MEMORANDUM

To: Joseph P. Van Der Meulen
Robert H. Stellwagen

From: Lloyd Armstrong, Jr.

Date: June 13, 1997

Subject: Medical School Governance Document

I apologize for the delay in getting back to both of you regarding the status and validity of the Medical School governance document. The conflicting views regarding the adoption of that document, as well as certain conditions it contained, made it necessary that the trustees themselves have a chance to review the document. They have now done so, and I can convey to you their conclusions and actions.

The trustees concluded that certain provisions in the document contradicted the bylaws of the University. In particular, in some instances faculty bodies could in effect be acting in an executive rather than consultative role. However, knowing how important it is that the Medical School have a governance document, especially in light of the upcoming LCME reaccreditation, the trustees chose to approve a version of the original document that has been modified only minimally to bring it into agreement with the by-laws of the University. A copy of the revised document is enclosed.

The approved governance document differs from the original document in that it reemphasises the role of the trustees as defined by the by-laws of the University, clearly identifies the dean as having been delegated by the trustees management authority of the Medical School, removes or changes sections that might constrain the appropriate executive authority of the dean in that role, and changes certain procedures to conform to University-wide policy.

It is possible that even in making the minimal necessary changes, the trustees may have changed the governance document in some way that the faculty and administration of the Medical School feel to be less than optimal. If that is the case, I am sure that the trustees and the president would be more than happy to consider amendments proposed by the School so long as they are in accord with the by-laws of the University as reflected in the statements above.

The trustees did note that in several aspects, the document seemed out of date in that it described School structures or titles that no longer exist. There were also concerns raised relating to some structures or procedures that seemed potentially unwieldy. However, the trustees did not address those issues, feeling that they were appropriately concerns that should be addressed in the first instance by the School of Medicine rather than the Board of Trustees.

Again, my apologies for the delay in responding to your inquiries. The question was just more complicated than it might seem.

Enclosure

cc: Stephen J. Ryan
Kathryn R. Challoner