FACULTY SENATE
October 17, 2006
3:30-5:15 pm
Senate Chamber, Old Capitol
~ Draft ~
MINUTES
PRESENT: David
Asprey, Jill Beckman, Kenneth Brown, Gloria Bulechek, Christine Catney, Jeffrey
Cox, Kenneth Culp, Donna D’Alessandro, Edwin Dove, David Drake, George
El-Khoury, Sarah Fagan, Thomas Grabowski, Johna Leddy, Yi Li, Rene Martin,
Steve McGuire, Frank Mitros, Sue Moorhead, Jose Morcuende, Adelaide Morris,
Faryle Nothwehr, Michael O’Hara, Bryce Plapp, Lynn Richman, Catherine Ringen,
Larry Robertson, Jarijisu Sa-Aadu, James Tomkovicz, Tuong Ton-That, Thomas
Schmidt, Kathy Schuh, Linda Snetselaar, Karin Southard, Christie Thomas,
Downing Thomas, Brad Thompson, Richard Tubbs, John Westefeld, Jerold Woodhead.
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Lioness Ayres, Daniel Balderston, Linda Boyle, Maureen Donovan, Denise
Filios, Vicki Grassian, Paul Heidger, Bruce Justman, Lance Lichtor, Thomas
Loew, Mazen Maktabi, Amy Poremba, William Sharp, Steve Vincent, and Ruth
Wachtel.
ABSENT: George
Bergus, Susan Birrell, Javier Campos, Jonathan Carlson, Jay
Christensen-Szalanski, William Clarke, Michael Cohen, Steve Collins, Jane
Desmond, Virginia Dominguez, Claibourne Dungy, Richard Fumerton, Robert
Garrett, Frederick Goodman, Ronald Herman, Geoffrey Hope, Mark Karwal, Craig
Kletzing, Susan Lutgendorf, Donald MacFarlane, Thomas O’Dorisio, Christine
Pawley, Beth Pelton, Gary Russell, Janet Specht, Anne Sullivan, Judith Heggen,
Marcia Ward, Steven Wolfe, and Catherine Woodman.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Sheldon Kurtz, President; Victoria Sharp, Vice President;
Jennifer Glass, Secretary; Richard LeBlond, Past President.
GUESTS: Charles
Drum (University Relations), Matt Nelson (The
Daily Iowan), Carl Orgren (Emeritus Council), Jane Van Voorhis.
I. Call to Order – The meeting was called to
order at 3:30 pm
II. Approvals
a.
Meeting Agenda –
The agenda was revised to add a report from the
Faculty Policy and Compensation
Committee chairman Professor Michael O’Hara.
b.
Faculty Senate
Minutes, September 5, 2006 –
The meeting minutes were approved by consent.
c.
Committee
Replacement, Victoria Sharp
Vice President Sharp made the following recommendation
for Committee replacement:
·
Human Rights
Charter Committee: Astrid Oesmann,
German, to replace Gerard Byrne, Prosthodontics (2006-09)
Professor Ringen moved, seconded by Professor
D’Alessandro, to accept this replacement; it was unanimously approved.
d. Senate Replacement, Sheldon Kurtz, President
President Kurtz made the following recommendations for
Senate replacements:
·
CLAS – Group
1: Kimberley Marra, Theatre Arts, to
replace Carin Green on an interim basis during her leave of absence (2006-07)
·
Medicine
(non-tenured): Dr. Andre Boezaart, Anesthesiology, to replace Dr. John Sutphin,
Ophthalmology.
These replacements were unanimously approved.
e. Council Replacement, Sheldon Kurtz, President
President Kurtz made the following recommendation for
Council replacement:
·
Kathy Schuh,
Psychological and Quantitative Foundation, to replace Steve McGuire on the
Faculty Council during his developmental leave (spring semester 2007).
This
replacement was unanimously approved.
III . Reports
A.
Faculty Senate
President, Sheldon Kurt
1.
Interim
President Fethke’s response to Directory Information for UI Employees
President
Kurtz introduced Mary Greer, President of Staff Council, whose group had also
unanimously adopted the proposal to change rules concerning accessibility to
directory information. He announced that
Interim President Fethke vetoed the vote; the current rule stands.
2.
FRIC
President
Kurtz co-chairs the Funded Retirement Insurance Committee (FRIC). He said he does not have good news to share
in this annual report to the Senate about next year’s insurance rates. Rates
will go up on all plans. The good news
is there will be an increase in the portion of flex credits from the university
that would pay for the average cost of a single person’s premium. There will be additional out-of-pocket costs
for everyone else. We are always looking for ways to save costs, he said, but
costs continue to escalate.
B.
Faculty Policy
and Compensation Committee
Professor
O’Hara, Chair of the Faculty Policy and Compensation Committee, presented a report
on the committee’s activities. Their
charge is to address general issues of policies that come from the Provost and
other sources, to develop new policy as appropriate, and to address issues of
compensation.
The
committee has established three subcommittees:
Academic Program Review (O’Hara, chair); Faculty Compensation (Professor Ed Dove, Chair); and
Faculty Governance (Professor Jeff Denburg, Chair).
Professor
O’Hara raised concerns about an October 12 article in The Gazette in which a planning process, called a “strategic change
process” (not “strategic assessment”) was described. Basically, Regent Gartner suggests that there
is a regent-level process, led by Regent Wahlert, in consultation with the
three Regent institution presidents.
This process is likely to have a big effect on the lives of faculty
members by leaving them out of decision making.
The article referenced an email drafted by Gartner that described a plan
to reinvent the universities. A number
of concerns were expressed that they would be looking at strategic change
without faculty input. This is a “top down” way to conduct business, said O’Hara,
and there should be more input from the faculty.
Professor
Steve Collins distributed copies of the email, dated July 20, 2006, in which
Regent Gartner wonders if we were to design three state universities today, how
we would do it and how would they look. Professor
Collins’ concern is that broad questions such as these need many minds thinking
about the answers. Nine Regents, let
alone two, are not sufficient to answer these questions.
Answers
should percolate up from the people who know the system best. This is the same for the other two
institutions. It is important for faculty to express themselves on how we go
about answering these large and important questions. Are we appropriately structured from an
academic perspective, from a cultural perspective and from a financial
perspective? These questions need to be
serious considered.
He noted that the email referred to students as
“customers,” who also do no have a voice in the process.
The floor was opened to discussion:
Past
President LeBlond noted that there is no established, voted-upon Regent initiative,
no empanelled group to address these issues.
President are participating with one a few of the Regents who appear to self-designated
themselves to pursue this process.
President
Kurtz added that this communicated in an email from one regent to all the
others.
Professor
McGuire wondered if faculty at the other institutions see this as a critical
issue and whether or not they were worried about it. He asked Kurtz, as Faculty
Senate President, how he sees us generating a response or become involved in a
purposeful way in a process that, without consensus, is ambiguous and
potentially very altering.
President
Kurtz replied that he was unsure if ISU and UNI are aware. He said that the university is currently in a
state of flux because there is no permanent president, so we are more sensitive
to the issue. It was his sense from his earlier stint as Faculty Senate
President that the other two institutions were not as involved. He added that this is a matter of critical
concern to him as President. He is
frequently on the phone to Regents to discuss the faculty role. He added that
he thinks they are hearing him and expressed the hope that some good will come
from articulating these views. He does not know if it will have an effect or
not.
Kurtz
reiterated what Interim President Fethke said at a recent meeting of the CLAS
Faculty Assembly that the Number One mission of the
Fethke added that he subscribes to this mission and that he thinks the Regents
do too.
Professor
Ken Brown suggested the Regents are casting their net too narrowly.
Stakeholders in this state should have their say.
Kurtz
added that as a state university, concerned with education, research, health, etc.
we are part of the State of
Asked
if he had expressed his concerns directly to the Board, Kurtz said he had with
some members. He does not speak with all
of them. Some are concerned and
sympathetic, he said.
Professor
Richman read from the memo and said there appears to be an assumption that all
three universities should function the same way. He asked if there is a timetable.
Kurtz
said he had heard a rumor that there might be an executive session held at the
November 3 BOR meeting in
Professor
O’Hara noted that the UI just recently completed a university-wide strategic
plan process. It was very clear in the
planning that we wanted to articulate an institutional plan drawing upon all
elements from colleges and departments.
It seems that there is an attempt to circumvent that process. It’s insulting to an institution when its
plan, which is sanctioned by the regents, is thought of as irrelevant.
Professor
Jeffrey Cox, cited the recent resignation of President Somers from
Harvard. He said it goes to show that
no university can be reformed or changed without the consultation of the
faculty. This appears to be something that some members of the Regents fail to
understand. He asked why we have a
special interest in some of the universities competing with each other. Do we
have too much higher education in
He
noted our long history of distinguished work in engineering and education and
asked what they meant when they speak about duplication? He said this is an area where faculty have
strong voices.
It
was noted that the interim president was chosen without any input from faculty
on a 5-4 vote. Under these circumstances, faculty should speak out against it.
Secretary
Glass noted that the small private meetings with Regents do not constitute
official sessions, so we cannot get information about them.
President Kurtz said he plans to continue to work behind the scenes with as many
people who are willing to listen to him to ensure all stakeholders have a voice
in this process. He commented that we
are not a university of two Regents only; we are the
Professor
Downing Thomas said the first opportunity for any type of action seems to be
the November Regent meeting. He asked if
there will be a motion brought to that session
President
Kurtz and Staff Council President Greer both said there is nothing to indicate
that it will be publicly discussed. Kurtz said that he plans to attend the
meeting in
Past
President LeBlond said the last time he spoke officially with the Board was last
February. It’s very difficult to get an
answer from them, he added. He thought it would be a good idea to speak
individually with members of the Board and see if it percolates up to the
others. He said we should try to help them understand the position.
Professor
McGuire observed that this should concern faculty immediately as the process of
choosing the next president is well underway.
Anyone looking to be a presidential candidate, he said, should honestly
think twice about coming here. He noted that there always seems to be an
adversarial relationship with the Board, but some of the Regents do not feel
the same way. He warned against being
reactionary but noted the ambiguity is bothersome.
Professor
Brown said the Senate should encourage the asking of these broad questions, but
it should be done above board, not by a small group of people. All stakeholders
should be represented.
President
Kurtz agreed, saying he had no opposition at all for the Regents to undertake
an analysis of the institution, it’s absolutely essential to their role. His opposition is to the consultative aspects
of it.
Professor
D’Alessandro said that in addition to the
President
Kurtz added that he would like the gubernatorial candidates to be part of it
too.
Professor
Collins wondered when it would be appropriate to move forward. He suggested waiting until a permanent
president is chosen. He suggested that the Shared Governance Council could consider
putting together a position paper with the suggestion that the process be put
on hold until a permanent president is in place.
A motion
was made by Professor Brown; seconded by Professor McGuire that
We should seek a broad coalition,
including other institutions, citizen groups, and politicians, to tell the
Regents that they should formalize the process by engaging all stakeholders.
President
Kurtz called the question. There was a
unanimous vote in favor of the motion. The Shared Governance Council will take
up this discussion.
B. The discussion of the “Engagement Corps” was
deferred to a future meeting
C. Work Life Survey Report, Laura Reed,
Associate Director, Human Resources
President
Kurtz introduced Laura Reed. He noted that she served as Staff Council
President when he served as Faculty Senate President the first time around.
Copies
of a PowerPoint presentation were distributed.
Ms. Reed listed the faculty members, including Senator Ken Brown, who
served on the survey committee. The
survey was developed in 2005-06 to assess how people feel about working at the
university, about coming into work, and teaching , etc. There was a 43%
response rate, an outcome which pleased the committee. While designing the
survey, the committee discussed the attributes that make for a good work
place. They organized the survey statements
into three different aspects, or dimensions: the job itself, the unit, and the
institution as a whole.
A
six-point scale was agreed upon. Ms.
Reed thanked Bridgette Zimmerman for her hard work on the statistical
analysis.
Five
priority areas for improvement were chosen.
Ms. Reed reviewed those of particular interest to faculty:
1.
In general,
faculty & staff agreed most that the workplace has a strong focus on providing
excellent service. (90%) and that they have the basic resources I need to do my
job. (90%)
2.
Faculty agreed
most that they for more effective ways to do their work. (99%); they know what
is expected of them on their job. (94%); they have the authority to make
decisions as defined by their job. (92%);
they understand how their job fits into the overall mission of the UI. (91%);
and that the UI does a good job of informing faculty of policy changes. (87%)
3.
In general,
faculty & staff most disagreed that poor performance is managed
appropriately. (45%); that they are kept informed of their workplace budget
status. (38%); and that work-related conflicts are constructively handled.
(36%)
4.
Faculty disagreed
most that they are confident thee is a clear plan to strengthen the UI. (52%);
that poor performance is managed appropriately. (49%); and that, overall, they
think the UI is moving in a positive direction. (41%).
5.
Faculty disagreed
most that their workplace provides support to help faculty balance work and
personal life responsibilities. (39%); and that workloads are distributed
fairly. (39%)
Reed
said the committee will reconvene in three weeks to debrief and to discuss implementation
of recommendations resulting from the survey.
In
general, recommendations will include ensuring the VP group acknowledges that
people are the University's most important asset and encourage orgs/units to
continuously recognize faculty and staff efforts. There is a need for improved communication by
supervisors/leaders regarding organizational priorities, performance
expectations, and budget and process improvement. Recommendations will be made to ensure family
leave is addressed, and to encourage individual cooperation and a sense of
responsibility from everyone. The “Be
Remarkable Campaign” will aim to do this.
Reed
said they are disseminating the data to everyone. She, Sue Buckley, and Susan
Johnson will meet with Deans and constituent groups, such as Faculty Senate, to
share the information.
She
said that it is important to link these results with things that already exist
in the Iowa Promise, to use the data
to establish progress; and to make it manageable. There is some sense that survey fatigue might
have set in at the university. The “Work
at
Secretary
Glass thanked Ms Reed for conducting the survey and commented that her workplace
provides support to balance life styles which triangulates with the gender
equity committee. She said the UI
shouldn’t fall behind in that area
Past
President LeBlond said the UI faculty and staff are committed to the
university; and the university should nurture their dedication.
D. Gary
Barta, new Athletic Director
President
Kurtz welcomed Gary Barta, the new
Mr.
Barta said it was an honor to speak to the Faculty Senate. The most important thing he hoped to convey
is that he loves what he does. He grew
up in the
Barta
said he was very proud of the athletics he oversees, but also the
academics. He has prided himself on
doing things the right way.
He assumed
that of all the people in the room, some are fans, some are indifferent, and
some are detractors. He understands that
athletics is not the most important thing that happens on this campus; however,
he does feel that athletics is unique.
It’s not a college, he’s not a dean, our stadiums are not classrooms;
our coaches are not on the faculty. With that said, there is something magical
about the pride and pageantry that surrounds college athletics. While not a dean, said Barta, he does run a
complex piece of the organization that takes part in shaping young people’s lives
every day.
Barta
said that there are some very passionate people all over the state who advise
him. Athletics may not be the most
important thing, but it is the most visible. One of his jobs is to make sure
that the visibility is like the recent
Barta
said that he’s been meeting many groups on campus and has already met with the
Deans’ Council and the VP Group.
Relationships will develop over time.
There
is a balancing act with winning, he said, but not at all costs. Doing the right
thing is the simple thing to do, but not always the easiest. General pressures include money and the
media. He says he must make sure that
everyone on staff is willing to overcome these pressures and do the right
thing.
Strategic
planning is another of his responsibilities. He said Athletics is preparing
their contribution to the whole organizational plan, looking internally at his
own staff, then to the PCA, eventually up the Regents. He expects to have their draft report ready
for the public by next summer.
One
the outcomes Barta hopes to achieve is to build trust on campus. He hoped to pique the curiosity of those who
might be indifferent to hear them say, “I’m glad we’re doing it well”. To those who might be detractors, he hopes to
hear, “well, these are decent people who are doing things the right way.”
The
floor was opened to questions.
One
senator noted that the ESPN cameras frequently showed scenes of the UI
Hospitals and Clinics, but never mentioned the
Barta
said that he begged ESPN not to just show farms as the
Asked
what has he done to make the Athletic Department financially independent from
state funds, Barta replied that his ultimate goal is to have zero funds from
the General Fund.
Professor
Thomas inquired about emails sent to students, faculty and staff from Dean
Jones and Coach Ferentz which were essentially designed to dampen the post-game
celebration. One phrase from Ferentz’s
message was “pace yourselves,” obviously referencing alcohol consumption. He asked Barta to discuss the ways the issues
of insanity surrounding these events.
Barta
said the emails had caused some offense.
There was a broad brush stroke, he said, but it was their intention to
reach those who may choose to behave in a certain way. It was a night game and there could have been
some serious problems downtown. Ferentz
wanted to leave a favorable impression on nationwide TV.
He
added that Donna Katen-Bahensky, the Director/CEO of the UIHC and Coach Ferentz
served on a task force to study underage drinking downtown and how to curb it. It’s a serious problem.
Barta
cited the “Stepping Up” group on campus.
He shares their concerns and said they have made available a parking lot
that is alcohol free to promote non-alcohol tailgating. He will do whatever he
can do in front of students to help misuse and to project a positive
influence.
President
Kurtz thanked Mr. Barta for attending today’s meeting. He said that Interim President Fethke had
chosen well when they hired him. He was
welcomed to
Kurtz
announced that Interim President Fethke would attend the November 28 Senate
meeting; and Lynette Marshall, new President of the UI Foundation, will attend
in February.
IV. New business: There was no new business
VII. Announcements
a.
Discussion of the
Engagement Corps will be rescheduled at another meeting
b.
The Faculty/Staff
Awards Banquet will be held tonight, including Regent award
winners, staff awards.
c.
Next Faculty
Senate meeting: Tuesday, November 28,
3:30 – 5:15 pm, Senate
Chamber, Old Capitol.
Guest: Interim President Fethke
VIII. Adjournment
President Kurtz adjourned the
meeting at 5:00 pm.