University of Connecticut School of Medicine Faculty Forum Meeting ...

University of Connecticut School of Medicine
Faculty Forum
Meeting Minutes of October 20, 2010
Dr. Robert Cushman, Chair of the Oversight Committee, called the Forum to order at 5:05 PM.
Approximately 20 people attended the meeting.
CREATE Status Update
Dr. Cushman began with the background. CREATE evolved from the prior CREAM profiles,
and was suggested by Dean Laurencin after the report from the PwC consultation in 2008, the
goal of which was to establish a clearer tracking of the funds supporting faculty salaries. The
purpose in establishing the original Transition to Excellence (“TE”) was to replace
“Miscellaneous” with clearer delineations of existing and new, worthwhile faculty activities
which did not fit into the other four categories, and for which funding either by general funds
(GF) or extramural funds was deemed appropriate. Dr. Cushman introduced Carolle Andrews,
now Chief Administration Officer, who oversaw the rollout of the first iteration of CREATE, to
provide a status update.
Ms. Andrews explained that the program is still a work in progress. The problem that needed to
be solved was how GF money was being used. A substantial portion of salaries were lumped into
one bucket called Education, which was not very informative. CREATE is an attempt to capture
both effort and dollars. “Transition to Excellence” first evolved to capture activities that were
not supported by external funds. That category is also intended to capture start-up funds. Ms.
Andrews indicated that the Dean and the team wanted a goal of no more than 10% in the TE
bucket. She indicated that there is the need for some redefining of what goes into each of the
several categories For instance, the “TE” has now been split into two categories, Transition and
Excellence (“T & E”), with Transition representing support for faculty pursuing changes in
academic focus, additional training, and/or “inherently in the eye of the beholder”, while
Excellence comprises activities that are deemed valuable to the Department and/or University,
such as chairing national organizations, serving on State commissions, etc.
Ms. Andrews provided data on the summary of the SOM Departments, which indicated that in
both FY10 and so far in FY11, “T&E” is consistently below the 10% target and the comparison
of SOM totals for FY10 compared to YTD FY11 show positive trending. The presentation went
on to include:
• Data of Breakout by department (basic and clinical) for FY10 and FY11;
• The original definitions of each category (Clinical, Education, Research, Administration,
Transition to Excellence);
• The original Assignments/Guidelines for Administrative support / %-effort for SOM
Councils/Committees/positions;
• An example of an individual’s activity report;
• Activity Report Definitions and the components of the Prime Metrics Guidelines; and
• Next Steps for FY2011
1

She indicated that there is enough familiarity with the program and that most faculty have
reviewed their individual profiles/activity reports. All either have access to .pdf files, or
information can be e-mailed to them. She went on to say that it is now a time to step back and
evaluate the overall usefulness of CREATE. Is it doing what it was intended to do? How can it
be improved? There are still difficulties remaining regarding capture of all information, such as
that relating to faculty whose salaries are supported by contracts.
There followed a question and answer session, with participation by many of the 20 persons
present. The following represents an aggregation of the spectrum of points and/or questions
raised regarding the program, without specific attribution to individuals, except answers to the
CREATE questions.
• From today’s presentation, this seems to be benign and is a different story than what we
have heard over time. Is this revisionism for the faculty? Has all of the angst been
wasted?
• Once you have the data, what is the purpose and what will be done with it?
o CA: Her job is to collect the data, what the chairs and deans do with the
information is clearly up to them.
• Problem is that you are tracking revenue streams that do not adequately reflect effort.
o CA: Your profile is all about salary and reflects AA (assignment authorization).
• It was noted that this might not adequately reflect effort. An example was given from the
floor of a faculty member with 3 grants bringing in over 6 M in direct and indirect costs,
but only covering 30% salary (10% on each grant) due to high salary or salary cap. The
individual is listed as 30% R only. One faculty member bringing in 1 grant (2M in direct
and indirect costs) with 30% of salary covered is listed at 30% R. Yet F&A coming to the
school is vastly higher for first vs. second.
o CA: Stated it was felt that faculty were not putting enough % effort on grants,
instead they were using money to pay staff.
• It was pointed out to her that at least in most wet labs, these are the people physically
doing the bench work.
• Regarding Education, what is expected? Who oversees this? Do we need all A through
F?(referring to prime metrics in hand out)
o CA: Illustrations of expected contributions both clinical and academic. This
comes with a faculty member’s appointment. Expect to see salary dollars
supported by Chair and faculty member to determine if the faculty member is
meeting expectations. Judgment on this is between the Chair and faculty member.
• With respect to appointment contracts, it was pointed out that at least for the faculty
member speaking, there was has nothing in the contract that stipulates goals and
expectations as far as % effort and $$ as reflected by CREATE. The faculty member was
hired to teach, do research and participate in administration, period.
o CA: Indicated that some faculty appointment contracts she has seen are very
detailed in this respect. There was a suggestion that new contracts (not clear if
this means existing faculty or new faculty) will reflect what is expected in terms of
time and $$.
• The Prime Metrics guidelines are confusing. What are they supposed to mean?
o CA: Activity reports measure productivity/metrics; they are not clearly defined
and this should be the next step. They need to collect a broader input from faculty.
To date, they have only received the Chairs’ input.
• Concern rose over the fact that the prime metrics indicate that faculty are expected to
teach 100-200hr as part of their “base” salary. Therefore, this effort does not show up in
2

E. Since all reporting is now effort/salary driven, it was pointed out that this makes no
sense.
• A hypothetical question was posed: If one was charged with building a new medical
school from scratch, would one use the new business model of CREATE? How would
metrics fit into productivity of the school? Are they destructive or helpful? It was
suggested that the goal should be to describe/show what the school is trying to do so that
faculty will want to contribute. Implication was that “corporate structure” was
detrimental.
• If was stated that what the faculty need to do is have a conversation with the Dean. If not,
we are subject to deal with what we are given.
• One faculty member indicated that their individual CREATE profile did not correctly
reflect the time spent by that faculty member in each category, but was told by the
Department Chair that this “could not be changed.” So the question was how to get
CREATE to reflect reality.
o CA: Indicated that the Chair apparently did not understand the system and she
would be happy to have a conversation with him/her. Also, the faculty member
can contact CA’s office directly. CA wants to get the results that faculty need.
o CA: A suggestion of a task force may be needed.
Proposed changes to SOM Bylaws
Dr. Cushman asked if there were any concerns about the proposed changes. The following
represents an aggregation of the spectrum of points and/or questions raised regarding the Bylaws.
• Why do all approvals need to go to the Provost?
o RC: Since moving to the “One University” philosophy, reporting relationships
have changed.
o Chair of SAPC, in audience, indicated that the Provost is taking this seriously.
The Provost wants to understand matters that he is asked to approve, before he
approves. SAPC system is now more complicated and more formal because of this
arrangement.
• Philosophically, why is there a need for annual reviews if promotions and post tenure
review are every several years (5)? Why is there the burden and humiliation of annual
reviews?
o Member of the Compensation Executive Committee, in attendance, indicated
that this review system went into effect with the creation of the CREAM profile,
which tied merit to salary increases.
o RC: Indicated that going to the centralized Compensation Executive Committee
review of all chairs’ reviews of all faculty inherently diminished some of the
fundamental duties of the Department Chairs.
Dr. Cushman reiterated that within one to two weeks the electronic elections for the Bylaws will
be sent out for all eligible faculty to vote upon (yes or no), item by item.
LCME Review and Plans for Response Process
Dr. Cushman began by stating that none of the members of the task force assigned by the Dean
to complete the Action Plan response to the LCME were available to attend tonight’s meeting
due to various conflicts. Dr. Cushman indicated that he was unable to attend the retreat which
followed the visit by the Secretary of LCME, and opened the floor for any present who HAD
3

attended that retreat to comment or provide an update. The following are points that were
discussed:
• The Action Plan is currently being rewritten to ensure that we meet the LCME
requirements.
• Most responses by UCHC were deemed appropriate by the LCME, and we are on the
right track.
• The visit by the Secretary of the LCME was useful; it provided guidance on how to
reshape the document.
• There is concern over the many vacancies in leadership positions. Several searches are
underway. Currently there are no updates or status.
• What are the implications of Dr. Bruce Koeppen’s departure?
• There is an issue over the loss of faculty. It was reported that 133 have left in the last
three years, with only about 50 new faculty hired in that same period.
• Faculty retention is needed. There needs to be a “big” plan to address this issue. Why
are they leaving?
Dr. Cushman concluded that the concerns over retentions will be communicated to the Dean.
Minutes from the forum will be posted on the website, Faculty Forum 2010. The next forum will
be in April, 2011.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:25 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Joanne Feltman
4