Miller School of Medicine Faculty Council
Dean’s Meeting
July 28th, 2015 5:00pm- 6:30pm
Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center- 1301 Conference Room
Members Present: / Others Present:Altman, Norman, V.M.D.
Benatar, Michael, M.D.
Deutscher, Murray, Ph.D.
Dykxhoorn, Derek, Ph.D.
Gomez, Christopher, M.D.
Kumar, Mahendra, Ph.D.
Lopez, Diana, Ph.D.
Nares, Michael, M.D.
Panos, Anthony, M.D.
Pretto Jr, Ernesto, M.D.
Salman, Loay, M.D.
Schulman, Carl, M.D.
Smith, Bryon, D.P.T.
Van Schail, JoAnne, MLS
Yechieli, Raphael, M.D. / Falcone, Steve, M.D.- Executive Dean for Clinical Affairs
Moffat, Frederick, M.D., Chairman, UMMG
Nouri, Keyvan, M.D.- Chief, Dermatology
Meeting commenced at 5:05 pm by Dr. Carl Schulman, Speaker of the Faculty Council.
Dean’s Report
· Two recruits have been completed.
· Dr. Judith Schaechter- Chair for the Department of Pediatrics. She completed her undergrad at Brown University, and her MD and residency at Stanford University.
· Dr. Stephan Suckner- Chair for the Department of Human Genetics. He completed his MD and PhD degree at the University of Aachen in Germany.
Financials
· July was a little slow, but not bad.
Dr. Michael Benatar asked for an update on the Dean of Research position.
The candidate for the Dean of Research position is Dr. Dushyantha Jayaweera, Associate Vice- Provost for Human Subject Research.
The Dean gave an update on his condition. The skewers in his leg are coming out tomorrow. Everything else is going well. He’s been on pain medication for 36 hours.
Reimbursement for Admission Committee- Dr. Laurence Gardner
The first proposal has the Dean’s support and approval, which is to recognize the importance of the Admissions Committee. The committee on Admissions consisting of faculty required by the LCME, and recommended by the Council, and appointed by the Dean, devote a considerable amount of time and effort to the process of screening, interviewing, and making decisions. It’s not a small task, and as the number of admissions becoming higher, the risk of missing a good candidate also increases.
Proposal 1: To make a token payment to the members of the Admissions Committee of $2500 per person.
The token can be paid for, out of revenue from the admission fees. It will help recruit, retain, and encourage faculty participation.
Dr. Mahendra Kumar brought up the issue of the staff in the office. There are only two secretaries, of which one answers the phone. The other issue is that some chairs do not like their staff to serve on the Admissions Committee because it affects their RVUs. He suggested that the Dean should send a letter to all the chairs for an increase in participation.
The Dean mentioned that it is part of their evaluation.
Dr. Laurence Gardner is going to leave the issue of staffing to Dr. Weisman, but he believes that they will staff as they need to deal with the volume.
Dr. Carl Schulman strongly suggest to the committee to figure out a minimal threshold of work. He’s also happy to seek out other members to help the current members. He asked for clarification on how the payment will be made to the faculty member.
It is Dr. Laurence Gardner’s intention that the payment ends up with the faculty.
Dr. Mahendra Kumar confirmed that a study has been completed on the minimal threshold of work.
Professionalism Probation for Faculty
The last graduation survey, the GQ that the senior students complete; XXX% reported mistreated sometime during their four year of medical school, which is higher than the national average of 39%. It should not be ignored.
Environment-based and incident-based are the two different forms of mistreatment. This is issue is not going to be solved in a year or two.
The problem with repeated behavior below the threshold is a real issue for some department chairs.
Proposal 2: A category of behavior not acceptable to the school, which results in professionalism probation.
Repeated inappropriate behavior in the issue of patient care and teaching could result in a letter from Faculty Affairs, where promotion and merit increase be put on hold. Until such time, a cessation of such behavior documented by the department, confirmed by Faculty Affairs, results in the letter being withdrawn from the file and the usual resumption of promotion and merit increase.
This proposal will be worked out in detail by Faculty Affairs, the Dean, and the Department Chairs.
The Dean feels that there should be zero tolerance for student mistreatment.
Dr. Daniel Armstrong feels that the development of a policy or a process should apply broadly related to the values and cultural work UM is doing.
Dr. Ellen Barrett asked that if it could be related to how critical the care is. A faculty member or resident may respond a certain way because it’s a high risk situation.
Dr. Alex Mechaber clarified that the GQ doesn’t disclose the incident by department, but an internal survey does, and most of the incidents are in the surgery field.
Dr. Richard Lee feels that this conversation would have been abated if Dr. Laurence Gardner would have provided some information that was previously requested. A breakdown of which departments were the ones that were most involved was requested.
Dr. Laurence Gardner has attended every departmental and divisional meeting, which they presented all of their data that is available to them.
Decanal Dean Review Committee- Dr. JoNell Potter
Dr. JoNell Potter is the Chair for the Decanal Dean Review Committee. The committee consist of four members; Drs. Ellen Barrett, Marie Denise Gervais, and A. Deshpande. The committee started in the fall of 2014 to develop a process.
Decanal Dean Review Committee Process
1. Decanal Dean(s) selected for review must have serve in that role for at least 4 years. For a given round of review, the Committee selects Decanal Deans who do not have overlapping constituencies so as not to overburden the reviewers.
2. An email is sent to the selected Decanal Dean to invite him/her to a meeting with the Decanal Dean Review Committee to discuss the process, and to identify groups of individuals appropriate to review his/her job performance. Deans are requested to bring a statement of their job description to the initial committee meeting, and key components of their role are briefly summarized on the ballot.
3. Within a week, the committee sends the Decanal Dean an email with a draft list of reviewers and a preliminary evaluation form based on the job description highlights provided by the Decanal Dean. The Decanal Dean is requested to review the evaluation form and list of reviewers and to submit any suggested changes within 1 week of receipt.
4. The evaluation form and list of reviewers is sent to the Faculty Council Speaker for final approval.
5. The evaluation form is built in the Qualtrics system and a link is activated for use by the reviewers to vote anonymously. The evaluation form asks reviewers to vote on the Decanal Dean’s overall performance, and permits reviewers to comment concerning the Decanal Dean’s strength and weaknesses, significant accomplishments within the past 4 years, and suggestions for improvement.
6. Each potential reviewer receives an email describing the charge of the committee and instructions with a link to the customized Qualtrics evaluation form. Responses are requested within 2 weeks. Reviewers are provided an opt-out option if they consider themselves unqualified to evaluate the Decanal Dean’s performance.
7. The evaluation is closed on Qualtrics after 2 weeks. The Faculty Senate office s able to access the complete, anonymous results of the closed evaluation.
8. Committee members each receive a confidential, hand-delivered packet with the full results for each of the Decanal Deans reviewed. The Committee meets to discuss the results and redact any comments that may identify an individual evaluator.
9. A print version of the redacted evaluation comments is hand-delivered to the respective Decanal Dean.
10. The Decanal Dean Review Committee Chair prepares a summary statement and emails It with the redacted results to the Faculty Council Speaker for presentation to the Dean of the Medical School.
The Decanal Dean Review Committee 2014-2015 results slide was referenced
Dr. Richard Lee emphasized that process is an enormous amount of work.
Drs. Sanjoy Bhattacharya and Carl Schulman thanked Dr. JoNell Potter and the committee for their hard work.
Dr. Carl Schulman feels that they need to come up with a plan to give feedback to the constituencies.
Dr. Richard Lee recommended to follow the process of the Faculty Senate. A summary is provided with a number of people that voted, that list the positives and negatives, and then send the summary to the constituencies that were invited to vote.
Ombudsman 2014-2015 Report- Dr. Norman Altman
The office functions in accordance with the principles of confidentiality, trust, informality, independence, and neutrality as set forth by the international ombudsman association.
Clients served
· Total Interactions- 105
- Faculty – 90
- Students- 8
- Staff- 7
Category of Issues
· Conflicts with Chair or Division Chief
· Salary and Assignments
· Promotion and Tenure
· Career Advice
· Research Misconduct5
Pay Grade Structure- Dr. Michael Benatar
New pay structure was put into place when Workday was rolled out. He has concerns on how that information was communicated. He’s concerned that salaries have been adjusted without his knowledge. There was no notice given and he would like to know who the responsible person is.
This incident occurred to Dr. JoNell Potter. She had three employees whose salary was adjusted to a higher pay band. She was notified by the VCA.
It was agreed to invite HR to the next Faculty Council meeting on (8/11) to explain how this information was communicated.
Meeting adjourned at 6:40pm by Dr. Carl Schulman, Speaker of the Faculty Council.
Next meeting scheduled to take place on August 11th, 2015 at the SCCC- 1301 Conference Room.