Note added Apr. 3, 1998:  A summary of the accreditation report received from the LCME has been posted on the Dean's web page.
 

• Jim Daniel, MFA Treasurer, Anesthesiology
• Silvia Formenti, MFA representative, Radiation Oncology
• Peter Heseltine, Representative from MFA to CPSA negotiation, Medicine
• Harvey Kaslow, MFA President-Elect, Physiology and Biophysics
• Wendy Mack, MFA Executive Board Member-at-Large, Preventive Medicine
• Robert Stellwagen, MFA Past-President, Biochemistry

• MFA Recommendations 1997-98-001, -002, and -003 and 1996-97-002 and -003
• Academic Senate Resolution 96/97-12
• Graduate and Professional Student Senate Resolution regarding the violation of contracts of Basic Science Faculty

The 1997 Self Study report cites as a weakness of the School: "Low morale of many faculty."

Tough and changing times need not lower morale. If those who are challenged come together and work together effectively, the experience can build and strengthen morale. The Medical Faculty Assembly (MFA) is growing to be place where faculty can come together, debate issues that face them, and work together to solve problems.

The Governance Document (1997) of the School specifies that the MFA shall consist of one representative from each academic department and major hospital affiliate. The MFA is the only body elected by faculty from all departments to represent faculty in the governance of the School. The Governance Document (1997) states that the MFA shall:

• Discuss and debate current issues and matters of interest to the faculty.
• Nominate faculty members for various assignments to provide broad participation in the affairs of the School.
• Receive the reports of all standing committees and, where appropriate, sufficient background information on all items to be discussed at the next meeting of the FEC. The voting members of the FEC are the Chairs of all individually budgeted academic departments who report directly to the Dean, the President of the Medical Faculty Assembly; and the President of the ASSM.
• Advise the Dean and the Faculty Executive Council (FEC) on academic and faculty status matters.

3. Governance at the School of Medicine: 1991-97.

The 1997 Self Study report recommends:

"Increase meaningful involvement of faculty in governance based upon a mutually agreed upon document-based governance system."

This recommendation arises from controversies involving documents that determine faculty status and functions.

 For example, in the 1990-91 accreditation process, the Administration presented the Governance Document (1988) as the valid governance document of the School. Then, in 1997, the Interim Dean stated he never considered the Governance Document (1988) as valid because he felt it had never been properly approved. The MFA considered the Governance Document (1988) as valid, and recommended that any changes in it be made according to the terms of the document. These terms allowed the Board of Trustees to make changes. Citing a conflict with University by-laws, the Board of Trustees then altered the Governance Document (1988) without consulting faculty. Among the changes was one that eliminated a requirement that the Dean provide written explanations for adverse decisions regarding recommendations from the FEC.

 Other changes to the Governance Document made by the Board strengthened the power of the Dean over the Chairs, allowing the Dean to terminate faculty from the position of Chair "without cause or explanation." Both versions of the Governance Document (1988 and 1997) specified that appointment as departmental chair is for an "indefinite period" whereas the Faculty Handbook of the University, which establishes University policies, states that chairs shall serve for a "stated term (normally three or four years)." The Faculty Handbook also states that chairs are to be appointed by the Dean following selection by either department election and/or thorough consultation with the full-time faculty, and normally in conformity with the department members' judgements. With regards to these policies in the Faculty Handbook, the 1997 Self Study report states: "The University has not enforced these guidelines in the School of Medicine."

 Controversies have also arisen from actions of the Administration involving the faculty contract. Although the contract issued to tenured faculty of the University stated it shall be renewed every year and not changed except with written mutual agreement, tenured Basic Science Faculty received a letter from the Dean dated June 28, 1995, stating, "....your duties will be reduced from a twelve-month schedule to a nine-month schedule,.... and....your current salary will be reduced accordingly by 25%....This letter, followed by your 1995/96 faculty contract, will supersede any other agreements between you and the University." This act, and the assertion by the Administration that it had the right to take this action, has resulted in litigation.

In June 1996, the Administration reinstated the 12-month salary status of the Basic Science Faculty, and told them that "written faculty contracts in the School of Medicine cannot be issued at this time. It is our expectation that faculty contracts reflecting an alternative compensation plan, developed by the University working with faculty committees will be issued by January 1, 1997. Until such time, the terms outlined herein constitute the University's sole commitment to you after July 1, 1996, and represent the terms of an interim working contract with you until your written contract can be issued by January 1997."

 The Faculty Handbook places considerable importance on the issuance of faculty contracts by stating, "No full-time or part-time academic employee is considered to have faculty status unless the President or appropriate vice-president or dean has signed a written contract for that employee." Although the Faculty Handbook specifically calls on the Administration to issue contracts to faculty every year, no contracts have been issued by the Administration to any faculty in the University for the 1997-98 academic year. As a result of this action, the issue of faculty contracts is under active consideration by the Academic Senate of the entire University.

 The economic security of tenure ensures for faculty their academic freedom not only as it relates to scholarship, but also to university governance. If the economic security heretofore provided to faculty by the faculty contract is lost, then academic freedom as it relates to both scholarship and university governance may die at this University.

Year by year, these controversies have consumed ever increasing amounts of faculty effort. Many faculty perceive a common theme: the Administration uses documents when the documents suit Administration purposes, ignores them when they do not, and unilaterally changes them if the Administration perceives them as a threat to administrative power. The growing perception by faculty that the Administration wishes to exclude faculty from the governance of the School and University depresses faculty morale. Increasing meaningful faculty participation in governance would increase faculty morale, and in the view of many would improve the management of the School and University.

As faculty have debated where democratic, representative faculty participation in governance should increase, a few areas repeatedly command attention, including meaningful and informed participation in:

•  The budgeting process, at the level of the University, School, Department, and Division, and involving not just the unrestricted budget, but also the CPSA and other programmatic and restricted budgets.

•  The review of performance of administrators.

• The allocation of resources for continuing faculty development and mentoring.

• The development of a system that provides reliable and ready access to the rules and procedures of the University and its Schools, and a written record of its history.

The faculty have repeatedly expressed their commitment to the written policies embodied in the University's governance documents and faculty contracts. They have expressed their willingness and desire to work with the Administration to change these documents to better serve the University as it strives to fulfill its mission. They have repeatedly offered to meet with administrators to work together to solve problems. They look for commitment and timely, substantive action from the Administration that truly helps implement the recommendation in the 1997 Self Study report:

 
Increase meaningful involvement of faculty in governance based upon a mutually agreed upon document-based governance system.