Home
Contents
Index
Search
Contact Us
Admissions

Minutes

DREXEL/MCP HAHNEMANN MERGER TRANSITION TEAM

Meeting No.8
January 24, 2002

The meeting began at 5:20 p.m. in the President's Conference Room, Drexel University.

        The Chair noted that all three Subteams are hard at work. The Student Governance and Research Subteams will be reporting back to the Team next Thursday (January 31) and the Faculty Governance Subteam will report the next week (February 7). The Chair has also met with representatives of the MCPHU Alumni/ae Association to discuss issues related to and of interest to the graduates of MCP Hahnemann, including events, scholarships, and the name of the medical school. The Chair also reported that the problem of the disparity in retirement benefits is being raised with Tenet in the current merger negotiations.

        Infrastructure. Last week, the Team considered how the various MCPHU campuses and departments had become linked via teleconferencing and wireless technologies. Joining the team was Anthony Glascock, with whom the Team engaged in spirited discussion. Before becoming Vice Provost at Drexel, Dr. Glascock helped lead the integration of the two universities' Psychology Departments. Today, there is one Department, administered by one head (who is a MCPHU faculty member), with an agreed-upon, joint tenure process. That structural change in the departments was itself a long and complex process; but "corporate integration" was only the beginning, and was probably the easiest part. What the departments found are lessons that will be learned in all such future integrative efforts.

        At MCPHU, psychology is almost exclusively a graduate program, and there are few undergraduates; at Drexel, the reverse is true. All agree that there is significant value to linking undergraduate students with graduate students; and the faculty of each school look forward to working with the other's students. At Drexel, there are approximately 175 psychology majors, and approximately 3,000 students took psychology courses, numbers far in excess of the total number of students at MCPHU taking psychology courses; but most of the available laboratories are at MCPHU, where they are new, well-equipped and available. Contiguous office space could be found for the entire faculty at MCPHU; that will not happen at Drexel. Some of these logistical problems can be addressed by videoconferencing; but there are classes that simply must be taught in labs. The Department is wrestling with its options: to provide shuttles or additional parking (which is time-consuming and expensive); to offer courses simultaneously over the internet, perhaps supplemented by in-class teaching assistants; or to offer the same courses, live, at both universities (which denies many of the synergies of merger).

        Classroom space is a problem. At MCPHU the classrooms are generally small; at Drexel, many classrooms are in need of upgrades or modernization. There may not be enough classrooms to hold certain classes. Since the "merged" classes have not yet been identified, there is no way now to try to ensure that those synergies are "protected". It does not appear that anyone is examining these issues from a strategic point of view.

        The issue of lab space was an issue not just related to teaching: research occurs 24/7, and if we are to offer access by Drexel students to MCPHU faculty working on grants and doing state-of-the-art research, we need to make sure they can get there (and back) safely. Currently, the MCPHU campuses are linked by a shuttle service that is provided by Tenet (because it is hospital-based). There is a shuttle service that links Hahnemann to Drexel, but that is because there is off-campus housing currently provided to students; and when that housing is discontinued later this spring (at the end of the Spring Term), the bus service will be terminated.

        The academic integration issues are also substantial. The different calendars at the two universities -- quarters at Drexel, semesters at MCPHU, and different start and end dates of each -- make it very difficult to coordinate classes. If a MCPHU student were to take a course in abnormal psychology at Drexel, she would receive 2 credits; but if taken at MCPHU, it would be 4 credits. There is no understanding whether the two courses, as currently offered, cover the same topics. In trying to address these issues, the Department is looking at the academic issues first, which will then determine the decision of whether the courses should be offered on a quarter or semester basis.

        The universities also approach graduate students differently. At MCPHU, the typical Ph.D. student would expect stipends and tuition wavers, which are always covered by grant moneys after the first two years; at Drexel, there are the same expectations at the research-focused programs, but the stipends vary, just as salaries do for faculty depending upon the discipline.

        In working through these issues, as they have, the Department's faculty have run into the inevitable "turf issues", with each "side" beginning with the assumption that the other "side" will "just have to change". The Department has managed to overcome those issues, but the success they have achieved has depended upon the growing appreciation of each other's abilities and assets and the trust that has come from working together. That does not happen overnight; and it will not simply "arrive" on July 1 if the merger occurs. There do not appear to be any substantial efforts currently underway in the various Departments to build the bridges that will be necessary for the potential synergies to be realized. Those synergies will also have unintended and unexpected consequences: for example, the merger of the two Psychology Departments required a total reorganization of the departments of Sociology and Anthropology at Drexel, which then required reorganization of the Communications Department; and so on. Beyond organizational issues, there will be additional costs involved in merging the academic programs, and neither "side"'s department has any experience in such issues, or ability to absorb those costs in its existing budgets. Funds have to be allocated for this purpose, either as part of the departments' budgets for next year or in a "contingency fund" specifically created for that purpose; but neither appears to be in process.

        It is clear that greater attention must be paid, immediately, to these issues if the academic benefits of merger are to be realized in any material way during the 2002-03 academic year; and it is clear that producing those benefits will not be without cost, in terms both of time (planning and preparing) and dollars.

        Tenure. The Team continued its discussion of the many issues related to tenure. Given its advisory role, should the Team even be considering making recommendations that address financial implications? There is no explicit "guarantee" of salary at Drexel, even though there is a common presumption that, once tenure is granted, a professor's salary will not be reduced absent extraordinary reasons. But the tenured faculty at MCPHU, and those awaiting tenure, who have been living with no salary guarantees throughout the bankruptcy and the three years of interim management by Drexel, are unquestionably expecting some affirmation of stability in compensation as an attribute of tenure post-merger. For these reasons, the Team concluded that it will make recommendations to the President regarding the financial "meaning of tenure". After discussion, the Team reached consensus on the attached proposal. The Team will invite comment on it, and continue discussions.

        The two tenure-granting systems are different: at MCPHU there is a university-wide committee that reviews candidates, while at Drexel the candidates are proposed by each college directly to the Provost. The college-based process at Drexel allows each college to define in large measure what is meant by the three elements (teaching, scholarship, and service); and for this reason there is the risk that a college might interpret one element in such a way as to substantially reduce its value -- for example, deciding that an individual was a great "teacher" because of her incredible ability to educate through published articles, despite the fact that her students were uniform in their poor evaluations of classroom and office hour personal interactions. Colleges know their candidates best, and are best able to evaluate whether any particular candidate satisfy their criteria for "permanent appointment"; at the same time, they are also like families, where there is likely to be more "understanding" and willingness to overlook individual deficiencies than if the same candidate were to be presented to independent evaluators. Tenure review must include both levels of review if the interests of the University are to be ensured.

        At the new university, the concept of "tenure" must be specifically defined. The Universities' expectations should be explicit -- in term of a faculty member's growth, contributions to the field, and contributions to the university -- and should be enforced by the University itself, over and above satisfaction of a college's requirements, in the tenure review process. Similarly, the University's ongoing expectations for tenured faculty should also be explicit and ongoing, and consistent with the principle of accountability.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.

Tobey Oxholm
Chair and Secretary

TENURE
Preliminary Proposal of the Merger Transition Team
(January 30, 2001)

This proposal for granting tenure at MCP Hahnemann University was developed as a result of the consensus among the Merger Transition Team that tenure guarantees among members of a merged faculty be both equitable and fiscally sound. It does not address the process of tenure itself, but rather the meaning of tenure with regard to salary guarantees. It proceeds from the following assumptions:

1. That the meaning of tenure at Drexel in terms of financial guarantees should not be altered in any way (and by "guarantees" we mean current expectations of the faculty, since there is nothing written, only tradition).
2. That tenured faculty at MCP Hahnemann should be entitled to financial guarantees that are equivalent to faculty at Drexel.
3. That tenure guarantees at MCP Hahnemann do not in any way inhibit efforts to recruit and retain good faculty in any of its academic units or programs.

The Policy (DRAFT)

1. All tenured faculty at Drexel are guaranteed 100% of their nine-month salaries. They are not guaranteed any compensation beyond their nine-month salaries that come from extramural compensation (generally grants and contracts) or extra compensation provided from the University for summer teaching or special academic or administrative assignments.
2. Faculty members currently holding tenure at MCP Hahnemann (as well as any faculty who will be eligible and receive tenure in any of its three schools in the future) should likewise be guaranteed 100% of their nine-month equivalent salary, except for clinical faculty in the School of Medicine.
3. Clinical faculty in the School of Medicine should receive salary guarantees on the basis of their academic appointments only, those salary components to be determined by the Dean of the School of Medicine and approved by the President of the University, but not to exceed the salary paid to a basic scientist of comparable rank at the fiftieth percentile.

How It Can Work

1. At present, almost all MCP Hahnemann faculty are on twelve-month appointments. For purposes of tenure guarantees, all salaries except those of the clinical faculty in the School of Medicine will be computed at 9/11 (.8182) of their current 12-month base. (We assume, subject to verification, that the 9/11 conversion factor is the norm in most American colleges and universities.) So, for example, a faculty member in a basic science department currently earning $100,000 would have a tenure base of $81,820. (The alternative is to compute the conversion at 9/12 (.75) of the 12-month salary. Following that model, the faculty member who earns $100,000 for twelve months would have a salary guarantee of $75,000.) By basing the tenure guarantee on nine-month appointments, there would be parity between Drexel and MCP Hahnemann faculty.
2. By contrast with all other Drexel and MCP Hahnemann faculty, clinical professors in the School of Medicine have the capacity (and the responsibility as part of their job requirements) to engage in clinical practice that results in additional earned income. Clinicians also work year-round, not on nine-month academic cycles. Nine-month faculty at Drexel and MCP Hahnemann cannot earn additional income during the period of their academic appointments (they can, of course, earn extra moneys during the other three months). Clinicians are expected to earn extra moneys all year long. For that reason, the "academic component" of appointments for clinical faculty needs to be determined. It may be that the tenure guarantee should be some percentage of that amount, e.g., also based on the nine-month portion of that figure (as it would be for basic scientists). So, for example, if a clinical faculty member is salaried at $300,000, and if 25% of his/her salary is considered to be the "academic component," then he/she would receive a financial "tenure guarantee" of either .8182 or .75 (depending upon which system is used) of $75,000 ($61,365 or $56,250).
3. The job of determining the "academic component" of the salary of a clinical faculty member can be done in one of two ways. (1) It can be based strictly upon academic rank with higher academic bases for full professors than for associate professors, etc.; or (2) a precise calculation can be made for each clinical faculty member, based upon position requirements, under which a clinician with heavier instructional and research responsibilities would receive a higher percentage of income guarantee than one who does less teaching and research and spends more time in clinical practice, irrespective of academic rank.
4. The clinical faculty at the School of Medicine have long been accustomed to having their academic salary component set with reference to the salaries of basic scientists. We believe this method continues to have merit, and would suggest that the academic base not be more than the salary paid to a basic scientist of comparable rank at the fiftieth percentile.
5. Because of the fact that the revenues of the School of Medicine are so dependent upon payments received from clinical practice as opposed to tuition or grants, an explicit cap might be prudent for the percentage of clinical faculty who can be tenured. Regardless of fixed limits, tenure should be carefully granted to those who have demonstrated academic excellence. The faculty appointments system must allow for a non-tenure Clinician track, which would allow the School of Medicine to retain qualified clinicians on its faculty who either decide they do not wish to pursue tenure, or perhaps following a negative decision on tenure.

We believe that this model would provide an equitable system of financial guarantees for tenure for all tenure/tenure track faculty at both institutions. Obviously there would be risks to Drexel in acknowledging and undertaking these new financial obligations for MCP Hahnemann faculty, where there currently are no income guarantees. (For example, if a significant number of faculty were to lose grant support all at once, substantial deficits could result.) These risks need to be analyzed and a plan developed as to how the "financial guarantees" of tenure should be implemented (e.g., immediately versus phase-in).