University of Iowa
April 16, 2001
Room #345, Iowa Memorial Union
Members Present: Joyce Berg, Rebecca Hegeman, Chuck Lynch, David
Manderscheid, Kim Marra, Paul Muhly, Gene Parkin, Craig Porter, Margaret
Raymond, Hazel Seaba, Lisa Troyer, John Westefeld
Members Absent: Vicki Grassian, Richard LeBlond, John Moyers
Members Excused: Patrick Lloyd, Ann Marie McCarthy
Faculty Senate Officers in Attendance: Amitava Bhattacharjee,
President; Jeff Cox, Vice President; Erin Irish, Secretary; Carolyn Colvin, Past
Guests: Charles Drum
(University Relations), Jessica Brady (Daily
Iowan), Bob Engels (Emeritus Faculty Council), Jim Jacobson (Gazette),
Heather Woodward (Press-Citizen),
Kathryn Wynes (Provost’s Office), Lola Lopes (Office of the Provost),
Michael O’Hara (CLAS), Roberta Marvin (Music; ADT Chair),
Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost), Jon Whitmore (Provost), Julie
Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office), Derek Willard (Special Assistant to the
President for Governmental Relations), Doug True (Vice-President for Finance and
University Services, David Skorton (Vice-President for Research and External
Relations), Doug Young (Director, Financial Management and Budget)
Call to Order
The meeting was
called to order at 3:37.
Prof. Muhly moved
and Prof. Marra seconded the following:
MOTION: To approve the meeting agenda.
The motion carried.
Minutes, March 12 Faculty Council Meeting
The minutes were
accepted with amendments from Prof. Raymond and Associate Provost Clark.
Meeting Agendas, April 30 Faculty Senate Meetings
Prof. Mulhy moved
and Prof. Westefeld seconded the following
MOTION: To accept the agendas. The
Committee appointments were accepted as distributed.
III. New Business
Proposal for the Academy of Distinguished Teachers (Roberta Marvin)
President Bhattacharjee introduced Prof.
Roberta Marvin, who chaired the committee charged with the establishment of an
Academy of Distinguished Teachers (ADT). By
way of introduction, President Bhattacharjee explained that when he and Prof.
Cox visited the University of Minnesota last summer, they were inspired by U.
Minnesota’s ADT and set in motion the efforts to establish one here.
The Minnesota ADT is different in important ways from what has been
envisioned for an Iowa ADT. Nonetheless, we have many among us who are awarded
on a yearly basis for their teaching accomplishments.
At Minnesota, there was a substantial budget that allowed a permanent
salary increase for members. Whereas that is not possible here at present, Provost
Whitmore has made several modest commitments of funds to this endeavor.
Prof. Marvin gave a
brief summary of the committee’s activities and proposal.
The committee met twice in addition to numerous e-mail exchanges.
This academy will celebrate excellence in teaching, but also facilitate
improvements in teaching, as well as provide a formal forum for encouraging
excellence in teaching on a university-wide basis.
It will provide visibility both within the university as well as for the
general public. The activities and
benefits available to members of the ADT, as well as funding opportunities, are
outlined in the proposal.
Prof. Westefeld asked how this would
interface with the Center for Teaching. Prof.
Marvin answered that it was expected to enhance their efforts by having a pool
of resource people and thus having a greater resource for workshops, and so
forth. The committee was mindful
that they should not be awarding excellence with more work.
Prof. Troyer asked whether there were any restrictions on employment:
full-time only, or would half time, retired, or other classes of teachers be
eligible. Prof. Marvin answered
that the committee had not considered that issue.
She added that membership is not automatic; one would have to want to
participate. Associate Provost Clark voiced her concern that with a
five-year term as specified by the proposal, it would be possible that everyone
on campus eligible would sign up in the first year, and then, five years later,
there would be no one left to participate.
Prof. Marvin addressed that concern, explaining that there is the
possibility for reelection. Prof.
Manderscheid asked whether the Council on Teaching has seen this proposal.
President Bhattacharjee answered that he had spoken to Marcy Rosenbaum
about this proposal, but the Council had not yet had a chance to approve it.
He had checked with the Council on Teaching when they first contemplated
establishing an ADT, and Prof. Rosenbaum had made most of the suggestions
regarding committee membership. Whereas
this proposal has not yet gone back to the Council, it will soon.
Prof. Manderscheid inquired about
funding, wanting to know whether it is envisioned that this is new funding, or
will other awards be diminished. Prof.
Marvin answered that, as she understood from Provost Whitmore, this would be new
funding. Prof. Manderscheid then
asked whether there would be limits on who could apply for these funds.
Prof. Marvin answered that this would be one of the perks of membership:
members only could apply for travel funds for attending teaching conferences,
etc. President Bhattacharjee added that this issue of establishing an ADT had
come up before, but the proposal had not progressed past the Senate, as there
was the reluctance to burden our best teachers with additional work.
Prof. Porter asked how many members the
ADT would have. Prof. Marvin answered that 100-150 would currently be eligible.
Prof. Porter pointed out that as there are many departments on campus,
for example, 25 in the College of Medicine, the membership could be quite large.
Prof. Marvin responded that the good thing about that would be that we
could demonstrate having a large pool of resource people with excellence in
Prof. Cox observed, looking at this
proposal in comparison to Minnesota’s ADT and their substantial budget, that
this proposal has not avoided the problems that killed the previous proposal.
He suggested that we just have a really nice banquet, honor good
teachers, and that’s it. Then,
when we get some serious money, we can ask people whether they would like to do
something more. Prof. Marvin
explained that the latter is the reasoning behind membership being voluntary.
Also, it was her opinion that if you are given something, you should have
to do something in return. Prof.
Cox pointed out that the members would have already done something: they taught
well. President Bhattacharjee
clarified that a good banquet would happen independently of the $25,000
allocated to the ADT from the Provost. Also,
whereas a particular activity might be viewed by some as more work, others may
regard the same activity as a benefit. He
pointed out what he regarded as a crucial phrase, starting with, “Depending on
the availability of resources…” He also reported that President Coleman had
thought an ADT might provide a mechanism to raise money for teaching chairs.
Prof. Troyer agreed that it could be part of a long-term strategy to
improving teaching, by increasing its visibility.
A strong symbolic commitment to teaching would help with popular
Prof. Lynch had some problems with
eligibility and the terms outlined in the proposal. He did not like the implication that at the end of one’s
term, one is no longer regarded a distinguished teacher. He thought that this academy is something we would want to
build over time. Also, having a
term limit emphasizes the service aspect. Prof.
Marvin saw the term limit as a mechanism to ensure that all members are
committed to participation. Lynch
asked whether there are mechanisms to identify members of the ADT or would
established mechanisms be employed. Prof.
Marvin answered that at present they would be using the latter, although down
the road they would want to refine the mechanisms.
Prof. Marra liked the idea of consolidating resources and personnel.
She had always thought that a good way to learn to teach is to watch good
teachers, but often it’s the luck of the draw.
Prof. Marvin agreed, and added that the issue of rotation should be
considered some more. President
Bhattacharjee raised the comparison to honors societies, such as the National
Academy of Sciences. Once one is
elected a member, the status is permanent, regardless of the quality of
achievement of a member over time.
Prof. Colvin asked Prof. Marvin to
characterize any dissenting opinions heard in her committee’s meetings.
Prof. Marvin replied that the biggest concern was that they not create
more work for faculty. Any dissent
went back to that concern. Whereas
the committee did not wish to push for more work, they did hope to provide
opportunities to contribute to efforts that would increase teaching excellence.
Prof. Colvin inquired whether the committee agreed that the resources,
such as for stipends, were sufficient for appropriate recognition of teaching
excellence. Prof. Marvin
acknowledged that whereas at other universities, such as Minnesota and Texas,
awarded substantial salary increases to their ADT members, if that model were to
be followed here, we would have a much smaller academy, with a resultingly
different function. President
Bhattacharjee cautioned that whereas the issue of having additional resources
seems like a good thing, one ought not to see the academy as a privileged place.
He raised the question of whether there really should be a permanent
increase in salary for professors who are supposed to be excellent teachers in
the first place.
Prof. Westefeld returned to the term
issue, stating that, whereas he could go either way on it, his preference was
that membership be permanent. Prof.
Colvin asked whether there could be a designation as past or emeritus member.
Prof. Manderscheid spoke against term limits, pointing out how that might
look to someone from the outside, that after the term was up, one is kicked out
of the academy. If a period of
membership were to be listed on a CV, the fact that it ended might imply that
one had done something wrong. Prof.
Porter thought that it was important to have mechanisms that continually select
those who are actually active members. (President
Bhattacharjee interjected the clarification that all of these comments should be
taken as friendly amendments.) Prof.
Marra stated that if one of the main functions is to provide mentors, it would
be beneficial to have a membership that is as wide as possible.
One might be called on only occasionally.
This would be the rationale for once you are in, you’re in.
Prof. Cox thought that it still tilts in the direction of service if the
question of what one has done recently comes up.
He thought the focus should be on the honor, but with the current
proposal we are trying to go two things at once.
It may be fine, but let’s make sure that this is what we want to do.
Prof. Manderscheid encouraged the committee to conduct a survey to find
out how many departments have teaching awards.
Associate Provost Clark added that dentistry, for example, has a lot of
different teaching awards, such as best first year teacher, best second year
teacher, and so on.
Prof. Lynch felt that we still need to decide whether this is
honorary or service, a question that he regarded as fundamental.
Prof. Colvin, recalling the previous discussions when the idea of an ADT
came up in the past, urged that the mission be clearly defined.
President Bhattacharjee responded that the mission is to recognize and
celebrate teaching excellence. On
the other hand, to define the adt
purely as that and only that would limit what the adt
could do, especially in times when the budget is more bountiful. Prof. Lynch saw
that in the proposal, but noted that the discussion hasn’t gone that way.
No one would turn down membership to the National Academy of Science. He
conceded that once a member, one probably would be willing to engage in extra
activities. Prof. Troyer suggested
that the list of activities be shortened. Prof.
Marvin saw the value of that.
President Bhattacharjee asked the
Council whether the proposal was ready to be forwarded to the Faculty Senate.
Prof. Colvin suggested that the committee have opportunity to incorporate
the changes discussed at this meeting, and have the Faculty Council discuss the
revised proposal in the fall. Prof.
Lynch agreed, and urged the committee to seek out teaching awardees to get their
input. He thought that the proposal
would probably have a better fate with the Senate in a more mature form.
Prof. Porter agreed, and thought that this is an important enough issue
that it would be most unfortunate if it went to the Senate prematurely and got
killed. Prof. Manderscheid concurred, adding that it would be helpful if it went
to the Senate with the endorsement of Council on Teaching. Prof. Marvin agreed
and promised that the revised version would emphasize the honorary aspect and
that the committee would get input from recent awardees.
Prof. Marra suggested that the proposal be framed as an opportunity to
have more influence on improving teaching here.
President Bhattacharjee concluded that this proposal will come back in
the fall. On behalf of the Faculty
Council, he thanked Prof. Marvin for her and the committee’s efforts.
Research Incentive Program (David Skorton and Lisa Troyer)
Prof. Troyer introduced the topic of
research incentives by reminding the Council that she had e-mailed a summary of
the funding used as incentives last year. The
Research Council has been discussing this issue.
As a preface to the rest of the presentation, she stated to the Faculty
Council that the Research Council endorses
the current strategy of allocating RIP funds to units (as opposed to individual
researchers). What they would like
to see more clearly is how the funds are going back into research.
Specifically, the Research Council recommends that more concise data be
collected by the OVPR regarding how RIP funds are spent by the units to which
they are allocated and who participates in the decision-making surrounding the
spending. They are satisfied with the levels of indirect cost return (about $1.2
million) and would not like them to be adjusted downward. The rationale of
indirect cost return is to motivate research,
more precisely, to further advance quality and continued growth in
research, scholarship, and creative activities across the University.
Vice President Skorton began with a
little history, which he had extracted from the minutes of the meetings of the
Research Council ten and eight years ago, when this program was started.
In 1992, the year he became a vice president, Greg Carmichael chaired the
Research Council which recommended the creation of cifre
Awards. Many other similar
programs have been built up since then. Initially, it was regarded as an
investment to increase the ability of faculty to attract external funds.
Now that has changed, in one way. There
are some areas of activity on campus that will not attract external funding,
regardless of their quality, because of the dearth of funding opportunities.
A sizable minority of OVPR funding went to those types of activities,
which turned out to be quite valuable when neh
and nea were cut by about 40%.
In 1994, a fund was established, in which specific general fund moneys
were allocated to units as incentives for increasing external funds.
Beginning in 1995, the goal of his
office was to reach $1 million per year, independent of what else was going on.
Now, $1.2 million is returned to the colleges.
In addition, the ra block,
the Obermann center, a physics research center, equipment matching, startup
costs, the biosciences initiative, and many capital projects are supported in part by
F and A funds (see handouts). His
office gives out awards in addition to the incentive program.
Last year they made 430 awards, of which 80% were assessed on a
competitive basis. Regarding the
FY02 plan, they went forward with the research initiative and ahi,
but the rest were suspended in November with the budget cut.
With respect to bridging funds, they find that about 2/3 of those who
have been awarded bridging funds have regained funding in the next application
cycle. From that success rate he
concluded that much of the sifting of bridging requests goes on at the
departmental level. The DEOs forward only the promising proposals. He summarized
by stating that this is the hybrid program that was created 10 years ago.
Some support goes to the units that bring in the funds; the rest goes to
support good quality scholarly activity.
Prof. Troyer reiterated that the research council feels strongly that the balance that they have now should be maintained. Their funding covers the wide range of activities on campus. Associate Provost Clark asked for clarification regarding whether FY01 recovery is what is available for FY02 expenditures. Vice President Skorton answered that it is. Doug Young had worked out a formula that, regardless of what else happened here, a percentage of the indirect recovered goes back to the unit that raised it. There is also a base level, and colleges always get that. They can receive more if there is a greater income. Their practice is to pass any growth along. Associate Provost Clark asked whether that accounted for the uneven percentages. Vice President Skorton replied that that was true. Doug Young had started expenditures out at 2%, but now the amount is directly indexed to indirect cost recovery. This year is the percentage is 3.8%. The “delta” goes to the units who generated them.
President Bhattacharjee brought up that
when he surveyed faculty last summer regarding issues of concern that he might
address, one that came up was research incentives. The question that he hears is how transparent is it that
those faculty who are successful in funding receive the return of indirect
costs. People see that money is
returned to the colleges, but they can’t track where it goes from there.
Also, many thought that 4% is quite low, compared to many other
comparable institutions. Vice President Skorton responded that at the other end
of spectrum, some universities, such as Indiana University, return all indirect
costs. He cautioned that the more
one does that, the fewer programs like cifre
can exist. His goal was to make
return amounts as large as possible without passing on facilities costs to
units. He clarified that it was not
that they came up with a percentage first; rather, they had an initial goal of
$1 million, and after that was reached they then established the base year
amount. The percentage resulted
from that determination. His office
would be willing to change how they operate, but wanted faculty to understand
the ramifications of such changes. Initially,
there had been a push that bridging be a major portion, but since then it has
asked whether it is 4% of 47%, or 4% of total costs.
Vice President Skorton answered that it is 4% of recovered indirect
costs, which are not uniformly 47%. Prof.
Lynch asked whether the 4% return is working as an incentive. Vice President Skorton answered carefully that whereas he has
not performed a scientific study, he has observed that before the program
started, the university brought in $1.7 million.
This year the amount is $314 million.
Of course that increase cannot be attributed solely to the incentive
program, but in his assessment it was likely to have contributed.
He also pointed out that a faculty member can’t apply for money if
there aren’t facilities for the research.
President Bhattacharjee stated that
there is no question that cifre is
important. He felt that what the
return program is doing for individual faculty is far less clear.
Whereas 10% return is not practicable at this time, he proposed launching
a pilot program, in which the returns are targeted to the PI’s rather than to
deans or deos.
Prof. Troyer replied that the Research Council has discussed this
possibility. One of the reasons
that they like the current practice is that the pooling of resources for several
members of a department has been useful, and they don’t want to see that go
away. How the funds are distributed
differs a lot with units. It was
the opinion of the Research Council that whereas researcher should definitely be
involved in decisions, they should not have full control of the moneys.
Vice President Skorton raised the point
that, as described in Prof. Troyer’s report, the College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences, for example, gives 85% of the research incentive funds back to the
departments. He thought that a
questionnaire sent out to PI’s in Medicine, Public Health, and Liberal Arts
and Sciences, asking how much they received individually, could be useful.
Associate Provost Clark suggested that if that were to be done, a quasi
control could be built in by also asking those who did not generate indirect
costs but nonetheless received some incentive funding what they were able to do.
Prof. Porter was in strong support of that idea, but President
Bhattacharjee warned that this issue will not go away, regardless of the results
of such a study. It was his
impression that faculty having a lot of money feel that they shouldn’t apply
He felt there was a need for a clear stream of money back to the pi’s
who bring in the funds. It was Vice President Skorton’s sense that because the
indirect cost return is only 4% at present, the amount going back to individual pi’s
would be quite modest. He also
pointed out that a lot of units are relying on distributions from his office
along the lines of what had been done in the past.
He would not want to ask deos
at this point to deal with not getting those funds back, as the indirect costs
would be going back to the pi’s
instead. He offered to go back to figure out where the indirect costs
Prof. Troyer emphasized that the research
Council is 100% behind pi voice. Prof. Lynch followed up by observing that if he brought in
$500,000, he would get $20,000 back. He
was confident that he could account for that.
He found it much harder to determine where the rest of the $480,000 goes.
Vice President Skorton reminded him that capital projects take a lot of that
money. He also raised the point
that the 47% indirect cost rate is determined retrospectively, when the
question, what was actually spent, is asked.
The rate is negotiated with the federal government.
The largest component of those costs is departmental and collegiate
administration, as well as depreciation and the retiring of debts.
Associate Provost Clark asked whether there is a way that that could be
generalized and presented to the Faculty Council.
Vice President True responded that he was more than happy to give
presentations and to clarify where the funds go.
Vice President Skorton suggested that they update an older report they
already have that shows where funds go.
Prof. Cox found it important to remember
that whereas the Faculty Council is good for representation, it is less so for
are the real conduit of information. Vice President Skorton conveyed his
willingness to speak at the next deo
meeting in Liberal Arts and Sciences. President Bhattacharjee concluded with his
view that in order to encourage great research, the system must have rewards
build into it. The net outcome will
be growth in indirect costs recovery. The
present system may not be the best way to encourage externally funded research.
C. University Smoking Policy Amendment (Carolyn Colvin)
Prof. Colvin introduced the proposed
amendment by explaining that a year ago, the Faculty Council had discussed the
smoking policy. She, Associate
Provost Clark, and Pat Kenner had gone to work on the policy as described in the
Operations Manual. They found that
there was the need for one additional sentence, specifying that one entrance of
each campus building, preferably the main entrance, be nonsmoking.
Prof. Troyer suggested that users of building be surveyed to determine
the consensus as to which is the main entrance.
Prof. Lynch moved and Prof. Westefeld
seconded the following:
To approve this policy amendment.
Prof. Seaba pointed out that Oakdale
Hall has been locked down for a while, and at present has only one entrance.
It seemed to her that a reasonable solution could be worked out.
Prof. Colvin stated that that entrance would be designated as nonsmoking.
The idea is that there be one nonsmoking entrance.
Prof. Marra suggested designating a single smoking entrance. Prof. Lynch wondered why a building couldn’t have more than
one nonsmoking entrance. He suggested as a friendly amendment the insertion of
the phrase, “at least” before
“one nonsmoking entrance,” which was acceptable to Prof. Colvin.
(from above): To approve the
amended policy amendment.
The motion passed.
Regents Awards for Faculty
Excellence and Brody Awards
Prof. Colvin moved and Prof. Porter
seconded the following:
To move to executive session. The
President Bhattacharjee reported on the
make up and deliberations of the committees that chose awardees for Faculty
Excellence and the Brody award, and announced the results.
Whereas the awardees were most deserving of these awards, President
Bhattacharjee expressed his disappointment that there were not as many
nominations as he had expected to find, especially among women and faculty in
the humanities. Prof. Troyer asked
how deans and DEOs might be sensitized to the need to urge faculty to nominate
their colleagues, especially women and those in the humanities.
Prof. Cox hypothesized that people who are in practice of applying for
things, apply here, too, whereas in departments without some many external
funding opportunities, inertia may prevent those nominations.
President Bhattacharjee promised that he would be discussing this with
the deans. Prof. Manderscheid
reemphasized that in some departments, a template probably exists, which would
make nominating much easier. Prof.
Parkin agreed that it is a culture thing. Prof. Colvin thought it was also an
issue of communication. She pointed out that Senators are a good source of
nominees. Prof. Raymond thought
that many of us may have adopted the Iowa tradition of hiding our lights behind
a bushel. We need to encourage
self-nomination. Prof. Porter would
like to see excellence in clinical faculty recognized.
President Bhattacharjee answered that the criteria were set by the regents,
not the university. Nonetheless he
intended to pass this concern on to President Coleman, so she can discuss this
with the Regents, so that clinical faculty can be included.
moved and Prof. Lynch seconded the following:
To forward the names of awardees of the Regents Awards for Faculty
Excellence to the Senate. The motion passed with
MOTION: To forward the
names of awardees of the Brody Award to the Senate. The motion passed with
The meeting was adjourned at
Erin Irish, Secretary