The University of Iowa
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
3:30 pm – 5:00 pm
Lucas Dodge Room, #256 Iowa Memorial Union

Members Present: Judith Aikin, David Asprey, Terry Boles, Linda Boyle, Gloria Bulechek, Jay Christensen-Szalanski, Steve Collins, Kathleen Diffley, Virginia Dominguez, Claibourne Dungy, Lois Dusdieker, Gregory Hamot, Paul Heidger, Ronald Herman, Julie Hochstrasser, Keri Hornbuckle, Erin Irish, Diane Jeske, Jean Jew, Sheldon Kurtz, Richard LeBlond, Philip Lutgendorf, Donald MacFarlane, Usha Mallik, Teresa Mangum, Jose Morcuende, James Nepola, Andrew Nugent, Harry Paarsch, Todd Pettys, Bradley Phillips, Craig Porter, Richard Randell, Thomas Schmidt, Gary Segura, Karin Southard, Tuong Ton-That, Carolyn Wanat, Marcia Ward, Paul Weller, John Westefeld, Jerold Woodhead

Members Absent: Pedro Alvarez, Garry Buettner, Micheline Chalhoub-Deville, Thomas Cook, Corey Creekmur, Bernard Fallon, Michael Flanigan, Sonya Franklin, Alfred Hansen, Debra Haselton, Rebecca Hegeman, Kim Marra, Thomas O’Dorisio, Daniel Quinn, Stephen Rayhill, Mary Hall Reno, Jon Ringen, Linda Snetselaar, Janet Specht, Shelton Stromquist, Geb Thomas, Robert Weir, Duane Whitaker, Howard Winfield

Members Excused: Carin Green, William Johnson, Michael Kelly, Mazen Maktabi, Sue Moorhead, Lisa Oakes

Faculty Senate Officers in Attendance: Margaret Raymond, President; Katherine Tachau, Vice President; Edwin Dove, Secretary; Jeffrey Cox, Past President

 Guests: Charles Drum (University Relations), Kathryn Wynes (Office of the Provost), Jim Andrews (AAUP), Phil Davidson (Daily Iowan), Dave Baldus (AAUP), Lola Lopes (Office of the Provost), Eugene Spaziani (Emeritus Faculty Council), William Reisinger (Office of the Provost), Pat Cain (Provost), Ekhard Ziegler (AAUP), Jed Hand (Dentistry Administration), Maile Sagen (Ombudsperson)

I.  Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 3:34 PM.

II.  Approval: Faculty Senate Minutes, February 10, 2004

Prof. Porter moved (second by Prof. Cox) to approve the minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting held February 10, 2004.  The motion was approved by voice vote.

III.  Reports

   A.   Board of Regents President, Owen Newlin

President Dr. Owen Newlin was introduced to the Senate by Prof. Raymond.  Dr. Newlin reviewed the work of the Board of Regents, and outlined what the Board has done to support higher education in the state of Iowa.  In his remarks, he noted the following:

  1. In the last four years, there have been seven (7) reductions in the Regent’s budget totaling approximately $164 million, plus numerous unfunded mandates (for example, $67M in unfunded salary increases).  The present funding level is the same level of funding as the Board had in 1997, even though the Regent institutions have an additional 4000 students, and the cost of living is considerably higher now than in 1997.
  2. The funding priorities in the FY05 budget are full funding of salaries, meeting operating costs, providing for capital investments, and funding for the indigent patient program. 
  3. It is critical for the state to reinvest in public education.  The Board will request funds from the state for funding quality faculty at all Regents institutions by seeking an additional $30M from new or additional taxes. 
  4. The three Regents universities will receive $606M in state funds.  These funds will be leveraged to greater than $2 billion in direct economic activity in Iowa.  In addition to the $606M, the universities will get more than $600M in research grants and contracts.  Dr. Newlin stated, “The University of Iowa and Iowa State are the most important generators of economic activity that Iowa has.”
  5. Dr. Newlin expressed support for President Skorton, Interim Provost Cain, and expressed expectations of contributions from Dr. Hogan.

Prof. Tachau asked if the reduction in funding has been due to an anti-intellectual sentiment, or due to a perception of few hours worked by the faculty.  Dr. Newlin stated that the reduction in funding was probably not due to these factors, but rather due to state revenues being down, and “a total unwillingness to increase revenues.”  Prof. Segura inquired if the Board of Regents is willing to put out a public statement describing the funding deficit.  Dr. Newlin responded that the Board members are united in agreement with what has happened, and will put out a statement supporting the $30M increase, but the Board “isn’t too hopeful.”  Prof. MacFarlane asked if the University is doing what it should in economic development.  Dr. Newlin responded that the University is doing what it should, but more needs to be done.

Prof. Raymond thanked Dr. Newlin for his presentation to the Faculty Senate.

   B.   Faculty Senate President, Margaret Raymond

Prof. Raymond reported on the Legislative Forum held by the Senate.

IV.  New Business

   A.   Decanal Review, Dave Baldus and Ekhard Ziegler

Prof. Baldus discussed the background and rationale for changes in the decanal review process.  

MOTION: Prof. Cox moved (second by Prof. Tachau) to adopt the policy and forward it to President Skorton for his consideration.  

Prof. Segura inquired as to how this is likely to be received.  Interim Provost Cain stated that she did not agree with the grievance provision.  She stated that there should be an element of trust that the provost will act responsibly, and in accordance with the Operations Manual.  Prof. MacFarlane asked if the document specifically identifies one item as grievable, does this imply that other items are not grievable?  Prof. Baldus stated that identifying one item does not preclude other items. He stated that the reason that this particular item was identified was because the General Counsel’s office read this issue as not grievable at the present time.  Prof. Collins asked if it is not true that it is the Judicial Commission, and not the General Counsel, who decides if an action is grievable.  Prof. Baldus stated that a careful reading of the Operations Manual indicates that this action would not fall under present grievance issues.  Prof. Porter asked if the deans support the proposed changes.  Interim Provost Cain stated that generally not, but primarily because the assessment procedures do not correlate (or match) the expectations.  Interim Provost Cain also stated that the deans disagree with the idea of a possible grievance due to not adequately reporting to the faculty.  Prof. Collins proposed three amendments.

AMENDMENT 1: Prof. Collins moved (second by Prof. Boyle) to amend the 4th sentence of paragraph II-28.5.g(4) to insert the words “(average and standard deviation)” after the words “aggregate responses.”   

Prof. Collins stated that the rationale for the amendment is that the proposed policy does not define the term “aggregate responses.”  Prof. Collins further stated that the median and mean (average) ratings will differ.  He stated that the weakness of the median as the only measure of performance is that it does not reflect the faculty perceptions as a whole.  The median alone says nothing about the opinions of those who are either more or less positive.  Prof. Collins stated that the mean and standard deviation together represent an index that incorporates the opinions of every faculty member.  Prof. Baldus stated that the expected aggregate responses include the complete distribution and any other information.   Prof. Collins responded that he believes that there should be one number that indicates whether the provost’s decisions are justified, and that number should be the mean.  Prof. Tachau stated that in small colleges, including the distribution could reduce anonymity. 

Amendment to the amendment: Prof. Segura moved (second by Prof. Kurtz) to substitute the following: “(mean, standard deviation, median, and specific distribution)” after the words “aggregate responses.”  The motion to amend the amendment passed on voice vote.

The original amended amendment (Amendment 1 offered by Prof. Collins) passed on voice vote.

AMENDMENT 2: Prof. Collins moved (second by Prof. Tachau) to amend paragraph II-28.5.f.3b(iv) to replace the required questionnaire statement “The dean is an effective and fair administrator” with the statement: Overall, the dean is effective.

Prof. Kurtz argued against the amendment by stating that effective and fair are not the same as effective.  The question was called, and the motion to amend (Amendment 2) was passed (19 for, 12 against).

Prof. Collins asked if a dean under review could substantially affect the membership of the review committee.  Prof. Baldus stated that a paragraph limiting the role of the dean was in the original policy statement, but this paragraph was eliminated from the present version. 

Prof. Tachau moved (second by Prof. Segura) to amend the policy by including the following language: “The dean of the college shall have no role in the selection of the members of any committee that has the responsibility to assess the performance of the dean.” Prof. Cox stated that there may be cases in which the provost must consult with the dean.  Prof. Collins stated that the intention should not be to limit discretion for consultation.  Associate Provost Cain stated that the proposed language is “strange” in that it precludes any opportunity to discuss the committee’s membership with the dean.  The motion failed to pass (13 for, 19 against).

AMENDMENT 3: Prof Cox moved (second by Prof. Tachau) to include the following language as Section g under Section 28.2: “The dean of the college shall have no significant role in the selection of the members of any committee that has the responsibility to assess the performance of the dean.”  The motion passed by a show of hands.

The original motion (Cox/Tachau) was called.  The motion passed (subject to Amendments 1, 2, and 3) on voice vote.

   B.   Salary Incentive Plans, Margaret Raymond

A discussion ensued of various salary incentive and disincentive plans.  Various plans, including those that have been submitted to the Board of Regents and those yet to be submitted, were discussed in an open forum. 

MOTION: Prof. Tachau moved (second by Prof. Dominguez) that

   i) The Faculty Senate recommends that the President place a moratorium on the expansion of existing bonus or salary cut plans or the adoption of new plans by the administration,

   ii) The Faculty Senate will appoint a committee to assess the propriety of bonus or salary cut programs for The University of Iowa in general, and to recommend guidelines for such programs if the administration should introduce them, and

   iii) The Faculty Senate will charge its Faculty Welfare Committee or some other committee appointed for this purpose, to conduct an independent evaluation of the success of the COM pilot program, with full access to the information on the medical school that is required to assess fully both the benefits and drawbacks of the program.”

Prof. Porter stated that this motion could lock the hands of college administrators to administer the college when in crisis.  Prof. Segura stated that crisis decisions are often not good decisions.  The motion passed by a show of hands.

V.  Announcements

  1. Prof. Raymond announced that the Promotion and Tenure Symposium will be held March 31, 2004.
  2. Prof. Raymond announced that the next Faculty Senate meeting will be held April 27, 2004.

VI.  The meeting was adjourned at 5:28 PM.


Submitted by E.L. Dove, Faculty Senate Secretary