The University of Iowa

FACULTY COUNCIL

Tuesday, March 9, 2004

3:30 pm – 5:00 pm

Penn State Room, #337 Iowa Memorial Union

 

 

Members Present: Judith Aikin, Ronald Herman, Richard LeBlond, Teresa Mangum, Kim Marra, Sue Moorhead, Linda Snetselaar, Paul Weller, John Westefeld, Jerold Woodhead

 

Members Absent:  Rebecca Hegeman, Sheldon Kurtz

 

Members Excused: Claibourne Dungy, Shelton Stromquist

 

Faculty Senate Officers in Attendance:  Margaret Raymond, President; Katherine Tachau, Vice President; Edwin Dove, Secretary; Jeffrey Cox, Past President

 

Guests:  Tom Owen (The Gazette), Keith E. Thayer (Emeritus Faculty Council), Betsy Altmaier (P&T Review Chair), Charles Drum (University Relations), William Reisinger (Office of the Provost), Jim Andrews (AAUP), Dave Baldus (AAUP), Ekhard Ziegler (AAUP), Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost), Lola Lopes (Office of the Provost), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office)

 

 

I.                    Call to Order

 

The meeting was called to order at 3:34 PM, March 9, 2004.

 

II.                 Approval

 

Prof. Westefeld moved (second by Prof. Herman) to approve the minutes of the February 3, 2004 Faculty Council meeting.  The motion passed on voice vote.

 

III.               Reports: Faculty Senate President

 

·        Prof. Raymond reminded the Council members of the need to form a committee to choose the recipients of the Brody Award.  Council members who are interested in serving on this committee should contact Prof. Raymond.

·        Prof. Raymond reported that a legislative forum had been conducted.  Prof. Cox stated that Regent Downer was there and made a reasonable comment on the role of the University in economic development activities.

·        Prof. Raymond reported that there will be two Faculty Council meetings scheduled for April.

 

IV.              Unfinished Business

 

A.     Decanal Review, David Baldus and Ekhard Ziegler

 

Profs. Baldus and Ziegler reported on the Decanal Review document that their committee prepared.  Prof. Baldus reported that the deans wish to change two parts of the policy statement: 1) The deans wish to delay the review of deans from every 5 years to every 6 years. 2) The deans wish to relax the provision granting formal grievance rights to faculty if the Provost fails to share required information from the review with the faculty.

 

MOTION: Prof. LeBlond moved (second by Prof. Tachau) to instruct the Decanal Review Committee to alter the document such that deans will be reviewed every 6 years.  The motion passed by voice vote.

 

MOTION: Prof. LeBlond moved (second by Prof. Tachau) to send the modified document to the Senate for discussion.  The motion passed by voice vote.

 

B.     Salary Incentive Plans, Margaret Raymond

 

Prof. Raymond introduced the College of Medicine Policy, AAUP response, and the Science article.  Prof. Baldus noted that there is a clear difference between issues concerned with merit and issues concerned with procedures used to implement the policy.  Prof. Tachau noted that the AAUP took no specific position on the policy, but instead weighed the advantages and disadvantages of the policy.  The AAUP report noted the following specific dangers: 1) The policy unduly emphasizes research at the cost of teaching and service, 2) The policy has the potential of distorting the direction of research efforts, 3) The policy rewards faculty based on money brought into the college rather than quality and quantity of work done, 4) The policy allows bonuses to be completely determined by the DEO, and 5) The policy will result in large income inequities both within a department, and across colleges.  However, the major concern is procedure: adoption of such a policy requires full consultation of faculty and governance boards.  In addition, such programs require justification to the Senate, and must provide periodic review and reporting to a body not directly affected by the procedures.  Prof. Baldus recommended the establishment of two committees.  The first is to be a University-wide committee to review procedures and policy.  The second is to be a committee to evaluate the College of Medicine plan. 

 

Associate Provost Clark indicated that the College of Pharmacy plan is on the docket for the Board of Regents.  She stated that no other plans will be considered until the pilot plans (for the College of Medicine and the College of Pharmacy) are evaluated.

 

Prof. LeBlond stated that his understanding is that the College of Medicine plan has been amended by the College’s Faculty Executive Board and now includes a link between salary bonuses and profit margin of the hospital.  Prof. Ziegler stated that the revised College of Medicine plan includes a salary decrement.  Bonus money is to come from indirect costs.  Assoc. Provost Clark noted that some of this may be inhibited by Federal regulations.  Prof. Woodhead noted that the new College of Medicine plan appears to be based on productivity.  If an individual’s productivity is in the top 50%, then a bonus will be given, but if the productivity is in the bottom 50%, then the salary base will be decremented.  Assoc. Provost Clark noted that the calculation of group and individual productivity is complex.  She further noted that the College of Pharmacy plan includes bonus money for research, teaching, and service.

 

Prof. Mangum asked, “What happened to merit pay?  Do these plans mean that base salary is flat?”  Prof. LeBlond noted that very well established faculty members often draw high salaries that do not reflect present productivity.  Prof. Tachau noted that productivity is measured in many ways, not just in securing research grants.  She further noted that the revised College of Medicine plan doesn’t increase contributions to TIAA-CREF and contribute to other such fringe benefits.  Prof. Herman stated his preferred approach is to continue merit raises, which should go into one’s base pay, but give incentive bonuses to productive faculty in hard times.

 

MOTION: Prof. LeBlond moved (second by Prof. Tachau) to endorse the AAUP recommendations 2b, 2c, and 2d found in the memorandum from the AAUP Executive Committee to the Faculty Council dated February 24, 2004

 

In discussion of the motion, Prof. Woodhead suggested that the Faculty Senate should investigate the relationship between the economic development requirements from the Board of Regents and these plans.  Prof. Cox concurred.  Prof. LeBlond noted that clinical financial issues are fundamentally different from academic financing issues, and he suggests that the Senate leave out the clinical incentive plans from a report generated by any Senate committee.  Prof. Tachau suggested that the clinical faculty review could go to the Faculty Welfare Committee. She stated that what is important is that faculty should have oversight and review responsibilities.  The motion was called and then passed on voice vote.

 

V.                 New Business

 

A.     Faculty Senate Voting Privileges.

 

The discussion was tabled.

 

B.     Criminal Background Checks on Employees in Security-Sensitive Positions, Lee Anna Clark

 

Associate Provost Clark led the discussion of criminal background checks of employees in security-sensitive positions.  Prof. LeBlond inquired about the percentage of faculty/staff in sensitive positions.  Assoc. Provost Clark did not know.  Prof. Aikin asked if the procedures apply to personnel files, student records, etc.  Assoc. Provost Clark stated that an inquiry could include these items.  She stated that the human resources people look at positions, and this is intended to be narrowly tailored, and applicable to a small and selected number of people.  Prof. Cox asked who does the checking.  Assoc. Provost Clark stated that a company could be hired to do the necessary background check.  Prof. Raymond wondered who pays for the inquiry.  Assoc. Provost Clark stated that the department hiring the individual would have to pay.  Prof. Tachau asked about the motivation of this policy.  Assoc. Provost Clark stated that no one specific incident at the University gave rise to this proposed policy, but rather the actual motivation is 9/11.  She stated that the policy is viewed as a “prophylactic activity.”  Prof. Tachau stated that some parts of the policy are over broad, especially in reviewing confidential documents.   Assoc. Provost Clark stated that Division of Human Resources will monitor this activity, and will determine if there is an adequate and appropriate nexus between the individual’s background and the job description.  Prof. Westefeld stated that even with this, the policy is too broad, and suggested that the policy be reworked to narrow the focus.  Prof. Raymond noted that the criminal background check is ill-defined; for example it is not clear if this means conviction.  Prof. Cox noted that the seven-year limit will yield both arrests and convictions.  Assoc. Provost Clark acknowledged that this is true, but the deans will decide what is important.  She further stated that the language in the document clearly states that the only thing actionable is a conviction.  Prof. Aikin also expressed concern that the policy is overly broad, and questioned the need for such a broad review.  She stated that perhaps such a review is valid for those handling biological agents with potential of mass infection, or those handling toxic or hazardous materials, but not, for example, everyone who handles money.  Assoc. Provost Clark stated that most probably this understanding of the policy will become part of the HR procedures, but possibly eventually end up in the Manual of Procedures. Prof. Aikin stated that the policy reminds her of Orwell’s novel 1984

 

MOTION: Prof. Woodhead moved (second by Prof. Westefeld) to send the policy draft back to the appropriate committee to change the language in order to provide more focus and more specificity as to who is to be reviewed.  The motion passed on voice vote. 

 

C.     Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure, Lee Anna Clark

 

Assoc. Provost Clark and Prof. Altmaier presented a revised version of the P&T guidelines.  Prof. Tachau noted that the Altmaier Committee found that the present P&T guidelines appear to be working well.  This new draft reflects “modernization and streamlining.”  Prof. LeBlond suggested that the University needs some feedback from affected faculty members. 

 

MOTION: Prof. Tachau moved (second by Prof. LeBlond) to table discussion of the P&T policy document until the next meeting.  The motion passed on voice vote.

 

VI.              Announcements, Margaret Raymond

 

A.     The Faculty Senate Reception will be held on March 11, 2004.

 

B.     Committee Volunteer forms are due March 12, 2004.

 

C.     The next Faculty Senate meeting is March 23, 2004.

 

D.     The Promotion and Tenure Symposium will be March 31, 2004.

 

E.      The next faculty Council meeting will be held April 13, 2004.

 

VII.            Adjournment

 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:19 PM.

 

 

Submitted by E.L. Dove, Faculty Senate Secretary