University of Iowa
State Room, Iowa Memorial Union
Berg, Lois Geist, Vicki Grassian, Rebecca Hegeman, Richard LeBlond, David
Manderscheid, Kim Marra, Ann Marie McCarthy, John Moyer, Paul Muhly, Gene Parkin,
Craig Porter, Margaret Raymond, Hazel Seaba, Lisa Troyer, John Westefeld
Senate Officers in Attendance: Amitava
Bhattacharjee, President; Jeff Cox, Vice President; Erin Irish, Secretary;
Carolyn Colvin, Past President
(University Relations), Bob Engel (Emeritus Faculty Cou8ncil) Alan Nagel (Cinema
& Comparative Literature), Lee Anna Clark (Provost Office), Raul Curto
(College of Liberal Arts and Sciences) Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office),
Kristin Clark (Faculty Senate Office), Heather Woodward (Press-Citizen),
Helena Dettmer (Classics)
Call to Order
meeting was called to order at 3:35.
Raymond moved and Prof. Muhly seconded the following:
To accept the meeting agenda.
The motion passed.
Minutes from October 9, 2001
minutes were accepted by consensus.
Proposed November 20, 2001 Senate Agenda
Muhly moved and Prof. Grassian seconded the following:
To accept the November 20, 2001 Senate meeting agenda.
The motion passed.
Approval of Recommended Replacements
Seaba moved and Prof. Manderscheid seconded the following:
The Faculty Council endorses the Council and Senate replacements as
recommended by the Committee on Elections and forwards them to the Faculty
Senate for approval. The motion passed.
Muhly moved and Prof. Colvin seconded the following:
The Faculty Council endorses the Committee replacements as recommended by
the Committee on Committees and forwards them to the Faculty Senate for
approval. The motion passed
Report of the Interdisciplinary Committee on Faculty Issues (Lee Anna
Clark and Alan Nagel)
President Bhattacharjee began
by introducing Prof. Alan Nagel, Chair of the Interdisciplinary Committee on
Faculty Issues, and then identifying the primary item of discussion, which was a
clarification that has been added in Appendix A, III of the report.
Prof. Seaba asked where the Forckenbrock report referred to in the
preface of the report could be found. Prof.
Nagel agreed that a citation to its location was missing and suggested that the
report be posted on the web. Associate Provost Clark volunteered to ask the
Provost to do so. Prof. Nagel added
that it had been referred to primarily to acknowledge that a previous report had
Bhattacharjee asked Prof. Nagel to speak in general about the report.
Prof. Nagel explained that in the university these days, we encourage
more efforts that go outside departmental bounds but have not had normal
regulations concerning these efforts. In
particular, the nontenure-track provision in the report enables a
nondepartmental unit to make a nontenure-track appointment, sufficiently
overseen by the faculty of that unit, the dean, and the provost, and maybe the
vice president for research. Faculty
Senate had been concerned that we don’t open the barn door to a whole new type
of appointment. He sees it rather
as a transitional stage that could lead to a unit earning the status as a
Muhly stated that he is sympathetic to these goals, but can’t understand why
it needs to be written that appointments could not be made to any but existing
ranks. Associate Provost Clark
answered that there had been a fear that someone could be appointed as a
research professor, being let in "through the back door".
Prof. Muhly asked whether one could have an appointment split between a
department and a non-departmental unit in such a way that the departmental
appointment was tenured and the non-departmental appointment was non-tenured.
Associate Provost Clark answered that the track remains the same when a
person has a joint appointment. Prof.
Muhly continued with his concern that in appointments that are split between a
department, such as Biology or Math, and a nondepartmental unit, such as Applied
Mathematics and Computational Sciences, it seemed possible for the individual to
be released from the non-departmental unit and have the responsibility for
his/her full appointment fall unexpectedly on the department.
Associate Provost Clark affirmed that there are such appointments, in
which a person could have an appointment in one unit, such as a center, but
emphasized that the budgeted
appointment is the permanent and default departmental home of the faculty
member. Prof. Porter pointed out that the discussion has been framed
in terms of tenure-track faculty so far and asked what happens with nontenure-track
faculty. Associate Provost Clark
replied that the situation there is much more fluid as there is no tenure home
for the faculty member. The big
difference that this document makes is unlike now, when a person could have an
affiliation with a unit, and could even be paid from some MFK originating from
the unit, but not have an “appointment” in that unit, now there would be an
appointment in that unit. Porter
asked if this was a way to create a disposable appointment, such that if
budgetary pressure was applied, the position could be eliminated. Could this be
putting someone at risk of losing a job? Associate Provost Clark explained that
that was not the desire.
Prof. Seaba pointed out
a what she saw as a discrepancy: in most places in Appendix A “joint
appointment” is written but in III the term “joint” is absent. Associate
Provost Clark explained that in the case covered by III, a person wouldn’t
have to be joint. Prof. Seaba
argued that without a joint appointment with an academic unit, there was the
possibility that the appointment might not meet the University's intent that
clinical track appointments devote a significant portion of their time to
providing or overseeing the delivery of professional services to clients and,
importantly, integrate the delivery of their professional services with a
teaching assignment. Prof. Geist
added that if a person is given a clinical faculty appointment, they should have
the normal expectations. And if it doesn’t look like that, it should be called
something else. Prof. Seaba replied
that it should be that way, but she hasn’t always seen it implemented that
way. Prof. LeBlond pointed out that
by having promotion decisions for clinical track faculty within a non-academic
unit, we would be placing the already difficult promotion decision for a
clinical faculty within an administrative unit with no other responsibilities
for promotion, other than providing information to the home department of joint
appointees. Associate Provost Clark responded that she feels very strongly that
we should be able to make nonjoint, nonclinical-track appointments.
Prof. Seaba clarified that III covers visiting professors, lecturers, and
other similar positions.
Bhattacharjee observed that the whole way interdisciplinarity has been
considered, a person is still anchored in some department.
As a result, we may wind up limiting the types of interdisciplinary
activities that can occur here. If
a person has a foot in a secure place and another in a less secure place,
won’t that limit the types of interdisciplinary?
Prof. LeBlond suggested we approve the proposal but add that there be
some monitoring, so that in a few years we could make adjustments, if needed.
Prof. Geist suggested a change in appendix A III: that
I and IV be commingled, and III cover only nonclinical, nontenure track.
This would gives more stability, and breaks out the oddball things into a
Geist moved and Prof. Colvin seconded the following:
Amend Appendix A, III to add the term “nonclinical,” so that it would
read “…may make renewable, budgeted nonclinical, nontenure-track faculty
appointments…” The motion carried.
suggested that the Provost be asked to post the Forkenbrock report on the web,
and that it be added to the final version of this report as a hotlink.
to Appendix B, Prof. Colvin asked whether adoption of this proposal would change
how faculty are reviewed. What if there is a positive vote in one college and a
negative vote in another? Associate Provost Clark answered that the Provost
decides. President Bhattacharjee
had a few questions for Associate Provost Clark.
With regard to matters of budget, he had a letter from February 2001
mentioning $500,000. Associate
Provost Clark affirmed that the same amount had been mentioned on page 8 of this
report. President Bhattacharjee
continued on that topic, asking what is likely to happen, given the current
budgetary climate. Associate Provost Clark reminded him that the report is a recommendation
to the Provost.
Porter moved and Prof. Geist seconded the following:
That the report be forwarded to the Faculty Senate for their consideration.
The motion carried.
LeBlond suggested that one way to foster interdisciplinarity is to pair senior
faculty with emeritus faculty from other departments or even colleges.
Prof. Porter added that about five years ago a task force in the College
of Medicine made a similar proposal. Emeritus
Faculty Council representative Bob Engel, having noted what was suggested,
volunteered to contact appropriate emeritus faculty.
Report of the Faculty Senate President (Amitava Bhattacharjee)
Bhattacharjee announced that a detailed narrative has been distributed that
summarizes how the governor’s cuts have been distributed within the
university. The cut of 4.3% to the
2002 budget amounts to 13.5 million dollars.
Despite the depth of the cut, at the college level the cuts ranged from
as little as 1.07% to 2.96%. He
viewed this as surprisingly good news for the colleges.
to the most recent meeting of the Regents, held at ISU, President Bhattacharjee
reported that President Coleman had yielded five minutes of her allotted time to
him to speak on behalf of Faculty Senate. This
opportunity allowed him to convey, not only to the Regents but to the general
public, the sentiments expressed at the special meeting of the Senate.
He had spoken of the old-fashioned value of public higher education, of
the resolution proposed at the special meeting, and how the resolution passed
unanimously. He reported that so
far the feedback has been positive.
third topic President Bhattacharjee touched on was a recent CIC resolution on
intercollegiate athletics, which was passed during the meeting for CIC Faculty
Senate Officers held on November 2 and 3 at Northwestern University. This has
come in the wake of Knight commission report:
now faculty wish to express their views. The resolution will be comprehensive for the Big Ten and the
PAC Ten, and will be forthcoming in December of January for Faculty Council
discussion. Among the proposals is
a sunshine proposal, since that most faculty do not know how athletes are
counseled, etc. If there will be a
change, it cannot be unilateral. But,
if many universities join together on this resolution, they may be able to force
the issue with NCAA.
Discussion of Statement of Criterion Vote for Procedural Guidelines for
Clinical-track Faculty Promotion (as well as Procedural Guidelines for
Tenure-track Faculty Tenure and Promotion)
Bhattacharjee began this discussion by explaining that a minor technical matter
identified by Associate Provost Clark in the Procedural Guidelines, section G5,
has all of the sudden become not so minor.
Associate Provost Clark explained that after the clinical track policy
was passed, it became clear that guidelines need to be clarified.
The Operations Manual had only a single sentence previously about
clinical track promotion and tenure procedures.
An old draft was revised, and one of the things she had noticed was a
problem, in I.2, which describes the conditions under which a candidate has
access to external reviews (i.e. after a negative recommendation from the DCG or
the DEO). She found that she needed
to ask the departments what was the criterion vote for a positive recommendation
from the DCG.
LeBlond asked whether the criterion vote need be equivalent for tenure and
clinical track. Associate Provost
Clark responded that we will probably need to change the tenure track procedure,
too. Prof. Hegeman asked what the
standard practice is in most departments. Dean
Curto answered that in general it is a simple majority for a positive
recommendation. Seventy six percent
of departments in CLAS require a simple majority, but there is a range, with one
department requiring 75% positive votes. He added that it turned out to be a survey of culture, not
policy, in some cases. Many
departments like having flexibility. The
plan is to work out the clinical track policy, then make appropriate parallel
changes in the tenure-track policy.
Porter expressed his concern that two people could get the same vote, yet have
different outcomes. How do you
operate this way without consistency? Prof.
Irish raised the possibility that two people could get different percentages of
positive votes, but with different criterion votes, the person with stronger
faculty support but a “no” has access to external reviews while the other,
with a weak “yes,” does not. Prof.
Moyer, seeing the need for some consistency, spoke in favor of having written
policies. He asked who is going to
set the criterion. Prof. Cox
explained that the current policies are based on an anachronistic policy.
In the past, the vote was conducted in order to ascertain the general
will. Those days are gone, and now
we need a standard. Dean Curto
added that each unit should have a criterion.
But, the culture of each department is so important that in some cases
the culture is the department, and
contributes grandly to the university. He reported that in his five years as a
dean, only three times has a junior faculty come to him and said, “Do
something, my department won’t tell me what it takes to get tenure.”
Grassian inquired why a candidate can see the external reviews only after a
negative recommendation, and asked why couldn’t borderline cases also see
them? She suggested something like a one-third negative vote threshold to see
the redacted material. Prof.
Manderscheid reported that, in his department, what had been feared was the
setting of a uniform standard across the college. Members of his department were
quite relieved that what was desired was just a specification of what the
criterion is. Prof. Dettmer stated
that most departments hire very carefully, and want to see their junior faculty
succeed. Referring to his survey,
Dean Curto agreed, reporting that invariably it takes a stronger vote to be
hired than to get tenure. Prof.
LeBlond offered his hypothesis, that if a department has higher criterion, one
finds less flexibility at the level of the recommendation of the DEO and Dean.
Prof. Porter, while thinking it laudable that faculty hire so carefully,
felt that the issue is whether faculty are treated equitably. Prof. Cox stated
that if this is passed, we force all departments to address the issue of
defining their criterion. Prof.
LeBlond didn’t want to push uniformity, but openness.
Provost Clark cautioned that if everyone had access to letters, the kind of
letters that are written would change. She
liked Prof. Moyer's suggestion that departments be required to define their
criterion, without specifying the vote. Dean Curto suggested an alternative, that there be a strong
vote within the group of the candidate, but a simple majority in the department
as the criterion for a positive recommendation.
Prof. Irish pointed out the problem of identifying the appropriate group
for the candidate. Prof. Grassian
returned to the point of uniformity: not among departments but within a
department over time, so that the criterion cannot change on the whim of the DEO.
Associate Provost Clark suggested that we could decouple a criterion vote
from the threshold for access to redacted material.
Seaba raised the issue of the make-up of a collegiate consulting group for
clinical track candidates, noting that section G1 specifies the composition of
the DCG. Her concern was that there
might not be true peers (i.e. other clinical track faculty) within the CCG, and
thus no one who truly knew what was expected of a clinical track faculty member,
making it agonizingly difficult to conduct a fair evaluation without
establishment of a criterion vote. Associate Provost Clark assured her that the
policy specifies that there has to be at least one clinical track person in the
CCG. Prof. Porter returned to his
dislike of different standards, stating that whether or not the criterion for a
positive recommendation vs. access to external letter are decoupled, there is
the danger of lots of grievances if there are different standards.
Prof. LeBlond pointed out that the denominator is different for who votes
on tenure for clinical vs. tenure track candidate.
He suggested that we be open about what we are doing.
Prof. Colvin suggested that rather than voting on this now, we go back
and talk our departments about this. We can come back to it and vote in
Cox announced that Governor Vilsack will be having a town meeting at the public
library at 7 p.m. tonight. He
encouraged the senators to go and speak out in support of public higher
education. President Bhattacharjee added that the Faculty Senate Officers had
met with the governor during his last visit to campus.
The officers had found that he was very forthcoming but didn’t budge an
Cox moved and Prof. Porter seconded that we adjourn. The meeting adjourned by consensus at 5:18.