archive-edu.com » EDU » U » UIOWA.EDU

Total: 1167

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Faculty Council Minutes - 2006-09-19 | Faculty Senate
    McGuire with a unanimous vote in favor D UI Engagement Corps Steve McGuire Downing Thomas and Jane Van Voorhis former program consultant in the Office of the President Professor Thomas explained the background to the UI Engagement Corps Several years ago the idea was first floated in the Governmental Relations Committee then approved with funds pledged by President Skorton Budget problems delayed the initiation of the program but under The Year of Public Engagement Jane Van Voorhis revived the idea 10 000 was allocated for the roads scholar program which provided the opportunity for faculty to work together and to travel throughout the state and become more aware of the social and economic conditions from whence our students come In May 2006 participants from twelve departments in six colleges visited western Iowa a strategic location for university involvement Professor Thomas noted that they did not get the best response for faculty involvement by going through Deans He suggested Faculty Council involvement Ms Van Voorhis described the two day visit to Storm Lake Faculty members looked at the K 12 system which is welcoming new populations to the state largely Hispanic and Sudanese Fifty percent of the population is now international many of the lower grades are close to 80 minority She said faculty came away inspired by the ingenuity of the principal who has adapted to the situation with grace and creativity Faculty also visited Workforce Development which is funded through the legislature Currently there is only one person employed there to serve 2 500 immigrant and migrant workers Ms Van Voorhis thought this presented an opportunity for the UI to partner with the organization Storm Lake was interested in having the UI recruit their students and they welcome College of Education involvement President Kurtz recommended notifying Michael Barron Director UI Admissions In the evening Professor McGuire hosted a story swap in the community He said they were genuinely thrilled that the UI asked them to talk about themselves and how they came to be in Iowa He said these kinds of outreach activities are critical The UI group was warmly welcomed by the president of Western Iowa Tech Community College who gave them a tour of the facility and told them that western Iowa needs to retain everybody who goes to college They want to send students out to the University of Iowa and elsewhere and then bring them back Their faculty members wish to partner with UI faculty on curricular issues McGuire said that Professor Paul Heidger one of the UI participants was very impressed with their engineering facilities He went on to describe their tour of the historic courthouse Orpheum theatre Green Gables and the UI alumni reception In Sioux City they met with the mayor and city manager who said they would love to partner with the UI in any way possible Discussion ensued about the future of the Engagement Corps Councilors were told that Interim President Fethke and Provost Hogan would like to pursue a

    Original URL path: http://www.uiowa.edu/facultysenate/faculty-council-minutes-2006-09-19 (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Faculty Senate Agenda - 2006-12-12 | Faculty Senate
    CLAS Group on the Faculty Senate through the end of her term to May 2007 Professor Jonathan A Doorn Ph D Assistant Professor Medicinal and Natural Products Chemistry College of Pharmacy to replace John Mark Stensvaag Law through May 2007 on the Council on Teaching charter committee III New Business Faculty Senate President Sheldon Kurtz Resolution of No Confidence in the leadership of the Board of Regents IV Announcements Faculty

    Original URL path: http://www.uiowa.edu/facultysenate/faculty-senate-agenda-2006-12-12 (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Faculty Senate Minutes - 2006-12-12 | Faculty Senate
    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

    Original URL path: http://www.uiowa.edu/facultysenate/faculty-senate-minutes-2006-12-12 (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Faculty Council Agenda - 2006-10-03 | Faculty Senate
    II Approvals Meeting Agenda Faculty Council Minutes September 19 2006 Attachment 1 Draft Faculty Senate agenda October 17 2006 Attachment 2 III Reports Faculty Senate President Sheldon Kurtz Strategic Planning Steve M Collins Member Committee on Faculty Policies and Compensation Promotion Process for Adjunct Faculty Members Susan Johnson Associate Provost for Faculty Attachment 3 VI New Business VII From the floor VIII Announcements The next Faculty Council meeting will be

    Original URL path: http://www.uiowa.edu/facultysenate/faculty-council-agenda-2006-10-03 (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Faculty Council Minutes - 2006-10-03 | Faculty Senate
    they can just promote them without due process Johnson said the proposal would have to go to the Regents so it must be done in the right way with the right timing Johnson said that operational criteria for promotion are defined in the colleges she did not expect to have university level criteria Professor O Hara asked that his Faculty Policy and Compensation Committee have the opportunity to consider this proposal Johnson called for procedures to be in place early next year in time for the new promotion cycle She reiterated that she is proposing a parallel document to ones used in the various Colleges a minimalist approach to a university wide process that may be enhanced by College s own requirements She also commented that the policy must state clearly who is eligible to evaluate and vote for candidates B Strategic Planning President Kurtz introduced Professor Steve Collins who had requested the opportunity to speak to Councilors about his concern over planning processes for defining where the faculty and University are headed in the future He asked to present a proposed resolution Kurtz said following brief discussion they will go into Executive Session at the end of which they will decide whether or not to send the resolution Professor Collins noted that there was heavy involvement by faculty and the Faculty Council in the first university strategic plan developed in 1990 as well as in the joint faculty and administration committee charged with devising processes for implementation of that plan and ongoing planning However he said we are currently in a very different situation He distributed a packet of material including a draft resolution for the Council to consider two newspaper stories and a report by Professors Collins and John Westefeld on the meeting last April of the Committee on Selection of Central Academic Officials CSAO with Regent Wahlert about the presidential search attached The draft resolution stated that Regents Gartner Wahlert and the three university presidents are in the process of creating a strategic blueprint for the future of the three universities and requests the Regents to suspend this process until the University of Iowa has a permanent president in place In an article that appeared in The Gazette April 5 2006 Interim President Fethke commented that part of his job was to define the job of the next president of the university Regent Wahlert informed the CSAO on April 25 th 2006 that the Regents were getting close to an announcement of some kind of assessment and planning effort at the UI that would include an assessment of our current baseline and a definition of some sort of vision as to what we are trying to achieve Collins noted that the Regents had made no such announcement to date A recent story in the Press Citizen September 25 2006 said Regents Gartner and Wahlert had been meeting since July with the three presidents and were assessing scenarios for the state s universities President Kurtz then asked anyone

    Original URL path: http://www.uiowa.edu/facultysenate/faculty-council-minutes-2006-10-03 (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Faculty Senate Agenda - 2007-02-06 | Faculty Senate
    Agenda Faculty Senate Minutes November 28 2006 Attachment 1 and Extraordinary Session December 12 2006 Attachment 2 Replacements Victoria Sharp Sue Moorhead to serve as Nursing representative on Faculty Council in Gloria Bulechek s absence during Spring semester 2007 Faculty Senate Elections Richard LeBlond Attachment 3 III Guest Speaker Ms Lynette Marshall President UI Foundation IV Reports Faculty Senate President Sheldon Kurtz Council on Teaching amendments to the Ops Manual Mark Young Chair Council on Teaching Attachment 4 Revisions to Collegiate Departmental and Program Reviews Mike O Hara Chair Faculty Policy and Compensation Committee Attachment 5 Smoking Policy update Susan Johnson Associate Provost for Faculty Committee Co chair Attachment 6 Attachment 7 Fund Solicitation revisions to Ops Manual Susan Johnson Attachment 8 Roads Scholar program update Professors Downing Thomas and Steve McGuire Performance Review Maureen McCormick Director UI Learning and Development Attachment 9 Attachment 10 V Announcements Faculty Senate nominations sought February 9 17 2007 Faculty Senate elections March 2 10 2007 Faculty Council elections March 23 31 2007 a Faculty volunteers sought for IPTV annual fundraising event Saturday March 3 12 30 6 30 pm Johnston IA b Charter and Non Charter Committee Recruitment Deadline Wed Feb 28 2007

    Original URL path: http://www.uiowa.edu/facultysenate/faculty-senate-agenda-2007-02-06 (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Faculty Senate Minutes - 2007-02-06 | Faculty Senate
    to increase staffing The UI Foundation has 45 50 officers but needs more people sharing the UI story across the country More focus on Chicago as more and more students come to us from the greater Chicago area they will want to return there Marshall said it is incumbent on us to have programs for them there To reach the 1billion mark To increase the endowment per student Marshall said she was proud to speak to the faculty leadership from the Old Capitol which represents the legacy of the university its governance and future She thanked Senators for the time they invest in service to the University of Iowa The floor was opened to questions Marshall was asked how much cash the Foundation has in the bank She was unable to give the deferred gift figure off the top of her head Marshall was asked how often universities undertake campaigns She responded that it is usually every five years over a period of seven years that is seven years on five years off She was thanked for her presentation before senators III Reports A Faculty Senate President Sheldon Kurtz President Kurtz reported he heard from Professor John Solow that 250 was raised from the sale of Radical Minority pins which was contributed to the Crisis Center He noted that Senators Carlson and Sa Aadu serve on the presidential search committee He expects Dean Johnsen will keep us posted as best as he can On campus interviews are still an open item it hasn t been finalized yet Kurtz said we have a big semester to look forward to and hopefully on campus interviews B Council on Teaching amendments to the Ops Manual Mark Young Chair Council on Teaching Proposed changes to Section 15 2 have already been approved by the Faculty Council The suggested changes concern faculty office hours and increasing use of electronic communication Further revisions had been suggested by CLAS Changes include Clarification of faculty office hours in particular for those who teach online courses Request from CLAS to recognize that many faculty can make their syllabi on line To add email address to faculty contact information Addition of a qualifier if available to recognize that some TAs do not have telephones Recognition of the fact that there is no longer a printed General catalog With increased use of electronic communication and increased potential for misunderstandings and expectations the suggestion is to insert into the syllabus a statement whereby faculty will disclose what kind of communication they will use Professor Young explained there was some Faculty Council discussion consideration of privacy issues Faculty are encouraged to refer to the official university policy which suggests the use of standard UI email addresses If the Faculty Senate adopts these revisions they will be forwarded to President Fethke to be approved before it goes into the Ops Manual He was asked for clarification about faculty response time recognizing that students often expect immediate replies Young said the sense of the Council

    Original URL path: http://www.uiowa.edu/facultysenate/faculty-senate-minutes-2007-02-06 (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Faculty Council Agenda - 2006-10-31 | Faculty Senate
    Minutes October 3 2006 Attachment 1 Draft Faculty Senate agenda November 28 2006 Attachment 2 III Reports Faculty Senate President Sheldon Kurtz Relating to strategic change process Student Resolution to Support Early Textbook Adoption Proposal Peter McElligott President UISG Addison Stark Vice President UISG and Pamela Brande Academic Affairs Committee Student Services Committee Attachment 3 Executive Session Report regarding presidential search process Councilors and members of the presidential search and

    Original URL path: http://www.uiowa.edu/facultysenate/faculty-council-agenda-2006-10-31 (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive



  •