|
|
Minutes DREXEL/MCP
HAHNEMANN MERGER TRANSITION TEAM
Benefits. The Team heard a report on the status of the administration's planning for health benefits. To date, the Administration has not finalized any proposal, and the President has not yet considered any proposals. Having considered the many factors that must be considered in shaping any new plan, the Team recommends that there be three different health plans starting July 1. The third should be a "unified plan": technically offered separately to both Drexel and MCPHU, its terms and conditions should be the same for both. All employees hired on and after July 1 ("future employees") should be enrolled in this new plan. It should also be offered as an option to all employees of either University who had been employed before July 1 ("current employees"). It should offer "cafeteria style benefits", allowing each employee to select those benefits that are most appropriate for him/her (e.g., prescription drug, eye care, dental). The amount of the benefit should be set at the average dollar amount being spent in FY02 for all employees in both universities, with an appropriate cost of living adjustment for FY03. The unified plan should include the three health benefit options currently available - HMO, Point Of Service, and Personal Choice -- and the specific components of those plans will be a mixture of what is currently offered at the two universities. It should also include the "Tenet HMO" plan as an option, which is currently offered to MCPHU employees only, which eliminates entirely all co-pays when using Tenet facilities or MCPHU doctors. One of its features should be to make sure that no employee will have to obtain health care for his or her family from CHIPS (the government program), as is the case now for certain Drexel employees. It should also offer less expensive coverage for families than is currently available to Drexel employees. The two different plans that now exist for current employees should be phased out over the next three years, and disappear on July 1, 2005. Between that end date and this July, the two current plans should be modified, moving both toward the unified plan so that the change between a current plan and the unified plan will be gradual and not abrupt. Because of the difficulty (additional costs) in administering three plans, and because the unified University does want to have one plan, the University should consider offering financial incentives (e.g., cash) in the first year to certain employees so that they move to the unified plan -- sharing with them the reduction in cost that the University could achieve when the employees change to the unified plan. This will allow every employee the opportunity to do his or her own planning and increase the choices all have. This proposal has not been "costed out" to determine if the ideas are financially feasible, and it has not been discussed with the Administration. It is, however, an approach that would satisfy the MTT's Principles. Faculty Governance. Subteam Co-Chairs Jackie Mancall and Donna Murasko presented the report. The Subteam met three times. It began with the foundation, previously set by the MTT, that the Drexel Charter on Faculty Governance should be applicable in a merged university. The subteam identified major issues that were of common concern and decided that of the three possible models identified by the MTT, the key points to consider in their decision included (1) the need for self determination within each unit, including who votes and who are the appropriate representatives of the unit, (2) maximum flexibility and open-endedness, (3) re-evaluation of the role of administration in the Senate. As a result of the Subteam's discussions, they came to a much broader understanding of who should be represented in the governing organization. The group that will constitute "the faculty" for governance issues should be more than just tenured and tenure-track professors (which is currently the Drexel model) -- it should include research faculty and clinicians as well. The Subteam determined that there should be one faculty body and that the University Assembly will be the forum where all faculty have a voice. The governance structure recommended for that body is:
Two principles that must define this Senate are:
The Subteam agreed that it would take time to form this new structure, and that it could not be ready by July 1, 2002, principally because the Charter of Faculty Governance will need to be amended and accepted, the Senate's Standing Committees need to be reviewed and their operational process streamlined, and elections of Senators usually occur in May. For these reasons, the consensus was that this structure be implemented by April 2003, with the first elections occurring in May 2003 and the first unified Senate being installed in October 2003. In the interim, the operating structures currently in place at each institution will continue for another year: MCPHU bylaws will continue to apply for the three MCPHU units and the current Drexel Charter will apply at Drexel. The Subteam realizes that a number of important issues still need to be dealt with during the transition time, such as how standing committees will operate, the grievance process, and the revision of the faculty handbook. The Subteam proposes to begin meeting again to address these issues if the Trustees do decide to merge the two universities. The Team applauded the Co-chairs for the work of the Subteam, recognizing that the differences between the two Universities' approaches and methods to faculty governance were many and important. Obtaining consensus required true vision. The Team expressed its concern, however, with the one-year implementation period. During the first year of a merged institution, there are going to be an enormous number of issues that will affect the faculty and the academic structure. There is going to be the need for prompt response by the faculty. Having two faculty bodies will almost ensure the faculty's inability to respond in a timely manner with a single voice. After discussion, the Team agreed that if a one-year transition period is required, then there must be some "umbrella" committee whose members are appointed by the Drexel Senate and the MPCHU University Council and authorized to act on the behalf of the united faculties. Because it will have worked so closely together for so many months by the time the merger occurs on July 1, and because it will therefore have so much understanding of both faculties, their traditions and their interests, it may very well be that the Subteam itself should be that committee -- especially because there will not be any "learning time" for faculty who have not been part of the planning for merger. In either event, each faculty governing body would have to agree to the creation of such a joint committee and to make appointments to it. The Team next discussed the proposals regarding the election of the Senate Officers and, in particular, asked for clarification regarding the Subteam's recommendation that the Chair-elect and the vice chair rotate between Drexel and MCPHU. The Subteam members explained that it was important to have the three MCPHU schools represented in meetings with the Administration, since their issues were so different and it would very difficult for any Drexel-based faculty members to adequately represent those issues. At MCPHU, for example, representatives from the College of Nursing and Health Professions can now speak for the School of Medicine, but only because the leadership has remained largely intact and they have spent three years working closely with those faculty and do appreciate their concerns. For that reason, the Subteam agreed that whenever the Chair-Elect was from a "Drexel unit," then the Vice Chair should be from a "MCPHU unit", and that was the idea behind the "rotation" proposal. The Team questioned whether it was fair to allow the three "MCPHU units" to Chair the Senate every other year, and agreed that the same objective of inclusion could be met simply by ensuring that one of the two vice chairs be from a "MCPHU unit". Since this was the essence of the discussion by the Subteam, and because the actual language in the Subteam's report went beyond the discussion, the two Co-Chairs agreed to a friendly amendment of the Subteam's report, such that the statement will now be something akin to: A member of the Health Sciences Faculty (consisting of the schools of Medicine, Nursing and Health Professions, and Public Health) must be elected either as Chair-Elect or Vice Chair, to ensure that their interests are adequately represented in meetings with Administration. Even with this amendment, the Team was concerned that simply the identification of the differences might be perceived as ratifying that difference. It therefore agreed that it would recommend that this particular clause be evaluated after three years to determine whether or not a need for it remained. The Team next discussed the proposal regarding "protected time." Because the proposal is not intended to suggest monetary recognition, the word "compensation" was not suitable; however, the Team agreed that, especially in the next year when so much would be required of the leadership of the faculty governing body, the administration needed to recognize that service by releasing the chairs of the appropriate committees from other obligations. The Team therefore agreed to recommend that faculty who serve as Officers of the Senate and as chairs of the appropriate Standing Committees need appropriate adjustments to their workload to recognize the importance and extent of their activities. Since the "release time" concept of Drexel in its current form may be difficult to apply to faculty of MCPHU, this concepts needs to be re-defined to apply to all faculty who hold those positions of leadership. The Team also examined the Subteam's proposal to remove vice presidents from the Senate and to take away the power of the Deans and Provost to vote. While these provisions may well have been appropriate in the early days of the Drexel Charter, the Team agreed that it was appropriate to propose their removal at this point in the Senate's development. The Team also agreed with the general proposition that "the faculty owns the curriculum." Even so, the Trustees have the ultimate fiduciary responsibility for the curriculum, and they have vested that responsibility in the Administration; and there must therefore be some means by which Deans can appeal decisions made by the Senate that affect the academic offerings of their colleges. In its meeting of December 20, the Team noted the many challenges that would be faced related to curriculum and carved those issues out from the scope of the charge given to the Subteam. This issue will receive further consideration in Phase II of the Team's work. Finally, the Subteam noted that it had identified several other issues that require attention (e.g., grievance process), and the Team itself has identified other issues that needed to be considered (e.g., sabbatical policy). These issues, as well as a more developed timetable for the implementation of a unified Senate (with milestone dates for significant developments), will be addressed during Phase II. Agreeing with the Subteam's proposal for a unified Senate, the Team discussed how to present this proposal to the faculties of the two universities. It was suggested that a University Assembly be scheduled on this one topic, with both faculties invited to attend, and with the recommendation that the President not attend. Regarding process, the Co-Chairs suggested that each of their respective governing bodies would probably address the proposal for a unified structure by offering it to their faculties for vote, with comments offered by their governing bodies. The Team agreed with this approach, and will therefore recommend that there be a single vote on this proposal by the members of both universities' faculty, on the same day or days, and that the vote occur in late Spring, so that all members of the faculty can become sufficiently well educated about the proposal to ensure an informed vote. The Team again thanked the members of the Faculty Governance Subteam for their work. Student Governance. The Team welcomed James Sabatini, a member of the Student Governance Subteam. Subteam Co-Chairs Michael Neyman reported that the charts were revised as suggested by the Team and briefly reviewed them for the Team. Justin Matthews reported that he had not been able to contact the President of the CoEPS student organization, but will be making further efforts to establish that contact and ensure CoEPS' review before the Team makes its recommendations to the President. There has been one change in proposed name: the umbrella organization that will represent the entire student body in dealings with the Administration - comprised of University Graduate Student Association, the Undergraduate Student Government Association, and the College of Evening and Professional Studies Student Council - will be called the Drexel University Council of Students. A report to accompany these recommendations is being written by Dean Ruth. Next Week's Meeting. Because of scheduling difficulties, the President has had to postpone his meeting with the Team until Monday, February 25. That delay gives the Team a few more days to complete its work. Even so, the Team instructed the Chair to have a draft Report ready for its review by the next meeting, whereupon the Chair threatened to quit, but ultimately agreed. There may also be additional issues discussed next week. However, because it had not yet reached the issue of sabbatical policy, the Team decided to remove it from the list of issues to be considered in advance of the Trustees' meeting on February 27. The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Tobey Oxholm
|
||||||||||||
| Contact Drexel |
| Modified: Thursday March 14 2002 |  Home |
|
Contents |
|
Index |
|
Contact Us |
|
Search |
|
Feedback/Corrections |
|