|
|
Minutes
DREXEL/MCP
HAHNEMANN MERGER TRANSITION TEAM
Meeting No. 3
December
13, 2001
The
meeting began at 5:10 p.m.
- Communication/Information/Trust.
Multimedia/Web Support Specialist Michael Giamo gave a final demonstration
of the website, which was approved by the Team. It will "go live" on
Monday, December 17, at www.drexel.edu/admin/merger
and be accessible by using a university password. Tobey Oxholm, Jackie
Mancall, and President Papadakis just made presentations at the Drexel
University Assembly, the special topic of which was the merger. Next
week, Tobey will make a presentation of the website to the MCPHU Faculty
(on December 18) and be meeting with the group of MCPHU Faculty who
previously met with Accenture (on December 19).
- Old
Business. No one has received any comments in response to the minutes,
or any reactions to the Principles adopted at the last meeting. Comments
are encouraged, and the Team welcomes any suggested refinements to the
Principles.
- Academic
Structure and Synergies. The Merger Transition Team has not identified
academic structure, integration or synergies as topics that must be
worked on by the Team in the first sixty days. Even so, the Team discussed
whether it should start encouraging academic units to engage in introductory
exercises (including social events) or planning for merger. It was decided
that this was more appropriately left to the Deans of the various colleges
and schools. The Team encourages the Deans to begin planning for such
events.
- Issue
No. 1:
Structure of the New University. The Team continued its discussion,
begun last week, of whether the School of Nursing and Health Professions
and School of Public Health ought to be on the Drexel or medical school
side of the legal "firewall" (that is, whether they should be left within
the Philadelphia Health & Education Corporation legal entity). To
some degree, this is a matter of the name: a "Drexel University of the
Health Sciences" implies a separateness from the rest of "Drexel University"
that the faculties of both schools do not want to have; indeed, each
faculty has now issued a position paper in which they announce their
preference for becoming a full part of Drexel University. The reason
are several, and include the close working relationships and opportunities
for greater collaboration with the eight colleges and schools of Drexel
University than with the school of medicine. The Team considered the
two position statements closely, and explored whether the goals of each
could be met regardless of which corporate entity was their home. The
School of Medicine is as interested as the other two schools in creating
new opportunities for interdisciplinary research and entrepreneurial
activities, visibility, and new courses and programs; and, in accordance
with the Principles, no school should be penalized as a result of the
merger. There should be academic unity, and equality of administrative
services, regardless of any firewall.
The Drexel trustees
are going to preserve the PHEC corporate structure to create a "firewall"
between Drexel and the clinical practice group in case of a "catastrophic
event" – e.g., medical malpractice that is uninsured, False Claims liability
to the federal government, research misconduct (e.g., involving human
trials). To that extent, the Nursing and Public Health schools have two
reactions: on the one hand, they are not concerned because they do not
anticipate any such event and the corporate form will not affect the academic
relationships with the other Drexel schools and colleges, but on the other
hand, why should they not be as protected from a catastrophic loss as
the other Drexel schools and colleges? These issues are the same for the
basic scientists within the School of Medicine: the "firewall" exists
because of risks posed by the clinical faculty.
There is reason to
believe that the Board of Trustees of the other corporate entity will
necessarily spend most of its attention on the school of medicine, just
as the PHEC Board does now; and in that process the two other schools
have felt totally neglected.
Over the past three
years, the two schools have through a reporting relationship to the Provost
that has created both efficiencies and growth, and has been largely successful.
If they remain within PHEC, however, their finances will be reviewed under
one structure (the University of the Health Sciences) while their academic
offerings will be governed by the other. Dividing academic and financial
systems between two corporate structures would be a mistake: the budgeting
and reporting systems must match so that there is consistency in program
development and evaluation.
A practical effect
of the two schools joining Drexel's legal entity would mean that their
benefits would have to be equalized immediately. If all PHEC employees
were to be given Drexel benefits, it would cost an additional $7 million
per year at current rates. If just the Nursing and Public Health schools
were to be transferred, the additional cost would be $793,600, of which
$745,000 relates solely to the retirement program. Even if that could
be afforded, the employees of the School of Medicine would not understand
why Nursing and Public Health were receiving benefits from the merger
that were not being made available to the school of medicine. At the same
time, the university should be looking to encourage the long- term relationship
of its hardest working and most productive employees; and one of the most
significant differences between MCPHU and other academic medical schools
is the retirement plan. The inequity across schools of medicine, nursing,
and public health must also be addressed promptly.
The Team understands
that the pro forma financial statements provided to the Drexel Trustees
provide for benefits to be equalized over three years – that is, approximately
$2.33 million increase per year. To achieve full equalization in the first
year, an additional $4.66 million would have to be found in the first
year, and an extra $2.33 million in the second year. Equalization is therefore
a $7 million question. The Team decided to defer further consideration
of this issue, pending further examination of the financial aspects of
merger.
- Issue
No. 2: Faculty Governance. The Team next decided to consider the
issue of faculty governance. The report of the Task Force created in
1999 reports that there was unanimous agreement that there ought to
be one Faculty Senate, with 18 senators appointed from MCPHU and 18
from Drexel; but the Team understands that there are reasons to doubt
whether the Task Force was as unanimous as the report indicates. There
is concern at Drexel that the admission of the medical school with such
a large faculty would overwhelm the Senate; at the same time, there
is no doubt that the clinical faculty members of the MCPHU Faculty Council
are full and regular participants in the governance of that university.
There is some doubt within the Drexel faculty that the Senate can absorb
the MCPHU Faculty Council; but there is no reason to suppose that the
Faculty Senate's abilities end at eight colleges and schools (as it
exists at present) and could not handle just three more. While the idea
of two separate and equal senates was considered, this solution violates
several Principles, including encouraging a community of scholars and
encouraging unity – one university and one faculty.
The Team then began
to discuss alternative structures, including:
- Giving proportional
representation to the three MCPHU schools according to the algorithm
currently in place;
- Giving proportional
representation to the schools of nursing and public health, but capping
the number of representatives from the school of medicine to some number
correlative to the College of Arts and Sciences;
- Having a bi-cameral
governance structure, allowing proportional representation in the "house"
and equal representation in the "senate";
- Structuring the
senate like the Electoral College; and,
- Carving out certain
duties from the scope of Senate subcommittees where the functions were
viewed as being "core" (e.g., curriculum, long range planning) and vesting
them in some super- or university-wide committee
Each idea has its
plusses and minuses.
The Team then discussed
how best to examine these alternatives, and to come to some conclusion.
After discussion, it was agreed that the Team should spend more time working
on this issue before it created a sub-team to work further on it; and
therefore decided to hold it over for discussion at the next meeting.
Between then and now, Jackie Mancall and Donna Murasko will meet to see
if they can come to some common understandings, or eliminate any of the
identified alternatives. Others may be invited to the meeting if that
would be helpful to them.
6. Issue No. 3:
Student Governance. There was agreement that the issues
that had just been discussed with respect to Faculty Governance applied
with equal force to
Student Governance. For that reason, between now and the next meeting,
Justin Mathews and
Michael Neyman will meet to see if they can come to some common understandings.
Others
may be invited to the meeting if that would be helpful to them.
7. Next Meeting. The team will next meet on December 20 at 5:00
p.m. in the
President's Conference Room, 19th Floor, New College Building, MCPHU.
The meeting was concluded
at 7:50 p.m.
|
Home