Tuesday, October 12, 1999

Penn State Room (#337), Iowa Memorial Union 

Members Present:    S. Aquilino, A. Bhattacharjee, J. Carlson, C. Carney-Doebbeling, C. Colvin, J. Cox, R. Curto, L. Geist, J. Jew, J.Kline, D. Manderscheid, G. Milavetz, G. Parkin, M. Pincus, B. Wiley 

Members Absent: K. Clark, D. Liddell, P. Pomrehn 

Members Absent (excused): V. Grassian, M. Stone 

Guests: L. A. Clark, J. Folkins, J. Whitmore (Office of the Provost); B. Sorofman, M. Sagen, L. Cox (Ombuds Office); C. Tebockhorst (Senate Staff Secretary); M. Chapman (Daily Iowan), J. Jacobson (Gazette), J. McCurtis (I.C. Press-Citizen) 

I.    The meeting was called to order at 3:36 PM

II.    Approvals

      A.  The meeting agenda was approved with the following revision: under Old Business, A. Discussion of “termination for cause” standards was replaced with Discussion of promotion and tenure standards.

      B.  The Faculty Council minutes of September 7, 1999 were approved by unanimous consent.

      C.  President Carlson recommended the appointments of  the following faculty members to the Council’s ad hoc committee on Termination for Cause Standards: Elizabeth Altmaier (Education), Jonathan Carlson (Law), Jeffrey Cox (Liberal Arts), Ekhard Zieglar (Medicine), John Long (Emeritus Council, Medicine).  The motion was made (Professor Aquilino), seconded (Professor Milavetz) and passed that these appointments be approved.

III.   Old Business

      A.  The Faculty Council recommendation to Faculty Senate regarding standards to be applied when standards have changed since faculty member’s initial appointment or promotion to current rank, was returned for clarification and reconsideration, particularly the time period of applicable standards. After discussion, the motion was made (Professor Colvin), seconded (Professor Wiley) and approved to table action on this matter until another draft incorporating the intent of the Council’s discussion could be prepared.

      B.  Professor Colvin indicated that a subcommittee has met regarding the topic of recognition for outstanding teachers. A report will be presented at the next Council meeting. 

IV.  New Business

      A.  President Carlson referred to the memo attached to the Council agenda re: Schedule for reviews of Central Academic Officers. He and President Coleman propose the following schedule for the next cycle of reviews: 

Office of the Provost

      1999-2000: self-study prepared; review committee appointed

      2000-2001: review process


Office of the President

      2000-2001: self-study prepared; review committee appointed

      2001-2002: review process


Office of the VP for Research

      2001-2002: self-study prepared; review committee appointed

      2002-2003: review process


Office of the VP for University Relations

      2003-2004: self-study prepared; review committee appointed

      2004-2005: review process


Office of the VP for Finance/University Services

      2005-2006: self-study prepared; review committee appointed

      2006-2007: review process


Office of the VP for Student Services

      2006-2007: self-study prepared; review committee appointed

      2007-2008: review process 

There was discussion regarding the review process. President Carlson stated that members of the review committee are appointed by the Faculty Senate President and Central Administration, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Review committees include two faculty members. In response to inquiries re: whether the Office of the General Counsel is subject to review, President Carlson is seeking information and advice. Although this Office has not been reviewed in the past, on the University’s organizational chart, the Office of the General Counsel is equivalent to those of the VPs. All of the current reviews are lagging behind. There is a need to streamline the review process for central administrative and collegiate reviews. A number of concerns were raised about the time and effort spent in carrying out reviews, and suggestions were made about how these might be reduced or made more efficient. 

The motion was made (Professor Aquilino), seconded (Professor Colvin) and passed to approve the schedule of reviews as listed above. 

      B.  Maile Sagan (staff ombudperson), Professor Lois Cox (immediate past faculty ombudsperson), and Professor Bernard Sorofman (newly-appointed faculty ombudsperson) presented an overview of the 13TH Annual Report of the Office of the Ombudsperson. They noted that, while the number of faculty complaints were down last year, they were up 48% this year. Particular areas of complaints for faculty were identified: (1) Promotion and tenure: departments and colleges vary widely in their compliance with mandated University policy that they provide faculty with clear, written expectations of standards for promotion and tenure; (2) Faculty leave policies (Provost Whitmore and Associate Provost Clark indicated that one of these policies, i.e., regarding the Old Gold fellowships, has been clarified and implemented; (3) Responsiveness and timeliness: This problem was noted in last year’s Annual Report and has not improved. Time deadlines in university procedures are often ignored to the detriment of the complaining or grieving faculty member. In addition, administrators at every level of the University need to increase their responsiveness to internal concerns. 

      C.  Agenda for special Faculty Senate meeting to discuss IWP. The Task Force Report on the Future of the University of Iowa International Writing Program has been completed and submitted to President Coleman and Provost Whitmore. It is available on the University’s website. President Carlson has called a special meeting of the Faculty Senate for October 26, 1999 to provide opportunity for faculty input. It was suggested that guests may be invited to address the Senate and that the Council present a draft resolution to guide the Senate’s discussion. A preliminary working document of a possible draft resolution was distributed and discussed. It was determined that another draft was needed in order to incorporate suggestions and to include a response to the Task Force Report.

            The motion was made (Professor Colvin), seconded (Professor Bhattacharjee), and approved to schedule another Council meeting on October 19, 1999 to discuss the Task Force Report.

            The motion was made (Professor Cox), seconded (Professor Colvin) and approved to delay sending out a proposed resolution to faculty senators until a revised draft was presented at the October 19 Council meeting.

V.  A motion to adjourn was made and approved at 5:17 PM.

                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                    Jean Jew, Secretary