Return to Main Menu

Faculty Senate: nominations, contracts, counsel The Faculty Senate met July 10 and was called to order by Adrian Reuben, M.D. The next meeting will be held at 7:45 a.m. Tuesday, Aug. 7 in room 107 of the Administration/Library Building. Faculty Senate nominations Reuben announced that Faculty Senate nominations would be held the week of Aug. 15, with elections the following week. He reminded senators to be thinking about the makeup of the new Executive Committee and who the officers of the senate should be in the upcoming year. He reminded senators to attend the Convocation on Aug. 22 and to encourage other faculty to participate in this important academic event. As introduction to the main business of the meeting, Reuben discussed the background of the effort to construct a single unified contract for university faculty. He mentioned as concerns two inflammatory statements which had appeared in drafts of the contract. The first statement noted that the contract would take precedence over the Faculty Handbook if conflicts between the two documents arose.  The second statement gave department chairs the right to change both job responsibilities and salary during the contract year, based on departmental finances and needs.  University Faculty Contracts: Tom Higerd, Ph.D., associate provost for Institutional Research and Assessment Department Chairperson Evaluation Before proceeding with the faculty contract discussion, Higerd gave a brief overview of the Department Chairperson Evaluation results for 2000-01.  He distributed the survey form and discussed the results, which have been distributed to the deans. The evaluation has  been well-received since it began two years ago, and much of the credit is due to the Faculty Senate committee, headed by Dr. Hank Martin, which constructed the survey. The response rate in 2000 was 49 percent. It increased to 52 percent in 2001. If departmental leadership was in transition at the time of the survey, that department was not included. Thus, in 2001, some major departments (anesthesiology, psychiatry, medicine, pediatrics) were not surveyed. He also noted that there are many faculty who don’t easily fit into an existing departmental structure and more work needs to be done to identify and include those people. Positive responses in all categories went up in 2001. Most  improvement was shown in 3 areas: (1) manages the departmental  budget effectively and fairly, (2) involves faculty in discussions of budget and resources, and (3) involves faculty in planning and decision making, including budgets and appointments.  Least  improvement was in 4 areas: (1) allocates appropriate resources, including time, to research, (2) stimulates research and scholarly activity within the department, (3) is respectful of the ownership of individual faculty member’s ideas and work, and (4) treats faculty, staff, and students with dignity and respect.  In response to a question, Higerd noted that part-time faculty are not included in the survey because it is currently not possible to determine the amount of time they serve as faculty. This amounts to about 100 of MUSC’s 1,200 faculty. Most do not work more than a few hours a month while others work 80 percent as faculty.  Higerd’s office will attempt to better identify the amount of service part-time faculty provide and include them in the chair evaluation process. University faculty contracts Higerd explained that the university received a performance funding grant of $650,000 from the Commission on Higher Education to develop a faculty database in 1999. This was in response to the fact that inaccurate faculty data at MUSC had a significant negative impact on a variety of performance indicators.  Two years ago, MUSC ranked 33 of the 33 state institutions. MUSC now ranks 4th, and is ahead of both other research universities, USC and Clemson. The Provost Faculty Information Database has recently been opened to business managers. Phase 2 of the project is to confirm the integrity of the information. The university contract is one method of validating the information, as the first page of the contract includes demographic and appointment information which faculty will confirm or correct when contracts are executed. Phase 3 of the Provost Faculty Information Database project will be to digitize the faculty appointment process to make it both timely and accurate. Version 1 of the model faculty contract was drafted by Higerd and presented to the Deans Council in the fall of 2000. This draft was later posted to the College of Medicine Website and used in 2000.  Version 2 was drafted in the spring of 2001; it included modifications suggested by lawyers and accepted by Dr. Higerd.  Version 2.1 was drafted this summer. In response to inquiries about the Major Activity categories on Page 1, Part A, Higerd explained that these categories were mandated by the Commission on Higher Education and are based on SACS requirements. Faculty can choose only one activity, so the issue becomes what is the consequence of assigning faculty to a particular activity. Higerd noted that there have been 2 problematic sections in versions 1 and 2 of the model contract. Concerns in Section B, Compensation Information, focus on the need to clarify term of appointment, period of service or appointment, and contract period as well as wording about possible compensation cuts.  Attempts are being made to simplify the appointment of part-time faculty so a full recruitment is not necessary between actual periods of service. Faculty appointments are made for a full year, but the period of performance might be 3, 6, or 9 months. Dr. Privitera noted that wording indicates base salary, rather than add-ons such as merit raises, can be reduced. He stated that the base salary is more  significant to those who teach or do research, as clinicians get a significant portion of their money from UMA. It was also noted during the discussion that there are very serious concerns among faculty about the terms of the UMA contracts. These are currently under review by the UMA Executive Committee. Part D, Acknowledgments and Agreements, has also contained controversial language. Version 2 contains the wording about conflicts between the Faculty Handbook and the contract and acknowledges that department chairs can change compensation and  responsibilities during the contract period. This language has been revised significantly in version 2.1. Higerd stated that the use of the model contract is optional and its wording is completely modifiable. Whether and how deans and chairs choose to use the instrument is their responsibility. Reuben voiced the concern that when a contract includes inflammatory language such as that found in version 2, faculty are forced into a confrontational position with their chairman. He felt some recognition must be made that faculty who were faced with signing contracts which included both points have signed away their rights and administration should admit that this is wrong. He told the Senate that he would discuss this in an upcoming meeting with the provost. Higerd said he hopes that several model contracts will be developed and that the Faculty Senate will be involved with the development. He also requested helpful suggestions in addition to criticism. Particular issues he feels need to be addressed include defining tenure and determining what part of the salary is at risk.  Senators brought up a number of questions and observations. Who is watching out for faculty members? Model contracts should include wording that individual departments cannot change or exclude. If a faculty member does not meet the goals stated on the contract, is he/she in breach of contract? Is this grounds for dismissal? Reuben pointed out that this situation is an example of the need for legal counsel to review proposed documents on behalf of the faculty. Status of legal counsel Reuben noted that more than $8,000 has been received to fund the legal counsel. He recommended that the University Affairs Committee interview the lawyers who have professed an interest in the job and test the concept. Senators in attendance agreed. This will be discussed in a forthcoming newsletter to the faculty. Governance Committee: Francine Margolius, Ed.D. Francine Margolius gave an update on the project to revise the MUSC Faculty Handbook. Walker Coleman of the President's Office has been sorting and organizing the input Reuben has received from the faculty for the past few years and is annotating pertinent sections of the handbook. In addition to members of the Governance Committee, senators who are willing to look at the Handbook and identify issues/sections that need to be changed are asked to contact Margolius. The goal is to complete the easy, cosmetic changes during the summer and have the significant issues addressed by the new senate in the fall. Senators present Basic Sciences: Philip Privitera Clinical Sciences: Narenda Banik, Timothy Carter, Dennis Cope, Leonie Gordon, Mark Lyles, Timothy Lyons, Subbi Mathur, Terry O’Brien, Adrian Reuben Dental Medicine: Peter Kobes Health Professions: Rich Hernandez, Janice Hundley Library Science and Informatics: Jennie Ariail, Nancy McKeehan, Peggy Schachte Nursing: Elaine Amella, Francine Margolius, Sally Stroud Pharmacy: John Bosso, Rachel Couchenour, Kit Simpson, Anne Spencer