge Room, 166 IMU

 

VI.              Adjournment

 

Meeting was adjourned at 5:29pm

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

      ______________________________________

Claibourne I. Dungy, MD, MPH

Secretary, Faculty Senate