The University of Iowa
September 10, 2002
PM – 5:15 PM
State Room #335 Iowa Memorial Union
Dove, Rebecca Hegeman, Ronald Herman, Richard LeBlond, Chuck Lynch, Teresa
Mangum, Kim Marra, Sue Ann Moorhead, Shelton Stromquist, Katherine Tachau, Paul
Weller, John Westefeld, Jerold Woodhead
Lloyd, Mazen Maktabi
Senate Officers in Attendance:
Jeffrey Cox, President; Margaret Raymond, Vice President; Craig Porter,
Secretary; Amitava Bhattacharjee, Past President
Phil Davidson (Daily Iowan), Heather Woodward (Iowa
City Press Citizen), Kathryn Wynes (Office of the Provost), Al Hood
(Emeritus Faculty Council), Della McGrath (University of Iowa Foundation), Sam
Becker (Communication Studies), Richard Randell (Mathematics), Jonathan Carlson
(Presidential Search Committee Chair), Roberta Marvin (Academy of Distinguished
Teachers Committee Chair), Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost), Nick
Colangelo (Board in Control of Athletics), Mark Schantz (General Counsel), Fred
Antczak (College of Liberal Arts and Sciences), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate
Call to Order
Functioning in his capacity as the newly installed University of Iowa
Faculty Senate President, Prof. Jeffrey Cox called the first University of Iowa
Faculty Council meeting of the 2002-03 academic year to order at 3:36 PM.
opened the discussion of the meeting agenda by suggesting the need for its
change, pending approval by the members of the Council. Before outlining the proposed agenda changes he digressed and
announced that the proceeds raised by the university faculty from their bake
sale of late Spring were provided to the Office of Student Financial Aid to fund
scholarship programs. Undergraduate
Sarah Nielson and graduate student Deena Thomas were each awarded a $410.00
scholarship. Again, digressing
briefly, President Cox reminded the councilors of today’s elections for the
school board, encouraging their participation.
Following these announcements President Cox introduced Prof. Al Hood,
Emeritus Faculty Council Representative.
subsequently informed the council that items III B and C of the proposed agenda
would need to be taken out of order.
introduced Sam Becker, Emeritus Professor of Communication Studies, and Della
McGrath from the University of Iowa Foundation and Director of the Campus
Campaign. Prof. Becker was grateful
for the opportunity to describe GOOD. BETTER.
BEST. IOWA., the campaign to advance our great university.
This campaign is a campus-wide component of the larger capital campaign
whose goal is to secure $850,000,000 in pledges.
It is not only the largest fundraising effort ever mounted by the
University of Iowa but it is also without historic parallel in the breadth and
scope of projects, which it will support including academic, building and
scholarship programs. The larger
campaign kickoff was in June of 2002. The
Campus Campaign kickoff is set for October 9, 2002, 4-6 PM.
The expression of financial commitment by its faculty and staff is
important to the University of Iowa community as an expression of our faith in
the missions of our university as expressed to our external constituencies.
The goal of the Campus Campaign is 100% faculty and staff participation.
Contributions in any
amount will help to achieve this goal. In
addition, the Campus Campaign is expected to help build a finer sense of
community amongst the faculty and staff of the University of Iowa.
In his concluding remarks Prof. Becker encouraged the University of Iowa
Faculty Council membership to “talk up” the campaign and to address any
future questions or comments by e-mail to either him or to Della McGrath.
Report of the Presidential Search Committee (Jonathan Carlson)
reminded the Faculty Council that the resignation of former president Mary Sue
Coleman occurred following the adjournment of the University of Iowa Faculty
Senate for the 2001-02 academic year. Nevertheless,
the membership of the Presidential Search Committee was selected following
extensive consultation with the Faculty Senate leadership and Pat Currie from
the Committee for the Selection of Central Academic Officials.
In its completed form, the Presidential Search Committee includes two
former University of Iowa Faculty Senate presidents, Profs. Donald Heitstad and
Jonathan Carlson and also the incoming president for the Committee for the
Selection of Central Academic Officials. At
the conclusion of these comments President Cox turned the podium over to Prof.
Carlson, the current University of Iowa Presidential Search Committee Chair.
began by indicating to the Council that he wanted to share with them the current
activities of the Presidential Search Committee and that he hoped that his
remarks would prompt feedback from the Council membership.
The Search Committee has been working hard to establish the evaluative
criteria, which they will use during the search process.
They anticipate finishing this task on the evening of September 10, 2002.
Over the subsequent two to three weeks they will activate their
advertising and solicitation campaigns. They
will then actively pursue nominations. Prof. Carlson encouraged the Council membership to submit
nominations. He is hopeful that the
committee will begin to review applications very shortly.
By January 2003 the committee plans to submit to the Board of Regents a
“handful” of names of individuals who might be brought to campus for on-site
questioned Prof. Carlson regarding the prioritization of the list of candidates
to be presented to the Regents. In
response Prof. Carlson indicated that the Board of Regents were clear in their
instructions that they did not want a rank ordered list but they did expect that
the committee would forward along with the name of each candidate proposed to
them an extensive narrative description of the candidate for regential review.
Prof. Tachau continued Prof. LeBlond’s line of questioning by asking
whether the Regents would reconsider their instructions.
Prof. Carlson indicated that he did not know how such a request for
reconsideration would be received. He
suggested that the ability to give an extensive narrative description would
effectively allow the Search Committee the opportunity to offer an opinion
regarding each candidate.
President Bhattacharjee recounted a discussion with former president Mary Sue
Coleman in which she indicated that the privacy of the University of Michigan
search process was extremely important to her as a candidate for that position.
Reflecting on this comment Prof. Bhattacharjee suggested that if we wish
to seek outstanding candidates who might be seated provosts or presidents of
other universities we should strongly consider changing our selection process by
making it more private. Prof.
Carlson responded that the competing desires for top candidates and an open
process are difficult to balance. In
follow up Prof. Bhattacharjee stressed the need for confidentiality during the
process and was assured that up to the point of public campus visits the
selection process will be pursued with utmost respect for complete
confidentiality. Prof. Tachau
offered the opinion that selected university individuals might perform “incognito”
site visits as part of the interview process.
Prof. Mangum elaborated that confidential, off campus interviews would be
a good way to gather information about candidates without violating the need for
confidentiality. Prof. Carlson
indicated that it was likely the Committee would behave in this way.
on the seemingly profound escalation of university president salaries in the
current environment President Cox asked Prof. Carlson whether the Board of
Regents would consult the University of Iowa Faculty Senate in putting together
its salary package. Prof. Carlson
did not know the regent’s intent in this regard.
However, he also indicated that a recent survey in the Chronicle of
Higher Education places the University of Iowa presidential salary range in a
to a question by Prof. Stromquist Prof. Carlson identified Korn/Ferry as the
external agency that will be providing help with the presidential search.
They are a well-respected search firm whose database includes many
individuals with qualifications suitable for university presidencies.
They will also assist in the advertising and recruitment campaigns.
qualifications that might be rising to the top of the Search Committee’s
expectations were the subject of a question by Prof. Lynch.
Prof. Carlson replied that the selection criteria assembled by the
selection committee are a laundry list and nothing more.
That having been said, he further elaborated that feedback from
university constituencies suggests to the committee that the successful
candidate will be a talented advocate capable of appealing to broad
although the Regents have not specifically identified these qualities as
necessary in a successful candidate, he believed that they will probably endorse
these criteria as well.
closing remarks Prof. Carlson expressed his satisfaction that Regent’s
President Owen Newlin and the Board of Regents Office have been assuring that
the campus remains involved in the presidential search, an involvement that
could be overridden by State statue wherein the Board of Regents technically
control the process of the selection of university presidents.
In reflecting over some of the opening questions regarding the search
process Prof. Carlson also suggested that now is a good time to think about the
procedures for the next presidential search.
He solicited future comments on this topic as well as any others related
to the Committee’s efforts and offered to consider them all in making
recommendations to the Board of Regents.
Proposal for the Academy of Distinguished Teachers (Roberta Marvin)
next introduced Roberta Marvin, Chair of the Ad
Hoc Faculty Senate Committee to Establish an Academy of Distinguished
Teachers. His introductory comments
reminded the Council that the Faculty Council had previously considered several
versions of this proposal and Prof. Marvin’s return was to respond to the
criticisms of the last proposal presented in the Spring of 2002.
President Cox also reminded the Council of the Provost’s commitment to
help fund such an organization. Prof.
Marvin limited her introductory comments to a summary of the concerns that had
been previously expressed by council regarding eligibility for membership,
membership terms and the apparent conflict between the honorific nature of the
Academy versus the possibility of its membership causing an increase individual
faculty member’s service commitments. Each
of these points was addressed in the proposal provided to the councilors in
advance of this meeting. Prof.
Marvin indicated that the intent of the committee during the revision process
was to preserve the spirit of camaraderie and celebration at the heart of the
proposal. Thereafter Prof. Marvin
responded to a series of questions indicating that:
1) membership is intended to be permanent; 2) the Academy of
Distinguished Teachers has the full endorsement of the Council on Teaching; 3)
the administrative board of the Academy of Distinguished Teachers will be
separate from the Council on Teaching because it cannot be assured that all
Council on Teaching members would be members of the Academy of Distinguished
Teachers; 4) the responsibilities of the Board would be the selection of
membership, control over funds allocated to the academy and activities that
would serve to identify, contact and designate new members of the Academy.
At the conclusion of these remarks Prof. Magnum offered a motion to
endorse the revised proposal and send it to the Faculty Senate for additional
discussion and/or endorsement. Prof.
Marra seconded the motion and it was met with unanimous approval.
At the conclusion of this vote Fred Antczak, Associate Dean in the
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences asked if lifetime membership in the Academy
of Distinguished Teachers might place the Academy in a less than distinguished
position should the behavior of any of its members be incongruous with the goals
and aspirations of the Academy itself. Prof.
LeBlond began the process of exploring this with the question regarding whether
or not the Academy of Distinguished Teachers would establish its own bylaws.
If so, one of their initial duties might be to include provisions in the
bylaws that would specifically address concerns over faculty activities that
might not reflect well on its goals. Prof.
LeBlond opined that it would be reasonable to assume that this group would want
to create a process in defense of its own reputation and Prof. Lynch agreed.
President Cox identified Council on Teaching as the overseeing
organization with the responsibility for approving the Academy of Distinguished
Teachers’ bylaws. Not only did
Prof. Marvin agree but she also speculated that a time might rise in the future
when the Council on Teaching would actually draw its membership directly from
the Academy of Distinguished Teachers. The
final question in exploration of the administrative structure was to whom the
Council on Teaching reports. It is
a charter committee with elected membership, and Associate Provost Lola Lopes is
the administrative liaison. Prof.
LeBlond motioned and Prof. Lynch seconded a proposal that the bylaws of the
Board of the Academy of Distinguished Teachers be subject to approval of the
Council on Teaching. Assoc. Provost
Clark interjected that the term “bylaws” is inappropriate for an
organization that is not functionally independent and Counsel Schantz offered a
friendly amendment that “operating” or “written procedures” be
substituted for the word bylaws in the motion.
At this suggestion the motion was amended to state that the Academy of
Distinguished Teachers, through its Board, shall develop policies and procedures
subject to the approval of the Council on Teaching.
The motion passed with unanimous approval. At the conclusion of the vote President Cox thanked Roberta
Marvin and her committee members, Christi Ferguson, Susan Lawrence, Irwin Levin,
Tom Rocklin and Amitava Bhattacharjee, ex officio for their work.
Minutes – Faculty Council, April 16, 2002 (Attachment 1)
Profs. Raymond, Clark and
Lynch identified the need for numerous, non-substantive, revisions in the
minutes. A motion was put forth by
Prof. Raymond that the minutes be approved subject to the non-substantive
revisions to be provided Secretary Porter.
Prof. Woodhead seconded the motion and it passed with unanimous approval.
Proposed Senate Agenda – September 24, 2002 (Attachment 2)
Unanimous approval was given to the proposed agenda following a motion by Prof. Lynch that was seconded by Prof. Bhattacharjee.
Approval of Recommended Replacements (Attachment 3)
President Cox indicated
that an honest mistake had occurred in nominating a replacement for Prof. Aikin
on the Faculty Council. Two
individuals, Profs. Randell and Mallik had both been nominated and had agreed to
serve. Prof. Bhattacharjee advised
the Council that Prof. Mallik had indicated her willingness to graciously
decline her nomination in light of the error in process.
At this the Council unanimously agreed to accept Prof. Randell as a
replacement for Prof. Aikin on the Faculty Council following a motion by Prof.
Tachau and a second by Prof. Mangum. Prof.
Raymond then motioned for approval of the corrected set of proposed
replacements, Prof. Lynch seconded the motion and unanimous approval was given
to the motion. At that President
Cox expressed thanks on behalf of the Council to Profs. Berman and Raymond for
their work in providing the proposed replacements for its consideration
VI. Reports (delayed)
Report of Faculty Senate President (Jeff Cox)
President Cox notified
the Faculty Council the Senate Office had a particularly busy summer in that it
moved its residency from the IMU to the Jefferson Building.
This disruptful move was deftly handled by Julie Thatcher and President
Cox expressed his deep appreciation to Julie on behalf of the entire Senate.
President Cox then
presented to the Faculty Council a list of topics that will be discussed at the
Council and the Senate in the upcoming year(s).
The items include: 1) the
research track faculty report; 2) a proposal to create a joint faculty and staff
budget committee (This proposal was developed by Ex-President Coleman and has
been approved by the Staff Council. Its
result will be the abolition of the Faculty Senate Budget Committee.); 3) the
proposal of an ad hoc committee
charged by the VP for Research with developing changes in University policies
regarding patents and copyrights; 4) of the proposal of the Dispute Resolution
Committee to change the university policy on violence in the workplace; 5) the
proposal of the Human Rights Committee to change the university policy
harassment; 6) the creation and report of a committee to review procedures
governing the promotion of clinical track faculty; 7) a review of the procedures
governing promotions and tenure policy. Prof.
Bhattacharjee reminded the Council that the original draft proposal of changes
to the Budget Committee arose out of work of the University Faculty Senate.
It was the final version of the proposal that arose out of work by
Ex-President Coleman and the Vice Presidential group.
In response to a question as to whether or not the office of the
Vice-President and General Counsel was up for review this year President Cox
provided an affirmative answer. In
addition he noted that the reviews of the offices of Vice President Jones and
True are on the University web site and the review of the provost’s office
will be posted soon.
VII. Unfinished Business (delayed)
Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) Faculty Action on Athletic
Issues (Attachment 5)
President Cox introduced
this topic by stating that there was no action proposed.
The item was placed on the agenda for two reasons:
1) time already spent in its discussion; 2) the November meeting of the
Faculty Senate leaders of the CIC is upcoming and will be devoted exclusively to
athletic issues. (The athletic
directors of the participating institutions are also expected to attend.)
Prof. Eno, President of the Faculty Senate Leadership Group of the CIC
has been in contact with President Cox and has requested additional input on the
revisions made by the council to the CIC proposal previously discussed at the
Faculty Council and Faculty Senate during the late spring of 2002.
He reminded the Council that one specific request that arose out our
deliberations was that the Board in Control of Athletics report back to the
Faculty Senate in the 2003 academic year on four areas of concern.
These include: 1) what general funds of the State have been used to
support the athletic department and why; 2) what steps have been taken to reduce
inappropriate commercialization of athletics including (but not limited to) a
reduction in the use of corporate logos on University athletic equipment and
uniforms; 3) what steps have been taken locally and/or nationally to reduce the
“arms” race between institutions over facilities and coaches’ salaries; 4)
what steps have been taken locally and/or nationally to eliminate alcoholic
beverage advertising on radio and television broadcasts of UI athletic events?
In spite of vigorous senate and council discussion during the spring over
area of concern #3 above, during the summer months of 2003 substantial athletic
salary increases were made by central administration.
Anticipating a discussion over these changes, Nick Colangelo, the chair
of BiCOA, was invited to attend today’s meeting.
In response to a question by Prof. Bhattacharjee, Prof. Colangelo
indicated that BiCOA was not consulted on salary policies that were
established over the summer but felt strongly that they should have been and
that they should be involved in future salary discussions.
A tight relationship between BiCOA and the University of Iowa Faculty
Senate is Chair Colangelo’s strong desire and he intends for there to be a
productive discussion over the issues addressed by the Faculty Senate and
Council in the CIC modifications. Chair
Colangelo reflected that we need to learn when we can say no to the “arms”
race in collegiate athletics. Although
it was not a race started by the University of Iowa he stated that we created a
very good example of the nature of this problem over the summer.
In its capacity as an advisory body, BiCOA would be in a good position to
make recommendations regarding salaries to the Office of the President as well
as the athletic program if it were only asked to participate in these
discussions. He also reminded the
council that many forces converge at the point of decision making regarding
athletic salary policies and some are frankly better appreciated than others.
Examples include not only BiCOA and the University of Iowa Senate, but
also include powerful on and off campus forces that believe that keeping a coach
and his or her associated staff is a more cost effective arrangement than
replacing them over salary disputes. An
additional force that enters the discussion is the idea that if athletic
programs are capable of bringing money in to the University and its local the
community, they should be offered the ability to build on this capability.
At this point Vice President and General Counsel Schantz reflected that
he is pleased that faculty are directly involved in discussions regarding
athletics. He summarized the salary
structures of the three coaches in “revenue” sports as being very complex
and the result of a series of decisions made with the participation of the
president and the athletic director. He
brought to the table the difficult reality that in order for athletics to be
self-supporting the “revenue” sports will have to grow.
He concluded his remarks by reaffirming his commitment to discuss details
regarding athletic salary structures directly with the Council and Senate.
Prof. Tachau spoke
passionately regarding the distribution of monies to athletic programs.
She recommended the book Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values by James Shulman
and William Bowen, the former president of Princeton University.
In this text there is a persuasive argument presented that successful
football teams are more expensive to their parent institution than losing
football teams. In a report
prepared by the University of Iowa and presented to the Board of Regents this
past spring, the athletic programs at the University of Iowa are identified as
not being self-supporting (the report can be found on the Regent’s web site).
In light of cuts that have, for example, eliminated the budget of the
medical museum, Prof. Tachau suggested that we look at ways to use our limited
revenues differently in the context of sports programs.
She concluded these comments by suggesting that change in the budget of
the medical museum as well as a reduction university support for university
performances, may actually be out of line with the centrally espoused proposal
to target budget cuts in light of the university strategic plan.
Prof. Bhattacharjee reminded the councilors that at the time of last
discussion of the CIC Resolution on Intercollegiate Athletics at the Faculty
Senate, the suggestion was made to completely eliminate the delivery of general
fund monies to the athletic departments. The
leadership of the University then suggested that the University of Iowa was
already ahead of the curve in trying to limit the “arms” race.
Prof. Bhattacharjee was sorely disappointed that the actions of this past
summer were clearly against the spirit of the CIC resolution and occurred even
though the central university administration verbally espoused its embrace.
He ultimately requested reconsideration of the CIC resolution on
intercollegiate athletics. At the conclusion of Prof. Bhattacharjee’s remarks Vice
President and General Counsel Schantz reminded the faculty councilors that it is
very costly to the University to replace a coach and in light of this it
would be difficult to suggest that the University of Iowa participation in the
“arms race” over the course of the summer was “major”.
Prof. Lynch suggested
that the Faculty Council find a broader context for further discussion of this
issue. It was his view that it
should be how one handles a large revenue generating business in the context of
a broader university budget. He
elaborated that issues of athletics suitable for discussion within this context
would be their actual role within a university, the morality surrounding
athletic salaries and delineation of actual funds flow in athletics.
In illustration of the need for such information, Prof. Lynch offered
that not all funds that flow to a given unit are directly available to the
general university (e.g., grant dollars).
Prof. Mangum turned the
discussion to that of general funds allocation to the athletics programs. She reminded the council that previous discussions in the
senate and in the council were influenced by the belief that maintaining general
funds allocations to the athletics programs would assure that the larger
university community would continue to remain participants in discussions of its
finances. The activities of the
Summer of 2002 made many faculty feel without agency in these decisions.
She and Prof. Lynch drove the line of discussion that developed the
premise that a year-by-year description of general funds allocation to athletics
is unhelpful if the goal of the analysis is to understand the return on
investment. If a larger time frame
is examined, it should be possible to generate data on what we have bought for
the general funds dispensation as well as project where we might be going with
future allocations of these precious monies.
With additional discussion Prof. Tachau pleaded that we must be careful
that we do not use this discussion and these arguments to start thinking of
non-self-supporting units as if they should be self-sustaining.
In particular she hopes that we do not think of intramural sports
as a business.
At the conclusion of this
lengthy discussion agreement was reached that we would use our relationship with
the CIC to generate points of emphasis between universities at the same time
that we will continue to establish a working relationship with BiCOA.
It was agreed that de-escalation of the “arms” race and discussion
the specifics of budgetary constraints at the University of Iowa would require
input from central administration and input and leadership from the athletic
director and the Board of Regents. The
Council agreed that Bob Bowlsby and Betsy Altmaier would be appropriate
individuals to invite to the Faculty Council for additional discussion.
convocation will occur on October 1, 2002.
The Michael Brody Award will be given at that time.
Next Council and Senate Meetings
The next meeting of the
University of Iowa Faculty Senate will occur on September 24, 2002 in the Lucas
Dodge Room (IMU 256). The next
Faculty Council meeting will occur on October 1, 2002 at 3:30 PM in the Penn
State Room (IMU 337).
In the absence of additional discussion President Cox adjourned the meeting at 5:15 PM.