CLAS Home > For Faculty > Faculty Governance > Faculty Assembly >

Minutes of the College of Liberal Arts Faculty Assembly

Attending: Arthur, Atkinson, Broffitt, Dettmer, Duarte, Ehrstine, Finamore, Gross, Heineman, Hesli, Hochstrasser, Honey, Jones, Kuntz, Lara-Braud, Lewis, Lindberg, Markovsky, Maynard, Muriello, Nagel, J. S. Nelson, Norbeck, Pietrzyk, Slatton, Stroyan, Thomas, Ton-That, Trachsel, Troyer, Valentino, Woodard, Young, Zbiek

Excused absence: Babb, Franklin, Guentner, Heard, Lu, Marvin, Polumbaum, Scullion, Solow

Absent: Abbas, Adams, Arnone, Beckman, Boggess, Buss, Creekmur, Darling, DiPardo, Erickson, Farrell, Fielding, Freeman, Gölz, Hanley, Heilenman, Kleiber, Lang, Mendez, Mills, Murty, Oden, Peters, Randell, Rigal, Robertson, Rushton, Saenz, Schnell, Shih, Simon, Soloski, Spiess, Squire, Tomblin, Weirich, Whitmore, Wilcox, Woodworth

Guests: Fred Antczak, Associate Dean for Academic Programs; Cinzia Blum, French and Italian; Charlie Curtin, Daily Iowan; Ed Hill, Information Technology Services; Bernard Sorofman, Ombudsperson

1. The minutes of 24 January 2001 were approved with corrections to the attendance record.

2. Announcements: Chair Honey announced that the Faculty Council would issue a revised draft of the proposed changes to the University's Operations Manual regarding the removal of tenured faculty. According to Carolyn Colvin, president of the Faculty Senate, the new document will compare the existing language with the new proposals and will incorporate many of the suggestions made at the special meeting of the Liberal Arts faculty last week.

3. Incivility on campus. Chair Honey introduced Bernard Sorofman, faculty ombudsperson, to discuss the role of the Ombudsperson's Office in dealing with the documented rise of incivility on campus.

Sorofman said the purpose of the Ombudsperson's Office is informal dispute resolution. He and Maile Sagen, the full-time ombudsperson on staff, report to the president and are independent of all other constituencies. Their services are confidential, neutral, and open to students, staff, and faculty. They do not serve as an advocate for any party.

The Ombudsperson's Office has seen a rise in the number of incidents of incivility reported, which it noted in its last annual report (issued July 2000). Sorofman stated that the University considers violating someone's personal space or yelling and screaming to be inappropriate behavior. Increasingly, such behavior has been reported to the ombudspersons as creating an uncomfortable work environment.

Fred Antczak (Associate Dean for Academic Programs) asked how one draws the line between incivility and intellectual freedom. Sorofman responded that one can disagree without yelling or becoming physically intimidating. Intimidation is not the same as argument.

Member Douglas Jones (Computer Science) observed that incivility is part of a larger cultural problem. He said that by abandoning formal forms of discourse and address we have deprived ourselves of a buffer that might prevent some forms of incivility. He also noted that there are different cultural norms for personal space and forms of address, which could be interpreted as uncivil when they are not intended as such. Sorofman agreed that the problem exists outside UI. His main concern is to prevent incivility from escalating into even more serious forms of abuse.

Member Downing Thomas (French & Italian) asked how the Ombudsperson's Office deals with the distinction between a personal dispute and something that is potentially a legal issue. Sorofman replied that if an action is clearly criminal or someone has been hurt, they would refer the dispute to the appropriate authorities. In almost all cases, however, the ombudsperson will not act as a judge. He always reminds people that he is not a lawyer. Mediation services are available at UI and his office will make referrals for those who are interested.

Member Ed Norbeck (Physics & Astronomy) noted that the atmosphere on campus is more hostile than it used to be, that people feel less at ease. In the face of such policies as post-tenure review, people feel defensive, and a psychology of attack and blame can develop. Sorofman agreed that there is a lot of competition and pressure to perform.

Chair Honey asked how one can give someone bad news without being uncivil. Sorofman referred to an AAUP/ACE report that addresses this issue in the context of tenure evaluation (currently available on the web at http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/tenure-evaluation.pdf).

Member Armando Duarte (Dance) said that sometimes people are uncivil because they have to deal with or defend a bad policy on a continuing basis. He asked if the Ombudsperson's Office has a way to address bad policy. Sorofman responded that the ombudspersons do work with other offices in the University to identify and remedy policies that seem to cause problems, though his office has no power to effect changes. He emphasized that their role is to identify options for resolving disputes, and that it is possible to work toward changing policy as well as to address specific incidents of poor treatment.

Keith Stroyan (Mathematics) asked if Sorofman deals with actions related to the possible removal of tenured faculty, and whether there was any tendency to use the unfitness policy as a routine administrative tool. Sorofman couldn't comment on either question, but he did say that when questions of arbitrary judgment are brought to him, his goal is to try to clarify what the basis for decision-making is or should be.

Chair Honey thanked Sorofman for his time and insight.

4. Electronic voting for faculty elections. Chair Honey then turned to the topic of electronic voting, which he learned recently was a feasible option for this spring's faculty elections. Hearing no objection, he introduced Ed Hill, Information Technology Services, who is developing the software for the College's elections.

Hill explained that the voting system would be web-based, requiring faculty to register by inputting their social security number and then verifying their identity with a password sent to their University email account. Members discussed online voting versus paper balloting with respect to the time it would take to vote, user comfort levels, and potential participation rates.

Several members expressed concern that the system was cumbersome because faculty would have to interrupt the voting process on the web to retrieve their password from their email account. Member Vicki Hesli (Political Science) explained that it was comparable to other kinds of routine multitasking that computer users are accustomed to, and that it really was not that cumbersome. Member Doug Jones (Computer Science) asked if the password could be used for other functions or saved for use in future elections. Hill said that was not feasible at this time, though a more broadly functional identification system for University computing is a goal of ITS. Honey asked if the programming done for the College's elections would be transferable in any way to a more integrated system in the future. Hill said much of the programming could be applied to other uses.

A member asked whether voters would get a message when they submitted their vote asking them to verify that they meant to submit their vote. Hill said it would be possible to program those messages, but several members said they would rather have no such messages.

Member Mark Young (Chemistry) asked if the password could be sent automatically to all eligible faculty in an email message that announced the elections, which would eliminate one of the steps others found so cumbersome. Hill responded that that was possible. Member John Nelson (Political Science) moved to approve electronic voting using that method, and Young seconded the motion.

Member Alan Nagel (Cinema & Comparative Literature) argued against the motion, saying it would be too easy for someone with access to others' email accounts to pack the ballot box with illegal votes. Jones said that distributing ballots by email would simply automate a weak manual system, which would tend to amplify the problems of the manual system.

Nelson then moved to approve electronic voting using the original method proposed by ITS. The motion was seconded and approved.

Member Carolyn Lara-Braud (Health, Leisure & Sport Studies) pointed out that language in the College's Manual of Procedure was specific to a paper-based balloting system and that electronic voting appeared to be in violation of those procedures. She moved to suspend that language in the Manual of Procedure to allow electronic voting until such time as the MOP could be amended. Jones seconded the motion and it was approved by the Assembly.

5. Report on Research Council. Chair Honey introduced Lisa Troyer (Sociology), a member of the Faculty Assembly and chair of the Research Council, to report on the Research Council's activities.

Troyer explained that the Research Council is a committee of the Faculty Senate that does not make policy, but advises the vice president for research, David Skorton, and that the vice president's office takes the Council's advice seriously.

Troyer reported that the Council is focusing on developing ways to improve communication channels. They would like to make better use of their website (http://research.uiowa.edu/vpr/rcouncil/), improving navigation and using it to disseminate such information as the agendas and minutes of Council meetings. They hope this will encourage more comments from faculty. Troyer stressed that further suggestions for improving communications are welcome.

She also reported on incentives to encourage faculty to seek external grants. The Council believes that faculty need to have a voice in the redistribution of facilities and administration (F&A) costs that are included in external grants. Members asked how much of F&A costs faculty currently get back, and Troyer explained that faculty get nothing back directly, that any redistribution of F&A costs is given to the colleges, and the deans determine the distribution. The Research Council advocates giving the faculty who bring the grants in an advisory role in determining how the F&A monies are spent. Members asked how much the College gets back currently, and Antczak responded that it is not much, though he did not have exact figures. Troyer offered to try to obtain that information.

Other issues Troyer reported on were formalizing emeritus faculty participation on the Council; enhancing travel funds for faculty research and scholarly work, especially for CLA faculty; defining interdisciplinary research and scholarship; and exploring opportunities for informatics research, including ITS support.

6. Replacement of Faculty Assembly divisional representatives. Chair Honey then turned to the next agenda item, a proposal by member Russell Valentino (Russian) to amend the College's Manual of Procedure to change the method of replacing Faculty Assembly divisional representatives who have resigned. The current language states:

If a member of the Assembly who has been elected by one of the electoral groups resigns, the nominee in that electoral group with the next highest number of votes in the previous election shall serve for the remainder of the term. [Article II, Section 9]

Valentino moved to adopt the following change:

If a member of the Assembly who has been elected by one of the electoral groups resigns, that member shall nominate a replacement, who with the concurrence of the Assembly's elected officers shall serve for the remainder of the term.

Nagel said that he thought the current procedure was more democratic, but he would be in favor of the new procedure if there were no candidates available who were willing to serve out the term. Valentino amended his motion to keep the current procedure and adopt the new procedure with language to indicate it would be used only in the event that the original procedure generated no replacement. Nagel seconded the motion. Nelson spoke in favor of the original motion, maintaining that it would tend to produce a more like-minded replacement for the person who was elected. A voice vote was taken and the amended motion passed.

7. Members' right to place items on the Faculty Assembly agenda. Chair Honey then turned to a discussion requested by member Anne Donadey (on leave this semester and not present at this meeting) of an amendment to the Manual of Procedure to ensure that all agenda items requested by members are taken up. The current MOP language states: "Any voting member may propose items for the agenda" (emphasis added).

Several members expressed the opinion that getting items placed on the agenda was not currently a problem, and that they would not want to tie the hands of the chair to take up all items if, for example, too many items or inappropriate items were proposed. It was argued that if the chair refused to place an item on the agenda, the member proposing it could always bring it up as new business.

Lara-Braud pointed out that Donadey clearly felt a problem existed with the Assembly not taking up items proposed by members. Hesli argued that if members could be unreasonable in their proposals of agenda items, the chair might also be unreasonably restrictive in his or her choice of items to discuss. She would rather the Assembly err on the side of inclusiveness and the expansion of member rights. Reluctant to reject Donadey's proposal in her absence, she suggested tabling the motion if the Assembly was not willing to vote affirmatively. A motion to table the item until Donadey was present was made, seconded, and passed.

8. Adjournment. The time for adjournment having arrived, the meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,
Ken Kuntz
Secretary, 2000-01