|
|||
|
|||
|
Main Menu
|
Minutes of the Council Meetings >>SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTESThe Council unanimously approved the minutes from the Dean’s Meeting on April 24.
II. PLANS FOR COUNCIL RETREATDr. Cohn explained that several important topics worthy of discussion at the Council Retreat in September included research issues, the admission process and the evaluation of deans. He stated that there was a consensus to hold the Council Retreat on Friday from noon to 4:30 P.M. at the Coral Gables Faculty Club and the tentative date of September 7 was set.
III. FACULTY CLUB UPDATEDr. Lewis reported that a potential space for the Faculty Club was identified and an initial budget had been estimated. Dr. Cohn noted that the space in mind was the area previously occupied by the Miami Project. He added that four proposals for the use of that space would be presented to Dr. Clarkson on Friday. Dr. Cohn explained that Ben Riestra, Assistant Executive Director, UM Hospital Division, prepared a budget, which consisted of the highest refurbishing costs possible. He also stated that Dr. Mark Multach, JMH Medical Staff President, favored the plans for the Faculty Center in that location and encouraged the Council to present the proposal at the next JMH Medical Staff Meeting. Dr. Lewis reported that two vendors had been contacted about catering and operational expenses. He said that both vendors could not provide adequate information until the actual space was determined and a 6 months history of operational costs was established. Dr. Lewis stated that the two vendors contacted were the Au Bon Pain Cafeteria and the Morrison Food Service, which currently operated the PillBox on the 2nd floor in the RMSB. He added that a third vendor, Front Porch Catering, would be contacted and other possible vendors for additional proposals. Dr. Baumbach felt that the Faculty Center should provide a more upscale menu selection similar to the one catered at the Cedars restaurant. She envisioned that the Faculty Center would be used to entertain visiting faculty and guests as well. Dr. Lewis hoped that the Faculty Center would also include a lounge area which faculty could use for leisure reading, informal meetings, etc. The Council discussed other possible plans for the space in question. Dr. Fishman felt that this space was centrally located and more ideal for a Faculty Center than for fund raising activities. Dr. Cohn reiterated that the proposed budget for renovations and operational costs had been estimated at the highest possible amount. He hoped that Mr. Clark would agree to provide the space and that the Chairs would agree to fund the meals. Dr. Cohn asked the Council if they had any objections to the plans for the Faculty Club. The Council unanimously agreed to proceed with the plans to establish a Faculty Center centrally located at the medical campus.
IV. 50TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION OF THE SCHOOL Dr. Fishman reported that the 50th Anniversary Celebration Committee decided that the Anniversary Celebration would be held between January 2002 and May, 2003 to allow ample time for fund raising and planning. He noted that some of the activities planned to begin this fall were postponed due to the 75th Anniversary of the University and the inauguration of the new President. Dr. Fishman reported that a 50th Anniversary Celebration web site linked to the UM WebPages was being designed and an Honorary Council would be selected. Dr. Fishman remarked that the 50th Anniversary Celebration would serve as a festive event as well as part of the capital fund raising campaign. He announced that one of the early events scheduled in 2002 was a meeting of the Boards of Trustees to kick off the event at the medical campus. Dr. Fishman described the following ways the 50th Anniversary Celebration would be featured: 1) graduation ceremonies in 2002 and 2003 would feature the 50th Anniversary remembrances, 2) the local telephone directories would feature the celebration on the back cover, 3) festive banners placed along South Dixie Highway, 4) public service announcements on television and in the Miami Herald. He further explained that a UM logo and brochure were being considered and tentative plans to create a time capsule and memorabilia were in process. He also noted that the Keynote event planned for January 31, 2003 was a scientific symposium organized by Dr. William Whelan. Dr. Fishman stated that the keynote event was intended to recapitulate the history of the School by decades. He announced that a specific schedule of additional events had been determined but was not ready to be disseminated. Dr. Fishman said that he would present to the Council a tentative proposal on Council participation at the 50th Anniversary Celebration, particularly the presentation of an award by the Council as previously discussed. Dr. Baumbach asked whether events involving University alumni were being planned. Dr. Fishman replied that events were being considered to include alumni as well as those who trained in graduate studies or in clinical training. Dr. Fishman will continue to report to the Council on more 50th Anniversary Celebration plans as they develop.
V. DISTRIBUTION OF BALLOTS & REVIEW OF DEANSDr. Cohn reported that the process used to review deans and chairs was conducted by Faculty Senate office. He stated that Dr. Steve Green, Chair of the Senate Faculty, announced that a web page format was in place for the next review of deans. Dr. Cohn described that the new format would provide a broadcast email that would direct the faculty to the appropriate site to review the deans and chairs. He added that the new format provided the capability to submit an electronic ballot and the process would identify faculty who voted. Dr. Cohn noted that voting faculty names would be deleted from original ballot and if a faculty member did not vote a printed ballot would be mailed instead. He urged the Council to ascertain that faculty in their constituencies have functional UM email addresses. Dr. Thurer believed that some faculty would feel uncomfortable with the electronic ballot process and an alternative option was necessary. Dr. Cohn reiterated that the electronic ballot could be printed and mailed as before. He explained that electronic ballot process provided a security system, which deleted the voting faculty names from the list and non-voting faculty names remained on the list. Dr. Cohn noted that the new electronic ballot format changed the confidentiality of voting but was a positive change in the voting process. Dr. Cohn announced that Dr. Clarkson agree to the Council use the email broadcast system to inform entire medical faculty how to link to the Council web site to retrieve minutes and other Council related information such as the Bylaws, description of Standing Committees and membership, archives of minutes, schedule of meeting, etc. He planned to include the goals generated from the Council Retreat on the web site.
VI. PENDING ISSUESDr. Lewis reported that he planned to meet with Dr. Clarkson and Dr. Awad to discuss faculty participation in school governance, particularly in Faculty Senate issues. He asked the Council for their suggestions on issues or concerns to be presented to the Dr Clarkson. Dr. Lewis stressed the importance of medical faculty participation in the Faculty Senate. Dr. Baumbach recapitulated that there were no ramifications to faculty senators who did not attend Faculty Senate meetings. Dr. Cohn stated that the Faculty Senate had agreed to place Senate issues relevant to the medical school on the agenda at a later hour (5:00 PM-6: 00 PM), so medical school senators could attend even if late to the meetings. The Council believed that elected senators should have the option of declining their appointment if they can not meet the attendance requirement. Dr. Awad reported that the Faculty Senate was reviewing recommendations presented by an ad hoc committee on governance which included changes in meeting schedule, determining finite ending to meetings, and holding one meeting per semester at the medical campus Dr. Cohn reported that discussion on indirect cost allocation was deferred until the next Speaker’s meeting on July 10. He added that Drs. LoPiccolo, Rosenthal and Altman would be present to address the issue. Dr. LoPiccolo suggested that Don Coghill also be invited to talk about the issue. Dr. Cohn also reported that the issue on IRB audits would be addressed at the next Speaker’s Meeting as well. Dr. Baumbach reported that the Research Task Forces planned to review the recent research strategic plan and relative reports generated by the committee, which Dr. Clarkson appointed to evaluate research priorities for the School. She planned to formulate a committee consisting of approximately 12 faculty members to focus primarily on faculty efforts in research, sabbatical leaves, and faculty development. Dr. Cohn said that the committee would present recommendations on specific priorities and solutions with regard to research for faculty within the next six months. The Council proposed to immediately establish a task force to review research issues at School and to generated a specific list of priorities for discussion at the next Dean’s Meeting on June 26.
VII. ADMISSIONS PROCESSDr. Mian summarized that a small subcommittee, which included Dr. O’Connell, reviewed issues concerning the admissions process in the past year. He stated that a major issue was the importance of inviting more students for interviews and overcoming the obstacle of not having enough faculty to conduct these interviews. Dr. Hinkley outlined the process of how students were invited for interviews and why more non-Florida residents were not invited. He displayed the admission statistics for 2001 and noted that the number of applicants consisted of 1,100 in state and 1,034 out of state students. Dr. Hinkley stressed that the total in state applicants (1,100) was 80% of the total Florida applicant pool. He pointed out that more students apply to UMSM than to UF or to FSU, and that UMSM received more out of state applicants. Dr. Hinkley further explained that 913 secondary applications to in state residents were sent and that only 161 secondary applications were sent to out of state applicants. Furthermore, 776 in state residents and 61 out of state students actually completed the required paperwork. From those completed applications, 314 in state and 27 out of state applicants were invited for interviews. Dr. Hinkley highlighted the gap between 776 completed applications and 314 invitations for interviews. He noted that only 254 out of 314 students accepted invitations for interviews, which revealed that 20% of the applicants were accepted to other schools. Dr. Hinkley emphasized that the reason only 50% of the applicants were invited was due to the limited number of faculty on the Admissions Committee who conducted interviews. (See attached) He believed that interviewers could include other medical students and alumni. The Council discussed the possibility of having the vast majority of faculty participate in the interview process. Dr. O’Connell felt that more faculty participation would allow the interview process to thoroughly evaluate the individual applicants and increase the rejection percentile. He also believed that a more comprehensive interview process would entice more qualified applicants. Dr. Hinkley explained that the applicants invited were subjectively selected using factors such as MCAT scores, GPA history, strength of ties to Florida, and comments on letter of recommendations. The results determined which applicants are invited for interviews or placed in the applicant pool for future consideration. Upon Dr. O’Connell’s request, he stated that an evaluation appraisal form was generated consisting of criteria important to the Admissions Committee in deciding which applicants were invited. Dr. Hinkley explained that the appraisal form evaluated the applicant’s GPA history, MCAT score, awards and recognition, life experiences/activities, patient contact experiences and letters of recommendations by placing a point scale to each category. He tested the process and distributed 25 files to five faculty members to be evaluated and determined where the variability came from. Dr. Hinkley reported that after process was completed only 6 applicants were rejected, which left 248 available students for admission. Of the 248 students, 218 in state and 10 out of state students were offered acceptance and 112 students were currently on board. Dr. Mian pointed out that only 50% of the students offered admission actually attended UMSM. He added that one major reason for this was the significant difference in tuition between UMSM and UF. Dr. O’Connell emphasized that the new admission process had improved the quality of the students and assured that the students on the current alternate list were better qualified than some students on board. Dr. Hinkley described a comparison of total applicants over the past ten years and noted a 35% decrease in total applicants over the last 5 years. He explained that the number of applications to professional schools was inversely proportional to the number to corporate recruiters at undergraduate campuses. Dr. Hinkley believed that the number of applicants was expected to increase. He explained why we gave strong preference to residents of Florida and why we had so few non-Florida residents in the entering classes. One reason was that many accepted applicants could not produce the required documents to prove their residency in Florida and therefore the school lost the subsidy. Dr. Hinkley reported that UMSM received a subsidy each year from the state Legislature for each Florida resident enrolled up to a maximum of 500. Dr. Awad questioned the possibility of admitting international students. Dr. Mian believed that the potential problem in admitting foreign students was the accreditation process. Dr. Hinkley added that another problem was loan availability to these students. Dr. Hinkley summarized the breakdown of a typical freshman through senior entering class and explained the factors, such as repeaters (no subsidy given), students in the MD-Ph.D. programs, non-Florida residents, and dropouts, which affected the total class amount. The calculations showed a total of 504 qualified students entering UMSM this year. Dr. Hinkley stressed that we qualified for the full subsidy from the state but just barely. Dr. Hinkley reminded the Council that a class size of 150 was just sufficient to get the number of students needed to qualify for the state subsidy. He noted the repeaters were a liability since no subsidy was granted for them and the number of students that could not provide the proper documents was crucial to the entire admission process. Dr. Hinkley stated that UMSM was held to a much higher standard in the collection of documents to prove Florida residency than was FIU, FAU, UF, USF and FSU. He said that since there were different ways to claim Florida residency, collecting the proper documents to prove Florida residency was difficult. Dr. Hinkley added that other difficulties stemmed from the fact that no one set of documents proved Florida residency; the students never had to do this before; the students do not save paper, such as rent receipts; some documents no longer exist due to technology advances, and some parents consider it intrusive to provide financial information. Dr. Hinkley proposed that the Council formulate a working committee willing to participate in the admission process and that could remove and replace current committee members that do not contribute. He also suggested that the Council evaluate course requirements and modify the criteria for sending secondary application. Dr. Hinkley explained the current criteria used since 1991 and the recommendations he proposed.
Dr. Baumbach believed that the working committee should also discuss whether to increase the number of applicant interviews. Dr. Cohn suggested that the Council present some recommendations at the next Dean’s Meeting on June 26. The meeting was adjourned promptly at 6:30 P.M. due to the mandatory JMH Medical Staff Meeting.
Next Dean’s Meeting June 26, 2001 5:00 P.M. SCCC Room 1301
Next Speaker’s Meeting July 10, 2001 5:00 P.M. Location: TBA |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
