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

1. Faculty Response to H.4632 and Merger with College of Charleston Tom G. Smith, PhD Professor and Faculty Senate President February 13, 2014

2. 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.

3. MUSC Faculty Senate Resolution on H. 4632MUSC/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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Faculty Survey Results

7. Faculty Survey Results

8. Faculty Survey Results

9. Faculty Survey Results

10. Faculty Survey Results

11. 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.

12. 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.