|
| 1. |
|
Tenure is and should remain a principle central to
the academic mission of this University, including the basic science
and clinical faculty in the Medical School. |
| 2. |
|
Tenure is so important, and the promise of tenure
so significant both to the individual and to the University that,
in the absence of conditions specified by the Faculty Handbook,
no tenured or tenure-track faculty should be forced to move to a
situation in which tenure does not exist. |
| 3. |
|
The economic value of tenure should be such as to
provide a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession
attractive to men and women of ability and, as such, should be recognized
and preserved at Georgetown. |
| 4. |
|
Tenure and tenured track faculty of clinical departments
who are not practicing clinicians and function in a manner similar
to basic scientists should be subject to the same compensation structure
as basic scientists. |
| 5. |
|
The tenured FPG faculty must receive a base salary
that is defined and, similar to salaries on other campuses at Georgetown
University, is subject to yearly increases based on merit reviews
that consider teaching, research, and service. |
| 6. |
|
Any tenured faculty member with a contract must have
the terms of that contract honored. |
| 7. |
|
We make no recommendation at this time concerning
whether a program of buyouts of tenure or faculty contracts is either
appropriate or advisable. |
| 8. |
|
We make no recommendation concerning fringe benefit
continuation for current faculty who are offered positions at MedStar
and accept those positions. For faculty who stay with the University,
fringe benefits will be as applicable to any other faculty throughout
the University. |
| 9. |
|
Subject to the specifics of the Faculty Handbook,
we recommend against the giving of tenured or tenure-track faculty
notice of termination, except in the case of a tenure-track member
who in normal course would otherwise have been terminated for failure
to perform in accordance with the requirements of his or her position. |
| 10. |
|
Clinician-Educators who have contracts must have
their contracts honored, but that may be by MedStar. |
| 11. |
|
Non-tenured and non-tenure-track faculty in clinical
departments who will not be retained by Georgetown or picked up
by MedStar should be so advised as soon as possible, in accordance
with their contractual rights. |
| 12. |
|
Article VII, Paragraph K of "Agreement Between Georgetown
University Medical Center and [Name of Doctor]" is contrary to the
Faculty Handbook and hence should cease being included in future
faculty contracts. |
| 13. |
|
Priority efforts should be given to the raising of
funds to endow chairs and professorships at the Medical School. |
| 14. |
|
Current endowments that fund part or all of a faculty
position should remain with the University unless there is specific
language in the endowment agreement that would require other arrangements. |
Text of Report
The Ad Hoc Faculty Senate Committee on Tenure Issues in the Medical
Center was appointed to consider the tenure issues in the Medical Center
that arise from the projected partnership of the Georgetown University
Medical Center (GUMC) with MedStar. The Committee focused particularly,
but not exclusively, on the relationship between the University and
the tenured and tenure-track faculty in the clinical departments. In
considering these issues, and in arriving at its recommendations, this
Committee focused on and considered the Faculty Handbook (1999 ed.),
findings of the University Faculty Grievance Committee in relevant cases,
the Faculty Practice Group Practice Plan with departmental appendices,
and individual faculty contracts, sample copies of which were provided
to us. The Committee has also been informed by AAUP documents, to the
extent that they apply at Georgetown, the experience in the closing
of the Georgetown Dental School and in the termination of various graduate
programs, and by the experience of other Medical Schools in handling
similar situations.
This Committee's charge is to be an ongoing resource to the Senate and,
as far as they wish to utilize the Committee, members of the University
and Medical Center administration. Unless sooner discharged, the Committee
will continue throughout the current negotiations and crisis. Thus,
this is a first report and set of recommendations.
We note at the outset that no other situation is the same as we have
here. After discussions with the AAUP, the AAMC, and with numerous individuals
at the University and around the country, it is clear that we are engaged
in a partnership with MedStar for which there are no models in place.
In addition, the partnering of our clinical enterprise does not resemble
any other initiatives taken at Georgetown, including, for example, the
closing of the Dental School, or the terminating of graduate programs.
Therefore, while we have been informed by these other experiences at
Georgetown and by practices in Medical Centers around the country, we
are essentially charting new territory in this document.
There are various places that one can start an analysis. One can focus
first and mainly upon the legal documents, legal rights, and legal obligations
now in effect. Or one can focus first and mainly upon the economics:
an immediate balanced budget being the primary goal. Or one can focus
first upon the Medical School with which we wish to emerge from the
current situation.
This Committee believes that the proper focus is upon the result that
we wish to accomplish and where we want Georgetown Medical School to
be when the current crisis is resolved, hopefully by an agreement with
MedStar. Thus, these recommendations are not driven primarily by the
need to cut costs in order to balance budgets, though that is a significant
factor in our consideration. Beginning our analysis from that standpoint,
there are certain fundamental questions to which answers are needed.
First, do we wish to have a Medical School at all? If the answer to
that is in the negative, all of the rest becomes easy. But we answer
that question in the affirmative.
Second, do we wish to have a Medical School that is pedestrian at best,
or do we wish to have one that is excellent in its teaching, its research,
and its service, within the tradition of the modern Georgetown University
and of the Jesuit tradition? We opt for a standard of excellence for
many reasons. As indicated by the question, that has been the standard
of the Georgetown that we have known and we believe of the Jesuit tradition.
As a University, we have spent the past several decades examining programs,
eliminating those that were not excellent and had no promise of becoming
excellent, and putting resources into building other programs to meet
the high standards that we set for ourselves. As a University we have
recognized that, if we permit any portion of the whole to be merely
pedestrian, it will reflect adversely on all other parts. The result
has been a University of great prominence, one of which we are all justifiably
proud, and one in which each part, excellent in itself, has assisted
the reputation of the whole and of each of its parts. We believe that
it would be a grave error for the entire University to aim any lower
for the Medical School that will emerge from the current crisis.
Assuming that we are to have a Medical School and that it is to be one
of excellence in teaching and in research, we begin with the fact that
the current tenured and tenure-track faculty in clinical departments
are of that quality on which we can base an excellent Medical School.
The President of the University and the chief academic officers of the
Medical Center have stated publicly their considered judgment that the
current clinical faculty is of the highest level of which they are justifiably
proud. Moreover, it is a judgment that we share.
The tenured faculty of clinical departments at Georgetown provide
the nucleus for a very good program. They have gone through the rigors
of tenure review under Georgetown's high standards. They have been praised
by both the President of the University and the highest academic officials
of the Medical Center. Early retirement and buy-outs over the past few
years have winnowed this faculty to the point where we now have a young
tenured clinical faculty (in comparison with other institutions) and
one of the best in Georgetown's history. Moreover, they have chosen
to stay at Georgetown, despite the frustrations, with the expectation
of building the future. They should be supported in that vision and
not 'rewarded' for their efforts by policies that will produce mediocrity.
If the aim is mediocrity, the current fine faculty will likely leave.
A subsidiary question involves the tenure-track faculty, the rising
young professionals whom the Medical School has recruited over the past
seven years. That question is whether these young professionals are
of a sufficient quality to be considered for tenure, to fill holes now
existing or existing in the future because of departure through retirement
or for other reasons. Or, to put it the other way, whether they are
so pedestrian that it does not matter if they leave. Once again, based
on the evidence of which we are aware, including the rigorous hiring
standards of the Medical Center, statements of the academic officials
of GUMC, and our own observations, we believe that our tenure-track
clinical faculty as a whole are very promising young academics who will
help Georgetown complete a very fine academic faculty.
Moreover, there is a very immediate practical reason for these judgments.
It is our understanding that MedStar has made it clear that they are not
interested in paying the University for bricks and mortar. Rather, they
are interested in teaming with the Georgetown University of reputation,
one with a distinguished teaching and research faculty. Thus, if we act
so as to dismantle the faculty that we have now, we may find ourselves
without a partner on the dance floor. We note with apprehension that because
of the financial turmoil at Georgetown as well as too many management
decisions that, in effect if not in design, worked to reduce morale, we
have already lost significant first-rate faculty to first-rate academic
institutions. Finally, we note personal experiences in which physicians
in this geographic area have expressed to patients a great reluctance
to refer to GUMC because of the deterioration that it has suffered in
recent times. We conclude that if this situation is permitted to continue
or is further worsened by policies that result in the continued loss of
first-rate faculty, we truly risk being on the dance floor without a partner.
Once these judgments are made, the course of action should be designed
to retain the tenured and tenure-track faculty in clinical departments
that we now have and certainly not designed to encourage their departure
from either Georgetown or MedStar. Actions that result in the departure
of significant tenured and tenure-track faculty will destroy the fine
faculty that we now have. Further, such actions will discourage other
first rate academics from coming to Georgetown, either as entry level
tenure-track faculty or on lateral moves with tenure. We believe that
this negative impact will be felt not only in the recruitment of academic
clinicians but also in the recruitment of faculty of all disciplines
throughout the University. The negative effect of action that impacts
on the tenured and tenure-track faculty in clinical departments at the
GUMC will reduce Georgetown's attractiveness as a place for first-rate
academics of any discipline. We believe that the ultimate price that
Georgetown would pay will be pervasive, significant and long lasting.
Moreover, whatever route is taken should be one that is fair to the
clinical faculty. Many of the tenured and tenure-track faculty in clinical
departments have devoted significant number of years working at Georgetown
at remuneration below that which they could have received in private
practice. Many also rejected other offers either at the beginning of
their academic careers or later for lateral moves to other academic
institutions. They did this in the belief that Georgetown, true to its
moral underpinnings, will treat them fairly as human beings in all matters.
The actions that we take at this time should be faithful to that understanding.
Before focusing upon particular recommendations, we note that of course
the economic condition of the GUMC, both now and after the MedStar negotiations
bear fruit, must be a consideration. We, as others, are handicapped
at the inordinate difficulty in obtaining firm and clear information
about the GUMC faculty. Our best information is that there are 64 tenured
faculty in the clinical departments at GUMC. Our best information also
is that their "base salaries" as defined in the Faculty Practice Plan
and as made available to this Committee by University officials average
$180,683 per year. With fringe benefits of 25%, that amounts to a total
of $14,455,000 per year; of this total $5,562,200 comes from clinical
and hospital income (GF or HX funds), $5,279,050 comes from University
(GX) or from research (RX) funds, and $3,613,750 is fringe benefit income.
In addition, we are advised that there are 35 tenure-track faculty
in clinical departments at GUMC, though this figure too is neither firm
nor certain. Their base salaries average $109,222. With fringe benefits
of 25%, that amounts to a total of $4,778,463 per year, of which $1,958,800
is attributable to clinical and hospital income.
An economic analysis, based upon these figures, is included in Appendix
A of this report. These economic data, however, do not form the basis
upon which the following recommendations are grounded.
With this analysis, and beginning primarily at the end which we seek:
a Medical School, one of high quality, and retention of our tenured
and tenure-track faculty to form the core of a Medical School of excellence,
we turn to our specific recommendations.
| 1. |
|
Tenure is and should remain a principle
central to the academic mission of this University, including the
basic science and clinical faculty in the Medical School.
Tenure is important to the proper operation of a first-rate University.
It is important for the recruitment and retention of first-rate
faculty, who receive the "mutually acknowledged expectation of continued
employment" in return for giving up the larger sums that most could
make in the private world. But, perhaps more important, tenure means
that an academic has the freedom to teach and to pursue his or her
research and service without undue interference by administrators
whose values may be elsewhere. And, tenure permits the full involvement
of faculty in the governance of the University without fear of the
loss of employment when the faculty member takes a position that
is unpopular with the administrator of the moment.
Tenure is as important in the Medical School as it is elsewhere
in the University. Medical School faculty have the same need of
being able to teach and to pursue avenues of research and service
unimpeded by interference from the administrator of the moment as
do faculty of history, philosophy, biology, and law. And certainly
Medical School faculty should have the same freedom, as well as
the responsibility, of participating honestly in governance as do
faculty throughout the rest of the University. Indeed, in this Committee's
assessment (even given the impact of managed care and additional
external factors), many of the current problems of the Medical Center
crisis could have been avoided, or ameliorated, if the Medical Center
governance structure had permitted full faculty participation in
governance, without fear of retribution, and would have listened
to the advice that was offered.
Finally, any abolition of tenure in the Medical School will have
other untoward results. First, it will reflect on the entire University.
A University that is prone to abolition of tenure in one segment
will find it much harder to recruit, and retain, first rate faculty
in other segments. While we expect there will always be someone
to be hired, we also know that the abolition of tenure will lead
the best academics to consider this a very important factor in deciding
whose offer to accept.
Second, the abolition of tenure could lead to grievances and
lawsuits. We have already seen a waste of University resources
through lawsuits arising from tenure issues in the Medical Center.
Faculty grievances also waste University resources. This waste
not only comes through the cost of counsel, both in-house and
retained, but also the waste of hundreds and sometimes thousands
of hours of otherwise productive time in serving on grievances
and in discussing, researching, and presenting the two sides of
the argument. Moreover, each of these incidents leads to significantly
reduced morale and hence production by those faculty involved
and in a diminishing amount by other faculty radiating out from
those who are directly involved.
Third, the committee has been cognizant of faculty contractual
rights, those that are founded in the Faculty Handbook as well
as those that are part of individual written contracts.
Fourth, there is the factor of fairness: faculty in clinical departments,
who have come to Georgetown under the promise of tenure and have
devoted years of loyal service with the expectation of the continuation
of tenure, would be treated most unfairly by its abolition in
this situation.
|
| 2. |
|
Tenure is so important, and the promise
of tenure so significant both to the individual and to the University
that, in the absence of conditions specified by the Faculty Handbook,
no tenured or tenure-track faculty should be forced to move to a
situation in which tenure does not exist.
As we understand it, MedStar has made it plain that tenure is
not currently offered to MedStar employees, and that it does not
intend to offer tenure to faculty hired under the new agreement.
Thus, those faculty who go onto the MedStar payroll will lose
tenure, even though many, if not all of them will continue teaching
and research at the Medical School under some type of payment
arrangement. Tenured and tenure-track clinicians who receive an
offer from MedStar should have a choice to remain with the University.
|
| 3. |
|
The economic value of tenure should
be such as to provide a sufficient degree of economic security to
make the profession attractive to men and women of ability and,
as such, should be recognized and preserved at Georgetown.
The 1940 AAUP statement on tenure, which has been adopted by Georgetown,
see Faculty Handbook, p. 16 (1999 ed.), sets forth that tenure carries
with it sufficient remuneration to permit the freedom of teaching
and research that is a part of academic freedom and to "make the
profession attractive to men and women of ability." Moreover, the
faculty member must have the economic ability to carry out his or
her obligation to participate, with integrity, in governance, as
is provided in Part VIII of the Handbook, pp. 16-19 (1999 ed.).
This Committee, based on its reading of the Faculty Handbook
and the AAUP 1940 statement of tenure, believes that the economic
value of tenure cannot be zero or simply honorific. In order to
preserve the values of academic freedom, to "offer a sufficient
degree of economic security to make the profession attractive
to men and women of ability," and to enable a faculty member to
participate honestly in governance at the university, tenure needs
to include an economic value that is not zero or simply honorific.
|
| 4. |
|
Tenured and tenure-track faculty
of clinical departments who are not practicing clinicians and function
in a manner similar to basic scientists should be subject to the
same compensation structure as basic scientists.
A number of tenured and tenure-track members of clinical departments
who hold Ph.D. and/or M.D. degrees function in a manner identical
to Basic Science faculty. These faculty are not participants in
the FPG and do not see patients. They perform research, teach, and
participate in Medical Center and University service. For these
reasons, the committee recommends that after the transaction, the
compensation of such individuals continue to be handled in a manner
consistent with current practice.
|
| 5. |
|
The tenured FPG faculty must receive
a base salary that is defined and, similar to salaries on other
campuses at Georgetown University, is subject to yearly increases
based on merit reviews that consider teaching, research, and service.
This Committee recognizes this as the most difficult issue. Currently
the 'base salaries' of tenured faculty in the FPG plan contain,
or potentially contain, a flexible component to this base. This
fact, coupled with the financial concerns facing the University,
has made it difficult to agree on a single, specific recommendation
for a base salary guarantee. We have spelled out some of these difficulties
in Appendix A, and we are continuing to discuss the range of possibilities
within the committee and in the larger university. We are united
in our recommendation that the tenured FPG faculty, whose continued
presence at Georgetown is so crucial to its future, and whose life-choices
have been determined by their understanding of the economic security
tenure entails, be offered defined base salaries that will guarantee
them economic security, recognize their contribution to the University,
not risk losing them to other universities, and not incur legal
costs to the University. We remind the University that to lose faculty
is to lose the heart of a school.
|
| 6. |
|
Any tenured faculty member with a
contract must have the terms of that contract honored.
Some persons (we are advised those with the highest incomes) have
particular contracts with the University guaranteeing their salaries
for a period of time that has not yet expired. Without exceptions,
and regardless of the outcome of the transaction, the terms of such
contracts must be fulfilled.
|
| 7. |
|
We make no recommendation at this
time concerning whether a program of buyouts of tenure or faculty
contracts is either appropriate or advisable.
One option, of course, is to offer buyouts to tenured faculty. We
do not believe that this is a wise course, but it may become an
appropriate vehicle should not enough tenured faculty accept MedStar
offers. We recognize that buyouts are expensive and in a large sense
it is the unproduc-tive use of funds. If the University buys out
a faculty member's tenure for some multiple of a year's salary,
it loses that money with no return. Moreover, it must replace that
faculty member and pay him or her to do the work that would have
been done by the bought-out faculty member. Yet, if not enough faculty
members accept MedStar offers that are made to them, buyouts may
prove to be useful inducements.
|
| 8. |
|
We make no recommendation concerning
fringe benefit continuation for current faculty who are offered
positions at MedStar and accept those positions. For faculty who
stay with the University, fringe benefits will be as applicable
to any other faculty throughout the University.
The issue of fringe benefits, particularly in the form of tuition
benefits, for those faculty members who move to MedStar is very
important and must be handled fairly. We understand, however, that
there is another committee working on this portion of the problem,
and thus we express no opinion. For faculty who remain with the
University, of course, fringe benefits will be the same as they
are for all faculty throughout the University.
|
| 9. |
|
Subject to the specifics of the Faculty
Handbook, we recommend against the giving of tenured or tenure-track
faculty notice of termination, except in the case of a tenure-track
member who in normal course would otherwise have been terminated
for failure to perform in accordance with the requirements of his
or her position.
This Committee was specifically requested to advise on whether
the University should give notice to all tenured and/or tenure-track
faculty of non-reappointment, as is provided in the Faculty Handbook,
p. 27 (1999 ed.). We recommend against such notice. We conclude,
for the reasons given above, that such notice would violate the
contractual obligation of the University as far as tenured faculty
are concerned, and perhaps even for tenure-track faculty, unless
the University has first concluded that it will close the Medical
School. But more important we believe that it is unwise as a matter
of policy, even where the University may have the legal right
to do so in the case of tenure-track faculty. Again, we have spelled
out those reasons in detail above and need not reiterate them
here. We emphasize, however, that the effect of such notice on
the recruitment of faculty for the Medical School will be devastating,
and the negative impact will be felt throughout the University.
|
| 10. |
|
Clinician-Educators who have contracts
must have their contracts honored, but that may be by MedStar.
There are a number of fulltime faculty on a clinical-educator nontenure
track. These faculty, of course, have neither the rights of tenure
nor the expectation of those rights. As far as they have multi-year
contracts that do not expire before the partnering with MedStar
is implemented, and as far as their contracts (including the Faculty
Practice Plan, if it applies) do not have an automatic termination
clause in the case of a partnering agreement, those contracts must
be honored. If those persons are picked up by MedStar, the contractual
obligation should accompany their transfer. If they are not picked
up by MedStar, the University remains obligated to their contracts.
The University, of course, should attempt to "subcontract" such
persons out as far as possible to MedStar or some other clinical
setting in order to recapture as much of their income as is feasible.
But this is a temporary problem which will diminish with time.
The clinical-educators who are picked up by MedStar, and indeed
any tenured or tenure-track clinical faculty who receive offers
from MedStar and opt to go with MedStar, may be needed to teach
at the Medical School or to engage in research under its auspices.
We recommend that as to them there be some arrangement with MedStar
by which Georgetown either employs them directly on a parttime basis
or arranges a "subcontract" by which Georgetown pays MedStar for
their services. It may be that for many, if not all, teaching will
be donated to the Medical School in the tradition of medical education.
|
| 11. |
|
Non-tenured and non-tenure-track
faculty in clinical departments who will not be retained by Georgetown
or picked up by MedStar should be so advised as soon as possible,
in accordance with their contractual rights.
It is only fair that non-tenured and non-tenure-track faculty in
clinical departments who will not be retained by George-town or
picked up by MedStar should be so advised as soon as possible. Their
individual contracts (including the Faculty Practice Plan, if it
applies) may have some notification period contained within them.
If so, those time periods should be followed, with the notice given
as early as the determination is made that their continued services
at Georgetown will not be required.
The question arises as to whether the time periods set forth on
page 27 of the Faculty Handbook (1999 ed.) applies to persons in
this category. They are certainly members of the Faculty. But the
time provisions in the Handbook are written in the context of tenure
eligibility, providing for one-year contracts, renewable annually,
which "may be extended to seven years." Thus, it is arguable that
the time periods for notice of nonrenewal that are placed in this
context apply only to tenure-track faculty. Indeed, in the opinion
of this Committee, that is the proper reading of that provision.
Thus, we conclude that the time periods set forth on page 27 of
the Handbook have no application to non-tenure-track faculty. The
time of notification for such persons, instead, is governed by their
individual contracts. If the contract or the properly approved policies
for faculty on that track be silent, however, we urge that the time
periods set forth on page 27 of the Handbook are fair and equitable
and should be followed. It should be noted, indeed, that in the
descriptions of Medical Center Faculty Tracks that have been developed
for the Medical Center, the time periods set forth are identical
with those in the Faculty Handbook.
|
| 12. |
|
Article VII, Paragraph K of "Agreement
Between Georgetown University Medical Center and [Name of Doctor]"
is contrary to the Faculty Handbook and hence should cease being
included in future faculty contracts.
This Committee has been furnished with a "Sample Draft" of an "Agreement
between Georgetown University Medical Center and [Name of Doctor]."
Article VII, Paragraph K of this document states that, where it
conflicts with the Faculty Handbook, the contract shall govern.
This is a blatant disregard of the Faculty Handbook which was adopted
in a regular manner, i.e., upon consultation with the Faculty Senate,
the recommendation of the President, and the approval of the Board
of Directors. As far as this contractual provision is applied to
a non-faculty member, there is no difficulty. Of course, its reference
to the Faculty Handbook is then irrelevant and perhaps misleading.
But as far as it purports to overrule any provision in the Faculty
Handbook, it should cease to contain this language. This Committee
recommends that the contract be revised to bring it into conformity
with the statutes of this University.
|
| 13. |
|
Priority efforts should be given
to the raising of funds to endow chairs and professor-ships at the
Medical School.
There is no doubt that medical education and training cannot be
supported through tuition paid by medical students. Moreover, Georgetown
is and must remain a research institution. The only way this can
occur in today's atmosphere is through the raising of money to endow
chairs and professorships in the Medical School. This Committee
urges that priority efforts should be made in this direction.
|
| 14. |
|
Current endowments that fund part
or all of a faculty position should remain with the University unless
there is specific language in the endowment agreement that would
require other arrangements.
Insofar as these endowments were given to the University, they should
be used solely for faculty funding at the University. There are
currently ten endowed chairs in the clinical departments that are
fully funded, of which three are vacant. An additional five endowments
are not yet fully funded or they are described as in progress. Six
chair holders are tenured clinical faculty; two chair holders are
not tenured. If all ten endowments remain with the University, this
could provide from $1 million to $1 « million in support of tenured
clinical salaries. If the five additional endowments are fully funded,
this could add another $500,000 to $750,000 in support of tenured
clinical salaries. (Specific appendix not included but available
from the Faculty Senate Office, if needed.)
|
Respectfully submitted,
Jo Ann H. Moran Cruz, Chair
Sherman Cohn
Gabriel Hauser
Adam K. Myers
Richard Bates (resource member of the sub-committee)
|
