The University of Iowa

Faculty Council

Tuesday, September 9, 2003

3:30 pm – 5:00 pm

Penn State Room, 337 Iowa Memorial Union

 

Members Present:  Judith Aikin, Claibourne Dungy, Rebecca Hegeman, Ronald Herman, Sheldon Kurtz, Patrick Lloyd, Teresa Mangum, Kim Marra, Sue Moorhead, Linda Snetselaar, Shelton Stromquist, Paul Weller, John Westefeld, Jerold Woodhead

 

Members Excused: Phyllis Chang, Richard LeBlond

 

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

 

Guests: Matt Miller (The Daily Iowan), Kristen Schorsch (The Press-Citizen), Kathryn Wynes (The Office of the Provost), Charlotte Westerhaus (The Office of Affirmative Action), Phil Davidson (The Daily Iowan), Craig Brown (KCRG-TV 9), Lee Anna Clark (The Office of the Provost), Peverill Squire (CLAS Faculty Assembly), Lola Lopes (The Office of the Provost), Joe Coultur (The Office of the Provost), Raul Curto (Dean CLAS), Eugene Spaziani (Emeritus Faculty Council)

 

I.              The meeting was called to order at 3:32 PM.

 

II.           Approvals

 

A.           Meeting Agenda

 

Professor Dungy moved and Prof.  Marra seconded the motion to approve the agenda. The motion carried on a voice vote.

 

B.           Faculty Senate Council Minutes, April 15, 2003

 

Prof. Tachau offered amendments to the minutes of the April 15, 2003 Faculty Council meeting.  Prof. Kurtz moved (Prof. Weller seconded) to approve the amended minutes.  The motion carried on a voice vote.

 

C.           Faculty Senate Agenda, September 23, 2004

 

Prof. Raymond noted that historically those who wished to speak to the Faculty Senate were required to first speak to the Faculty Council.  Prof. Raymond proposed that if the speaker offers only information on a topic under discussion, then the speaker would no longer be required to first approach the Faculty Council.

 

Prof. Raymond added two items to the proposed Faculty Senate agenda. 

 

1.             An update will be presented by Prof. Kate Gfeller on the progress of the search for a permanent provost.

2.             Prof. Chris Turner will present a report from the Recreational Services Committee.  Prof. Lloyd argued against this added item due to a lack of knowledge of the content of the report.

 

Prof. Kurtz moved (Prof. Tachau seconded) to adopt the amended Faculty Senate agenda.  The motion passed on a voice vote.

 

D.           Replacement

 

Prof. Westefeld moved (Prof. Aikin seconded) to approve Prof. Diane Jeske as a replacement for Prof. Janet Altman on the Faculty Senate, 2003-2004.  The motion passed on a voice vote.

 

III.         Report: Faculty Senate President, Margaret Raymond

 

Prof. Raymond noted that the bylaws of the Faculty Senate and Council require the Council to review each committee every five (5) years. Prof. Raymond has appointed Prof. Tachau to chair an ad-hoc committee of Council members to conduct a review of all Senate and Council committees.  Prof. Raymond solicited volunteers to serve on the committee.  Prof. Tachau is also charged with the task of considering the establishment of a permanent faculty committee to select faculty awards.  Prof. Tachau’s committee will also seek a means to re-establish a working Rules and By-laws Committee.

 

President Skorton will offer an address (the Keynote) separately from the University Convocation.  The Keynote will be given Wednesday, September 24, 2003 at 4:00 PM in the IMU Ballroom.  The Convocation will continue as the forum to recognize faculty excellence, and is schedule for September 30, 2003 at 7:00 PM in Macbride Hall Auditorium.

 

The first Faculty Senate meeting of the new academic year will be held September 23, 2003 in the Lecture Room 1 (LR1) at Van Allen Hall.  The next Faculty Council meeting will be held October 14, 2003 in the Penn State Room.

 

The Faculty Council will eventually receive reports on possible revisions of the procedures for decanal reviews, the review of promotion and tenure policy, and the ad hoc committee on student arrest rates.

 

Prof. Kurtz reported that nine (9) of the sixteen (16) groups insured at the University will have no increase in health insurance costs.  The remaining seven (7) groups will have small increases in insurance costs.

 

IV.        New Business

 

A.           Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics

 

The Prof. Raymond has received a request from the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA – see attached) to consider a resolution in support for “A Framework for Comprehensive Athletics Reform.”  Prof. Raymond also received a resolution (see attached) from the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Educational Policy Committee (and approved by the CLAS Faculty Assembly) requesting that the Faculty Senate consider for approval further action on the same resolution. 

 

Prof. Peverill Squire, Chair, CLAS Faculty Assembly, noted that the resolution was motivated by a recognition that University general expense money goes to the athletic department at a time when funding for the academic portion of the University is declining.  The CLAS resolution proposed to reduce the number of football scholarships from 85 to 72, and reduce the number of on-campus visits from 61 to 51. The money thus saved would then go to support of non-revenue men’s and women’s sports. 

 

Prof. Kurtz inquired about the procedure for arriving at the actual numbers.  Prof. Squire stated that the numbers were determined from assuming that a three-deep team was adequate.  Prof. Squire stated that the ultimate target of the CLAS resolution was the NCAA; through the NCAA the CLAS resolution could engender a national discussion.

 

Prof. Lloyd noted that the CLAS resolution and the COIA framework represented two different approaches.  The rationale for the CLAS resolution was to conserve money, whereas the rationale for the COIA framework was to enhance educational opportunities of athletes. Prof. Squire noted that the money conserved by the CLAS resolution would actually be used to further the educational opportunities of athletes participating in non-revenue sports.  Prof. Tachau stated that her view is that the CLAS resolution and COIA framework documents represented two approaches that are complementary and overlapping.  The CLAS resolution represents a voice added to the national discussion.  Professor Aikin agreed with Prof. Tachau and further stated that the CLAS resolution falls under the “Other cost reduction possibilities” section (Section IV.3.b) of the COIA framework document. 

 

Prof. Herman voiced his concern that a reduction in the number of scholarships could actually reduce the educational opportunities offered to athletes in that a reduction in the number of football scholarships could decrease the level of play, thereby reducing the amount of money earned by the football program.  This could in turn reduce the number of students interested in attending The University of Iowa. Prof. Tachau responded that the best athletes are still likely to attend the University under scholarship.   Her concern (generated from conversations with an ex-athlete) was rather that the student-athletes had little time for academic studies.  Prof. Tachau distributed a document (attached) detailing the Preliminary FY 2004 Operating Budgets of Athletics at the Regent institutions as of June, 2003, which she had excerpted from the June docket of the Board of Regents published on their web site. She pointed out that the Executive Summary states that “[i]ntercollegiate athletics at the Regent universities are not self-supporting activities,” contrary to some previous statements made to the Faculty Senate.  She showed the Council figures on page 17 of the document that indicated to her that the football program actually lost money during the last academic year. This interpretation was questioned by Prof. Herman.  Prof. Tachau stated that if the reduction in the number of football scholarships is not done unilaterally, then the resolution, once adopted, should help improve the caliber of student-athletes.  Executive Associate Dean for CLAS Raúl Curto noted that a reduction in the number of scholarships may actually improve the candidate pool in that those not going to schools with stronger programs (e.g., Michigan) may come to Iowa.  Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education Lopes noted that in fact there is history in support of this view: it has been shown that when the NCAA reduced the number of scholarships from 100 to the present number and the quality of football teams improved.

 

Prof. Stromquist argued that the comprehensive nature of the COIA framework seemed to argue for not endorsing the highly focused CLAS resolution; to endorse the CLAS resolution may obscure the more comprehensive COIA framework.

 

Prof. Kurtz asked whether the Council had endorsed the COIA framework in the previous academic year.  Prof. Raymond responded that her recollection is that the Council had discussed a preliminary version of the document, but the COIA framework had not been endorsed.

 

Prof. Cox noted that the COIA framework represented an enormous amount of volunteer work.  The concept behind the COIA framework started in the Big10, and has been aided by the AAUP.  The goal of the COIA framework is to provide a mechanism for the faculty to speak as a collective voice.  Prof. Cox stated that his recollection is that the Council had endorsed an earlier version from the CIC, but had not considered this version of the COIA framework.

 

Prof. Kurtz noted that the COIA framework sets a positive tone, and presents a general approach for working within COIA.  Prof. Kurtz then stated that he believes that the Senate should adopt the COIA framework document with instructions to President Skorton that The University of Iowa representative begin working this through the NCAA.  He further noted that the NCAA 20-hour rule was not actually enforced at The University of Iowa. 

 

MOTION: Prof. Kurtz moved (seconded by Prof. Tachau) that “The Faculty Council asks the Faculty Senate to endorse the COIA framework document, to encourage President Skorton to accept the framework as a guideline for improving college athletics, and to direct our NCAA representative to pursue these matters with the NCAA.” 

 

Prof Lloyd and Prof. Aikin noted that paragraph 4 in the COIA framework document asks for a general endorsement; Prof. Kurtz argued that his motion is consistent with the requested general endorsement.  Prof. Westefeld stated that it is his interest in getting the national discussion started by getting the COIA framework “out there” and in an open discussion. 

 

The motion passed with a voice vote.

 

B.           CLAS Faculty Assembly Resolution, Peverill Squire

 

MOTION: Prof. Tachau moved (seconded by Prof. Weller) to send the CLAS Faculty Assembly resolution to the Faculty Senate, and to encourage the Senate to approve it.  (amended later – see below)

 

Prof. Marra inquired if the motion could be amended to connect with the larger COIA framework document.  Prof. Tachau stated that she would be happy to do so.  Prof. Kurtz suggested that the NCAA work out the exact numbers; he was especially troubled by the specificity of the CLAS resolution.  Prof. Weller argued that the CLAS resolution had the advantage of offering a specific proposal for discussion.  Prof. Aikin suggested that another advantage of the CLAS resolution is that it demonstrates that another group of faculty at The University of Iowa came up with a proposal similar to that described in the COIA framework.   

 

Prof. Lloyd argued that he does not have enough information to be confident that the numbers in the CLAS resolution are appropriate, and therefore adopting or endorsing the CLAS resolution would possibly open the university community to arguing over numbers.  Prof. Stromquist noted that the trouble with both proposals is that they require NCAA action.  He suggested that the Council request the CLAS faculty to investigate what the University can do under present rules. Prof. Westefeld asked Prof. Squire if the exact numbers contained in the CLAS resolution were the product of negotiation and bargaining.  Prof. Tachau stated that it would be useful to see the minutes of the CLAS discussion.  Prof. Squire responded that the numbers simply represented 3-deep redundancy at each position. Prof. Squire stated that the minutes of the CLAS meeting may not have adequate detail to be of any help in understanding how the CLAS arrived at the numbers. 

 

Prof. Cox suggested that the Senate request BICOA to determine if the University could respond to some parts of the COIA framework.  Prof. Kurtz agreed.  Prof. Lloyd asked if CLAS had seen the COIA framework during the discussion of their resolution; Prof. Squire answered that the CLAS faculty had not seen the COIA framework document during its discussion.  Prof. Tachau noted that the apparent loss in revenue from the football program (based on the document supplied by Prof. Tachau to the Council) argued for decreasing the number of scholarships offered in the football program.  Prof. Dungy countered that his reading of the Tachau document indicated that the football program actually generated a profit.  Prof. Herman concurred. 

 

Prof. Kurtz suggested that the phrase “NCAA representative” be added at the appropriate part of the motion. The suggestion was accepted by Prof. Tachau.

 

AMENDED MOTION: “To send the CLAS Faculty Assembly resolution to the Faculty Senate and the NCAA, and encourage the Senate to approve it.” 

 

The motion failed (7 votes for the motion, 8 votes against the motion).

 

MOTION: Prof. Aikin moved (seconded by Prof. Kurtz) “To send the CLAS Faculty Assembly resolution to the Faculty Senate without recommendation.”  The motion passed (13 votes for the motion, 1 vote against the motion).

 

Prof. Kurtz suggested that the Council consider having BICOA review the COIA framework document. 

 

MOTION: Prof. Lloyd moved (seconded by Prof. Tachau) “That the Council instruct the Senate to ask BICOA to review the COIA framework document and comment by the end of the semester on which of the COIA framework’s parts the University conforms to, which parts the University supports, and which issues BICOA would consider problematic.”

 

Associate Provost Lopes notes that technically the University complies with the 20-hour rule, but there are implicit pressures to practice more than the scheduled hours, especially if the students wish to be starters. 

 

The motion passed with a voice vote.

 

At 4:53 PM Prof. Westefeld moved to adjourn.  The motion passed. 

 

 

 

Submitted by E.L. Dove, Faculty Senate Secretary