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

Attendance
Correction to the December 2001 minutes
University Libraries' journal cancellation project
Revision of eligibility criteria for the Executive Committee
Revision of College's clinical faculty policy
College's policy regarding Career Development Awards
Discussion of revisions to the University's sexual harassment policy

Minutes of the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences Faculty Assembly

Attending: Abbas, Adrain, Amert, Anderson, Beckman, Bonacina, Borreca, Broffitt, Darling, Dominguez, Ehrstine, Fethke, Franklin, Gibson, Gidal, Guentner, Hatasa, Heard, Helms, Honey, Jones, Kleiber, Lafky, Lang, Lara-Braud, Larsen, Latham, Leddy, Lewis, Marvin, Maynard, Méndez, Miller, J. Nelson, Niño-Murcia, Norbeck, Oden, Peters, Pietrzyk, Polumbaum, Redlawsk, Solow, Ton-That, Troyer, Windschitl

Excused absence: Hanley, Hesli, Lutgendorf, Plapp, Schwalm, Snider, Thompson

Absent: Arnone, Arthur, Boggess, Buss, Creekmur, Farrell, Fielding, Fitch, Gölz, Gross, Heilenman, Hendrix, Hochstrasser, Klemm, Mills, Randell, Rigal, Robertson, Schnell, Silliman, Slatton, Spiess, Squire, Tomasini, Trachsel, Vlastos, Whitmore, Wilcox, Woodard, Young

Visitors: Fred Antczak, Associate Dean; Nancy Baker, University Librarian; Linda Maxson, Dean; Ed Shreeves, Associate Director of Libraries; Cheryl Walsh, CLAS Administration

Vice Chair John Solow (Economics) presided over the meeting in Chair Vicki Hesli's absence.

1. Correction to the December minutes. Associate Provost Lee Anna Clark has informed us that there is an error in the report on the Faculty Senate meeting included in the minutes of the Assembly's December 2001 meeting. The recommendations from the Interdisciplinary Committee on Faculty Issues do not involve changes to the University Operations Manual. Rather, they involve administrative changes that will be made in the Provost's Office.

2. The minutes of the Faculty Assembly meeting of January 23, 2002 were approved with corrections to the attendance record.

3. University Libraries' journal cancellation project. University Librarian Nancy Baker and Associate Director of Libraries Edward Shreeves addressed the Assembly. They said that the journal cancellation project was not a result of a budget cut, but rather of a loss of purchasing power. The budget for journals has actually increased, but it cannot keep pace with the rate of inflation for journals, which is nearly four times that of the consumer price index over the past 13 years. They are targeting $300,000 in cuts to journal subscriptions, but they will not know the exact amount until they get a budget this summer. They have asked faculty and graduate students via e-mail for their help in prioritizing the journals they use. More information is available on the libraries' website at http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/collections/cancel2003/.

With respect to print vs. electronic versions of journals, both Baker and Shreeves emphasized that they will try to keep the versions users prefer. In some cases there is a financial incentive to use electronic journals, but in other cases, the cost is the same. Member Doug Jones (Computer Science) noted that there was a problem with contacting people by e-mail regarding this issue. Baker acknowledged that people who prefer paper journals may not use e-mail as much as their colleagues who prefer electronic journals, but she added that library staff are working with the disciplines directly to ascertain preferences and that they also examine usage records for trends.

Member Ed Norbeck took issue with the idea that journal costs are exorbitantly inflated. He noted that some journals are much larger than they used to be and that the per-page cost has actually gone down. Shreeves agreed that some journals are providing more information at a lower per-page cost, but he maintained that many commercial publishers do have a highly inflated per-page cost. Baker noted that studies have shown a direct link between publisher mergers and increased costs of academic journals. They both stressed that the libraries continually try to get the best deals they can by collaborating with CIC libraries and other library groups.

4. Amendment to the Manual of Procedure revising eligibility criteria for the Executive Committee. Discussion of the proposed amendment, which would make voting faculty who have less than a 50% appointment on the budget of CLAS ineligible to serve on the Executive Committee, was interrupted by a quorum call at the meeting of January 23. The Assembly continued the discussion at this meeting.

Vice Chair Solow opposed the amendment, saying that he understood the need for confidentiality in Executive Committee proceedings, and he found it troubling, and a little insulting, that faculty who were not on the College's budget would be considered untrustworthy.

Member Jerry Maynard (Exercise Science) spoke in favor of the amendment, maintaining that since the EC deals with budget and resource matters, and given the competition for resources within the University, having EC members on the budget of another college represented a conflict of interest. He said that the amendment must be sent to the full faculty for a vote.

Solow said that since the EC was an advisory committee, not a policy-making committee, it did not make sense for the College to bar advice from its faculty who were not on its budget, particularly those, like the Economics faculty, who taught large numbers of CLAS students. He asked, why would any member of the faculty engaged in teaching CLAS undergraduates not want CLAS to do well? Dean Linda Maxson replied that the EC is indeed a policy-making committee and not merely advisory. She said that she would not attempt to implement a policy that did not have the backing of the EC.

Dean Maxson maintained that the proposed eligibility criterion was not a matter of trust, but rather of vested opinions. The EC was a very small committee representing a large and varied college, dealing with budget, personnel, and policy issues that affected primarily faculty on the College's budget. She believed it was appropriate to limit membership of the committee to faculty who would be subject to the budgetary decisions made by the committee.

Member Judy Polumbaum (Journalism & Mass Communication) asked whether the problem of EC eligibility was hypothetical or actual. If hypothetical, she contended it was a non-issue and not worth the time and effort of putting it on the ballot for a vote by the full faculty. If actual, she wanted to know more precisely what the problem was. Another member said it was important to deal with the issue while it was still hypothetical, before it became an actual problem.

Member Virginia Dominguez (Anthropology), a member of the EC, said that because there were strong feelings on both sides of the issue, it was appropriate that the full faculty should vote on the measure. She said that the EC had a major impact on the dean's decision-making with respect to budgets and personnel, and that trustworthiness and personal accountability were not at issue, but rather ownership. Budget issues, she said, were simply more relevant to people who were on the College's budget. Solow responded that he did feel ownership in CLAS, and the proposed amendment would diminish that ownership. He maintained that any faculty member who put himself or herself forward as a candidate for the EC would feel vested in the College.

In response to members' concerns regarding whether forwarding the amendments to the full faculty would be construed as approval of the measure, Cheryl Walsh, who manages the College's elections, said that the referendum ballots usually stated specifically that the Assembly approved a measure. She said that if the Assembly forwarded this amendment without specifically approving it, the ballot would reflect that. She also said that the electronic ballot could probably be linked to a faculty comments page that had arguments for and against the amendments, if faculty wanted to submit such comments before the election.

Member Rex Honey (Geography) commented that there were two ways of limiting choice at issue. By not forwarding the amendment to the full faculty, the Assembly would be taking away their opportunity to decide on the eligibility criteria. By forwarding the amendment, the Assembly would probably be limiting the faculty's choices for EC representatives. Member Rob Latham (English) replied that the argument seemed to assume that their colleagues outside the Assembly could not be trusted to make an informed and thoughtful choice when voting on the amendment.

Members called for a vote, and 30 of the 45 members present voted to forward the amendment to the full faculty for a general vote.

5. Revision of the College's clinical faculty policy. The Executive Committee submitted a revised draft of the College's clinical faculty policy along with a motion to approve the revisions, which would permit the appointment of unsalaried clinical faculty members in those units with academic programs subject to professional accreditation.

Member Carolyn Lara-Braud (Health, Leisure & Sport Studies) asked what was meant by "compensated" training or instruction in the policy's section on Review of Teaching. No one present could explain, and Member John Nelson (Political Science) moved to strike the word from the policy. Honey then moved to table the item until someone could explain the policy to the Assembly. The motion was seconded. It passed on a voice vote.

6. The College's policy regarding Career Development Awards. Members had concerns that the College's supplemental funding for externally funded faculty leaves would reset the clock for Career Development Award eligibility. Dean Maxson stated that there had been no change in policy. She said that a memo had gone out to DEOs in January that intended to make clear the expectation that faculty receiving supplemental funding for externally funded leaves actually return to campus. The memo implied to some faculty that the College's supplemental funding would automatically reset the CDA clock, and Dean Maxson emphasized that this was not the case.

Members were also concerned that flexible load approval for junior faculty would reset the CDA clock. Member David Redlawsk (Political Science) said that he had received a letter to that effect, and after he had asked the College about it, he received a corrected letter. He wanted to know whether the policy had changed and he had merely been granted an exception to it because he asked about it. Dean Maxson said that there had been no policy change and that she would look into matter and make a correction if necessary.

7. Discussion of revisions to the University's policy on sexual harassment. Dean Maxson said that the Executive Committee wanted the Faculty Assembly to have the opportunity to discuss the revisions to the University's policy on sexual harassment, since it was on the agenda of the Faculty Council and Faculty Senate this month.

Nelson commended the revision of complaint procedures which now allow third party complaints. He said it was a good move and an important step to allow a pattern of complaints to be investigated without consent of individual complainants.

Solow commended the strengthened protections against malicious charges.

Lara-Braud moved to endorse the revisions to the policy, and the motion was seconded. It passed on a voice vote.

8. Adjournment. Having completed all the business on the agenda, the Assembly adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,
Donald Pietrzyk
Secretary, 2001-02