The University of Iowa
Tuesday, November 12, 2002
3:30 pm – 5:15 pm
Penn State Room, #335 Iowa Memorial Union 

Members Present:  Edwin Dove, Rebecca Hegeman, Richard LeBlond, Patric Lloyd, Chuck Lynch, Teresa Mangum, Kim Marra, Sue Moorhead, Shelton Stromquist, Katherine Tachau, John Westefeld, Jerold Woodhead 

Members Absent:  Ronald Herman, Mazen Maktabi 

Members Excused:  Richard Randell, Paul Weller 

Faculty Senate Officers in Attendance:  Jeffrey Cox, President; Margaret Raymond, Vice President; Craig Porter, Secretary 

Faculty Senate Officers Excused:  Amitava Bhattacharjee, Past President 

Guests:  Patricia Donohoue (College of Medicine), James Baetke (Daily Iowan), Jim Andrews (Emeritus Faculty Council), Heather Woodward (Press Citizen), David Wynes (Vice President for Research), Grainne Martin (Office of the General Counsel), M. Patricia Donahue (College of Nursing), Paul Muhly (Budget Committee), Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost), Nancy Williams (Family Issues Charter Center), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office), Anne Tanner (University Relations) 

I.  Call to Order           

The November 12, 2002 meeting of the Faculty Council was called to order at 3:36 PM by President Jeffrey Cox.   

II.  Approvals 

   A.    Meeting Agenda 

The meeting agenda was unanimously approved.   

   B.    Minutes—Faculty Council, October 1, 2002  

Prof. Tachau moved approval.  Prof. Raymond seconded and the minutes were approved as written.  Following approval Prof. Lloyd urged that the Secretary avoid the excessive use of adverbs in the written reconstruction of comments offered by councilors and/or guests in the minutes of the Council and Senate meetings.  In an attempt to better understand the nature of the concern, Sec. Porter asked for specific illustration in the Faculty Council minutes of October 1, 2002.  No specifics were offered, but the caution was reiterated.   

   C.    Proposed Senate Agenda—December 3, 2002  

The proposed Senate agenda was approved with the single addition offered by Prof. Tachau of the traditional “from the floor” agenda item, one that was inadvertently deleted.  Additional discussion ensued following the announcement by Pres. Cox that the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS) Faculty Assembly anticipated discussion at their November 20, 2002 meeting over a request of the Faculty Senate to consider a collegiate a proposal to decrease the number of football scholarships.  This proposal originated in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Educational Policy Committee.  Profs. LeBlond and Lynch offered that the more appropriate proposal would be for the Faculty Council to consider this recommendation of the CLAS faculty prior to the Senate so doing.  Pres. Cox agreed with these comments and offered to circulate the CIC Resolution on Intercollegiate Athletics to the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Faculty prior to their upcoming discussion.  Prof. Mangum questioned the source of authority behind such a resolution.  Pres. Cox responded that both the CLAS Faculty Assembly and the University of Iowa Faculty Senate and Council can make recommendations and that these bodies do have influence on University administrative leadership.  Following these discussions the proposed Senate agenda was approved as written and without modification save the addition of Prof. Tachau’s agenda item.   

   D.    Approval of Recommended Replacements  

Prof. Lynch offered the following motion:  “the Faculty Council endorses the Senate replacement as recommended by the Committee on Elections and forwards it to the Faculty Senate for approval”.  The motion was seconded by Prof. Tachau and unanimously approved.  Prof. Westefeld then offered the following motion:  “the Faculty Council endorses the Faculty Senate Committee Replacement as recommended by the Committee on Committees and forwards it to the Faculty Senate for approval”.  Prof. Moorhead provided a second and the motion passed unanimously. 

III.  Reports 

   A.   Report of the Faculty Senate President, Jeffrey Cox 

Pres. Cox brought the membership of the Faculty Council up to date on the activities of its leadership.  The Faculty Senate Officers recently met with Interim President Boyd and Jane Van Voorhis, Coordinator of Outreach and Advocacy.  Ms Van Voorhis’ appointment is the logical outgrowth of Interim President Boyd’s commitment to “strengthen the University’s connections with the state of Iowa and make the case to the General Assembly and Governor for adequate support of the Regent’s universities”.  Ms. Van Voorhis will be asked to speak about her plans for her new position at the next Faculty Senate meeting on December 3, 2002.  Interim President Boyd will also shortly inform the University community at large of his intent and her appointment in an upcoming e-mail broadcast.  Pres. Cox subsequently reported on his address at a recent Sunrise Optimist Club Breakfast Meeting wherein he encouraged efforts directed toward an improvement in faculty/community relations.  He also took the opportunity to encourage this group to support any and all community-based efforts to effect restoration of the $56 million budgetary cuts endured by the University over the last two years.  Following his remarks he opened the floor for questions and the first question to which he was asked to respond was “why are the University faculty against athletics”.  He assured the members of the Sunrise Optimist Club that the University faculty are not “against” athletics, indeed many are among the most ardent consumers of the University athletic activities. Additionally he made the point before these optimists that the budgetary cuts endured by the University represent a substantial economic development opportunity cost in Johnson County.  For the councilors Prof. Cox reflected on the obvious interest of the community in the relationship between the faculty and the athletics programs.  The comments of the members of the Sunrise Optimist Club suggested to him that there was an enormous reservoir of support for the University of Iowa in Johnson County.   

Pres. Cox then provided then provided the Faculty Council with an update on central administrative review processes.  He reiterated that Interim President Boyd is desirous of a prompt review of the Office of the President of the University.  Pres. Cox and Provost Whitmore have been working to assemble the committee to perform the review.  It is almost in its final form.  In keeping with University policy that there be a one year follow up after the completion of the formal review of a central academic official, the final meeting of Vice President True’s review committee recently occurred.  The delayed follow up offers an opportunity to assess the impact of the review, although they do not necessarily uniformly occur.  All involved in this particular follow-up felt that the process and report were useful exercises.  He next identified the high priority that the interim president has placed on modification of the language governing the promotion and tenure policies so that service in fulfillment of these policies could specifically include service to the State of Iowa.  The Office of the Provost is currently working on language to support this priority move.   

Interim President Boyd also shared a copy of his letter to BICOA Chair Nick Colangelo requesting a review of policies and procedures in the Athletics Department as they relate to measures that were taken during the recent settlement of criminal charges brought against a University of Iowa basketball player.  In this letter Interim President Boyd wrote:  “we must come to grips with what transpired here and with how allegations of violence, sexual harassment, and other violations of the Code of Student Life are handled in the future in the Athletic Department in the context of University policies and procedures.  I hereby ask the Board in Control of Athletics, the body charged with responsibility for safeguarding the academic and educational interests of student athletes, to take this situation very, very seriously, and to consider steps that should be taken to insure that similar situations are resolved in the interests of the entire University.  Specifically, I instruct the Board to recommend any changes it deems advisable in order to assure that resolutions in the future protect the interests of the University as a whole and the interests of students.  I also instruct the Board to insure, at a minimum, that the same policies and procedures regarding violence, sexual harassment, and student conduct that apply to all other aspects of the University must be applicable in the Department of Athletics, including policies regarding oversight and training.   

The letter continued:  “I am specifically requesting that Charlotte Westerhaus, Assistant to the President and Director of Affirmative Action; Phillip Jones, Vice President for Student Services; and Linda McGuire, special counsel to the president, work with you in developing these recommendations.” 

The letter in its entirety will be posted on the University of Iowa Faculty Senate web site.  It will be able to be found under the category of “Issues of Current Interest” subheading “Athletics”.  Pres. Cox further elaborated that the University of Iowa is seen by the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) as having a model oversight committee in BICOA as a committee whose primary role is the academic oversight of athletics programs.  Prof. Westefeld then asked Pres. Cox to elaborate on the upcoming CIC meeting.  In his response Pres. Cox identified the purpose of the CIC as being a forum in which to discuss issues of common interest to the Big 10 plus the University of Chicago.  The seated president of the CIC Faculty Leaders, Robert Eno, Professor at Indiana University in Bloomington, intends to focus the November 22/23 meeting on athletics with the intent to develop a coordinated faculty action plan for leadership in intercollegiate athletic activities.   

Pres. Cox opened the floor for questions.  Prof. Tachau commented on the apparent differences in expected athlete conduct between various athletic programs; specifically she addressed the apparent issue of gender equity that was raised when the women’s gymnastics team was prevented from going to conference activities because its members had violated the coach’s order not to drink.  The apparent inequity derives when similar behavior appears not to prevent the participation of men’s athletics teams in similar conference activities.  In his role as both a Faculty Councilor as well as a member of BICOA Prof. Lynch responded to Prof. Tachau’s comment and question.  In doing so he identified a fundamental problem in the University and Athletics’ codes of conduct policies which he, in his role as Chair of a BICOA subcommittee.  It was his opinion that neither policy (neither of which conflict with the other) “ send[s] a clear message of what athletes and students can and cannot do”.  Recognizing that Interim President Boyd’s recent letter to BICOA Chair Nick Colangelo may presage a need for revision of the existing policy, Prof. Lynch’s activities are nevertheless currently directed at clarification and not revision.  Further discussion of this issue identified the reality that coaches effectively function as “DEOs” but report/discuss at a much higher administrative entry level than their true academic DEO counterparts.  Part of the apparent justification for these administrative discrepancies derives from the highly visible nature of topics which must be resolved in the athletics programs.  The effort of BICOA in achieving consistency in policies governing student behavior has required a working relationship with student services.  Prof. Lynch anticipates wide review of his subcommittee’s work, including review by the Vice President and General Counsel before the clarification in the code of conduct policies in athletics might be accepted.  Prof. Tachau asked if the new director of Affirmative Action and Vice President Jones are participating in these important discussions.  Prof. Lynch responded that both of these individuals are part of the committee however their attendance is not uniform at working meetings of the BICOA Code of Conduct Review Committee.  Nevertheless Prof. Lynch presumes that their direct and presumably substantive input will be achieved at the time of review of the revised policy just prior to its implementation.  Prof. Lynch closed his remarks by reiterating that this BICOA committee is trying to clarify the code of conduct for athletics, not to create a new set of expectations.  As such, their activities may not directly satisfy the publicly expressed desires of Interim President Boyd.   

Prof. Lloyd asked for an update on the status of administrative discussions of the research track faculty proposal.  Pres. Cox indicated that the Provost will discuss this matter further with the deans prior to additional scheduled discussions at the Faculty Council and Senate.  Associate Provost Clark reminded the councilors that Interim President Boyd has asked that she, Provost Whitmore and Vice Presidents Skorton and Kelch add specific detail to the policy before it is further discussed.  They have met to do so and progress will be forthcoming. 

IV.  Unfinished Business 

   A.    Proposal for Faculty Senate/Staff Council Budget Committee, Paul Muhly  

Prof. Muhly took the floor.  He provided a brief review of the substantial involvement of Immediate Past President Amitava Bhattacharjee in the discussion that led to the proposal under consideration.  Prof. Muhly felt that Prof. Bhattacharjee’s unavoidable absence at today’s meeting would significantly hamper a discussion of the issue and for this reason requested postponement.  Following these comments Prof. Lynch moved to postpone.  The motion was seconded by Prof. Marra and passed unanimously and without further discussion.  

V.  New Business 

   A.   Proposed Changes to Family Issues Charter Committee Charge, Nancy Williams  

Staff member Nancy Williams briefly opened the discussion by describing for the Council how her three years as Chair of the Family Issues Charter Committee have convinced her that issues of importance to families in our community are far more complex than those related simply to parenting activities.  This was the basis for the modifications presented for consideration to the Faculty Council.  Associate Provost Clark commended the discussions and the care which informed the proposed rewording.  Pres. Cox questioned the composition of the Committee and Ms. Williams indicated that it consisted of three faculty members, three staff members and three student members.  Offering the cautionary advice that the Council recommendations on this matter would not need to be listened to by the President of the University, Pres. Cox asked if the Council wished to offer a motion to adopt the proposed changes.  Such a motion was offered by Prof. Lynch, seconded by Prof. Mangum and then it received unanimous approval.  At the end of the vote Prof. Tachau voiced her pleasure at the absence of “nay sayers”.   

   B.   Proposed Changes to the University of Iowa Conflict Policy, Lee Anna Clark 

Pres. Cox began discussion of item V.B. by directing the Faculty Councilors to Attachments 6 A, B and C.  Their comprehensive natures were commented upon and he then asked Associate Provost Clark for additional comments.  Associate Provost Clark asked the Councilors to try to limit their discussion of this complex policy to points wherein it differed from the old policy.  It was her belief that if the Council wished to engage in substantive discussions based upon items of policy currently in place (i.e., in the current version of the policy) they could certainly be discussed, but would first require deliberation by a new committee charged to examine the old policy.  Should the Council or Senate desire her to do so, she commented that she would be be happy to charge a new committee.  By way of contrast, she pointed out that the working charge of the committee whose report is under consideration by the Council today was to bring the University Policy on Conflict of Interest in line with national trends and to assure clarity in its construction.  She then offered the speculation that the biggest change that university faculty will experience following the proposed policy will be increased requirements to provide detailed reports of activities that are currently covered by the Conflict of Interest Policy.  These changes are not specifically a change in policy, rather they require a change in the reporting mechanism for conflicts.  Furthermore, they parallel changes mandated by the Board of Regents.  Pres. Cox then advised the Councilors that the draft had been substantively reviewed by the Faculty Senate Officers.  In their review they found that there was a lack of specificity of procedure for faculty grievances engendered by the policy.  They also identified the need for clarification of conflict of interest among University administrators.  These concerns were addressed in two ways:  the new draft specifies grievance procedures with more clarity; Interim President Boyd is currently drafting policies that, when implemented, will force disclosure directly to the president of the University of corporate board service activities by members of the University administration.  The Board of Regents is also currently in the process of drafting conflict of interest disclosure requirements for the presidents of the Regents’ Institutions.   

David Wynes, Assistant Vice President for Research and chair of the Conflict of Interest Revision Committee anticipated the need for future revisions in comments to the Councilors.  He stated that the American Association of Medical Colleges has newly drafted guidelines that address conflict of interest for individuals and institutions.  Likewise the AAU is drafting new conflict of interest guidelines.  Both of these revisions will likely need to be reflected in the University Conflict of Interest Policy.   

Prof. Lynch opened a dialogue regarding the mechanisms by which faculty will be reminded of potential areas of conflict.  He pointed out that compliance with policies governing conflicts in research is facilitated by paperwork mandated by the Institutional Review Board.  He wondered how workplace and commitment conflicts would be brought to the attention of those faculty who may not realize that their activities engender such conflict.  Associate Provost Clark answered that at the very least annual reminders of the need to report such conflicts would be circulated to all faculty.  And, in response to further questioning by Prof. Lynch regarding how these forms  will be specific enough to engender the correct response, she added that the reminders to report will list general areas of potential conflict.  She further anticipates extensive publicity about  the new policy with new training programs created to educate administrators.  She speculated that the careful adherence to such a policy will require a long-term change in University culture.  Prof. Tachau directed the Councilors to page four of the draft policy which, under the heading of Conflict of Commitment, identifies a series of “activities generally requiring no disclosure”.  She then asked whether or not the Board of Regents would want information in their reports regarding these excluded activities.  Associate Provost Clark responded in the negative and further commented that the forms that faculty will be asked to fill out for the Regents’ report have been beta tested.  For faculty who have performed no consulting activities in the previous year, the forms will require less than 30 seconds to complete.  For those faculty who have performed such an activity during the specified time period, the forms will require a matter of minutes to complete.  She likened the need for faculty members to keep appropriate records of covered activities to the records they keep to document continuing educational activities.  Once again she identified the need for a cultural change to assure compliance with reporting requirements dictated both by this policy as well as the Board of Regents.  David Wynes provided additional clarification that the real cultural change that will be necessary for compliance with the draft policy is the need to submit written documentation of conflicts in advance of their occurrence.  For this to occur he suggested the need for education on those activities that will require faculty to obtain prior approval.  In instances where prior approval is not appropriately obtained, the annual report required by the Regents should serve to “catch” these activities.  Prof. Lynch returned to further discussion of his previous comment regarding the important “catch” mechanism provided by necessary institutional review board paperwork.  It was his opinion that reliance for faculty understanding of and compliance with the draft policy based upon information provided to them by deans and DEOs may create variability in how effective the new policy will be that will have its basis in the variable nature of their messages.   

Following these discussions a series of specific questions were asked about the policy.  Prof. Tachau referred to the definition of “employee” on page two of the draft policy.  This definition “means any person who is a member of the faculty, professional and scientific staff, merit staff, or as a student employee”.  She wondered why it did not specify administrators or coaches.  The answer provided by Associate Provost Clark was that those individuals are covered in the categories specified.  She offered the further clarification that these classifications are consistent with human resources policies.  Pres. Cox referred to the examples of activities requiring disclosure in management listed on draft page six.  The fifth bulleted example appeared to Pres. Cox to prohibit faculty from asking graduate students to house sit over vacation.  He wondered if such were the case.  Assistant Vice President Wynes indicated that the bulleted item in question really addressed running businesses outside of the University however Pres. Cox’s hypothetical circumstance would fall under this broad category and would therefore require disclosure in management but would not necessarily be prohibited.  Pres. Cox then wondered what would happen with widespread noncompliance and if it would require disciplinary action or sanctions generated by administrators.  Prof. Raymond responded that page three of the draft document identifies that the sanction for failure to disclose prior to initiating the activity is to disclose post hoc.  Associate Provost Clark further clarified that the possibility of additional sanctions might be dictated by the “nature of the crime”.  Prof. Tachau then asked for clarification of activities requiring disclosure in management listed in the draft policy under the headings of Conflict of Commitment and Conflict of Interest in the Workplace.  Specifically she asked whether the bulleted examples listed on pages four and six of the draft policy would apply to coaches having radio shows or signing endorsement contracts.  Assistant Vice President Wynes indicated that they would indeed and these activities would require management by the director of athletics.  Prof. Tachau furthered her line of questioning by asking whether or not such activities would require payment to the University as contemplated on page six of the draft policy.  Assistant Vice President Wynes indicated that the answer would be affirmative only if the activities used University facilities.  Prof. Tachau asked whether or not intellectual property such as logo use would be an example of “using University facilities” and Assistant Vice President Wynes responded in the negative.  Prof. Lloyd asked for clarification in the policy on conflict of interest in research under the heading of financial interest requiring disclosure and management.  In the draft document, examples of management strategies included “disclosure in publications, presentations, and, in the case of human research, the informed consent document”.  He questioned whether this was in keeping with our peer institutions and Assistant Vice President Wynes responded in the affirmative.  Prof. Lloyd opined that he thought that such disclosure was absolutely necessary.  Prof. Donohue indicated that national policies did not uniformly require such disclosure but that the University of Iowa Conflict of Interest in Research Committee always recommended disclosure whenever they had reviewed such questions in the past.  Prof. Lynch responded to Prof. Lloyd’s question by suggesting that the appropriate management strategy is to disclose if the information is published and that in the absence of publication there need be no disclosure.  Assistant Vice President Wynes confirmed Prof. Lynch’s suggestion as consistent with the working of the Conflict of Interest in Research Committee.   

At this juncture Pres. Cox asked if there was a motion from the Council to forward the draft document under discussion to the Senate for further consideration and action.  Prof. Lynch so moved and Prof. Westefeld seconded.  Unanimous approval was offered by the Council for the motion.   

VI.  Announcements 

The next University of Iowa Faculty Senate meeting will occur on December 3, 2002 at 3:30 PM in the Lucas Dodge, 256 IMU.  The next University of Iowa Faculty Council meeting will occur on December 10, 2002 at 3:30 PN in the Penn State Room, 337 IMU.   

VII.  Adjournment 

Pres. Cox adjourned the Faculty Council meeting of Tuesday, November 12, 2002 at 4:40 PM.  


Respectfully submitted, 

Craig C. Porter, MD
Secretary, University of Iowa Faculty Senate