Attendance by Officers and Members of the Executive Board:
 

President	Loren Laine	present
President Elect	Harvey Kaslow	present
Secretary	Peter Heseltine	present
Treasurer	Jerry Gates	present
Past President	Harvey Kaslow	present
Member-at-Large	Kathryn Challoner	present
Member-at-Large	Dennis O'Leary	present
Member-at-Large	Rebecca Sokol	present

Representation at the Meeting:
 

Anesthesiology	James Daniel
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology	Frank Markland
Cardiothoracic Surgery
Cell and Neurobiology	Shao-Yao Ying
Children's Hospital
Emergency Medicine	Michael Orlinsky
Family Medicine
Medicine	Om P. Sharma
Molecular Microbiology and Immunology	Joe Landolph
Neurological Surgery	Donald Larsen
Neurology
Norris Medical Library
Obstetrics and Gynecology	Rebecca Sokol
Ophthalmology	Ronald Green
Orthopedics
Otolaryngology	Daniel Kempler
Pathology
Pediatrics	Cynthia Stotts
Physiology and Biophysics	Herb Meiselman
Preventive Medicine	Daniel Stram
Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences	Bruce Gross
Radiation Oncology
Radiology
Rancho Los Amigos Hospital
Surgery	Jeffrey Peters
Urology

Also attending: Howard Belzberg, Tom Berne, Julian Haywood, Victor Henderson, John Hisserich,Vijay Kalra, Elaine Kaptein, Alicia McDonough, Larry Opas, Jane Pisano, Henry Slucki, Zoltan Tokes, Joseph Van Der Muelen,

1.     Minutes:

The meeting was called to order by President Loren Laine at approximately 12:10 PM.

The minutes of the June 1, 1999 MFA meeting were considered after a quorum was present and were unanimously approved.

President Laine announced that a petition for a recall election had been received from the Department of Psychiatry. This was due to some members of the Department's members votes being received too late to count and the imminent departure of one of the elected representatives. Pursuant to the MFA Bylaws, instruction has been given by the MFA Executive Board for a recall election, to be followed by a new election for one or both representatives (depending on the outcome of the recall election).

Jane Pisano, Senior Vice President, External Relations and Joseph Van Der Muelen, Vice President, Health Affairs reported on the results of negotiations between USC and the County of Los Angeles Health Department (DHS) towards a new CPSA (County Professional Services Agreement). The USC negotiating team included Vice-Presidents Pisano and Van Der Muelen, Todd Dickey (General Counsel), Laura LaCorte (legal counsel), and later Carol Mauch (legal counsel). The LA County negotiating team was led by Donald C. Thomas, III, MD, Director, Clinical and Medical Affairs, LA County DHS.

The Vice-Presidents related that by April 1999 an agreement had been negotiated that contained all desired elements except overhead and three other small items. The proposal included increased accountability, a way to transition to an RV/RVU system and dollar amounts for contract program supplements (e.g., urgent care at Hudson Comprehensive Health Center) as well as the base contract.

• LA County Ordinance (Proposition A) requires that all contracts between the County and another party for services be judged cost-effective to the County. In the ten years of the CPSA, no such audit or evaluation had been done.

 
• The County had decided that it should not pay for clinical research and proposed to reduce the contract by $6 million for such clinical research that USC had conducted, as reflected in the Physician Time Allocation  Modules (PTAMs). This financial assessment had been made by the County Auditor General.


USC countered by stating:
 

• Clinical research done in the course of care for County patients had always been a part of the CPSA and was specifically addressed in the original agreement.
• The PTAMs were not designed to be an accurate measure of research
• USC would have to cut services if the contract was reduced


Subsequently, USC proposed transition to a model similar to that in force between UCLA, King Drew and LAC, where the university would provide academic services and the County would be responsible for the clinical services. USC anticipated that this transition would take place over five years, but LA County Counsel argued that to meet the requirements of Proposition A, the transition would have to be completed by the end of fiscal 1999-2000.  In an exchange of letters from April through May, 1999 and in discussions during June, the parties agreed that a request would be made to the LA County Board of Supervisors to continue the present contract at the current rate (including payment for clinical research time) and that interest, owing on the prior contract would be paid. Future payments (1999-2000) would be made quarterly and include payment for lost interest, as the original annual sum was due in total every July 1 and substantial interest was earned by USC on this prepayment.

In reply to questions, the Vice-Presidents stated that the current contract may meet the requirements of Proposition A. The Los Angeles County Auditor General's "back-of-the-envelope" assessment of cost effectiveness was not conclusive. Therefore, a cost effectiveness study of the CPSA is ongoing by the Auditor General.  In the view of the USC Vice-Presidents, Los Angeles County was unwilling to press the issue of revising or repealing Proposition A because the physicians were unionizing and the UAPD said that it would obtain an injunction against such action.

Academic services are not covered by Proposition A, as the County is not per se an educational institution capable of providing such services to physicians-in-training or the public.

Various measures of cost effectiveness have been used by both parties, but to date, a benchmark for cost efficacy has not been mutually agreed.

Vice President Van Der Muelen stated he had received copies of the agreements between LA County and King Drew and UCLA. Payments for units of academic service included approximately $45K per resident, $18K for program directors and $40, $75 and $115K for small, medium and large programs respectively

The Board of Supervisors has ordered that a report made to them in 30 days on the cost efficacy of the USC contract and the cost benefits of hiring USC faculty as County employees. This has been amended by Supervisor Molina to include cost efficacy reports for UCLA and King Drew as well.

Responding to a question concerning the issue of the Indemnification Clause in the original negotiation discussions that had occurred prior to April 16th,  the Vice-Presidents stated there had been some discussion that USC would be responsible for current USC full-time faculty and that the County would be responsible for current and prior full-time County paid faculty.

Vice President Van Der Muelen said he was informed that the County has a number of different benefits schedules and it might be possible to develop one for returning faculty.

The Vice-Presidents also stated that though President Sample and the USC Board of Trustees had been informed of the results of the negotiations, no official opinion of position had been taken by USC.

Asked why the USC negotiators had not me more frequently with the CPSA Faculty Committee, Vice-President Van Der Muelen stated that it had been his intent to bring the contract to the group once negotiations were completed and that "we can use all the help we can get."

Vice-Provost for Faculty & Minority Affairs Martin Levine, Professor of Psychiatry and Law,  Levine@USC.eduattended the July 6, 1999 meeting of the MFA at the invitation of MFA President Loren Laine. The following replies to questions from the MFA were edited by the Vice-Provost from the transcript of the meeting.

---

MFA: Can USC unilaterally change a tenured faculty member's contract?
Levine:  It is general contract law that contracts take two sides and a meeting of the minds. Sometimes, of course, there is a disagreement on what is the meaning of the contract.

MFA: Is it the Provost's responsibility to issue contracts?
Levine: The Provost issues general instructions. Generally, schools (but not the School of Medicine) submit salary increase proposals to the Provost, and he approves the list.  The Schools input to a computer the information for the contracts. (In the School of Medicine, this is done after consultation with the Departments on salary levels and sources of support.) The inputs of salary changes (except Medicine) are checked by a staff person in the Vice-Provost's office. Any negotiations are handled at the Department, Division or School levels.

MFA: Are there governing rules (issued by the Provost) that constrain the format or content of the contracts?
Levine: The Provost's Office issues a memorandum that contains general guidelines on faculty salaries. These include a general policy that a school should give raises unless the budget makes it extraordinarily difficult, that raises should be meaningfully based on merit and not given across the board, that the process of merit review should have faculty input, and that the Dean bears ultimate responsibility for setting salaries. This last year the General Counsel's office issued the guidance that all Schools, including Medicine, should issue contracts and that they should be accurate. The Dean has asked any faculty member with problems, because a contract differs from a previous signed contract, to submit the information to the Dean's office.

MFA: What is the meaning of "external funding'" when applied to tenured  faculty? What should be in a letter of offer?
Levine: Different universities and schools fund tenured salaries in different ways; in medical schools nationwide, tenure itself does not guarantee any particular source of salary.  Tenure at some schools (e.g., Harvard medical school) is only granted when there is money in the bank in an endowed chair.  In Dr. Levine's opinion, one theoretical alternative for the future would be for USC to go to a system like Harvard's --  USC medical faculty with tenure would have salaries that are 100% guaranteed, but obviously there could be very few tenured appointments that could be made if that were the system. Alternatively, there can continue to be a system of appointments with salaries coming mainly from external sources.  At USC medical school now, there are many sources drawn on for salary income.  To the extent these external sources are not guaranteed by USC,  it is possible to give tenure to many more people.

MFA: If a legal contract was signed ten years ago, then does that remain the legal contract or is [one of] the new contract offers the contract?
Levine: If there were apparent conflicts between old and newly issued contracts, he encouraged the Faculty to submit the information including their last signed contracts, as requested in the memo from the Dean. He assured that Faculty that these problems will be worked out.

MFA: Should the contract [for tenured faculty] be annually reaffirmed/renewed?
Levine: At USC, there used to be (before 1984) an old system of faculty contracts that had a one-time Basic Contract for Tenured Faculty, with an annual notice afterwards that gave the salary increase. Provost Pings inaugurated the current system with a contract that provides for annual renewal/reappointment.  (Dr. Levine was the Senate representative who negotiated with Provost Pings the language of the current faculty contract.). Some current Senate officers have suggested going back to a version of the old (pre-1984) system.

Closing comments: Vice-Provost Levine reminded the MFA that as founding president of the Academic Senate and before that as founding vice president of the old Faculty Senate, he had helped negotiate much of the language and details of the Handbook that now govern this aspect of faculty life. He was eager to work with the Faculty to achieve resolutions to their individual and collective contract issues. There was no plot, no conspiracy to deprive the Faculty of their rights. He ended by asking the Faculty to consider carefully what kind of tenure system and contracts they think the School of Medicine should have in the future and to bring these ideas forward to the Academic Senate task force as it considers what system to recommend that USC use for future medical school appointments and tenure.

---

Victor Henderson informed the MFA that he was Chairing a University-wide task force considering whether there should be additional time granted to Faculty to complete the requirements for promotion (usually on the tenure track) beyond 7 years. There was general agreement against this proposal by the MFA for the following reasons:

• Such an increase of time, granted at the discretion of the Administrative arm of the University, would likely be academically counter-productive and lead to an increased demand on the Faculty member for clinical service, reduce the apparent need to support laboratory and other start-up resources for junior faculty and so result in less long term likelihood of the Faculty member being promoted.

• In the event of an extraordinary need for an extended time for consideration for promotion (e.g., illness, pregnancy), there was already a mechanism that was working well, but under the supervision of the Faculty-at-large of the Promotions Committee. There was no need to issue a blanket allowance to be used at the discretion of Department Chairmen who might have a conflict of interest.

        This issue was tabled for review at the next meeting.

7.    Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at approximately 1:30 PM.

Submitted by Peter Heseltine, MFA Secretary