Tuesday, April 27, 1999 / 3 p.m. / 823rd Meeting
Members Present: Drs. Steven Knapp, James Anthony, John Breitner, John Groopman, Bernard Guyer, Ellen MacKenzie, Edward Miller, Jonathan Samet, Alfred Sommer, Donald Steinwachs, and Scott Zeger; and Ms Robin Fox, staff.
Members Absent: Drs. Robert Black, Diane Griffin, Robert Lawrence, Roger McMacken, James Yager, and Barry Zirkin.
Guests: Dr. Noel Rose; Ms Diane Glover and Sara Riedel; Messrs Michael Gemmell and Mark O'Brien.
Meeting Convened: Dean Alfred Sommer convened the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
Approval of the Minutes: Minutes of the 822nd meeting on March 16, 1999 were approved.
Remarks by the Dean: Dean Sommer commented that the newest addition to the Wolfe Street building (TR2) is expected to be completed at the end of the summer and that faculty and staff will move in shortly thereafter. The Office of Research Administration will move to the 2nd floor of TR2 and the Office of External Affairs will abandon the trailers and move into the space vacated by the Office of Research Administration.
The University has approved construction of TR3 which will house laboratory facilities built over the current one floor AIDS laboratory structure. It is anticipated that some funds from the State of Maryland will be available to assist with TR3 construction.
The Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology was recently named in honor of alumnus Harry Feinstone.
Dean Sommer noted that James Stofan would be leaving his position as director of Distance Education, and that a replacement is being sought.
Remarks by the Provost: Dr. Knapp joined the group. He reported that the search for director of the Applied Physics Laboratory to replace Dr. Gary Smith has begun. An interim director is in place. One of President Brody's long-term goals is to increase research collaboration between APL staff and faculty in other divisions of the University.
Candidates for the dean of the School of Professional Studies in Business and Education (formerly the School of Continuing Studies) have been visiting the University.
The President's Council on Urban Health will provide their report to the Board of Trustees in May, after which is it is anticipated that an operational plan and budget will be developed that will include initial funds from the University plus a plan to approach foundations and seek public sources for support. Dr. Knapp thanked the deans, faculty and staff who participated in this intensive effort.
Remarks by the Faculty Senate: Dr. Anthony noted that the main topic of discussion by the Faculty Senate has been faculty titles, which also will be discussed by the Advisory Board.
Changes to Academic Calendar Beginning 2000-01: Dr. MacKenzie summarized the proposed changes to the academic calendar that would add a winter institute similar to the existing summer institute, and would end second term prior to the winter break. The winter institutes would offer MPH students the opportunity to start their integrating experiences and some MHS students might be able to work on their practicum placement. Dr. MacKenzie noted that tuition would be charged for winter institute courses in a similar fashion as for summer institute courses except for some MPH and MHS students. No significant impact on current summer institutes or on calendars of others divisions is expected, and the new calendar will be closer to that used by the Homewood divisions. After further discussion, the Advisory Board voted to approve the changes to the academic calendar, beginning in 2000-01.
Proposed changes to PPM for adjunct faculty: Dean Sommer commented on the rationale for broadening the criteria for appointment of adjunct faculty. Dr. Rose then reviewed wording of the proposed changes as suggested by the Committee on Appointments and Promotions. Under the new criteria, adjunct faculty would be expected to make substantial and sustained contributions to the mission of their department in teaching, research and/or professional practice, and they must be accessible to students. The number of adjunct faculty is expected to remain small. After discussion, the Advisory Board voted to approve the changes to the PPM for adjunct faculty.
Discussion of Faculty Titles: Dr. Anthony reviewed the recent history of discussions over creation of new faculty titles and noted that although a full and complete consensus has not been possible, he hoped the Advisory Board would arrive at the best consensus. He then reviewed and contrasted the recommendations of Dr. Krag's Ad Hoc Committee on the Scientist track, of the department chairs, and of a small group of chairs and faculty who met to come to a consensus. At the joint Faculty Senate/Committee of the Whole meeting on April 20, the group came to a consensus that a new non-tenure professorial track should be established with the titles of "research" and "practice" professor who were not subject to a promotion clock. In addition, a straw poll was taken at the joint meeting in favor of the title "professor in residence" rather than research or practice professor. There was also continuing discussion (but no vote taken) over development of a silent track, whereby all faculty would hold the titles of assistant professor, associate professor and professor, but some would be on the tenure track and others would not. Dr. Guyer suggested maintaining the titles of research and practice (public health) professor, and allowing the faculty member to make a suggestions about which title is most closely associated with his/her areas of effort.
After additional discussion about a number of features of the proposed non-tenure professorial tracks, the Advisory Board then voted to approve the creation of new non-tenure professorial tracks with the titles of "Research Professor" and "Public Health Professor". A PPM for these tracks must be written, but there was general agreement that this the policies and procedures for these tracks would be essentially the same as for the professorial tenure track, with the following exceptions: no School commitment in the form of tenure; not subject to a promotions clock (i.e., no pre-specified maximum duration at a given rank); and more limited expectations about service to the School and University (e.g., committee assignments). Justification for each position will be reviewed by the Committee of the Whole or Chairs prior to any external advertising. Modifications to the current faculty PPM on faculty titles, appointments and promotions will be drafted for review by the Committee of the Whole.
ASPH Cooperative Agreements: Mr. Gemmell, Ms. Riedel and Mr. O'Brien joined the Advisory Board. Mr. Gemmell, executive director of the Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH), thanked the Advisory Board for the opportunity to discuss the ASPH Cooperative Agreements (CA). He commented that the ASPH CA is funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry, both of which are directed by the head of CDC. Mr. Gemmell reviewed the history and origin of the program, which is now in its 18th year and provides $10-15 million per year to faculty and students in accredited schools of public health.
Dr. Sommer noted concerns by some schools that each school did not have an equal opportunity to compete for CA funds due to the close relationship between CDC and 2-3 schools. As president of ASPH, he has appointed a committee to review how CA funds are provided to ASPH, and is optimistic that any real or perceived impediments to open competition for CA funds will be resolved quickly.
Mr. Gemmell then introduced Ms. Sara Riedel and Mr. Mark O'Brien who administer the CA at ASPH. Ms. Riedel described the eligibility criteria, funding mechanisms, and the review process at CDC to review applications. She noted that 50% of awards are investigator-initiated and 50% are identified by CDC as priority areas. The role of ASPH is to manage the CA by acting as a liaison between CDC and schools of public health. She noted that the bulk of funds are awarded for research activities, with smaller amounts for student internships and stressed the importance of faculty contacting relevant CDC "partners" early, beginning with a "letter of intent". Ms. Riedel would be pleased to work with our faculty to ensure they respond effectively to opportunities.
Members of the Advisory Board noted that some of the areas funded by CDC seemed to be of limited public health interest and might be due to non-uniformity of the peer review process. The role of individual CDC staff involved in the CA varies from little involvement to significant involvement. After further discussion, Mr. Gemmell commented that ASPH staff working on the CA should be used as key resources for faculty and students (for summer internships or fellowships) interested in the CA as a source of support. He noted that the CA has benefitted many schools of public health as well as the general public health community over the years. The Advisory Board then thanked Mr. Gemmell, Ms. Riedel and Mr. O'Brien for the efforts in this area.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
GO TO HYGIENE AND PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES
GO TO JHUNIVERSE
© 1999 The Johns Hopkins University.
Baltimore, Maryland. All rights reserved.