Home
Contents
Index
Search
Contact Us
Admissions

Minutes

DREXEL/MCP HAHNEMANN MERGER TRANSITION TEAM

Meeting No. 4
December 20, 2001

The meeting began at 5:10 p.m. in the President's Conference Room, 19th Floor, New College Building, MCP Hahnemann University.

        Old Business. There has been little feedback on the issues we have identified, or on the minutes we have circulated. The biggest issue appears to be the nature and the implications of the "firewall." Although they will be on the web, it was agreed that we would continue sending the minutes to the faculty and student organizations for distribution.

        Principles. Although implicit in the list of nine principles, a tenth – that the recommendation be practical – was discussed and added.

        Structure. The Team resumed its discussion of the "placement" of the schools of Nursing and Public Health. Two meetings with MCPHU faculty have demonstrated real concern with the concept of the legal "firewall" – while there is understanding about why it may be a good idea for protecting as much of the university as possible from the (remote) possibility catastrophic loss, it is a poor excuse for creating/maintaining division between faculty, employees, or students, even if that separation is short-term. The firewall is a "legal" boundary that should have no detrimental effect on the ability of all schools to function within the context of "one university." To this end, the College of Nursing and Health Professions and the School of Public Health could be on either side of the firewall. It makes no sense to put them on the "Drexel side" of the firewall simply because they are currently reporting to the Provost. In order to maintain the concept, and goal, of one university, it becomes imperative to solve the benefits issue at the moment of merger.

        Benefits. The Team discussed the fact that the Drexel Faculty Senate has been studying Drexel's benefits, and is just about ready to conclude that its benefits are below that of comparable institutions and should be increased. If that were to happen and if there were to be equality of benefits with MCPHU, then the amount of the difference would be greater than $7 million. The Team recognized that there is going to be conflict between the many priorities the University is going to have – infrastructure (buildings, classrooms, housing, furniture), educational (number of faculty, course offerings), and compensation (salary, benefits). However, equalization (rather than endowment) may also be an appropriate use of the payments that have been made to both Drexel and MCPHU by Tenet and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

        Student Governance. Michael Neyman and Justin Mathews met to begin discussions about student governance issues. Bylaws have been exchanged. There appear to be three different issues that need to be addressed: (1) should undergraduate and graduate governance be via the same entity or are the issues different, (2) should budget issues be addressed separately from all other issues, and (3) should there be one unified student government (Student Council), or should each side of the river keep its own structure (a College Board) and then have a unified Council to which each Board sends representatives (just as some colleges have their own bylaws for governing themselves, and then send representatives to a university-wide faculty senate)? The Team discussed these issues, critiquing them against the principles previously agreed upon. After discussion, the Team agreed that the next step should be to enlarge the numbers of people discussing these issues, and to create a subteam of approximately 15 people to consider them. Graduate and undergraduate students should be involved.

        Faculty Governance. Jackie Mancall, Jacques Catudel, Donna Murasko, and Tobey Oxholm met to discuss faculty governance structures. All agreed that, whatever the structure, it should ensure self-determination for the colleges and schools, should be inclusive, and should promote a community of scholars and shared governance; and that the Drexel Faculty Charter should apply. There was agreement that it made sense to continue having the work of the Senate done in subcommittees, and to ensure that there was appropriate representation on those committees. The Team agreed with these ideas, then discussed three governance models:

• Keep the Drexel Faculty Senate model, but expand it to cover both Drexel and MCPHU, with proportional representation of all schools according to the current algorithm for faculty and representation by deans. The Team discussed whether faculty ought to be counted according to "educational allocation," that is, to count only full-time-equivalent faculty in determining the number of representatives that a certain college was allowed. This idea, however, resulted in a discussion about workloads, and whether a professor in the School of Medicine who only spends 60% of her time on education (research and teaching) should only count as 60% of a single faculty member for voting purposes, even if that same professor were working 70-hour weeks. Also, Drexel faculty have not had to allocate their time, and unlike the School of Medicine, are not required to provide "effort reports" (except on research grants); so while the idea might have a good theoretical basis, it would not be practical to implement at this point. Further, whatever structure is adopted should be simple and easy to explain.
  
  
• Each side should have its own "chamber" that would govern its own affairs; and there would be a university-wide council for issues that were germane to both sides. This proposal runs afoul of several of the Team's principles. Moreover, it will be difficult to decide when an issue is solely one of concern to one side or the other.
  
  
  
• A single Faculty Senate could be created, with the following attributes:
  • 2 representatives from each unit (college or school) would be elected by that unit to serve on the Senate;
  • 1 representative from each unit would be elected by that unit to serve on each Standing Committee
  • the chair of each Standing Committee would serve on the Senate's Steering Committee
    • any unit not having a chair of at least one Standing Committee would elect 1 representative to serve on the Steering Committee
  • there would be 4 Officers of the Senate: a Chair, two Vice Chairs, and a Recording Secretary
    • one Vice Chair would be elected from each side (Drexel and MCPHU)
    • at the end of each year, one of the Vice Chairs would become the Chair, rotating between Drexel and MCPHU
    • while this proposal re Vice Chairs violates the principle of "one university," it is believed to be necessary until the two universities come to know each other better

These three proposals will be submitted to a subteam, for further analysis.

        University-wide Curriculum Committee. The Team also considered the Senate's Standing Committee on Academic Affairs (SCAA), which is responsible for reviewing new courses and programs. A list of all proposals submitted to the Senate for review over the past year, and how long each proposal took to be acted upon, was circulated to the members; some took eight months, others just one. The need for establishment of timetables for action was discussed and generally agreed upon. Also, it was agreed that while not all proposals should have to go to SCAA, there were advantages to ensuring that all courses and programs are reviewed to ensure that they meet university standards; and that should include administrators/representatives from the Provost's office. Modifications to the current Drexel system relating to jurisdiction, role and functions will have to be necessary if a single SCAA for all colleges and schools is established, since the workload will be very heavy and the time of the SCAA members limited. It was agreed that the Team will return to this issue during Phase II of the Team's work (March through June 2002).

        Research. The only issue identified by the Team relating to research that is to be addressed during Phase I related to indirect costs. At Drexel, the colleges receive a 40% rebate of the indirect costs generated during the preceding fiscal year. At MCPHU, the return rate is 0%. The unified university should have a uniform rebate policy. There is a financial cost to the equalization that must be considered. This issue will be submitted to a subteam for further review.

        Subteams. It is time to be appointing members of the subteams.. Members should submit names to the Chair before the next meeting, so that appointments can be made promptly.

        Calendar. The following schedule was discussed for future meetings:

January 3 – tenure
January 10 – benefits
January 17 – administration and support
January 24 – subcommittee reports on organizational structure and benefits
January 31 – subcommittee reports on faculty governance, student governance, tenure, and research February 7 – final meeting to review report
February 11 – final report submitted to the President

This is a very aggressive schedule, and it allows for two weeks of "slippage" if necessary, before the Trustees' meeting (and merger vote) on February 27th.

The meeting was concluded at 7:45 p.m.

Tobey Oxholm
Chair and Secretary