|
|
|
|
|
Autumn 2002
A Shocking Experience and the University’s Lack of Response To say that I was shocked by what I saw on the evening of September 17, 2002, in Doan Hall is an understatement. I witnessed the “attack” on Douglas Graff (see Graff’s article in this issue), and I’m still stunned by what I saw. However, that is only part of this unfortunate story. On the morning of September 18, I called the President’s Office and spoke with Ed Jennings, then Interim President. I described to him in detail what I had seen and asked that something be done. I also insisted that any further review of Professor Drake be taken out of the hands of his department and college, since it would clearly be prejudiced by the events that transpired that Tuesday evening. President Jennings assured me that this serious matter would be taken care of and thanked me for bringing it to his attention, something that he said is not all that common. I then called the Provost’s office. Ed Ray was in a meeting, and I explained to Ann Lawrence why I was calling. She assured me that she would talk to the Provost as soon as possible and get back to me. She did call me back later that day, to let me know that President Jennings and Provost Ray had discussed the situation and turned it over to Legal Affairs for investigation. At that point, I thought that the situation would be taken care of. However, that was the last I heard from OSU administration until September 25 when I called President Jennings. In fact, the next call I got was the following week from a Columbus Dispatch reporter, who had come across the police report that had been filed the night of the incident. After a week went by, I began to feel some concern, since another review meeting was scheduled for the evening of September 30. On September 25 and 26, I called President Jennings and left messages asking him to call me. Not hearing anything from the President’s office, I then called Provost Ray on September 27. I was not able to speak to him, but I did have a conversation with Ann Lawrence in which I expressed my concerns about whether anything was being done, as well as my concerns about the upcoming review panel on September 30. Ms. Lawrence indicated that someone named “Ginny Tretheway,” who is apparently an executive assistant to the president, was investigating the matter. Late that afternoon, I received an email from John Biancamano, in Legal Affairs, who said that I would not be allowed to attend the meeting on September 30 with Professor Drake, his attorney, and a medical review board. I found his response unacceptable and replied to that effect. I also asked for security to be present at the coming meeting. Later, I asked him for specific information on what university rules were presumably being used in the review of Professor Drake. I arrived a little before 6:30 for the meeting on September 30, and entered 130 Doan Hall. That “room” is actually a complex of rooms and offices, with a foyer and reception area immediately inside. No one else seemed to be present, except for a medical center security officer down the hall. He asked my name and went back to the conference room, where the meeting was to be held, while I took a seat in the foyer. When he returned, he said that I was “not welcome there.” When I started to explain that I was just going to wait in the foyer for Professor Drake and his attorney, Douglas Graff, to arrive, he insisted that this was a “private area” and that I had to leave. I stepped out into the hallway of Doan Hall, where I waited for the arrival of the others, this time including Jerry Winer, President of OSU/AAUP. Not only were representatives from AAUP not allowed to sit in on the meeting, but apparently we were now banned from the general area as well. The following morning, I called the President’s office. I was regretful to have to try to discuss this matter on the first day of Karen Holbrook’s term as President, but I saw no other choice. Her predecessor had not returned my calls, and the matter had not been resolved. President Holbrook was not available, and so I left a message asking that she call me. On October 3, I had not received a return call. I called the President’s office again and left another message asking her to call me. That afternoon, I found a voice mail message from an individual identifying herself as “Ginny” Tretheway. The message indicated that it was inappropriate for me to be trying to contact the president about this matter. I was disturbed by this message and called the president’s office, asking to speak to President Holbrook in order to clarify the message. I was put on hold and then found myself speaking to Ms. Tretheway. The reason it was inappropriate for me to contact the President was that she might be the final arbiter in any appeal process. This seemed like a pretty lame excuse to me, since Mr. Biancamano and Mr. Holder were insisting that the review of Professor Drake was related exclusively to patient care, not to his duties as a faculty member. Further, I was concerned about what was being done about the incident that I had witnessed on September 17. When I insisted on speaking directly with President Holbrook, in order for her to explain to me why my trying to contact her was “inappropriate,” all I got was silence. When I then asked about whether the September 17 incident was being investigated, I was told that it was in the hands of the OSU chief of police. I said I was not convinced that an investigation was actually going on, since I was the one who reported it, and no one had yet contacted me. I was told that I would be informed about what was being done. I have been chair of Committee A for two years now. I have also been active as an officer and board member of AAUP for a number of years. There have been a number of previous occasions when I have had to contact the President’s office because of my roles in AAUP, as well as simply in my role as a faculty member at OSU. This is the first time that the President did not speak directly to me. I should note that I did receive a call from the OSU police chief’s office on the morning of October 4, asking me to meet with him. The date suggested by that office was October 15, to which I agreed. It is obvious that there is no rush to judgment in this case. On October 9, the College of Social Work had a faculty meeting. It included a one hour presentation by a member of the OSU Office of Environmental Health and Safety. The topic was the University’s model “Emergency Operations and Evacuation Plan.” Part of that presentation focused on “Workplace Violence.” The university has existing plans to deal with these situations, which include getting out of the way of harm and reporting matters to proper authorities. We did what was outlined in that presentation. Now is the time for the administration to honor its plans when the alleged perpetrator is a member of administration. One final note: I met with OSU Police Chief Ron Michalec on October 15, 2002, at which time he took (and tape-recorded) a statement from me. After we finished with my statement, he told me that all of the information gathered would be turned over to the prosecutor’s office for disposition. Interestingly, he also told me that I, along with Mr. Graff and Professor Drake and a court reporter who had been present on September 17, would be the last people interviewed. Apparently, the others, including the person against whom allegations had been made, had already been interviewed. It seems to me strnge to leave until last the person making the complaint, as well as the person who reported the incident to the President and Provost. Keith Kilty, Chair, Committee A Return me to the Table of Contents Alleged “Attack” by University Official in Doan Hall On September 17, 2002, I was attacked by the OSU Hospital’s attorney while introducing Keith Kilty, Ph.D. to an ad hoc hearing committee reviewing my client’s clinical privileges. As an attorney, I was engaged to represent Miles Drake, M.D. on an administrative review of his biennial reappointment to the OSU Hospital Medical Staff. Drake had been informed on September 12, 2001 by Jerry Mendell, M.D., Chair of the Department of Neurology, that Drake’s medical staff reappointment for the 2001-2002 biennium had been denied. Mendell had previously told Drake, a tenured Associate Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry, that the reappointment would be approved. Drake requested the opportunity to appear before the Credentials Committee or Medical Staff Administrative Committee (MSAC) to answer any questions or criticisms. Previously, Drake had been told in his April 2002 performance review that Mendell would support Drake’s reappointment, and Mendell reiterated the statement in May. On June 11, 2001, Drake was presented his reappointment package to deliver to the office of the Medical Director because the information was late due to department administrative delay. The package contained a fully favorable administrative recommendation and request for clinical privileges signed by Mendell. On June 13, 2002, Mendell appeared before the MSAC stating he had endorsed Drake’s application for reappointment, and because the delay was from departmental lapses, Mendell requested temporary privileges for Drake during the reappointment review process. On June 18, 2002, Mendell submitted a new and unfavorable administrative recommendation to the Medical Director. A cover letter requested that the new recommendation be substituted but to allow the original signatures to be preserved. Mendell then appeared before the Credentials Committee strongly opposing Drake’s reappointment on grounds of noncompliance with departmental guidelines and a “pattern of substandard care” discerned by the departmental quality assurance committee from several complaints by patients, faculty and employees. After meeting with Mendell, Mr. Robert Holder, Special Assistant to the Senior Vice President for Health Sciences, assured the Credentials Committee and MSAC that sufficient documentation of Drake’s alleged violations existed. The Credentials Committee and then the MSAC voted to deny Drake’s reappointment. In the hearing that followed, several irregularities of process and procedure occurred. Holder now became legal counsel to the hearing committee and maintained an attorney-client privilege with the primary witness, Mendell. Holder improperly provided peer review documents to both Mendell and Denise Cambier, M.D., former Division Director of EEG. Mendell appeared before the Committee on three occasions and purported a total lack of memory of his action in the summer of 2001. Mendell testified that he never altered Drake’s administrative recommendation and admitted that he possessed no documentary evidence in support of his allegations. Drake is an AAUP member and had contacted Dr. Kilty for assistance from the AAUP regarding the fairness of the hearing process and the certain effect these events would have on Dr. Drake’s tenure. Dr. Kilty had appeared before the start of the hearing on September 17, 2002, and I was to request the opportunity for Kilty to audit the proceedings. As I sought to usher Drake and Kilty into the hearing room prior to the start of the proceedings, Holder charged across the room and grabbed me in an attempt to wrestle me from my position in front of the door. After shoving me aside and into the wall, Holder then dragged Drake into the room and forcefully slammed the hearing room door in Kilty’s face. Such unprofessional and abusive behavior is intolerable. Holder was heard by at least one participant to state that “we’re going to get this thing done.” I requested the Hearing Committee Chair to both call University Security and to immediately put this event on the record. Both requests were denied, on the grounds that the hearing was a confidential medical staff matter, although the meeting had not yet been called to order. After lengthy discussion off the record the Committee went into executive session, at which point I called University Security. Although three officers did respond and a fourth arrived later, statements were only taken from Drake, Kilty, and myself. According to Officer G. D. Spence’s report, “[d]ue to the nature of the hearing, [Spence] was requested not to disturb the occupants and therefore was unable to obtain statements from the witnesses.” The investigating officer is now reported to be on medical leave, and will not be available for report or interview for the foreseeable future. As of October 10, 2002 the matter remains unresolved, and I have not been made aware of any further investigation. Douglas Graff, Attorney-at-Law (Mr. Holder and Prof. Mendell were given an opportunity to review this article and to make a statement for AAUPdate. Neither responded, although we are willing to publish a statement from both of them in a future issue of this newsletter. Eds.)
Return me to the Table of Contents Issues on COMPH’s Proposal for an Unlimited Number of Clinical Faculty One of the most significant issues on campus is the proposal by the College of Medicine and Public Health to remove the cap on the number of clinical faculty members. OSU/AAUP is strongly opposed to this proposal. A host of problems surround the proposal. There are abstract, but nonetheless real, concerns, about what having an unlimited number of clinical professors would mean for the connection of department faculty to the university. Say, for instance, that a medical department were entirely or largely staffed by clinical professors. What relation would these clinical professors have to the academic goals and the academic core of the university, to cite just one question? What about governance and faculty rights in such a department? There are also a host of questions about future plans. For example, would the faculty being sought for the new bio-med proposal be clinical or not? But there is a more insidious danger. What appears in the medical units seems to set a precedent for the rest of the university. Already, the Colleges of Business and Law are planning to have clinical professors. We predict that it will not be long before they too will want to raise or eliminate the cap on clinical professors. After all, clinical professors are disposable in difficult times, providing the university the financial flexibility it would like to have. It is not implausible to imagine a university in which many departments are heavily invested in clinical professors, eroding both the concept of tenure, as well as consigning faculty to a role in which teaching is separated from research. And there are procedural issues. Consider that approval by University Senate committees is seemingly requested after the fact! When the Senate Fiscal Committee was reviewing this proposal, it became evident that COMPH needed to raise the cap on the number of clinical faculty members in order to fund the heart hospital, which was already under construction. In other words, the Committee was asked to vote on a plan that was already being relied on for funding. What kind of judgment can committees render under pressure of that sort? (This is not the only incident of putting the cart before the horse. At the last Senate meeting the Senate voted on and approved having an Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity in America, when the University had already hired its director.) Gerald A. Winer, Psychology Return me to the Table of Contents Results of OSU/AAUP’s Faculty Evaluation of Administration (FEA) for 2002 During the Winter, 2002 quarter, OSU/AAUP distributed the third annual Faculty Evaluation of Administration (FEA). As in the previous year, the questionnaire allowed faculty members to evaluate central administrators, including the President of the university, their deans, and their chairpersons. This report will focus on central administration and the deans. The results of the evaluations of chairpersons will appear in a later edition of this newsletter. As was noted in our previous reports, the purpose of the FEA is to improve the quality of our administration and not to criticize them. We should also repeat our caveat that the results should be interpreted judiciously. Although we sent the questionnaire to the entire faculty, in some instances only small numbers of people from within departments responded. The sample size is reported in the table for each person evaluated. Obviously, larger sample sizes should be given more weight. We reported all outcomes in which the size of the sample was equal to or greater than five. Demographics. There was a total of 530 faculty members who responded to the Faculty Evaluation of Administration in 2002. Of those who reported their gender, 321 were male (66.6%) and 161 were female (33.4%). There were 481 who reported that they were employed full-time (97.8%), while only 11 reported that they were employed part-time (2.2%). Most of the respondents were on tenure-track positions: 422 (89.4%). There were 31 who indicated they were on clinical tracks (6.6%) and 19 who reported “other” (4.0%). There were 11 who identified themselves as lecturers (2.3%), 2 as senior lecturers (0.4%), 5 as instructors (1.1%), 89 as assistant professors (18.9%), 154 as associate professors (32.6%), and 211 as professors (44.7%). With regard to length of time at OSU, 163 reported ten years or less (34.0%), 164 eleven to twenty years (34.2%), 105 twenty-one to thirty years (21.9%), and 48 thirty or more years (10.0%). In terms of race and ethnicity, 10 identified themselves as African American (2.2%), 18 as Asian American (4.0%), 393 as Caucasian (87.7%), 3 as Hispanic (0.7%), and 24 as “other” (5.4%). Central Administration. The ratings for central administration are presented in Table 1. Note that the final column in the table provides the mean ratings for central administration for 2001, in order to allow for easy comparison with the previous FEA.
For this discussion, we will focus on the overall ratings, which can range from a high of “4” (A) to a low of “0” (E), using a grading system similar to that used for grading undergraduates. Most administrators received average scores in 2002 similar to those they received in 2001. The highest rated administrator in 2002 was S. Huntington, the dean of the graduate school, who received an overall score of 2.7, which places her in the “B-“ range. Virtually all of the other administrators fell in the “C+” range. Two, though, were in the “C” range: Anderson and Ray. During the past year, Provost Ray fell substantially, from a score of 2.3 in 2001 to a score of 1.9 in 2002. Deans. The ratings for the Deans are presented in Table 2. Only one Dean fell in the “A” range, the Dean of the College of Law (4.0) and only one fell in the A- range: the Dean of Nursing (3.6). There were four who fell in the “B” range: Deans from Arts (3.0), Biological Sciences (3.0), Social Work (3.0), and Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences (2.9). There were four in the “B-” range: Deans from Human Ecology (2.7), Dentistry (2.7), Engineering (2.6), and University Libraries (2.6). There was one midway between the “B-“ and the “C+” ranges: the Dean of Veterinary Medicine (2.5). There was one in the “C+” range: the Dean of Medicine and Public Health. There were three in the “C” range: Deans in Mathematics and Physical Sciences (2.1), Humanities (2.1) and Business (1.9). There was one in the “C-”= range: the Dean of Pharmacy (1.6). There was one in the “D+” range: the Dean of Social & Behavioral Sciences (1.3). Finally, there was one in the “D” range: the Dean of Education (0.9).
There were a number of instances where ratings changed dramatically from 2001 to 2002. Four reflected substantial increases: Deans from the Colleges or Schools of Arts (from 1.1 in 2001 to 3.0 in 2002), Biological Sciences (1.4 to 3.0), Dentistry (from 1.1 to 2.7), and Engineering (from 1.8 to 2.6). Three reflected substantial decreases: Deans from the Colleges of Business (from 2.4 in 2001 to 1.9 in 2002), Education (from 1.3 to 0.9), and Medicine and Public Health (2.9 to 2.3). Keith Kilty, Social Work, and Gerald Winer, Psychology
Return me to the Table of Contents Salary Recovery and the Further Erosion of Tenure within the College of Medicine and Public Health Undoubtedly, the vast majority of the University community is now well aware of the recent successful attempt by the Dean of the College of Medicine and Public Health (COMPH) and Provost Ed Ray to circumvent the University Senate and to extend the tenure clock for faculty members with “significant” clinical duties from 6 years to 11 years. However, it is not yet widely appreciated that the Dean of COMPH simultaneously launched a proposal that will dramatically alter compensation and thereby the nature of tenure within this College. On February 27, 2002, a draft of a new Salary Recovery policy was introduced to the COMPH Faculty Council. This proposal included the following rather ambiguous language: “Faculty will be expected to generate that portion of their salary from grants that is commensurate with their research effort. Thus, only partial salary support will be derived from the university. (emphasis added). For research intensive faculty, this research percentage and salary recovery will be higher. New faculty may receive more salary support from the university for a limited and defined period while they build their research program. Thereafter, they will be expected to generate that portion of their salary from grants that corresponds to their research effort.” The expected research effort for each faculty member was to be adjusted annually by the departmental chair. Under the rules of faculty governance in COMPH, this proposal could be approved at the next meeting of the Faculty Council (then scheduled for the last Wednesday in March, during Spring break) and would then become effective immediately. Indeed, the document contained language stating that these changes would take effect on April 1, 2002. A number of faculty members within COMPH expressed serious concern about this proposal, particularly with regards to the rapid timetable for its implementation and the lack of faculty input in the formulation of the policy. (It was subsequently learned that no faculty members without administrative appointments served on the committee that wrote this policy statement.) A delegation from COMPH met with representatives of the AAUP and various University Senate committees. As a result of the action taken by these groups, the Dean of COMPH established a new committee to examine the Salary Recovery Policy. This committee was selected by the Dean and again largely consisted of administrators but this time, at least, included a few faculty members (4 out of 12 members). This committee released a new policy statement that was approved by the Dean and became effective July 1, 2002, even though it has yet to be approved by the COMPH Faculty Council. This new policy included the following statements: “SALARY RECOVERY RECOMMENDATION “Existing Faculty (Basic requirements for 9- and 12 month Faculty “New Faculty"“Nine-month appointments will no longer be made effective July 1, 2002. All new Assistant Professors will be guaranteed a 3-year 12-month salary. The new faculty will be guaranteed between 50% and 67% of the 12-month salary after the initial three (3) years, depending upon many factors, particularly the market value of the particular faculty. Junior faculty are expected to generate 50% of their salary following the initial three-year period. Senior faculty are expected to generate 50% of their salary upon employment.” The proposal also contained language that stated: “Salary Recovery is an important component of ‘total’ productivity.” The implication is that if a faculty member is not generating salary funds, then he or she is not meeting productivity expectations with the obvious impact on annual merit raises. It must be emphasized that if a newly hired individual should fail to meet the salary recovery effort, he or she will have up to a 50% reduction in compensation and benefits without a corresponding reduction in duties. The approved policy addressed many of the concerns raised by various faculty members particularly with regards to the effects on the compensation of existing faculty. However, the new policy has several important implications: A. Faculty member responsible for generating a significant portion of their salary through grant dollars might minimize activities, such as teaching and service; among clinical faculty dependent on grants, clinical responsibilities and patient care could suffer. B. The research mission of the University, itself, may also suffer. A researcher may be inclined to pursue “safe,” and more fundable science, and less likely to take research risks or to pursue more controversial avenues of research that may not immediately yield the highly coveted research grant. Major advances in science often result from bold avant-garde approaches that tend to be poorly received at funding agencies. Even major advances in the prevention and treatment of disease might be delayed or, worse yet, never materialize in an environment that fosters risk-adverse science. C. This policy may also encourage scientific misconduct. Individuals faced with the prospect of losing funding and salary would be under considerable pressure to make the data fit the expectation of the funding agency or industrial sponsor. D. This plan may make it more difficult to attract and retain top faculty members. Established investigators would be less likely to leave a position with a secure salary and assume the risks associated with the COMPH compensation plan. Although junior faculty members who have fewer employment options would be attracted to the plan, once they obtain funds, they may then seek employment in other programs that offer more secure compensation options. E. The new Salary Recovery Policy is likely to accelerate salary inflation, both leaving fewer dollars available to create the new faculty positions anticipated by the College administration and increasing the disparity in salary between newly hired individuals and the existing faculty, a situation that would create obvious morale problems. F. The plan undermines academic freedom that results from the protection afforded by tenure. Tenure that is not accompanied by financial compensation is worthless. G. This policy is ultimately dehumanizing. An individual would not be valued as a person with unique strengths and weaknesses but, rather, would be viewed as a money-generating unit that can be easily replaced when he or she is no longer economically viable. The COMPH Salary Recovery Policy fosters a prostitution of the intellect, where individual faculty members are forced to sell themselves to the highest bidder to satisfy the greed of an ever-more-demanding and bloated administration. Under this system, the life of the mind that so many of us treasure is dead. “Galileo” Return me to the Table of Contents Return me to the OSU AAUP home page. |
