The University of Iowa
December 3, 2002
pm – 5:15 pm
Dodge Room, #256 Iowa Memorial Union
Armstrong, Zuhair Ballas, Constance Berman, Terry Boles, Phyllis Chang, John
Cowdery, Corey Creekmur, Douglas DeJong, Kathleen Diffley, Edwin Dove,
Claibourne Dungy, Lois Dusdieker, Sonya Franklin, Richard Fumerton, Carin Green,
Rebecca Hegeman, Ronald Herman, Julie Hochstrasser, Jean Jew, Sheldon Kurtz,
Mazen Maktabi, Usha Mallik, Teresa Mangum, Kim Marra, Ann Marie McCarthy, Rachel
Miller, John Moyers, Paul Muhly, Thomas O’Dorisio, Lisa Oakes, Harry Paarsch,
Judy Polumbaum, Daniel Quinn, Richard Randell, Mary Reno, Jon Ringen, Peter
Rubenstein, Leslie Schrier, Linda Snetselaar, Alvin Snider, Karin Southard,
Katherine Tachau, Tuong Ton-That, Richard Valentine, Carolyn Wanat, Robert Weir,
Paul Weller, John Westefeld, Howard Winfield, Jerold Woodhead
Abdel, Janet Altman, Melissa Deem, Bernard Fallon, Alfred Hansen, Paul Heidger,
Erin Irish, Richard LeBlond, Patrick Lloyd, Barbara Muller, Andrew Nugent,
Bradley Phillips, Thomas Schmidt, Shelton Stromquist, Duane Whitaker
Alvarez, Donald Brown, William Johnson, Charles Lynch, Sue Ann Moorhead
Senate Officers in Attendance:
Jeffrey Cox, President; Margaret Raymond, Vice President; Craig Porter,
Secretary; Amitava Bhattacharjee, Past President
Joe Nugent (The Daily Iowan), Heather Woodward (The Press Citizen), Tom
Walsh (Iowa City Gazette), David Wynes (Office of the Vice President for
Research), Jane Holland (Family Services), Al Hood (Emeritus Faculty), Jon
Whitmore (Office of the Provost), Charles Drum (University Relations), Sandra
Guzman-Armstrong (Dental Clinic Administration), Jane Van Voorhis (University
Relations), Nancy Williams (Office of the Provost), Lee Anna Clark (Office of
the Provost), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office)
Call to Order
The December 2002 University of Iowa Faculty Senate meeting was called to
order by President Jeffrey Cox at 3:38 PM on December 3, 2002.
Approval of Senate Agenda
requested modification of the Senate agenda as presented to the Faculty
Senators. He requested that item
IV.C. on the draft agenda, Review of the Office of the President, be moved to
become item II.D. The Senators
approved the agenda as amended.
Approval of Minutes – Faculty Senate, October 15, 2002
Senate minutes were approved without correction.
Approval of Recommended Replacements
“The Faculty Senate endorses the Senate replacement as recommended by the
Committee on Elections and approved by the Faculty Council” was made by Prof.
Tachau, seconded by Prof. Westefeld, and approved unanimously.
Prof. Mallik moved “The Faculty Senate endorses the Faculty Senate
Committee replacement as recommended by the Committee on Committees and approved
by the Faculty Council.” Prof.
McCarthy seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.
Review of the Office of the President
reminded the Faculty Senators that a review of the Office of the President had
been scheduled for this academic year. In
anticipation of this review, and prior to her departure, former University
President Mary Sue Coleman prepared a self-study document of her office, which
was accepted by the Office of the Provost.
With her subsequent departure and with the mutual concurrence of the
Office of the Provost and the Faculty Senate Officers, the review process was
placed on hold. At the request of
Interim President Boyd, and with the concurrence of the Office of the Provost
and the Faculty Senate Officers, a decision was recently made to proceed post
haste with an administrative review of the Office of the President without
performing the customary, accompanying personnel review of the individual office
holder. Provost Whitmore and Pres.
Cox subsequently contacted a variety of individuals to query their interest in
serving on a Committee to Review the Office of the President.
Proposed members currently include the following individuals:
Prof. Ed Folsom, Committee Chair (Department of English, College of
Liberal Arts and Sciences); Prof. Lynn Richman (Department of Pediatrics,
College of Medicine); Prof. Catherine Ringen (Department of Linguistics, College
of Liberal Arts and Sciences); Prof. John Westefeld (Department of Psychological
and Quantitative Foundations, College of Education); Assoc. Prof. Lois Geist
(Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine); Donna Muller, Staff
(Department of Human Resources Specialist, University of Iowa Hospitals and
Clinics). After the compilation of
the committee report and following customary procedure, an external reviewer
will be invited to complete the process. It
is anticipated that this individual will be named in the spring semester with
the intent to complete the review process by late spring. Pres. Cox asked for questions.
wondered whether this committee was of usual size.
Pres. Cox responded that the University Operations Manual specifies a
membership of seven for such a review committee. With the proposed membership of six individuals plus an
external reviewer this committee is smaller than that specified in the
Operations Manual. However Pres.
Cox also allowed that the Operations Manual contained language permitting
variability in committee size. It
was the intent of the Provost and Pres. Cox to maintain a “small” committee.
Pres. Cox further elaborated that two members from the Committee for
Selection of Central Academic Officials were offered membership on the
Presidential Search Committee. Both
individuals ultimately declined membership.
In response to another question, Pres. Cox indicated that the selection
criteria involved a balance across colleges and relied heavily upon the advice
of multiple individuals across campus including various Faculty Senate members.
He further commented that the Operations Manual does not specify that a
staff member will be included on such a committee, but that precedent has been
established in this regard and for this reason Donna Muller was nominated and
agreed to serve. Following this
discussion Prof. Tachau moved and Prof. Jew seconded a motion to accept the
Committee to Review the Office of the President as proposed by Provost Whitmore
and Pres. Cox. Unanimous approval
Report on University Outreach and Advocacy, Jane Van Voorhis
invited Jane Van Voorhis, the University’s new Coordinator of Outreach and
Advocacy to address the University of Iowa Faculty Senate in an attempt to
increase their awareness of this important initiative.
Ms. Van Voorhis began by speculating that one of the marks that Interim
President Boyd will leave on the University of Iowa will be re-emphasis of
outreach and advocacy efforts. She
pointed out that such an office as hers existed in central administration up
until approximately two years ago. The
individual who held that office left the University and because of the fiscal
challenges faced by the University at the time a decision was made to forgo that
person’s replacement. The
previous coordinator held a full-time position but Ms. Van Voorhis has been
appointed to her post as a part-time coordinator.
Funding sources for her efforts are presently being provided by both the
Faculty Senate and the Office of the Provost, each of which has contributed
$5,000 to support advocacy efforts. The
Faculty Senate monies were offered with the intent that they support off-campus
faculty advocacy efforts through travel reimbursement.
promote the goals of Pres. Boyd to connect with Iowans and to demonstrate to
legislators the crucial role that the University of Iowa plays in the economic
health of the state, Ms. Van Voorhis is working to create a volunteer advocacy
network. Individuals are being
identified through concerted efforts coordinated by Ms. Van Voorhis that involve
the Alumni Association and collegiate alumni groups who will serve as
legislative contacts to promote an understanding of the importance of University
of Iowa activities to the State of Iowa. At present, 80 individuals have accepted the responsibility
to serve in these voluntary positions. Ms.
Van Voorhis is hopeful that the group will rise in number to approximately 100.
She is also hopeful that the expansion of this group will occur in such a
way that key legislative committees important to the University that currently
lack alumni contact will ultimately be reached by the addition of these
individuals. The individuals thus
far identified are undergoing an orientation process that includes educational
mailings. She anticipates the
group’s ongoing advocacy and outreach efforts will be aided by the creation of
a web site with links to various important web pages including parents’ groups
and the president’s page. She
intends to post biweekly legislative updates and activity alerts on the web and
she will identify important legislative initiatives on the University Government
Relations web page. Members of this
group will be provided with position statements and talking points prepared by
the University administration to inform their discussions with their legislative
to these advocacy efforts, substantial outreach efforts are also being planned.
There has been an overwhelming response to the e-mail request from
Interim President Boyd for faculty and staff members to participate in Speakers
Bureau activities. Her office
continues its efforts to catalog the myriad outreach activities in which faculty
and staff members are currently engaged. While
this effort continues, more than 200 individuals have volunteered their efforts
to participate in outreach speaking engagements.
Ms. Van Voorhis is confident that her office will be able to work
hand–in-hand with local Chambers of Commerce and other leadership groups to
identify local venues for speaker activities.
To aid those individuals who have volunteered to participate in these
efforts, her office is spearheading an effort to update the outreach database on
the University of Iowa web site. County
by county data are being reorganized to provide outreach speakers with
up-to-the-minute information regarding services and products that come to Iowa
communities directly from the University of Iowa.
Included in the database will be the numbers of students attending the
University of Iowa from these communities, the number of University of Iowa
alumni residing in these communities and key contact individuals.
Ms. Van Voorhis is also encouraging various collegiate Directors of
External Relations to identify Iowa students who are engaged in interesting and
important on-campus activities who are willing to return to their home
communities and, through various local speakers’ venues, educate these
communities about their on-campus activities during holiday breaks.
Just as she found with the response to Interim President Boyd’s e-mail,
the number of students willing to serve in this capacity is overwhelming.
She ended her prepared comments with the request that the Senators and
their faculty colleagues contact her office in advance of any planned outreach
activities. By so doing, she will
be able to provide these traveling ambassadors with materials that will better
inform their outreach efforts. Such
materials might include copies of the President’s core message and fact books
appropriate to the anticipated audience. Where
appropriate and when possible her office will also work to provide local press
coverage of these outreach activities. Ms. Van Voorhis then opened the floor for questions.
offered that an important way to cement advocacy relationships would be to
encourage the friends of the University to develop contacts with legislative staff
members. Ms. Van Voorhis was
appreciative of this suggestion and indicated that she would discuss this with
Mark Braun, the director of State Relations for the University.
Prof. Jew questioned the user friendliness of the web-based activities
that will be used to inform constituent groups of the activities of our Outreach
and Advocacy Networks. She encouraged the creation of a single web page,
perhaps entitled “Friends” that would improve navigability and accessibility
to such information. Ms. Van
Voorhis acknowledged the utility of this approach and suggested that the alumni
link that exists on the University of Iowa web page might be a suitable portal
B. Report of the Faculty Senate President, Jeff Cox
Pres. Cox was recently invited to attend a meeting of the Sunrise Optimist Club in his role as President of the University of Iowa Faculty Senate. He reported that the Sunrise Optimists are a large group of business people who meet very early in the morning. In his remarks Pres. Cox tried to make clear to this group that the $56 million in cuts endured by the University of Iowa over the last two years will have and has had a profound impact on the economic development and current economy of Johnson County and the surrounding area. These business leaders were very interested in this remark; however, their first question of Pres. Cox was on the subject of the relationship between the University of Iowa faculty and the University of Iowa athletics programs. He responded to this question by indicating that the University of Iowa faculty were strong supporters of the athletics programs in spite of recent controversies. He subsequently returned to the budgetary issues, which were also of interest to the Sunrise Optimists.
He then reported that the Faculty Senate Officers will soon meet with our legislative delegation.
Pres. Cox, Vice-Pres. Raymond and Sec. Porter all attended the recent CIC (Committee on Institutional Cooperation) Faculty Leaders meeting in Bloomington, Indiana. In general, the three felt it was a worthwhile meeting that allowed for the open exchange of information between faculty leaders of the Big 10 Universities. The major topic of conversation at the meeting was that of athletics. A small amount of time was also devoted to intellectual property rights and copyright law as they relate to web-based teaching. At its conclusion this group of faculty leaders passed two resolutions. The first was an endorsement of the proposals for athletic reform under current consideration by the NCAA. These reforms would include an increase in the requirements for scholastic performance and graduation progress as eligibility measures. The second resolution was to create a coalition on intercollegiate athletics composed of CIC faculty leaders and representatives of the AAUP and the AGB. The AGB (Association of Governing Boards) is a group whose membership is composed of approximately 32,000 individuals who serve as members of university and collegiate boards of trustees or the like. The membership represents 12,000 colleges and university across the United States, including all of the Big Ten institutions. Even though each of the groups that would comprise this coalition has, to some extent, competing agendas, it is clear at this point in time that all recognize the need for cooperation in the area of athletic reform. The AAUP and AGB are both committed to fall and spring conferences on athletic reform and have budgets to support them.
Pres. Cox then turned his comments to items that will be seen on forthcoming Senate agendas. The first of these was the resolution recently passed by FRIC that intends to advance the priority of increasing the percent of health insurance costs covered by the University. The FRIC report that led to this initiative is currently posted on the Faculty Senate web site. In response to this announcement by Pres. Cox, Prof. Kurtz, Chair of FRIC commented that the FRIC resolution would need to be acted upon no later than January while the next Senate meeting will not occur until February. Nonetheless, it will be discussed as proposed. Pres. Cox continued by identifying two upcoming committee reports that will need to be discussed at the Faculty Senate. The first of these is on the subject of intellectual property rights and the second is on the subject of the decanal review process. Additional Senate discussions and actions will need to occur on the initiative led by Pres. Boyd to modify the promotion and tenure guidelines to include service to the State of Iowa and also on the mandated review of the current promotions and tenure procedure. With these comments Pres. Cox concluded his report.
IV. New Business
A. Proposed Changes to Family Issues Charter Committee Charge, Nancy Williams
Ms. Williams briefly commented that the materials provided to the senators as Attachment 3 were, in her opinion, quite straightforward and needed little comment. She summarized the proposal provided as one that would bring the committee’s charge in line with emerging, current issues under its purview. One senator questioned the source of enthusiasm for the insertion of “family issues through the life span” identified in the proposed changes under a) (4). Ms. Williams indicated that the intent was to convey both the importance of the issues and also their presence during the continuum of lifetime. The senatorial rejoinder was that preference would be given for an alternative term such as “family concerns” and Ms. Williams responded that the proposed change would better reflect the historic change in the interests of the committee from those primarily of child care to emerging concerns that not only include child care but also elder care. Prof. Mangum voiced her support of the proposed language as a reminder of the continuum of life concerns. Another senator asked for identification of the constituencies that have generated these family concerns and the response offered was that the proposed language change would convey the fact that each faculty/staff member is part of a family unit. Prof. McCarthy urged that the language be left as proposed, echoing Prof. Kurtz’ prior motion to adopt. Prof. Raymond identified the need to extend the end bracket under a) (4) line three to include the word “concerns.” Ms. Williams acknowledged the need for correction of this typographic error. Following this discussion a motion was entertained that the bold-faced phrase in quotations under a) (4) line 2 reading “family issues through the life span” be replaced with “family concern” and that under b) (2) (a) line three the phrase “through the life span” be deleted. Prof. Berman seconded the motion and it was approved by a vote of 12 in support with none opposed. The discussion continued.
Prof. Kurtz suggested the substitution of the word “persons” for family since a single individual could constitute a family unit. He continued with the suggestion to remove the “squiggly brackets” (braces) in b) (2) (a) line three. When the response came that the braces were necessary to mark a parenthetical, Prof. Kurtz offered a friendly amendment for their removal. He then modified his own friendly amendment to suggest adoption of the proposed changes in principal with the proviso that the Committee be given an opportunity to deal with issues of punctuation. Prof. McCarthy seconded the friendly amendment as modified by Prof. Kurtz and it was unanimously adopted.
B. Proposed Changes to the UI Conflict of Interest Policy, Lee Anna Clark
Associate Provost Clark briefly identified Attachment 4a as being self-explanatory. David Wynes, Assistant Vice President for Research Services Administration commented that the proposed policy changes primarily identify necessary review criteria for individuals who wish to perform human subject research but have conflicts of interest with its performance. Much of the revised document more clearly identifies and delineates procedure currently in place and consistent with AAMC and AAU policies or recommendations regarding conflicts of interest. Pres. Cox then interjected that the Faculty Senate Officers had previously reviewed and sent back the proposals because of concern over lack of specificity in faculty grievance procedure. Following this request for revision and its accomplishment, the Faculty Senate Officers are of the opinion that these procedures are now clearly spelled out. Pres. Cox also reviewed the discussion regarding issues of disciplinary action previously described in the Faculty Council minutes of the meeting of Tuesday, November 12, 2002 under item V.B.
Prof. Bhattacharjee questioned the identified threshold for “significant financial interest” as commented upon in the draft document under VI. Conflict of Interest and Research, page seven and wondered whether the $10,000 limit was a federal or a state mandate. Vice President Wynes identified the mandate as being federal. Continuing this line of questioning Prof. Bhattacharjee then asked about serial businesses capitalized with, for example, $9,500. Vice President Wynes responded that bulleted item seven under the paragraphs in question require disclosure once threshold business equity is established, whether or not the equity is contained in one or more businesses. He elaborated that this policy prohibits nothing except as required by law. Another senator asked whether disclosure of patents held at other universities would require disclosure should their creator move to a position at the University of Iowa. Vice President Wynes responded in the affirmative. Associate Provost Clark then identified live links to the University of Iowa Gift Law when asked about its cross-reference by Prof. Kurtz.
At this point in the discussion, Pres. Cox interjected that an additional Faculty Senate Officer concern when the draft policy was initially reviewed was that of conflict of interest within the ranks of university administration. The officers were subsequently informed that at the same time President Boyd is drafting policy to cover this possibility for the vice presidents of the university, the Board of Regents is also drafting a conflict of interest policy covering the actions of the Regent’s institutions presidents. At this point it was moved from the Senate floor to adopt the policy in its current form and, following a second, the vote was unanimous to do so.
A. Next Council and Senate Meetings
The next University of Iowa Faculty Council meetings are scheduled for December 10, 2002 and January 28, 2003. The next University of Iowa Faculty Senate meeting will be February 11, 2003.
VI. From the Floor
Prof. Berman, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, distributed a motion of her authorship for consideration by the Faculty Senate. The motion read:
“With regard to the much-publicized Pierre Pierce assault case, the Faculty Senate would like to go on record as deploring the circumstances which have arisen in this case and to assert strongly that such is not the climate of safety and security we seek to provide for all our students, our colleagues, and our families in this community. While the specific circumstances may need to remain obscure, we nonetheless believe as members of the Faculty Senate that better rules might be put in place to protect all members of our community. We urge the University to investigate how this might be done.”
At the conclusion of its reading by Prof. Berman, Prof. Tachau moved a second for the motion. She then offered her disappointment in the newspaper reports that the University Counsel was willing to offer what the University might accept in arbitration. In her opinion, she felt the Senate needed to stand behind both the women affected by this matter as well as Interim President Boyd. Her assessment of the circumstances suggested that Interim President Boyd has already accomplished the request included in the final sentence of the motion proposed by Prof. Berman. She therefore suggested that the final sentence in the proposed motion be modified to reflect the Senate understanding that President Boyd had charged such a committee but that the Senate “will await with interest the report of the Committee.”
Pres. Cox then took the opportunity to read the letter of Interim President Boyd to Nicholas Colangelo, the chair of BiCOA. This letter is provided as Attachment 5a. He continued that he was unaware of the status of the progress of the Committee.
Prof. Rubenstein commented that Prof. Berman’s use of the phrase “deploring the circumstances” was vague and that the continuation of the sentence containing that term did not logically follow its beginning. Furthermore, he found the use of the term “circumstances” problematic. Prof. Berman responded that her draft of the motion was purposefully vague and that she would accept friendly changes. She continued that she felt that the University of Iowa faculty members were misrepresented by Coach Alford’s public comments and she echoed the sentiment proffered by Senator Tachau to support Interim President Boyd’s charge to Prof. Colangelo. A draft resolution was then offered from the floor. It read:
“The University of Iowa Faculty Senate strongly supports the charge of President Boyd to BiCOA to investigate the University policies and procedures in regard to the University’s involvement in the settlement of criminal charges against Pierre Pierce and to assure that they apply equally across the University.”
At this point in the discussion Prof. Bhattacharjee advised the Senate that, in his opinion, the problem with Interim President Boyd’s letter to BiCOA [was] “that it doesn’t go far enough.” He further identified potential conflicts of interest in the membership of this Committee in the form of the Department of Athletics representatives that are seated members of BiCOA. He also reflected that our role as faculty members demands that we ask that student athletes be treated first as students and second as athletes. At this point in the discussion, Prof. McCarthy offered the suggestion that we ask that BiCOA also report its findings back to the Senate. In so doing she offered a friendly amendment to the motion as it stood in the form of a final sentence reading:
“The University of Iowa Faculty Senate looks forward to reviewing BiCOA’s report and its recommendations with its representative.”
The discussion continued with Prof. Tachau echoing support for Prof. Bhattacharjee’s comments. She further opined that the guilty plea of the individual involved was particularly “disquieting” in light of his being allowed to remain on the team. Prof. Maktabi questioned the wording of the initial motion and suggested that rather than needing to know about the “University involvement” we really need to know about the University Counsel’s involvement. At the request of Prof. Mangum, Pres. Cox then shared with the Faculty Senate the comments of Johnson County Attorney J. Patrick White as reported in the Des Moines Register article of ____________________. This article is provided as Attachment 5b. Prof. Westefeld questioned whether the BiCOA initiative as envisioned by President Boyd would be separate from the possibility of charges being brought about by possible violations of the Code of Student Life. While Pres. Cox responded that he did not know the answer to this question, Prof. Bhattacharjee offered that consulting the Code of Student Life should never be an afterthought in matters of this kind. These comments then engendered a discussion regarding how it is that an infraction of the Code of Student Life would generally be handled. While it was offered that the report of BiCOA should help to answer this question, further discussion revolved around the method by which such a complaint might be initiated. Pres. Cox indicated that the Office of the Vice President of Student Services, Phil Jones, handles such complaints but that he did not know whether that office could initiate a complaint.
At this point in the discussion Prof. Kurtz indicated his disquiet with the language of the current motion, and wondered whether we might simply endorse the letter of Interim President Boyd to Prof. Colangelo. In follow up to these comments he offered a friendly amendment that the motion read:
“The Faculty Senate endorses the charge given to BiCOA in President Boyd’s letter of November 6, 2002.”
In comment on Prof. Kurtz’ motion, one senator suggested that the President’s charge was extremely limited and that he did not anticipate that BiCOA would address the investigation per se. In this senator’s opinion, the President was most interested in what would happen in the future. Endorsement of this letter would lack the force of the kind of statement that the current discussion suggested the Senate might need to make. At this point an additional motion was brought to the floor. The motion read:
“The University of Iowa Faculty Senate would like to go on record as strongly deploring the admitted assault and the manner in which this case was resolved.”
This motion engendered further discussion. The suggestion was offered from another senator that the Senate might wish to have the facts of the case in front of it before it would go on record as deploring the resolution. Prof. Mallik emphatically agreed. At this point Prof. Berman referred back to her original motion. She admitted that she had started with a vague motion in order not to infringe on the privacy of the victim. However she continued that she would like some of the language of the first sentence of her motion included in any subsequent motion the Senate would bring forward. In order to assuage the concerns of the Faculty Senate she offered the modification that the term “circumstances” in her first sentence be modified with the adjective “negative.”
At this point Prof. Mangum offered her assessment of the specific issues that bothered her in this case. The first item she identified were the inappropriate comments made by the athletic staff. Her second comment revolved around the office of Vice-President Jones in that she wished to identify the extent to which his office was involved in the resolution of the matter at hand. Her last comment was that she would like to see a sentence of compassion for the victim of the crime in any resolution passed by the Senate.
Prof. Tachau suggested that the Senate constitute its own committee to work in conjunction with BiCOA in the accomplishment of the charge provided by Interim President Boyd. Prof. Kurtz advised against this approach identifying the fact that the activities of a self-appointed Senate committee would be hampered by the lack of the imprimatur of the Office of the President. He further identified his interpretation of Interim President Boyd’s letter as a request to avoid such problems from arising again. He then suggested that the University may not need “better rules” but may need “better process.” At this point in the discussion, Prof. Bhattacharjee suggested that the Faculty Senate should work closely with Interim President Boyd on this matter. Indeed, he suggested that we should empower the President to be able to request answers to specific questions that might be conveyed to him through the seated Faculty Senate President, Jeffrey Cox.
At this point a Faculty Senator and member of the Charter Committee on Human Rights rose to offer her perspective in this dual role. She recounted the history that at the last meeting of the Charter Committee on Human Rights, the Director of the Office of Affirmative Action, Charlotte Westerhaus, informed the Committee that the Interim President would be shortly releasing a document to the press in which he would ask that the Charter Committee on Human Rights investigate this matter. The press release never materialized and the Charter Committee on Human Rights was never asked to pursue this activity. Although her disappointment was clear, she countered it with the observation that the participation of Charlotte Westerhaus and Linda McGuire, Special Counsel to the President, would help to assure that BiCOA would take its charge from the president seriously.
At this juncture Pres. Cox responded to Prof. Bhattacharjee’s suggestion by indicating that he would address the Faculty Senate concerns directly with Interim President Boyd at the upcoming meeting of the Faculty Senate Officers with the President on Thursday, December 5, 2002 at 8:00 AM. Prof. Tachau then wondered whether the committee appointed by the president ought to look at the role of the University Counsel in activities surrounding this matter. Prof. Chang reviewed the reporting relationship between the University Counsel and the Athletics Department and also reminded her fellow senators that it is one which is relatively new. Prof. Kurtz then suggested that all motions under entertainment be tabled. His motion was seconded and approved by voice vote of a majority of the Faculty Senators present.
President Cox adjourned the meeting at 5:30 pm.
Craig C. Porter, MD
Secretary, University of Iowa Faculty Senate