The University of Iowa
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
3:30 pm – 5:15 PM
Penn State Room, 337 Iowa Memorial Union
Members Present: Judith Aikin, Edwin Dove, Rebecca Hegeman, Ronald Herman, Richard LeBlond, Patrick Lloyd, Teresa Mangum, Kim Marra, Sue Moorhead, Katherine Tachau, John Westefeld
Members Absent: Mazen Maktabi, Shelton Stromquist, Paul Weller, Jerold Woodhead
Members Excused: Chuck Lynch
Faculty Senate Officers in Attendance: Jeffrey Cox, President; Margaret Raymond, Vice President; Amitava Bhattacharjee, Past President; Craig Porter, Secretary
Guests: Tom Walsh (Gazette), Jeffrey Patch (Daily Iowan), Charlie Drum (University Relations), Al Hood (Emeritus Faculty Council), Michael O’Hara (Liberal Arts & Sciences), Lola Lopes (Office of the Provost), Kathryn Wynes (Office of the Provost), Heather Woodward (Press-Citizen), Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost), Jon Whitmore (Office of the Provost), Hazel Seaba (Clinical-Track Promotion Committee), Barbara Schwartz (Clinical-Track Promotion Committee), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office)
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Pres. Cox at 3:36 PM.
A. Next Council and Senate meetings
The next University of Iowa Faculty Council meetings are scheduled for April 1 and 15. Should one of those meetings not be necessary it will be canceled. The next University of Iowa Faculty Senate meetings are scheduled for March 4 and April 29.
B. Michael J. Brody Award Nominations due March 3, 2003.
Pres. Cox announced that the deadline for nominations for the Brody Award has been extended from February 28 to March 3, 2003.
He also announced that the nominations from the deans for the Regents Awards for Faculty Excellence were due by Thursday, February 27, 2003.
He reminded the councilors that the installation of the new President of the University of Iowa, David J. Skorton, would occur on March 1.
He then asked that each of the councilors post flyers for the upcoming Chautauqua in their colleges. He indicated that flyers would be available during this meeting from Julie Thatcher.
A. Meeting Agenda
The meeting agenda was approved with the following modifications:
Draft agenda item V. was moved to become item II:
Professor Aikin suggested that draft agenda item IV C. should be modified with the removal of the word “tenure”.
With these modifications the agenda was approved.
B. Minutes—Faculty Council, January 28, 2003
No changes were offered to the minutes of the Faculty Council meeting of January 28, 2003. Following a motion and second the minutes were approved unanimously.
C. Proposed Senate Agenda, March 4, 2003
Pres. Cox indicated that the agenda would be modified in order to add a report from the Government Relations Committee.
A recommendation was made to change the wording of IV.C. as proposed by Prof. Aikin and noted above. As chair of the Committee on Committees, Prof. Raymond indicated that necessary recommendations were not complete at this time. She then asked approval for e-mail consultation with the councilors prior to the next Senate meeting in order to facilitate membership recommendations prior to the meeting on March 4.
The final modification offered was to delete item V.B. since the nominations for the Brody Award would be closed at the time of the next Senate meeting.
Each of the above modifications and recommendations were accepted without further discussion.
D. Proposed Replacement
The following motion was offered: “The Faculty Council endorses the Senate replacement as recommended by the Committee on Elections and forwards it to the Faculty Senate for approval.” Prof. Tachau moved and Prof. Westefeld seconded the replacement of Corey Creekmur by Alvin Snider for the spring of 2003. The motion was unanimously approved.
A. Faculty Senate President, Jeff Cox
Pres. Cox reported on the local legislative forum of February 22, 2003 co-sponsored by the Staff Council and Faculty Senate Government Relations Committee. Representation at the forum by the Government Relations Committee was strong. He indicated there was an alarming response from the legislative delegation to the opening comments of Prof. Thomas. The substance of the response was to suggest that it was a primary role of the University of Iowa to generate high wage jobs in Iowa. The legislative delegation was firm in their assertion that they expected the contributions of the University of Iowa faculty and staff to assist in turning around the Iowa state economy and indicated that the University of Iowa budgetary fate could be dependent upon our success in achieving this goal. After the forum Pres. Cox spoke directly with Presidential Designee Skorton about the message that the University is giving to our legislators that would promulgate such a view. He further indicated that it seemed an untenable assertion that the University of Iowa could be held responsible for rejuvenating the economic status of the State.
At the conclusion of these opening remarks, Prof. LeBlond asked if there was any good news that Pres. Cox wished to share with the councilors. His response was that the gold dome atop the Old Capital building had been replaced and that we would shortly begin a new era at the University under the leadership of Presidential Designee Skorton.
Prof. Tachau questioned the extent to which the University legislative representatives had established strong relations with key members of each legislator’s staff. To this question Pres. Cox responded that the legislators have little staff. Prof. Tachau, none-the-less, asserted that we might benefit from establishing such relationships at that level.
Pres. Cox continued that the legislators repeat what they hear and that it is our responsibility to go to meetings so that they understand what it is the faculty and staff say and believe. A positive move in this direction is that the University of Iowa Faculty Senate president has now been added to the guest list for the Presidential Legislative Day dinners. He also announced that the Senate Government Relations Committee intends to have faculty accompany them on a trip to the State House in Spring 2003.
Pres. Cox replied in the affirmative to the question from Prof. Westefeld as to whether or not his opening remark should be viewed as an across-the-board comment from the Legislators. Prof. Raymond then questioned the source of the university programming at the State Fair. Pres. Cox did not know the answer to the question. None-the-less Prof. Raymond indicated that the State Fair would be a good place to have faculty representation.
Michael O’Hara (CLAS) indicated that the Collegiate Advisory Board had met recently with Mary Kramer, president of the State of Iowa Senate. She indicated to the Advisory Board that she personally receives more calls from her constituency on the subject of deer hunting than on the subject of the state of the University of Iowa. He continued that it does not take a great deal of effort to gain the attention of legislators. As a consequence, he urged that faculty members call their legislators and write letters to them on subjects of concern and interest. Pres. Cox continued that it was the job of Jane Van Voorhis to organize these efforts. It is his belief that the re-creation of her job will be a lasting mark of Interim President Willard “Sandy” Boyd on the University.
Moving to another item Pres. Cox indicated that it has been tradition that members of the University of Iowa Faculty Senate attend the Iowa Public TV fundraising session. Due to prior scheduling conflicts, he would be unable to attend. Wishing to continue this tradition he asked that any senators or councilors interested let either him or Julie Thatcher know of their willingness to attend. Prof. Mangum rejoined that the last time that senators lobbied for this fundraising activity their efforts were restricted to the time period of 8:00 to 10:00 AM on a Sunday. It was her belief that the senators would be more effective in their efforts if they could urge the schedulers to place them on TV at a time when more people are watching. She then asked whether or not students could participate in order to provide a mixed crowd of fundraisers. Pres. Cox responded that at this point multiple time slots are available; however we would need someone to organize the members interested in attending in order to capitalize on Prof. Mangum’s comment. Prof. Westefeld indicated that students had participated in the past and that their attendance should be easy to coordinate with faculty attendance.
Returning to the subject of the legislative forum, Pres. Cox asked Prof. Lloyd for his comments (Prof. Lloyd arrived after the previous comments had been made). In his response, Prof. Lloyd indicated that he was pleased with the turnout but was troubled when suggested measures of faculty performance included numbers of patents issued and what the economic impact of the College of Dentistry was on the State of Iowa. He continued by indicating his further discomfort at the suggestion that the mission of the University of Iowa was to incubate statewide economic prosperity. He offered that such could be considered a positive offshoot of faculty and staff efforts but was certainly not a primary mission of the faculty and staff. He concluded by suggesting a need to continue the discussion with our legislative delegation. Pres. Cox indicated that the Faculty Senate Officers would discuss this concern further with Presidential Designee Skorton and suggested that the Government Relations Committee should also discuss this as well. Prof. Tachau reflected that these demands may be a logical outgrowth of the University’s attempts to regain its funding cutbacks.
Prof. Bhattacharjee suggested that the primary issue at hand was that the University was allowing others to define us. He suggested that it is difficult to sell the so-called bread-and-butter activities of the University. As a consequence he felt it important for members of the University community to make our case over and over again. It was his contention that over time the public debate has shifted away from discussion of the importance of learning, for example, language skills to one of what it is that the College of Medicine, for example, is doing for the State. It was his belief that the way to respond to this legislative discussion is not to play into the hands of the legislators. Echoing the previously expressed sentiments of Pres. Cox, Prof. Bhattacharjee concluded by suggesting that if we repeat to our legislators enough times what our primary mission is, they will inevitably repeat it back to us. Some discussion then occurred as to whether or not a faculty task force should be appointed to explore these issues. No conclusion was reached. Prof. Lloyd finished the discussion by commenting that the legislative forum was a worthwhile session with occasional high points.
V. New Business
A. Thanksgiving Recess, Lola Lopes
Assoc. Provost Lopes presented a proposal currently under study to make the Monday and Tuesday of Thanksgiving week a university recess. This proposal had its genesis in the Student Body and is a proposal supported by the University of Iowa Student Government. Following preliminary discussions with the University of Iowa Provost, University of Iowa Student Government President Nick Herbold wrote to Provost Whitmore requesting that consideration be given to this recess. In his letter Pres. Herbold illustrated the concept that the University of Iowa faculty treat these days differently at present. Following the receipt of this request an ad hoc committee was appointed to study the proposal. Members of the Committee included the Registrar, Lawrence Lockwood; University of Iowa Faculty Senate President, Jeff Cox; Associate Provost for Health Affairs, Kitty Buckwalter; Associate Provost for Academic Programs and Dean of International Programs, Steve Hoch; Director of Resident Services, Maggie Van Oel; University of Iowa Student Government President, Nick Herbold; and Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education, Lola Lopes. This ad hoc group affirmed the student’s assertion that the University of Iowa faculty treat these two days differently than the rest of the calendar year. Furthermore the UI calendar currently has 76 class days in the fall term and 74 class days in the spring. Making the Monday and Tuesday of Thanksgiving week a university recess would leave 74 days in each term. Our sister regent institution, Iowa State University, has had a weeklong Thanksgiving recess for a number of years. This illustrates the fact that the ad hoc Committee also discovered that there is no State code regulation concerning class days for the Regent’s institutions. This proposal subsequently was put forward to the collegiate deans. There was unanimous agreement among the undergraduate college deans--with strong faculty support reported by a substantial margin--in favor of the proposal. Clinical and curricular obligations, however, were cited as the reasons that each of the health professional school deans wished to maintain the current calendar. Assoc. Provost Lopes then offered that the undergraduate programs could be given these two days as a recess and that the professional colleges could, in fact, maintain these two days as part of their required curriculum. In the event that the Council and Senate recommended approval, a decision would need to be made quickly as to the implementation timetable. Assoc. Provost Lopes indicated her intent, again, with appropriate approval, to move forward rapidly in order to attempt implementation in the next academic year. The question subsequently was brought to the Faculty Council for consideration for recommendation of this proposal to the Faculty Senate for approval.
Prof. Tachau so moved and Prof. Westefeld seconded the recommendation.
Prof. Lynch then asked whether there would be any fiscal implication in making such a change. Assoc. Provost Lopes replied that the Task Force had studied this question and that it was their interpretation that there would be neither negative nor positive fiscal implications. Prof. Westefeld amplified that there would be no recess for staff during this time. In thinking about the practicalities of implementation Assoc. Provost Lopes indicated that the University calendars could be printed one way with footnotes and another without so that the two possible outcomes of this discussion would be anticipated.
One item that would need to be worked through carefully is the fact that implementation will affect the early registration dates for the spring term. Prof. Bhattacharjee questioned the impact a decision to move forward with the proposal would have on faculty who teach both undergraduate and graduate courses. Assoc. Provost Lopes responded that the Graduate College would make a decision about their response to the proposal. She anticipated that they would likely adopt the same proposal as the undergraduate colleges. None-the-less, the proposal could be worded to exclude the Graduate College. Prof. Bhattacharjee asked if there was opposition at the Graduate College level. Prof. Westefeld indicated that he had heard none. He also echoed the sentiment that there would need to be specific language in the proposal; e.g., the days under discussion would “no longer be class days except for programs in colleges who expressed the need to continue the current vacation and recess policy.” Prof. Tachau asked that Prof. Westefeld’s comment be encompassed in the spirit of her “so move.” It was then offered that the COGS issues and TA obligation are in place as well. Prof. Tachau continued that she thought it was a sensible proposal. Prof. Lynch asked for consideration of the political implications of decreasing class days at a time when the University as a community is lobbying for increased state support for teaching efforts. Assoc. Provost Lopes reflected on the political fact and its potential benefit that Iowa State University has had this calendar for a long time and that Regents’ institutions are allowed to use each other as examples. She then allowed that the University of Northern Iowa would likely not make such a change. Prof. Tachau offered the observation that the difference in out-of-state student base between the University of Northern Iowa and the University of Iowa, 5% and 30-40%, respectively, provides a sound argument for the differing responses of these institutions to a request for additional break time surrounding the Thanksgiving Holiday.
The motion offered by Prof. Tachau with its friendly modification passed unanimously.
Prof. Westefeld followed up that the intent of the Council was to approve adaptation of the proposal for all units except those with special calendar needs and that the change be implemented immediately. Assoc. Provost Lopes rejoined that the university calendar is approved five years in advance and that this change would require regental approval to take effect. Prof. Marra asked if Assoc. Provost Lopes had any recommendations or advice for the performing arts vis-à-vis their calendar. Assoc. Provost Lopes responded that she would discuss the proposal with the Theatre Arts and Hancher Auditorium administrators before making a decision whether or not to implement the change for the next fall term. Prof. Westefeld offered his idea that the change would not preclude weekend performances but that the performing arts calendar may need to be changed on the Sunday before the Thanksgiving Recess and that students, in particular, auditioning for performance obligations would need to agree to these calendar obligations at the time of their audition. Prof. Marra indicated that she would discuss this proposal with the production staff and Assoc. Provost Lopes reiterated her intent to discuss the proposal with the Hancher Auditorium administrative staff.
B. Anti-War Resolution, Teresa Mangum
Prof. Mangum first spoke to the genesis of this resolution saying that she had been asked to bring the resolution forward by her faculty colleagues. She asked that the councilors think about the actual resolution as well as its status. She called the councilors’ attention to an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education that identified the different approaches that different academic institutions have in handling the varying sentiments of their faculty and staff surrounding the issue of an impending conflict. She continued that she had been persuaded that because of her roel as an educator and as a faculty member in an institution with values including reasoned discussion, mercy and commitment to international studies, she would like to take the initiative in urging our leaders to reach peaceful international solutions.
Prof. Mangum moved to recommend that the anti-war resolution be recommended to the Senate for consideration. The motion was seconded by Prof. Marra.
Prof. Aikin offered her support for the resolution but questioned its title. Rather than calling it an “anti-war” resolution she suggested that we change its name to call it a “peace” resolution. Prof. Mangum wholeheartedly embraced the change. Following a comment by one of our historian councilors that the modern system of international law is medieval in its origin,
The motion was passed with no opposition.
C. Clinical Track Promotion and Tenure Guidelines, Craig Porter
Pres. Cox opened the discussion with a reminder to the councilors that the Senate had several important tasks in front of it this year including a review of the promotion and tenure guidelines and a review of the clinical-track promotion guidelines. The later review preceded the former. He acknowledged the attendance of Profs. Porter, Schwartz and Seaba at today’s meeting. He then reflected that if the Council and Senate adopt the guideline revisions, they may need to be revisited based on decisions made by the committee charged with the review of the promotion and tenure guidelines.
Prof. Porter opened his remarks with a thanks to the committee members—Professors Barbara Schwartz (Law), Hazel Seaba (Pharmacy), Malcolm Rohrbough (CLAS) and Tanya Oyos (Medicine)--and a summary of the committee recommendations. He then commented that a draft University policy had been in place for some time and that several colleges had already drafted their own specific guidelines based on the University draft guidelines. He summarized several of the issues that the Committee felt were relevant to non-clinical track promotion and tenure reviews as well. These included the assembly of the promotions dossier in such a way as to separate clinical and non-clinical teaching and clinical and non-clinical service. He went on to identify the problem that teaching activities of clinical faculty may be difficult to review and indicated that the revised guidelines tried to assure that these teaching activities would be reviewed well and therefore would be able to be an effective and important contribution to the promotion dossier and process. The final point Prof. Porter made in his introductory comments surrounded provisions in the revised guidelines for external peer evaluation for professional productivity as well as external evaluation of clinical and other service. Decisions about how these external evaluators would be handled will be made as individual collegiate policy.
Prof. Lloyd asked about the complexity of identifying non-faculty peer reviewers for the evaluation of a candidates clinical and other service as contemplated by the revised guidelines. Prof. Porter discussed the Committee’s concerns that motivated this revision. It was the opinion of the Committee that the need for non-faculty internal review would be relatively uncommon but possibly necessary based upon the nature of the work of clinical faculty. Prof. Lloyd continued that he believed the process to be burdensome. Prof. Porter acknowledged his concern but noted that it was important to preserve the academic quality of the review process. Assoc. Provost Clark assuaged some of Prof. Lloyd’s concern by pointing out that it was the process of using non-faculty peers that needed to be approved rather than the particular peers. Prof. Porter agreed and suggested the substitution of the word “use” for “selection” in section (E)(2)(a). Prof. Bhattacharjee asked why this provision was necessary since in the context of tenure track faculty, external reviewers are selected by the department exclusively. Prof. Porter clarified that this section is related to internal reviews and that the situation was analogous to one in which no one in the department was qualified to review the work of a peer. Prof. Bhattacharjee then asked whether the interdisciplinary procedures weren’t analogous and clarified that in those situations special permission from the provost was not necessary. A respondent indicated that in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences this situation was actively micromanaged by the leadership and noted further that it did not require going outside the academy. Prof. Porter commented that this provision was important to protect the quality of the review; that when reaching outside to find someone to do an internal review it should be done with care and thought. Prof. LeBlond asked whether the Provost’s Office need have specific expertise to assess the request. In response Prof. Porter indicated that the provost would probably rely on the dean. Prof. LeBlond continued and asked why the deans could not simply make the decision. Prof. Porter noted that it would be important that someone be aware of what was happening in all colleges. Pres. Cox noted that the proposal additionally required the dean to justify the decision. Prof. LeBlond expressed concern that the requirement of written approval would slow the process down too much. Prof. Porter reiterated that this pathway was not expected to be commonly trod. Prof. Aikin noted that the extra layer of checking was appropriate in view of the fact that these reviewers were not part of the university environment.
Prof. Raymond asked what “mechanisms” meant in section (C)(3). Prof. Seaba pointed out that since this section dealt with varying types of clinical teaching, different approaches might be necessary to evaluate the quality of teaching. Prof. Herman pointed out that that seemed consistent with the specification of methods (C)(2), and Prof. Porter agreed that substituting “methods” for “mechanism[s]” would be an appropriate clarification.
Prof. Porter noted that in a clinical setting, external reviewers might need to have direct knowledge of clinical track candidates for promotion, while such personal knowledge is strongly disfavored in the traditional external review process. The policy recognizes this but asks that such relationships be disclosed. In (I)(H)(1), another feature of the policy worth noting is that the departmental consulting group must have clinical-track faculty membership.
Prof. Porter then concluded that there were issues that would be appropriate for discussion with regard to both tracks and expressed the Committee’s willingness to participate in subsequent consideration of these policies.
Prof. Westefeld asked what an external reviewer letter should contain. Prof. Porter said it was up to the college to determine upon what it wished the external reviewer to comment. Prof. Aikin commented that many colleges have a list of activities that constitute “professional productivity,” and often send that list with a letter requesting the external review. Pres. Cox inquired as to the number of clinical-track faculty. Assoc. Provost Clark said approximately 300.
Prof. LeBlond moved and Prof. Hermann seconded a motion to send these guidelines to the Faculty Senate for consideration. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 5:08 PM.
Craig C. Porter, MD
Secretary, University of Iowa Faculty Senate