Home
Contents
Index
Search
Contact Us
Admissions

Response of President Constantine Papadakis
To the Initial Report and Recommendations
of the Drexel/MCPHU Merger Transition Team

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Merger Transition Team:

     When I appointed you to serve on the Merger Transition Team back in November, I knew that there will be many issues that both Universities will have to face if they are to become one. It was my hope that you, as leaders of both Universities, would not only serve as representatives of your own constituencies, but rise to the challenge of speaking for all and articulating a vision for what the new merged University should be. I am pleased, and thankful, to see that you rose to that challenge.

     As I promised you when I gave you your charge in November, I have read your Report and I have considered each of the seventeen recommendations you have made. When met together on February 25, before your Report and Recommendations were shared with the Oversight Committee of the Drexel Board of Trustees, I shared my initial reactions with you, and I told you that I would also put them in writing so that my response that could be shared with both University communities.

     You began your Report by recommending that the School of Public Health and the College of Nursing and Health Professions be moved to the parent corporation (Drexel) and that the School of Medicine become the sole school within the subsidiary corporation (PHEC). I agree. This structure is appropriate for the new University, and I will recommend it to the Trustees. In arranging the legal relationship in this way, we will also make the commitment that, in all ways other than as required by law to maintain its separate corporate entity, the School of Medicine will be treated and regarded the same as any other school or college of Drexel University. The corporate line, required by law, will be as invisible as we can make it to the students who come here to learn, the professors who teach, and the staff who administer.

     I believe the approach you have offered to bridging the gap between the two health benefit plans -- creating a third plan with cafeteria benefits, and unifying the two existing plans into that third plan over three years -- is also the right way to proceed. Equalization of the retirement benefits, however, will also take time. It is not that we want to maintain a difference; rather, we estimate that the additional contribution required by the employer could be even larger than seven million dollars depending upon employee participation. Simply put, the University just does not have those additional funds available on an annual basis. Therefore, we have no economic alternative but to increase retirement benefits gradually. Even so, you have identified what I agree is a most important issue and challenge that we must meet. As we do so, we will offer supplemental retirement plans, as you have recommended, and I have instructed the Human Relations Department to make this an immediate priority.

     Tenure is a very complicated matter, as you noted in your Report, and you have done a good job analyzing the issues. The way you have defined tenure -- as an ongoing commitment by the University and by the professor to each other -- is precisely what it should and must be; and I agree that the expectations of each for the other should be made specific. But the definition of tenure is not mine to give: there are intersecting issues that require careful examination and consideration by the Drexel Board of Trustees. You are also correct that the issues become even more complicated when it comes to clinical faculty in the School of Medicine. As to them, legally, tenure issues cannot be decided by the Drexel Board, but, as you have noted, they must be considered and decided by the new PHEC Board. That cannot happen until that Board is reconstituted, which will only occur after the decision to merge is made. While I appreciate the faculty's desire to have answers as quickly as possible on this key issue, we cannot move more quickly than the law and prudence allow.

     You next addressed governance structures for the students and for the faculty. There is no doubt that there are many models that could be used, and that there will be a wide variety of opinions about what structures should be adopted. Having read the reports of the Subteams that you empanelled and having evaluated the various proposals against the guiding principles you established, I believe that the proposals you have made are thoughtful, principled and balanced and deserve our support. It is important that there be unified assemblies; otherwise, the University will not be unified. I also agree, however, that the final decisions ought to be made by the faculty and students themselves, not by the Administration. For that reason, I will ask that a General Assembly be called so that the faculty of both universities can discuss the faculty governance proposal; and that an Open Forum be called so that the students of both universities can discuss the student governance proposal. As the President, all that I ask is that, once merger arrives, there be one entity that speaks for all faculty, and one that speaks for all students, so that the Administration may know with whom it should work. Finally, I agree that student fees should continue as they are for the foreseeable future, and be studied during the first post-merger year to see if any modifications should be made.

     You have also proposed several creative ways by which the distance between the two universities may be closed, to the benefit of the academic missions of both, and I agree with most of your recommendations. I agree with your proposals for shuttle service and for expanded teleconferencing facilities at Drexel, and I will ensure that these expenditures are within the appropriate budgets. I agree that Drexel's policy of providing a research incentive award to colleges, departments, and principal investigators should be extended to the three MCPHU schools, and that the policy should be implemented gradually; and I agree to continue that policy until its effectiveness can be examined in the fifth year post-merger. Your analysis of these issues is compelling.

     I also agree that investments should be made in the academic enterprise as a whole to capitalize upon the merger and inspire the creation of synergies. I do feel I need to remind everyone that for the past three years, Drexel has only been the manager of MCP Hahnemann University. Given that limitation, I am pleased and encouraged by the amount of thinking about possible synergies that has already occurred. Once the Trustees have decided to merge the two institutions, I am confident that the opportunities for collaboration will become far more obvious and exciting, and that we can start planning and budgeting for the new programs and initiatives. Your proposal to put aside $10 million from the Drexel endowment to use over five years as a venture capital fund for merger synergies is a clever idea, and I will consider it further; but I must balance that idea against other institutional priorities that we have; and, as you realize, the Trustees themselves have the final word on the use of endowment funds. But I accept and agree with your points that new programs require investment and that is important to make a meaningful investment as soon as possible; and I also agree that we may need some outside assistance in addressing the cultural differences that exist between the universities.

     Finally, I agree in general with the issues that you have identified as meriting consideration in Phase II of your work, once the Trustees have voted to merge. When that Phase arrives, as I am confident it will, I ask that you address first the issues of the clinical track, adjunct faculty, and tenure, because they must be resolved immediately; that you next consider the curricular review and approval process, since it is core to the University; and that you defer consideration of calendar issues to Phase III, since as a practical matter, we simply cannot make material changes in next year's curriculum at this late date. As before, I urge you to reach out to both university communities, to take advantage of efforts previously made, and to continue involving other groups, organizations and committees that might be working on the same or similar issues at both universities. We will succeed and reach our true potential as a single University only if all parts of both universities work together.

     You have done a splendid job in a very short period of time against many odds. I applaud you for your successes. And on behalf of both Universities, I thank you for your eminent service.

Constantine Papadakis, Ph.D.
March 12, 2002