Transcript Faculty Response to H.4632 and Merger with College of Charleston Tom G.

Faculty Response to H.4632 and Merger with
College of Charleston
Tom G. Smith, PhD
Professor and Faculty Senate
President
February 13, 2014
Following the filing of the legislation…





Near immediate solicitation of faculty feedback via
email.
Cleared Senate meeting agenda in order to discuss
merger.
Based on email feedback and prior to the Senate
meeting, drafted a resolution.
Consulted with CofC senate counterparts and
reviewed CofC survey.
Drafted MUSC survey modeled after CofC survey.
MUSC Faculty Senate Resolution on H. 4632
MUSC/College of Charleston Merger Legislation
Before embarking on the costly and complex
process of merging these long established and
widely respected South Carolina institutions, all
relevant constituencies must first have the
opportunity to consider the merits or otherwise of a
merger. The Faculty Senate of the Medical
University of South Carolina therefore opposes the
current legislation before the South Carolina General
Assembly (H.4632) that would merge MUSC with the
College of Charleston.
Key Points Raised in Senate Deliberations





Senate resolution intentionally and explicitly focused on current
legislation, with no intent to comment on the ultimate wisdom of
increased collaboration and a potential merger. Indeed, there is
great support for at least increased collaboration and interest in
possibilities of merging. The joint white paper was broadly
praised as providing a path forward that does not put marriage
before dating.
Great concern over loss of MUSC brand.
Great concern about limited benefit for MUSC’s mission.
Bewilderment over the lack of existing programs or available
funds at either institution that could meet the supposed
business interests used to justify a merger.
Consternation at the recklessness of the proposal’s timing, with
its strong likelihood of undermining both institutions’
presidential searches—and reducing the likelihood of finding
willing candidates with the skill and vision to make any future
merger successful.
MUSC Faculty Survey



Distributed 8:30pm on Monday evening, prior
to the 7:45am Faculty Senate meeting
>200 respondents by the time of the Senate
meeting
570 respondents by 10:00pm Wednesday,
roughly 1/3 of faculty and probably the
largest percentage of MUSC faculty ever to
respond to a Senate survey.
Faculty Survey Results
I s up p o rt M U S C m e rg ing with the Co lle g e o f Cha rle s to n.
Strongly Agree
7%
Agree
9%
Strongly Disagree
42%
Neutral
17%
Disagree
25%
Faculty Survey Results
I s up p o rt M U S C m o v ing to wa rd b e c o m ing a c o m p re he ns iv e
univ e rs ity .
Strongly Disagree
21%
Strongly Agree
13%
Agree
21%
Disagree
22%
Neutral
23%
Faculty Survey Results
It wo uld b e wo rth a lte ring M U S C’s m is s io n a nd c ulture in o rd e r to
ta k e a d v a nta g e o f s y ne rg ie s tha t wo uld c o m e fro m a m e rg e r with
the Co lle g e o f Cha rle s to n.
Strongly Disagree
34%
Strongly Agree
7%
Agree
13%
Neutral
16%
Disagree
30%
Faculty Survey Results
Fund ing fro m s ta te g o v e rnm e nt a nd b us ine s s inte re s ts wo uld
lik e ly b e s uffic ie nt to b uild a hig h-q ua lity c o m p re he ns iv e
re s e a rc h univ e rs ity in the Cha rle s to n a re a .
Strongly Agree
3%
Agree
7%
Strongly Disagree
47%
Neutral
15%
Disagree
28%
Faculty Survey Results
I c a m e to M U S C in p a rt b e c a us e it is a fre e -s ta nd ing A c a d e m ic
H e a lth S c ie nc e Ce nte r.
Strongly Disagree
7%
Strongly Agree
21%
Disagree
20%
Agree
22%
Neutral
30%
Faculty Survey Results: Open Question—What benefits do you
perceive in a merger?
Four Basic Clusters of Response
–
–
–
–
Access to undergraduates as mentees and
opportunities for collaborations with a more broad
range of disciplines.
Increased leverage to increase state funding.
Opportunities for collaboration with researchers in
the basic sciences.
Benefits to the community of a comprehensive
university.
Faculty Survey Results: Open Question—What negatives do
you perceive in a merger?
Three clusters of response
–
–
–
Loss of MUSC identity and mission focus.
Resource dilution rather than expansion.
To meet the needs described by proponents, new
programs and revenue streams are called for
rather than merged ones.