Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Advisory Council Appointments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regents approve advisory council list after debate over membership and state representation
Summary
The Iowa Board of Regents approved a 26-member advisory council for a University of Iowa center after Regents raised concerns about gender balance, political affiliation and the number of out-of-state appointees. The motion passed 7–2 following a request to remove the item from the consent agenda.
The Iowa Board of Regents voted to approve a 26-member advisory council for a University of Iowa center after extended discussion about the council’s composition and state representation.
Regent Dunkel led the push to remove the council list from the consent agenda and repeatedly expressed concerns about the size, gender balance and the number of non‑Iowa members, saying the expansion “from 13 members to 26 members” left the group with only two women and “half of them are not Iowans.”
The board took the council off the consent agenda for separate consideration. Regents discussed the matter and were told that short bios and a chart of political affiliations had been circulated to members. Board staff and a university interim director said meetings of the advisory council would be subject to open‑meeting requirements and that bylaws would address voting rights and ex officio status.
After discussion, the board held a roll‑call vote. The tally reported on the record was: Yes — Regent Barker; Regent Hensley; Regent Rouse; Regent Ryswick; Regent Jaden; Regent Kramer; Regent Bates. No — Regent Dunkel; Regent Gipple. The chair announced that the motion was approved.
Several Regents urged that the council adopt bylaws and that the board retain final approval of those bylaws once the council proposes them. Board members also said they expect an executive committee to be established in the council bylaws to keep a large membership effective.
Regent Dunkel asked for additional time to review biographical and affiliation information and suggested postponing approval for two weeks; that request was not adopted. Supporters of immediate approval said the legislature has required the center and urged moving ahead with a national search for a director.
The board’s action made the advisory council a standalone agenda item rather than part of the consent agenda. The council’s membership list and the record of the roll‑call vote are part of the meeting minutes.
