Faculty Senate Minutes March 4, 2003

The University of Iowa
FACULTY SENATE
Tuesday, March 4, 2003
3:30 pm – 5:15 pm
Lucas Dodge Room, #256 Iowa Memorial Union

Members Present: Judith Aikin, Steve Armstrong, Phyllis Chang, Kathleen Diffley, Edwin Dove, Claibourne Dungy, Lois Dusdieker, Richard Fumerton, Sandra Guzman-Armstrong, Paul Heidger, Ronald Herman, William Johnson, Sheldon Kurtz, Patrick Lloyd, Charles Lynch, Teresa Mangum, Kim Marra, Ann Marie McCarthy, Sue Moorhead, John Moyers, Paul Muhly, Thomas O’Dorisio, Lisa Oakes, Bradley Phillips, Judy Polumbaum, Jon Ringen, Thomas Schmidt, Linda Snetselaar, Alvin Snider, Katherine Tachau, Carolyn Wanat, Paul Weller, John Westefeld, Jerold Woodhead

Members Absent: Karim-Malek Abdel, Janet Altman, Pedro Alvarez, Zuhair Ballas, John Cowdery, Melissa Deem, Bernard Fallon, Sonya Franklin, Carin Green, Gregory Hamot, Alfred Hansen, Rebecca Hegeman, Jean Jew, Richard LeBlond, Mazen Maktabi, Usha Mallik, Rachel Miller, Barbara Muller, Andrew Nugent, Daniel Quinn, Leslie Schrier, Shelton Stromquist, Tuong Ton-That, Steve Thunder-McGuire, Richard Valentine, Robert Weir, Duane Whitaker, Howard Winfield

Members Excused: Terry Boles, Donald Brown, Douglas DeJong, Erin Irish, Harry Paarsch, Richard Randell, Mary Reno, Peter Rubenstein, Karin Southard

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

Guests: Jeffrey Patch (The Daily Iowan), Heather Woodward (Press Citizen), Katherine Wynes (Office of the Provost), Lola Lopes (Office of the Provost), Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost), Tarah Forrester (Student), Tom Walsh (Gazette), Charlie Drum (University Relations), Al Hood (Emeritus Council), Downing Thomas (French and Italian/Governmental Relations), Tom Schmidt (Physiology), Jim Torner (Epidemiology), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office)

I. Call to Order

The March 4, 2003 meeting of the University of Iowa Faculty Senate was called to order by President Jeffrey Cox at 3:35 PM. As part of the call to order Pres. Cox extended a welcome to our new University of Iowa President, David J. Skorton.

II. Announcements

A. Next Council and Senate Meetings

The next University of Iowa Faculty Council meetings are scheduled to occur on April 1 and April 15, 2003. Should it suffice, only one of the two meeting dates may be used. The next University of Iowa Faculty Senate meeting is scheduled for April 29, 2003. The agenda of that meeting will include the annual report of BICOA, the Senate and Charter Committee reports and the Faculty Senate Officer elections for the 2003-04 Academic Year.

B. Memorial for Audrey Qualls, Friday, March 7, 3:00, IMU Main Lounge

Pres. Cox announced this memorial for a former University of Iowa faculty member and senator.

C. Faculty Senate Reception, Tuesday, April 8, 5:30-7:00, IMU State Room

The traditional reception hosted by the President of the University for the Faculty Senate will occur in the State Room in lieu of the President’s house which is currently undergoing a much needed modernization and restoration.

III. Approvals

A. Minutes—Faculty Senate, February 11, 2003

The minutes were approved by the senators in attendance without modification.

B. Proposed Replacements

A motion to approve the following replacements was made, seconded and unanimously approved.

Alvin Snider, English, will replace Corey Creekmur, Comparative Literature, on the Faculty Senate for Spring 2003.
John Allen, Law, will replace Rose Zbiek, Curriculum & Instruction, on the University Safety and Security Committee for Spring 2003

C. Agenda

The agenda was approved as proposed.

IV. Reports

A. University of Iowa President, David Skorton

During his introductory remarks, Pres. Cox took the opportunity to identify the week of March 30 as having been a particularly good one as it included the replacement of the gold dome on the Old Capital building and the instillation of a new president. He described the outpouring of support for public education by Governor Vilsack and Board of Regents President Newlin at the ceremonial instillation of the President as having been highly encouraging for the future of the University of Iowa and public higher education in general. Finishing his introduction, Pres. Cox reflected that the speakers’ comments offered the appropriate context in which a new term of administration at the University of Iowa should start.

Pres. Skorton offered his appreciation for a chance to share some thoughts with the University of Iowa Faculty Senate early in his administrative term. Speaking to his embrace of shared governance, he illustrated how successful a concept it can by advising the senators that many of the ideas evolving from his office during his term as the Vice President for Research came as a result of recommendations by faculty of the University. He then announced his intent to summarize the first three pursuits of his administration.

Number one is to vigorously interact with the legislative and executive branches of state government over the matter of funding for the Regent Institutions. While applauding the efforts of faculty and staff in their many successful efforts in so doing, he emphasized the ongoing importance of the need to put a personal face on public higher education. In order to repeatedly make our case, he identified his intent to spend adequate time in Des Moines to make our state officials fully cognizant of the financial challenges facing the University and its sister Regent Institutions.

The second item on his short list of early actions is the generation and solidification of support for core disciplines that have little access to external funding. He identified these disciplines as including all disciplines on campus but the natural sciences. In particular he spoke to the social sciences, a critical area of hypothesis driven research whose primary funding access is the NEH and NEA. Support from the latter agency has significantly dwindled in the last several years. Although these agencies are important sources of funding, they represent small endowments compared to those which support research in the natural sciences. The limits of these funding sources have their biggest effect in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. During his tenure as the Vice President for Research, he and the Dean of the CLAS, Linda Maxson, developed a strategy to further support the research efforts in that college. Acting upon the initiative of Dean Maxson, Provost Whitmore presented a proposal for increased funding for the CLAS to our state legislators. Although the legislators for this initiative denied direct funding, it has had continued support from the Office of the Provost.

Pres. Skorton identified his third early initiative as being a continuation of the efforts of Interim President Boyd to increase both our aggregate service to the State of Iowa and our outreach activities.

The President then turned his attention to questions about economic development as a core value of the University. He reminded the senators that the University’s involvement in economic development is not new. For 20 years or more the State has funded a business incubator and a research park on campus. Over this time period a method to help to manage the intellectual property generated through faculty efforts was created in the form of the University of Iowa Research Foundation. It was his view that University-generated state economic development is a logical outgrowth of research going on at the University for other reasons and it is important that there be an infrastructure to support it. He then observed that the controversy over this discussion is not about the mechanisms by which we perform and capitalize upon our research activities. Rather it is about whether or not the University of Iowa will be judged as an economic institution or as an educational one. He indicated the reality that the University of Iowa is a facility of higher education, first and foremost, but offered the need to ask ourselves if we are also facilitating, in appropriate fashion, the ability to market our intellectual property as commercial activity.

Pres. Skorton next reassured the senators that he would not be motivated to retreat from his prior stance on issues of conflict of interest. He reiterated the critical need to stay on the right side of the federal law in these matters, particularly as we depend on federal dollars for many of our university activities. Pres. Skorton went on to identify the fact that some academic institutions reward faculty and staff with extra credit for patents and commercial activities. He offered no support for the forcing of commercialization on our faculty or judging faculty performance by their success in such efforts. He did suggest that there might be a role for this sort of recognition at the University of Iowa. However he also sees no conflict in protecting our current approach to performance measure as long as we continue to facilitate the efforts of faculty engaged in these spheres of activity. The steps from research to commercialization in an academic institution are rarely linear and the efforts usually involve many people. Returning to the issue of stimulation of the state economy, Pres. Skorton suggested that the best way to do so is to support basic research. Therefore the best strategy for the State to stimulate its own economic growth is to support the University of Iowa and the other Regents’ institutions.

In his closing remarks he was emphatic in his comment that he will not change the culture of our university to promote economic development. Pres. Skorton finished by indicating that it is very hard to find areas of local economic impact where a university did not provide research that helped in its drive. He then opened the floor for questions.

Prof. Tachau offered a suggestion that it would be helpful for the University to make the increase of its support for the healthcare needs of its newest and youngest faculty a priority. To this comment Pres. Skorton responded that there is an effort to do just this. Prof. Lynch raised a question about the role of the president as the liaison to the Department of Athletics. He reviewed changes that occurred in 2000 when Vice President Rhodes stepped down. At that time, then Vice President Skorton assumed responsibility for three of her four tasks including University Relations, Alumni Relations and the Old Capital Museum. He did not, however, assume responsibility for the oversight of the athletics program. As a member of BICOA, Prof. Lynch continued that the predominant administrative model in university communities is for the president to have direct oversight of the athletics program. Indeed, in 2002 all but two of the Big Ten Universities administered their athletic programs using this model. Pres. Skorton responded that his decision to assume administrative control over the athletics programs at the University of Iowa does not indicate that they are more important than any other programs. He commented that there were three primary reasons that he made this change. The first is that athletics is perceived to be problematic. The second is that presidential oversight of athletic programs is the predominant model, as Prof. Lynch had suggested. The third reason was that the primary interface between the University and the public, outside of Johnson County and excluding healthcare, is our athletics programs. Prof. Kurtz commented that he was hopeful that after some period of time our new president would publically articulate the role that athletics should have in public universities, be they cultural, educational or socioeconomic. After such an articulation he further hoped for any necessary change in our current athletic culture in order to assure that these roles are appropriately filled. Pres. Skorton responded by revealing that a great portion of his enthusiasm for the assumption of direct oversight of the athletics programs derives from the national leadership role that the University of Iowa plays in gender equity issues in athletics. He also indicated his enthusiasm and intent to review the whole central administrative structure.

Another senator asked the president about the parallels between our current political situation and that of 30 years ago. At that time there were mass arrests on campus, widespread campus protests and the use of tear gas to control crowds. Our current political circumstance makes it seem possible that these events could recur. Therefore the question was asked of Pres. Skorton about how he might deal with protests and activism and campus unrest. Pres. Skorton responded that 30 years ago he was an antiwar activist, himself. Having come from this past he was looking forward to doing his part in helping to mould the mood of the University and in working to achieve an atmosphere that will encourage serious interchange on difficult political questions. Ultimately, he would look forward to our campus becoming a market place of ideas, however potentially divisive. Prof. Lynch next questioned Pres. Skorton about differences in the current legislative relationships with the University compared to last year. Pres. Skorton responded that he has made his own observation that the mood at the Statehouse is more congenial and conciliatory toward the University than in years past. This is evidenced by more collaborative discussions and efforts. He opined that some of the changes are secondary to the redistricting efforts of the last years. He expressed gratitude for the new mood in the Statehouse but cautioned that the same economic challenges of the last several years persist. Thus, the budget will be austere, but the mood is positive. However, as we are a major recipient of state funds we need to expect major changes.

Prof. Dungy asked the President to give his views on cultural diversity, observing that in years past there was impressive representation of minorities and women in the University administration. At present there are fewer minorities than 15 years ago. The President identified a need to work harder for inclusiveness and to increase diversity in high leadership roles. He has already asked Charlotte Westerhaus to review how we are currently doing. In part, this request was motivated by the challenge to the quota system at the University of Michigan but was mostly motivated by the reasons cited by Prof. Dungy. He intends to maintain forward motion on the topic of inclusivity on campus.

B. Governmental Relations Committee, Downing Thomas

Prof. Thomas corrected the misperception that the “first ever” public legislative delegation meeting co-sponsored by the University of Iowa Faculty Senate Governmental Relations Committee occurred on Saturday, February 22, 2003. Rather, this was the second such event, the first having occurred last year. The difference between those sessions, however, was the amount of time that was spent during this year’s meeting discussing public education. It is one of Prof. Downing’s goals to increase faculty and staff participation in community outreach in order to continue this discussion. At this point Prof. Downing showed the senators a media clip from the public forum. During this clip Mary Mander and Bob Dvorsky addressed educational concerns. (These comments were summarized in the minutes of the University of Iowa Faculty Council meeting of February 28, 2003.) Part of the university delegation’s response included the iteration of the idea that economic development and tech transfer are outgrowths of the core university missions of research, education and service. He closed by identifying a legislative delegation lunch that will occur with the Faculty Senate Officers at Senator Bolkcom’s request and his hope that he would be able to work with Mark Braun to develop faculty outreach activities in Des Moines. Prof. Tachau expressed surprise at the punitive tone of the clip and displeasure with the University of Iowa being blamed for low economic growth and being chastised for recalcitrance in promoting the same. She opined that what we really need is a degree of mutual respect for each other’s roles and responsibilities. Prof. Mangum asked why only 30% of Iowans are educated past high school. She recognized that we can’t necessarily create jobs but we certainly are in a position to educate more students. She finished with a question of how can we publicize our own success in education. Assoc. Provost Lopes commented that Iowa has one of the highest rates of high school graduation in the country. It is a lack of aspiration that keeps the rates of additional education low. She advised that we do have a role to play in promoting higher education.

C. Faculty Senate President, Jeff Cox

Pres. Cox reiterated the request of Senator Bolkcom for a meeting of the Faculty Senate Officers. Pres. Cox has arranged a meeting for the Faculty Senate Officers with the editorial board of the Iowa City Press Citizen. He suggested that we need to work through the issues behind the explosion of economic development issues with our local legislative delegation.

V. New Business

A. Thanksgiving Recess, Lola Lopes

Last fall a proposal came forth from the president of the UISG regarding the addition of a Monday and Tuesday recess during the week of Thanksgiving. In response to this proposal, and after additional discussion, Provost Whitmore appointed Assoc. Provost for Undergraduate Education, Lola Lopes, to head a committee to investigate the correctness of the rationale, faculty and staff sentiment on the subject and potential impediments to institution of the proposal. The committee found that the Monday and Tuesday of Thanksgiving week are indeed odd days on the calendar. Their oddity derives from different faculty practices in the use of these days to: administer tests so as to force student attendance; to hold classes with a light workload, or; to cancel classes. Student sentiment about the use of these holidays has been made clear by the way in which they are voting with their feet: many students--and particularly those from out of state--leave the campus for a full 7 days of vacation time during Thanksgiving week. Faculty sentiment, as exposed by the work of the committee, identifies that the majority of faculty teaching undergraduate courses favor the proposal to hold recess on these two days. The committee identified no impediments in State code. Indeed, holding the Monday and Tuesday of Thanksgiving week as recess days would provide an entirely symmetric spring and fall calendar.

Assoc. Provost Lopes indicated her desire that the Faculty Senate provide her a recommendation of some sort on this subject as any change in the way that classes are held during this week would need to have solid faculty support. Should the Faculty Senate affirm the current proposal, the Office of the Provost would request consideration from the Board of Regents to change its five-year calendar. Should there be a sentiment for approval, additional advice needed from the Faculty Senate would be about the rapidity of implementation. Assoc. Provost Lopes is continuing to sample the faculty and administrators in Performing Arts regarding impediments to implementation of this policy as early as the fall semester of the 2003-04 academic year. Alternatively, slow implementation would certainly be possible.

MOTION: Prof. Tachau proposed a motion to accept the recommendation proposed by the UISG and to move to its implementation with all deliberate speed. The motion was quickly seconded.

In the discussion that ensued Prof. Lynch offered a concern about the long period without break between Labor Day and Thanksgiving. Assoc. Provost Lopes responded that an addition of a holiday midway between these two would not change the special considerations that student and faculty already give to the Monday and Tuesday of Thanksgiving week. Further discussion identified the fact that Medicine and Dentistry would not support such a change and that the faculty in the College of Law had not discussed the proposal. Prof. Westefeld offered that professional schools operating under a special calendar would be able to continue to operate as they so choose. Graduate student teaching obligations would not be changed by the implementation of the proposal as the intent of the change is primarily for undergraduate programs and colleges. Assoc. Provost Lopes elaborated that there would be no special problems encountered by teaching assistant activities. They simply would not hold office hours if their college were in recess. Pres. Cox further offered that research assistant activities are accommodated under their contractual obligations. Prof. Heidger questioned whether there would be accreditation restrictions outside of State code that might influence the decision or prevent the implementation of the proposed policy. Assoc. Provost Lopes and Provost Whitmore responded that there were none that had been uncovered in their search for the answer to this question. Prof. Lloyd finished the discussion with his comment that the College of Dentistry faculty intended to discuss the matter at a meeting later this week.

At this point a vote was taken which unanimously endorsed Prof. Tachau’s earlier motion.

B. Peace Resolution, Teresa Mangum

The discussion opened with the comment that the following peace resolution was unanimously adopted by the Faculty Council.

MOTION:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the University of Iowa Faculty Senate urges that all available, peaceful means be fully explored and employed to resolve security issues with Iraq in accordance with the U.N. Charter and international law in general.

Prof. Fumerton responded that the proposal did not fall under the purview of the senate and it was therefore not appropriate for discussion in this body. Prof. Mangum therefore reviewed the genesis and evolution of the proposal. Its derivation was from specific faculty requests for the senate to consider such a proposal. It was her opinion that it fell within the purview of Faculty Senate responsibilities because of its relationship to the core values of the University. Specifically the proposal relates to the community commitment to intellectual life and the well being of students. The University holds a central belief in reasoned discovery and in seeking peaceful solutions to conflict (wherever). It further falls under the purview of the Faculty Senate because of our community and university commitment to international relations.

Prof. Fumerton suggested that the proposal could be rendered “innocuous” if the term “available” were replaced with the word “reasonable”. He continued that the resolution represented an inappropriate intrusion of politics into the workings of the Faculty Senate. It was his opinion that it would not be appropriate for the Senate to get involved in a political election even though, as a matter of parallel example, Faculty Senate commentary on presidential elections could be contemplated on the basis of a concern over their impact on the welfare of students or on tax policy. He speculated that on this topic it would be unlikely that any Faculty Senator would support a resolution. Pres. Cox redirected the discussion by offering the observation that there is nothing in the operations manual that would preclude such a discussion. Consequently the Senate could vote negatively on support for the resolution either on substance or on the matter of its nature.

AMENDMENT: Prof. Fumerton then offered the following modification:

NOW, Therefore, be it resolved that the University of Iowa Faculty Senate urges that: 1) Iraq fully comply with all U.N. resolutions; 2) all available, peaceful means be explored to resolve security issues with Iraq; 3) should peaceful means prove unsuccessful to resolve security issues with Iraq, then the United States, its allies and the United Nations take necessary actions to enforce their resolution.

Prof. Tachau opined that 30 years earlier many current university faculty expected their colleges and universities to take stands on the war in Vietnam. Furthermore, a remark made by Pres. Skorton at his installation embraced the notion that if open discussion of this particular issue cannot occur within the confines of the University and its community then it would be unlikely to be able to occur elsewhere. She suggested that the Faculty Senate could sponsor a forum for debate of the topic. Prof. Moyers indicated the appeal that Prof. Tachau’s comments held for him. He wondered whether the Senate should take a firm stand or, in a cowardly manner, refuse to so do. He continued that University officials take stands on difficult issues and offered the illustration of the public stand that the then dean of the Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine recently took on the subject of stem cell research. He also agreed with the suggestion that it may be appropriate for the Senate to promote debate on this subject in an open forum. On this latter subject Prof. Mangum advised the Senators of an all day teach-in on Wednesday, March 5 at the Iowa Memorial Union.

Prof. Marra continued the discussion with her opinion that, unlike debate of tax policy or election politics, the issue of war is a special case that brings issues of well-being to a high point. Prof. Fumerton identified a further point for discussion as being clarification that the means to be explored be in accordance with the UN charter on international law and that the resolution be of lawful nature. He then offered a friendly amendment to his earlier motion to strike the term “available peaceful”. At this point a request was made for a second on the amended motion of Prof. Fumerton. None was offered and the motion failed. Prof. Fumerton then offered his agreement that the University is an appropriate place to engage in debate. However it was his opinion that if we were to want the Faculty Senate as a body to take positions on well-being, no support for the resolution could have potential to affect well-being.

Prof. Polumbaum stated that most people in the room have probably read and debated the issues already. Therefore, continued debate within the Faculty Senate was within our place, rights and realm in order to take a position on the subject. The basis for her conclusion was the human nature and citizenship roles of faculty and staff members. Prof. Dungy asked what would happen to the resolution should it be supported. Pres. Cox responded that it would simply appear in the minutes of the Senate proceedings.

MOTION: Prof. Dungy then offered the following

NOW, Therefore, be it resolved that the University of Iowa Faculty Senate Urges that: 1) Iraq fully comply with all UN resolutions; 2) and all available, reasonable peaceful means be explored to resolve security issues with Iraq in accordance with U.N. Charter and international law in general.

No second was offered for Prof. Dungy’s motion.

MOTION: Prof. Dungy motioned that his prior motion be adopted with the deletion of the words “in general” from the second clause. Following a second of the motion a vote count occurred. Sixteen senators voted in favor of the resolution with nine opposed. Therefore the resolution passed.

Pres. Cox advised the senators of controversy regarding tomorrow’s teach-in. The controversy had its origin in a decision made by the Office of the Provost to deny a request for notification of all faculty of the activity. He suggested a need for discussion of standards related to faculty notification of on campus events. The need offered by Pres. Cox was provided as a motion, was seconded and unanimously approved.

C. Guidelines for Clinical-Track Promotion, Craig Porter

The committee charged with drafting the revised guidelines included Prof. Porter as chair, Prof. Tanya Oyos, College of Medicine, Prof. Malcolm Rohrbough, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Prof. Barbara Schwartz, College of Law and Prof. Hazel Seaba, College of Pharmacy. He indicated that the committee began with draft guidelines generated by the Office of the Provost. The committee subsequently added an Overview of the Promotion Decision-Making and Appendices D and E. The major changes were in boldface type in the copy provided to the senators. Prof. Porter proceeded to highlight some points in the proposal.

The committee recommended changes in the dossier assembled by the candidate. These would include separation of the teaching that occurs in the clinical setting from other teaching activities and separation of clinical service from other service. It also saw a need for changes in the internal peer-review process and added language that recognized ways to review teaching in atypical circumstances. He continued that the committee declined to discuss a number of issues that would, in the opinion of the committee, have required revision of the tenure track guidelines. He indicated that members of the committee he chaired would continue to be available to discuss the implications of those issues upon the clinical track guidelines should the committee chaired by Prof. Elizabeth Altmiaer and charged to review the tenure track promotion and tenure guidelines address them. In response to a question Assoc. Provost Clark indicated that if the guidelines were adopted by the Senate as proposed they would become effective immediately. In the absence of further discussion a

MOTION: to approve the guidelines for clinical track promotion as presented. Motion was seconded, and unanimous approval was given.

VI. From the Floor

No items were offered from the floor for discussion.

VII. Adjournment

President Cox adjourned the meeting at 5:20 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

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