University of Iowa
Extraordinary Session
Tuesday December 12, 2006
3:30- 5:15 pm
Senate Chamber, Old Capitol

Present: D. Asprey, D. Balderston, J. Beckman, S. Birrell, L. Boyle, K. Brown, G.  Bulechek, C. Catney, S. Collins, S; J. Cox, K. Culp, D. D’Alessandro, M. Donovan, E. Dove, D. Drake, G. El-Khoury, S. Fagan, R. Fumerton, T. Grabowski, P. Heidger, R. Herman, G. Hope, B. Justman, J. Leddy, M. Maktabi, K. Marra, S. McGuire, F. Mitros, S. Moorhead, A. Morris, M. Noonan, F. Nothwehr, M. O’Hara, B. Plapp, A. Poremba, L. Richman, C. Ringen, J. Sa-Aadu, T. Schmidt, K. Schuh, W. Sharp, L. Snetselaar, K. Southard, A. Sullivan, C. Thomas, D. Thomas, B. Thompson, J. Tomkovicz, R. Tubbs, T. Ton-That, R. Wachtel, J. Westefeld, W. Vispoel, S. Wolfe, J. Woodhead, and C Woodman

Absent:             L. Ayres, G. Bergus, J. Campos, W. Clarke, M. Cohen, J. Desmond, V. Grassian, J. Heggen, M. Karwal, L. Lichtor, and L. Robertson

Excused:           A. Boezaart, J. Carlson, V. Dominguez, D. Filios (on leave), C. Kletzing, Y. Li, T. Loew, S. Lutgendorf, R. Martin, G. Russell, and S. Vincent

Officers Present: S. Kurtz (President), J. Glass (Secretary), V. Sharp (Vice President) and R. LeBlond (Past President)

Guests: M. Adolph (Staff Council), J. Aikin (German), M. Alexander (Theatre Arts), D. Anderson (ECG), J. Anderson (Mechanical & Industrial Engineering), M. Armstrong (Geography), M. Ascoli (Pharmacology), N. Barkey (Anthropology), A. Baun (Spanish & Portuguese), D. Bayton (History & Speech Pathology), C. Berman (History), M. Bern-Klug (Social Work), A. Bhalt (Civil & Environmental Engineering), R. Block (Anesthesia), L. Branch (English), M. Brown (English/Center for the Book), P. Burke (Emeritus), M. Campo (Community& Behavioral Health), T. Casavant (Engineering), C. Cheatum (Chemistry), L. Clark (Psychology), K. Clark (Nursing), D. Clubb (Theatre Arts), R. Colloredo-Mansfeld (Anthropology), C. Calvin (Education), N. Davin (Staff Council), B. Davis (Linguistics), J. Denburg (Biology), D. Depew (Communication Studies/POROI), H. Diehl (English), K. Diftley (English), R. Dohynr (Family Medicine), J. Donelson (Biochemistry), D. Dunlap (School of Art & Art History), G. Ehrstine (German), E. Fales (Philosophy), J. Fiegel (Pharmacy/Engineering), L. Fielding (Education- Teaching & Learning), J. Finamore (Classics), P. Fisher (Urban & Regional Planning), E. Folsom (English), C. Fox (English), A. Fulton (Biochemistry), J. Gajdos (Graduate Student Senate), M. Gilbert (English), M. Gobat (History), B. Gollnick (Spanish& Portuguese), J. Gordon (Speech Pathology & Audiology), D.Gould (Leisure Studies), C. Green, S. Hanley (History), K. Hawthorne (Daily Iowan), E. Heineman (History), D. Heldt (Cedar Rapids Gazette), K. Hem (Nursing), R. Hicher (Radiology), P. Hlebowitsh (Teaching & Learning), P. Jorgensen (Mathematics), P. Kaboli (College of Medicine), C. Ke (Asian Language), L. Kelley (Nursing), L. Kettner (University Relations), P. Ketterer (Classics), P. Keupchinsky (Spanish & Portuguese), L. Kerber (History), K. Klein (Staff Council), B. Landon (English), R. Latham (English), S. Lawrence (History/Anatomy & Cell Biology), J. Leddy (Chemistry), J. Logsdon (Biology), B. Longfellow (Art History), L. Lopes (Emeritus, Business), M. Lovaglia (Sociology), M. Mackey (Biomed), D. MacFarlane (Internal Medicine), T. Mager (KCCI-TV), T. Mangum (English), T. Mattes (Civil/Environmental Engineering), J. Menninger (Biological Science), M. Mills, J. Morcuende (Orthopaedic Surgery), B. Morelli (Press Citizen), M. Nashelsky (Pathology), J. Nelson (Political Science), M. Nelson (Daily Iowan), M. Nelson (KCRG), S. Nicoles (KCRG), G. Oden (Psychology/Computer Science), T. O’Dorisio (Internal Medicine), A. Oesmann (German), C. Ogren (Emeritus Council), G. Parkin (Engineering), S. Parrott (University Relations), G. Penny (History), A. Peters (Urban & Regional Planning), J. Peters (Communication Studies), M. Peterson (History), T. Pettys (Law), J. Pierce (SUS), J. Polumbaum (Jounalism), J. Porter (English), S. Rahman (Engineering), A. Ratner (Engineering), B. Read (Political Science), D. Reese (Iowa Public Radio), P. Riesz (Marketing), R. Roller (Medicine/Microbiology), G. Sasso (Teaching & Learning), M. Scherer (Engineering), J. Sessions (History), C. Sheerin (Law), M. Shasbs (Department of Medicine), M. Shea (Medicine/Biochemistry), H. Shen (Asian Language), J. Singer (Journalism & Mass Communications), T. Simmons, J.K. Simon (Mathematics), B. Slatton (Emeritus), B. Sorofman (Pharmacy), C. Sponsler (English), J. Spoon (Political Science), J. Spencer (Psychology), D. Stout (Press Citizen), E. Stone (Law), G. Strohmner (Mathematics), A. Stapleton (English), K. Tachau (History), J. Throgmorton (Urban & Regional Planning), L. Troyer (Sociology), R. Valentine (English), S. Vargas (KCCI-TV), D. Veilez (Spanish & Portuguese), E. Wasserman (Psychology), L. Watts (Speech & Audiology), D. Watson (Counseling, Rehab, & SD), D. Weels (Biochemistry/College of Medicine), K. Whitmore (Language Literacy & Culture), J. Wilcox (English), D. Wilder (Biomedical Engineering), P. Windschitl (Psychology), P. Zeboronski (Speech Pathology & Audiology) (NOTE:  There were approximately 30 illegible guest signatures on attendance sheet)

I.  Call to Order – This extraordinary session of the Faculty Senate was called to order at 3:31 pm.

II.  Replacements –

Vice President Victoria Sharp moved that the following replacements be made:

  • Professor Arthur Borreca (Theatre Arts) to replace Professor Jane Desmond (American Studies, from CLAS Group II until the end of her term, May 2007.
  • Professor Jonathan Doorn (Pharmacy) to replace Professor John-Mark Stensvaag (Law) as a member of the Council on Teaching Charter Committee, to fulfill his term until the end of May 2007.

Professor O’Hara seconded the motion; there was no discussion; the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.

III.  Announcements – President Sheldon Kurtz announced the upcoming Faculty Senate elections and that Lynette Marshall, President, UI Foundation, will be the guest at the February Senate meeting.

IV.  New Business (Sheldon Kurtz, Faculty Senate President)

Professor Collins moved to authorize the Senate President to grant non-senators the right to speak to the motion at his discretion.  This was seconded by Professor Beckman.  The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

President Kurtz read the following statement:

Senators, faculty members, and members of our community: Thank you for gathering today to consider a historic resolution of profound consequence for the people of Iowa. The resolution we consider today declares that the University of Iowa Faculty Senate, elected to represent the faculty of The University of Iowa, has lost its trust and confidence in the leaders of our Board of Regents.

I want to publicly thank Governor Vilsack for his efforts, albeit unsuccessful, to address both the governance issues and the presidential search issue. We spoke again last Friday for over 40 minutes. When we spoke he made no attempt to dissuade the Faculty Senate from going forward with a vote of no-confidence as he did quite vehemently in our meeting on Monday, November 27. In fact, he voiced the opinion that a no-confidence vote would be an appropriate way for faculty and staff to express their concerns about the leadership of the Board of Regents.

Let me begin by emphasizing that the Faculty Senate fully recognizes that the Regents have the statutory responsibility to select our next president. That is one of many important responsibilities that the people of Iowa have entrusted to the Regents. When carrying out their responsibilities, however, the Regents cannot do their jobs in whatever way they wish. The Regents owe the people of Iowa what lawyers call a duty of care--a duty to take reasonable care in acting in the best interests of the State's citizens and of public higher education. By repeatedly violating this duty of care, the Board's leaders have demonstrated that we cannot trust them to do the work that the Governor appointed them to do.

Our concerns with the Board’s leadership did not begin on November 17 when the Regents stunned the state by disbanding the presidential search committee and terminating the search. Our concerns began much earlier and stem from numerous interactions members of our community have had with the Board leadership.

Let me single out a few examples that fall into three categories: first, the disastrous presidential search which has now proven to be a spectacular failure and about which Professor Katherine Tachau will make some further remarks following my presentation; second, a pattern of flagrant and gratuitous disregard for the University's faculty; and third, an ongoing process of secretive strategic planning that deliberately excluded students, staff, faculty, and administrators who know the University best and who represent its future.

The Regent-controlled presidential search was a notorious debacle, condemned not only within the University but across the State, as well. The Board's last- minute decision to scrap the search process and start all over again not only followed an enormous expenditure of state funds, of faculty, staff, and student time, and of hard-won community trust but also wasted an effort that had identified and endorsed four excellent candidates.

We owe our gratitude to the campus-based members of the search and advisory committees and to Mayor Ross Wilburn for the efforts they put into the process-we applaud them for trying as hard as they could to make it work, at times against incredible obstacles. In the end, the slate of candidates they recommended included three provosts and one sitting president. Had they fared as well in the on-campus interviews as they did off-campus, we would have been proud to have any one of them as our President. But as we learned on Friday, November 17, Regents Gartner and Wahlert had other plans.

The Board's decision to abandon the search process was announced after secretive, closed-door discussions. Because the Regents insisted on holding these critical discussions in private, there are many questions we cannot answer.

  • Did the Regents consider the possibility that the termination of the search might have a disastrous effect on the University's ability to recruit an excellent president in the future?
  • With four excellent individuals rejected on the shakiest of premises, what candidates will seek the job knowing they would have to work under these very same Regents?
  • Did the Regents recognize that their actions will cause widely-respected faculty, staff, and students to hesitate before agreeing to take part in a search process controlled by the same Board leadership that casually dismissed the recommendations of the overwhelming majority of the now-disbanded search committee? I say “casually” because I am told that before rejecting the four finalists that infamous Friday, the full Board never even saw, much less considered the search committee's detailed list of the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate.
  • Before voting to discharge the search committee and terminate the search, why didn't the Board's leaders consult with the two co-vice chairs of the search committee--two senior faculty members who have the well-earned and abiding respect of their peers?
  • And, finally, in the absence of a collective, deliberative discussion among the full Board of Regents, how are we to understand the fact that the Board’s leaders managed to obtain six votes to terminate the search process, and then, only at the last moment, advised the other regents that the deal had been done?

The pattern of behavior that causes us concern is not a fluke. It is a consistent pattern. The signs of trouble appeared long before that fateful Friday. Here are just a few examples:

  • Last spring, Regent Gartner told me, Dick LeBlond, then President of the Faculty Senate, and Mark Kresowik, then President of the student body, that the search would follow the UNI model and there was no need to discuss it with us, only to later publicly deny making that statement here at the public forum on campus last spring.
  • Regent Gartner promised faculty leaders that he would not serve on the search committee, but he did.
  • Regents Gartner and Wahlert promised that they would allow the campus advisory committee to play a significant role in the search process, but they did not.
  • Regents Gartner and Wahlert publicly voiced their support for on-campus interviews when they did all they could to subvert them, including the ultimate subversion of rejecting all four finalists before campus-interviews could occur.
  • In an e-mail so transparently insincere and ungrammatical that many members of the University community thought it was a hoax, Regent Wahlert asked for campus-generated questions to ask the interviewees. Her e-mail was only a poorly veiled attempt to give the University community the illusion that it was participating in the process, and it signaled the Board leadership’s plan to break another promise—the promise to hold on-campus interviews. Although many faculty and staff responded to Regent Wahlert's e-mail, there's little evidence that she paid any attention to their questions and comments. In two interviews, for example, Regent Wahlert told candidates that one of the most frequently mentioned campus concerns dealt with campus security--a worthy issue, to be sure, but it was not mentioned once in the hundreds of pages of faculty responses that were copied to the Faculty Senate.
  • The search committee (which included Regents Gartner, Wahlert, Arbisser, and Harkin) overwhelmingly supported the advancement of four candidates' names to the full Board of Regents. Regents Gartner and Wahlert did not support the one candidate among the four finalists with the most experience in dealing with complex health care matters. On the other hand, they did support two of the finalists who had no experience in dealing with complex health matters. When announcing the termination of the search, however, the Board's leaders revealed a new requirement--one not included in the official job description and not even mentioned on the candidate scoring sheet that Regent Wahlert herself prepared--namely that a successful candidate must have had experience overseeing complex health-science operations. It seems clear that this was nothing more than a pretext for rejecting the recommended candidates on other, hidden grounds.
  • Although Regent Gartner did not object to any of the four candidates whose names were sent to the full Board, he later told the public that one of the reasons the final slate of candidates was unacceptable was that no women appeared among them. That's an explanation that might inadvertently bring us closer to the truth, for there was a woman candidate whom the search committee interviewed and whom Regent Gartner strongly supported. The overwhelming majority of the search committee, including one regent, nevertheless refused to give that candidate their support and so her name was not recommended to the Board and Regent Gartner did not get the candidate he personally wanted. Hence, the search was terminated and the search committee discharged.

The second set of reasons for today's no-confidence resolution concerns the fact that Regent Gartner has consistently demonstrated by his actions and his words that he has little respect for the faculty of the University of Iowa and does not deserve our trust. Here are some examples:

  • When Regent Gartner repeatedly refused to publicly answer faculty members' questions about why the traditional University of Iowa search process should be changed, he showed an unwillingness to be accountable to the University community and to the public.
  • When Regent Gartner insisted that the members of the search and advisory committees sign confidentiality statements so broad that they could not disclose their whereabouts to their families or file for reimbursement of their expenses, his behavior was unreasonable and offensive, a fact that even some members of the Board of Regents acknowledged by scratching the senseless provisions out before signing the statements.
  • When Regent Gartner publicly accused members of the campus community of breaching confidentiality by disclosing the names of candidates, his behavior was hypocritical. There are good reasons to believe that the Board's leaders themselves leaked a candidate's name in an effort to build support for her with off-campus VIPs before she even interviewed for the position.
  • When Regent Gartner publicly swore at Dr. Frank Abboud, the very distinguished vice-chair of the search committee, and in a tantrum labeled the other committee members’ nearly unanimous decision to hold off-campus interviews in Chicago "insane and inane," his behavior was demeaning and abusive.
  • When Regent Gartner's own Executive Director seeks out information about me, Professor Tachau, and Professor Abboud and when Regent Gartner uses that information in conversations with student leaders and when Regent Gartner glibly says to the press he is merely relaying “interesting” facts, his behavior creates an intimidating campus environment.

The third set of reasons for today's no-confidence resolution concerns Regent Gartner's extraordinary aversion to Iowa’s tradition of open, collegial decision-making. The  purpose of having a Board of Regents--rather than having one, lone Regent--is to assure the rule of many, not the rule of one. The rule of many is characterized by public, deliberative consultations. Iowans believe that when the Board of Regents meets together, thinks together, and talks together, Iowa triumphs. Yet on numerous occasions when collective deliberation was called for, the Board's leadership failed to meet this crucial responsibility. Regent Gartner's handling of the presidential search does not provide the only illustrations--there are others.

For example, in an e-mail dated July 20, 2006, and sent to Regent Wahlert and the three university presidents, Regent Gartner formally initiated a "process of strategic change" by asking this small group of individuals (not the entire Board) to answer a set of fundamental questions. Do the three state universities have a rational management structure, financial structure, and academic structure? How should each campus be organized academically and administratively? If the universities compete against one another in various areas, are those overlaps necessary?

By taking up those profoundly important questions behind closed doors, it is clear that Regents Gartner and Wahlert are engaged in a process to control an agenda that could dramatically restructure the academic and non-academic functions of the three state universities and the relationships between them. And yet the members of this group of five have operated in secret. When asked about the discussions early on, some of them went so far as to deny that the discussions were even taking place.

Although Regent Gartner has stated that this review process represents one of the two most important functions of the Board, it was initiated without any public discussion or formal approval by the Board. Only when the Des Moines Register published a report about the lack of transparency did Regent Gartner finally express any interest in holding a public discussion. And nonetheless, Regent Gartner’s heavy-handedness continues for he has announced that he will control the process by meeting individually with each Regent to help set an agenda for, he says, full Board consideration. And now, because of his and Regent Wahlert's inept handling of the presidential search, the small group will proceed without the input of a new, permanent president of the University of Iowa.

When will the Board, all nine of them together, meeting face-to-face, doing the people's business, finally deliberate on these momentous issues out in the open? If the deliberations occur only after the major decisions have been made, the process is no more than a charade. Ever since Regent Gartner took the helm, the Board's leadership has been characterized by a failure to communicate, a failure to collaborate, a penchant for secrecy, a willingness to resort to gratuitous insults, and a lax approach to formal policy-making that may be in violation of the State's Open Meetings law. Now Regent Gartner is very bright and bubbling with ideas but these failures are not the marks of a leader. They are not the traits of a person whom the people of Iowa want to lead the Board of Regents. And they are not the characteristics of a person our Governor should want in charge of Iowa’s higher education system.

The Board leaders’ breaches of their duty of care are not the result of brief lapses in judgment. They are a matter of consistent policy. As one Regent, who does not live in Iowa City, summarized the case: "We are a dysfunctional Board." This inability to function warrants a motion of no confidence in the Board's leadership. If approved, this resolution would demonstrate our considered judgment that the leadership team of Regents Gartner and Wahlert cannot provide the appropriate oversight of the Regents' system so important to every Iowan. It is a team that puts the University at great risk. It is a team that is designed neither to attract nor to retain a great president. This proposed no-confidence resolution sends a clear message to the Governor, the Governor-elect, the legislature, and the people of Iowa, that our State's great universities have been entrusted to two individuals who have demonstrated that they are not up to the task.

We believe this no-confidence resolution is not merely symbolic but will embolden our elected leaders and the seven other Regents to demand leadership changes that would enable the Regents to do the job they were appointed to do.

We also believe a change in the Board leadership is essential to accomplish the interrelated goals of finding and retaining an outstanding president to lead this institution and restoring a functional governance structure within the Board of Regents and between the Regents and the institutions they oversee.

Towards that end and like our counterparts at the State's other Regent-led institutions, we will talk to any Regent on the Board, at any time, including Regents Gartner and Wahlert should they remain on the Board. We have many issues ahead of us, including the structure of any new search process on which our input and participation should be understood as vital and we pledge to move forward following this vote with a positive and constructive approach and with civil and open exchanges. But, today we are telling the people of Iowa that control of the Board of Regents rests in incapable hands, and that this state can do much, much better.

Working together in mutual respect and through open and thoughtful discussions, our elected leaders, the other Regents, faculty, staff, students, alumni, donors, and friends-all of us who have dedicated our lives to working for the benefit of a great university-can restore the confidence that we traditionally have had in the leadership of our Board of Regents, and want one day to have again.

Thank you.

[President Kurtz’s statement was met with applause and a standing ovation.]

Professor McGuire moved to accept the following resolution:

WHEREAS, the University of Iowa faculty recognize that the Board of Regents has the statutory responsibility to govern the University and to appoint our president, and

WHEREAS, the Board’s leadership owes the people of the State of Iowa a duty of care in carrying out their statutory responsibilities, and

WHEREAS, this duty of care obligates the Board’s leadership to take reasonable care in acting in the best interests of public higher education and the people of Iowa, and

WHEREAS, the Board of Regents’ leadership has repeatedly breached the duty of care they owe to Iowans,

NOW THEREFORE, the Faculty Senate of The University of Iowa expresses its lack of trust and confidence in the leadership of the Iowa Board of Regents.

The motion was seconded by Professor Woodhead.

[A request came from the overflow crowd on the first floor of the Old Capitol to re-read the motion into the microphone.  President Kurtz did so to the sound of applause.]

President Kurtz opened the floor to discussion:

Johnathan Gajdos (Graduate Student Senate) said that a similar motion will be discussed at the Graduate Student Senate the next day.  They are deeply concerned about the growth of the university.  Given that the president is not just a figurehead, it is imperative that we have a president in place who can work with his/her supervisors.  He expressed hope that the resolution will have the effect of enabling the university to have effective oversight.

Professor Downing Thomas (French and Italian, Faculty Senator and Councilor) said he supported the motion and that it is not a form of punishment nor is it vindictive, but rather points the leadership forward in a positive direction.

Professor Ed Wasserman (Psychology, former Faculty Senate President) compared the current situation to the fire at the Old Capitol which was caused by carelessness and a failure to follow proper procedures.  Their failure to follow established planning and recruiting procedures has fueled the firestorm of controversy concerning the future of the University of Iowa and its leadership.  Harm has already been done costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless hours of effort by faculty, staff and students. He said that the University of Iowa community must make every effort to improve our working relationship with the Regents when the leadership is changed and proper processes are reestablished.

Professor Lynn Richman (Pediatrics, Faculty Senator) said that even though we would like to pass the resolution, he wished to clarify that we support many of the Regents and that we hope to rectify the problem.

Professor Kurtz reiterated that this resolution is pointed at the leadership only.

Professor Peg Burke (Associate Professor Emeritas, Sport, Health, Leisure and Physical Studies, Former President Faculty Senate) sad it was shocking to have to speak on this topic.  Each president had their moment with the Regents, but never was there a loss of civility and inability to listen to each other.  She said she was there to support this resolution.  She said she was a proud member of the “radical minority” (or “majority”, as the case may be).  She said the word “radical” means “root”, and that the faculty, staff and students are the roots of the university.  It is folly for the BOR to ignore it.  

Professor Tom Simmons, (English) identified himself as a guest.  He said the current situation is enormously unfortunate but having been here for 15 years, he has never seen this kind of community outpouring.  He said future presidential candidates will take not of this day. On important subjects, he said, this is a united group and he was very grateful.

Professor Carolyn Colvin (College of Education, Former Faculty Senate President,) wanted to affirm the value and importance of faculty governance to the campus.  She wanted to applaud Dr. Francois Abboud and Professor Katherine Tachau and the members of the search committee who have represented faculty so well in the last few difficult months.  She thanked President Kurtz for being a great leader.  She called on all faculty to continue to be involved in the search process; it is a matter of great importance.

President Kurtz said the Regents announced that they will have a telephonic meeting the following Monday to renew search process.  He had communicated with some of them that he expects Faculty Senate to be involved in the process; to have our time-honored role restored. He said the Committee on the Selection of Central Academic Officials should also play a role.

Professor Richard Hurtig (Speech Pathology and Audiology, Former Faculty Senate President, current President, CLAS Faculty Assembly) endorsed President Kurtz’s remarks. During his presidency of the Senate he said he endured a contentious issue, but throughout the whole process there were civil, collegial, ongoing talks with the Board. What we fail to have with the current leadership is open, collegial and civil conversation. He said he was shocked how the leadership regarded some of the most respected faculty members on campus.  He was baffled how people who enjoy this high level of respect, and who are national and international scholars, whose reputations and dedication to this institution are not in question,  can be treated so badly.

Donald MacFarlane (Internal Medicine, former Faculty Senator) called for a motion to demand that the Governor remove the leadership of the Board.

President Kurtz asked for his indulgence for the moment since the legislature is not in session and that Professor MacFarlane had ventured into areas of the law.

Professor Macfarlane respectfully withdrew his motion.

Professor Jack Spratt (Emeritus, Pharmacology) asked where the buttons are.

Professor Ken Brown (Business, Faculty Senator) indicated the “radical minority’ buttons created by Professor John Solow being sold for $1.00 each, proceeds to go to the Crisis Center.

Professor Gary Gussin (Biology) asked President Kurtz if he had been in contact with the other Regents universities, and whether they will have similar motions.

President Kurtz replied that he thinks they are happy to let UI lead the charge.  They are not unsupportive, he added. He did not think their faculty were ready to move forward on the issues.

Past President Richard LeBlond noted that there is never uniformity on issues as complex as this one.  He called for anyone who wished to speak against the resolution to feel free to do so.   

Professor Wallace Tomasini (Art and Art History) noted that this is his 50th year at the university.  He said he has never seen a place where he would rather be. He said that the faculty reaction to what Kurtz, Abboud and Tachau have undergone convinces him all the more that this is the right place to be.  He commended Peg Burke’s and Richard Hurtig’s comments.  He said without question, he supported the Faculty Senate in this decision, and that he was glad he was present to witness it. 

Professor Steve Collins called for a procedural motion.  He moved that the motion be conducted by closed ballot.  This was seconded by Professor O’Hara.  The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

President Kurtz commented that if the vote passes, he thought it would help the other Regents go forward.

Paper ballots were distributed and counted by Faculty Senate officers.

The announced result was 63 senators voted; 62 in support; 1 opposed.  Although absentee ballots are not allowed, said Kurtz, senators who could not be there wanted their votes noted.  Of the seven received, six were in favor; one opposed. [CORRECTION:  Three votes from former senators were mistakenly counted; they do not affect the outcome.]

“I treat this as the motion having carried,” said Kurtz.  He was met with applause and a standing ovation.

Dr. Abboud spoke following the vote.  He said that over the past several months, there was much concern about where we were going as a university.  He feared that no president would want to come here. However, with this action today, he said, if any president does not see this action as reflecting the best university in the country to lead, they would miss the point. He said he was very proud and said he thinks we can not get the very best president in the country.

President Kurtz asked for a round of applause to express appreciation to Dr. Abboud, Professor  Tachau and all members of the search committee as well as members of the campus advisory committee. Professor Tachau acknowledged that they were a wonderful group to work with.

Professor Dee Morris (English, former President, Faculty Senate) called on the Faculty Senate to express its appreciation to the four presidential finalists in the search.    She read the following Statement of Appreciation:

The Faculty Senate wishes to express its appreciation to the four finalists in the University of Iowa Presidential Search. We are grateful for their interest in serving as president of The University of Iowa and for their perseverance through the stages of a search that was troubled from its very beginning.

In addition, the Faculty Senate would like to recognize those candidates who were willing to remain in the pool following the Board of Regents’ termination of the search on November 17th.

Finally, we would like to express special appreciation to University of Iowa Provost Michael Hogan. We are grateful for his ongoing contributions to the University and for his loyalty to the University community through a difficult movement. We look forward to Provost Hogan’s future contributions to the University of Iowa and to his bright future as an academic leader.

By this motion, we direct Faculty Senate President Sheldon Kurtz to communicate this statement to the four presidential finalists.

Professor Ringen seconded the motion.  It carried unanimously by voice vote.

President Kurtz wished to express his personal thanks during this trying time, to the Faculty Senate Officers, Dee Morris, Steve McGuire, Steve Collins, Pete McElligott, Mary Greer, Katherine Tachau, Frank Abboud, Mike O’Hara, Cathy Ringen, and to all else who helped.  He thanked senators for supporting the motions today.  He said it means a lot to him personally, to the University of Iowa and to the people of Iowa.

Professor O’Hara moved to adjourn; President Kurtz said this was non-debatable; the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 

The meeting closed at 4:35 pm.