Present:
MFA Executive Board:
Dr. Kathryn Challoner, President
Dr. Robert Stellwagen, Past President
Dr. Harvey Kaslow, President Elect
Dr. Loren Laine, Secretary
Dr. Austin Mircheff, Member at large
Representatives:
Anesthesiology: Dr. J. Daniels
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology: Dr. F. Markland
Cell and Neurobiology: Dr. R. Cabelli
Children's Hospital: Dr. G. Lerner
Emergency Medicine: absent
Family Medicine: Dr. S. Stumpf
Medicine: Dr. L. Laine
Molecular Microbiology anf Immunology: absent
Neurological Surgery: absent
Neurology: absent
Norris Medical library: Alice Kawakami
Obstetrics and Gynecology: Dr. R. Sokol
Ophthalmology: absent
Orthopedics: Dr. T. Hedman
Otolaryngology: Dr. D. O'Leary
Pathology: Dr. A. Richters
Pediatrics: Dr. L. Wachsman
Physiology and Biophysics: Dr. H. Meisselman
Preventive Medicine: Dr. W. Mack
Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences: Drs. Slucki/ Gross
Radiation Oncology: Dr. Silvia Formenti
Radiology: absent
Ranchos Los Amigos: absent
Surgery: absent
Urology: absent.
A quorum was present.
1) The minutes of the January 6th meeting were approved.
2) Report of the four task forces:
A) Governance: Dr. Challoner presented a summary of several pages of a working draft from the Governance task force after it currently stands after four meetings. The bold section on page 2 was discussed. Dr. Kaslow asked if it was her expectation that the draft emerging from the task force would be recommended by the task force. She replied that it was her expectation that this is a draft that would be submitted to the MFA, the FEC and the Faculty for input and approval. She clarified the history of the previous governance documents. She stated that the operating principle outlined by general counsel and the Dean at the beginning of the task force's deliberations was that all executive authority resides in the Dean and is delegated to him/her by the Board of Trustees through the President of the University and that all faculty bodies are consultative or advisory in nature. Dr. Slucki asked if that was true for the Dean of the School of Medicine or for other Deans as well; Dr. Challoner stated that she had been informed that it was true for all Deans of the University. Dr. Slucki stated that he felt that was not so and a discussion arose on the exact definitiion of the term executive power with Dr. Laine defining executive power to mean that the Dean has the power to make all final decisions and that he/she may choose to go along with the Faculty recommendations. Dr. Kaslow stated that the Task force needed to state their operating principles out front and Dr. Challoner replied that the operating principle was the one just outlined. Dr. Mircheff brought up the principles of the AAUP citing the role of faculty responsibility. Dr. Challoner stated that these principles of the AAUP had been circulated at the Task force and she then read them to the MFA. She stated that it was clarified at the task force that the principles of the AAUP were at variance with some of the principles operating at USC and that all executive authority was delegated from the Board of the Trustees delegated down to the President and to the Dean. Dr. Ryan entered the meeting at this point and confirmed this principle on being asked to do so. Dr. Slucki stated that this principle appeared to be in conflict with page 15 of the Faculty handbook under Academic Definitions and Designatons. ("Faculty academic status and matters related thereto are primarily a faculty responsibility. This includes appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotion, the granting of tenure and dismissal. Other areas of primary responsibility include curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction and research.") He stated that this had always been a shared responsibility at USC and the word shared was not in this document. Dr. Challoner reported that there was a statement in the working draft that the FEC and MFA are consultative bodies. She asked that all concerns and input be given to her and she would relay them to the Task Force and Dr. Bernstein.
She reported on page 3, the change that the Dean may appoint an interim chair without consultation. She explained the sentence that review of chairs will be conducted as per the Provost Task force which has been assembled. Dr. Meisselman voiced concern about the statement that the Dean MAY ask members of the Search committee to interview candidates for the position of chair and asked for clarification of this sentence, as the implicit intention stated in a previous line was for the search committee to interview all candidates. Dr. Challoner responded that this would seem to imply that the Dean may interview candidates individually and agreed that this wording required further clarification. Dr. Mircheff asked if the draft contained instructions as the composition of the chair search committee; on hearing that it did not, he then asked that that be addressed by the Task Force. Dr. Kaslow stated that several points of the draft are in conflict with the Faculty Handbook (page 8 - the chairperson shall serve for a stated term- normally three or four years- and is appointed by the Dean following selection by 1) departmental election and/or 2) through consultation with the full time faculty of the department and of related departments. Appointments shall be in conformity with the department members' judgements etc.) and that the hierarchy of the documents needs to be established and reconciled. Dr. Slucki and Dr. Meisselman also voiced this concern that the Faculty Handbook should have precedence over a Governance Document and that general cousel of the university needs to clarfiy which documents have precedence over others. The document was changed to state that chairs serve at the pleasure of the Dean and could be terminated at any time.
The Assembly was in general support of the language that the MFA conduct its functions and elect its officers as per its own bylaws and constitutions. Dr. Challoner presented the new language that the FEC respond to MFA recommendations within the time frame of two available meetings and that if the Dean decides not to follow a MFA/FEC recommedation, he must give a written explanation. Dr, Kaslow stated that each member of the MFA must review these changes and that we had received written letters stating that explanations in writing were contrary to the By-laws of the University. Dr. Challoner explained that certain language in the Grievance Procedure did seem to allow for this action by the President on the main campus and that she understood that the main objection to this language had been the default mechanism attahed to it. The default mechanism had been eliminated but she had then argued for the re-inclusion of this compromise language for a written explanation and it had been been re-included in this new document. Dr. O'Leary pointed out that documents such as this really need review by legal minds on both sides and expressed concerns about the hierarchy of documents and that contradictions may be left in because of the time line and a contract lawyer is probably needed for scrutiny.
Dr. Challoner listed the standing committees on which the MFA has representation. The new language reads that the chairs of the committees will be appointed by the Dean. She stated that remaining sections had been farmed out to appropiate individuals for revisions. She again emphasized that this is a work in progress, that this a DRAFT and she asked that all concerns be sent to her in writing before Friday morning (2/6) so that these suggestions can be forwarded to the Task Force.
B) Tenure for Future Faculty. Dr. Taylor stated that the task force has met four times and they now have a draft. They have taken the definition of tenure as it exists in the Faculty Handbook and talks about the rights and responsibilities that flow through the university and the faculty member. They expect to have a document that they can post on the web in about two weeks. Dr. Mircheff added that their document adheres to the principle of tenure as defined in the Faculty Handbook and that it articlates principles and procedures that make the rules clear such as the right to be reviewed by your peers, participiate in the Spitzer profile and that the Faculty has the responsibility to partcipate in this process. Dr. Challoner asked about the concept of economic security and Dr. Mircheff responded that the Task Force has returned to the concept of a benchmark for a certain baseline salary. Dr. Taylor added that when the Faculty signed on there would be opportunity to review and expect some degree of economic security and that faculty would be subject to a performance evaluation by his peers and the departmental chair.
C) Dr. Wendy Mack presented a summary of the Faculty Development Task Force, stating that they are still discussing ideas and they have not yet come up with specific details and recommendations. Strong discussion has arisen on the development of junior faculty in the tenure track and she believes that there will be receommendations for a more formal mentoring and review process and for workshops on teaching skills. Dr. Challoner stated that one of her wish lists expressed to Dr. Hitchcock was a desire for formal orientation for new faculty coming on staff at USC. She asked the Assembly to express further wishes to Dr. Mack. Dr. Mircheff stated that the Tenure Task Force is including recommendations that there be some specific plan for review and negotiation of their careers.
D) Dr. Challoner explained that the Task Force on Review of Chairs has been put on hold pending the result of the Provost's task force on the same issue. The MFA requested the Dean to please send some of the guidelines already developed by the Dean's task force to the Provost's task force so that their ideas could be seen and considered.
3) Report of the FEC meeting 1/28. Dr. Kaslow stated that he had sat down with Regina Foley and quickly resolved the discrepancies in the minutes and he anticipated that there would be no problem with subsequent approval of the November minutes. He stated that he believed that the language had to be precise and complete because this language reflected the changes of the language by the FEC of the recommendations of the MFA regarding faculty contracts.
4) Dean's report. The Dean reported that there was a new Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery and the Dr. Vaughn Starnes was the chair. He suggested that the MFA now invite a representative from that new department and Dr. Challoner indictaed that she would promptly do so. There was a question if the MFA should have had a role in the creation of a new department and if this should be spelled out in the Governance Document. Dr. Kaslow stated that a similar issue had occupied a great deal of time in the Academic Senate. Dr. Ryan asked if the Academic Senate saw its role as advisory to the President. Dr. Challoner referred the question to Dr. Silvia Formenti (who sits on the executive board of the Academic Senate) and she replied that it was her impression that the Academic Senate did see its role as primarily advisory to the President. Dr. Kaslow stated that there was some concern among many members of the Academic Senate that the administration at the highest levels of the university may not be hearing the opinions of the Senators elected to represent the Faculty and this should be a place where we can all come together to work for the good of the university. Dr. Slucki stated that the official policy for the Academic Santae was the Faculty Handbook and the Handbook in the past had been very important in clarifying any "fuzzy areas" of the roles of the elected bodies of the university.
5) CPSA Negotiating Committee Update. Dr. Challoner updated the MFA on the progress of the CPSA negotiating committee to date. She stated that Dr. Van Der Meulen and Dr. Kaufman could not be present because they were still in a CPSA meeting. There were five committees that were convened to compose answers to Dr. Thomas' questions and she named the composition of the committees:
1. Mission and Goals (Dr. Challoner, MFA representative.)
2. Purchased Services
3. Medical Staffing
4. Performance Standards ( Dr. Heseltine, MFA representative)
5. Hospital Transfers.
She reported that considerable work has been done to date and the committees have come together and put out together position statements on what the faculty would like to see. Dr. Van Der Meulen would now pull the reports together for a report to Dr. Thomas. Dr. Van Der Meulen had also reported on a meeting with Dr Thomas; i.e.,
There is desire to keep all county patients in the county system. There is a desire that physicians head up the specialty teams that provide patient care which would imply some degree of co-management in the allocaion of resources. Dr. Thomas wishes a "boiler plate" agreement template for all three schools but recoqnizes that there would be different addendum documents for the different schools. There is recognition that the salaries of the physicians are low and need to be addressed.
Dr. Thomas wishes the meetings downtown to be limited to the policy makers only ( Bob Lane, Jane Pisano, Dr. Van Der Meulen); Dr. Van Der Meulen has assembled a Task Force of about 25 physicians who are advising him and Dr. Thomas is willing to come and meet them to answer questions and address areas of concern. (The list of questions asked by Dr. Thomas had been circulated at the open MFA meeting.)
6) Finance Committee. Dr. Challoner reported on the Finance Committee. At the last two meetings Dr. Clive Taylor had come and presented a wish list for Medical Education. He prioritized his list at the request of the Finance Committee and the Finance Committee is now reviewing the current state of the budget and seeing what resources can be located and be made available to meet Dr. Taylor's requests.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 PM.