University of Iowa

FACULTY COUNCIL

Tuesday, January 22, 2002

3:30 p.m.

Penn State Room, 337 Iowa Memorial Union 

Members Present: Joyce Berg, Vicki Grassian, Rebecca Hegeman, Richard LeBlond, Patrick Lloyd, David Manderscheid, Kim Marra, John Moyers, Paul Muhly, Gene Parkin, Margaret Raymond, Hazel Seaba, Lisa Troyer, John Westefeld 

Members Absent: Richard LeBlond, Ann Marie McCarthy 

Members Excused: Chuck Lynch, Craig Porter 

Faculty Senate Officers in Attendance: Amitava Bhattacharjee, President; Jeff Cox, Vice President; Erin Irish, Secretary; Carolyn Colvin, Past President 

Guests:  Nicholas Colangelo (BICOA), Bob Engel (Emeritus Faculty Council) Betsy Altmaier (BICOA), Charles Drum (University Relations), Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost), Jon Whitmore (Provost), Bonnie Slatton (BICOA), Joe Coulter (Office of the Provost), Mark Schantz (General Counsel), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office) 

I. Call to Order 

The meeting was called to order at 3:37 

II. Approvals 

A.     Minutes: Faculty Council, December 11, 2001 

Prof. Muhly moved and Prof. Marra seconded the following:

MOTION:  To approve the minutes.  The motion carried.  

The minutes of December 11, 2001 were approved by consensus. 

B.     Approval of January 29, 2002 Senate Agenda 

Prof. Muhly moved and Prof. Westefeld seconded the following:

MOTION:  To approve the agenda.  The motion carried.  

C.     Recommended Senate and Committee Replacements 

Prof. Muhly moved and Prof. Raymond seconded the following:

MOTION:  To approve the replacements.  The motion carried.  

III.  Report of the Faculty Senate President (Amitava Bhattacharjee) 

A.     Administrative Reorganization of UI Health Care and College of Medicine 

Many faculty, especially those in the College of Medicine, responded with concern to an e-letter that went out from President Coleman, Provost Whitmore, and Vice President Kelch describing the search for the Dean of the College of Medicine.  Faculty wanted to ensure that they would have a strong role in the search for a dean.  There was also concern that problems would arise as the new Dean would be under two separate lines of authority.  As a result of having heard about these concerns, President Coleman and Dean Kelch met with the Faculty Senate Officers.  They have also held a sequence of meetings in the College of Medicine in which there has been extensive discussion of the reorganization.  A committee of faculty has been assembled to ensure that faculty concerns will be heard.  President Bhattacharjee then distributed copies of an issue of UI Health Care CONNECTIONS, which provides details about the reorganization and searches.  

B.     Ad hoc Committee for Rules on Collegiate and Decanal Reviews 

President Bhattacharjee announced the membership of this committee, which will report back to Faculty Council later this spring. 

C.     Ad hoc Committee for Academy of Distinguished Teachers 

The idea for an Academy of Distinguished Teachers stemmed from a visit paid by President Bhattacharjee and Vice President Cox to the University of Minnesota, which has such an academy in place.   A committee has been formed to determine whether having a similar academy here should be pursued, and, if so, how to proceed. 

D.     Interactions with the University of Iowa Student Government (UISG) 

This year the Faculty Senate Officers have been interacting with leaders of staff and student government.  The latter have put forth some ideas on keeping the costs of buying textbooks low.  The Faculty Senate Officers offered to take their proposal to Faculty Council, with the hope that it would be forwarded to the Provost, who could then forward it to colleges, DEO’s, and ultimately, instructors.  Prof. Muhly stated that these kinds of proposals have come up in the past, and Faculty Council has been in favor of such activities.  Prof. Cox suggested that the Council endorse this proposal from UISG, and commented that students won’t go into the reserves room.  Prof. Troyer added that libraries will scan material and put it on web, with essentially no effort from the instructor. 

Prof. Cox moved and Prof. Marra seconded the following:

MOTION:  To endorse the proposal from UISG and recommend that it be forwarded to the Provost.  The motion carried

IV.  Unfinished Business: CIC Resolution on Intercollegiate Athletics 

President Bhattacharjee resumed this discussion by reminding the Council that most had had very little to quibble about the CIC resolution, except for the issue of whether athletics should be subsidized by the academic side of the institution. This resolution is not institution-specific, and the aim of the CIC is to effect changes across the country.  During the previous Council meeting, General Counsel Schantz had pointed out an inconsistency between prohibiting subsidies and insisting on decreasing commercialization and scaling back the arms race.  President Bhattacharjee reported that he had followed up an item of contention, how athletics is financed at Indiana University (IU).  According to letters from the Faculty Senate President and the Chair of the Board in Control of Athletics equivalent at IU, athletics at IU is fully self-supporting in the sense that it receives no direct funds or subsidies from either the state or the University.  There are a number of reasons for this.  Indiana has perhaps the largest Varsity Club in the country, which does a great deal of fund-raising, and had inherited Assembly Hall, for which the university still pays the cost of utilities, but otherwise appears to be self-supporting.  Also, unlike Ohio State University where athletics-related debt is nearly $750 million, IU has no debt service.  Professor Bhattacharjee pointed out that the recent MGT report advises minimizing spending of the General Fund on athletics.  Acknowledging that our Title IX commitments are very strong arguments, President Bhattacharjee expressed the hope that eventually athletics at Iowa, like Indiana, will become self-supporting.  He hoped that Faculty Council could complete their discussion of this resolution before it goes to Faculty Senate. 

General Counsel Schantz made two points about Indiana.  Regarding IU’s payment of utilities costs, the University of Iowa used to pay for utilities in our athletics facilities, but this practice was discontinued, as it was viewed as a subsidy.  If we were still paying those costs, they would amount to about $1 million per year.  Secondly, uniquely to the Big Ten, there is revenue sharing for football and basketball.  This practice dampens competitive excesses, but makes it hard to figure out who is subsidizing whom.  He had a closer look into the merger of men’s and women’s athletics.  There had been concern about how women’s athletics would be financed over time.  Reporting that whereas it is not very transparent, his rough assessment was that when the programs were separate, there was no General Fund support for men’s athletics, except for utilities costs.  The support of women’s athletics in the 1970’s could be viewed as coming from the General Fund, in that many coaches had faculty appointments in Liberal Arts.  At some point Dean Loewenberg said that insofar that coaches are teaching we will support them, and consequently in 1989 what amounted to $400,000 of College of Liberal Arts support was withdrawn.  Transfers from the Facilities Fund and from ticket revenues from men’s football and basketball were then used to support women’s athletics.  That support increased until time of merger to about $350,00 or $400,000. General Fund support was scaled back, but then increased in 1993, 1994 when rowing and soccer came on line.  Now $2.4 million from the General Fund supports women’s athletics.  Part of the concern of the task force was that women would not have a reliable source of funding.  As a condition of the merging of the two programs, the central administration committed General Fund support to bring support of women’s athletics to its current level.  The budget is unfortunately still not very transparent, so that it is hard to tell what is the subsidy.  Some $4.4 million in financial aid goes to students who wouldn’t be here otherwise, and that money goes into the General Fund as tuition payments.  Whereas we don’t have Indiana’s endowment, ours is sufficient to support a fair number of scholarships.  

Prof. Colvin asked how the $2.4 million of General Fund moneys is being spent.  General Counsel Schantz answered that it goes toward the costs of coaching, equipment, and scholarships, for rowing and soccer.  Projected costs of scholarships for next year will go up in a nontrivial way, with the 19% tuition hike.  Prof. Muhly reiterated his point of last meeting, asking why we can’t we shift all the costs to athletics.  Here is $2.4 million suddenly shifted into athletics-- what about the other needs of the institution?  General Counsel Schantz replied that it is not sudden, and the costs are there for the reason that we needed greater participation to comply with the law.  One of the ways to comply with Title IX is to have proportionality, which is a challenge with 56% women enrolled, but 56% of the athletes being men.  By tradition, football has had a big team.  Could $2.4 million in that goes to the athletics budget be used in another way?  Iowa State faced that issue and decided to drop some men’s sports.  Christine Grant did not want us to meet Title IX by dropping a men’s sport. We could also reduce costs in football and basketball.  Here is the arms race.  Once a school does something to enhance its competitiveness, everyone else has to do it too.  General Counsel Schantz found this aspect of the CIC resolution effective. 

Prof. Slatton confirmed that in 1972, all of the women’s coaches were faculty, with support from the General Fund.  The Board of Regents wanted the University of Iowa to comply, not just because it’s the law, but also because the state and this university saw it as important.  There has been a long history here of support for women’s sports.  We cannot have it both ways, demanding both less commercialization and no state support of athletics.  If we think that women’s athletics is important, we should put our money where our mouths are.  If we are to have competitive programs, state moneys have to go into it.  State money has gone in all these years.  We have made a commitment not to drop a sport. BICOA has also tried many times to reduce number of football scholarships, and has lost that battle every time.  She agreed that funds could be reallocated, but saw it as impossible to cease support.  General Counsel Schantz added that most liberal arts colleges have traditionally supported track, swimming, etc.  When television came along, we started charging for tickets for football and basketball.  That changed everything.  Men’s nonrevenue sports are supported by football and basketball.  Prof. Colangelo said that in his view, we will take a step backwards by saying we will never use the General Fund for athletics.  He thought that it feels good to say, “Be on your own,” but cautioned that there can be problems without close ties.  If athletics is doing well, the university should put in less, but when they need help, we should be willing to subsidize.  He proposed that the level of support should be looked at each year, especially if athletics has a good year and the university has a poor year, in which case support could be reduced.  His final point was that at Iowa, we don’t want to sell everything that isn’t nailed down.  This practice doesn’t sit well in this community.  Prof. Westefeld continued on this line, asking whether it was not just the money, but also a philosophy. Prof. Colangelo confirmed that their philosophy is that it wrong to say, “Go your own way.”  He hoped to see athletics do so well so that their need would be minimal.  

Prof. Cox agreed that it is totally inconsistent to demand both no commercial support and no state funds support.  He hoped to see a tie between continued subsidy and a reduction in commercialization and arms race.  President Bhattacharjee stated that the present atmosphere, when the budget is down, makes one examine where funds go.  He had worries about trends, like the increase in support from $0.5 to $2.5 million, and viewed that as possibly spiraling out of control.  He made the additional point that last year, Faculty Senate had wanted to see Women’s Athletics stay separate.  He had thought that the best argument for not doing so was the merged budget, which he viewed as important as it would provide a continuing source of support for women’s athletics.  Now he wonders where will this go.  Prof. Colvin suggested that there be a cap on General Fund support.  She did not want to see a total cut because of which students would be affected.  Prof. Slatton said that nationally, we should push for no support.  But we can’t make these changes alone without becoming uncompetitive.  Our athletics programs are solvent, whereas Indiana’s is not. 

Prof. Seaba pointed out that this year the university took a big hit in the budget.  We are worrying about becoming less competitive in all areas.  She asked why athletics shouldn’t also suffer.  General Counsel Schantz informed her that athletics took a bigger hit than other parts of the university receiving General Fund support.  Like the hospital, athletics gets relatively small percentage of its support from the General Fund.  Prof. Troyer summarized the discussion, saying that we agree on most of this and are only arguing about whether or not to subsidize. 

Prof. Cox proposed the following amendments:

 To strike a phrase in Item 3: 

The “arms race” of intercollegiate athletics must be scaled back.  While competitive sports must aim at winning, the success of an athletics program is measured by the value it adds to college athletes and campuses, not by championships.  Competitiveness within conferences and divisions should not involve allowing standards characteristic of professional sports to distort the more comprehensive aims of college sports.  Athletics should not be subsidized by the academic side of the institution, and athletics departments should operate under the same principles of budget accountability that characterize other units. 

And add to the resolution: 

The Faculty Senate asks the Board in Control of Athletics to report yearly to the Senate on the following areas of concern:

1.      What steps have been taken to reduce the commercialization of athletics, including a reduction in the use of corporate logos on university athletic equipment and uniforms.

2.      What steps have been taken, locally and/or nationally, to reduce the “arms race” between institutions over facilities and coaches’ salaries.

3.      What steps have been taken, locally and/or nationally, to limit or eliminate alcohol advertising on radio and television broadcasts of UI athletic events. 

President Bhattacharjee asked for discussion of General Fund support of athletics.  Prof. Cox felt that it should be kept small, adding that Profs. Muhly and Slatton had raised important points, especially regarding the history of support from the College of Liberal Arts.  He was not in favor of specific caps, but would like to see clear accounting of funds usage.  If we could see where the money comes from and where it goes, it would be easier to make comparisons with other priorities.  Then we might be able to optimize the use of resources and make sensible judgments.   Prof. Marra added that a key to controlling a lot of this is stemming the arms race, and asked what is being done.  Prof. Slatton replied that whereas a lot is being said, there is not a lot being done to stem the arms race.  A big expenditure is facilities.  Everyone is trying to say, “Let’s hold,” but we aren’t doing it. She expects that there will be a ceiling, but is afraid we’ll never see it.  The presidents of the six major conferences have met to have this kind of discussion.  The question is: are we ready to go it on our own? There is agreement on academic and financial matters. The attitude in the Big Ten is that if others won’t make changes, maybe we should just compete within our conference only.  She finds it encouraging that we are having these discussions.  They have also considered just making football and basketball players not enroll as students, rather just get paid. 

Prof. Altmaier thought that the finance committee of BICOA would welcome the opportunity to meet with Faculty Council to discuss the intricacies.  She also made the point that the arms race in set-up funds and lab space for new faculty is almost as unpalatable as that in intercollegiate athletics.  Prof. Moyers saw that the problem comes from treating athletics money as separate.  We need to exercise more power over it.  Prof. Colangelo pointed out that BICOA is made up of faculty.  He suggested that we push this group to make them reportable, especially now that the programs have merged.   BICOA needs to make sure that merger promises are kept.  They will keep fighting for improvements, including increased faculty awareness of the athletics programs. 

Prof. Muhly moved and Prof. Irish seconded the following:

MOTION:  To adopt Prof. Cox’s amendments (above).  Part 2 of his amendment would be Item 4.  

Prof. Raymond was concerned that the amendment imposes budget conditions when the Senate has no control over the budget.  Prof. Troyer liked the changes, as the original left open the possibility that General Fund support could increase.  Prof. Manderscheid pointed out that we would be making local changed to a CIC-wide resolution.  Prof. Colvin suggested that we consider the items below the line later. 

Prof. Colvin moved and Prof. Troyer seconded the following: 

MOTION: To delete the clause prohibiting academic subsidy of athletics.  The motion passed. 

            Prof. Colvin moved and Prof. Irish seconded the following:

            MOTION:  That we adopt the amended resolution (above the line).  The motion carried. 

President Bhattacharjee suggested we consider Prof Cox’s second amendment as freestanding.  Prof. Seaba suggested that the word  “alcohol” be changed to “alcoholic beverages.”  Prof. Cox agreed to this change. Prof. Lloyd asked whether we are taking no position on academic support of athletics, about which he felt uncomfortable.  Prof. Colvin was in favor of all of the proposals under the line, such as having yearly reports. Prof. Troyer pointed out that some of these say “should”, which goes beyond simply reporting. 

President Bhattacharjee suggested that we vote on Prof. Cox’s amendment, so that we could forward the resolution to the Senate, where some of these issues could be considered.  Prof. Cox suggested that we recommend the bulleted items to BICOA, and have them address them at the Senate meeting.  Prof. Colangelo answered that they could do so in a general way, as well as let BICOA know that that Faculty Senate is concerned about these issues.  Prof. Raymond returned to Prof. Lloyd’s point that we haven’t taken a position on subsidizing athletics.  She was concerned with a point made by Prof. Colangelo, that contributions give one leverage, and worried that below a certain level our support is not worth the athletics program doing what we want them to do. She felt that support should be based on need, not on leverage.  Prof. Porter asked whether we need finance to maintain connectivity. Prof. Colvin felt that if the faculty gives up its voice in these issues, either because of some meager funding or from weak faculty participation in BICOA, then we might as well have some professional team play for us.  Prof. Slatton agreed, adding that in Florida, that is virtually the way it works:  athletics is totally separate organization.  Prof. Seaba questioned the use of the weaker term “budget” rather than “fiscal.” 

Prof. Cox moved and Prof. Irish seconded the following:

MOTION:  To adopt Prof. Cox’s amendment. 

Prof. Raymond suggested added the phrase “including, but not limited to” which Prof. Cox accepted. 

Amended MOTION: (from above) 

The Faculty Senate asks the Board in Control of Athletics to report yearly to the Senate on the following areas of concern:

4.      What steps have been taken to reduce the commercialization of athletics, including but not limited to, a reduction in the use of corporate logos on university athletic equipment and uniforms.

5.      What steps have been taken, locally and/or nationally, to reduce the “arms race” between institutions over facilities and coaches’ salaries.

6.      What steps have been taken, locally and/or nationally, to limit or eliminate alcoholic beverage advertising on radio and television broadcasts of UI athletic events. 

The motion carried. 

Prof. Colvin moved and Prof. Troyer seconded the following:

MOTION:  To advance the other issues to Faculty Senate for consideration.  The motion carried.  

V.                 New Business: Creation of a University Flag (S. Kurtz) 

Prof. Kurtz had discovered that a number of institutions have a flag, and we don’t.  If we had one, we could display it at university events, such as commencement, ball games. It could be how we honor deceased faculty and students. A university flag would be a closer symbol of university than is the U.S. flag—it would be more appropriately commemorative.  And, we could have competition for best design with a prize.  

Prof. Colvin moved and Prof. Troyer seconded the following:

MOTION:  That this proposal be forwarded to the Senate.  The motion carried.  

VI.     Announcements: An additional Senate meeting has been added Tuesday, February 12, 2002, 3:30-5:15 in 100 Phillips Hall (Attachment 5) 

VII.     Adjournment 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:22. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Erin Irish

Secretary