University of Iowa Faculty Senate frustrated, concerned with president

IOWA CITY - University of Iowa faculty members in October told President Sally Mason not to sign a letter supporting a new funding model that could take millions from the institution.

But Mason did sign the letter, and in the days that followed, some faculty expressed frustration and concern and even discussed taking a 'no-confidence vote” in the president, according to emails obtained by The Gazette.

'The Faculty Senate advised her not to sign the letter before she signed, and we have indicated our disagreement with it since then to her and her staff,” Christina Bohannan, UI law professor and vice president of the Faculty Senate, wrote in an Oct. 28 email. 'The question is whether to make some other kind of statement to other constituencies.”

That's where opinions varied.

'If by respond in some formal way you mean tell her that she was ridiculous to sign the letter, then you certainly would represent me,” Walid A. Afifi, chair of the UI Department of Communications Studies, wrote in an Oct. 29 email to Bohannan.

Kenneth Brown, associate dean of the Henry B. Tippie College of Business, wrote to Bohannan that same day to say, 'I think the faculty should publicly disagree with President Mason and the regents.”

'If we believe it's wrong, and we stand by the ideal of civil dialogue, then I think we should make a public statement that the senate can agree on,” Brown said.

The Oct. 14 letter in question outlined the Board of Regents' new funding formula, which ties a majority of state dollars to resident enrollment, and urged lawmakers to adopt it. It included signatures from the presidents of each of Iowa's public universities and from regents President Bruce Rastetter and President Pro Tem Katie Mulholland.

The Faculty Senate decided not to come forward with a unified statement opposing the letter and the president's signature. And, despite behind-the-scenes discussions, it never posed the question of confidence in Mason, who announced in January her plans to retire this summer.

But that's not because everyone agreed on the best way forward. In fact, the larger issue of how to respond to the regents' enrollment and performance-based funding metrics - which would pull millions from UI if enrollment figures remain unchanged - has been a source of heated debate among UI faculty since the model emerged in May.

Some wanted to be more outspoken about the majority's disapproval of the metrics - one person even suggesting they launch a change.org campaign 'that would show legislators the breadth of the resistance for this proposal.” Others noted the value of a behind-the-scenes approach.

'Being more publicly confrontational has not historically helped us,” UI Faculty Senate President Alexandra Thomas wrote in a June 5 email - the day after the Board of Regents approved the new funding model.

But after months of discussions with regents, lawmakers, and UI administrators, including Mason, some faculty after the October letter said enough is enough.

Scott Seibert, UI business professor and member of the Faculty Council, on Nov. 18 sent an email to UI business professor emeritus Nathan E. 'Gene” Savin asking about discussions of a 'no-confidence vote” in Mason.

Rachel Marie-Crane Williams, UI associate professor in the Department of Gender, Women's and Sexuality Studies, on Oct. 28 urged fellow faculty members to 'read the letter carefully and consider what it means that our president signed it as a gesture of support.”

'The rhetoric, in my opinion, misrepresents the impact that this model will have on the mission of our university,” Williams wrote.

Associate Dean Brown, in his emails, said a public stance need not include a call to action.

'I think it would be enough of a psychological boost to the faculty to have something out there saying, ‘we disagree,'” Brown wrote Oct. 29, acknowledging that could backfire. 'We could pay with soured relationships with the regents that would hurt us … I do not want to dismiss this risk.”

Still, Brown wrote, 'I believe the cost of staying silent is worse.”

'It hurts each of us when we don't live up to the ideal of what public research universities are supposed to be, which is a collection of rationale, thoughtful people who care about the public good,” he wrote.

‘BEHIND CLOSED DOORS'

Under the proposed funding formula, approved by regents June 4, 60 percent of the state's general education support for UI, Iowa State University, and University of Northern Iowa would go toward resident enrollment. Another 5 percent would go toward graduate and professional enrollment, 5 percent will be left to the Board of Regents to decide, and the remaining 30 percent would be tied to performance metrics - like degree production and access.

Because ISU and UNI have a larger portion of in-state students, UI would lose $12.9 million in the funding model's first year. To counter the potential losses, UI has ramped up its in-state recruiting and marketing with plans to grow by thousands in the coming years.

Supporters of the model say it ties state dollars to state students, rewards the institutions based on regent priorities, and addresses underfunding at UNI. Opponents, including many UI faculty members, say the model devalues graduate and professional programs and pits the schools against each other in a race to enroll more of the fewer college-bound Iowans.

The UI Faculty Senate, according to the emails, immediately began making their case to lawmakers, administrators, and regents.

'It turns out that the officers of the Faculty Senate have been expressing their concerns regarding the funding plan directly to the Board of Regents, but behind closed doors,” Seibert wrote in a Nov. 19 email.

Faculty Senate Vice President Bohannan told The Gazette that leadership felt more thoughtful and direct pressure on decision-makers was the best route to take in advocating for the institution.

But, she said, some faculty members disagreed - a sentiment that propagated after Mason signed the letter. The senate met in closed session - with some administration representatives in the room - on Oct. 28 to discuss how to proceed. UI psychology professor Edward Wasserman sent an email criticizing the administrative presence at the meeting and demanding a 'true closed session.”

'I believe that our president's ineffectual performance merits full and frank discussion vis a vis the proposed funding plan,” he wrote.

‘THAT CROSSED A LINE'

Bohannan said Mason's signature on the letter touched a nerve with faculty, who had been on the record about their disapproval of the funding model.

'We would not have signed the letter,” she said. 'We could not have on behalf of our constituents.”

Faculty Senate President Thomas warned Mason many would be upset if she signed. Thomas told The Gazette faculty felt the letter went further than public comments Mason had made about the funding formula.

'That crossed a line,” she said.

More than a month after the Oct. 14 letter, however, faculty reached out to Mason in an effort to 'convince her that we are all on the same team.”

'I would like to propose that we set up a meeting with Sally to clear the air,” Bohannan wrote on Nov. 21. 'I have been very frustrated by her actions, but thinking it over, I think she might feel that our actions show we are against her.”

Bohannan said that meeting did occur.

'We all want what's best,” she said. 'And we need to work together.”

With the funding proposal now in the hands of the Legislature, Bohannan said, Faculty Senate leaders are satisfied with their decision to take the less-aggressive and less-public road.

'We know more would have liked us to go public, but we don't feel that's the best way to govern,” she said. 'We came to the conclusion that it's best to work directly with people.”