OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes January 12, 2017 Time: Called to order at 8:12 a.m. Location: Walker, AG070 Present: Marc Hansen, Tom Babor, Cato Laurencin (phoned in 8:34), Bruce Mayer, Doug Oliver, Jeanine Suchecki (left 9:13) Absent: John Birk, Juan Salazar, Susan Tannenbaum Invited Guest: Kiki Nissen Meeting Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes a. December 22, 2016 Motion made and seconded to approve the minutes as submitted. 5:0:0 2. Informational Items a. 3. None       New Business a. Examination of and proposed changes to SOM bylaws regarding post-tenure review.   Dr. Nissen was a special guest of the committee for this topic discussion. The proposed changes replace a set 5-year review period with a rolling 5-year period for review. It will take 2 marginal reviews or one unsatisfactory within a consecutive rolling 5-year period in order to trigger the post tenure review. Academic performance criteria that inform unsatisfactory, satisfactory or superior merit reviews are not in the bylaws. The Research Council could review and propose revision the criteria at a time it is needed. Dr. Nissen would like to propose changes to the bylaws Appendix C, #4. She proposes the word “timely” be inserted. When a faculty member receives an unsatisfactory merit review, they must appeal the decision of the SAPC (if they choose to) in a ‘timely’ manner as defined by policies and procedures for the SOM. The SOM policies and procedures will be revised and approved by the Dean’s Council to clearly define a timely appeal. Following unsatisfactory or marginal reviews, faculty is expected to create a plan for remediation and improvement. Part of the responsibility of a Department or Center Chair is to work with the individual on the remediation plan to improve performance. The Task Force proposed language has gone to the Deans of SOM and SODM for review. The triggers have to be the same in both schools, but the procedure for appeal can be slightly different. The goal is to move this amendment through faculty forum and vote for presentation at the May 2017 Academic Affairs Subcommittee of the Board of Directors (AASBOD). Dr. Nissen left and the committee reviewed the proposed language as the Task Force formulated it. There was discussion as to whether to insert the word “timely” as suggested by Dr. Nissen at this time, but the committee determined this pertains specifically to the SOM and should be added later. The committee feels it should go out to the Councils for review as currently proposed by the Task Force. OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes January 12, 2017 b. Motion made and seconded to send the amendment to councils for review. 6:0:0   Discussion of 2016 Department/Center Reviews The committee members have been reviewing the Department and Center reviews on the SharePoint site. However, there continues to be a question as to whether they can access past reviews or just ones of the current year. The committee discussed whether there is a template process that our members should follow when reviewing the documents. The Dean reports to the AASBOD on what will be done with the review. The role of Oversight Committee is to review the reports and ensure the Dean reports to the AASBOD. c. 4. Dean Liang will come to the March 9, 2017 meeting to discuss tenured faculty and transition to retirement. The committee would like to explore processes by which tenured faculty can reduce their time and continue to contribute while at the same time finding ways to maintain security. The committee is also interested in finding ways to provide security for retiring clinical faculty, who are usually not on the tenure track, but are on 1 to 2-year contracts. There are a fixed number of tenured positions. The committee would like to explore the idea of how to create an orderly process for how to transition tenured positions from senior faculty to junior faculty. The goal is to create incentives and disincentives for faculty looking to wind down their careers and the committee discussed several ideas. The committee discussed a need to have a better understanding of the financial implications related to the tenured positions. Many universities have processes that produce moderate incentives for faculty that create win-wins for both the faculty and school. The committee is interested in exploring what others have done to see what can be put into place here.   Standing Monthly Reports a. Clinical Council – Dr. Suchecki Did not meet b. Dean’s Council – Dr. Hansen At Dean’s Council, the discussion focused mostly on the proposed amendments currently under review. c. Education Council – Dr. Oliver Dr. Hansen made a presentation, but no decision was made. d. Public Issues Council – Dr. Hansen The Public Issues Council is still in the process of discussing the current opioid crisis and outreach they would like to do. They will also review the amendments. They have not yet moved on the public engagement amendment to propose new language. e. Research Council – Dr. Mayer Dr. Liang attended the Research Council. They discussed the post tenure review process, which is of great interest to this council. The details of the proposed amendment were not outlined at the meeting. Motion made to adjourn the meeting Approved: unanimous Meeting was adjourned 9:29 a.m. Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting School of Medicine Page | 2 OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes January 12, 2017 Thursday, January 26, 2017 8:00 a.m. Walker, AG070 School of Medicine Page | 3