The University of Iowa
Tuesday, December 9, 2003
3:30 pm – 5:10 pm
Northwestern Room, #345 Iowa Memorial Union
Members Present: Judith Aikin, Rebecca Hegeman, Ronald Herman, Richard LeBlond, Sue Moorhead, Linda Snetselaar, Shelton Stromquist, Paul Weller, John Westefeld
Members Absent: Claibourne Dungy, Sheldon Kurtz, Jerold Woodhead
Members Excused: Phyllis Chang, Patrick Lloyd, Teresa Mangum, Kim Marra
Faculty Senate Officers in Attendance: Margaret Raymond, President; Katherine Tachau, Vice-President; Ed Dove, Secretary; Jeffrey Cox, Past President
Guests: Charles Drum (University Relations), Alex Lang (Daily Iowan), Kathryn Wynes (Office of the Provost), Bill Reisinger (Office of the Provost), Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost), Lola Lopes (Office of the Provost), Pat Cain (Provost), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office), Jim Andrews (AAUP), Dave Baldus (Decanal Review Committee), Ekhard Ziegler (Decanal Review Committee), Chris Turner (Rec. Services Committee)
I. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 3:35 PM.
A. Prof. Weller moved (second by Prof. Aikin) to adopt the meeting agenda. The motion was approved on voice vote.
B. Prof. Westefeld moved (second by Prof. Herman) to approve the minutes of the Faculty Council Meeting held November 4, 2003. The motion was approved on voice vote.
C. Prof. Tachau moved (second by Prof. Aikin) to accept Prof. Clay and Prof. Pascarella as replacements on the Judicial Commission, 2003-2006. The motion passed on voice vote.
A. Recreational Service Committee Report, Chris Turner
Prof. Chris Turner presented a report from the Recreational Services Committee. Prof. Turner reported that the present plan for the west campus facility (on Melrose Ave.) is to build an approximately $12M facility primarily for tennis. Approximately 40% of the funding will come from the Athletic Department, and 60% will come from student services fees. The Recreational Committee supports this new plan. An east campus facility is being planned, but funding sources and potential sites have not yet been identified. Prof. Raymond suggested that the Faculty Senate officers bring this up for discussion with Pres. Skorton. Prof. Tachau suggested that the Council solicit information from the Campus Planning Committee. Prof. Cox suggested that students should be more intimately involved with the planning of this facility. Prof. Raymond stated that she will report back to the Council.
B. Decanal Review Policy, Ekhard Ziegler and David Baldus
Prof. Ziegler and Prof. Baldus presented the latest version of the report on decanal review policy 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. Raymond thanked them and the other committee members for the quick response to the Council’s previous suggestions. The revised report no longer covers reviews of DEOs. Prof. Raymond suggested adding the following language to the beginning of §II-28.5g(4)(b) “If the Provost decides to reappoint the administrator.” Prof. Weller suggests that faculty should always be provided the responses to the five core questions. Prof. Ziegler suggested that the language in §II-28.5g(4)(a) be altered as follows: “If the Provost decides not to reappoint the administrator, or the administrator elects not to seek reappointment, the Provost may, with the concurrence of the administrator, elect to withhold aggregate responses.” Prof. Ziegler stated that the Committee will alter the language of the policy statement accordingly. Prof. Raymond further suggested that §II-28.5e(8) be entitled “Human Rights and Diversity,” and the last sentence in this section read, in part, “… including policies on affirmative action and diversity.” Prof. Ziegler stated that the Committee will alter the language of the policy statement accordingly. Associate Provost and Dean for International Programs Reisinger suggested that question (v) in §II-28.5f(3)(b) be altered to require a quantitative scale (from 1 to 5). Prof. LeBlond suggested two questions, the first requiring a Yes/No response, and the second requiring a quantitative grading. Prof. Ziegler stated that the Committee will alter the language of the policy statement accordingly.
MOTION: Prof Cox moved (seconded by Prof. Tachau) to “Forward the decanal review policy to the Faculty Senate for their consideration subject to the suggested changes.” The motion passed on voice vote.
MOTION: Prof Cox moved (seconded by Prof. Stromquist) to thank the Committee for their fine work. The motion passed on voice vote.
C. Task Force on Student Arrest Rates
Prof. Raymond stated that discussion of the report from the Task Force on Student Arrest Rates will be postponed.
IV. New Business: Salary Incentive Plans, Margaret Raymond
The pilot program of salary incentive plan for basic sciences was discussed. Other colleges are now discussing adopting similar plans. Prof. Cain reported that the pilot program approved for Pharmacy includes money for teaching and service awards as well as research. Prof. Tachau stated that her impression is that the medical school faculty members were not consulted when the plan was adopted. Prof. LeBlond and Prof. Hegeman had no insight into how the plan was passed. Prof. Tachau also expressed the view that the rewards should be included in the base salaries of the recipients. Prof. Dove suggested that the pilot plan should be carefully reviewed by the Provost, Research Council, and others before any decision is made, or before bringing the topic before the Faculty Senate for open discussion. Prof. Cox suggested that a Faculty Senate or Faculty Council committee should review the pilot program. Prof. Herman stated that the pilot program in Pharmacy will be evaluated within the next two years. Associate Provost Lopes stated that she was puzzled by the concept. She stated as an example the case when a faculty member teaches a large class (such as Western Civilization), this faculty members “buys” 500 tuitions. She stated that giving incentives for research is good, but most money comes through tuition. Prof. LeBlond stated that the Faculty Council should evaluate the equity of granting incentives to research and not to teaching. He suggested that the Council needs to study the issue based on principles that we are trying to maintain.
MOTION: Prof. Tachau moved (second by Prof. Cox) to “Send a plan similar to and including the Pilot Incentive Program in the Basic Sciences to a committee to investigate how such incentive plans affect equity and principle, and return to the Faculty Council with a recommendation for future action.” Prof. Dove suggested that the Council gather more information before trying to investigate the merits of any incentive plan. Prof. Stromquist moved (Prof. Cox second) to table the motion. The motion was tabled.
Prof. Raymond stated that the Faculty Senate officers and the Provost will discuss how to review the pilot program.
A. Prof. Raymond reminded Council members of the Legislative Reception scheduled for December 10, 2003.
B. Prof. Raymond announced the dates of the next Council and Senate meetings.
VI. The meeting was adjourned at 5:08 PM.
Submitted by E.L. Dove, Faculty Senate Secretary