Minutes of the Council Meetings >>

MEDICAL SCHOOL FACULTY COUNCIL
Speaker's Meeting
TUESDAY, September 21, 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/Dean’s Meeting of May 18, 2004 were unanimously approved. The minutes from the Speaker’s meeting of August 17, 2004 were unanimously approved pending a correction in the attendance section.

3. Division of Veterinary Resources: Linda Waterman, D.V.M.
The Council invited Dr. Linda Waterman, who began her position at UM in June, to the meeting in order to introduce herself and present her vision for the Division of Veterinary Resources. Dr. Waterman gave a brief presentation on her prior experience. She explained that her overall vision for the DVR is to provide service to the investigators and upgrade old facilities and promote future growth. In the immediate future, she is focusing on dealing with and cleaning-up existing problem areas, ensuring that individuals are appropriately trained and the adequate capital and supplies are available, providing good leadership, and moving forward.

It was asked if there were plans to develop the South campus. Dr. Waterman stated that a final decision has not been made on that issue as of yet. Dr. Waterman was questioned about the status of the plans for a freestanding building for animal care. Her personal point-of-view was that a freestanding facility was needed, but it is looking like only two floors of a new facility will be devoted to animal care.

Dr. Waterman was questioned about the rules for the transport of animals from building to building. She explained that animals can be transported, but it needs to be done in accordance with the appropriate policies and procedures. These policies and procedures are in place to prevent the spread of outbreaks, such as the MPV outbreak that occurred in the McKnight Building. The MPV outbreak is under control and they are close to eradication.

Dr. Waterman was asked about the status of the AAALAC accreditation. She explained that the institution sent in their response and that all repairs should be completed by the end of the year. When asked if there was a firm commitment to maintain accreditation, Dr. Waterman responded that so far, all of her requests had been met within a timely manner. She noted the challenges posed by the aging facilities and equipment, and said that she had created a list of priorities and is pushing this agenda in order to get the top priorities addressed asap.

Dr. Waterman also clarified that more training on animal handling will be made available to faculty and staff members and that she is looking into many options for providing this training (both on and off-line). She will be obtaining staff to provide the training.

Dr. Waterman thanked the Council for inviting her and asked the members to contact her with any specific needs and/or questions they have.

4. Description of Process of Promotion: Shahnaz Duara, M.D.
Some of the faculty members at the UMSM have inquired what occurs when the promotion documents reach the Coral Gables Campus. Dr. Duara, Chair of the Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee (APT), was invited to describe the promotion and tenure process. Dr. Rosenthal was also present to address questions about the process.

Dr. Duara explained that when the APT Committee receives the files for review, they are the third body reviewing and voting on them and they already have documentation of the chair and past chair’s vote. After the APT committee completes their review, then there is a final vote from the Committee. Then a summary of the entire process (including the outcome of the three levels of review) for all faculty members going up for consideration is written up. One-third of these summaries are written by the Chair, 1/3 by the past chair, and 1/3 by Dr. Rosenthal. These reports then go to the Dean. The Dean has all of the information as to what has occurred in the process since beginning at the departmental level. The Dean usually spends about half of one day with the Chair of the APT Committee and Dr. Rosenthal reviewing the files before making his final decision. Then the Dean tells the Department Chair and Dr, Rosenthal his decision. For the most part, the Dean’s decision and the APT’s decision are the same (once in awhile the Dean’s decision differs, and the Department Chair is made aware of that). Finally, the entire document is sent to the Coral Gables campus. The entire review process is repeated at the Coral Gables campus.

The APB committe at the Gables campus meets in early December and holds a one-day meeting to review the files. Representatives from the Medical campus APT committee are present during this meeting in order to answer questions about each candidate, and they leave the room while the committee votes. Cases where there is a discrepancy between the Dean and APT’s decisions are discussed in detail. Dr. Duara stated that there is representation from each school involved in this process and that there is a very thorough review process. The APB committee then makes a recommendation to the Provost. Just like the Dean, the Provost is at liberty to either accept the recommendation or make his own recommendation. This recommendation goes to President Shalala and the Board of Trustees makes the final recommendation.

Guidelines are strictly followed at each level of this process and Dr. Duara noted that there are very few reversals. For the most part, she sees the process as straightforward and fair.

Dr. Duara was asked about the appointment process for the APB. The committee members are appointed by the Provost to be his advisory committee and are a representative of the faculty. Dr. Fletcher stated that these committee members are not appointed by a faculty body and the committee is not mentioned in the faculty manual. Dr. Rosenthal commented that this is a peer review process and that the Provost is entitled to get advice from whomever he would like to. There are two representatives from the Medical School on the APB. These representatives are usually a member of the APT committee or an individual knowledgeable of the medical school decision-making guidelines. He explained that this is a peer-review process that takes place at the department, medical school, and university levels, and expressed that he felt this process works.

Dr. Lewis asked what type of feedback was given to the department chair and the candidate if their request for tenure is denied. Dr. Rosenthal explained that he sits down with the candidate and the department chair and provides them with feedback. If the department chair prefers to provide the feedback to the candidate directly, Dr. Rosenthal allows that as well.

Dr. Fletcher suggested that since 50% of the faculty members appointed for tenure are from the Medical School, there should be more than two representatives from the Medical School on the APB. She also noted that the APB should be documented in the faculty manual. Dr. Mian noted that this issue should be forwarded to the Senate. This may be a good opportunity for the Senate to review the promotion and tenure process since there will be a new Provost at the University.

MOTION: Dr. Lewis will send a letter to Dr. Coombs suggesting a review of the promotion and tenure process at the University and the creation of formal legislation to codify the process since the consensus among that Faculty Council was that too much of the present process is open to individual interpretation.

This motion was unanimously approved.

5. Fisher Scientific/VWR: Kermit Carraway, Ph.D.
Some of the faculty members are just discovering that the University is no longer able to contract with Fisher Scientific for the purchase of equipment. The Universitynow has an exclusive contract with VWR. Dr. Carraway noted that faculty members are upset that this change was made without any consultation from individuals on the academic level. He cited the example of a faculty member that just ordered equipment from VWR that came in a larger size than the equipment from Fisher. This equipment is now sitting in the hall because it does not fit in the available space. Dr. Carraway noted that orders can still be placed through Fisher, but the procedure is quite complicated.

This issue will be put on the next agenda to discuss with the Dean.

6. Faculty Council Meeting Schedule
Dr. Lewis proposed revising the Faculty Council meeting schedule to have one longer meeting per month rather than two meetings per month. Dr. Thurer pointed out that the idea of having two meetings per month is to allow the Council time to mature issues, and then present them to the Dean and Mr. Deeley for action. If the Council tries to develop and present issues all at once, there may not be as much progress.

Dr. Lopez suggested meeting on alternate weeks, rather than back-to-back meetings during the last two weeks of the month. Moving one of the meetings would conflict with the Jackson Executive Committee meeting schedule.

It was decided that the meeting schedule would remain as is.

7. Other Business:

New Lab Research Building
The Medical Affairs Committee Board of Trustees met to discuss the new lab research building that will be built next to the library. Once the building is completed in 2007, it will be filled with recruits from SCCC, BPEI, etc. The budget for the new recruits is set to coincide with the opening of the building.

Another new building may also be constructed, but that will depend on the success of the Capital Campaign.

Faculty Club
Work on the plan for the faculty club that the Council approved should begin by the beginning of 2005.

UMMG
Dr. Thurer reported that there was much discussion about malpractice issues at the Medical Affairs Committee Board of Trustees meeting. The risk management function is being reorganized so that it is put under UM control rather than JMH control. Dr. Thurer stated that this move will work in the University’s advantage considering that JMH has sovereign immunity and UM does not. Dr. Raskin reported that Robert Blake was presenting before the Board today and will be speaking about having JMH assume liability for all patients that UM physicians see in JMH clinics. Dr. Thurer stated that there was a precedent for this. Patients admitted to JMH should be covered by sovereign immunity. Legislative action is needed to make this happen.

UMMG is also looking to shift the responsibility for billing for Medicaid patients to JMH. There were concerns about this because if JMH does not collect, income could drop significantly, especially in clinics where over 80% of patients are covered by Medicaid. Another concern was that this move would make UM more dependent on JMH for economic activity. Moreover, this change may not eliminate the liability issue.

On another note, Dr. Thurer recommended that Faculty Council and faculty member views should be heard in the UMMG forum. A motion was made to request a seat for a permanent non-voting representative from the Faculty Council be created on the UMMG. The Council can facilitate a reciprocal policy.

This motion was approved unanimously.

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