Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:14:05 -0500
From: Duane Windsor
To: PRES-FAC@rice.edu
Subject: [PRES-FAC] reminder (upcoming faculty meeting - August 28)
Dear colleagues,
I am sending this reminder message that on Friday, August 28, noon-2 pm, I have scheduled a faculty meeting to hear an interim report from the Faculty Merger Review Committee (FMRC), chaired by Professor Don Morrison. The meeting will occur in McMurtry Auditorium (Duncan Hall).
The sole purpose of the meeting being called by the Speaker is to hear the interim report. (The FMRC has not completed its work and there is not yet a final report. The spring resolution establishing FMRC requires some faculty meeting to hear a report not later than early fall. So in consultation with Professor Morrison, I have established this meeting date.) The business of
the meeting will be focused solely on discussion of the interim report.
You are encouraged to attend if your schedule permits to hear this interim report.
Duane Windsor, Speaker, Faculty Senate
The Interim Report is classified confidential. A day before the meeting, the following note was sent to the faculty by Vardi.
ReplyDeleteDate: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:07:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: Moshe Vardi
Subject: Rice-BCM Merger -- A Letter from Siberia
Last spring I proposed to the faculty to establish a Faculty Merger Review Committee to evaluate the benefits, costs, and risks of the proposed Rice-BCM merger. The faculty resolved to have this committee established. The Committee, chaired by Don Morrison, will make a report to the faculty in a special faculty meeting on August 28. Unfortunately, I am attending a conference in Siberia (yes, they will let me come back) and will not be able to attend the meeting. Several people urged me to to communicate directly with the faculty on this matter. This should not be viewed as a "minority report". I fully stand behind the report that will be delivered to the faculty on Friday. Nevertheless, I do have a personal take on these issues, which I'd like to share with you.
Unquestionably, a merger with BCM clearly brings with it many potential benefits, including many possible collaborations in scholarship and education, as well as increased visibility in the biosciences. In addition, a path of no action may be risky to Rice and bring about long-term decline.
At the same time, the merger would bring with it many costs and risks:
(1) Many collaborations currently exists between Rice and BCM. The possibility of developing new collaborations between Rice and BCM without a merger has not been explored.
(2) Many potential new collaborations have been described, but with little analysis of why they have not occured so far. The difficulty of realizing a wish list of potential collaborations has been underplayed, and the cost underestimated. The reality is that most medical schools are "academic
islands".
(3) The possibility of investing directly in the biosciences at Rice has not been adequately explored. It is not clear that an investment in the merger is better for Rice than investment in its bioscience programs.
(4) There may be risks to Rice of not merging with BCM, but a careful analysis of these risks has not been offered, and alternative action plans have not been adequately explored.
(5) The merger would impose on Rice a significant financial burden at a time that it is already straining under a very challenging budgetary environment, following a substantial decline in the endowment.
(6) because of the large size differential between Rice and BCM, the merger would expose Rice to the inherent volatility of medical schools and the inherent instability of relationships in the Texas Medical Center.
(7) Successful implementation of the merger would require deft execution in a very challenging environment; the BRC experience shows the extreme difficulty of successful execution of similar projects.
(8) The fact that after a year of negotiations no satisfying arrangement for BCM partnerships has yet been found indicates the complexity of the problem. The more complex and creative the solution is, the higher the risk of unsuccessful execution.
(9) BCM is currently on a downward trend. There is a significant risk that it may continue to decline in stature even after a merger. Rice may find itself having acquired a mediocre medical school.
(10) The merger would create one of the most unbalanced academic institutions in the
US, with a very small university attached to a very large medical school. The impact of such an imbalance on Rice's mission has not been carefully analyzed.
More next.
Continuation of note:
ReplyDeleteFor these reasons, I believe that the merger proposition is exceedingly risky. While it has the potential to lift Rice to the next level, it also has the potential to cause irreparable harm to Rice. The costs and the risks are high enough to place the burden of proof on those who advocate the merger. In my opinion, a compelling case for the merger has yet to be made. While not taking action is also risky, I believe that rushing into action is riskier.
I am particularly troubled by how "unscholarly" the process has been. Sober and unbiased inquiry is the essence of our academic business. Over the past year, I have seen various memoranda produced by the Rice Administration arguing for the merger. In my opinion, it is fairly clear to a reader of these memoranda that their conclusions preceded their analysis. (All of these memoranda are classified "Confidential" and have not been shared with the faculty at large.) FMRC has made an effort to engage in a more objective analysis, but its ability to do so during the summer, with limited access to resources and information, is restricted.
Finally, I am mostly troubled by the minor role assigned to the faculty by the Administration in this matter. Clearly, a merger decision is a corporate decision and is appropriately in the province of the Board of Trustees. Still, quoting the distinguished Columbia physicist I.I. Rabi, "the faculty is the university." It is clear that that if the decision is taken to merge, then faculty involvement and support are necessary for the merger to be successful. Nevertheless, the
Administration has been careful not to seek formally any expression of faculty support. (Last spring's survey indicated that only a minority of the faculty are in support of the merger.) Personally, having spent a signifcant part of my career in corporate research, I am chagrined to see this university turn into a "corporate university".
You can find more merger-related material at http://www.cs.rice.edu/~vardi/rice/ (Rice access only). You are welcome to write back to me.
Sincerely,
Moshe Y. Vardi
Vardi posted the results of his faculty survey:
ReplyDeleteTotal Started Survey: 295
1. You have had some time now to review the background information on a possible Rice-Baylor merger, to attend forums hosted by the Faculty Senate, to view information on the web, and to talk among yourselves about the pros and the cons. Given what you now know or understand, what is your view on the overall advisability of Rice's merging with Baylor?
A very bad idea: 24.5% (72)
A somewhat bad idea: 32.3% (95)
I am neutral: 14.3% (42)
A somewhat good idea: 15.9% (44)
A very good idea: 13.9% (41)
2. If the proposed merger were to take place, how would you see your and your close colleagues' personal and professional goals being affected?
Very negative impact: 15.3% (45)
Somewhat negative impact: 36.7% (108)
I am neutral: 23.8% (70)
Somewhat positive impact: 15.6% (46)
Very positive impact: 8.5% (25)
3. How satisfied are you with the level of consultation and information sharing between the Rice Administration and the Rice faculty?
Very unsatisfied: 21.0% (61)
somewhat unsatisfied 30.5% (90)
I am neutral: 14.9% (44)
Somewhat satisfied: 18.0% (53)
Very satisfied: 15.6% (46)
4. How satisfied are you with the role played by the Faculty Senate in regard to the merger proposal and process?
Very unsatisfied: 12.9% (38)
somewhat unsatisfied 19.4% (57)
I am neutral: 26.2% (77)
Somewhat satisfied: 26.2% (77)
Very satisfied: 15.3% (45)
See http://rk.md/2009/rice-baylor-merger-update/.
ReplyDeleteBCM had a recent town meeting where it was announced that the Rice Board had voted to extend the MOU until January 20, 2010.
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding me? This merger is NEVER going to happen... Just like the hospital will NEVER get built. and Just like they will NEVER again be a top ten medical school... with or without Rice. Took them 50 years to get where they were... Traber/Baily/Stein/Joseph/Wong/Sweet/the BCM Board ruined the medical school... and Butler/Span/David/Wong/The BCM Board are keeping it going down the same path. Was happy to see C Baily finally leave. That was a long time coming. If they had never divorced TMH in the first place they would be a powerhouse. TMHPO now has more non-Pedi employed faculty than a top 20 medical school. Instead of a powerhouse, all the productive clinical faculty have left and what they are left with are all the money losers that no one wants to partner with... Hence their budget issues. Its just the realty. Time for the spin to stop. They are on their knees.. begging... and that is not what an elite medical school does... Funny thing is that what TMH was asking for (Transparency)... was EXACTLY what they ended up giving TCH. go figure... Good Luck...
ReplyDeleteAs a Baylor faculty member and alum, I find the comments here lacking in any substance; lots of allegations and little proof. To claim that BCM is on a path to becoming "mediocre" medical school is just ignorant - what do you base this comment on? It is one of the most well-funded medical research institutions in the country and certainly the TMC. It's relationship with TCH is solid and irreversible and it is postioning itself once more to grow its adult clinical practices. The philosophy behind the divorce with Methodist was correct, even if the execution was profoundly bungled. Every educational medical facility I am aware of relies on technical fees from facilities to subsidize clinical faculty. As you well know, education is expensive. Whether you are talking about Duke, Emory, the Mayo Clinic, U Penn, Stanford or others in this class, the hospital and medical school are deeply intertwined with the universities that are associated with them. What exactly are Rice's faculty's fears?
ReplyDeleteDr. Vener does not see what everyone else sees. BCM cannot complete the hospital project, but the hospital was the last chance for BCM to stay a top-20 (used to be top-10) medical school. Without the hospital, BCM will become like UTHSC--a good but not outstanding medical school--merger or no merger.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly are Rice's faculty's fears? Are you kidding? BCM is on the verge of insolvency!
ReplyDelete9/25/2009
ReplyDeleteRice and Baylor College of Medicine extend MOU
Rice University and Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) informed their faculty, staff, students and alumni this week that their respective boards have authorized them to extend the memorandum of understanding (MOU) about a possible merger until Jan. 31. The two institutions signed an MOU last March.
A joint letter from Rice President David Leebron and BCM Interim President William Butler was e-mailed to the communities of both institutions Friday. The text of the joint letter appears below.
Dear members of the Rice and Baylor communities:
We are writing to update you on the status of merger discussions between Rice University and Baylor College of Medicine. Teams from Rice and Baylor have been meeting regularly since we signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) last March to work through the myriad issues that such a major and complex proposition raises. We are pleased to report that substantive progress has been made, enough so that our respective boards have authorized us to extend the MOU to Jan. 31, 2010. We will work hard to bring our discussions to a successful conclusion over the next four months.
While we do not yet know what that conclusion will be, our work to date has confirmed that a merger could produce many academic and research benefits for both of our institutions and the people we serve. A joint academic committee led by Rice Vice Provost for Research Jim Coleman and Baylor Associate Dean of Research Adam Kuspa explored opportunities for potential synergies and the process that would be needed to capture them. The committees concluded that a merger could lead to a wide array of academic benefits, ranging from new undergraduate programs to significant integrated efforts that combine undergraduate and graduate education with interdisciplinary research. The committees recommended creating infrastructure, such as an office of coordination, to identify and implement these initiatives so that resources and resulting benefits are optimized. We are encouraged by these findings and will act on the recommendations should we reach agreement on a merger. We invite you to read the report at http://www.rice.edu/Academic_Committee_Report.pdf.
Three other joint committees on clinical, financial and legal issues also have made progress. We have agreed on many governance and organizational issues, but much more remains to be done to create the financial underpinnings needed for a successful union. We are in discussions with several parties about becoming the primary private adult clinical practice partner for Baylor, a critical component for success. We also are exploring multiple sources of funding that would help the merger achieve its full potential.
While we cannot at this point predict what the next four months will bring, we have learned that there is much to commend an ultimate merger. We thank you for your patience over the many months invested in the discussions so far, and we ask for your support as we attempt to bring them to a conclusion in the near future. Please know that we hold dear the best interests of both institutions, of our potential partners and of our community. We will report again as the discussions progress.
David W. Leebron
President
Rice University
William T. Butler, M.D.
Interim president and CEO
Baylor College of Medicine
A comment on the Chronicle article:
ReplyDeleteoustonChronicleLite strikes again. The reporter is giving Rice and Baylor a big pass with an article that does nothing to address the issues that continue to gum up talks that have dragged for nearly a year:
1. Baylor wants to keep it's Board. Yes, the same Board that allowed Baylor to get into the unstable financial situation and leadership crisis its now in.
2. Baylor's financial viability is in doubt. Bond covenants have been violated, a big no-no. At least 3 consulting firms have been to "help" make cuts to the operating budgets or look over the shoulders of the administrator's or the other consultants. Departments are eviscerated. Clinical operations aren't producing. School kids are playing street hockey and shuffle board in the empty halls and waiting rooms of the Baylor Clinic and Alkek Eye Center. Baylor Fundraising is at a standstill and big donors don't want to throw good money after bad.
3. Baylor is no closer to figuring out what to do with the McTemkin Campus than it was a year ago. St. Luke's would like a land deal. Memorial Hermann/UTHSC would like a new campus. Neither can afford it as it is much less expand it to meet their inpatient volumes.
4. Baylor faculty have high expectations for support from Rice. Rice faculty are foaming at the reality of cutbacks and tight budgets to rescue Baylor. Besides the BRC at the corner of Univeristy and Main is not nearly full and only has one tenant: Texas Children's. No one else, including Baylor, needs the space or can afford the rent Rice wants to charge. These are major issues. Stop printing press releases and get down to the crux of the matters about how this merger will affect the essence of Rice's culture and mission and get to the truth about Baylor's viability.