University of Iowa
November 12, 2002
pm – 5:15 pm
State Room, #335 Iowa Memorial Union
Present: Edwin Dove, Rebecca
Hegeman, Richard LeBlond, Patric Lloyd, Chuck Lynch, Teresa Mangum, Kim Marra,
Sue Moorhead, Shelton Stromquist, Katherine Tachau, John Westefeld, Jerold
Absent: Ronald Herman, Mazen
Excused: Richard Randell, Paul
Senate Officers in Attendance: Jeffrey
Cox, President; Margaret Raymond, Vice President; Craig Porter, Secretary
Senate Officers Excused: Amitava
Bhattacharjee, Past President
Patricia Donohoue (College of Medicine), James Baetke (Daily Iowan), Jim
Andrews (Emeritus Faculty Council), Heather Woodward (Press Citizen), David
Wynes (Vice President for Research), Grainne Martin (Office of the General
Counsel), M. Patricia Donahue (College of Nursing), Paul Muhly (Budget
Committee), Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost), Nancy Williams (Family
Issues Charter Center), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office), Anne Tanner
Call to Order
November 12, 2002 meeting of the Faculty Council was called to order at 3:36 PM
by President Jeffrey Cox.
meeting agenda was unanimously approved.
Minutes—Faculty Council, October 1, 2002
Tachau moved approval. Prof.
Raymond seconded and the minutes were approved as written. Following approval Prof. Lloyd urged that the Secretary avoid
the excessive use of adverbs in the written reconstruction of comments offered
by councilors and/or guests in the minutes of the Council and Senate meetings.
In an attempt to better understand the nature of the concern, Sec. Porter
asked for specific illustration in the Faculty Council minutes of October 1,
2002. No specifics were offered,
but the caution was reiterated.
Proposed Senate Agenda—December 3, 2002
proposed Senate agenda was approved with the single addition offered by Prof.
Tachau of the traditional “from the floor” agenda item, one that was
inadvertently deleted. Additional
discussion ensued following the announcement by Pres. Cox that the College of
Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS) Faculty Assembly anticipated discussion at
their November 20, 2002 meeting over a request of the Faculty Senate to consider
a collegiate a proposal to decrease the number of football scholarships.
This proposal originated in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Educational Policy Committee. Profs.
LeBlond and Lynch offered that the more appropriate proposal would be for the
Faculty Council to consider this recommendation of the CLAS faculty prior
to the Senate so doing. Pres. Cox
agreed with these comments and offered to circulate the CIC Resolution on
Intercollegiate Athletics to the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Faculty
prior to their upcoming discussion. Prof.
Mangum questioned the source of authority behind such a resolution.
Pres. Cox responded that both the CLAS Faculty Assembly and the
University of Iowa Faculty Senate and Council can make recommendations and that
these bodies do have influence on University administrative leadership.
Following these discussions the proposed Senate agenda was approved as
written and without modification save the addition of Prof. Tachau’s agenda
Approval of Recommended Replacements
Lynch offered the following motion: “the
Faculty Council endorses the Senate replacement as recommended by the Committee
on Elections and forwards it to the Faculty Senate for approval”.
The motion was seconded by Prof. Tachau and unanimously approved.
Prof. Westefeld then offered the following motion:
“the Faculty Council endorses the Faculty Senate Committee Replacement
as recommended by the Committee on Committees and forwards it to the Faculty
Senate for approval”. Prof. Moorhead provided a second and the motion passed
Report of the Faculty Senate President, Jeffrey Cox
Cox brought the membership of the Faculty Council up to date on the activities
of its leadership. The Faculty
Senate Officers recently met with Interim President Boyd and Jane Van Voorhis,
Coordinator of Outreach and Advocacy. Ms
Van Voorhis’ appointment is the logical outgrowth of Interim President
Boyd’s commitment to “strengthen the University’s connections with the
state of Iowa and make the case to the General Assembly and Governor for
adequate support of the Regent’s universities”.
Ms. Van Voorhis will be asked to speak about her plans for her new
position at the next Faculty Senate meeting on December 3, 2002.
Interim President Boyd will also shortly inform the University community
at large of his intent and her appointment in an upcoming e-mail broadcast.
Pres. Cox subsequently reported on his address at a recent Sunrise
Optimist Club Breakfast Meeting wherein he encouraged efforts directed toward an
improvement in faculty/community relations.
He also took the opportunity to encourage this group to support any and
all community-based efforts to effect restoration of the $56 million budgetary
cuts endured by the University over the last two years.
Following his remarks he opened the floor for questions and the first
question to which he was asked to respond was “why are the University faculty
against athletics”. He assured
the members of the Sunrise Optimist Club that the University faculty are not
“against” athletics, indeed many are among the most ardent consumers of the
University athletic activities. Additionally he made the point before these
optimists that the budgetary cuts endured by the University represent a
substantial economic development opportunity cost in Johnson County.
For the councilors Prof. Cox reflected on the obvious interest of the
community in the relationship between the faculty and the athletics programs.
The comments of the members of the Sunrise Optimist Club suggested to him
that there was an enormous reservoir of support for the University of Iowa in
Cox then provided then provided the Faculty Council with an update on central
administrative review processes. He
reiterated that Interim President Boyd is desirous of a prompt review of the
Office of the President of the University.
Pres. Cox and Provost Whitmore have been working to assemble the
committee to perform the review. It
is almost in its final form. In
keeping with University policy that there be a one year follow up after the
completion of the formal review of a central academic official, the final
meeting of Vice President True’s review committee recently occurred. The delayed follow up offers an opportunity to assess the
impact of the review, although they do not necessarily uniformly occur.
All involved in this particular follow-up felt that the process and
report were useful exercises. He
next identified the high priority that the interim president has placed on
modification of the language governing the promotion and tenure policies so that
service in fulfillment of these policies could specifically include service to
the State of Iowa. The Office of
the Provost is currently working on language to support this priority move.
President Boyd also shared a copy of his letter to BICOA Chair Nick Colangelo
requesting a review of policies and procedures in the Athletics Department as
they relate to measures that were taken during the recent settlement of criminal
charges brought against a University of Iowa basketball player.
In this letter Interim President Boyd wrote:
“we must come to grips with what transpired here and with how
allegations of violence, sexual harassment, and other violations of the Code of
Student Life are handled in the future in the Athletic Department in the context
of University policies and procedures. I
hereby ask the Board in Control of Athletics, the body charged with
responsibility for safeguarding the academic and educational interests of
student athletes, to take this situation very, very seriously, and to consider
steps that should be taken to insure that similar situations are resolved in the
interests of the entire University. Specifically,
I instruct the Board to recommend any changes it deems advisable in order to
assure that resolutions in the future protect the interests of the University as
a whole and the interests of students. I
also instruct the Board to insure, at a minimum, that the same policies and
procedures regarding violence, sexual harassment, and student conduct that apply
to all other aspects of the University must be applicable in the Department of
Athletics, including policies regarding oversight and training.
letter continued: “I am
specifically requesting that Charlotte Westerhaus, Assistant to the President
and Director of Affirmative Action; Phillip Jones, Vice President for Student
Services; and Linda McGuire, special counsel to the president, work with you in
developing these recommendations.”
letter in its entirety will be posted on the University of Iowa Faculty Senate
web site. It will be able to be
found under the category of “Issues of Current Interest” subheading
“Athletics”. Pres. Cox further
elaborated that the University of Iowa is seen by the Committee on Institutional
Cooperation (CIC) as having a model oversight committee in BICOA as a committee
whose primary role is the academic oversight of athletics programs. Prof. Westefeld then asked Pres. Cox to elaborate on the
upcoming CIC meeting. In his
response Pres. Cox identified the purpose of the CIC as being a forum in which
to discuss issues of common interest to the Big 10 plus the University of
Chicago. The seated president of
the CIC Faculty Leaders, Robert Eno, Professor at Indiana University in
Bloomington, intends to focus the November 22/23 meeting on athletics with the
intent to develop a coordinated faculty action plan for leadership in
intercollegiate athletic activities.
Cox opened the floor for questions. Prof.
Tachau commented on the apparent differences in expected athlete conduct between
various athletic programs; specifically she addressed the apparent issue of
gender equity that was raised when the women’s gymnastics team was prevented
from going to conference activities because its members had violated the
coach’s order not to drink. The
apparent inequity derives when similar behavior appears not to prevent the
participation of men’s athletics teams in similar conference activities.
In his role as both a Faculty Councilor as well as a member of BICOA
Prof. Lynch responded to Prof. Tachau’s comment and question.
In doing so he identified a fundamental problem in the University and
Athletics’ codes of conduct policies which he, in his role as Chair of a BICOA
subcommittee. It was his opinion
that neither policy (neither of which conflict with the other) “ send[s] a
clear message of what athletes and students can and cannot do”. Recognizing that Interim President Boyd’s recent letter to
BICOA Chair Nick Colangelo may presage a need for revision of the existing
policy, Prof. Lynch’s activities are nevertheless currently directed at
clarification and not revision. Further
discussion of this issue identified the reality that coaches effectively
function as “DEOs” but report/discuss at a much higher administrative entry
level than their true academic DEO counterparts.
Part of the apparent justification for these administrative discrepancies
derives from the highly visible nature of topics which must be resolved in the
athletics programs. The effort of
BICOA in achieving consistency in policies governing student behavior has
required a working relationship with student services.
Prof. Lynch anticipates wide review of his subcommittee’s work,
including review by the Vice President and General Counsel before the
clarification in the code of conduct policies in athletics might be accepted.
Prof. Tachau asked if the new director of Affirmative Action and Vice
President Jones are participating in these important discussions.
Prof. Lynch responded that both of these individuals are part of the
committee however their attendance is not uniform at working meetings of the
BICOA Code of Conduct Review Committee. Nevertheless
Prof. Lynch presumes that their direct and presumably substantive input will be
achieved at the time of review of the revised policy just prior to its
implementation. Prof. Lynch closed
his remarks by reiterating that this BICOA committee is trying to clarify the
code of conduct for athletics, not to create a new set of expectations.
As such, their activities may not directly satisfy the publicly expressed
desires of Interim President Boyd.
Prof. Lloyd asked for an
update on the status of administrative discussions of the research track faculty
proposal. Pres. Cox indicated that
the Provost will discuss this matter further with the deans prior to additional
scheduled discussions at the Faculty Council and Senate.
Associate Provost Clark reminded the councilors that Interim President
Boyd has asked that she, Provost Whitmore and Vice Presidents Skorton and Kelch
add specific detail to the policy before it is further discussed.
They have met to do so and progress will be forthcoming.
Proposal for Faculty Senate/Staff Council Budget Committee, Paul Muhly
Prof. Muhly took the
floor. He provided a brief review
of the substantial involvement of Immediate Past President Amitava Bhattacharjee
in the discussion that led to the proposal under consideration.
Prof. Muhly felt that Prof. Bhattacharjee’s unavoidable absence at
today’s meeting would significantly hamper a discussion of the issue and for
this reason requested postponement. Following
these comments Prof. Lynch moved to postpone.
The motion was seconded by Prof. Marra and passed unanimously and without
Proposed Changes to Family Issues Charter Committee Charge, Nancy
member Nancy Williams briefly opened the discussion by describing for the
Council how her three years as Chair of the Family Issues Charter Committee have
convinced her that issues of importance to families in our community are far
more complex than those related simply to parenting activities.
This was the basis for the modifications presented for consideration to
the Faculty Council. Associate Provost Clark commended the discussions and the
care which informed the proposed rewording.
Pres. Cox questioned the composition of the Committee and Ms. Williams
indicated that it consisted of three faculty members, three staff members and
three student members. Offering the
cautionary advice that the Council recommendations on this matter would not need
to be listened to by the President of the University, Pres. Cox asked if the
Council wished to offer a motion to adopt the proposed changes.
Such a motion was offered by Prof. Lynch, seconded by Prof. Mangum and
then it received unanimous approval. At
the end of the vote Prof. Tachau voiced her pleasure at the absence of “nay
Proposed Changes to the University of Iowa Conflict Policy, Lee Anna
Cox began discussion of item V.B. by directing the Faculty Councilors to
Attachments 6 A, B and C. Their
comprehensive natures were commented upon and he then asked Associate Provost
Clark for additional comments. Associate
Provost Clark asked the Councilors to try to limit their discussion of this
complex policy to points wherein it differed from the old policy.
It was her belief that if the Council wished to engage in substantive
discussions based upon items of policy currently in place (i.e., in the current
version of the policy) they could certainly be discussed, but would first
require deliberation by a new committee charged to examine the old policy.
Should the Council or Senate desire her to do so, she commented that she
would be be happy to charge a new committee.
By way of contrast, she pointed out that the working charge of the
committee whose report is under consideration by the Council today was to bring
the University Policy on Conflict of Interest in line with national trends and
to assure clarity in its construction. She
then offered the speculation that the biggest change that university faculty
will experience following the proposed policy will be increased requirements to
provide detailed reports of activities that are currently covered by the
Conflict of Interest Policy. These
changes are not specifically a change in policy, rather they require a change in
the reporting mechanism for conflicts. Furthermore,
they parallel changes mandated by the Board of Regents.
Pres. Cox then advised the Councilors that the draft had been
substantively reviewed by the Faculty Senate Officers.
In their review they found that there was a lack of specificity of
procedure for faculty grievances engendered by the policy.
They also identified the need for clarification of conflict of interest
among University administrators. These
concerns were addressed in two ways: the
new draft specifies grievance procedures with more clarity; Interim President
Boyd is currently drafting policies that, when implemented, will force
disclosure directly to the president of the University of corporate board
service activities by members of the University administration.
The Board of Regents is also currently in the process of drafting
conflict of interest disclosure requirements for the presidents of the
Wynes, Assistant Vice President for Research and chair of the Conflict of
Interest Revision Committee anticipated the need for future revisions in
comments to the Councilors. He
stated that the American Association of Medical Colleges has newly drafted
guidelines that address conflict of interest for individuals and institutions.
Likewise the AAU is drafting new conflict of interest guidelines.
Both of these revisions will likely need to be reflected in the
University Conflict of Interest Policy.
Lynch opened a dialogue regarding the mechanisms by which faculty will be
reminded of potential areas of conflict. He
pointed out that compliance with policies governing conflicts in research is
facilitated by paperwork mandated by the Institutional Review Board.
He wondered how workplace and commitment conflicts would be brought to
the attention of those faculty who may not realize that their activities
engender such conflict. Associate
Provost Clark answered that at the very least annual reminders of the need to
report such conflicts would be circulated to all faculty.
And, in response to further questioning by Prof. Lynch regarding how
these forms will be specific enough
to engender the correct response, she added that the reminders to report will
list general areas of potential conflict. She
further anticipates extensive publicity about
the new policy with new training programs created to educate
administrators. She speculated that
the careful adherence to such a policy will require a long-term change in
University culture. Prof. Tachau
directed the Councilors to page four of the draft policy which, under the
heading of Conflict of Commitment, identifies a series of “activities
generally requiring no disclosure”. She
then asked whether or not the Board of Regents would want information in their
reports regarding these excluded activities.
Associate Provost Clark responded in the negative and further commented
that the forms that faculty will be asked to fill out for the Regents’ report
have been beta tested. For faculty
who have performed no consulting activities in the previous year, the forms will
require less than 30 seconds to complete. For
those faculty who have performed such an activity during the specified time
period, the forms will require a matter of minutes to complete.
She likened the need for faculty members to keep appropriate records of
covered activities to the records they keep to document continuing educational
activities. Once again she
identified the need for a cultural change to assure compliance with reporting
requirements dictated both by this policy as well as the Board of Regents.
David Wynes provided additional clarification that the real cultural
change that will be necessary for compliance with the draft policy is the need
to submit written documentation of conflicts in advance of their occurrence.
For this to occur he suggested the need for education on those activities
that will require faculty to obtain prior approval.
In instances where prior approval is not appropriately obtained, the
annual report required by the Regents should serve to “catch” these
activities. Prof. Lynch returned to further discussion of his previous
comment regarding the important “catch” mechanism provided by necessary
institutional review board paperwork. It
was his opinion that reliance for faculty understanding of and compliance with
the draft policy based upon information provided to them by deans and DEOs may
create variability in how effective the new policy will be that will have its
basis in the variable nature of their messages.
these discussions a series of specific questions were asked about the policy.
Prof. Tachau referred to the definition of “employee” on page two of
the draft policy. This definition
“means any person who is a member of the faculty, professional and scientific
staff, merit staff, or as a student employee”.
She wondered why it did not specify administrators or coaches.
The answer provided by Associate Provost Clark was that those individuals
are covered in the categories specified. She offered the further clarification that these
classifications are consistent with human resources policies.
Pres. Cox referred to the examples of activities requiring disclosure in
management listed on draft page six. The
fifth bulleted example appeared to Pres. Cox to prohibit faculty from asking
graduate students to house sit over vacation.
He wondered if such were the case. Assistant
Vice President Wynes indicated that the bulleted item in question really
addressed running businesses outside of the University however Pres. Cox’s
hypothetical circumstance would fall under this broad category and would
therefore require disclosure in management but would not necessarily be
prohibited. Pres. Cox then wondered
what would happen with widespread noncompliance and if it would require
disciplinary action or sanctions generated by administrators.
Prof. Raymond responded that page three of the draft document identifies
that the sanction for failure to disclose prior to initiating the activity is to
disclose post hoc. Associate Provost Clark further clarified that the
possibility of additional sanctions might be dictated by the “nature of the
crime”. Prof. Tachau then asked
for clarification of activities requiring disclosure in management listed in the
draft policy under the headings of Conflict of Commitment and Conflict of
Interest in the Workplace. Specifically
she asked whether the bulleted examples listed on pages four and six of the
draft policy would apply to coaches having radio shows or signing endorsement
contracts. Assistant Vice President
Wynes indicated that they would indeed and these activities would require
management by the director of athletics. Prof.
Tachau furthered her line of questioning by asking whether or not such
activities would require payment to the University as contemplated on page six
of the draft policy. Assistant Vice
President Wynes indicated that the answer would be affirmative only if the
activities used University facilities. Prof.
Tachau asked whether or not intellectual property such as logo use would be an
example of “using University facilities” and Assistant Vice President Wynes
responded in the negative. Prof.
Lloyd asked for clarification in the policy on conflict of interest in research
under the heading of financial interest requiring disclosure and management.
In the draft document, examples of management strategies included
“disclosure in publications, presentations, and, in the case of human
research, the informed consent document”.
He questioned whether this was in keeping with our peer institutions and
Assistant Vice President Wynes responded in the affirmative.
Prof. Lloyd opined that he thought that such disclosure was absolutely
necessary. Prof. Donohue indicated
that national policies did not uniformly require such disclosure but that the
University of Iowa Conflict of Interest in Research Committee always recommended
disclosure whenever they had reviewed such questions in the past.
Prof. Lynch responded to Prof. Lloyd’s question by suggesting that the
appropriate management strategy is to disclose if the information is published
and that in the absence of publication there need be no disclosure.
Assistant Vice President Wynes confirmed Prof. Lynch’s suggestion as
consistent with the working of the Conflict of Interest in Research Committee.
this juncture Pres. Cox asked if there was a motion from the Council to forward
the draft document under discussion to the Senate for further consideration and
action. Prof. Lynch so moved and
Prof. Westefeld seconded. Unanimous
approval was offered by the Council for the motion.
next University of Iowa Faculty Senate meeting will occur on December 3, 2002 at
3:30 PM in the Lucas Dodge, 256 IMU. The
next University of Iowa Faculty Council meeting will occur on December 10, 2002
at 3:30 PN in the Penn State Room, 337 IMU.
Cox adjourned the Faculty Council meeting of Tuesday, November 12, 2002 at 4:40
C. Porter, MD
University of Iowa Faculty Senate