Home
Contents
Index
Search
Contact Us
Admissions

Minutes

DREXEL/MCP HAHNEMANN MERGER TRANSITION TEAM

Meeting No.7
January 17, 2002

The meeting began at 5:20 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 Chair reported that he had held two one-hour meetings with members of the MCPHU clinical faculty, both at Hahnemann and at MCP. There had been some concern that the unique interests of the clinicians are not being sufficiently well represented; but the Chair believes that, after discussion, the clinical faculty understand that the Merger Transition Team is well aware of and addressing those different interests. There is also a concern that the Clinical Chairs are not being consulted with regard to educational matters; but the Chair has made it clear that educational issues are intended to be addressed, and given priority, in Phase II of the Team's work (that is, after the Trustees' vote). The Chair also announced that the Team has also received dozens of comments over the web (merger@drexel.edu), and that he has responded to most. He is in the process of preparing new Frequently Asked Questions in response to some of the inquiries (e.g., confirming that the tuition remission benefit will be available to all employees of both universities to all colleges and schools with the sole exception of the School of Medicine (where there will be no discounts offered).

        Infrastructure. Once merger occurs, it is anticipated that there will be greater integration of faculty and students. This integration requires attention to transportation issues (e.g., shuttles, parking), but some of those costs can be avoided by greater use of technology. The Team was joined by Dr. Arnold Smolen, Associate Dean for Information Technology, and (by telephone) by Lori O'Connell, Department Manager, Educational Resources, of MCPHU. Dr. Smolen gave the Team a powerpoint presentation on videoconferencing and the wireless network at MCPHU. The overview began with 1994 and showed how the type of equipment had changed in just eight years to the point where the system can link eight different sites into one videoconference. This technology is currently being used to connect various rooms from the Queen Lane Campus, MCP Hospital, St. Christopher's Hospital, New College Building and the Korman Building at Drexel University. MCPHU currently uses two internet systems and one intranet, and is making good use of a huge bandwidth that is has for distance learning, School-wide and Departmental faculty meetings, committee meetings, special lectures, and "grand rounds." For its part, Drexel is substantially underutilizing its bandwidth. Dr. Smolen also explained the extent of the wireless network (indoor and outdoor use), the opportunity to use individual video connections at home (at a very modest price), and the flexibility that the wireless network provides. Finally, Dr. Smolen gave a demonstration of MCPHU's several web sites (intranet, medical education, academic and clinical). Ms. O'Connell supplemented the presentation by explaining how the system actually works, including scheduling resources, equipment use, supervision of staff, and the like. While such technology will not solve the "problem" of merging two universities (Drexel and MCPHU), it was clear to the Team that technology has already solved many of the problems of merging two universities (MCP and Hahnemann) -- including many educational and governance issues. The Team thanked Dr. Smolen and Ms. O'Connell for their presentations.

        Tenure. The Team returned to its discussion of tenure-related issues. In particular, the Team discussed two questions: (1) what should "tenure" mean to MCPHU faculty once the merger occurs, and (2) is there any financial commitment that should come with that designation. The Team began its discussion by confirming their agreement that any new tenure policy for the new university should not diminish the current tenure rights (including compensation)of Drexel faculty. While it would be possible to create a new "style" of tenure that might be considered more "appropriate" for a faculty of a medical school (such as, extended-term (e.g., 5-year) contracts with salary guarantees), such arrangements are not suitable for the School of Medicine here, for many reasons: using 5-year contracts might imply a lack of confidence in the School's future, and the School must have something to offer faculty to distinguish it (or, at a minimum, keep it competitive with) the other area medical schools. Even so, there is strong interest in having five-year reviews for faculty in the School of Medicine.

        The Team next considered the dollar implications if "Drexel-style tenure" were to be given to the MCPHU tenured faculty. There are three alternatives: (1) to treat the "x component" of the clinicians' current salary (set at the 50th percentile of basic scientists) as the "base salary" that is "guaranteed", (2) to set it at fifty percent of that base (as was the case with AHERF), and (3) to set the "guarantee" at the full salary now being paid. The Team discussed the Drexel model: it employs faculty for 9-months, but this allows faculty to obtain outside funding for another 42.75% of their salary (because of holidays and the like). Were MCPHU faculty (including basic scientists) to be placed on 9-month salaries, they would be paid between 75% and 82% of their current salaries and then be allowed to earn another 42.75% on top of that -- which could result in a significant increase for those who have alternative funding sources (i.e., grants). Clinical faculty, including those in schools other than the School of Medicine, would remain on their 12-month salaries, but their compensation would continue to have three components: "x" (base pay), "y" (target-based compensation), and "z" (bonus).

        The Team questioned whether it should be addressing the issue of "guaranteed salary" at all, since the "guarantee" at Drexel is only implicit. For planning purposes, however, the Team decided that it should be in position to advise the President and the Drexel Trustees on the financial commitment that would implicitly be made if "Drexel-style tenure" were to be granted to any MCPHU faculty. The Team will continue to work on this issue.

        Reports on Subteams.

(a) Student Governance. The Subteam continues to meet weekly. Its schedule has been placed on the website. It has chosen to address undergraduate governance issues first, but is very appreciative of the fact that issues important to graduate students are often quite different than those important to undergraduates.

Universities use different ratios - 0.75, 0.8019, and 0.8182 -- depending on what is counted.

(b) Faculty Governance. The Subteam held its first meeting, and has decided to hold a four-hour retreat on January 21. As a result of its first meeting, it will focus its efforts initially on the third model of governance that was discussed by the Team on December 20, 2001.

(c) Research (Indirect Cost Reimbursement). The invitations have been extended and as soon as one last person accepts, the names will be posted on the website. It is anticipated that the Subteam will hold its first meeting next week.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

Tobey Oxholm
Chair and Secretary