The University of Iowa
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
3:30 pm – 5:15 pm
Penn State Room, #337 Iowa Memorial Union
Members Present: Judith Aikin, Edwin Dove, Claibourne Dungy, Ronald Herman, Richard LeBlond, Teresa Mangum, Kim Marra, Sue Moorhead, Linda Snetselaar, Shelton Stromquist, Katherine Tachau, Paul Weller, John Westefeld, Jerold Woodhead
Members Absent: Rebecca Hegeman, Sheldon Kurtz
Members Excused: Phyllis Chang, Patrick Lloyd
Faculty Senate Officers in Attendance: Margaret Raymond, President; Katherine Tachau, Vice-President; Edwin Dove, Secretary; Jeffrey Cox, Past President
Guests: Charles Drum (University Relations), Christina Erb (Daily Iowan), Terry Boles (Decanal Review Committee), Kristen Schorsch (Press-Citizen), Tom Owen (Gazette), Judie Hermsen (Human Relations), Joe Kearney (CLAS), Bill Reisinger (Office of the Provost), Erin Irish (Decanal Review Committee), Lola Lopes (Office of the Provost), Katherine Wynes (Office of the Provost), Marc Mills (General Council), Ken Cmiel (Decanal Review Committee), David Baldus (Decanal Review Committee), Jan Waterhouse (Equal Opportunity and Diversity), Charlotte Westerhaus (Equal Opportunity and Diversity), Jon Carlson (Rules & Bylaws Committee), Eugene Spaziani (Emeritus Faculty Council), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office)
I. The meeting was called to order at 3:34 PM.
A. Meeting Agenda
Prof. Aikin moved (second by Prof. Marra) to adopt the meeting agenda. The motion was approved on voice vote.
B. Faculty Council Minutes, September 9, 2003
Prof. Westefeld moved (second by Prof. Tachau) to approve the minutes of the Faculty Council Meeting held September 9, 2003. The motion was approved on voice vote.
C. Faculty Senate Agenda, October 21, 2003
Prof. Mangum moved (second by Prof. Marra) to approve the amended agenda for the Faculty Senate meeting scheduled for October 21, 2003 (attached). The amendment was to include a student who will speak about the Dance Marathon.
III. New Business
A. Decanal Review Policy, David Baldus
Prof. Baldus presented a report entitled “Final Report on University of Iowa Procedures for the Periodic Review of Collegiate Deans” submitted by the Ad Hoc Committee on Amended Procedures for the Periodic Review of Collegiate Deans. Prof. Baldus identified seven substantive recommended changes to the present decanal review policy. These are:
1) Sever the review of the dean from the review of the college;
2) The dean will be reviewed every five years;
3) The composition of the review committee should be prescribed;
4) Five prescribed questions should be a mandatory component of the review. The committee and/or provost can generate more questions;
5) If the provost intends to re-appoint the dean, the provost must share the results of the five prescribed questions with the faculty of the college;
6) If the provost fails to share the results of the five prescribed questions, then the faculty of the college could use the formal grievance process; and
7) The system for review of the department executive officers should be the same as the system for the dean.
No changes from the present policy were recommended for review of the Central Administration officers.
Prof. Tachau suggested that the Committee consider adding a specified time frame to the Opportunity of Response (Section g(2) in the Report). Prof. Baldus responded that the Committee needs to consider an appropriate time frame.
Prof. Raymond suggested that the Committee consider adding a specified time frame for the required report to the college faculty. Prof. Baldus responded that the Committee needs to consider an appropriate time frame.
Prof. Weller asked how one determines if the initiator’s decision is at odds with the faculty views. Prof. Baldus responded that the Committee needs to consider this matter.
Prof. Marra asked about the expected response rates to the review surveys. Prof. Baldus responded that the Committee did not have these data.
Prof. LeBlond asked if the decanal review policy applies to assistant and associate deans. Prof. Baldus replied that it does not, and this will be made clear in the next draft of the report.
Prof. Tachau suggested that the word “shall” on page 1 Chapter 1 should be replaced with “will.” Prof. Baldus will make the suggested change.
Prof. Cox suggested that the DEO review should be left out of this document given that the roles of DEOs vary from department to department, and from college to college. Furthermore, Prof. Cox stated that need for the report came from concerns about problems with dean reviews, but much less so with any problems with DEO reviews. Profs. Westefeld, Tachau, LeBlond, and Mangum concurred with Prof. Cox’s suggestion. Prof. Baldus responded that the Committee will return with an altered policy statement about dean reviews, and will consider eliminating the language concerning reviews of DEOs.
Prof. Stromquist stated that the spirit of what the faculty has been asked for is perhaps not captured in a quantitative scale as suggested by the Committee. Prof. Baldus responded that the Committee always felt that the quantitative scores represented a minimum set of data that would be presented to the faculty, but it was always expected that the provost would offer additional information.
Prof. Tachau stated that the proposed policy represents a substantial improvement over the present policy, and she further stated that she has confidence in the Committee’s ability to return to the Faculty Council with another version that addresses the issues raised. Prof. Baldus stated that the Committee can quickly decide if it can quickly address the issues identified by the Council members.
Prof. Raymond requested that the Committee revise the report and include issues raised in today’s Council discussion. Prof. Baldus stated that the Committee would do as requested.
B. Anti-Harassment Policy, Charlotte Westerhaus
Assistant to the President and the Director of Affirmative Action Westerhaus presented a brief overview of the latest draft of the Anti-Harassment Policy. The stated rationale for proposing this policy is to prevent harassment. The University of Iowa has a violence and sexual harassment policy, but no general anti-harassment policy. The proposed anti-harassment policy closely follows the existing sexual harassment policy. The draft of the policy presented to the Council included the amendments offered by Prof. Cox (attached) on free speech and academic freedom.
Prof. Aikin stated that she was pleased to see this draft; the policy may be particularly useful in resolving disputes across campus.
Prof. Marra requested clarification on whether this policy could be used against a professor presenting controversial material. Director Westerhaus stated that the amended policy deals with the difference between free speech and academic freedom. She further stated that the definition of harassment is a “high hurdle” and would most likely not be an issue with controversial issues presented in the classroom.
MOTION: Prof Aikin moved (seconded by Prof. Westefeld) to “Forward to the Faculty Senate with Faculty Council endorsement the Anti-harassment Policy.” The motion passed on voice vote.
C. Senate Constitution, Rules & Bylaws Committee
Prof. Carlson discussed possible changes to the Faculty Senate Constitution. Old language could be interpreted to include visiting professors in the Senate. He suggested that language be developed to make it clear that the Constitution is talking about tenure-track and salaried clinical-track faculty. The language should be suggested by the Senate Constitution, Rules and By-laws Committee, of which he is the chair.
Prof. Tachau suggested that long-term adjunct or visiting faculty be included in the Faculty Senate since they are affected by the Senate’s decisions, and they have no voice in making the decisions. Prof. Marra suggested that lecturers be included in some way. Prof. Tachau suggested that the Committee look into whether others should be included. Interim Provost Cain noted that the University has inconsistent credential requirements for the lecturers; the required credentials vary from college to college. Furthermore, perhaps as many as 1500 to 2000 individuals may be in the unrepresented pool.
Prof. Raymond stated that the Senate has three choices: (1) accept the lecturers as members of the Senate, (2) table the policy discussion, or (3) form a committee. Prof. Tachau suggested that a committee be formed to investigate whether or not adjunct and visiting faculty and lecturers should be represented in the Faculty Senate. Prof. Raymond stated that she will solicit volunteers to be members of an ad hoc committee to look into who is not represented in the Faculty Senate.
IV. Report: Faculty Senate President, Margaret Raymond
Prof. Raymond reviewed the replacement policy (attached) that included the 96 hour response time offered by Prof. Aikin. Prof. Herman moved (seconded by Prof. Westefeld) to adopt the amended policy. The motion passed on voice vote.
Prof. Raymond presented the proposed agenda for the next Faculty Senate meeting, with the addition of President Skorton’s address to the Senate. Prof. Herman moved (seconded by Prof. Westefeld) to approve the Senate agenda. The motion passed on voice vote.
Prof. Raymond announced that the Council on Status of Women has invited a representative or liaison from the faculty Council to attend their meetings.
Prof. Raymond announced that the University must find $5.6 million by November 1, 2003. If anyone has suggestions as to how this can be done, then please forward the suggestions to Interim Provost Cain.
V. The meeting was adjourned at 5:06 PM.
Submitted by E.L. Dove, Faculty Senate Secretary