University of Iowa
Tuesday, February 26, 2002
State Room, 337 Iowa Memorial Union
Members Present: Joyce
Berg, Rebecca Hegeman, Richard LeBlond, Patrick Lloyd, Chuck Lynch, David
Manderscheid, Kim Marra, Ann Marie McCarthy, Paul Muhly, Gene Parkin, Craig
Porter, Margaret Raymond, Hazel Seaba, Lisa Troyer, John Westefeld
Members Absent: Vicki
Grassian, John Moyers
Officers in Attendance: Amitava Bhattacharjee, President; Jeff Cox, Vice
President; Erin Irish, Secretary; Carolyn Colvin, Past President
Buckwalter (APHS), Charles Drum (University Relations), Linda Everett (UIHC),
Bob Engel (Emeritus Faculty Council), Lee Anna Clark (Provost Office), Julie
Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office), Heather Woodward (Press-Citizen), Jon Whitmore (Provost), Mark Schantz (General
Counsel), Jan Waterhouse (Affirmative Action), David Johnsen (UIHC), Katherine
Wynes (Office of the Provost)
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 3:35.
Minutes: Faculty Council, February 5, 2002
Prof. Lynch offered two
changes to the minutes. The amended
minutes were accepted by consensus.
Approval of March 5, 2002 Senate Agenda
Prof. Lynch moved and Prof. Porter seconded the following
MOTION: That the agenda
be approved. The motion carried.
C. Approval of Faculty Senate replacements.
With no objections, the changes
were accepted as recommended.
for the Dean of the College of Medicine (K. Buckwalter)
Bhattacharjee introduced this report by reminding the Council that a month or so
ago President Coleman had announced by e-mail that there would be two national
searches, for a Dean of the College of Medicine and for a Director and CEO of
the UI Hospital. K. Buckwalter came
to the Council meeting to report on the search for the Dean.
directed the Council’s attention to her handouts, one of which provided a list
of the members of the search committee, the other the ad for the Dean position.
Faculty have approved the draft of the job description, where the job
will be advertised, etc. The search
committee intends that groups of committee members will meet with DEOs in the
College of Medicine, the deans of other health science colleges, and with
faculty, and with students. They
have requested names of candidates from committee members, as well as lists of
national organizations from which suitable candidates might be drawn.
They have received a number of good names already. Prof. Colvin asked
what the timeline is for the search. Prof.
Buckwalter answered that ideally they will have someone in place in nine months,
but more realistically it will be a year from now.
Prof. Colvin asked how many will be interviewed.
Prof. Buckwalter answered that nine or ten will be interviewed at
O’Hare. After that, a short list in which the candidates would remain
unranked will be drafted and those candidates will be invited to campus.
Provost Whitmore addressed his office’s involvement in the search.
This search is unusual in that the new dean will have a dual reporting
position. Normally for a deanship,
the Office of the Provost would be doing everything itself, but as this will be
a dual reporting position, his office has been operating in conjunction with the
Vice President for Statewide Services. President
Coleman, who normally is involved in dean searches, will play an even more
prominent role than usual.
Bhattacharjee, noting that the search committee charge seemed very vague, asked
whether all members of the search committee, including any students, have equal
voting rights. In the CLAS, it has
been established that students can serve on search committees but not vote.
Prof Buckwalter answered that they haven’t gotten that far.
President Bhattacharjee recommended that the search committee follow
models of search committees in other colleges, advice Prof. Buckwalter
appreciated. Prof. Porter pointed out that there hasn’t been much
“turn-over” in deans in the College of Medicine, and thus it might not be
unexpected that there is no well-defined search protocol.
Prof. Buckwalter concurred, and described how the organization has
changed since then. She assured the
Council that the committee is made up of many with recent experiences in dean
Lynch asked whether other deans in health sciences having dual reporting. Provost Whitmore answered that no other deans have this; it
is unique. He explained that the
responsibilities of a dean of the College of Medicine are vast, with concerns of
space planning, funding raising for the health sciences, and coordinating
interdisciplinary functions at the clinical level.
The Dean helps coordinate health services with the state government.
No other dean is expected to report to the Vice President for Statewide
Health Services. There is a health sciences policy forum, co-chaired by Vice
President Kelch and Provost Whitmore, that brings all the health sciences deans
together once a month to discuss space, legislative issues, and so on.
Prof. Lynch asked why the Dean of the COM reports dually but the other
deans do not. Provost Whitmore
responded that the Dean of the COM has to interface with the hospital and UI
Health Care. That is a huge job.
The new CEO of the hospital will report to Vice President Kelch.
Academic issues are controlled by the Provost, but not the day-to-day
operations of the hospital. President Bhattacharjee mentioned that Prof.
Lynch’s point of the asymmetry of one dean reporting to VP group has been
brought up to him several times. He asked whether that means that the COM has
greater representation than do faculty in other colleges.
Provost Whitmore answered that President Coleman has designed this
Buckwalter added that she knows that faculty are concerned that the new dean
would be simply a yes-person. The
search will target people who will share the current vision of UI Health Care.
Prof. Cox noted that dual reporting implies equal reporting, but wondered
whether there is a default of reporting to the VP unless specified otherwise.
Prof. Buckwalter responded that academic matters in the College of
Medicine, such as promotion and tenure, are very important and are dealt with by
the Provost. Prof. Cox asked whether the search committee would make a
recommendation to the Vice President. Prof.
Buckwalter responded that the recommendation would go to the Vice President and
to the Provost, who will work together with President Coleman.
LeBlond wanted clarification regarding whether the handout was the job
description or an ad. Prof.
Buckwalter replied that it is what has gone to Affirmative Action.
Provost Whitmore clarified that this is an ad, not a job description.
Prof. LeBlond commented that the COM is involved to a huge extent in
education that is not degree granting: faculty
supervise residents and postdocs, yet do not report to the Provost for these
activities in the same way that they do for teaching medical students and
undergraduate. This is one of the linkages between the hospital and the COM, and
maybe this should be overseen by the Provost, too.
Prof. Buckwalter reported that they have had big discussions about
whether postdocs are students or employees.
Prof. LeBlond reported that the Accreditation Council for Graduate
Medical Education is pushing for a more academic structure for residents.
Prof. Buckwalter thought that this would be a good topic for discussion
with the job candidates. On a
related topic, Prof. Seaba asked how the needs of Nursing and Pharmacy, which
are very dependent on the hospital for training their students, would be met
with this new reporting structure. The
needs of the students sometimes conflict with the needs of providing care for
patients. Prof. Buckwalter replied
that Nursing has representation on the search committee. Prof. Seaba asked her
to address the issues of student access of UIHC.
Prof. Buckwalter answered that associate deans currently bring some
student access issues to her as a member of the Office of the Provost.
President Bhattacharjee terminated this discussion by suggesting that
additional questions be addressed directly to Prof. Buckwalter.
Search for the Director and CEO of the University of Iowa Hospitals and
Clinics (D. Johnsen)
Prof. Johnsen reported on the
progress of this search, and distributed copies of the job ad.
The search committee is composed of nearly 20 people.
They were charged during the first week of December and have met six
times already. He predicted that
the search would be concluded before that of the Dean of Medicine.
They are looking for exceptional people, and are not being too
restrictive, using a wide lens to seek an exceptional leader.
One of the primary characteristics that they are looking for in the
candidates is experience running an academic hospital, preferably a large one.
Another essential characteristic is that the applicant has been part of a
successful leadership team; however, the search committee is open to how s/he
got to that role. The candidate
could be a physician, or an mba,
or a lawyer, etc., but (s)he must have
extensive experience in a leadership team.
The team aspect is especially important for Iowa, as the Dean must be
able to work with the CEO. Kelch
and Howell worked so well together- they are a model for success.
The search committee is employing rigor in assessing candidates, but also
realize that competition for very best people is fierce.
The difference between the CEO and Dean searches is that candidates for a
deanship expect that once they are on the short list, the process will become
very public. In contrast, candidate
CEOs cannot be expected to participate in a public search.
He expected that the list would be narrowed to just two or three before
this becomes at all public. The
search is already attracting some very strong candidates. Now they need to convince them that Iowa is the place for
Prof. Everett made some additional comments on the search, reporting that Faculty Council is the tenth group with which they have met, including afscme. In addition, they have met with individuals, to learn their views on what characteristics to look for. A recurring issue is the relationship between the Dean and the Director. They hope to build on the firm foundation of the last seven years.
Prof. Cox observed that the
search committee had met with unions, and that the job ad suggests working with
the unions, and wondered whether this is a change in policy.
Prof. Johnsen answered that the unionized workers are part of the
operation, and the Director must be able to work with them.
He added that the issues of commitments to patient care and to education
keep coming up, as well as the need to be able to work with the Dean.
Prof. LeBlond brought up that whereas we have some 800 medical students
in academic programs, we also have 700 residents, but with no structure for
their training despite each resident bringing in $80,000 per year in fees.
He would like to see a stronger structure supporting the education of the
residents, parallel to the support of medical students.
Prof. Westefeld asked how much coordination is going on between the two
searches. Prof. Johnsen replied
that Sandy Boyd serves on both search committees, which helps with communication
between the searches. Prof. Colvin
asked whether there is some advantage in the CEO search finishing first, as far
as setting some agenda. Prof.
Johnsen answered that he was not sure: they
will be trying to find the very
best person. Prof. Colvin continued
that we are all concerned about the relationship between these two new people
and that the shared vision be continued, but if one search is finished first,
will there be an advantage to that person in setting the vision? Prof. LeBlond brought up the fact that Dean Kelch is still
acting as a dean until the new one is found: this will ensure that the role of
the new dean will be protected.
HF 2061: Faculty Member on the Board of Regents
President Bhattacharjee reminded
us of where we were a few weeks ago, when the Council had some concerns about
this proposal. We were unique in
not passing it. He had passed our
concerns onto Barbara Finch, who then modified her proposal, copies of which had
been distributed. He reported that
even though hers is just a three-person subcommittee, here politics has played a
big role. The bottom line is that
Democrats want Finch’s spot, and with this proposal Finch, a Republican, is
adopting a traditional Democratic position. Thus, Democrats have opposed it.
Christy Pope (ISU Faculty Senate President) has accused us of being a
bunch of intellectuals who have missed the big point of having a voice on the
Board of Regents. The Regents had
been opposed to this, and President Coleman came out against it.
Now, Rep. Finch has blue-carded the proposal, so that it won’t go down
in flames, in part because of what we did.
Rep. Finch has asked Mr. Nichols of the Board of Regents to find out what
the Board will do to get greater input from faculty.
The political wisdom is that if a subcommittee had voted against a
proposal, it would be dead for years. Having
been blue-carded instead, this proposal could be brought up again.
Presidents of the other faculty senates have asked President
Bhattacharjee to bring the revised version back to us.
Nothing will happen this year, but the proposal could be revived next
Prof. LeBlond thought we needed to distinguish voice from membership. A two-year membership for the faculty representative would be meaningless. (S)he would not be a real member without experience or the hope of it; this amendment reduces the membership idea to tokenism. Prof. Lynch would still like to hear from the leaders of faculty at uni, isu, especially since now we don’t have a time constraint. Our concern is what that member should be doing-- how on earth do we represent faculty from other universities? He wondered how much thought they put into it beyond, “we want a voice.” President Bhattacharjee responded that Christy Pope had thought that having a voice was primary, and how representation would be accomplished was secondary. He added that one thing that he has learned in this issue is that the levels of faculty representation by central administrations are variable—we can rely on our administrators to speak for us, whereas it is not so much true at the other universities. It seems that if this proposal is to go forward, our support as the flagship senate is essential.
President Bhattacharjee reported
some AAUP data: there are four states (Kentucky, Oregon, New Jersey, and North Dakota) where there are faculty
members on the Board of Regents; that is, it is rare. One would have to support this proposal with logic, rather
than by pointing to other states. Prof.
Marra was still concerned about how this person would be chosen.
Would we have to declare our political alliances?
She found that bizarre. Prof.
Cox pointed out that that is the way the rest of the Board of Regents is chosen.
Prof. Troyer confirmed that it is a political appointment.
President Bhattacharjee added that it is the same thing for the student
member. Prof. Marra observed that in all other aspects of our professional work
we are not to be political, but here it would be an issue.
President Bhattacharjee reported that Christy Pope had made the point
that it is the backroom discussions that are important, whereas the public
meetings are fairly scripted. Prof.
Colvin proposed that there be regular monthly meetings in which the three
Faculty Senate presidents meet privately with some Board of Regents members. That way we could speak for ourselves, and wouldn’t have to
worry that we might be misrepresenting faculty at other universities.
President Bhattacharjee suggested that we think about this for a while.
Prof. LeBlond still felt that we were considering the wrong question, and
thought that the real issue is how best to get faculty concerns heard at the
Board of Regents.
Regents and Brody Awards (Amitava
committee for making these awards is nearly constituted.
The deadline is February 28 for nominations for the Regents Award.
Nominations for the Brody Award can be made until March 8.
E. Announcements (Amitava Bhattacharjee)
1. We have two finalists for Dean of the Graduate College, Profs. John Keller and John Nelson. The former is interim Dean. There are two times scheduled for faculty to interact so that they might provide feedback to committee
President Bhattacharjee has been addressed by a Republican candidate for
governor, Doug Gross, who wants to meet with Faculty Council.
The UI Student Government has invited him to campus.
Mr. Gross used to be on the Board of Regents: we may wish to hear his
view on the Regents’ universities. We
can meet with him on Tuesday, March 5, in room 345 of the IMU.
Unfinished Business: Sexual Harassment Policy and Consensual Relations
Waterhouse, who had made the final changes, reviewed them for the Council.
The changes to the Consensual Relations policy were very minor.
They were mostly clarifications of language or changes in organization to
maintain parallel construction. Prof.
Raymond asked whether graduate assistants who are under a contract are “staff
under a union contract” or “graduate assistants.” Prof. Cox asked in
general what the changes are. Ms.
Waterhouse replied that the policy has been separated from that on sexual
harassment and has been clarified and strengthened.
Prof. Colvin moved and Prof. LeBlond seconded the following
MOTION: To accept this policy and forward it to the Senate.
The motion passed.
Waterhouse continued by outlining the changes to the Sexual Harassment policy.
There is no time limit now on complaints. The word “corroborate” was changed
to “substantiate” (p. 3). As
now third party complaints are allowed, throughout the document an alleged
victim was distinguished from a complainant.
They clarified in sect. 5 the transition from informal to formal
complaints, specifying that a formal complaint need not be preceded by an
informal complaint. They clarified
what the respondent has the opportunity to respond to, and added a sentence to
describe what kind of notification a third party would receive.
They modified who can make up a victim’s personal support group: the
policy now states that a victim cannot discuss it with people at work, but can
with anyone outside work or educational environment, as the university has no
regulatory power outside of the work or educational environment.
With the desire to make the educational component stronger, Section 12
has been changed: while not making education
mandatory, it says that
administrators are responsible for knowing this policy.
They are now working out the educational training. Associate Provost
Clark added that this training might be developed similarly to the online
training for Use of human subjects.
A final section, 14, was added that specifies that this policy will be reviewed
and revised, if needed, within three years from its adoption.
Bhattacharjee asked when the last revisions occurred, to which Ms. Waterhouse
replied, 1993. Prof. Cox said that
when this was first brought up there was concern that there would be a file on
people that they might not know about. He
asked how that concern has been addressed. Associate Provost Clark answered that
if Affirmative Action is given a name in a complaint, then the person named is
notified, and reciprocally, if a person is informed that a complaint has been
made, Affirmative Action is given the name.
Without a name, there can’t be a file, and if there were a file, the
person would know that it exists. Prof. Cox asked whether a person could ask
that the file be eliminated. General
Counsel Schantz responded that if you asked that a file to be destroyed, and
it’s not, you could grieve it. President Bhattacharjee asked about the current
practice, wondering whether DEOs could talk about a situation after there had
been numerous informal discussions, but nothing was ever written down. Associate Provost Clark pointed out Section 3, which allows a
deo who did not feel that he or
she had sufficient evidence for a complaint to have an informal discussion.
Even so, the advice of the policy is to consult with Affirmative Action
to make that decision. President
Bhattacharjee continued his question, asking if this is a big change from
present practice, when he is aware that deos
consult with their deans. Associate
Provost Clark responded that it depends on what drives a deo
to consult with the dean- whether the DEO had made an observation, or had heard
a complaint. President
Bhattacharjee concluded that DEOs
need to be educated about this policy. Prof.
Cox asked whether the policy requires that a complaint go to Affirmative Action,
even if neither the deo nor the
dean thinks there is a need. Associate
Provost Clark answered that it need not; it could stop there provided the
information or complaint did not rise to the level of “specific and
Marra was pleased with the changes but still had a niggling concern that in
third party complaints, a deo
could radically affect the accused without ever addressing the “credible and
specific” standard. She acknowledged that Section 4e is there to allow the deo
to protect a victim, but felt that there is still the spuriously accused to
worry about. Ms. Waterhouse agreed that that is still a risk; we can only
hope that deos will act in a fair
and reasonable manner. Whereas they
have not eliminated risk, they feel that this policy has minimized it.
Associate Provost Clark added that, having watched these processes and
speaking generally, her observation is that deos
act conservatively. Prof. Muhly was
delighted with both policies and addressed the plan to review them in 3 years. He wanted to know who will do the review and whether all
cases will be examined. Associate
Provost Clark reported that she had picked up the phrase for doing a review
right out of the clinical track policy. Ms. Waterhouse thought the review would
probably be done by a group similar to the group that constructed the policy.
Prof. Muhly wanted to know how to they would choose which cases to
examine. General Counsel Schantz
agreed that that can be problematic, as many might not be happy to have their
Prof. Colvin moved and Prof. Raymond seconded the following
MOTION: To accept this policy and forward it to the Senate.
The motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:17.
Erin Irish, Secretary