Minutes of the Council Meetings >>

  SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
TRANSITIONAL MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2001
S U M M A R Y

I.      INTRODUCTION

The Transitional Meeting was called to order by Dr. Richard Thurer, Speaker of the School Council. Dr. Thurer explained that the purpose for the Transitional Meeting was to review the previous year’s activities, discuss issues for the coming year and elect new leadership. Since important issues deliberated by the School Faculty Council have implications at the Faculty Senate level, the Medical School Faculty Senate members were invited to attend the Transitional Meeting. Dr. Thurer stated that this meeting was the few occasion when the Faculty Senate and Council members met to air issues of concern to the faculty-at-large and to develop goals for the coming year. The current and newly elected Faculty Council and Faculty Senate members introduced themselves and described their constituencies.

II.      COUNCIL ORIENTATION

Dr. Thurer described the materials in the orientation packets and explained that Dr. Clarkson was the Chair of the School Council but the Council also elected its own leadership. He further explained that the Faculty Council met twice a month; the Dean’s Meeting was held on the last Tuesday of each month and the Speaker’s Meeting (without the Dean) was held on the second Tuesday of each month. Dr. Thurer noted that the meeting schedule allowed the Council to develop issues among themselves and then present the issues and recommendations to the Dean for his approval. He added that Council meetings were informal and decisions were made by consensus. Dr. Thurer emphasized that the Council listserv was operational and encouraged the members to use it to communicate with each other.

Dr. Thurer reported that the first section of the document entitled ‘Bylaws, Policies and Procedures, Guidelines of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Miami’ was a summary of how the Faculty Council functioned. He stated that the document represented a compilation of the Council’s functions and activities for the past 8 to 9 years. Dr. Thurer added that the document was pending the approval of the Council and Dean. He stressed the importance of the document and believed that it was good practice to have a document to guide the faculty. Dr. Thurer also felt that the LCME Committee and University administration would require such a document to be in place. He planned to present the document to the faculty for approval within the next month and later appoint a committee to further refine the document.

III.      COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

Dr. Thurer introduced Dr. Ahmad, Chair of the Committee on Committees, who has been responsible for several years to assembly the composition of the various Standing Committees of the faculty. Dr. Fazal Ahmad reported that this year a letter from Dr. Clarkson was included with the letter requesting volunteers to serve on the Standing Committees of the faculty. He stated that he received 73 responses from volunteers to serve but 26 of those already served on the various committees. Dr. Ahmad stressed that there are 66 vacancies and only 47 volunteers willing to serve. He said he spoke to Dr. Rosenthal regarding this matter and hoped that the same letter could be resent to the faculty via email.

Dr. Fishman stated that traditionally Council members volunteered to serve on the various Standing Committees of the Faculty as Council representatives. Dr. Ahmad reported that each of the committees included a Council representative. Dr. Markoe remarked that faculty in the Department of Radiation Oncology was encouraged to serve on School committees and their service was viewed as an important factor in the promotion process. Dr. Thurer remarked that faculty participation in school-wide committees continued to be a major issue due to the perception that such activities were not viewed as having a positive result on the faculty. Dr. Lewis believed that faculty participation in the Faculty Council and Faculty Senate was very important and required a strong commitment, particularly to attend meetings. Dr. Thurer noted that a 70% attendance requirement existed but enforcing the rule created the problem of finding replacements. Dr. Rosenthal agreed and added that replacement of members on committees that required significant effort was almost impossible. He believed that the lack of participation was due in part to faculty having other commitments or required to support their own compensation. Dr. Rosenthal expressed the view that for some faculty, serving on committees would basically reduce their salaries. He recalled that a proposal on how to award an individual who made significant contributions to the School and how to protect time for faculty to serve in the governance of the school had been presented to the Council.

Dr. Cohn questioned how the active members of the various committees were distributed and wondered whether the lack of volunteers involved departments that did not encourage committee service. He stated that the Department of Surgery strongly encouraged faculty participation and they are well represented in the various committees. Dr. Ahmad offered to provide a comparison between active members and their corresponding departments. He added that of the 73 responses received this year, the majority of the faculty belonged in the Basic Science departments.

IV.     FACULTY SENATE UPDATE

Dr. Awad reported that the lack of attendance by medical senate representatives at the Faculty Senate meetings continued to be a serious issue. He felt that the lack of participation from the medical school presented the impression of apathy or of an adversarial relationship with the main campus administration. Dr. Awad believed that more presence from the medical faculty at Faculty Senate meetings meant more knowledge gained on University matters for our School. He proposed that the Council consider what consequence should be imposed to Senate members that do not attend Faculty Senate meetings. Dr. Thurer remarked that most of the Senate members are not aware of the commitment required when they are elected. He also believed that medical Senate members expected the agenda items be directly related to the School. Dr. Thurer expressed that Senate members should attend Senate meetings with the understanding that they can make some impact on the University by voicing our opinions and making certain that issues do not negatively impact on the School. Dr. Lokeshwar recalled that during his term as Senate representative, issues concerning the medical school were not discussed. Dr. Thurer added that some University-wide issues, such as graduate school matters, required the input of medical school faculty and former students of higher education. Dr. Raskin reiterated that the Faculty Senate agenda pertained mostly to general University issues and expressed his disappointment in the lack of medical school participation. He reported that of 13 medical school delegates and 2 to 3 alternates, only 6-7 members actually attended the meetings. Dr. Raskin stressed that issues of interest could be generated since the agenda was not closed. Dr. Thurer recalled that the Council in the past brought up new issues to the Faculty Senate such as the issue on domestic partner relationship and eligibility of benefits that became a university-wide policy. Dr. Lewis believed that faculty standing for elections should have the moral duty to represent their constituency. Dr. Cohn believed that a major reason for the lack of attendance was the time and location of the meetings. Dr. Awad proposed that the Faculty Senate meetings start at 4:00 PM and last no more than 2 1/2 hours.

The Council discussed the possibility of enforcing an attendance requirement for the medical faculty Senators. Dr. Awad suggested that a warning be given after two absences with possible dismissal of service after three absences. As a Faculty Senator, Dr. Piedimonte expressed that if such a requirement were enforced, he would not be able to serve. He believed that most clinicians would find it extremely difficult to attend early afternoon meetings away from the medical campus. Dr. Piedimonte added that perhaps the faculty elected to serve on the Faculty Senate should be those who had more time to commit. Dr. Cohn felt that by imposing strict attendance regulation many faculties who could greatly contribute to the School would be omitted. Dr. Fishman suggested that faculty wishing to run for election understand the duties and commitment required before being elected to serve.

V.      ELECTION OF LEADERSHIP

Dr. Thurer opened the floor for nominations for the Speaker of the Faculty Council. Dr. Lewis nominated Dr. Richard Thurer and Dr. Piedimonte nominated Dr. Stephen Cohn. Dr. Fishman presided on the election. He briefly summarized the duties of the Speaker and emphasized the important role of Council representative and in interactions with the Dean. The Council held a closed ballot that resulted in the election of Dr. Stephen Cohn as Speaker of the Faculty Council. The Council extended their gratitude to Dr. Thurer for his exceptional role as Speaker for the past 4 years and significant contribution to the School.

Dr. Thurer opened the floor for nominations for Vice-Speaker of the Faculty Council. Dr. Awad nominated Dr. Michael Lewis and Dr. Granville nominated Dr. Lawrence Fishman for an additional term. Dr. Fishman declined the nomination. Dr. Michael Lewis was elected Vice-Speaker of the Faculty Council by acclamation.

VI.      SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES

Dr. Cohn presided for the remainder of the meeting. He briefly outlined his plan for the upcoming year. Dr. Cohn hoped to discuss with each individual member priorities for the next 1-3 years and determine what can be accomplished as Council members. He believed that besides serving as an advisory group to the Dean, the Council was effective in implementing changes. Dr. Cohn described the recent change regarding medical student admissions, which resulted in the acceptance of 25 out-of-state medical students per class. He emphasized that this was a radical change for the School and a Council undertaking. 

Dr. Cohn revisited the plan to establish a central meeting place for faculty to meet. He believed that a faculty center would improve collegiality and boost faculty morale. Dr. Lewis reiterated the importance of faculty attendance at the Faculty Senate meetings as a way to voice our concerns at the Senate level. He stated that he would meet with Dr. Clarkson to discuss the lack of attendance from medical senators at Faculty Senate meetings and believed that a mechanism to facilitate better meeting schedules can be developed. Dr. Cohn added that agenda items relevant to the medical school could be considered at specified times so that a larger quorum of medical school senators would be present.

Dr. Cohn strongly believed that positive ideas requiring little funding would likely be approved and beneficial to the school. He hoped to meet with Dr. Clarkson on a monthly basis to report on the activities of the Council. He reiterated that a faculty center was promising and the space previously occupied by the Miami Project would be the ideal location. Dr. Cohn briefly discussed possible ways to support the faculty center and noted that the Ryder Trauma Center would be one of the sponsors. Dr. Awad recommended that the faculty center plans be included in the agenda at the next JMH staff meeting on June 12^th at 6:00 P.M. Dr. Cohn encouraged the Council to forward any ideas and priorities to him. He planned to hold a Council retreat to develop a strategic plan for the upcoming year.