The University of Iowa

FACULTY COUNCIL

Tuesday, December 10, 2002

3:30 PM – 5:15 PM

Penn State Room, #335 Iowa Memorial Union 

Members Present:  Edwin Dove, Patrick Lloyd, Chuck Lynch, Teresa Mangum, Sue Moorhead, Richard Randell, Shelton Stromquist, Katherine Tachau, Paul Weller, John Westefeld, Jerold Woodhead 

Members Absent:  Rebecca Hegeman, Richard LeBlond, Mazen Maktabi, Kim Marra 

Members Excused:  Ronald Herman 

Faculty Senate Officers in Attendance:  Jeffrey Cox, President; Margaret Raymond, Vice President; Craig Porter, Secretary; Amitava Bhattacharjee, Past President 

Guests:  Tom Walsh (Gazette), Phil Davidson (Daily Iowan), Charlie Drum (University Relations), Al Hood (Emeritus Faculty Council), Joe Coulter (Office of the Provost), Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost), Paul Muhly (Budget Committee), Dave Martin (Staff Council), Jon Whitmore (Office of the Provost), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office) 

I.          Call to Order 

The December 10, 2002 meeting of the University of Iowa Faculty Council was called to order by its President, Jeffrey Cox, at 3:30 PM.           

II.         Approvals 

A.        Meeting Agenda 

The revised agenda provided to the Councilors on December 10, 2002 was unanimously approved as written.   

B.                 Minutes—Faculty Council, November 12, 2002  

Three grammatical errors were noted in the minutes.  Following their identification, and in anticipation of their correction the minutes were otherwise unanimously approved as written.   

C.         Committee Replacement  

Prof. Westefeld offered the following motion:  “The Faculty Council endorses the Faculty Senate Committee replacements recommended by the Committee on Committees and forwards it to the Faculty Senate for approval.”  Prof. Lynch seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.   

III.       Reports 

A.        Report from FRIC, Sheldon Kurtz  

Prof. Kurtz was unavoidably detained and therefore was not present for discussion.  Nonetheless, the attachment prepared by Prof. Kurtz was noted by Pres. Cox and brought to the councilors attention.  FRIC and the Faculty Senate and Staff combined budget committee have approved the university health insurance contribution recommendations detailed on page 1, of Attachment 2 and they have been forwarded to the Vice President for Finance for his consideration.  This agenda item will be moved to the Faculty Council meeting of January 22, 2003 when Prof. Kurtz will again be invited to present this topic.   

B.         Report of the Faculty Senate President, Jeffrey Cox 

At its meeting of December 3, 2002, the University of Iowa Faculty Senate members requested that Pres. Cox forward their collective concerns regarding the handling of the case filed against a University of Iowa basketball player directly to Interim President Boyd.  The Faculty Senate Officers, including Pres. Cox, did so at the time of their meeting with Interim President Boyd and Provost Whitmore on the morning of December 5, 2002.  Interim President Boyd made it clear to them at that meeting that he continues to actively contemplate further response to the senators’ concerns and to the WRAC (Women’s Resource and Action Center) petition.  He also made it clear to the Faculty Senate Officers that certain aspects of the University response to the matter are confidential and some are so because they are personnel matters and thus not open for public discussion.  Interim President Boyd also wished Pres. Cox to advise the councilors that the third paragraph of his November 6, 2002 letter to Prof. Nicholas Colangelo affirms the University’s “ability to investigate and make judgments under the Code of Student Life and the University policies concerning allegations of sexual violence and harassment”.  Pres. Cox next advised the councilors that the Iowa City Press Citizen of December 10, 2002 is incorrect in its assertion that Interim President Boyd had met with Coach Alford regarding this matter. Pres. Cox then voiced his opinion that there would soon be a public response to the WRAC petition.  He then asked Councilor Lynch as a member of BICOA and as the Head of the Academic Achievement Advisory Subcommittee of BICOA, to comment on the progress of the review process with which Prof. Colangelo has been charged.   

Prof. Lynch indicated that the review process had started.  In point of fact the committee constituted by the President has met and has identified a preliminary roster of individuals with whom it wishes to conduct interviews.  The committee members have divided this list and, in teams of two, have begun the interview process.  Prof. Bhattacharjee questioned the constitution of the committee.  To this question Prof. Lynch responded that he did not know if its constitution was currently privileged information.  He did indicate that, as previously and publicly announced, the committee included membership of BICOA, Charlotte Westerhaus, Assistant to the President and Director of Affirmative Action, Philip Jones, Vice-President for Student Services and Linda McGuire, Special Counsel to the President.   

Pres. Cox then announced that he had been invited to speak to BICOA at 4:00 PM on Thursday, December 12, 2002 to address the position of the Senate on the use of general education fund monies for support of the athletics programs.  He expressed his intent to discuss the CIC proposal as it related to this question and suggested to the councilors that the Senate and Council had yet to take a direct position on this topic.  Prof. Porter reminded Pres. Cox of the final Senate meeting of the 2001-2002 academic year at which Prof. Tachau provided a motion such that the Senate would endorse a policy that would preclude future provision of general education fund monies to the athletic programs.  He then reviewed the extensive discussion that surrounded Prof. Tachau’s proposal and the vote that narrowly defeated its adoption by the Senate.  Prof. Tachau offered confirmation of Prof. Porter’s recollection and at that point Pres. Cox summarized his own recollection that concurred.  Prof. Tachau interjected that while the Senate may have declined to do so, the tenor of the discussion made it clear that the Senate was unenthusiastic of acceleration of this fiscal support.  While not fundamentally disagreeing with Prof. Tachau, Pres. Cox did suggest that the tenor of the discussion was not specifically on record.   

Pres. Cox then announced that he had been invited to attend an awards banquet at an upcoming local AFL meeting.   

Prof. Raymond then reminded the University of Iowa Faculty Council members in attendance of their right to meet with the candidates for the position of President of the University of Iowa at each of their visits between the hours of 2:30 and 3:15 PM.  At present six individuals have been scheduled for campus visits.  The first will be Thursday, December 12, 2002.  There will subsequently be visits on each of the five consecutive weekdays starting December 16.  At 4:00 PM each of these days the visiting candidate will also speak at a public symposium on “The Future of Public Higher Education”.  Each symposium will take place at the Iowa Memorial Union in the second floor Ballroom.  The candidates will entertain questions raised from the floor as well as questions raised by a panel, some members of which will be selected from the membership of the Faculty Senate.  Prof. Mangum questioned the attendance at the 2:30 – 3:15 PM meetings with the presidential candidates.  Pres. Cox responded that only the University of Iowa Faculty Council membership would be invited.  In response, Prof. Mangum suggested that we attempt to organize ourselves so that each meeting would be well attended.  She then asked Pres. Cox when the candidate names would be announced.  Pres. Cox responded that the intent is to do so at noon the weekday before each candidate arrives.  

IV.       Unfinished Business 

A.        Proposal for Faculty Senate/Staff Council Budget Committee, Paul Muhly           

Pres. Cox asked Prof. Muhly to take the floor and lead the discussion of this item.  Prof. Muhly began by reminding the councilors of the history of the proposal.  Its origin derived from the final report of the Budget Planning Advisory Committee led by Prof. Carlson that was charged by Immediate Past University President Coleman to review the University’s budget process and make specific recommendations with the intent that it undergo substantial improvement.  The report recommended that “steps should be taken to promote more effective faculty and staff participation in University-level budget allocation decision-making.”  Reviewing his own, long-standing involvement with the Faculty Senate Budget Committee, Prof. Muhly commented that attempts to involve the Staff Council in Budget Committee deliberations date to at least 1999.  Historically, however, he views the deliberations of the Budget Committee as “after the fact” with respect to their impact upon the budgetary decision-making process.  However, with the advent of the significant budget cuts that began in the late 1990’s, the Faculty Budget Committee increased its impact upon the budget-making process by responding to requests from the University leadership for advice on the principles and processes that should guide necessary budgetary reductions.  At the same time that he recognizes the appropriateness of these requests, Prof. Muhly indicated to the councilors that it remains his opinion that the Budget Committee, however constituted, should request still more robust involvement in the budgetary process.  He further reflected that such increased involvement is contemplated in the current Budget Committee charge and simply wished that its intent be honored.  In concluding his introductory remarks, he reminded the councilors that the Faculty Senate Officers, by virtue of their meetings with university administrators, are frequently asked to comment on the budget process.  Recognizing the importance of these consultations he also suggested the importance of and need for identical discussions with the standing Budget Committee.  He then opened the floor for questions. 

Prof. Lynch identified an inconsistency in the proposed University of Iowa Faculty Senate/Staff Council Budget Committee document as drafted on July 22, 2002.  Under section C, guideline item 4 indicates that the Committee shall have “co-chairs”.  Item 6 under the same section then refers to “the chair”.  He continued by questioning the ability to run a meeting successfully with two individuals in charge.  Prof. Bhattacharjee responded that the FRIC committee has co-chairs; however tradition dictates that the faculty member co-chair generally runs the meeting.  Prof. Lynch indicated that these details would need to be worked out if the committee remained one with combined participation of faculty and staff.  Prof. Muhly agreed, further elaborating that the committee does not vote during its consultative meetings and therefore the role of the committee and of its chairs is primarily to provide an informative exchange of information to and with the central administration.  Following on this comment, and confirming the advisory role of the committee, Prof. Lynch turned to the list of pros and cons prepared by Prof. Muhly and distributed to the councilors.  It was his impression that the pros outweighed the cons and he wondered whether the so-called “Carlson Report” echoed this assessment.  When Prof. Muhly replied in the affirmative, Prof. Raymond rejoined that Prof. Muhly’s comment might represent an overstatement of the conclusions of the Carlson Report.  By way of illustration, she reminded the councilors that the report in question envisioned a process of consultation but did not specify the creation of a joint committee.  Prof. Muhly quickly agreed to this interpretation and Prof. Bhattacharjee also affirmed it.   

Prof. Bhattacharjee then advised the councilors that he had been a member of the so-called Carlson Committee and that the committee itself was unable to agree upon a structure that would assure appropriate faculty and staff consultation.  He admitted his ambivalence in discussions with the committee membership when proposals for a joint committee were offered.  Nonetheless he was in agreement with the assessment that the budget process needed revision.  Having said so, and also having recognized that members of the budget committee frequently were advised on choices but not asked to consult actively with the central administration, he recognized that the current Vice President for Finance is a “master of the budget process.”  Prof. Bhattacharjee once asked Vice President True how the Budget Committee could best be used. VP True responded that a joint committee would have two positive consequences for his office:  1) improved efficiency because it would only be necessary to prepare for and conduct one meeting rather than two; 2) that the Vice-President for Finance would not need to continue to serve as a messenger between two distinct committees.  Prof. Bhattacharjee continued and suggested two changes that would improve the ability of the Budget Committee, however constituted, to work most effectively:  1) that the membership would require a substantial education, and; 2) that the membership of the Committee be provided with appropriate materials well ahead of its scheduled meeting time.  He finished by endorsing the combined committee “in an ambivalent way”.  While recognizing that faculty and staff often have different concerns, he also recognized the endorsements for the proposal that have come forth from the Staff Council, the Vice-Presidential Group and the Provost.   

Prof. Mangum offered two questions, the first of which was based on the premise that the budgets are planned as long as three years in advance.  She therefore asked to what extent the Budget Committee might be able to provide significant input.  Her second question illustrated two entwined problems that would seem to arise as a consequence of the proposed combined budget committee structure:  1) participants have to resolve and discuss disparate views during Budget Committee meetings, and; 2) while reaching agreement, or not, on their disparate views, the committee members must still act in an advisory capacity.   

Prof. Tachau then offered her comments as a member who has participated in the joint Faculty/Staff Budget Committee.  It was her opinion that advanced preparation for the meeting was difficult to achieve and therefore the meetings often devolved to ones in which important issues were pondered on the spot.  She also suggested that the meeting times were too short, perhaps partly as a result of her first comment.  She suggested that the construction of a set of sub-committees would improve the functionality of the overall committee and, further, that such sub-committees ought to operate over the summer.  Recognizing the need for faculty and staff differences of opinion over budgetary issues to be resolved, she opined that the sub-committee structure would be a much better place for necessary consensus-building discussions to occur.  Her concluding remark was that the proposal was, in her opinion excellent but that the specific reference to the general education fund as stated in the aforementioned proposal under item B.1.a. ought to be removed so as not to exclude advice regarding other aspects of the University budget.   

At this point Prof. Lynch moved adoption of the draft proposal of July 22, 2002 for a University of Iowa Faculty Senate/Staff Council Budget Committee.  Prof. Randell seconded the motion but discussion continued.   

Pres. Cox advised the Councilors that adoption of a motion on the floor would signal the dissolution of the current, separate, Staff and Faculty Budget Committees.  Prof. Muhly brought up a detail concerning the membership of the committee.  At present the combined committee includes nine faculty members plus the four Faculty Senate Officers.  The proposal envisions seven Faculty Senate appointed members.  It was his recommendation, therefore, that the terms of the current members continue until such time as routine attrition would limit faculty membership to seven.  Pres. Cox responded that the Committee on Committees could certainly make such a decision.   

Prof. Raymond questioned the assumption that structural changes in the Budget Committee could achieve an outcome of improved functionality.  She then reminded the councilors that, at its outset, the compelling argument for the construction of a joint committee was the strong support of the seated university president.  Having made these two points, she tied them together by expressing serious doubt about the creation of a new budget committee structure at a time when the university president would also be new.  She further questioned the theory that the proposal would allow for the development of a faculty and staff body with more expertise in budgetary planning and advice.  She suggested that a fundamental change in terms of service would be necessary to accomplish these two goals.  Prof. Muhly expressed his sympathy for Prof. Raymond’s concerns.  He opined that one important way to improve effective participation has already been accomplished, and that is to set a permanent meeting time on Friday afternoons.  One additional way to improve the effective participation of the Budget Committee members has also been accomplished and that is that the Vice-President for Finance has agreed to distribute pertinent materials well in advance of meetings.  He then expressed his hope that the new Budget Committee would, over time, find itself less in a position to respond to budgetary crisis, and more in a position to help find ways to increase revenue streams to the University that would help expand its vision to new horizons.  At this point in the discussion, Dave Martin of the Staff Council rose to address the Councilors.  He advised them that the Staff Council had also discussed this proposal, and their consensus was to proceed in spite of concerns that were similar to those being discussed by the Faculty Council.  It was the belief of this group that concerns over fundamental differences in budget priorities between these two bodies were assuaged by item C.6. in the proposal under discussion.  That item empowers the chair [sic] to appoint subcommittees to address particular issues.  In an additional attempt to address the same concern, the Staff Council recommended that the Staff Council Officers should meet in private with the Vice-President for Finance.  This process was endorsed by these individuals and is currently active.  In his concluding remark, Mr. Martin reiterated that the Staff Council endorsed the proposal.  Pres. Cox then reflected that mechanisms of shared governance work only if there is a receptive administration.  He then allowed that the current Vice-President for Finance, Doug True, has been very forthcoming and receptive.  Dave Martin then interjected that, as suggested by Prof. Tachau in her earlier remarks, the Staff Council believes that the language of the proposal under consideration assures that budgetary items other than those related to the General Education Fund will fall under the purview of the Committee.   

Prof. Lynch returned to the specifics of the proposal and questioned item C.3.  That item envisions a maximum six-year term of membership.  Prof. Bhattacharjee responded by indicating that this term limit was proposed by Pres. Coleman based upon her perception of a diminution in membership vitality on the FRIC committee as a direct consequence of its members’ long terms of appointment.  He then offered his hope that the proposed committee structure would help to preserve the Coleman legacy of amplification of the voice of staff in university governance.  He also suggested that the Council might wish to propose a separate resolution that would mandate review of the combined Committee in two years with the possibility of reversion to the current and separate Faculty and Staff Budget Committees.  Prof. Muhly supported such a proposal.  He also suggested that for the sake of continuity, consideration should be given to his recommendation that the Past Senate President should be chair of the Budget Committee.  Prof. Tachau suggested another individual to be considered would be the Immediate Past Secretary of the Faculty Senate.  Prof. Lynch suggested that prior to voting on the proposal, consideration be given to changing item C.6. from “the chair” to “the co-chairs”.  At this point the vote proceeded for the motion on the floor.  A single nay vote was recorded and the motion passed.  Prof. Mangum then offered the following motion: 

The University of Iowa Faculty Senate/Staff Council Budget Committee structure shall be reviewed by the Faculty Senate in three years time. 

Prof. Tachau then modified Prof. Mangum’s motion to read: 

The University of Iowa Faculty Senate/Staff Council Budget Committee structure shall be reviewed by the Faculty Senate in three years time to see that the structure is preferable to the previous, separate, committee structure.   

In the brief discussion that followed no substantive concerns were raised other than removal of Prof. Tachau’s suggested addition to Prof. Mangum’s proposal.  The original motion of Prof. Mangum was then voted upon and unanimously approved.   

V.        New Business 

A.        Proposed Changes to Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure, Lee Anna Clark  

Pres. Cox identified this proposal as having been created by the Faculty Senate Officers in response to the request from Interim President Boyd to modify the current “Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion Decision-Making at the University of Iowa”.  The modification was subsequently discussed with Associate Provost Lee Anna Clark and the Faculty Senate Officers.  The intent of the proposal is to simply endorse the inclusion of information in the promotion dossier related to service to the State of Iowa.  Hoping to prevent service to the State as being one item on a mandatory “checklist” for promotion, Prof. Tachau wished reaffirmation that service to the State could be included as a portion of the dossier but that it was not an absolute requirement.  Pres. Cox affirmed this interpretation.  Prof. Mangum voiced similar concerns.  In deference to the pressures that faculty feel as they seek to achieve tenure, her suggestion was that service to the State would more likely be able to be provided by individuals who had already achieved tenure.  She also envisioned the possibility that such a requirement might be able to be used in punitive fashion.  In response to these two professors’ comments, Associate Provost Clark rose and addressed the Faculty Council.  She advised the Faculty Council that the assistant to associate professor promotion dossiers seldom include robust examples of the activities identified in item I.B.(3)e.ii.  She also advised the Councilors that she was unaware of any case of an individual faculty member not gaining tenure because of a lack of such service.  It was her opinion that the inclusionary statement proposed by the Faculty Senate Officers would simply assure that individual faculty members who provide service to the State of Iowa will be allowed the opportunity to have such service recognized during the promotion process.  She further advised the Councilors that she did not envision that the proposed modification would become punitive in any way.  Pres. Cox echoed this latter sentiment of Associate Provost Clark by suggesting that there is “no way to write rules to prevent future bad judgment”.  Associate Provost Clark also advised the Council that the proposed modifications as provided to the Councilors in Attachment 4 and identified as I.E.(3) were incorrect and only the phrase “the State of Iowa” should be italicized.  Prof. Bhattacharjee voiced his plea that service to the State of Iowa not be allowed to substitute for scholarship during the promotions review process.   

During continuing discussion on this topic Prof. Lloyd indicated that his college (Dentistry) would welcome this language since its faculty members already document this service in their dossiers and Prof. Moorhead rejoined that the same was true in the College of Nursing.  Prof. Lynch questioned whether or not similar such language would be included in the University policy on post-tenure review.  Associate Provost Clark responded in the negative, but indicated that individual colleges could add such language to their collegiate polices.  Prof. Lynch continued by asking whether or not the Faculty Senate could create and endorse a resolution to the colleges that they modify their policies to include such language.  Associate Provost Clark indicated that her office would support efforts to alert the University colleges of the need to include the recognition of service to the State of Iowa in their post-tenure reviews.  Pres. Cox suggested that such an alert could occur when she discusses the parallel modification in the promotions process with the collegiate Deans.  Prof. Tachau asked whether we could endorse the addition to the promotions process and then propose a separate resolution for the Senate to consider on the subject of modification of the post-tenure review process.  Prof. Lynch added that this would force policy modification by the colleges.  Prof. Cox reviewed the two actions under consideration with respect to modification of the post-tenure review process to include recognition of service to the State of Iowa; 1) to support a Senate resolution, or 2) to assure that the matter is addressed by the Office of the Provost with the collegiate Deans. 

At this point Prof. Raymond moved and Prof. Lynch seconded that the University of Iowa Faculty Council endorse the resolution include as Attachment 4 with the italicized modifications.  The motion passed with unanimous support and the discussion continued. 

Prof. Lynch proffered that the same should be asked of Professors and Prof. Randall responded that the intent of the motion is not to “ask” for service to the State.  Prof. Lynch rejoined that comparable language should be added to the various post-tenure review policies, a response that Prof. Tachau supported based upon a policy of consistency.  Prof. Lynch then offered the following motion: 

“The University of Iowa Faculty Senate and Faculty Council ask that the Provost recommend to the colleges of the University of Iowa that their post-tenure review procedures be modified as necessary in order to include recognition of service to the State of Iowa. 

The motion was seconded by Prof. Tachau and unanimously approved by the Councilors. 

VI.       Announcements 

A.        Next Council and Senate Meetings. 

The next University of Iowa Faculty Council meeting will occur on January 28, 2003 in the Penn State Room, 337 IMU.  The next University of Iowa Faculty Senate meeting will occur on February 11, 2003 in the Lucas Dodge Room, 256 IMU. 

VII.      Adjournment 

Pres. Cox adjourned the University of Iowa Faculty Council meeting of December 10, 2002 at 5:00 PM.

________________________________________

Craig C. Porter, MD

Secretary, University of Iowa Faculty Senate