LCME Faculty Committee Meeting

LCME Faculty Committee Meeting February 15, 2006

Minutes

Presiding: M. Adelman, R. Levin, D. Meruelo

Present: J. Aberg, M. Alaia, M. Allen, C. Basilico, B. Bogart, H. Campbell, V. Catanese, J. Ehrlich, E. Ezenkwele, S. Koenig, E. Kolodny, R. Lehmann, J. McCarthy, F. O’Brien, T. Riles, H. Weinberg, D. Yelon

Guest: M. Gemeda

 The Junior Faculty Subcommittee presented a proposed survey for junior faculty and newly-promoted senior faculty.

o The Survey will be web-based. o The tenured and non-tenured faculty may need to be split for the survey as the non-tenure track faculty receive a review every 3 years. o The Subcommittee asked for suggested answers for Questions 16 and 17. o The Committee recommended that respondents be asked whether or not they felt that their mentoring committee was a factor in the success or failure of their promotion. o As long as the modifications to the survey are not overly challenging, the Committee approved its distribution.

 The Information Technology Subcommittee presented a summary of their internal survey of the Committee. o It was suggested that this information be presented to the Information Resources and Library Services Subcommittee of the LCME Educational Resources Committee. o M. Adelman suggested that Communications and Public Relations be included in these discussions, as they would help to populate the website. o H. Weinberg indicated that in terms of clinical IT, we are way ahead of our competitors. o Resources for IT are below the national average for academic medical centers, in terms of the percent of the total budget devoted to IT. This is further divided into NYUHC and SoM, in favor of NYUHC. o The possibility of a survey was discussed and was put on hold pending further discussion.

 The Clinical Educational Environment Subcommittee presented a proposed survey for Committee review. o The survey has been expanded to include education of housestaff. o The survey will be distributed by multiple means, as many part-time faculty do not use their NYU e-mail addresses. o The Committee discussed the target audience, which was originally part- time clinical faculty. If it is to go to the full-time faculty, the survey would have to be refocused. o A suggestion to add a prompt for “title” was made. o Committee members are asked to e-mail H. Weinberg with suggestions, which will be discussed at the next Committee meeting.

 M. Gemeda gave a report on the efforts of the Office of Diversity Affairs and the Diversity Council to enhance our recruitment and retention of underrepresented minorities throughout the educational continuum. o The first Diversity Council meeting was held in March 2005. There are over 50 members, split into 5 groups: faculty; leadership; students, post- docs, and housestaff; patient care and community outreach; staff. Each group was charged with assessing how we are doing in their area and what steps can be taken to improve. o The initial findings and recommendations were reviewed by the Council last week. Overall, we are lacking in diversity. Data is difficult to obtain and there is not a cohesive, proactive strategy in recruitment. Three preliminary priority areas were identified by the Council: . We need to have a mission statement that includes diversity and is communicated to the whole medical center community. It needs to be a clear, structured well-planned vision that everyone can accept. . We need specific guidelines on the recruitment of faculty, leadership, etc. For example, guidelines could suggest the development of an advocacy group for candidate searches to proactively expand the pool of candidates. This includes how to report this information and how to increase the awareness of the talent that is already here. . We need to focus on patient care and outreach – for example, create a structure program that deals with cultural competency; conduct research on health disparities. H. Weinberg suggested that one approach that other institutions have taken is to focus on clinical faculty who speak certain languages and then to market accordingly. o Overall, the Council feels optimistic about our prospects for improvement. There are lots of areas where we have shown progress (i.e., number of women faculty, medical and graduate students).

 B. Bogart suggested a general survey of faculty. R. Levin indicated that the Committee concluded at the first meeting that they did not want to go that route, but it can be revisited if there are areas that aren’t covered in the other surveys. Next Meeting: March 1, 2006, 7:30 a.m., Deans Large Conference Room

Minutes prepared by Heather Campbell, February 21, 2006