The University of Iowa
December 10, 2002
PM – 5:15 PM
State Room, #335 Iowa Memorial Union
Dove, Patrick Lloyd, Chuck Lynch, Teresa Mangum, Sue Moorhead, Richard Randell,
Shelton Stromquist, Katherine Tachau, Paul Weller, John Westefeld, Jerold
Rebecca Hegeman, Richard LeBlond, Mazen Maktabi, Kim Marra
Excused: Ronald Herman
Senate Officers in Attendance:
Jeffrey Cox, President; Margaret Raymond, Vice President; Craig Porter,
Secretary; Amitava Bhattacharjee, Past President
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)
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.
revised agenda provided to the Councilors on December 10, 2002 was unanimously
approved as written.
Minutes—Faculty Council, November 12, 2002
grammatical errors were noted in the minutes.
Following their identification, and in anticipation of their correction
the minutes were otherwise unanimously approved as written.
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.
Report from FRIC, Sheldon Kurtz
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.
Report of the Faculty Senate President, Jeffrey Cox
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.
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.
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.
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.
Proposal for Faculty Senate/Staff Council Budget Committee, Paul Muhly
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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:
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
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.
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