Voting Members Present: F. Abbasi, J. Alan, M. Awonuga, A. Bernstein, S. Bray, L. Cabrera, H. Chen, J. Cole, E. Frost, S. Kavuturu, J. MacKeigan, R. Malinowski, M. Morishita, M. Petroff, J. Reynolds, E. Shapiro, A. Vanderziel, A. Weber
Ex-Officio Members Present: S. Barman, M. DeLano, K. Elisevich, R. Folberg, B. Forney, N. Jones, K. Kelly-Blake, S. Lin, A. Mansour, A. Sousa, D. Wagner
Gustes and Staff: F. Peterson, G. Kelley
Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the November meeting were approved as written.
Briefing from the Interim Dean
Interim Dean Sousa provided the following updates.
Dr. Wagner gave the following updates.
Dr. Wagner asked CAC members about bringing a team member to CAC meetings to introduce and field questions. Members indicated they would welcome that.
Professionalism Policy and Faculty Affairs Update
Criteria for CAC Membership and Service as Chair or Vice Chair
Discussion took place regarding the appropriate percent of administrative responsibility that should be allowed a CAC member or member of the CAC Steering Committee to minimize conflict of interest. Revisions to the BAG currently going through Faculty Senate and University Council propose that anyone with greater than 25% administrative responsibilities would not be eligible to serve as chair or vice-chair. Possible changes to the college bylaws to be brought to spring faculty meeting are 1) keep bylaws as is – no restrictions; 2) restrict to 25% admin. responsibility, 3) restrict to an additional %. It was decided that a working group to review bylaws in totality be formed.
Updated College Administrator’s Information
The list of college deans and their responsibilities was compiled by B. Forney, as requested by council members, and distributed to CAC members before the meeting. The list will be put on the website. The list provided for CAC members included the percent effort for each position.
Spring Faculty Meeting
J. MacKeigan proposed May 7, 2020 from 3:00 - 5:00 pm. The change in time from the evening is being made to accommodate working parents. The fall meeting will be held in the evening; the spring meeting will be held in the late afternoon.
Comments and Announcements
None
Voting Members Present: M. Awonuga, S. Bray, L. Cabrera, H. Chen, J. Cole, S. Khalil, J. MacKeigan, R. Malinowski, M. Morishita, M. Petroff, E. Shapiro
Ex-Officio Members Present: S. Barman, M. DeLano, K. Elisevich, R. Folberg, V. Johnson-Lawrence, N. Jones, K. Kelly-Blake, W. Lipscomb, A. Sousa
Guests and Staff: S. Counts (for A. Bernstein), F. Peterson, D. Temple, M. Thompson
Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the October meeting were approved as written once a quorum was reached.
Briefing from the Interim Dean
Interim Dean Sousa provided the following updates.
Discussion shifted to discussion of the selection of the interim dean. It was thought that the process was unclear. It could be that the CAC doesn’t have a role in the selection, but members would like to see more transparency. It was recognized that the appointment of interim dean was handled informally possibly due to the short timeframe and the role of interim--not permanent. The CAC Steering Committee will make a point to reach out to the provost and search committee, when formed, that the CAC does want shared responsibility. It was pointed out that the university bylaws may need to be updated to include the process for selection of an interim dean. The topic will be discussed at the December meeting.
Innovation Park Update
Dick Temple, college architect, provided an update on the Grand Rapids Innovation Park. The official groundbreaking for the Doug Meijer Medical Innovation Building (the second building being built in the park) took place the day of this CAC meeting. Mr. Temple stressed that the Innovation Park is not a Grand Rapids initiative but a college initiative with connections to the East Lansing and Flint campuses and with research across the College of Human Medicine and other colleges. His presentation highlighted the following:
Review and Approval of Family Medicine Bylaws
The following summary regarding changes to the bylaws was distributed before the meeting.
There were no specific questions regarding the proposed changes. A motion to approve the bylaws was made and approved. The vote to approve they bylaws was unanimous.
Review CHM Bylaws
It was brought to the member’s attention that there is no language in the CHM Bylaws that speaks to what to do if the current CAC chair has what could be considered a conflict of interest (e.g. also serves in an administrative role). Since J. MacKeigan has recently been named assistant dean for research, committee members need to decide if they want to propose language for future situations or vote to elect a new chair. Current bylaws indicate that The College Advisory Council shall elect its own chairperson, vice-chairperson, and secretary, and shall fill vacancies on the Council for any part of a term until the next regular election. Each Council officer shall be elected for one year and may be reelected. The chairperson shall not serve more than two consecutive terms. The chairperson automatically serves as a member of the Faculty Senate. (3.1.2.3.). Bylaws currently do allow for someone with administrative responsibilities to assume a position on the committee and also serve as chair or vice chair. Revisions to the Bylaws for Academic Governance currently going through Faculty Senate and University Council propose that anyone with greater than 25% administrative responsibilities should not serve as chair or vice chair. J. MacKeigan’s appointment as assistant dean for research does not exceed 15% of his effort. Committee members need to decide if it makes sense to update the bylaws to codify the criteria for committee membership and service on the Steering Committee. The path forward would be to amend the CHM Bylaws at the spring faculty meeting. There was no motion made to vote in a new chair at this time. The item will be on the agenda of upcoming meetings for further discussion.
Information on Administrators
Concern was raised about the number of administrators within the college. A request was made to update administrators’ titles, descriptions and responsibilities on the college website. B. Forney, associate dean for administration, will work with her team on the updates. Committee members feel that faculty should be informed of promotions to administrative positions instead of finding out by informal means or forwarded emails from chairs and directors.
Comments and Announcements
None.
Next meeting: December 16, 2019
Voting Members Present: F. Abbasi, S. Bray, J. MacKeigan, J. Alan, L. Cabrera, R. Malinowski, E. Shapiro, M. Awongua, S. Kavuturu, M. Morishita, A. Vanderziel, J. Cole, S. Khalil
Ex-Officio Members Present: S. Barman, R. Folberg, K. Kelly-Blake, N. Beauchamp, W. Lipscomb, K. Elisevich, N. Jones, B. Forney, V. Johnson-Lawrence, A. Mansour
Guests and Staff: G. Kelley, F. Peterson, Dianne Wagner
Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the September meeting were approved as written.
Briefing from the Dean
Dean Beauchamp provided the following updates.
Support for Students in Crisis Surrounding Violence in the US and Abroa
Abbasi presented The Ripple Affect: teaching thorough trauma and turmoil. The slides are provided with these minutes. She feels there is a lot of action in a crisis and then it is forgotten about. The college needs to put preventive processes in place to protect our medical students. When helping students cope with stress and mental health, the college can never be doing enough. She noted that it is not only students who are affected; instructors are also impacted by the things happening in our communities and in the world. A few takeaways:
Discussion took place regarding ongoing efforts to support students, including a mental health peer program and a student survey. It was suggested that the CAC take on the task of connecting the many important efforts going on throughout the college.
Appointment of Interim Dean
Interim Provost Sullivan joined the meeting to discuss the appointment of an interim dean, as consultation with the College Advisory Council is a requirement for the appointment. After discussions with Dr. Beauchamp and with the aspiration of stability, it is her recommendation that Dr. Aron Sousa assume the role of interim dean. After some discussion about the role of the executive vice president for health sciences, the choice to appoint Dr. Sousa as interim dean, and the search for a new dean, Provost Sullivan indicated that she would appreciate a motion on the interim dean appointment.
After the provost left the meeting, discussion regarding the process took place. The CAC has the chance to advise the dean and provost regarding the current candidate and to inform the process for next time this might happen. Members were encouraged to reach out to Dean Beauchamp or Provost Sullivan with significant concerns or to suggest guidance to be given to Dr. Sousa in serving. Dr. Sousa’s experience, credentials, and likability were discussed.
A motion to approve Dr. Sousa as interim dean was made by F. Abbasi, and seconded. A quorum was present, and the motion passed unanimously with those present.
Faculty Affairs Update
Folberg provided updates on the following items.
Next meeting: November 18, 2019
Voting Members Present: M. Awonuga, J. Reynolds, H. Chen, A. Vanderziel, A. Bernstein, L. Cabrera, J. Cole, S. Kavuturu, S. Khalil, J. MacKeigan, M. Morishita, E. Shapiro, A. Weber
Ex-Officio Members Present: S. Barman, K. Kelly-Blake, A. Sousa, N. Beauchamp, W. Lipscomb, K. Elisevich, N. Jones, S. Bray, B. Forney, V. Johnson-Lawrence, S. Lin, A. Mansour.
Guests and Staff: G. Kelley, J. Johnson, J. Roy, C. Vincent
Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the August meeting were approved as written.
Briefing from the Dean
Dean Beauchamp provided the following updates.
Academic Affairs Update
Sousa provided updates on the following items.
Awards Modifications
Weber, on behalf of the awards subcommittee, made the following recommendations to refine the description/requirements for two awards put in place last year.
It has become evident that it is very difficult for a faculty member with clinical responsibilities to be eligible for this award due to time and effort constraints. The suggestion is to create two separate designations within this category: 1) one for a clinician scientist and 2) one for a non-clinician scientist. Discussion took place regarding the need for research faculty awards. This award was created to offer two awards and it was suggested that this change would allow only one award for non-clinician research faculty. It was agreed that more discussion and clarity is needed.
Due to the diversity of the curriculum (e.g. administrative, academic, off-campus, on campus, etc.), the suggestion is to offer two awards in this category each year.
Weber informed members that a new award is being considered at the college level.
The Awards Subcommittee will give an update about all three awards at an upcoming meeting.
Faculty Voting List Approval
The proposed voting list with instructions and explanations was sent to CAC members for review before the meeting. B. Forney recapped the makeup of voting faculty. Faculty without automatic voting rights whom departments are requesting voting rights for the first time are highlighted in yellow on the list. In all, departments are requesting 135 individuals to be eligible to vote at the college level. They have departmental voting rights and devote a significant amount of time to the education of students, committee work, clerkships, etc.
MacKeigan made a motion to vote to approve the Voting List as submitted and it was seconded. However, due to an oversight, no formal vote was taken. Formal voting took place via email after the meeting. All 13 voting members who responded (quorum is 10), voted to approve.
CHM’s Trauma-Informed Community Efforts
Johnson explained that a workgroup was formed to support the college mission of addressing the needs of vulnerable populations in Michigan and gave background on trauma-informed principles (in handout). An approach to clinical care is “trauma-informed” care. The idea is to make a system that promotes wellness in all its interactions and doesn’t cause further harm to people who have asked for help. It is part of creating a culture of caring. She noted that members of the group are available to provide information sessions to departments or other groups. Upcoming events are:
She informed members that 1) suggestion boxes have been put in place and are being monitored and 2) an effort is underway to find places for members of the MSU community who have experienced relationship violence or sexual abuse to participate in ongoing university decision making. Members were encouraged to share the information in the handout, participate and engage. The dean asked that members engage those they represent.
Fall Faculty Meeting
Faculty Concerns/Issues
None
Next meeting: October 21, 2019
Voting Members Present: F. Abbasi, J. Alan, M. Awonuga, A. Bernstein, L. Cabrera, J. Cole, J. He, S. Kavuturu, S. Khalil, J. MacKeigan, R. Malinowski, M. Morishita, E. Shapiro, A. Weber
Ex-Officio Members Present: S. Barman, N. Beauchamp, S. Bray, R. Folberg, B. Forney, V. Johnson-Lawrence, K. Kelly-Blake, S. Lin, A. Mansour, A. Sousa
Guests and Staff: H. Barry, G. Kelley, and F. Peterson
New Business
Introduction/Purpose of CAC
Council members introduced themselves per Dean Beauchamp’s request. They were then welcomed by the dean, who offered his vision that the council adopt a mindset of fellowship. There are many opportunities to realize and also challenges to overcome together with people we trust and who have a shared commitment. Taking time to get to know the people you sit with is really important. He wants to make sure the college is focusing on the most important things. Some of those things will be identified by conversations at CAC meetings. The dean and others will provide updates and get reflections from members. Topics will be brought to the table to go out to constituents for their input. CAC members are expected to take information out and cascade it—creating an environment of transparency and community. Trust is important to the success of organization, as it is necessary to talk about difficult things. Shared governance fosters trust, facilitates conversations, and helps us commit.
The dean asked members to think about a legacy for the year—how to make the college better. Last year, the council recognized the excellence of faculty and ways to identify scholarship opportunities for students. Dean Beauchamp noted that he will ask for help on 1) how to come together better and bring strengths across the college and 2) the strategic planning process.
Previous members noted that 1) restructuring of faculty meetings to encourage faculty to ask the dean questions about things the faculty care about was a good change, 2) dialog about diversity and inclusion was started and meaningful work was done—hoping to continue to build on it, and 3) more collaboration will be necessary as department structures are changed to be organized by research groups in different buildings. Must be cognizant of how to fit those pieces together for efficient and successful relationships.
Dean Beauchamp remarked on “professionalism” and the need to make sure CHM is a supportive environment. Diversity, equity and inclusion is important, and reports will be provided regarding some of the work that has been done in the college in part due to discussions at CAC meetings. Discussions have been helpful in thinking about how the college communicates and supports students, staff, and faculty around tragic events. He also informed members that a Staff Advisory Committee has been created.
Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the May meeting were approved as corrected.
Introduction of New Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs Robert Folberg
Dean Beauchamp acknowledged and thanked Henry Barry for the many college initiatives he helped organize and guide in support of the mission of the college. Those include the mentorship program, the five-year chair/director review process, and the annual faculty review process. Dr. Barry noted with appreciation that his thirty years in CHM offered him a place to grow, find joy, and make a difference.
Dr. Robert Folberg was recruited for Faculty Affairs to build on momentum H. Barry brought. Dean Beauchamp noted that Dr. Barry worked on development for tenure system faculty, clinician educators, fixed-term faculty, and across the seven communities and also fostered connections in basic science, translational science, education, and clinical work. In searching for someone who can do that, the college looked for someone with experience in the basic sciences, clinical medicine, academic medicine, and leadership. Also, someone with a commitment to trust and integrity who saw their work as helping others be successful. Dean Beauchamp saw that in Robert Folberg. Dr. Folberg served as the founding dean of Beaumont’s Medical School for ten years where he brought people together and helped faculty be successful in their missions. His is boarded in anatomic pathology and ophthalmology and has served as faculty in ophthalmology as a named professor. What has defined him is his commitment to students and faculty, and the dean expressed his delight of having him on board. Dr. Folberg thanked the dean for the invitation to participate and work on his behalf.
Election of Officers
Position duties of the officer positions were reviewed. Officers for the 2019-20 academic year were elected as follows:
Appoint Awards Subcommittee
The Awards subcommittee receives nominations and deliberates to bring forward a recommendation for award recipients for CAC approval. New this year, the associate dean for faculty affairs will coordinate the committee. In addition to R. Folberg, the following CAC members will serve on the subcommittee: S. Bray, J. Cole, J. Reynolds, A. Weber.
Briefing from the Dean
Dean Beauchamp thanked the officers for agreeing to serve and informed them that a meeting will be held to lay out the path forward. He touched on the following items.
Agenda Items for Upcoming Year
Recommendations listed below were made last year. B. Forney read through them to determine if there is continued interested and to get updates.
Members were asked to provide suggestions for topics or people they would like to hear from to better enable them to fulfill their advisory role to the dean. Suggestions included:
Members were instructed to contact Dr. MacKeigan with other suggestions. The dean suggested that the topics be mapped out so committee members could get input or questions from their departments to bring back to meetings for discussion.
Voting List
B. Forney was tasked with making sure committee members get the information needed for approval of the college voting list, which will take place at the September CAC meeting. She explained that the university decides who gets to vote on university matters; departments decide who gets to vote on department matters; and the CAC decides who, in addition to those who automatically have voting rights as outlined in the bylaws, gets to vote on college matters. Requests for college voting rights may be for academic specialists, emeriti faculty, non-prefix faculty, etc.
As a community-based medical school, CHM relies on faculty in communities to train students. Those faculty are not employed by MSU, but they have faculty appointments and usually have the prefix “adjunct” or “clinical” in front of their rank (they are referred to as “prefix” faculty within the college). This includes a lot of people in clinical departments--approximately 4,500 people around the state. A small subset of the prefix faculty devotes a very significant amount of time and effort to working with CHM students, including community assistant deans who are usually practicing physicians in their outlying communities. They are generally paid by MSU indirectly through a contract with their community employer rather than being employed directly by MSU. These individuals are eligible to apply to have the “adjunct” or “clinical” prefix dropped from their MSU rank; if they meet the eligibility criteria, they are granted the privilege of dropping the prefix and are then referred to as “non-prefix” faculty within the college. That privilege is awarded to those who meet specific criteria, and comes with specific expectations, including that if they seek promotion, they must meet the same criteria as employed faculty. Further, they may only retain the non-prefix rank as long as they remain in the position that made them eligible for same.
Departments often grant department voting rights to “non-prefix” faculty, but they do not automatically have voting rights at the college level. If departments want those individuals to also have voting rights at the college level, they must request that they be added to the college faculty voting list.
CAC members will get a list of all faculty for whom college voting rights are requested. The faculty who automatically have voting rights will be indicated. Those who do not automatically have voting rights but who the department is requesting be given voting rights will also be identified. There is a column on the list where departments will provide the reason why each was granted department voting rights. More information forthcoming.
Academic Affairs Update
A. Sousa provided the following updates.The dean noted that the commitment and excellence that the leaders of the medical school curriculum portrayed at the student welcome session was inspiring.
Faculty Affairs and Development Update
H. Barry thanked his colleagues for their support and the things they do before providing the following updates.
Educator Mentor Program
The last cohort of the program is complete, and they are reviewing the process and structure. Faculty Affairs, in collaboration with OMERAD, will be retooling the program and broadening it to a larger audience of medical educators.
Five-Year Review of Department Chairs
The new process involves a review team and the use of central data collection and surveys. Additionally, departments ask faculty to provide information. Depending on the unique circumstances of the department, review committees may ask for additional information. Faculty Affairs is finishing reviews for the departments of psychiatry, surgery and obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive medicine, and is about to launch reviews of the departments of medicine and family medicine. The FAD website has samples of some instruments being used. Refining the survey instruments is an ongoing process.
RPT Report
New Process for HP Reappointment
The HP system came about as a tenure-like system for clinicians. There are high expectations for advancement and specific criteria for reappointment. The handout distributed outlines a proposed new process. The proposed pilot is an addendum to HP form (third page), which asks the department to provide a bit more information.
Professionalism Task Force Report
The draft report was distributed to CAC members before the meeting. H. Barry explained that the task force, which included people from multiple departments, RPT Committee, department chairs, etc., was charged to make recommendations about policies and procedures related to including professionalism and unprofessional behavior in the annual review and the reappointment, promotion, and tenure review processes.
The process started with The Virtuous Professional document. While the college has many aspirational processes, there have been issues ranging from egregious to annoying. The task force reviewed a variety of documents and tools being used by others. They came up with a definition of unprofessional behavior and provided examples. It was noted that, based on formal reviews by students, most faculty behave in an exemplarity fashion. The task force tried to create a mechanism for understanding the range of activities and a set of expectations (e.g. that departments incorporate an explicit mechanism to evaluate unprofessional behaviors during the annual review and document it in the annual review letter and that they address professionalism or unprofessional behaviors during the promotion process). Going forward there are training issues—working with department chairs and staff on processes, procedures, and implementation. The report acknowledges that there are some things beyond what be done at the department level, such as bystander training. Things need to be done at multiple levels. The task force wants departments and the college to adequately address things that erode the fabric of the culture. The report is a good starting point to revisit, revise, and refine going forward.
R. Folberg thanked H. Barry for the path for Faculty Affairs for the future. He appreciates the opportunity to study the documents and come back with some reflections from other climates and cultures in medical schools, as well as from people on campus. Dean Beauchamp sees the report as a foundation to build on. The conversation around professionalism is difficult, and people don’t talk about it unless it’s defined and built in. It is essential to the work that we need to do. He feels this is a key tool in the college’s effort to have an environment we are proud of
A. Sousa reported July 2019 data on student reporting on professionalism. From over 10,000 ratings on professionalism, 6,541 are 3 (above expectations), 3,500 are 2 (met expectations), and 61 are 1 (below expectations). Each of the “below expectations” report is investigated.
Old Business
Support for Students in Crisis Surrounding Violence in the US and Abroad
The item was tabled until the October meeting.
Faculty Issues
An update on the search for the director of the Center for Ethics was requested. The dean reported that he is in discussions with the identified candidate and has been in touch with Len Fleck, interim director of the center. It is hoped that a decision will be made in the very near future.
Next meeting: September 16, 2019
Voting Members Present: A. Bernstein, A. Bozoki, A. Chamdin, H. Chen, R. Malinowski, M. Petroff, J. Reynolds, A. Weber
Ex-Officio Members Present: H. Barry, N. Beauchamp, M. DeLano, L. Fleck, B. Forney
Guests and Staff: M. Brown, G. Kelley, S. Kavuturu (for J. Kepros), and F. Peterson
Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the April meeting were approved as written.
New Business
Seeking CAC Endorsement for Establishment of a Department of Cardiovascular Medicine
N. Beauchamp provided an introduction highlighting the value of bringing discovery to hospital partners. Strengthening partnerships with Spectrum in GR and bringing value, while not injuring what the college is creating in EL, is achievable. CHM has established relationships in one community or another. When the medical school expanded, the college made a commitment to establish departments in GR, which is seen as central to the strategy of sustainability, translation, and synergy. The MSU-Spectrum Alliance meets every 6 weeks to explore what can be best leveraged by working together to ensure success. It is vital to the college that we grow in multiple areas.
The dean introduced Chris Chambers, MD, PhD, vice president for research at Spectrum Health. Dr. Chambers, exemplifying the Covey principle of finding the win-win, has worked diligently to further the Spectrum-MSU partnership, including the sharing of IP. He has helped to expedite getting studies approved and has a link with Van Andel Institute. Dr. Chambers will explain how the establishment of a Department of Cardiovascular Medicine will bring value to CHM and not be a threat. It’s not the goal to be an MSU clinical practice.
C. Chambers related the Spectrum Health philosophy. He explained that Spectrum attempted to create departments, labs, etc., and it didn’t make a lot of sense when CHM is conducting basic science in GR and EL. Their focus is on being good clinicians, conducting clinical research, and being excellent at collaborating. Collaboration is a key component and attracts a different type of physician—one interested in research and integrated care. Spectrum understands that fostering collaborations with scientists is what clinicians want and need.
Spectrum will bring clinical data and expertise to help scientists in the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine and other units, who will be part of Spectrum Health. It will help students and residents and enhance the ability to recruit and train. They are looking for a symbiotic relationship.
There is a research arm of the cardiovascular group at Spectrum, which is good at clinical research and has been involved with most major national trials for devices in cardiovascular surgery (last 2-3 in New England Journal). The goal is to grow collaborations on the basic science side.
Individuals will be able to have dual appointments – faculty will not be taken from another department. Funding will be provided through philanthropy and Spectrum Heath.
Discussion took place regarding the interdisciplinary nature of the proposed department, innovation, access to clinical data, impact on other departments, other roles of an academic department (e.g. RPT and annual reviews, mentoring), etc.
A motion to endorse the proposal to establish a Department of Cardiovascular Medicine was made and passed.
Approval of Changes to the Bylaws of the Department of Medicine
S. Kavuturu explained that most proposed changes are grammatical. The most substantial changes had to do with the reappointment, promotion, and tenure procedure.
A motion to approve the revisions to the bylaws of the Department of Medicine was made and unanimously approved.
Award Recipients
A list of award recipients was distributed with the caveat that they were confidential, as award recipients had not been notified. A. Weber said that down the road adding an extra award that focuses on clinical research is likely. He proposed that the CHM Outstanding Curriculum Contribution Award be expanded to include two recipients. With such a varied curriculum, faculty excel in different areas. CAC members agreed there should be two awards given in the category.
Old Business
Proposed Clarifications to Voting Rights Procedure
M. Petroff, A. Bernstein, and M. Morishita have been working on ways to make the process of granting voting rights easier to understand. CAC members are not sure what they are being asked to vote on. The subcommittee proposes that the list of proposed voting faculty be distributed to CAC members earlier in the year so the voting can take place at the September meeting or tabled until the October meeting if necessary, to have questions answered. In addition, they would like the following information to be distributed to CAC along with list: 1) relevant excerpts from bylaws stating who can vote, 2) an explanation of non-prefix faculty and the criteria they must meet for the designation, 3) changes to spreadsheet indicating who is being voted on and their role in the college, 4) What faculty vote on.
B. Forney indicated that the changes will be made to the process. The subcommittee was thanked for their efforts on the project.
Next meeting: August 2019
Attendees: F. Abbasi, J. Alan, A. Bernstein, A. Bozoki, L. Cabrera, H. Chen, M. Franco, J. Kepros, H. Kim, R. Malinowski, C. Matisoff, M. Morishita, M. Petroff, K. Racicot, J. Reynolds, A. Weber
Ex-Officio Attendees: H. Barry, N. Beauchamp, K. Elisevich, L. Fleck, B. Forney, V. Johnson-Lawrence, S. Lin, W. Lipscomb, A. Mansour, A. Sousa
Guests and Staff: G. Kelley, A. Paganini, F. Peterson
Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the February meeting were approved as written.
Briefing from the Dean
Academic Affairs Update (Dr. Aron Sousa)
University Committee for Graduate Studies Update
Old Business
Next Steps for Diversity and Inclusion over the Course of the Year
It was suggested that the CAC create a subcommittee to discuss what to do on MLK Day and other days of service. Three to four faculty volunteers and students (one from each year identified by DSAC) are needed. The university is participating in the Global Day of Service on April 13. It is directed at students, faculty, staff and alumni. It is thought that CHM students and faculty do not interact enough. Questions to be answered are: 1) Are faculty and students interested in Day of Service? 2) If so, a single event or several throughout the year? 3) Should events be aligned with existing days such as MLK or unrelated? A. Bozoki will bring back info at next meeting.
College Voting Rights
The Voting Rights Subcommittee met and reported back to the CAC. Each fall, the CAC is asked to grant voting rights to faculty not automatically granted rights (including non-prefix faculty who currently make up 40% of the voting faculty). The concern is whether voting rights are being granted to faculty who are not affected by the outcome. The recommendation is that instead of changing the bylaws, the CAC: 1) get in-depth justification for each person about why voting rights are being requested, and 2) get information with enough lead time to review and have a meaningful discussion at the meeting before being asked to approve. Members were reminded that non-prefix faculty have already had to meet specific criteria in order to have non-prefix status. The CAC would need to identify what additional information it would want for each non-prefix faculty member in addition to knowing they have met criteria for non-prefix status. Discussion took place regarding the reasons units request voting rights for non-prefix faculty. Discussion included the importance of non-prefix faculty to the educational mission. Further, faculty must have voting rights in order to serve on college committees including the Curriculum Committee, the Admissions Committee, Student Grievance Hearing panels and others. It is often difficult to get enough employed faculty willing to serve on these committees and non-prefix faculty help to fill that void as well as offering needed expertise and time. A question was asked regarding what types of issues the voting faculty of the college vote on. Votes of the full college faculty are fairly uncommon but include approval of revisions to college bylaws, elections to college and university committees, changes to RPT criteria (by relevant group – e.g., only tenured faculty vote on revisions to tenure system criteria, only HP faculty vote on changes to HP criteria). Historically there is a very small response rate to college votes (<25%).
New Business
Spring College Faculty Meeting
CAC members decided to schedule the Spring College Faculty Meeting for May 7, 2019. Several topics for discussion were vetted based on which might be a draw for faculty.
Faculty Concerns/Issues
Prompted by recent shooting incidents in mosques in New Zealand, discussion took place regarding a college response and support for students to such events. While it is difficult for the college to have a response to each event, there may be ways to better connect to students feeling vulnerable. The subject will be further discussed at an upcoming meeting.
Next meeting: April 15, 2019
Attendees: F. Abbasi, J. Alan, A. Bozoki, L. Cabrera, H. Chen, M. Franco, J. Kepros, H. Kim, R. Malinowski, C. Matisoff, M. Morishita, M. Petroff, K. Racicot, J. Reynolds, A. Weber
Ex-Officio Attendees: H. Barry, N. Beauchamp, K. Elisevich, L. Fleck, B. Forney, V. Johnson-Lawrence, S. Lin, W. Lipscomb, A. Mansour
Guests: G. Kelley, F. Peterson
Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the January meeting were approved as written.
Diversity and Inclusion Update
W. Lipscomb provided a perspective of how the college is thinking about diversity and inclusion through a presentation using the attached slides. Some highlights are listed below.
Briefing from the Dean
University Committee on Faculty Tenure Report
L. Fleck, UCFT chair, reported on two committee efforts: 1) revising the policy for dismissal of tenured faculty for cause, and 2) university-level tenure review. There has been a protracted process for dismissing a tenured faculty member for cause. Throughout the process, faculty have been encouraged to retire (though they continued to be paid as the process played out). It was possible that they could retire at the last minute before a final decision by the BOT, thereby preserving their retirement benefits. Due to recent high-profile cases, the Board of Trustees changed the policy, which was outrageous from a community point of view because the university was continuing to pay individuals who had behaved egregiously. From now on, per the new policy from the BOT, it would be up to the president to decide if an accused faculty member would continue to be paid during the dismissal process. If an individual chose to pursue the process, they would lose the option of retiring with health benefits. The BOT acted contrary to the UCFT process for making such policy decisions. While the UCFT understands the rationale of the BOT, committee members believe a fairer, more nuanced policy is necessary. They have created a working group. The group did agree that the president alone shouldn’t be able to decide whether an accused faculty member continues to be paid during the dismissal process. A three-member committee could be put in place to make the decision. UCFT members and ten faculty (former UCFT members) would be available for that part of the dismissal process. They could judge whether a charge represented a seriously egregious act that justified denial of pay should the accused faculty member go forward with the dismissal process. Not everyone is on board about telling someone they can’t choose the retirement option once the dismissal process itself is initiated. That point is still being debated.
The committee is charged with revising the Academic Governance bylaws as they pertain to the process of university–level tenure review. In 2013 the provost identified ten university distinguished faculty or Beal Outstanding Faculty Award recipients to serve 2-year terms to review the promotion and tenure materials. For 90% of the cases, there is no problem. For 10% there is a split between the recommendation of the department committee, the dean or the college committee. Those 10% get careful review by UDPs/Beal recipients. UCFT members agreed that they didn’t see the need to set up a separate process and that the one is place is now is okay as long as it is overseen by the UCFT. They have endorsed a recommendation that makes the provost’s procedure formal. Len was asked to take back that diversity training should be essential for those conducting tenure review.
Consensual Amorous and Sexual Relationship Policy Update
V. Johnson-Lawrence provided an overview of the discussion regarding the Consensual Amorous and Sexual Relationship Policy that took place at the last University Committee on Faculty Affairs meeting. The committee is looking at how to amend the policy (remove and add segments). The current revision of the policy is working to protect students by addressing power dynamic issues if faculty are in romantic relationships with students, and minimizing misinterpretation of the language. The UCFA is concerned about who the policy is protecting and whether undergraduate students are different than graduate students. The policy addresses romantic relationships, but committee members are wondering what about other kind of relationships may need to be addressed. The UCFA will revisit all of those and figure out what an improved policy might look like. The current policy is from 1996. Previous reviews initiated the same concerns, but the policy was not changed. Discussion took place regarding relationship progression and current policies on reporting working relationships. The UCFA is looking at a U of M policy as an example.
Feedback to the Dean
At the January CAC meeting, the dean asked for feedback on the following topics.
How to better get the word out and keep Communications informed of the great things going on in the college.
Identifying Inspirational People to Give a Commencement Address.
Several individuals were identified and the list forwarded to the dean. CAC members are encouraged to send names and contact information of inspiration people to the dean as they run across them.
Should the college be doing more on MLK Day?
Several ideas were presented on holding active, engaged activities on that day, including: small groups of students and faculty in a conscience-raising activity on some aspect of diversity and inclusion, providing a set of scenarios, classic social psychology experiments that have a racial bias, and a study-in. It could be possible for the CAC and the DSAC to partner to plan a series of activities. It was noted that some students leave campus for a 3-day weekend, which makes attendance difficult.
A suggestion was presented about the combined lecture sponsored by CHM/COM/CVM/CON prior to MLK Day. The suggestion was to shift the time so students can participate. After a long day of class, it was too much to attend the event in the evening.
Another idea was to hold activities relevant to medical students, faculty and staff throughout the year. Representatives from the CAC and the DSAC could set aside time to brainstorm what is possible. V. Johnson-Lawrence would help something like that live in the college.
Faculty Concerns/Issues
Members were asked to send any concerns/issues to F. Peterson, so they can put on agenda for next month.
Next meeting
March 18, 2019
Attendees: L. Cabrera, A. Bozoki, A. Chamdin, J. Reynolds, H. Chen, J. Kepros, H. Kim, R. Malinowski, M. Morishita, M. Petroff, K. Racicot, A. Weber
Ex-Officio Attendees: H. Barry, N. Beauchamp, L. Fleck, B. Forney, V. Johnson-Lawrence, A. Mansour, A. Sousa
Guests: G. Kelley, F. Peterson
Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the December meeting were approved as written.
Briefing from the Dean
Academic Affairs Update
A. Sousa provided an update based on five months of experience with the new curriculum. The number of honors is up, and the number of non-pass, fails, and shelf failures are down. Anecdotal data from community clerkship directors is that students are better prepared, present better and are much more comfortable around patients and at the beginning of a rotation. Students in LCE take an equivalent to Step Two, and based on those scores, sixty percent of LCE students would be predicted to pass if they took the exam last fall, about 8 months early. This is almost certainly because 1) Step One and Step Two are much closer together in content than the used to be, and 2) the first two years are so clinically integrated. In the Middle Clinical Experience, there has been two progress suites for current second year students and the medical knowledge scores are a couple points above the first cohort. The slope is similar and there is reason for optimism. From the Progress Clinical Skills Exam components of physical exam, history, safety, and post-encounter note, analysts can distinguish between first, second, third year students.
The Curriculum Committee is looking at a three-year curriculum. Teaching assignment requests have gone out. The college is working on new ways of counting teaching effort. Working on cultural issues in Academic Affairs – many faculty leaders have gone through the Covey sequence.
In GME there is an on-going collaboration of thirteen different institutions submitting for the AMA Reimaging GME Grant.
Work on collaboration with Sparrow is ongoing. Internal medicine is well into efforts around having the resident clinic based in the Sparrow Professional Building. Surgery went through what appears to have been a successful site visit, and a closer to collaboration with Sparrow and the department is in the works. Maintaining faculty support and access to GME work in return for transferring sponsorship of residencies to Sparrow is on schedule.
There are a large number of visits to Just-in-Time Medicine. CHM is providing curriculum around the world.
Old Business
Voting on Additions to Award Categories and Name Change
A. Bozoki presented two proposals for CAC approval. In addition to details about the proposals being provided and discussed at the November and December meetings, information was sent via email.
Proposal One
The CAC Awards Subcommittee proposed the addition of the following awards beginning with the 2019-20 awards cycle: 1) Junior Faculty Mentoring Award, 2) Early Career Research Excellence Award, 3) Research Excellence Award, and 4) Outstanding Curriculum Contribution Award. Discussion took place regarding eligibility for awards. A motion to add the awards was made and approved.
Proposal Two
The CAC Awards Subcommittee proposed changing the name of the “Distinguished Faculty Award” to the “Outstanding Faculty Award” to align with the change at the university level. A motion to change the name of the award was made and approved.
New Business
Request for Name Change – Department of Translational Science and Molecular Medicine
The Department of Translational Science and Molecular Medicine is requesting a name change to the Department of Translational Neuroscience. A document outlining the department background, problems with the current name, and constituencies affected was distributed. L. Cabrera highlighted advantages and fielded questions. She put forth the following proposal on behalf of TSMM and requested the endorsement of the CAC.
The Department of Translational Science and Molecular Medicine proposes changing the department name to the Department of Translational Neuroscience.
A motion to endorse the proposal was made and passed with one abstention. The dean would have preferred to see statement of endorsement from every unit mentioned in the document.
Faculty Concerns/Issues
When asked if he had any tasks for the CAC, the dean listed the following:
Next meeting
February 18, 2019