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 - 2002-09-10 | Faculty Senate
    proposal provided to the councilors in advance of this meeting Prof Marvin indicated that the intent of the committee during the revision process was to preserve the spirit of camaraderie and celebration at the heart of the proposal Thereafter Prof Marvin responded to a series of questions indicating that 1 membership is intended to be permanent 2 the Academy of Distinguished Teachers has the full endorsement of the Council on Teaching 3 the administrative board of the Academy of Distinguished Teachers will be separate from the Council on Teaching because it cannot be assured that all Council on Teaching members would be members of the Academy of Distinguished Teachers 4 the responsibilities of the Board would be the selection of membership control over funds allocated to the academy and activities that would serve to identify contact and designate new members of the Academy At the conclusion of these remarks Prof Magnum offered a motion to endorse the revised proposal and send it to the Faculty Senate for additional discussion and or endorsement Prof Marra seconded the motion and it was met with unanimous approval At the conclusion of this vote Fred Antczak Associate Dean in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences asked if lifetime membership in the Academy of Distinguished Teachers might place the Academy in a less than distinguished position should the behavior of any of its members be incongruous with the goals and aspirations of the Academy itself Prof LeBlond began the process of exploring this with the question regarding whether or not the Academy of Distinguished Teachers would establish its own bylaws If so one of their initial duties might be to include provisions in the bylaws that would specifically address concerns over faculty activities that might not reflect well on its goals Prof LeBlond opined that it would be reasonable to assume that this group would want to create a process in defense of its own reputation and Prof Lynch agreed President Cox identified Council on Teaching as the overseeing organization with the responsibility for approving the Academy of Distinguished Teachers bylaws Not only did Prof Marvin agree but she also speculated that a time might rise in the future when the Council on Teaching would actually draw its membership directly from the Academy of Distinguished Teachers The final question in exploration of the administrative structure was to whom the Council on Teaching reports It is a charter committee with elected membership and Associate Provost Lola Lopes is the administrative liaison Prof LeBlond motioned and Prof Lynch seconded a proposal that the bylaws of the Board of the Academy of Distinguished Teachers be subject to approval of the Council on Teaching Assoc Provost Clark interjected that the term bylaws is inappropriate for an organization that is not functionally independent and Counsel Schantz offered a friendly amendment that operating or written procedures be substituted for the word bylaws in the motion At this suggestion the motion was amended to state that the Academy of Distinguished Teachers through its Board shall develop policies and procedures subject to the approval of the Council on Teaching The motion passed with unanimous approval At the conclusion of the vote President Cox thanked Roberta Marvin and her committee members Christi Ferguson Susan Lawrence Irwin Levin Tom Rocklin and Amitava Bhattacharjee ex officio for their work V Approvals delayed A Minutes Faculty Council April 16 2002 Attachment 1 Profs Raymond Clark and Lynch identified the need for numerous non substantive revisions in the minutes A motion was put forth by Prof Raymond that the minutes be approved subject to the non substantive revisions to be provided Secretary Porter Prof Woodhead seconded the motion and it passed with unanimous approval B Proposed Senate Agenda September 24 2002 Attachment 2 Unanimous approval was given to the proposed agenda following a motion by Prof Lynch that was seconded by Prof Bhattacharjee C Approval of Recommended Replacements Attachment 3 President Cox indicated that an honest mistake had occurred in nominating a replacement for Prof Aikin on the Faculty Council Two individuals Profs Randell and Mallik had both been nominated and had agreed to serve Prof Bhattacharjee advised the Council that Prof Mallik had indicated her willingness to graciously decline her nomination in light of the error in process At this the Council unanimously agreed to accept Prof Randell as a replacement for Prof Aikin on the Faculty Council following a motion by Prof Tachau and a second by Prof Mangum Prof Raymond then motioned for approval of the corrected set of proposed replacements Prof Lynch seconded the motion and unanimous approval was given to the motion At that President Cox expressed thanks on behalf of the Council to Profs Berman and Raymond for their work in providing the proposed replacements for its consideration VI Reports delayed A Report of Faculty Senate President Jeff Cox President Cox notified the Faculty Council the Senate Office had a particularly busy summer in that it moved its residency from the IMU to the Jefferson Building This disruptful move was deftly handled by Julie Thatcher and President Cox expressed his deep appreciation to Julie on behalf of the entire Senate President Cox then presented to the Faculty Council a list of topics that will be discussed at the Council and the Senate in the upcoming year s The items include 1 the research track faculty report 2 a proposal to create a joint faculty and staff budget committee This proposal was developed by Ex President Coleman and has been approved by the Staff Council Its result will be the abolition of the Faculty Senate Budget Committee 3 the proposal of an ad hoc committee charged by the VP for Research with developing changes in University policies regarding patents and copyrights 4 of the proposal of the Dispute Resolution Committee to change the university policy on violence in the workplace 5 the proposal of the Human Rights Committee to change the university policy harassment 6 the creation and report of a committee

    Original URL path: http://www.uiowa.edu/facultysenate/faculty-council-minutes-2002-09-10 (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Faculty Senate Minutes - 2002-09-24 | Faculty Senate
    abolish the Senate Budget Committee in order to create a university wide committee composed of faculty and staff with the chair appointed by the president of the university In addition the Senate leadership has discussed proposals coming forward for wider discussion at the Council and the Senate with the provost Examples of these discussions including the Dispute Resolution Committee revision of the policy on harassment revisions of policies suggested by the Office of the Vice President for Research including conflict of commitment and intellectual property and patents One of the more important roles of the Faculty Senate is its participation in the ongoing review of central academic officials Last year the offices of the Vice President for Finance and the Vice President for Student Services were reviewed Those reports have previously been posted on the university web site however they are difficult to find As such the Senate will be posting them on its own web site The review of the Office of the Provost has been completed but the distribution of the report has been held up for technical reasons It too will soon be posted on the university web site with the intent to post it on the Faculty Senate web page as well The review of the Office of the Vice President for Research has been postponed and there is ongoing discussion with the Faculty Senate leadership regarding its timing For the first time in the history of the university there is an intent to review the Office of the General Council The self study of this vice presidential position is in progress and should be followed within another academic year by the posting of a committee review report At the conclusion of these remarks President Cox entertained questions from the floor of the Senate Prof Westefeld inquired whether there was an intent to funnel the discussions on the athletic budget and student substance abuse and its attendant problems back to the senate for additional open discussion President Cox indicated that there was strong sentiment among some senators to recommend action on these issues At present there is no intent to add these topics as specific agenda items It is possible that they may be introduced from the Senate floor In his remarks regarding the arms race in collegiate athletics President Cox identified nationwide concern over the escalating costs associated with these programs as well as their commercialization There is ongoing Senate leadership participation in the CIC Committee on Institutional Cooperation consisting of the Big 10 universities as well as the University of Chicago and the University of Illinois at Chicago in discussions on these very topics The next forum for discussion at the level of the CIC for the Faculty Senate leadership will be in November of 2002 Prof Rubenstein questioned the lack of consistent information regarding the research track faculty proposal Information promulgated within his own College of Medicine a principal in discussion of the need for such a track has suggested to the collegiate faculty that this proposal has been shelved Subsequent to this recent discussion at the College of Medicine Executive Committee the proposal was reviewed in the Iowa City press In the absence of distribution of this proposal directly to the faculty of the university Prof Rubenstein wondered how the Council could adequately debate its merits or lack thereof President Cox responded that the proposal was given to the university provost last year and that it is indeed a public document which will be openly discussed at the Council and Senate Prof Rubenstein continued his questioning in regard to the wisdom of discussing such a proposal with the press before the faculty of the university had an opportunity to do likewise President Cox reiterated that the proposal is not a secret in its nature nor is it confidential Continuing a similar line of questioning Prof Tachau wondered about the propriety of discussing the report at Council since a large proportion of the faculty that would be directly affected by this proposal College of Medicine faculty had not been made aware of any of its details President Cox reminded the Senate that the proposal was a university wide policy and therefore needed full Council discussion which would be forthcoming Immediate Past President Bhattacharjee reminded the Senate of the historic based need for the Faculty Council and Senate to proceed with discussion as a matter of protocol In responding to a question by Prof LeBlond about whether the actual research faculty document is a report or a specific proposal President Cox identified its nature as more of the former rather than the latter It is a broad attempt to explain how it is the research track faculty might function He reiterated that it is not a College of Medicine specific proposal President Cox further indicated that a campus wide e mail distribution will be forthcoming to alert the university faculty of the existence of this report and to direct them to a university web page where it might be found Provost Whitmore responded to a question from Prof Berman who wished to know who appointed the committee that wrote the research track faculty report While the concept primarily derived from the Colleges of Medicine and Engineering the committee itself was appointed by joint efforts of Vice President Skorton and Provost Whitmore and had campus wide membership The charge to the committee was to look at the concept of having such positions and to make recommendations about whether or not the proposal should be discussed more broadly The recommendation of the report is indeed to further consider this proposal with additional university wide study President Cox reminded the Senate again that the report is a public document that directly affects faculty of the university and therefore needs deliberation by the Faculty Senate officers the Council of Deans and that it needs discussion by protocol by the Faculty Council and subsequently by the Faculty Senate Prof Tachau endorsed this proposal but wondered whether the Council and Senate should seek broader input from constituent groups prior to further discussion at its meetings In his concluding remarks on this topic President Cox reminded the senators that the Faculty Council meetings are open to the public and should provide a forum for expanded faculty input as Prof Tachau wishes C Report of the Presidential Search Committee Jonathan Carlson Because of an unintended and unavoidable conflict Prof Carlson was unable to attend the Senate meeting as he intended He provided a brief statement which was read by President Cox The statement is provided as Attachment 3 President Cox indicated that Prof Carlson is more than willing to attend future meetings as desired and as necessary D Provost s Annual Report to the Senate Jon Whitmore The Annual Report of the Provost is included as Attachment 4 Following the delivery of his report Provost Whitmore responded to a series of questions A senator asked for information regarding the positions of the candidates for governor on increased funding for higher education as a priority item Provost Whitmore responded that the university did not have specific information that would help to answer this question It is the position of the Provost that the central university administration will work any governor through the Board of Regents to push our local agenda in concert with the collective agenda of the Regents Prof Berman asked for an update on the Old Capital restoration The Provost responded that an agreement has been reached with a contracting firm and that the campus should begin to see evidence of the reconstruction of the dome in the near future IV Unfinished Business A Proposal for the Academy of Distinguished Teachers Attachment 5 Prof Irwin Levin reported for Prof Roberta Marvin who was unable to attend the Senate meeting He briefly identified the two components of the proposal as institutional recognition for teaching and activities that will promote the dedication of financial resources to support teaching activities A motion was made and seconded to approve the proposal which received a unanimous vote Following this rapid approval a series of modifications were proposed from the floor Prof Polumbaum expressed her displeasure with the proposal for three significant reasons She believed that the title sounded pompous and that its pomposity may not play well to outside constituents Furthermore she believed that the current celebration of teaching on campus is more than adequate and does not require the creation of an Academy of Distinguished Teachers In elaborating on this concept she suggested that selection to such a body may provide potential for division amongst the faculty some of whom will not be elected to the academy but all of whom are engaged in significant teaching activities Furthermore because of the presence of a Center for Teaching and established support of the Office of the Provost for teaching activities the goals of the Academy of Distinguished Teachers are currently being met In his response Prof Levin recognized that teaching is an integral part of faculty life He further indicated that the Academy of Distinguished Teachers wished to create a cross campus forum for celebration of teaching in the form of an annual awards dinner Immediate Past President Bhattacharjee identified the source of the name that has been proposed as having been a meeting between the University of Iowa and University of Minnesota Faculty Senate officers with the University of Minnesota provost and president An Academy of Distinguished Teachers had been established at the University of Minnesota and the University of Iowa proposal was created using the name they had chosen for their own academy Prof Maktabi expressed his support for the proposal In his opinion it is based on a need for ongoing recognition of an integral part of faculty life at a time when there is a significantly enhanced emphasis on grant dollar generation He believes that the proposal clearly shows that University of Iowa faculty leadership values teaching and that it also sends a clear message of the value we place on this activity to the state of Iowa Prof Randell asked about the funding source and amount of monies to be committed to the Academy of Distinguished Teachers Provost Whitmore indicated that he intended to invest up to 50 000 in activities supporting the activities of the academy He envisioned incremental contributions over some time to achieve this final goal While Prof Berman agreed with the title she suggested that many of the needs for teaching activities are more basic and include such mundane items as functional blackboards and adequate erasers and chalk Prof Tachau agreed that the title was appropriate and sees it as a direct link to one of times greatest teachers Aristotle and his academy She expressed concern that a negative faculty vote in support of the creation of such an academy would send the wrong message to the state of Iowa Prof Jew concurred and further elaborated that the importance of recognition of our commitment to teaching could additionally be reflected in the creation of a vice president for teaching Such an office could be a source of resources and could also advocate for the kinds of needs that Prof Berman indicated Prof Mangum reminded the Senate that Lola Lopes currently holds the office of associate provost for undergraduate education and as such oversees the Council on Teaching as well as the nTitle and Twist programs and as such serves the purpose proposed by Prof Jew Profs Lynch and LeBlond both supported the proposal Although they identified a lack of detail in its substance they both expressed great faith in the ability of a distinguished and creative group of people to develop an academy that would be an important resource for the university Prof Whitaker provided a motion to reaffirm support of the prior vote Only three negative votes were identified and so the proposal to create an Academy of Distinguished Teachers passed V Announcements A The University of Iowa Convocation will occur on October 1 2002 At that time the Senate will be able to celebrate the results of their deliberations in the presentation of the Awards for Faculty Excellence and the Brody Award B The next University of Iowa Faculty Council meeting will be held on October 1 2002 at 3 30 PM in the Penn State Room at the IMU The next University of Iowa Faculty Senate meeting will be held on October 15 in the Lucas Dodge Room at the IMU VI From the Floor No additional items were identified by the Senate for discussion VII Following a motion by Prof Whitaker and unanimous approval from the floor the University of Iowa Faculty Senate adjourned at 4 58 PM Respectfully submitted Craig C Porter Secretary University of Iowa Faculty Senate Report of Presidential Search Committee Chair This summer the Board of Regents appointed a 26 member Presidential Search and Screen Advisory Committee The Board also contracted with Korn Ferry International an executive search firm with extensive experience in higher education to provide assistance to the Committee and the Board throughout the search process The Committee has three main tasks First to develop as large and strong a pool of candidates as possible by conducting a broadly based and wide ranging search Second to screen the applicant pool and identify a handful of the strongest candidates for the position Third to recommend at lest four finalists to the Board of Regents and to provide the Board with a written evaluation of each finalist To this point the Committee has begun the process of assembling a candidate pool and has developed criteria for evaluating the candidates The evaluative criteria proposed by the committee were approved by the Board of Regents on September 19 We are now turning our attention to the candidate pool Over the next 6 8 weeks we will be focused on expanding that pool and evaluating the candidates Jon Carlson Jon Whitmore Annual Address to the Faculty Senate September 24 2002 We are living in transitional times We are living in devastatingly difficult financial times The University of Iowa lost 65 million in state appropriations in the past eighteen months The very quality of the University of Iowa which has been built up over more than 150 years is being threatened by unprecedented financial hardships And yet because of the collective goodwill and extraordinary hard work of its faculty and staff the University of Iowa has much to be proud of You the faculty have found ways to shine a light through the dark budget clouds that hang over our heads Even though our enrollments have increased by nearly 600 students and even though we have 100 less faculty and 215 less staff this fall semester has gotten off to a strong start I will not pretend that the quality of learning is as healthy as it was two years ago It is not But because of your sacrifices our students have full course schedules and you are engaging them in vivid experiences in your classrooms on a daily basis Faculty are teaching more students Classes are larger The number of papers to grade and the number of students to advise have increased Existing classrooms are bulging with students overflowing in some cases Yet in the short run through heroic effort the University has found a way to cope What I worry about now is the long run Next year and beyond This overcrowding is eroding the quality of education Of that I have no doubt And the time for faculty to make new discoveries in the laboratory the library and the rehearsal halls is being squeezed in harmful ways While the quick fixes the deans and department heads have been asked to put into place this year will get us by in the short run these fixes will not sustain the excellence of educational quality research outcomes and service provision that have been hallmarks of Iowa s educational reputation throughout the nation We are known inside the state and outside for having faculty who care deeply about quality teaching We are know as an institution that has done everything it can to have our best faculty teaching undergraduates in the smallest classroom groupings possible We value discussion over lecturing to the masses We value active student learning over passive note taking We value sharing cutting edge research with our undergraduate students These things we value however are in great jeopardy BUDGET This is why the centerpiece of the University s request for new funding from the state for the 2003 04 budget emphasizes two things salaries and faculty positions 1 IS FULL FUNDING OF SALARIES Why Because the only real competitive advantage any truly great University ever has is the quality of its people the quality of its faculty its staff and ultimately the students they attract Why salaries first Because the University of Iowa must compete for faculty in a national and international marketplace Our faculty salaries rank 7 th out of 10 Big Ten public universities And we rank 9 th out of 11 in our Board approved comparison group of peer institutions Neither 7 th place or 9 th place is acceptable We must hire and retain the best faculty graduate assistants and support staff We simply must People come first So we put salary support first Period Our 2 budget request from additional state support is RESTORING FACULTY POSITIONS lost in four budget cuts over the past eighteen months Simply put we cannot sustain the quality of undergraduate and graduate education the centerpieces of this great University without more faculty than we have now Budget reductions have sliced through the University s skin and bone and have reached our vital organs We cannot sustain the historical quality of education that Iowa s students demand and deserve without additional faculty in our classrooms Therefore RESTORING LOST FACULTY LINES is the university s second priority When we receive additional money from the state these two items faculty and staff salaries

    Original URL path: http://www.uiowa.edu/facultysenate/faculty-senate-minutes-2002-09-24 (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Faculty Council Minutes - 2002-10-01 | Faculty Senate
    research faculty track proposal in the Iowa City Press Citizen His surprise derived from the lack of a campus wide discussion before this issue appeared in the press As such and having listened to the opening comments of the Council and guests on the merits of taking action on this proposal he supported the concept of wider discussion prior to action Indeed he indicated that his own College of Engineering had yet to discuss the merits or lack thereof of this proposal In his view the discussion needs to be informed by the reality that the paradigm of research is rapidly changing and the university needs to explore mechanisms of increasing flexibility to respond to this paradigm shift Prof Dove a Faculty Council member from the College of Engineering echoed Prof Patel s comments by suggesting that he had no idea whether his fellow engineering faculty were supportive of the proposal Prof Tachau identified a comment on page five of the proposal that the total number of research scientists was expected to be small and wondered the source of that comment Prof Squier responded by identifying that it was primarily administrators in the colleges who would be responsible for appointing the research track faculty who expected that the number would be small and that this likely would reflect the current reality of the small number of research scientists currently appointed in various colleges Prof Tachau wondered before the Council whether or not this expectation might be borne out pointing out that it might become an irresistible temptation to expand the number of research faculty should the proposal ultimately achieve approval This question prompted a review of the way that the clinical track expansion has occurred Its cap and the fact that its use and faculty numbers parallel those of other institutions with similar tracks was discussed Prof Lloyd suggested the wisdom of using the promotions model proposed for the clinical track faculty as a point of discussion for advancement of research faculty In response to a request that the Council have further discussion of the history of the research scientists on campus as reviewed by Emeritus Prof Spratt Prof Porter reminded the councilors that there was little relationship between the university research enterprise of 30 years ago to that of today and thought that there would be no need to do so Prof Bhattacharjee questioned the need for reclassification of individuals as research scientists when there were many people in research programs currently appointed as P S staff Associate Provost Clark responded that the psychology of reclassification would certainly be important In addition the supervisory and administrative structures for P S staff are substantially different from those for faculty Furthermore there are rigid salary tables for P S staff that may be inappropriate for successful research faculty members Prof Bhattacharjee recounted his personal experience in the supervision of six P S research scientists in his interdisciplinary center It was his opinion that salary ranges have never seemed problematic in their appointment and that these individuals were treated with such respect that the psychological need for reclassification did not again in his opinion exist Prof Tachau and Emeritus Prof Spratt echoed the sentiment that the circumstances of the university remain constant even though the research paradigm is shifting Prof Porter reminded the councilors of the fact that the university strategic plan calls for increase in interdisciplinary efforts and that a move toward the creations of multiple research institutes would be one way that such interdisciplinary desires could be met He further opined that such institutes could lend themselves to areas wherein research faculty could make enormous contributions to the betterment and welfare of the university In addition the current P S appointments have precluded certain productive members of our current research community from being able to compete successfully for NIH or other governmental funding opportunities Prof Rubenstein of the College of Medicine reiterated the need for a broad based discussion He questioned the wisdom of expanding the ranks of non teaching faculty at a time when our budget is being cut repeatedly and we have suggested to the Regents and the public at large that our ability to teach is being compromised by budgetary shortfalls In a somewhat delayed response to Past President Bhattacharjee s comments Prof Patel offered that a fundamental difference between those individuals appointed in P S positions and those appointed as research faculty would be their need for supervision Appointment as a research faculty member in his opinion would be one way to recognize the independent nature of the partnership of these faculty with tenure track faculty and as such help to assure success of the research enterprise He emphasized the independent nature of research faculty and by way of illustration he reminded the councilors that assistant professors do not work for associate professors any more than research faculty should be expected to work for tenure track faculty This reality drives the distinction between the sorts of individuals who would be appointed to this classification and also emphasizes their ability to add to the university In recognition of the fact that different areas of the university have very different needs and that the creation of a research track could have potentially corrosive effects in some portions of the university Prof Magnum asked how we might have a discussion about proposals that are meant to impact specific areas when the policy will be a broad policy that could effect all units of the university Prof Patel responded with the suggestion that members of the department should be viewed as part of a team and that it is also important to remember that it is increasingly difficult to find funding sources that support the former prototype of one faculty member plus two graduate students for 70 000 Prof Stromquist asked for help in interpreting the data included in Attachment 5 His interpretation of the data suggested that the more prestigious CIC institutions have not created such tracks and wondered

    Original URL path: http://www.uiowa.edu/facultysenate/faculty-council-minutes-2002-10-01 (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Faculty Senate Minutes - 2002-10-15 | Faculty Senate
    the athletics program briefly discussed above and auxiliary enterprises that are self supporting including the dormitories and parking among others Of great financial concern to the president is the general education fund Twenty years ago the state appropriations constituted 70 of the general education fund with tuition accounting for 18 Today there has been a 20 decrease to 50 in state appropriations funding the general education fund with an increase in tuition percent to 38 The president identified this as a national trend but at the same time suggested that it was a trend that we needed to buck by going to our constituents in the state and to have them make the case for the regents institutions One way to do so is through a regential program which enlists alumni patients and parents of students to meet with legislators at their home base to discuss these issues directly and publicly at breakfast lunch and dinner meetings Such discussions should serve to elevate the priority of the regents institutions in the eyes of our legislators In recognizing that the principal activities of our faculty are service education and research that primarily occur on this campus the president also identified individuals in our midst who are roadrunners and who are already out making a case for the university His administration hopes to find ways to make these individuals much more effective It is his desire to assure that every time our faculty leave this campus that they be provided opportunities to speak at Rotary Clubs and Kiwanis meetings and to local press and media outlets At the same time that our speakers program budget has been slashed President Boyd remains cognizant of the fact that our colleges remain supportive of ways to make a case for what we do for the rest of the state of Iowa A cost effective way to assure that this continues to happen is to create affinity groups that can work together to make our case to the citizens and legislators of Iowa Such groups might include the Iowa Non Profit Research Center the Institute for Public Affairs the Labor Center and the Entrepreneurial Centers The President is also hopeful that the health sciences campus members will find ways to leverage their individual efforts collectively in promotion of how important their activities are to the citizens of the entire State of Iowa He also hopes to see the arrival of school buses filled with the young citizenry of the state who are coming to learn in our museums but who also benefit in their own communities from our contributions to the primary and secondary education systems in the state President Boyd is looking for help from the Provost and Vice President Skorton in coordinating the activities of academic units to achieve these goals At the conclusion of these remarks President Boyd was asked if the problem with grass roots recognition of the importance of the regents institutions reflects neglect on the part of our faculty members In brief the President answered yes to this question He opined that the citizens of Iowa are glad and honored to see members of our faculty in their community and that simple faculty outreach activities have the added potential to provide a great sense of satisfaction to the participating faculty Another senator queried whether or not these activities would require substantial step by step planning President Boyd answered in the affirmative and expressed the desire that the central administration serve the role of coordinator of these activities One way of doing so would be for faculty members to go to the University of Iowa web site and click on the various counties listed to see what activities are ongoing and therefore in what ways they might be able to contribute to them Prof Kurtz a guest of the senate suggested that to increase faculty participation effectively in activities around the state there must be clear collegiate and departmental respect for and endorsement of these substantial time commitments President Boyd responded by reflecting on the need for the promotions process to value outreach activities to the state as well as campus service B Health Insurance Costs Sheldon Kurtz FRIC In his capacity as chair of the FRIC committee Sheldon Kurtz began his presentation with the announcement that our benefits packages cost sharing agreements will be delivered later this week In general the employee consumers of our healthcare plans are generating increasing health care costs that have for example resulted in a loss of 1 067 342 84 in our CHIP plans between July 2001 and June 2002 The aggregate premium increase for our health insurance costs will be approximately 25 and it is likely that the next academic year will see a similar increase in premium costs Prof Kurtz identified the three required components of our benefits package to which our flex credits are expected to be applied The first of these is our health care costs the second is life insurance premiums and the third is disability insurance premiums Over the course of time the University of Iowa central administration has tried to give employees additional money for their flexible credit packages Indeed this year the university increased its contribution by approximately 10 Nonetheless Prof Kurtz pointed out that we are now at a point where the university contribution to our flex credit program no longer can buy even the required health insurance for any given employee Because this basic benefit is provided by most of our peer institutions including other regents institutions Prof Kurtz in association with his other FRIC colleagues is mounting a campaign to address this budgetary problem The reasons that the FRIC committee feels that this campaign is necessary derives from problems with recruitment and retention as well as a moral obligation that is not being fulfilled FRIC is attempting to find ways for the university to provide more money for health care costs at the same time that it recognizes that any plan the university

    Original URL path: http://www.uiowa.edu/facultysenate/faculty-senate-minutes-2002-10-15 (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Faculty Council Minutes - 2002-11-12 | Faculty Senate
    to the Big 10 plus the University of Chicago The seated president of the CIC Faculty Leaders Robert Eno Professor at Indiana University in Bloomington intends to focus the November 22 23 meeting on athletics with the intent to develop a coordinated faculty action plan for leadership in intercollegiate athletic activities Pres Cox opened the floor for questions Prof Tachau commented on the apparent differences in expected athlete conduct between various athletic programs specifically she addressed the apparent issue of gender equity that was raised when the women s gymnastics team was prevented from going to conference activities because its members had violated the coach s order not to drink The apparent inequity derives when similar behavior appears not to prevent the participation of men s athletics teams in similar conference activities In his role as both a Faculty Councilor as well as a member of BICOA Prof Lynch responded to Prof Tachau s comment and question In doing so he identified a fundamental problem in the University and Athletics codes of conduct policies which he in his role as Chair of a BICOA subcommittee It was his opinion that neither policy neither of which conflict with the other send s a clear message of what athletes and students can and cannot do Recognizing that Interim President Boyd s recent letter to BICOA Chair Nick Colangelo may presage a need for revision of the existing policy Prof Lynch s activities are nevertheless currently directed at clarification and not revision Further discussion of this issue identified the reality that coaches effectively function as DEOs but report discuss at a much higher administrative entry level than their true academic DEO counterparts Part of the apparent justification for these administrative discrepancies derives from the highly visible nature of topics which must be resolved in the athletics programs The effort of BICOA in achieving consistency in policies governing student behavior has required a working relationship with student services Prof Lynch anticipates wide review of his subcommittee s work including review by the Vice President and General Counsel before the clarification in the code of conduct policies in athletics might be accepted Prof Tachau asked if the new director of Affirmative Action and Vice President Jones are participating in these important discussions Prof Lynch responded that both of these individuals are part of the committee however their attendance is not uniform at working meetings of the BICOA Code of Conduct Review Committee Nevertheless Prof Lynch presumes that their direct and presumably substantive input will be achieved at the time of review of the revised policy just prior to its implementation Prof Lynch closed his remarks by reiterating that this BICOA committee is trying to clarify the code of conduct for athletics not to create a new set of expectations As such their activities may not directly satisfy the publicly expressed desires of Interim President Boyd Prof Lloyd asked for an update on the status of administrative discussions of the research track faculty proposal Pres Cox indicated that the Provost will discuss this matter further with the deans prior to additional scheduled discussions at the Faculty Council and Senate Associate Provost Clark reminded the councilors that Interim President Boyd has asked that she Provost Whitmore and Vice Presidents Skorton and Kelch add specific detail to the policy before it is further discussed They have met to do so and progress will be forthcoming IV Unfinished Business A Proposal for Faculty Senate Staff Council Budget Committee Paul Muhly Prof Muhly took the floor He provided a brief review of the substantial involvement of Immediate Past President Amitava Bhattacharjee in the discussion that led to the proposal under consideration Prof Muhly felt that Prof Bhattacharjee s unavoidable absence at today s meeting would significantly hamper a discussion of the issue and for this reason requested postponement Following these comments Prof Lynch moved to postpone The motion was seconded by Prof Marra and passed unanimously and without further discussion V New Business A Proposed Changes to Family Issues Charter Committee Charge Nancy Williams Staff member Nancy Williams briefly opened the discussion by describing for the Council how her three years as Chair of the Family Issues Charter Committee have convinced her that issues of importance to families in our community are far more complex than those related simply to parenting activities This was the basis for the modifications presented for consideration to the Faculty Council Associate Provost Clark commended the discussions and the care which informed the proposed rewording Pres Cox questioned the composition of the Committee and Ms Williams indicated that it consisted of three faculty members three staff members and three student members Offering the cautionary advice that the Council recommendations on this matter would not need to be listened to by the President of the University Pres Cox asked if the Council wished to offer a motion to adopt the proposed changes Such a motion was offered by Prof Lynch seconded by Prof Mangum and then it received unanimous approval At the end of the vote Prof Tachau voiced her pleasure at the absence of nay sayers B Proposed Changes to the University of Iowa Conflict Policy Lee Anna Clark Pres Cox began discussion of item V B by directing the Faculty Councilors to Attachments 6 A B and C Their comprehensive natures were commented upon and he then asked Associate Provost Clark for additional comments Associate Provost Clark asked the Councilors to try to limit their discussion of this complex policy to points wherein it differed from the old policy It was her belief that if the Council wished to engage in substantive discussions based upon items of policy currently in place i e in the current version of the policy they could certainly be discussed but would first require deliberation by a new committee charged to examine the old policy Should the Council or Senate desire her to do so she commented that she would be be happy to charge a new committee By

    Original URL path: http://www.uiowa.edu/facultysenate/faculty-council-minutes-2002-11-12 (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Faculty Senate Minutes - 2002-12-03 | Faculty Senate
    being provided by both the Faculty Senate and the Office of the Provost each of which has contributed 5 000 to support advocacy efforts The Faculty Senate monies were offered with the intent that they support off campus faculty advocacy efforts through travel reimbursement To help promote the goals of Pres Boyd to connect with Iowans and to demonstrate to legislators the crucial role that the University of Iowa plays in the economic health of the state Ms Van Voorhis is working to create a volunteer advocacy network Individuals are being identified through concerted efforts coordinated by Ms Van Voorhis that involve the Alumni Association and collegiate alumni groups who will serve as legislative contacts to promote an understanding of the importance of University of Iowa activities to the State of Iowa At present 80 individuals have accepted the responsibility to serve in these voluntary positions Ms Van Voorhis is hopeful that the group will rise in number to approximately 100 She is also hopeful that the expansion of this group will occur in such a way that key legislative committees important to the University that currently lack alumni contact will ultimately be reached by the addition of these individuals The individuals thus far identified are undergoing an orientation process that includes educational mailings She anticipates the group s ongoing advocacy and outreach efforts will be aided by the creation of a web site with links to various important web pages including parents groups and the president s page She intends to post biweekly legislative updates and activity alerts on the web and she will identify important legislative initiatives on the University Government Relations web page Members of this group will be provided with position statements and talking points prepared by the University administration to inform their discussions with their legislative contacts In addition to these advocacy efforts substantial outreach efforts are also being planned There has been an overwhelming response to the e mail request from Interim President Boyd for faculty and staff members to participate in Speakers Bureau activities Her office continues its efforts to catalog the myriad outreach activities in which faculty and staff members are currently engaged While this effort continues more than 200 individuals have volunteered their efforts to participate in outreach speaking engagements Ms Van Voorhis is confident that her office will be able to work hand in hand with local Chambers of Commerce and other leadership groups to identify local venues for speaker activities To aid those individuals who have volunteered to participate in these efforts her office is spearheading an effort to update the outreach database on the University of Iowa web site County by county data are being reorganized to provide outreach speakers with up to the minute information regarding services and products that come to Iowa communities directly from the University of Iowa Included in the database will be the numbers of students attending the University of Iowa from these communities the number of University of Iowa alumni residing in these communities and key contact individuals Ms Van Voorhis is also encouraging various collegiate Directors of External Relations to identify Iowa students who are engaged in interesting and important on campus activities who are willing to return to their home communities and through various local speakers venues educate these communities about their on campus activities during holiday breaks Just as she found with the response to Interim President Boyd s e mail the number of students willing to serve in this capacity is overwhelming She ended her prepared comments with the request that the Senators and their faculty colleagues contact her office in advance of any planned outreach activities By so doing she will be able to provide these traveling ambassadors with materials that will better inform their outreach efforts Such materials might include copies of the President s core message and fact books appropriate to the anticipated audience Where appropriate and when possible her office will also work to provide local press coverage of these outreach activities Ms Van Voorhis then opened the floor for questions Prof Tachau offered that an important way to cement advocacy relationships would be to encourage the friends of the University to develop contacts with legislative staff members Ms Van Voorhis was appreciative of this suggestion and indicated that she would discuss this with Mark Braun the director of State Relations for the University Prof Jew questioned the user friendliness of the web based activities that will be used to inform constituent groups of the activities of our Outreach and Advocacy Networks She encouraged the creation of a single web page perhaps entitled Friends that would improve navigability and accessibility to such information Ms Van Voorhis acknowledged the utility of this approach and suggested that the alumni link that exists on the University of Iowa web page might be a suitable portal of entry B Report of the Faculty Senate President Jeff Cox Pres Cox was recently invited to attend a meeting of the Sunrise Optimist Club in his role as President of the University of Iowa Faculty Senate He reported that the Sunrise Optimists are a large group of business people who meet very early in the morning In his remarks Pres Cox tried to make clear to this group that the 56 million in cuts endured by the University of Iowa over the last two years will have and has had a profound impact on the economic development and current economy of Johnson County and the surrounding area These business leaders were very interested in this remark however their first question of Pres Cox was on the subject of the relationship between the University of Iowa faculty and the University of Iowa athletics programs He responded to this question by indicating that the University of Iowa faculty were strong supporters of the athletics programs in spite of recent controversies He subsequently returned to the budgetary issues which were also of interest to the Sunrise Optimists He then reported that the Faculty Senate Officers will soon meet with our legislative delegation Pres Cox Vice Pres Raymond and Sec Porter all attended the recent CIC Committee on Institutional Cooperation Faculty Leaders meeting in Bloomington Indiana In general the three felt it was a worthwhile meeting that allowed for the open exchange of information between faculty leaders of the Big 10 Universities The major topic of conversation at the meeting was that of athletics A small amount of time was also devoted to intellectual property rights and copyright law as they relate to web based teaching At its conclusion this group of faculty leaders passed two resolutions The first was an endorsement of the proposals for athletic reform under current consideration by the NCAA These reforms would include an increase in the requirements for scholastic performance and graduation progress as eligibility measures The second resolution was to create a coalition on intercollegiate athletics composed of CIC faculty leaders and representatives of the AAUP and the AGB The AGB Association of Governing Boards is a group whose membership is composed of approximately 32 000 individuals who serve as members of university and collegiate boards of trustees or the like The membership represents 12 000 colleges and university across the United States including all of the Big Ten institutions Even though each of the groups that would comprise this coalition has to some extent competing agendas it is clear at this point in time that all recognize the need for cooperation in the area of athletic reform The AAUP and AGB are both committed to fall and spring conferences on athletic reform and have budgets to support them Pres Cox then turned his comments to items that will be seen on forthcoming Senate agendas The first of these was the resolution recently passed by FRIC that intends to advance the priority of increasing the percent of health insurance costs covered by the University The FRIC report that led to this initiative is currently posted on the Faculty Senate web site In response to this announcement by Pres Cox Prof Kurtz Chair of FRIC commented that the FRIC resolution would need to be acted upon no later than January while the next Senate meeting will not occur until February Nonetheless it will be discussed as proposed Pres Cox continued by identifying two upcoming committee reports that will need to be discussed at the Faculty Senate The first of these is on the subject of intellectual property rights and the second is on the subject of the decanal review process Additional Senate discussions and actions will need to occur on the initiative led by Pres Boyd to modify the promotion and tenure guidelines to include service to the State of Iowa and also on the mandated review of the current promotions and tenure procedure With these comments Pres Cox concluded his report IV New Business A Proposed Changes to Family Issues Charter Committee Charge Nancy Williams Ms Williams briefly commented that the materials provided to the senators as Attachment 3 were in her opinion quite straightforward and needed little comment She summarized the proposal provided as one that would bring the committee s charge in line with emerging current issues under its purview One senator questioned the source of enthusiasm for the insertion of family issues through the life span identified in the proposed changes under a 4 Ms Williams indicated that the intent was to convey both the importance of the issues and also their presence during the continuum of lifetime The senatorial rejoinder was that preference would be given for an alternative term such as family concerns and Ms Williams responded that the proposed change would better reflect the historic change in the interests of the committee from those primarily of child care to emerging concerns that not only include child care but also elder care Prof Mangum voiced her support of the proposed language as a reminder of the continuum of life concerns Another senator asked for identification of the constituencies that have generated these family concerns and the response offered was that the proposed language change would convey the fact that each faculty staff member is part of a family unit Prof McCarthy urged that the language be left as proposed echoing Prof Kurtz prior motion to adopt Prof Raymond identified the need to extend the end bracket under a 4 line three to include the word concerns Ms Williams acknowledged the need for correction of this typographic error Following this discussion a motion was entertained that the bold faced phrase in quotations under a 4 line 2 reading family issues through the life span be replaced with family concern and that under b 2 a line three the phrase through the life span be deleted Prof Berman seconded the motion and it was approved by a vote of 12 in support with none opposed The discussion continued Prof Kurtz suggested the substitution of the word persons for family since a single individual could constitute a family unit He continued with the suggestion to remove the squiggly brackets braces in b 2 a line three When the response came that the braces were necessary to mark a parenthetical Prof Kurtz offered a friendly amendment for their removal He then modified his own friendly amendment to suggest adoption of the proposed changes in principal with the proviso that the Committee be given an opportunity to deal with issues of punctuation Prof McCarthy seconded the friendly amendment as modified by Prof Kurtz and it was unanimously adopted B Proposed Changes to the UI Conflict of Interest Policy Lee Anna Clark Associate Provost Clark briefly identified Attachment 4a as being self explanatory David Wynes Assistant Vice President for Research Services Administration commented that the proposed policy changes primarily identify necessary review criteria for individuals who wish to perform human subject research but have conflicts of interest with its performance Much of the revised document more clearly identifies and delineates procedure currently in place and consistent with AAMC and AAU policies or recommendations regarding conflicts of interest Pres Cox then interjected that the Faculty Senate Officers had previously reviewed and sent back the proposals because of concern over lack of specificity in faculty grievance procedure Following this request for revision and its accomplishment the Faculty Senate Officers are of the opinion that these procedures are now clearly spelled out Pres Cox also reviewed the discussion regarding issues of disciplinary action previously described in the Faculty Council minutes of the meeting of Tuesday November 12 2002 under item V B Prof Bhattacharjee questioned the identified threshold for significant financial interest as commented upon in the draft document under VI Conflict of Interest and Research page seven and wondered whether the 10 000 limit was a federal or a state mandate Vice President Wynes identified the mandate as being federal Continuing this line of questioning Prof Bhattacharjee then asked about serial businesses capitalized with for example 9 500 Vice President Wynes responded that bulleted item seven under the paragraphs in question require disclosure once threshold business equity is established whether or not the equity is contained in one or more businesses He elaborated that this policy prohibits nothing except as required by law Another senator asked whether disclosure of patents held at other universities would require disclosure should their creator move to a position at the University of Iowa Vice President Wynes responded in the affirmative Associate Provost Clark then identified live links to the University of Iowa Gift Law when asked about its cross reference by Prof Kurtz At this point in the discussion Pres Cox interjected that an additional Faculty Senate Officer concern when the draft policy was initially reviewed was that of conflict of interest within the ranks of university administration The officers were subsequently informed that at the same time President Boyd is drafting policy to cover this possibility for the vice presidents of the university the Board of Regents is also drafting a conflict of interest policy covering the actions of the Regent s institutions presidents At this point it was moved from the Senate floor to adopt the policy in its current form and following a second the vote was unanimous to do so V Announcement A Next Council and Senate Meetings The next University of Iowa Faculty Council meetings are scheduled for December 10 2002 and January 28 2003 The next University of Iowa Faculty Senate meeting will be February 11 2003 VI From the Floor Prof Berman College of Liberal Arts and Sciences distributed a motion of her authorship for consideration by the Faculty Senate The motion read With regard to the much publicized Pierre Pierce assault case the Faculty Senate would like to go on record as deploring the circumstances which have arisen in this case and to assert strongly that such is not the climate of safety and security we seek to provide for all our students our colleagues and our families in this community While the specific circumstances may need to remain obscure we nonetheless believe as members of the Faculty Senate that better rules might be put in place to protect all members of our community We urge the University to investigate how this might be done At the conclusion of its reading by Prof Berman Prof Tachau moved a second for the motion She then offered her disappointment in the newspaper reports that the University Counsel was willing to offer what the University might accept in arbitration In her opinion she felt the Senate needed to stand behind both the women affected by this matter as well as Interim President Boyd Her assessment of the circumstances suggested that Interim President Boyd has already accomplished the request included in the final sentence of the motion proposed by Prof Berman She therefore suggested that the final sentence in the proposed motion be modified to reflect the Senate understanding that President Boyd had charged such a committee but that the Senate will await with interest the report of the Committee Pres Cox then took the opportunity to read the letter of Interim President Boyd to Nicholas Colangelo the chair of BiCOA This letter is provided as Attachment 5a He continued that he was unaware of the status of the progress of the Committee Prof Rubenstein commented that Prof Berman s use of the phrase deploring the circumstances was vague and that the continuation of the sentence containing that term did not logically follow its beginning Furthermore he found the use of the term circumstances problematic Prof Berman responded that her draft of the motion was purposefully vague and that she would accept friendly changes She continued that she felt that the University of Iowa faculty members were misrepresented by Coach Alford s public comments and she echoed the sentiment proffered by Senator Tachau to support Interim President Boyd s charge to Prof Colangelo A draft resolution was then offered from the floor It read The University of Iowa Faculty Senate strongly supports the charge of President Boyd to BiCOA to investigate the University policies and procedures in regard to the University s involvement in the settlement of criminal charges against Pierre Pierce and to assure that they apply equally across the University At this point in the discussion Prof Bhattacharjee advised the Senate that in his opinion the problem with Interim President Boyd s letter to BiCOA was that it doesn t go far enough He further identified potential conflicts of interest in the membership of this Committee in the form of the Department of Athletics representatives that are seated members of BiCOA He also reflected that our role as faculty members demands that we ask that student athletes be treated first as students and second as athletes At this point in the discussion Prof McCarthy offered the suggestion that we ask that BiCOA also report its findings back to the Senate In so doing she offered a friendly amendment to the motion as it stood in the form of a

    Original URL path: http://www.uiowa.edu/facultysenate/faculty-senate-minutes-2002-12-03 (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Faculty Council Minutes - 2002-12-10 | Faculty Senate
    charge Prof Bhattacharjee responded that the FRIC committee has co chairs however tradition dictates that the faculty member co chair generally runs the meeting Prof Lynch indicated that these details would need to be worked out if the committee remained one with combined participation of faculty and staff Prof Muhly agreed further elaborating that the committee does not vote during its consultative meetings and therefore the role of the committee and of its chairs is primarily to provide an informative exchange of information to and with the central administration Following on this comment and confirming the advisory role of the committee Prof Lynch turned to the list of pros and cons prepared by Prof Muhly and distributed to the councilors It was his impression that the pros outweighed the cons and he wondered whether the so called Carlson Report echoed this assessment When Prof Muhly replied in the affirmative Prof Raymond rejoined that Prof Muhly s comment might represent an overstatement of the conclusions of the Carlson Report By way of illustration she reminded the councilors that the report in question envisioned a process of consultation but did not specify the creation of a joint committee Prof Muhly quickly agreed to this interpretation and Prof Bhattacharjee also affirmed it Prof Bhattacharjee then advised the councilors that he had been a member of the so called Carlson Committee and that the committee itself was unable to agree upon a structure that would assure appropriate faculty and staff consultation He admitted his ambivalence in discussions with the committee membership when proposals for a joint committee were offered Nonetheless he was in agreement with the assessment that the budget process needed revision Having said so and also having recognized that members of the budget committee frequently were advised on choices but not asked to consult actively with the central administration he recognized that the current Vice President for Finance is a master of the budget process Prof Bhattacharjee once asked Vice President True how the Budget Committee could best be used VP True responded that a joint committee would have two positive consequences for his office 1 improved efficiency because it would only be necessary to prepare for and conduct one meeting rather than two 2 that the Vice President for Finance would not need to continue to serve as a messenger between two distinct committees Prof Bhattacharjee continued and suggested two changes that would improve the ability of the Budget Committee however constituted to work most effectively 1 that the membership would require a substantial education and 2 that the membership of the Committee be provided with appropriate materials well ahead of its scheduled meeting time He finished by endorsing the combined committee in an ambivalent way While recognizing that faculty and staff often have different concerns he also recognized the endorsements for the proposal that have come forth from the Staff Council the Vice Presidential Group and the Provost Prof Mangum offered two questions the first of which was based on the premise that the budgets are planned as long as three years in advance She therefore asked to what extent the Budget Committee might be able to provide significant input Her second question illustrated two entwined problems that would seem to arise as a consequence of the proposed combined budget committee structure 1 participants have to resolve and discuss disparate views during Budget Committee meetings and 2 while reaching agreement or not on their disparate views the committee members must still act in an advisory capacity Prof Tachau then offered her comments as a member who has participated in the joint Faculty Staff Budget Committee It was her opinion that advanced preparation for the meeting was difficult to achieve and therefore the meetings often devolved to ones in which important issues were pondered on the spot She also suggested that the meeting times were too short perhaps partly as a result of her first comment She suggested that the construction of a set of sub committees would improve the functionality of the overall committee and further that such sub committees ought to operate over the summer Recognizing the need for faculty and staff differences of opinion over budgetary issues to be resolved she opined that the sub committee structure would be a much better place for necessary consensus building discussions to occur Her concluding remark was that the proposal was in her opinion excellent but that the specific reference to the general education fund as stated in the aforementioned proposal under item B 1 a ought to be removed so as not to exclude advice regarding other aspects of the University budget At this point Prof Lynch moved adoption of the draft proposal of July 22 2002 for a University of Iowa Faculty Senate Staff Council Budget Committee Prof Randell seconded the motion but discussion continued Pres Cox advised the Councilors that adoption of a motion on the floor would signal the dissolution of the current separate Staff and Faculty Budget Committees Prof Muhly brought up a detail concerning the membership of the committee At present the combined committee includes nine faculty members plus the four Faculty Senate Officers The proposal envisions seven Faculty Senate appointed members It was his recommendation therefore that the terms of the current members continue until such time as routine attrition would limit faculty membership to seven Pres Cox responded that the Committee on Committees could certainly make such a decision Prof Raymond questioned the assumption that structural changes in the Budget Committee could achieve an outcome of improved functionality She then reminded the councilors that at its outset the compelling argument for the construction of a joint committee was the strong support of the seated university president Having made these two points she tied them together by expressing serious doubt about the creation of a new budget committee structure at a time when the university president would also be new She further questioned the theory that the proposal would allow for the development of

    Original URL path: http://www.uiowa.edu/facultysenate/faculty-council-minutes-2002-12-10 (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Faculty Senate Minutes - 2003-02-11 | Faculty Senate
    assistant Julie Thatcher for their hard work in establishing the ability to perform the Senate nominations and elections electronically These two individuals along with Skip Kempnich worked closely with Information Technology Services to make this electronic initiative happen The nomination ballets will be linked to faculty lists appropriate for the department and or college of the voter These lists were updated last November 1 and likely need updating She encouraged the Senators to look at their collegiate lists to correct them as necessary The nomination period will begin February 14 There is a link on the University of Iowa Faculty Senate home page to nominations The login will be HawkID based Julie is aware of some difficulties with the change to the HawkID login system and encouraged Senators having difficulty logging on to contact her directly The spreadsheet Attachment 2 was then reviewed Prof Muhly questioned the non tenured category under medicine This designation refers to clinical track faculty members Julie pointed out that there is a requirement for election of one clinical track faculty member from this college however the total number of openings 11 can be filled by additional clinical track faculty There is however a 20 cap on the total number of clinical track faculty members who can simultaneously serve on the Faculty Senate Associate Provost Clark identified an error in numerical tallies on this attachment Subsequent to their correction Prof Muhly moved and Prof Tachau seconded approval of the Faculty Senate and Council tally sheet The motion received unanimous approval At the conclusion of this discussion Pres Cox expressed his thanks to the Office of the Provost for facilitating and approving Julie s change in title and position C Faculty Student Task Force on Undergraduate Arrest Rates Judy Polumbaum Following her introduction Prof Polumbaum addressed the Senate by reading from a prepared text The full text is provided as Attachment 3 At the conclusion of her reading she asked for questions from the Senate floor None were asked D Governmental Relations Committee Downing Thomas At the request of Pres Cox Prof Thomas addressed the Senate on the activities of the Governmental Relations Committee He began by distributing the FY2004 budget request pamphlet A second pamphlet regarding University outreach efforts was provided to Julie Thatcher for copying and subsequent distribution to the Senate membership Prof Thomas advised the Senators that his committee meets regularly with Mark Braun and Derek Willard for legislative updates in order to keep abreast of key legislative events He then identified the upcoming local legislative forum that will occur on February 22 2003 at the Iowa City Civic Center at 9 30 AM as being an important meeting for faculty to attend Prof Thomas recounted Interim President Boyd s efforts to strengthen University outreach efforts through an advocacy network and anticipated ongoing work with President Designate Skorton to invigorate the outreach efforts of faculty and students He advised the Senators that our legislators indicate that they need to hear from faculty and students rather than University lobbyists in order to better focus and frame their efforts on our behalf Prof Thomas concluded his remarks by summarizing the basis of the success of the University of Iowa as being that of access and quality It is his belief that Governor Vilsack recognizes the University as an economic engine but that the University faculty and students need to support and disseminate this other more fundamental message He then asked for questions Pres Cox took the podium and reminded the Senators that outreach efforts on behalf of the University are crucial to its success It was his experience that these community legislative fora are attended by every interest group in our community with the exception of faculty He supported the concept of the importance of faculty discussing the University and its situation with our legislative delegation in spite of the frequent comments by our legislators that our discussion would be better focused in outreach communities He concluded his remarks by applauding the recent addition to the Iowa City Chamber of Commerce legislative agenda of support for the University of Iowa educational programs E Faculty Senate President Jeff Cox Pres Cox announced that President Designate Skorton will speak to the University of Iowa Faculty Senate on March 4 2003 three days after assuming his role as president of the University of Iowa He then reported on his meeting with BICOA to discuss General Fund contributions to the Athletics programs as well as faculty concerns about athletics He allowed that the meeting was helpful to the members of BICOA He also pointed out to the Senators that our athletic oversight committee is one of the more effective in the nation in providing supervision over the academic life of student athletes A number of Senate related committees are in the process of their work Despite significant discussion regarding its importance in relationship to the newly appointed President the review of the Office of the President will proceed with the enthusiastic support of President Designate Skorton Prof Altmaier will be chairing a committee to review the Tenure and Promotions Guidelines as mandated at the time of their last substantive revision approximately five years ago In addition Prof Porter is winding up work as chair of the committee to review the Clinical Track Promotion Guidelines A report from the latter committee is tentatively scheduled for the February Faculty Council meeting Prof Ziegler has agreed to serve as chair of a committee charged with the review of the Operations Manual Procedures regarding the decanal review process Following these brief announcements Pres Cox asked if there were questions from the floor Prof Rubenstein College of Medicine identified significant interest amongst his collegiate colleagues in the status of the research track proposals Pres Cox admitted that he was unaware of the exact status of the proposal The report of the committee charged with studying the desirability of such a track at the University of Iowa along with the response of the AAUP is currently

    Original URL path: http://www.uiowa.edu/facultysenate/faculty-senate-minutes-2003-02-11 (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive



  •