UNIVERSITY OF IOWA FACULTY SENATE
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Old Capital, Senate Chamber
Members Present: S. Aquilino, S. Armstrong, Z. Ballas, C. Berman, D. Bills, F. Boos, R. Bork, D. Brown, J. Carlson, S. Collins, C. Colvin, J. Cowdery, J. Cox, D. DeJong, B. Fallon, V. Grassian, R. Hohl, R. Hurtig, J. Jew, M. Klepser, S. Larsen, C. Lynch, D. Manderscheid, T. Mangum, K. Marra, J. Menninger, J. Moyers, P. Muhly, B. Muller, W. Nixon, O’Dorisio, G. Parkin, M. Pincus, J. Polumbaum, P. Pomrehn, C. Porter, M. Raymond, C. Ringen, J. Ringen, H. Seaba, R. Slayton, J. Soloski, C. Sponsler, C. Stanford, B. Thompson, R. Valentine, E. Wasserman
Members Absent: N. Bauman, J. Berg, J. Bertolatus, M. Browning, Ronald Cohen, G. El-Khoury, K. Ephgrave, L. Geist, L. Hunsicker, T. Judge, P. Kutzko, B. Levy, D. Liddell, A.M. McCarthy, R. Miller, A. Morris, I. Nygaard, A. Steinberg, J. Tomkovicz
Members Excused: K. Abdel-Malek, A. Bhattacharjee, B. Doebbeling, C. Doebbeling, A. Gratama, G. Milavetz, S.A. Moorhead, P. Rubenstein, W. Stanford, L.Troyer, S. Vincent, R. Zbiek
Guests: Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost), Joyce Crawford (Office of the Provost-Faculty Senate), Sara Langenberg (Iowa City Press Citizen), Lola Lopes (Office of the Provost), Les Sims (Office of the Provost), Jon Whitmore (Provost)
MOTION: Prof. Menninger moved to approve
the agenda and Prof. Slayton seconded. The agenda was accepted.
Prof. Menninger moved to accept the Minutes of Tuesday, September 19, 2000 and Prof. Slayton seconded. A sentence in Section IV. A. describing a point of procedure in the voting process to be used for changing the percentage of clinical track faculty in a college was deemed confusing. That confusion inspiring further confusion, we neglected to pass the minutes. We will attempt a second vote, the offending sentence having been omitted, at the next meeting.
MOTION: The Faculty Senate approves the following appointments to the Faculty Judicial Commission, as recommended by the Committee on Committees and the Faculty Council.
Betsy Altmaier (Counseling Psychology), Professor
John Solow (Economics), Associate Professor
Lon Moeller (Management and Organizations), Clinical Track Associate Professor
ACTION RE: MOTION/RESOLUTION 1
Prof. Hertig moved and Prof. Lynch seconded the following motion:
MOTION: The Faculty Senate approves these appointments to the Faculty Judicial Commission, as recommended by the Committee on Committees and the Faculty Council. The motion carried.
President Colvin noted that the first two reports included recommendations. Therefore, she asked Senators to accept each of these reports in a separate vote. She called for a motion to that affect.
ACTION RE: MOTION/RESOLUTION 2
Prof. Hertig moved and Prof. Porter seconded the following motion:
MOTION: That the Faculty Senate accepts the
1999-2000 report of the Budget Committee. The motion carried.
President Colvin then moved to the report from the Governmental Relations Committee, asking for a motion to approve the report.
ACTION RE: MOTION/RESOLUTION 3
Prof. Muhly moved and Prof. Carlson seconded the following motion:
MOTION: That the Faculty Senate accepts the
1999-2000 report of the Governmental Relations Committee.
Prof. Berman directed Senators’ attention to the section titled "Issues, Item 2, Part C and D" of this report. She expressed concern that the views of one committee member expressed there did not reflect most faculty members’ attitudes toward the effect of tuition increases on students. President Colvin noted that the report was an attempt to reflect the views of all of the committee members, but that these views were separate from the ultimate recommendations of the report. Prof. Menninger responded that the document needed to function either as minutes or as a report. While minutes should be comprehensive, a report should represent the outcome of the committee’s deliberations. Therefore, this report should be amended.
The motion failed.
Prof. Berman then moved and Prof. Boos seconded the following motion:
Motion: That the Governmental Relations Committee report be returned to the Committee with the request that the committee remove the potentially offensive language in the section "Issues, Item 2, Part C and D."
Prof. Hertig reiterated that the difficulty inheres, in part, in the hybrid nature of this document, which grafts minutes onto a report. He suggested that in the future Senators may wish to instruct committees to report final conclusions rather than on-going discussions since these reports are public documents which guide policy-making.
ACTION RE: MOTION/RESOLUTION 4
MOTION: That the Governmental Relations
Committee report be returned to the Committee with the request that the
committee remove the potentially offensive language in the section "Issues,
Item 2, Part C and D. The motion carried.
President Colvin then asked for a motion to accept the rest of the reports as a group since the remaining reports did not include formal recommendations.
Motion: That the Faculty Senate accept the 1999-2000 reports from the following Committees:
Faculty Senate Committees: Committee on Rules and By-laws, Committee to Select Central Academic Administrators, Budget and Planning Committee, Committee on Faculty Welfare, Committee on Elections
University Committees: Campus Planning Committee, Council on Teaching, Faculty/Staff Parking Appeals Committee, Family Issues Committee, Financial Aid Advisory Committee, Funded Retirement Insurance Committee, University Libraries Committee, Non-resident Fee Review Committee, Research Council, Information Technology Advisory Committee
ACTION RE: MOTION/RESOLUTION 5
Prof. Hertig moved and Prof. Nixon seconded the following motion:
MOTION: That the Faculty Senate accepts the
1999-2000 reports from the above named Faculty Senate and University Committees.
The motion carried.
President Colvin next addressed potential confusion about the so-called "Unfitness Policy." Currently, the Operations Manual includes a policy titled "termination for cause." An Ad Hoc Senate Committee, chaired by Prof. Cox, is reviewing that policy in an attempt to clarify conditions under which the policy would be used, the process such a termination procedure would follow, and the grievance procedure a faculty member could pursue in response. Prof. Colvin expressed her concern that although this policy is still in committee and very much in progress, a draft of the committee’s preliminary report was circulated recently in the Liberal Arts Faculty Assembly. Many Assembly members were left with the impression that the policy had been passed by the Senate. She asked Senators to correct this misinformation by letting their colleagues know that the policy is still under discussion by the Ad Hoc committee and has not yet been voted on by Faculty Council or the Senate. She and Prof. Cox also plan to attend Liberal Arts Assembly to clarify that the policy has not yet been presented to the Council or the Senate. Because the document has been circulated in a public forum, President Colvin added that senators who wished to see the draft document may contact Joyce Crawford to request a copy.
President Colvin made two additional announcements. First, on November 17, a public hearing related to issues of education will be held in Cedar Rapids at St. Luke’s Hospital, 1026 A Avenue, NE from 7:00-8:00 p.m.
Second, a Governmental Relations Workshop will be held Thursday, October 26 from 3:30-5:00 p.m. in S401 Pappajohn. The workshop is open to all Senators.
When Elizabeth Altmaier served in the Provost’s Office, she initiated a review of what was then called the "Semester Assignment" policy. Associate Provost for Faculty Lee Anna Clark brought a draft of the resulting Career Development Award policy to Faculty Council last February. The Council endorsed the policy. Associate Provost Clark is now visiting the Senate to address questions Senators have regarding the revised document. The major change is that the policy has been adopted to suit the needs of twelve-month faculty members, particularly those in the health sciences. The former policy was not amenable to their staff needs and work conditions. Twelve-month faculty members may now accrue twice the amount of time previously required (usually one accrues ten semesters before applying for a Developmental Semester Assignment) and then take a full year off, with a proportional payback in time worked after the leave. A faculty member on a nine-month contract may apply for the year-long option with special permission if the shift in duties fits within the number of leaves permitted to her or his college. These awards are highly competitive, whether a semester or a year. At the conclusion of the assignment, faculty members must file reports on their accomplishments. Another change is that two or more faculty members can now apply for a simultaneous award to collaborate on an interdisciplinary project: up to ten faculty members may be granted $5,000 each.
Senators responded with many calls for clarification. Prof. De Jong was assured that clinical track faculty are now eligible to apply for these awards. Prof. Hertig asked whether faculty members in small departments could be guaranteed that the Provost’s Office would provide funds to cover the classes of faculty who secured the awards. Associate Provost Clark explained that only very limited funds exist for this purpose; faculty members should apply for that funding at the same time that they apply for the award itself. Prof. Menninger asked who serves in twelve-month positions and therefore would be eligible for a year-long award, and Provost A replied that most of these positions are held by health sciences faculty members and clinical faculty in the law school. Queried about the manner in which eligibility is established for twelve-month employees, Associate Provost Clark explained that since semesters have little meaning in their cases, months rather than years are used for calculations. Senators were bemused by the way in which these calculations were derived, and Associate Provost Clark said that she and Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education Lola Lopes are currently reviewing the academic calendar with these and other long-time idiosyncrasies in mind.
President Colvin called for a motion to endorse the new Career Development Award policy.
ACTION RE: MOTION/RESOLUTION 6
Prof. Carlson moved and Prof. Manderscheid seconded the following motion:
MOTION: That the Faculty Senate endorses the
Career Development Award Policy. The motion carried.
Prof. Shreeves began by introducing our new University Librarian, Nancy Baker. Prof. Shreeves then described the work of his committee, consisting of three members from each of the three Regents’ institutions. Our representatives, in addition to Prof. Shreeves, are Amitava Bhattacharjee and Jonathan Wilcox (English). The committee is studying the impact of rising costs of journals upon library collections and considering coping strategies. One of the major objectives of the task force is to educate faculty members about the changes in scholarly communication and to involve them in the process of deciding how to circulate their scholarship in an equitable, cost-effective manner. To this end, Prof. Shreeves will be holding meetings on campus with editors of scholarly journals and others to discuss how the library can meet the needs of scholars on campus, particularly scientists and health sciences researchers, whose journal prices have leapt rapidly. In addition, Prof. Shreeves reported that national and international groups, including the Association of American Universities, the Association of Research Libraries, and numerous scholarly societies, have drawn up a list of Principles for Emerging Systems of Scholarly Publishing. (See http://www.arl.org/scomm/tempe.html for details). These principles address such issues as costs, electronic capabilities, fair evaluation of scholarly work by publishers, secure archiving, respect for intellectual property and fair use, faculty management of copyright and the right to fair use of their own scholarly publications, timeliness from submission to publication, shifting the emphasis in evaluation of faculty from quantity to quality, and privacy issues. The Faculty Senates of the other two Iowa Regents’ universities have endorsed these principles, and Prof. Shreeves encouraged our Senate to do the same.
Prof. Shreeves noted that on October 13, Provost Whitmore convened a meeting with scholarly editors on campus to discuss local solutions. The group discussed such strategies as meeting with Iowa congressional delegations, changing publication policies, alerting new faculty to copyright issues in orientation, and finding ways to involve faculty members in developing new means of disseminating their work.
Concerned Senators asked a number of questions. How do we evaluate our peers? Are the most expensive journals always the highest quality and the best route to tenure and promotion? Can faculty feel confident that material archived on-line will remain available as print copies do? Prof. Berman noted the hidden costs of creating new journals—the work of faculty and staff to produce them—and asked whether we need additional support to fund on-line journals. Prof. Shreeves answered that this was one of the most contentious issues at the October 13th meeting. Provost Whitmore plans to encourage the CIC to create support mechanisms that will allow faculty to play a larger role in taking back ownership of the work they publish. Prof. Hertig suggested that editors working on campus might pool resources and expertise.
President Colvin thanked Prof. Shreeves and the other task force members for their hard work and also welcomed University Librarian Nancy Baker to campus. She then called for a motion to endorse the Principles for Emerging Systems of Scholarly Publishing.
ACTION RE: MOTION/RESOLUTION 7
Prof. Hertig moved and Prof. Wolf seconded the following motion:
MOTION: That the Faculty Senate endorses the Principles for Emerging Systems of Scholarly Publishing. The motion carried.
Larry Wilson invited Senators to attend one of several "forum/listening post" events, open to faculty, staff, and students. At the meetings, which will be held between November 6 and November 13, Planning staff will review current plans for the campus, including major projects involving the area of campus in which each particular meeting is to be held. He also noted that Planning Services will soon have a questionnaire on the web where members of the university community can share their opinions. For specific dates, times, and locations, please see http://www.uiowa.edu/~cpc/ (particularly the section "Campus Planning Framework.")
Prof. Nixon made a motion to adjourn and Prof. Berman seconded. All approved. The meeting adjourned at 5:17 p.m.
Next meeting: The next meeting of the Faculty Senate will be held on Tuesday, December 5 at 3:30 in the Old Capital Senate Chambers.