Home
Contents
Index
Search
Contact Us
Admissions

Minutes

DREXEL/MCP HAHNEMANN MERGER TRANSITION TEAM

Meeting No. 5
January 3, 2002

The meeting began at 5:10 p.m. in the President’s Conference Room, Drexel University.

            Old Business.   The Team reported no comments received regarding any of the matters that had been considered so far.  The minutes from the meeting of December 20, 2001 were corrected in two respects, and the Chair will post and circulate the corrected minutes tomorrow morning.

            Tenure.   The topic of this meeting is tenure.  The original Academic Planning Task Force - Faculty Affairs (1999-2000) reported the many, complex issues that are involved in this area.  There are some that this Team simply will not be able to address before the February 27 meeting of the Drexel Trustees, but there are others which it can and should.  Donna Murasko and Jackie Mancall gave the Team an overview of each University’s different tenure systems, the major differences of which are charted below (this chart is not intended to be a full or complete summary of all matters, and therefore may be inaccurate; but was intended to help the MTT understand the major differences in a general way):

With this as an overview, the Team began its discussion.  It was assisted in its efforts by Robert Bohner, an Associate General Counsel from the University of Pennsylvania, who had been invited to the meeting by the Chair.  The Penn faculty have recently completed a study of various issues affecting tenure.  Their tenure system does include a variety of tracks that take into account the variety of employment categories and kinds of staff needed to support the mission of a comprehensive research university.  A description of the various categories at Penn and the procedures that apply to them, and to moving between them, can be found in Section II of Penn's Handbook for Faculty and Administrators (http://www.upenn.edu/assoc-provost/handbook).

At the fundamental level, the Team agreed (1) that there should be tenure at the new unified university and (2) that faculty tenured at either MCPHU or Drexel on the date of the merger (July 1, 2002) should automatically become tenured at the new University immediately upon merger. 

The Team was advised that while the tenure process at MCPHU had resulted in 9 recommendations for tenure since November 1998, the MCPHU Board had not considered any of those recommendations; and, further, that 4 more faculty were in the process of being considered for tenure by the MCPHU Tenure Committee this year. After discussion, the Team identified three possible processes: (1) for the MCPHU Board to consider those recommendations and to act on them before the merger, or (2) if the MCPHU Board did not act, (a) to have the Board of the new University act on those recommendations immediately thereafter, or (b) to have the granted tenure effective July 1, 2002 automatically as part of the legal merger.  This issue will be revisited.

The Team was also advised that several appointments to the MCPHU faculty had been made with the contractual agreement to propose those individuals for tenure.  They have not, however, yet been presented to the MCPHU University Tenure Committee.  After discussion, the Team concluded that MCPHU must make its own decisions about how to proceed with those individuals, and that the procedures outlined in the preceding paragraph could apply to them if they were evaluated and recommended for tenure by the current MCPHU Tenure Committee prior to the merger.

The Team then discussed, What will tenure mean for the MCPHU faculty after July 1? At Drexel, tenured faculty have the expectation that their salaries will never be reduced; at MCPHU, there is no expectation regarding salary levels.  In a unified university, what should the financial guarantee be?  There are three options:  current salary, some minimum salary (e.g., 50% of the 50^th percentile, as at AUHS), and no salary guarantee. Anything other than the third represents an increased obligation for the new university; anything less than the first represents a profound change for Drexel faculty.  There is general understanding that income guarantees are not appropriate for, or expected by, clinical faculty; similarly, the salaries of clinical faculty vary widely according to their specialty.  But the School of Medicine includes basic scientists.  Should their salaries be guaranteed the way Drexel faculty salaries are?  And what is to be done with regard to the clinician who spends 51% of her time teaching and doing research – should that faculty member have no guarantee at all?  Further, this is not just an issue for the School of Medicine: the College of Nursing and Health Professions also needs to develop a non-tenure track Clinical Educator appointment as there is at Penn.

The Team also considered the objectives of tenure and how they could be achieved in the absence of guarantees.  For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is competition for the best faculty, the unified university must have tenure.  With regard to the question of how best to ensure quality among the tenured faculty, it was noted that Drexel has begun to pay far more attention to assisting faculty to remain excellent educators (faculty development, enrichment and training programs).  The question of whether there ought to be post-tenure review (i.e., whether tenure could be revoked for poor performance) was raised and discussed at some length.  It is an issue that could be addressed on a college-specific basis; and it was agreed that this was not a topic for the Team to consider.  Annual reviews of all faculty (including goals and expectations for the new year) should be the norm; but formal evaluations are very expensive and time-consuming, and should occur only at reasonable intervals.

Recognizing that the Principles that the Team had earlier adopted presumed a single tenure policy, the Team discussed what that could mean.  It was noted that Penn had one tenure policy, but that one policy had a very wide variety of tracks, decision points, time-tables, requirements, and titles.  The flexibility that the Penn policy offers is most likely what is needed at the new unified university.  The legal “firewall” would allow a separate tenure system as a matter of law; but permitting the firewall to justify that difference would violate the Team’s agreement that the firewall should be completely invisible and not an excuse for allowing separate treatment of faculty, staff, or students.

Assuming that the new university will have a single tenure policy with different tracks, should there be university-wide requirements for tenure that must be met by all faculty proposed for tenure?  The Team agreed that there should be, but that each unit (college or school) should have the right to set additional requirements beyond those established by the university.  As part of the tenure review process, each unit should insist on satisfaction of its standards, and the Provost should insist on satisfaction of the university’s standards.  The Team deferred discussion of whether there ought to be a university-wide tenure committee such as MCPHU currently has.  However, there was agreement that units proposing faculty for tenure should have to undertake a review of the budgetary implications of granting tenure, and include in its recommendation any budget implications for continued funding of the newly tenured professor.

The Team next considered whether the Drexel “up or out” policy should be adopted for the new university.  At MCPHU, the appointments are only for one year, and a faculty member denied tenure is allowed to continue receiving one-year appointment letters until the unit decides it does not want to renew that contract/relationship.  At Penn, if a professor is not granted tenure, he or she must leave the tenure track but is permitted to be appointed to the faculty in another position.   The Team agreed that there was no reason that a faculty member, denied tenure, must leave the university if his/her college/ school desired that he/she remain; and there are several different options that could be offered if post-denial employment were to be permitted.

The Team will continue to discuss tenure issues at their next meeting.

            Appointment of Subteams.  The first appointments will be made over the weekend and early next week.  The Chair will write a letter of appointment, asking the nominees to serve. 

            Student Governance.  The Team reviewed the list of people whom the Chair had decided to appoint to the subteam.  An invitation will be sent to each individual and a first meeting will be scheduled for next week.   Michael Neyman and Justin Mathews will co-chair the subteam.  The subteam will ensure that there are no less than two university-wide general meetings, one held at each university and open by teleconferencing to the other university. 

            Faculty Governance.  A final list of names of potential appointees will be circulated to the members by e-mail tomorrow, with requests for comment.  An invitation will be sent over the weekend to the appointees, asking them to serve.  Sue DiIorio will arrange for the first meeting. Donna Murasko and Jackie Mancall will co-chair the subteam.

            Research.  Names of appointees to the subteam to consider the reimbursement of indirect costs will be circulated to all members over the weekend, and the appointment letter will be issued in the middle of next week.  Harvill Eaton will convene the subteam, but will not participate on it..

The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.

Tobey Oxholm
Chair and Secretary