University of Iowa
Tuesday, April 2, 2002
J. Berg, C. Berman, D. Bills, T. Boles, K. Diffley, J. Gratama, L. Hunsicker, S.
Kurtz, R. LeBlond, P. Lloyd, C. Lynch, D. Manderscheid, T. Mangum, K. Marra, J.
Menninger, S. Moorhead, P. Muhly, B. Muller, W. Nixon, G. Parkin, J. Polumbaum,
M. Raymond, C. Ringen, J. Ringen, H. Seaba, R. Slayton, S. Stromquist, K. Tachau,
L. Troyer, R. Valentine, S. Vincent, E. Wasserman, P. Weller, J. Westefeld, J.
Members Absent: K.
Abdel-Malek, J. Altman, Z. Ballas, N. Bauman, R. Bork, P. Chang, H. Cowen, C.
Dungy, B. Fallon, M. Graber, G. Hamot, P. Heidger, J. Jew, M. Klepser, J. P.
Long, J. Moyers, I. Nygaard, T. O’Dorisio,
P. Rubenstein, L. Snetselaar, C. Sponsler, W. Stanford
Members Excused: J. Aikin, S. Armstrong, D. Brown, J. Cowdery, D. DeJong, L. Dusdieker, V. Grassian, R. Hegeman, R. Hurtig, V. Kumar, S. Larsen, A. McCarthy, R. Miller, C. Porter, A. Qualls, T. Tuong, R. Weir
Officers in Attendance: Amitava Bhattacharjee, President; Jeff Cox, Vice
President; Carolyn Colvin, Past President; Erin Irish, Secretary
Bonnie Slatton (BICOA), Nick Colangelo (BICOA), Bob Engle (EFC), Jim
Jacobson (Gazette), Pat Kenner (Staff
Council), Nancy Williams, (Office of the Provost), Lee Anna Clark (Provost
Office), Heather Woodward (Press-Citizen),
Lola Lopes (Office of the Provost), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office), Mark
Schantz (General Counsel)
The meeting was called to order at
Minutes: Faculty Senate, March 5, 2002
The minutes were
accepted as distributed.
New Business: Adoptive Leave Policy (Lee Anna Clark and Jane Holland)
Provost Clark introduced this revised policy, explaining that the Staff Council
and the Faculty Welfare Committee have responded to several requests from
adoptive parents to extend adoptive leave. This extension is especially needed
in cases of international adoptions, when new parents must travel, often on
short notice, to pick up the child and complete paperwork.
This new policy is a compromise between what might be desirable and what
is fiscally reasonable. There had
also been an examination of the policy for leave for new biological parents.
At present, new biological mothers can use sick leave for maternity
leave, whereas the partners of those mothers would have to use emergency leave
to cover any time off. If that group were to be included, the cost would be much,
much higher, simply as a consequence of the much greater number of new
biological parents compared to the number of adopting parents. The recommendation is that the leave be extended from five to
ten days. If both partners are UI
employees, the recommendation is that there be an increase of five days total
for the couple, not for each parent. This
policy has been approved by Staff Council and by Faculty Council.
inquired about the use of additional sick leave. Associate Provost Clark explained that this would be an
additional benefit. Previously,
there had been five days of adoptive leave, and any additional time off was
treated as vacation. Prof. Kurtz
wanted a definition of “partner.” Nancy Williams responded that it means a
domestic partner. Prof. Kurtz
concluded that the policy would discriminate against unmarried heterosexual
couples that adopt. Associate
Provost Clark agreed, stating that this policy would be consistent with other
university policies. Prof. Kurtz wanted to see that unmarried heterosexual
couples be covered by this policy, and Prof. Hunsicker asked that this policy be
amended to include heterosexual unmarried couples, which Prof. Kurtz seconded.
Williams responded that those creating the policy had not thought of this
possibility, but merely wanted to be consistent with university policy.
She would go back to the committee to clear this amendment. Prof. LeBlond
observed that if both people are adoptive parents, it is immaterial whether they
are married. Associate Provost
Clark agreed and pointed out that couples don’t have any advantage over
singles. Prof. Kurtz proposed that
we treat married and unmarried couples equally. Further discussions revealed
that unmarried heterosexual couples actually have an advantage here: If they were to adopt, both would be eligible for 10 days’
returned to Prof. Berman’s point that it was confusing to consider the cost of
the policy, as the university is committed to paying sick leave, and maternity
leave is just one use of sick leave. Prof.
Berman continued with her interpretation that this is not money that could have
been used for something else—one is still using up sick leave.
Associate Provost Clark clarified that the cost comes in at the time of
retirement, when unused sick leave is paid back (albeit at a very low rate). Prof. Berman pointed out that this cost is not coming from a
fund that otherwise could be used to pay for undergraduate scholarships, for
moved and Prof. Nixon seconded the following:
MOTION: To approve the policy. The
Bhattacharjee reported that the Senate has been working with Staff Council on
several projects, most of which are still in progress.
A major one has been fact gathering for the proposal by James Sutton
about the establishment of a PAC. The
Senate had felt that it was our responsibility to get this idea out to the
faculty, even though neither Faculty nor Staff Council endorses establishing a
PAC at this university.
reported that UI SMART is still running. Especially
during times of financial difficulties, one looks for ideas for reducing waste
from the people who know the system. UI
Smart is still ongoing, and Staff Council is looking for volunteers to evaluate
proposals. She added that one could submit ideas online.
She reported on one idea, which is to develop a mechanism to identify
staff and faculty as state employees. This
would be useful when traveling, especially out of state, for getting hotel
discounts. This idea has been forwarded to the State.
Unfinished Business: CIC Resolution on Intercollegiate Athletics,
Guidelines for Reporting by the Board in Control of Athletics and the Cox
Bhattacharjee reminded the Senate that we had previously passed the CIC
resolution as amended by deletion of the provision that no academic funds be
used to support athletics. At the
last Council meeting, BICOA guidelines were discussed. President Bhattacharjee had drawn up these guidelines, in
consultation with other CIC Faculty Senate presidents to ensure common language.
There had also been a request from Faculty Senate Officers to get a
breakdown of the use of funds coming from the General Fund.
This information was provided by Doug True and Ted Yanacek, and
summarized in a handout prepared by President Bhattacharjee, which he explained
in more detail. “Total for
year” is the new amount added to previous year’s amount.
“GE” refers to general expenses, such as travel.
These allocations represent the commitments made to Women’s Athletics
and to Christine Grant. The
increases result from more and better scholarships.
He pointed out that it is a linear increase.
He reported that Vice President True did not think that the amount would
ever decrease, but was more likely to continue at the same pace.
“Reversion” referred to the cut from the governor.
He pointed out that this reversion represents a significant cut, a much
higher percentage than the cuts suffered by academic units.
Prof. Kurtz wanted
clarification regarding use of general funds, assuming that it meant direct
costs, but not heat, lights, or electricity.
Also, regarding the guidelines, he felt that the reports on graduation
rates, honors going to athletes, and so on, would be meaningful only in
comparison to nonathletes, so, he would want that information in the report as
well. He also wanted to know why
allocations were labeled for Women’s Athletics and not (plain) Athletics.
Addressing the second point, General Counsel Schantz explained that when
the two programs were separate, there was a direct transfer from the General
Fund to Women’s Athletics. Now, after merger, this practice is simply an accounting
tool. Prof. Kurtz understood that,
but predicted that in future years will it be labeled as “Athletics.”
General Counsel Schantz explained that allocations are currently formula driven,
and it would take some action to change that.
Prof. Tachau asked how continuing this subsidy would ever provide an
incentive to achieve gender equity by men’s athletics.
Prof. Mangum observed that the rhetoric puts us in the position where,
with any thoughts of how to change this expenditure, we keep coming back to how
they might hurt women’s athletics. General
Counsel Schantz pointed out that allocations from the General Fund didn’t
start at zero in 1996. Prof. C.
Ringen supported Prof. Mangum’s view that we are treating this issue as the
threat that if we take this money away, we will hurt women’s athletics.
thought we were not seeing the whole picture:
men’s costs are also increasing. She
viewed it as an accounting ploy to specify where certain moneys are being spent.
President Bhattacharjee found it subversive to say that in order to achieve
gender equity it must be subsidized. Prof. Menninger asked whether Title IX ties the amount of
expenditure on women’s programs to that on men’s programs.
General Counsel Schantz responded that that is a part of it.
Another component is participation.
Prof. Menninger feared that as men’s expenditures increase, if
women’s expenditures must be tied to it, then the General Fund will need to
contribute even more with each year. Prof.
Cox observed that the way the argument has been framed rhetorically it has been
putting the blame on women (an old tradition, he noted) whereas it is really a
way to protect nonrevenue men’s sports. Prof.
Hunsicker understood exactly that this subsidy supports nonrevenue sports, and
shared Prof. Menninger’s concern that the tying of the two budgets will result
in huge costs to the General Funds. if
he had to choose between a biology professor and a baseball team, he
would choose the former.
thought we should keep in mind that each of us first makes sure that our
mortgage gets paid each month, and other purchases are made after that is
accomplished. The university should
view attaining equity under Title IX for women’s athletics as a mortgage,
which should be paid first. After
that is covered, then the disposable income can be used to increase coaches’
salaries, etc. Prof. Slatton
reminded the Senate that support from the state was dramatically cut to zero by
late 1980’s. Something had to be done when new sports were added.
She also thought it is incorrect to think that if there is no state
funding, there can’t be equity. The
university is legally bound and morally committed to meeting equity. But, using
state money is defensible as a reflection of the state’s commitment to
athletics. We want to support it.
We can’t both say, “No state money” and also demand no
commercialization of athletics. Prof.
LeBlond concurred, saying that at present we criticize athletics for running
like a business and then demand that it generate all its money.
He thought there was nothing inherently wrong in supporting athletics,
but wanted the faculty to develop a dialogue with bicoa.
Prof. Kurtz voiced his support for giving money to athletics. His concern was how we package that support. By calling it “women’s athletics” we are putting a burden on it that is not fair. Prof. Tachau pointed out that what is a trivial amount in athletics is significant in academic units. Prof. Mangum agreed with Prof. Kurtz that there are two issues, one more symbolic than material. We need to separate the decision that some money from the General Fund will continue go to athletics vs. how that money is spent.
moved and Prof. Kurtz seconded the following:
MOTION: To accept these
repeated that there’s no such thing as women’s
He felt that what bicoa owes faculty is a good accounting of how money is spent
and what would happen if General Fund support were to be cut. He believed that bicoa
would be behind this accounting. One
way to ensure accounting is a yearly report from bicoa
to the Faculty Senate. He also
pointed out that bicoa meetings
are public, by law. Prof. Tachau
asked whether bicoa would be
comfortable with providing a breakdown of graduation rates by sex and sport.
Prof. Slatton answered that this information is already being gathered,
so they can easily provide this. On
a year-by-year basis, it is often difficult to protect privacy, so this
information may have to be provided in terms of a 5-year basis. She also urged
more attention on academic issues, rather than the budget.
MOTION: (from above) To
accept these guidelines. The
Bhattacharjee then introduced the Cox resolution.
There had been an earlier version that was passed by the Faculty Council,
but tabled by the Senate. The
Council has passed the new version. Prof.
Cox began by withdrawing his old version from consideration. He explained that the purpose of his resolution was to tie
reporting with funding. He also
desired that this discussion be continued next year.
Item 4 of the resolution had to do with some peculiarities of this
campus, where we have taken a very high moral ground with regard to alcohol use.
Yet, we sell our sports to beer makers.
We take money from Anheiser-Busch, while at the same time 10% of our
undergraduate males are arrested on drug and alcohol charges.
This arrest rate is three times that of Story County.
We lead the nation in arrests for drug and alcohol charges, and second
isn’t even close. He pointed out
that it is damaging to have an arrest record, and felt that we should take
special care to prevent it.
Prof. Kurtz felt
that the resolution was underambitious. He
would like to know also what steps were considered but not taken. He suggested
that the recent actions of the University of Kentucky with regard to monitoring
athletics should guide us. President Bhattacharjee pointed out that these things
are included in the guidelines that we had just passed.
Prof. Nixon also saw a danger in reporting on what has been considered
but not done as well as what was done, as that was likely to produce a blizzard
of information. He advised keeping
the reporting limited, or else we would waste even more time talking about this.
Prof. Magnum suggested that an Item 5 be added to ask for reporting on
academic progress. Prof. Cox pointed out that bicoa
is doing a great job already in reporting on academic achievement.
Prof. Nixon viewed this as a positive first step. Prof. Berman suggested
that Item 5 require a report back to faculty on programs that athletics
use to ensure that athletes are successful academically, as they would be
helpful to nonathletes as well. Further
discussion resulted in the conclusion that the requirements contemplated for an
Item 5 may be redundant. Prof.
Hunsicker called the question, seconded by Prof. Kurtz.
The motion carried.
MOTION: To accept the
Cox resolution. The motion carried.
Motions from the Floor
Prof. Nixon moved and
Prof. Colvin seconded the following:
MOTION: The Faculty Senate asks the Faculty Council to organize a “Faculty Bake Sale” and/or other Faculty Fund Raising Activities for the purpose of raising funds to replace the reduction in State Funding for the University General Fund.
Nixon explained the rationale for his motion.
Some $40 million has been lost from the state.
Whereas a bake sale would be unlikely to restore even 1% of that loss, it
would let the faculty do something. It
is extremely frustrating to the faculty that good academic programs suffer from
lack of funds. Such an activity
would empower us. This could be
viewed as a nonviolent protest against cuts that have hurt the university.
He also thought that there would be a public relations aspect to this.
Prof. Kurtz asked whether the funds generated would be given to the
General Funds, i.e. to Jessup Hall and not to the Foundation.
Prof. Nixon said they would go to the General Fund.
Prof. Colvin suggested having multiple sales.
Prof. Berman was worried about the implication that faculty have time for
baking. Prof. Menninger agreed, and
added that there would be considerable costs associated with the level of baking
he expected from his colleagues. President
Bhattacharjee, mindful of its packed agenda, politely declined to put on this
item on the agenda of Faculty Council. Prof. Hunsicker applauded the idea of
involvement, but respectfully asked Prof. Nixon to withdraw his motion. He
thought it could be broadened to state that faculty have not done enough to
involve ourselves with the budget cuts.
Bhattacharjee suggested that this could go to the Government Relations
Commitment. Prof. Lynch pointed out
that President Coleman had already urged us to go out to tell communities what
we do for the state. Prof.
Hunsicker thought that this is something different, that the faculty need to
decide to do something specifically about the loss of funds. He thought this would be harmless. Prof. Lynch disagreed, and feared that faculty could be
expected to be doing something more creative.
Prof. Kurtz humorously predicted that if we did this, one legislator
might say to another, “Let them eat cake.” Prof. Polumbaum thought this
would be wonderful as a pr
activity. We are real people; we
can do things like volunteer for our kids’ schools.
A bake sale might be an easy way to galvanize a large group of people to
do something. Prof. Wasserman
thought it would be more effective if it were targeted to a scholarship fund,
rather than to the General Fund. Prof.
Tachau offered the friendly amendment that the Faculty Senate requests that
Prof. Nixon organize it. Prof.
Nixon agreed to do so.
MOTION: (from above), with the amendment that any proceeds go toward
student support. The motion carried with a vote of 15 for, 10 against.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:18.
Erin Irish, Secretary