University of Connecticut School of Medicine Faculty Forum Meeting ...
University of Connecticut School of Medicine Faculty Forum Meeting ...
University of Connecticut School of Medicine Faculty Forum Meeting ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Connecticut</strong> <strong>School</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Medicine</strong><br />
<strong>Faculty</strong> <strong>Forum</strong><br />
<strong>Meeting</strong> Minutes <strong>of</strong> October 20, 2010<br />
Dr. Robert Cushman, Chair <strong>of</strong> the Oversight Committee, called the <strong>Forum</strong> to order at 5:05 PM.<br />
Approximately 20 people attended the meeting.<br />
CREATE Status Update<br />
Dr. Cushman began with the background. CREATE evolved from the prior CREAM pr<strong>of</strong>iles,<br />
and was suggested by Dean Laurencin after the report from the PwC consultation in 2008, the<br />
goal <strong>of</strong> which was to establish a clearer tracking <strong>of</strong> the funds supporting faculty salaries. The<br />
purpose in establishing the original Transition to Excellence (“TE”) was to replace<br />
“Miscellaneous” with clearer delineations <strong>of</strong> existing and new, worthwhile faculty activities<br />
which did not fit into the other four categories, and for which funding either by general funds<br />
(GF) or extramural funds was deemed appropriate. Dr. Cushman introduced Carolle Andrews,<br />
now Chief Administration Officer, who oversaw the rollout <strong>of</strong> the first iteration <strong>of</strong> CREATE, to<br />
provide a status update.<br />
Ms. Andrews explained that the program is still a work in progress. The problem that needed to<br />
be solved was how GF money was being used. A substantial portion <strong>of</strong> salaries were lumped into<br />
one bucket called Education, which was not very informative. CREATE is an attempt to capture<br />
both effort and dollars. “Transition to Excellence” first evolved to capture activities that were<br />
not supported by external funds. That category is also intended to capture start-up funds. Ms.<br />
Andrews indicated that the Dean and the team wanted a goal <strong>of</strong> no more than 10% in the TE<br />
bucket. She indicated that there is the need for some redefining <strong>of</strong> what goes into each <strong>of</strong> the<br />
several categories For instance, the “TE” has now been split into two categories, Transition and<br />
Excellence (“T & E”), with Transition representing support for faculty pursuing changes in<br />
academic focus, additional training, and/or “inherently in the eye <strong>of</strong> the beholder”, while<br />
Excellence comprises activities that are deemed valuable to the Department and/or <strong>University</strong>,<br />
such as chairing national organizations, serving on State commissions, etc.<br />
Ms. Andrews provided data on the summary <strong>of</strong> the SOM Departments, which indicated that in<br />
both FY10 and so far in FY11, “T&E” is consistently below the 10% target and the comparison<br />
<strong>of</strong> SOM totals for FY10 compared to YTD FY11 show positive trending. The presentation went<br />
on to include:<br />
• Data <strong>of</strong> Breakout by department (basic and clinical) for FY10 and FY11;<br />
• The original definitions <strong>of</strong> each category (Clinical, Education, Research, Administration,<br />
Transition to Excellence);<br />
• The original Assignments/Guidelines for Administrative support / %-effort for SOM<br />
Councils/Committees/positions;<br />
• An example <strong>of</strong> an individual’s activity report;<br />
• Activity Report Definitions and the components <strong>of</strong> the Prime Metrics Guidelines; and<br />
• Next Steps for FY2011<br />
1
She indicated that there is enough familiarity with the program and that most faculty have<br />
reviewed their individual pr<strong>of</strong>iles/activity reports. All either have access to .pdf files, or<br />
information can be e-mailed to them. She went on to say that it is now a time to step back and<br />
evaluate the overall usefulness <strong>of</strong> CREATE. Is it doing what it was intended to do? How can it<br />
be improved? There are still difficulties remaining regarding capture <strong>of</strong> all information, such as<br />
that relating to faculty whose salaries are supported by contracts.<br />
There followed a question and answer session, with participation by many <strong>of</strong> the 20 persons<br />
present. The following represents an aggregation <strong>of</strong> the spectrum <strong>of</strong> points and/or questions<br />
raised regarding the program, without specific attribution to individuals, except answers to the<br />
CREATE questions.<br />
• From today’s presentation, this seems to be benign and is a different story than what we<br />
have heard over time. Is this revisionism for the faculty? Has all <strong>of</strong> the angst been<br />
wasted?<br />
• Once you have the data, what is the purpose and what will be done with it?<br />
o CA: Her job is to collect the data, what the chairs and deans do with the<br />
information is clearly up to them.<br />
• Problem is that you are tracking revenue streams that do not adequately reflect effort.<br />
o CA: Your pr<strong>of</strong>ile is all about salary and reflects AA (assignment authorization).<br />
• It was noted that this might not adequately reflect effort. An example was given from the<br />
floor <strong>of</strong> a faculty member with 3 grants bringing in over 6 M in direct and indirect costs,<br />
but only covering 30% salary (10% on each grant) due to high salary or salary cap. The<br />
individual is listed as 30% R only. One faculty member bringing in 1 grant (2M in direct<br />
and indirect costs) with 30% <strong>of</strong> salary covered is listed at 30% R. Yet F&A coming to the<br />
school is vastly higher for first vs. second.<br />
o CA: Stated it was felt that faculty were not putting enough % effort on grants,<br />
instead they were using money to pay staff.<br />
• It was pointed out to her that at least in most wet labs, these are the people physically<br />
doing the bench work.<br />
• Regarding Education, what is expected? Who oversees this? Do we need all A through<br />
F?(referring to prime metrics in hand out)<br />
o CA: Illustrations <strong>of</strong> expected contributions both clinical and academic. This<br />
comes with a faculty member’s appointment. Expect to see salary dollars<br />
supported by Chair and faculty member to determine if the faculty member is<br />
meeting expectations. Judgment on this is between the Chair and faculty member.<br />
• With respect to appointment contracts, it was pointed out that at least for the faculty<br />
member speaking, there was has nothing in the contract that stipulates goals and<br />
expectations as far as % effort and $$ as reflected by CREATE. The faculty member was<br />
hired to teach, do research and participate in administration, period.<br />
o CA: Indicated that some faculty appointment contracts she has seen are very<br />
detailed in this respect. There was a suggestion that new contracts (not clear if<br />
this means existing faculty or new faculty) will reflect what is expected in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
time and $$.<br />
• The Prime Metrics guidelines are confusing. What are they supposed to mean?<br />
o CA: Activity reports measure productivity/metrics; they are not clearly defined<br />
and this should be the next step. They need to collect a broader input from faculty.<br />
To date, they have only received the Chairs’ input.<br />
• Concern rose over the fact that the prime metrics indicate that faculty are expected to<br />
teach 100-200hr as part <strong>of</strong> their “base” salary. Therefore, this effort does not show up in<br />
2
E. Since all reporting is now effort/salary driven, it was pointed out that this makes no<br />
sense.<br />
• A hypothetical question was posed: If one was charged with building a new medical<br />
school from scratch, would one use the new business model <strong>of</strong> CREATE? How would<br />
metrics fit into productivity <strong>of</strong> the school? Are they destructive or helpful? It was<br />
suggested that the goal should be to describe/show what the school is trying to do so that<br />
faculty will want to contribute. Implication was that “corporate structure” was<br />
detrimental.<br />
• If was stated that what the faculty need to do is have a conversation with the Dean. If not,<br />
we are subject to deal with what we are given.<br />
• One faculty member indicated that their individual CREATE pr<strong>of</strong>ile did not correctly<br />
reflect the time spent by that faculty member in each category, but was told by the<br />
Department Chair that this “could not be changed.” So the question was how to get<br />
CREATE to reflect reality.<br />
o CA: Indicated that the Chair apparently did not understand the system and she<br />
would be happy to have a conversation with him/her. Also, the faculty member<br />
can contact CA’s <strong>of</strong>fice directly. CA wants to get the results that faculty need.<br />
o CA: A suggestion <strong>of</strong> a task force may be needed.<br />
Proposed changes to SOM Bylaws<br />
Dr. Cushman asked if there were any concerns about the proposed changes. The following<br />
represents an aggregation <strong>of</strong> the spectrum <strong>of</strong> points and/or questions raised regarding the Bylaws.<br />
• Why do all approvals need to go to the Provost?<br />
o RC: Since moving to the “One <strong>University</strong>” philosophy, reporting relationships<br />
have changed.<br />
o Chair <strong>of</strong> SAPC, in audience, indicated that the Provost is taking this seriously.<br />
The Provost wants to understand matters that he is asked to approve, before he<br />
approves. SAPC system is now more complicated and more formal because <strong>of</strong> this<br />
arrangement.<br />
• Philosophically, why is there a need for annual reviews if promotions and post tenure<br />
review are every several years (5)? Why is there the burden and humiliation <strong>of</strong> annual<br />
reviews?<br />
o Member <strong>of</strong> the Compensation Executive Committee, in attendance, indicated<br />
that this review system went into effect with the creation <strong>of</strong> the CREAM pr<strong>of</strong>ile,<br />
which tied merit to salary increases.<br />
o RC: Indicated that going to the centralized Compensation Executive Committee<br />
review <strong>of</strong> all chairs’ reviews <strong>of</strong> all faculty inherently diminished some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
fundamental duties <strong>of</strong> the Department Chairs.<br />
Dr. Cushman reiterated that within one to two weeks the electronic elections for the Bylaws will<br />
be sent out for all eligible faculty to vote upon (yes or no), item by item.<br />
LCME Review and Plans for Response Process<br />
Dr. Cushman began by stating that none <strong>of</strong> the members <strong>of</strong> the task force assigned by the Dean<br />
to complete the Action Plan response to the LCME were available to attend tonight’s meeting<br />
due to various conflicts. Dr. Cushman indicated that he was unable to attend the retreat which<br />
followed the visit by the Secretary <strong>of</strong> LCME, and opened the floor for any present who HAD<br />
3
attended that retreat to comment or provide an update. The following are points that were<br />
discussed:<br />
• The Action Plan is currently being rewritten to ensure that we meet the LCME<br />
requirements.<br />
• Most responses by UCHC were deemed appropriate by the LCME, and we are on the<br />
right track.<br />
• The visit by the Secretary <strong>of</strong> the LCME was useful; it provided guidance on how to<br />
reshape the document.<br />
• There is concern over the many vacancies in leadership positions. Several searches are<br />
underway. Currently there are no updates or status.<br />
• What are the implications <strong>of</strong> Dr. Bruce Koeppen’s departure?<br />
• There is an issue over the loss <strong>of</strong> faculty. It was reported that 133 have left in the last<br />
three years, with only about 50 new faculty hired in that same period.<br />
• <strong>Faculty</strong> retention is needed. There needs to be a “big” plan to address this issue. Why<br />
are they leaving?<br />
Dr. Cushman concluded that the concerns over retentions will be communicated to the Dean.<br />
Minutes from the forum will be posted on the website, <strong>Faculty</strong> <strong>Forum</strong> 2010. The next forum will<br />
be in April, 2011.<br />
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:25 PM.<br />
Respectfully submitted,<br />
Joanne Feltman<br />
4