The Voice of the Faculty
September 26, 2013
Joseph Romagnuolo MD MSc
FRCPC FASGE FACG AGAF FACP
President, Faculty Senate
Professor, COM
(Div of GI and Hepatology)
Outline
 Year in review in the Senate;
 Ongoing issues involving the Senate;
 Outgoing FS President's Vision for the Faculty Senate;
 Introduction of New Faculty Senate Officers;
 Incoming FS President's address;
 Open Discussion/Feedback
Purposes
 Summarize what the Faculty Senate does and has
done
 Gather input on how we have handled issues, and
how to handle ongoing/future issues
 Ask for your support in these ongoing issues, either as
a Senator or as a policy-maker outside the Senate
 Introduce the incoming Senate officers
Overview of the Senate
 “Voice of the faculty” – 66 senators, 21 alternates
 Electoral Units having 50 or fewer “qualified” (F/T) faculty represented by four
Senators
 Electoral Units having between 51 and 100 qualified members represented by
six Senators
 Electoral Units with more than 100 qualified faculty members shall have six
Senators and elect one additional Senator for every 33 additional qualified
faculty members in excess of 100
 Common myth debunked – “FS is all non-clinical/non-COM faculty”: Not true!
 COM-CS: 34 senators, 14 alternates
 COM-BS: 6 senators, 2 alternates





3 officers (president, VP, secretary)
6 electoral unit leaders (COM-CS, COM-BS, CON, COP, CHP, COD, DLSI)
3 standing committee chairs (FIR, IA, CE)
4 ad hoc committees (peer-review, clinical affairs, modified faculty, space)
Officer elections in July, Senator elections in Sept
The Senate Constitution
This Constitution defines the composition of the Faculty Senate, its role in the academic affairs of
the University, and the basic principles of self-governance of the faculty of the Medical University
of South Carolina as authorized by the Bylaws of the Board of Trustees of the Medical University of
South Carolina, Section 6, Article b, August 1976.
Article II
Purpose
The purpose of the Faculty Senate shall be to act as the sole representative body of the faculty, to
receive, organize and, if deemed appropriate, execute business of the faculty that is submitted to
it by members of the faculty, the administration, or the Faculty Senate itself, and to represent the
views of the faculty to the administration. The Faculty Senate serves as the voice of the faculty. In
accordance with its vision and as permitted by state law, the Faculty Senate serves as an advisor to
the administration in ensuring the success of the University's mission in teaching, research, and
service.
A full year, indeed…
Challenges?
 No protected time for Senate activities
 Busy schedules, volunteered time
 No administrative support
 No financial infrastructural support
 Variable recognition of Senate’s role by some
committees and some MUSC “entities”
 Restrictions on use of legal fund
Highlights – the “non-compete”:
 Victory for the Senate and faculty - MUSC-P was successfully persuaded
to rescind their revised/expanded restrictive covenant (“non-compete”)
agreement, albeit after threat of injunction by F.Senate legal counsel
 Started under Paul Jacques as President – Survey, use of Legal fund
 Handled badly




Faculty threatened with termination of MUSC-P pay if they did not sign, within
days of receiving the contract – faculty resignations occurred
Non-compete was misrepresented as part of the university contract
Chairs misrepresented the contract as “better” because of smaller radius,
smaller penalty, without disclosing/realizing the expanded restrictions (referral
base, liquidated damages, “any” termination, expansion of types of
employment disallowed, center of the radius including p/t satellite clinics, etc)
MUSC-P refused to work with the Senate to revise language (before injunction)
claiming they do not deal with “faculty” but rather “members”


Senate represents MUSC faculty; and some of our faculty are your members;
nearly all of your members are our faculty
University admin did not seem to take joint responsibility or claim jurisdiction to
correct the errors, even though our handbook, and our malpractice situation,
clearly states the President/MUSC has ultimate power over the MUSC-P entity
Non-compete cont’d
 FS still locked out of negotiations and official place on
MUSC-board
 Faculty made a pitch at TH - just as much effort should be
paid to retention as is put into devising a non-compete
 It is not clear that this pitch was heard and acted upon
Non-compete cont’d
 Many of us oppose the concept, other than perhaps of an amortized
penalty/payback of recruitment investment
 Non-competes can allow administration to invest less in other retention
efforts
 Rather there be effort to strive to be the “preferred place of employment”
rather than “the only place you can work without leaving town”
 Even when non-enforceable, the threat of “our pockets are deeper than
yours…” is powerful
 “Caged” people obsess on leaving, finding a loophole, etc
 People who want/need to leave do not make good faculty members and
co-workers
 Medical providers are people, with families, kids in school, spouses
working in town, and cannot easily leave town when MUSC does not
work out as an employer
 Something becoming “widespread” does not mean it’s right
Other Highlights…
 Legal fund was replenished – thank you
 Space ad hoc committee (I. Koutolas) was formed
because of concerns over PI responsibilities in lab space
moves, and clinical space reallocations
 Governance committee (M. Mueller) changed our by-laws
to allow officers to be elected a few months earlier than
the Senate elections, to allow a transition period –
passed by BOT
 Officers-elect are on executive as non-voting members
 Better continuity of business
Highlights cont’d – F. Evaluation
 FIR committee (A. Rheingold) proposed changes to the handbook re Faculty evaluation
language
RATIONALE: Faculty Handbook section 9.02 Faculty Evaluation needed revision as current version was
not accurate and was vague in its description of evaluation procedures.
9.02 Faculty Evaluation CURRENT WORDING:
The State of South Carolina requires that all state universities and colleges evaluate faculty performance. In order to comply with this requirement,
MUSC has developed a faculty evaluation procedure, which has been approved by the Division of Human Resources of the State Budget and
Control Board. Each college of the University has an approved Performance Appraisal form (faculty evaluation). See Appendix 6.05 for copies of
these forms. The form is completed annually for each faculty member, and is kept in a permanent file under the purview of the dean or director.
The faculty member has a right to full disclosure of the Performance Appraisal.
The faculty member is required to sign the appraisal, indicating s/he has read the evaluation form, but has the right to make written comments
concerning agreement or disagreement with the evaluation.
9.02 Faculty Evaluation PROPOSED REVISION:
The Medical University requires regular evaluation of each faculty member’s performance. Each Medical University College has an
approved faculty performance evaluation form (Appendix 6.05a). Evaluation is based upon the core faculty responsibilities of teaching,
research/scholarly activity, clinical activity, institutional activity, professional growth, and other activity, as appropriate. Any change to performance
evaluation form requires concurrence from faculty representatives within each College.
Department Chairs or Division Directors must meet at least annually with each of their faculty members to review attainment of goals proposed in
the previous year's evaluation, appraise the quality of his/her work, and to establish specific, mutual agreement for the coming year’s goals.
Written justification is required on the evaluation form for unacceptable or marginal ratings. The faculty member has the right to make written
comments regarding the evaluation, and to have them included in the evaluation. The faculty member signs the performance evaluation form,
confirming that she/he has read the comments of the supervisor.
The record of this meeting becomes part of the faculty member’s permanent record, retained by his/her Chair or Division Director, under the
purview of the College Dean. Faculty has the right to full disclosure of the performance evaluation and the right to appeal the findings reported in
the evaluation (Section 8.01, Faculty Grievance and Appeal Procedure).
Highlights cont’d
 FIR (A. Rheingold) reviewed revised COI policy and
committee charge documents with minor suggestions
 IA committee (A. Begle/T. Brown) new process of tracking
approved documents through university hierarchy
 CE committee (S. Drayton) organized a Promotions and
Tenure Workshop (Fall’12) and a New Faculty Orientation
(NFO) (Summer’13)
 Both well-received
 Unclear whether NFO to be continued by FS
Highlights cont’d- Peer Review
 Peer-review ad hoc committee’s (C. Davies) recommendations
History





Following a number of complaints from clinical faculty, the Faculty Senate first examined the MUSC Hospital
peer-review system in spring and summer of 2011
This included meetings between representatives of the Senate and Dr. Pat Cawley (Medical Executive Director),
culminating in some modifications to the published peer-review policy
Further revision was deemed necessary, however, and in November 2011, the Faculty Senate charged an ad
hoc committee to investigate the MUSC hospital peer-review process system and to make specific
recommendations.
The committee considered the AMA document which explains the rights afforded to physicians in the peerreview process by the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (HCQIA).
Faculty/Senate Victory - Over a year of negotiations, almost all Senate-approved recommendations have been
accepted by Legal Counsel and Danielle Scheurer, and the most recent package is now ready to go back to the
Senate for approval
 Timeline:









October 2012 – Recommendations document developed by Senate ad hoc Peer-review committee
November 2012 – Recommendations document passed by Senate
December 2012 – Recommendations document presented to Medical Executive by Jack Crumbley
January 2013 - Joe Romagnuolo, Jack Crumbley and Chris Davies met with Annette Drachmann and Danielle Scheurer to go over document
February 2013 – Written response to recommendations received, but some legal questions still outstanding.
March 2013 –JC and CD met with DS to go over their initial response.
June 2013 – Legal opinion issued by AD
August 2013 – JR, JC and CD met with AD and DS to resolve remaining differences
September 2013 – Outcome of negotiations approved by Senate ad hoc Peer-review committee
Peer Review Recommendations
 Bottom Lines:









Complaint Entry Recommendations
Departmental PR Recommendations
Medical Staff PR Recommendations
Findings of PR Recommendations
Appeals Mechanism Recommendations
Membership of MS-PRC Recommendation
Faculty Education Recommendation
Revised Workflow








Form letter with no information saying you were being
reviewed, is now a detailed half-page summary of the
specific incident
Detailed data will be given in 90% of cases within 45d
(reportable quality metric) to the accused
Departmental Peer Review committee, not just the Chair
Published guidelines re Process
Ability to represent oneself
“No concern” prior events N/A to review panel
Removal of COI, permanent voting members (memory),
non-overlap between MEC and PRC voting membership
Chair does not have submit a letter on your behalf for
you to appeal
Appeal process is now independent from PRC:

3-member independent committee consisting of (1) Hospital
Chief Medical Officer (2) Highest ranking medical staff
physician in the faculty senate (3) a 3rd member dually
appointed by the first 2 members
Highlights cont’d
 Parking Rate Increases
 Inadequate disclosure of 5-year plan
 Inadequate justification of how parking structure
“investments” (to increase clinical, research and tuition
revenue) that are not returning enough to make up for
the investment are being born by employees

CofC parking cheaper, Roper/VA parking free
 Lack of consensus on whether salary-stratified, rather
than value-stratified payment structure is acceptable
 We pleaded for further discussion but denied
Highlights cont’d – Legal Fund Home
 FS Legal fund:
 Used to be housed outside of MUSC
 Brought into MUSC system for ease of accounting
 Obstructions of its use:
 Need for approval from State Attorney General
 Capping of hourly legal reimbursement at $150/hr
 Approval for release of payment by MUSC/MUSC-Legal Counsel
 “Action” (as opposed to advice) may be difficult
 MUSC vs MUSC
 Gathered information on the legal and accounting costs of
having a separate, off-campus legal fund

Feasible for new donations; difficult to move donations already in
the MUSC account to an outside account
 Executive committee passed a motion to pursue a legal fund
outside of MUSC walls
Highlights cont’d – MDM, 2FA
 Mobile Device Management, 2-Factor Authentication
 Sought FS input early one (~1 y ago)

Concerns expressed, but importance understood
 Communication/roll-out not ideal
 Posters/Sign-up desks before dissemination of information
 Remain concerns re privacy:
 Phone tracking
 Apps tracking
 Phone content “wiping”
 Remain concerns re practicality:
 In off-site meeting, out of country, etc getting phone call to access
email
 Remember, you can opt out…
Highlights cont’d
– COM compensation proposal

COM electoral unit Leader (A. Smolka) and the Executive summarized the faculty concerns at a
Town Hall, and Constructed a survey: 337 faculty responded (~50% of clinical COM)
 Plus 150+ written comments for each of 2 questions re the advantages of the model, and
suggestions for improving the model – these were forwarded to the Dean.
Survey results:
 Revision of COM salary structure is necessary and beneficial for the institution


How do you expect your salary to change under the new plan?


Agree (15, 4.5%), Neutral (48, 14.2%), Disagree (274, 81.3%) Missing 2 (0.6%)
My Chair and/or Division Director has detailed, or will detail soon, the metrics he/she will apply in
determining my 2014-15 compensation


Agree (86, 25.5%), Disagree (159, 47.2%), Don't Know (92, 27.3%) Missing 2 (0.6%)
I believe that faculty was adequately consulted during the development of the new compensation
plan


Increase (8, 2.4%), Decrease (209, 62.4%), No Change (118, 35.2%) Missing 4 (1.2%)
The new compensation plan will likely be more standardized and transparent than the existing
models


Agree (96, 28.4%), Disagree (152, 45%), Don't Know (90, 26.6%) Missing 1 (0.3%)
Agree (152, 45.2%), Disagree (98, 29.2%), Don't Know (86, 25.6%) Missing 3 (0.9%)
I am confident that metrics devised for my job description will be relevant and achievable for me

Agree (77, 22.9%), Disagree (146, 43.5%), Neutral (113, 33.6%) Missing 3 (0.9%)
Highlights cont’d
– COM compensation proposal
Survey results cont’d:
 In your opinion, how long before implementation of the new compensation plan should all
performance metrics be announced by COM or Department Chairs?


In your opinion, what effect will the new compensation plan have on the ability of MUSC to recruit
qualified faculty?


1 month (11, 3.3%), 2 months (9, 2.7%), 3 months (26, 7.8%), 6 months (287, 86.2%) Missing: 6 (1.8%)
Easier (7, 2.1%), More Difficult (289, 86.5%), No Effect on Recruitment (38, 11.4%) Missing: 5 (1.5%)
What impact will the proposed compensation plan have on your continued employment at MUSC?

Increase the likelihood of remaining (8, 2.4%), Decrease the likelihood of remaining (226, 69.1%), Has no
impact on my decision to remain at MUSC (93, 28.4%) Missing: 12 (3.5%)
Individual component concerns:
 >80% rated “20-40% at risk” and “at risk subject to institutional funds avail” and
“performance impacted by things out of faculty control” as “high concern”
 >2/3 rated “lack of specific rules re timing and metrics” and “institutional metrics used”
as “high concern”
Concessions:
 64-83% ok with each of the alternate components proposed by Senate
 Only 13% felt incentive-based compensation was COMPLETELY unacceptable
Faculty feedback….
 Quotes (re FS response to COM Compensation Plan TH):
 “Just wanted to send a quick note to thank you and the faculty executive committee for an





excellent and measured response to the clinical faculty compensation plan. As you
have outlined the plan is a disaster and I believe will potentially cause a mass exodus of
the clinical faculty.”
“I would like personally to thank you folks for this email, which is exemplary in being
candid, informative, clear, and balanced. Thank you for all of the hard work you are
doing on behalf of the MUSC faculty. I really appreciate all of your efforts.”
“Many thanks for your email detailing the Faculty Senate executive response to the COM
2014 clinical faculty compensation plan. As was the case with the non-compete
'agreement' of 2012, the administration's hubris in proposing the compensation plan is
shocking. I agree with each of your itemized responses and thank you for addressing
the larger spectrum of interrelated problems rather than only the most vulgar
aspects…”
“This is fantastic. Thank you for your hard work!”
“I really, really liked the statements here. They are well written, cogent arguments, and
speak for a real set of truths.”
“Although the administration shenanigans do not affect me anymore, I want to congratulate you
for your efforts on behalf of the clinical faculty. “
 “I just wanted to thank you for representing the faculty. The communication you have
instituted this year is unparalleled in my 10 year experience here. You have been
very transparent, and for those of us who are not always able to attend these meetings
or catch up on the videos, I wanted to say thank you for your efforts and your service
to us. It is greatly appreciated.”
Unfinished business…
Ongoing Issues
– Industry Relations Policy
 FIR and IR subcommittee (N. Sutkowski) reviewed a draft of Industry
Relations Policy, which was rejected. Why? – Examples:
 Restriction on earning money on “personal time” to only things of






“academic purposes”; activities could not be “just for financial gain”
Vague definition of “industry” which included professional associations,
non-profit organizations, etc
Vague wording – “may be prohibited”, “may be allowed”
Restrictions on faculty being used by industry to get feedback for
marketing, product promotion, etc or demonstrating a product
Restrictions on CME, slides, etc
Restrictions on activities “outside academic setting”
Restrictions on consulting for financial institutions, legal, etc
 Working group organized by the Provost, with FS representation (N.S.)
 Newer version still had issues:
 Department approval of off-hours consulting activity
 Several iterations
 Pre-final version now submitted to Exec and Senate for review
Ongoing Issues
- Post-tenure review
 FIR committee (A. Rheingold) proposed changes to the handbook re Tenured Faculty Posttenure review (Section 6.05)
Rationale:
1.
FIR would like to strengthen Faculty’s involvement in the development of faculty goals that will
subsequently be the topic of evaluation, therefore wording to include mutual agreement between faculty member
and supervisor was added. This will allow faculty a stronger voice in negotiating behaviorally specific goals and
related duties for the upcoming year that will be evaluated. Given the recent financial strain and pressure for
faculty to assist with funding salaries, by adding mutual agreement would allow faculty to help determine goals
evaluated for post-tenure review that would be within their direct control.
2.
There is no single way of protecting ALL faculty members within a standard evaluation procedure.
However, FIR believes that faculty evaluation would be strengthened by faculty assisting in determining weights
of applicable categories to be evaluated. Further, benefit/costs were weighed for keeping current wording related
to evaluation based upon majority of categories versus changing evaluation based upon weighting of categories.
a.
Majority of categories: Benefits: Allows for evaluation across categories to be even, therefore if there is
a deficit in only one category, post-tenure review would not be threatened. Costs: Does not distinguish
between primary and secondary responsibilities (for example, if a faculty member’s main responsibilities
are clinical and excels in clinical evaluation, but is evaluated poorly in teaching which only encompasses
a minimal amount of time, the faculty member would still be placed up for post-tenure review). May be
difficult to address if faculty has even number of applicable categories.
b.
Weighting of categories: Benefits: Allows for faculty to be evaluated based upon main responsibilities,
therefore if there is a deficit in secondary responsibilities, post-tenure review would not be threatened.
Allows for choice of equal weighting (i.e., majority of categories). Costs: Folks may view weighting
equivalent to funding, which is not the intention. Opportunity exists for faculty to become “bad citizens” for
the university in that s/he may devote themselves to only one aspect of their work.
Ongoing Issues
- Post-tenure review
 Proposed Changes:
6.05 Post Tenure Review ORIGINAL WORDING
Each tenured faculty member undergoes annual reviews. The faculty member’s annual review is integral in
determining performance. The Department Chair/Division Head will use the five-point scale for annual reviews
(unsatisfactory, marginal, satisfactory, very good or outstanding), but for the purposes of reporting to the
Provost’s Office, overall performance will be summarized on a three-point scale (superior, adequate,
inadequate). If a faculty member is rated as below satisfactory in a majority of applicable performance
categories on the five-point scale, they will receive an “inadequate” overall evaluation on the three-point scale.
Each year, the faculty member must be made aware of specific requirements to attain an adequate annual
review so that he or she is given the chance to meet these specific requirements.
6.05 Post Tenure Review RECOMMENDED WORD CHANGES
Each tenured faculty member undergoes annual reviews. The faculty member’s annual review is integral in
determining performance. The Department Chair/Division Head will use the five-point scale for annual reviews
(unsatisfactory, marginal, satisfactory, very good or outstanding), but for the purposes of reporting to the
Provost’s Office, overall performance will be summarized on a three-point scale (inadequate, adequate,
superior). At least once per year, the weights of the applicable categories will be decided by mutual
agreement between the faculty member and the Department Chair/Division Head. If a faculty member is
rated as below satisfactory in the weighted overall majority of applicable performance categories on the fivepoint scale, they may receive an “inadequate” overall evaluation on the three-point scale. Each year, the
faculty member and Department Chairman/Division Chief must agree on the specific requirements needed
to attain an adequate annual review so that he or she is given the chance to meet these specific requirements.
Ongoing issues
- Relationship with MUHA/MUSC-P
 FS involvement in MUHA and MUSC-P inadequate
 A “Faculty and Clinical Leadership Relations Committee” is being
considered by Governance Committee
 Representing faculty interests at the Medical Executive Committee (MEC) of the




Hospital/MUHA, reporting relevant upcoming changes to the Senate Executive,
through an appointed active Medical Staff clinical faculty representative from FCLR,
who will attend MEC meetings.
Representing faculty interests at MUSC-Physicians Board meetings, reporting
relevant upcoming changes to the Senate Executive, through an appointed MUSC-P
member clinical faculty representative from FLCR, who will attend MUSC-P meetings.
Reviewing changes in MUHA/MUSC-P Policies that affect faculty rights, freedoms
and ability to carry on their University duties; policies would ideally be sent for Senate
review by MUHA/MUSC-P, or alternatively by interested Medical Staff or MUSC-P
clinical faculty who become aware of such a change.
Determining faculty impact by policies implemented by MUHA/MUSC-P through
survey, faculty assembly, or other means
Lobbying for change in policies implemented by MUHA/MUSC-P that are not in
faculty’s best interests
Ongoing issues
 Governance committee – definition of % for “full-time” status
 Choosing a %, confirming a list of faculty meeting eligibility
 Emerging Performance-Based compensation
 COM X-Y-Z Model, SuccessFactors, etc
 Moving FS Legal Fund outside MUSC – passed by FS exec
 Policing and assessing success of “Funds Flow”
 Faculty privacy vs patient privacy - MDM
 Policy Development and University/ “Clinical Leadership”




structural changes outside the Senate
Defining “faculty input” in handbook and in university culture
Space allocation, reallocation
CofC collaboration/merger
MUSC University President Search (FS rep)
Opinions on Direction and Emphasis…
Where should we go?
 Funding for the Senate
 All 3 entities MUSC, MUSC-P, MUHA NEED to have Senate involvement
 Reprimands, from the highest level, of university/faculty policy development outside
the Senate, with supervision of this by the “MUSC” entity
 MUSC President/Admin has to clarify their oversight and power of these clinical entities
 Caution re occult “taxes” - MUSC/MUHA/MUSC-P make “investments,” but is it
appropriate to tax faculty with a new fee if investments do not pan out?
 MUHA/MUSC-P are beginning to make decisions re efficiency and expansion that may
potentially hurt educational and research goals of MUSC
 Policy decisions that threaten other MUSC missions (e.g. “efficiency” threatening
student/resident education) need to be reported promptly to the Senate
 Ear to the ground re new Compensation/Evaluation models
 Beware the new non-compete
 Careful not to allow post-tenure review to become over-used and diminish the
meaning of tenure
 Report and oppose any intimidation that Senators face in doing their job
 Continue to have a strong, united voice – regardless of whether the issue is in YOUR
college, or affects YOU
 We are weakest when divided
Emphasis on recruitment/retention of faculty
needs to be pushed
 Worries me that current “strategic plan” may not be congruent with this
Thank you
 Faculty
 Faculty Senators
 Executive Committee
 Dr. Sothmann and other administrators that have worked
with us over the year
 My fellow officers – Jack Crumbley (VP), Laura
Carpenter (Secr)
 I apologize for explicitly indicating I was not available to
run for the customary “second term”
 Appreciate the kind words, encouragement to continue, etc
New blood, New energy…
New FS Officers (effect. 0ct8, 2013)
 President:
 Tom Smith PhD, Professor, DLSI
 Vice President:
 Angela Mund CRNA DNP,
Assistant Professor, CHP
 Secretary:
 Amy Thompson PharmD,
Assistant Professor, COP
Dr. Tom Smith…
Open Mike…