Minutes of the Council Meetings >>

MEDICAL SCHOOL FACULTY COUNCIL
Speaker's Meeting
TUESDAY, August 17, 2004
SCCC Room 1537

1. Call to Order
A quorum present, the meeting was called to order at 5:00 P.M.

2. Approval of Minutes
The minutes from the Speaker's Meeting of July 27, 2004 were unanimously approved.

3. Faculty Club Plans
Robert Chisolm, the architect in charge in designing the proposal for the faculty club, and Judy Ventura, Project Manager for UM Facilities Planning and Construction, were in attendance to present the blueprints for the proposed concept of the faculty club. Mrs. Ventura explained that she had received approval from the Dean's office to pursue the renovation of the 1 st floor of the Sewell Building for the faculty club. She and Mr. Chisolm are seeking recommendations or suggestions for the proposed concept. If the Council likes the concept, then Mr. Chisolm will create more detailed drawings of the floor plan and the University will proceed with obtaining the construction documents, bidding, permits, etc.

Mr. Chisolm passed out copies of the proposed concept for the floor plan to the Council members. The plans depicted flexible layouts that accommodated both dining and conference capabilities. Space will be allocated for a phone area, restrooms, storage, warm-up kitchen, etc. The electrical and plumbing would be replaced /updated as well. A goal of the project would be to restore and maintain the original construction as much as possible. The 2 nd and 3 rd floor of the Sewell building would remain operation during the construction.

In terms of time, Mr. Chisolm explained that after the concept has been approved, it will take until the end of September to complete the architectural engineering drawings, about one to two months to obtain the permits, about five months for construction, and the estimated completion date would be sometime in the latter part of the first quarter in 2005.

Dr. Raskin asked Mr. Chisolm what he was using as a model for this concept of a faculty club. He noted that the designs differed from his vision for a faculty club. He described faculty clubs at Houston and Baylor that included TV lounging areas, work areas with computer stations and telephones, a full kitchen facility, and dining areas where breakfast, lunch, and a formal dinner were served and faculty members could bring their family and friends. He stated that the proposed floor plans looked like a conference area that could be converted into a dining area where food would be brought in from somewhere else, which differs from his concept for a faculty club.

Dr. Lewis reminded the Council that a survey had been sent to all faculty members to ascertain their vision for the concept of this faculty club on the Medical Campus. The Council received an overwhelming response rate (56%) and this feedback was carefully considered in drawing up these plans. A majority of the faculty wanted a central location on campus, a dining area, a place for evening meetings, and the ability to serve alcohol. All of this needs to be done with a budget of $350,000 (including furniture costs). Dr. Lewis is hoping that in the future, additional funding will be made available from the Capital Campaign and eventually, all three floors of the Sewell building will be renovated and become part of the faculty club. The ultimate vision is to have the first floor be a complete dining area, conference rooms on the second floor, and a large open room on the third floor.

Several members stated that it was important that the faculty club provided a setting that allowed for casual social interactions among faculty from different disciplines in order to foster collaborative efforts. Dr. Lewis stated that these designs were made with this central concept in mind, which is why there are tables, a restaurant, and intimate areas for faculty members to interact in a central location on campus. Dr. Lewis pointed out that the Council has the commitment of the location and funding and that it would be wise to take advantage of this opportunity and form a steering committee to develop the future direction and development of the faculty club. He also stated that prior models had much less open space than the current model.

Dr. Raskin expressed concern that this faculty club may not be successful due to the space, fiscal, and design constraints and restated that the Houston club, which generates a lot of revenue, be used as a model. Mrs. Ventura noted that since the Sewell Building is a historical building that weight-bearing walls could not be removed. Mr. Chisolm reiterated that a goal of the project is to maintain the original architecture.

Dr. Younis questioned what the plans were for future growth and expansion of the faculty club. Mrs. Ventura stated that she could come back to the Council and present the design for the 2 nd and 3 rd floors of the Sewell Building , although it may be 2-5 years before such a plan were implemented. She gave a brief description of the future plans, stating that the 3 rd floor would be open an open area like a ballroom.

It was commented that if the current plans were the best that could be done at this time that they should be accepted so that the architects can move forward. A motion was made to approve the concept presented for the faculty club, which passed unanimously.

4. Annual Reports from Standing Committees

Library Committee
Carl Eisdorfer, M.D., Ph.D. provided the annual report on the status of the Library Committee. Dr. Eisdorfer provided a brief history of the Library Committee, explaining that this committee had been formed as the result of a task force recommendation responding to a former AAMC citation report. In the past, the Committee pooled the students, faculty members, and other libraries and used that feedback in order to implement changes to improve the environment of the medical library. Some of the changes made were limiting the number of volumes and moving towards non-print media, such as on-line journals. The Committee has met all of the goals established up to this point in the three-year improvement plan. Unfortunately, the Dean was not able to continue funding for the 3 rd year so the final stages of the project have yet to be implemented. Dr. Eisdorfer has met with the Dean and Mr. Deeley to propose alternative funding sources such as JMH. Apparently JMH needs to have a library in order to be considered an academic teaching hospital. Dr. Eisdorfer is waiting to hear back from Mr. Deeley on the outcome of this proposal. In sum, he reported that the students were enthusiastic about the lowered copying costs, and that this price reduction has resulted in an increase in profit.

Dr. Eisdorfer was asked about the walk-in traffic the library received. He stated that this data was not available. He had utilization data, but not walk-in data. His subjective impression was that it is a well-used facility and should be expanded. He said that if future funding were to be made available, the Committee would like to propose expanding the library by constructing two additional floors.

A motion was made to accept the library report, which was approved unanimously.

Executive Promotions Committee
Dr. Mark Multach, M.D. provided the annual report on the status of the Executive Promotions Committee (EPC). Dr. Multach noted that a written report was not provided to the Council because of confidentiality issues. This year the committee discussed four student cases where the recommendation was made to repeat the course and move on. All of these cases were successful. There were eight student cases were the recommendation was made to repeat the entire year or take a leave of absence and then repeat a portion of the year. Of these cases, one student was dismissed and four appealed to the Dean. Of the four cases appealed to the Dean, in one case the EPC's decision was upheld, one was deferred to another committee, and two will be reviewed within the next two weeks.

This Committee meets 6-7 times per year for anywhere between 2-5 hours per meeting. Dr. Multach meets with each student prior to the meeting for about 1-1.5 hours, and then meets with the student again afterwards to explain the Committee's decision, the basis of the decision, and the appeal process.

Dr. Multach highlighted two developments that took place this year.

1. A second senior-level person will be nominated to sit in for the Dean to hear the student's appeal in the event that the Dean cannot meet with the student. Dr. Gardner has been nominated to this position.

2. Dr. Multach is aware that the administration is changing the promotions criteria. He is not aware of the details, but he believes that the references to standard deviations in the handbook will be removed.

Dr. Multach was asked if it was common for a 3 rd or 4 th year student to appear before this committee. He stated that it was rare. He estimated that only one student in their clinical year out of 15-18 cases per year were 3 rd or 4 th year students. Dr. Bookman asked if there was anything that the MD/PhD Program Admissions Committee could learn from the EPC work. Dr. Multach stated that the greatest predictor of student problems seemed to be correlated with being in the Honors Program in Medical Education (HPME). He believes the reason for this may be due to the fact that these students are dealing with maturity issues (i.e., difficulties with being on their own for the first time, learning to deal with getting bad grades for the first time). Dr. Multach commented that historically, these students are poorly counseled. Dr. Lewis informed Dr. Multach that the Council was looking into this. Dr. Multach was thanked for all of his hard work in undertaking this difficult job. There is a lot of time and emotion involved with these cases.

A motion was made to accept the EPC report, which was approved unanimously.

5. Benefits for Part-Time Faculty and Staff
Mr. Paul Hudgins, Associate Vice President for Medical Human Resources, and Dr. Laurence Gardner, M.D., were present to inform the Council on the status of the work being done on creating a policy for part-time faculty and staff benefits. The Dean believes that there is a need for part-time benefits. The dynamics of today's workforce are changing dramatically. There are more women in the workforce than ever and there is a need to provide flexible work environments that allow employees to balance a home and a work life. More and more employers are trying to provide this type of balance for employees in order to attract and retain talent. For example, a patient base may not always support a full-time person. A part-time position may attract a physician who has a small private practice. By not offering part-time benefits, UM is losing out on the available pool of part-time staff and faculty members.

Mr. Hudgins distributed a draft matrix, which broke-down the benefits for part-time employees by percentage of effort. Depending on the percent of effort put in by an employee, they will receive that same percentage of health insurance plus an additional 10%. Many benefits, like disability and life insurance, are not gauged or modified by the amount of time worked, but rather by salary. Fifty-percent effort would be the minimum base required to be eligible for benefits.

Dr. Awad questioned if having a 90% part-time employee was realistic. Mr. Hudgins answered that it was possible, and provided the example of employees who needed to leave early one day a week. Dr. Markoe questioned who would cover the medical malpractice costs of a 50% effort employee. Dr. Gardner commented that medical malpractice was not charged per person, but as one lump sum per department. It would be up to the department chair if they wanted to take on any additional costs associated with hiring part-time employees. Dr. Gardner informed the Council that another group is working on the issue of malpractice based on the effort of the individual, but this is separate from the part-time benefit issue.

Mr. Hudgins stated that he is addressing the part-time benefits for staff first before tackling tenure and tenure-track part-time benefits, which will probably prove to be more problematic. The plan is to begin offering benefits for part-time staff and non-tenure/tenure track faculty in January 2005. He is currently in the process of working with insurance carriers. Tuition remission is the most sensitive benefit issue and he is still working on this policy.

There were concerns about departments reducing the effort of non-tenured/tenured track positions to 90% (not at the request of the employee). It was thought that decreasing positions from full to part-time should be optional for non-tenured/tenured track employees. This issue will need to be clarified before moving forward with the part-time benefit policy for tenured track employees. Dr. Gardner commented that the support of the faculty would be needed on this policy in order for it to work. Dr. Lewis will hold a meeting with Mr. Hudgins and other interested Council members as soon as possible in order to discuss this issue. It is important that there is unified support.

6. UMSM Access to Medical Care
This item will be deferred to a meeting when Mr. Deeley is present.

7. MD / PhD Program Admission Process and Training
In response to issues discussed at the May 18 Council Meeting, Dr. Awad invited Dr. Bookman to follow-up on the establishment of the MD/PhD Program Admissions Committee as a standing committee of the Council. Issues previously discussed were the membership selection process for this committee, concerns about the quality of students admitted to the program, and the perception of students feeling trapped in the program due to having to encumber past tuition remission expenses previously granted to them if they did not complete the program.

This committee reviews student applications and submits their recommendations to the Admissions Committee for consideration. They also follow the students' progress throughout the program. Dr. Awad presented a proposed roster for the committee and concurred that these faculty members were excellent individuals to evaluate the applications submitted to the MD/PhD program.

Each of the he 42 medical schools in the U.S. with Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) grants provide stipends to students during both medical and graduate school. Although all students in the MD/PhD program at UM receive tuition remission, students at UM only receive a stipend during the PhD portion of the program. Only rarely will the Dean fund a stipend for a single outstanding medical student. Funds for tuition remission come from the Dean and are supplemented by other internal funding sources and extramural sources. Due to a lack of funding at the Medical School , stipends are rarely awarded to students while they are attending medical school. Scholarships available to medical students only cover tuition costs, not stipend support. Dr. Awad and Dr. Bookman stated that in order to be competitive with other MD/PhD programs around the country and attract the best and the brightest students, UM needed a training grant to support student stipends throughout the entire program. Dr. Awad noted that a MSTP-type program needed to be generated at UM. Dr. Bookman stated that since MSTP programs only fund about eight stipends, large MD/PhD programs utilize internal funding in order to stay competitive. In order for UM to be eligible for an MSTP grant, it would require institutional commitment to provide a certain level of monetary support for both tuition remission and stipends.

Dr. Awad made a motion to accept the proposed MD/PhD Program Admissions Committee membership for this year, recommend a three-year service limit to allow for turnover, and require that the new MD/PhD Program Admission Committee submit an annual report to the Council. Dr. Bookman noted that continuity of service would be an advantage on this committee since students are followed throughout the program and that he might suggest longer service limits. Dr. Bookman stated that his immediate focus would be to 1) create this new standing committee; 2) draft criteria for length of service and membership replenishment; 3) draft language for the Committee's formal charge; and 4) forward the aim to apply for a MSTP grant. This motion as well as Dr. Bookman's proposed plan of action was approved unanimously.

7. Standing Committees
Rakesh Singal, M.D. was nominated for appointment to the Scientific Awards Committee. This motion was seconded and approved unanimously.

Jeffery Raskin, M.D. and Carlos Moraes, Ph.D. were nominated for appointment to the Executive Promotions Committee. This motion was seconded and approved unanimously.

The Dean will be asked to send each new member an appointment letter.

8. Adjournment
There being no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 P.M.