The AHC Faculty Consultative Committees was established in 1996. The AHC FCC has strong support from Senior Vice President Cerra. It consists of representation from each of the colleges within the AHC, with two representatives from the Medical School—one from basic sciences and one from clinical sciences. In the first couple of years, the committee operated somewhat less formally with monthly meetings to discuss faculty issues, and a monthly meeting with the SVP to bring faculty concerns to the attention of the SVP as well as to discuss issues for which he sought our consultation. In year two, we established the Faculty Assembly, began to attend Dean’s Council Meetings and established subcommittees on Finance & Planning (chaired by Dan Feeney) and Faculty Affairs (chaired first by Carole Bland, and currently by Ted Oegema). Sub committee chairs serve as ex-officio FCC members.

 In November of 1998 and January of 1999, conversations between University FCC and AHC Senators and Department chairs and Heads suggested that the consultative process in the AHC wasn’t as effective as it could be. In fact, there was a perception that consultation was just window dressing. Most faculty were not aware of when and whether consultation had occurred or how consultation had impacted decision making. At that point, Fred Morrison, Sara Evans (then Chair of the FCC), and I (M Bebeau) met with VP Cerra to discuss the faculty perceptions and to devise ways to enhance the consultative process.

 We instituted a number of changes, in particular better communications about the results of consultation. In the March 1999 Issue of AHC Community News four suggestion for improving AHC level communications were presented:

• Create a list of AHC projects under consideration and make that list available to all
• Post minutes from AHC FCC and Assembly meetings on the web site
• Provide a review of the effectiveness of consultation
• Post Deans Council agendas and minutes on the web site.

 Four suggestions for school and department level communications were proposed:

1. Ask each school to develop a mutually agreed upon consultative process and a plan for communicating the results of consultation
2. Hold deans and department heads accountable for communication through annual compacts and evaluations
3. Offer workshops on consultation
4. Ask deans to attend Faculty Assembly meetings

 In addition to the changes in communication, we proposed and implemented a workshop for all AHC administrators and selected faculty representatives from each of the schools. Four workshops were held in the spring of 1999. President Yudof, members of the University FCC and heads from other units within the University participated. Attendance of all heads of units was required. The long-range plan was to have each school or units then hold their own workshop on shared governance. To date, the follow-up plan has not been implemented. However, there is great variability among AHC schools in the extent to which principles of shared governance are operational. Some, like public Health, Vet Medicine and Pharmacy have well-established consultative committees. Medicine and Dentistry do not.

 The main issue addressed over the past year was the "Visioning Process." Last summer, as we discussed progress with respect to improving the consultative process, we decided to ask faculty for issues and concerns and to hold a retreat to set direction for our future activities. At a retreat last September, we reviewed the faculty responses, we found three major themes: lack of visionary leadership; lack of accountability in leaders; lack of state support for health profession education. Tim Delmont from HR facilitated our discussion about the direction the AHC should be going. In addition to recommending a faculty lead visioning process, we decided that to improve accountability of leaders, we would engage in a review of policies relating to yearly performance review, yearly review for compensation, and process and procedures for post tenure review. (We noted that all units have not yet developed process and procedures for post tenure review). Review of these documents was assigned to committees of the AHC Assembly

 The Faculty Affairs Committee is engaged in the examination of policies and procedures for post tenure review and yearly performance review. Much of the past year was spent collecting the documents from the various Departments. By April, the Faculty Affairs Committee had most of the documents in hand, and has begun its work on the review of documents. That work is in progress. All members of that committee have agreed to continue on the committee until the work is complete.

 The Finance & Planning Committee took on the review of policies for merit review and compensation as well as three other major issues. Chaired by Dan Feeney, the F& P committee (devised a questionnaire that was sent to all department heads inquiring about the process for implementing the University Policies on Merit review and compensation. Their report is now complete, and is being reviewed prior to its release—possibly in September. The intent is to publish the results of the survey in the AHC Community News (as well as on our web site) so the community is aware of how their unit and/or department compare with others in terms of compliance with University Policies.

 The committee also reviewed the Allied Health Programs (at their request) and prepared a report to SVP Cerra on realigning allied health programs in the Medical School.

Shortly after the first of this year SVP Cerra asked the Committee to garner some perspective on the Medical School finances. A series of questions were developed (also forwarded to SVP Cerra for use during interviews with AHC CFO candidates) and the committee set about discussing possible answers. During the discussions, several things came to light regarding "core" financing, the need for an FTE analysis to assure that what needs to be done is covered (but not flush) and to determine what is "noncore." Although it was not specified in the report, a similar view was put forth in the AHC Accountability and Service document developed during Phase II of the AHC Vision & Planning process. In other words, should "noncore" endeavors be self-supporting instead of a cash and FTE drain on the Medical School/AHC?

 The report is being finalized. It addresses the questions developed and the committee hopes that this will give some insight about some issues (including Associate Dean and RSO positions). Because this report would be informative for anyone interested in the current AHC/Medical School financial situations, the committees hopes (with SVP Cerra’s permission) to distribute the report to the AHC Faculty and make it available on the Senate web site.

 A faculty task force was formed (under the direction of Marty Dworkin) to carry out this mandate and, during a five month period, met to examine and debate the six defining question. The process was endorsed by the Board of Regents a, and a regential subcommittee, chaired by Regent Maureen Reed, was set up to participate in the process. In the initial phase, each of the questions was discussed and analyzed from an individual collegiate perspective. Reports for this phase were presented to the colleges and to the Regent’s subcommittee. In the final phase, each of the questions was discussed and analyzed by a multi-collegiate faulty committee. Their individual reports are included in a report that was again presented to the Regent’s subcommittee in June. The Regent’s committee reviewed that report, made suggestions for modification, and presented the visioning document to the full Board on July 14. The Board accepted the report and work has now begun on development of a Strategic Plan. The Plan will be reviewed by the Deans Council, the AHC FCC, and the faculty before presentation to the Board of Regents this fall.

 Reviewed the job descriptions for deans and department chairs.

 Dealt with the flyer entitled "From the War Room" - specifically about the "lone ranger" mentality and lobbying efforts in the face of the unified "visioning process."

 Faculty Research Development Process - Grants – Reviewed a proposal for the Genomics Project that had been awarded. The committee passed a resolution in June stating that the "FCC strongly opposes the allocation of monies in any focused area or strategic categories and requested that the process to support funding for interdisciplinary education and research be done in a competitive and fair process, open to all.

• Reviewed the process and criteria for the AHC Faculty Research Development Grant Program 2000. The committee made several suggestions to improve the process, reiterating the importance of keeping the process open—even if there were targeted areas for development. The committee also asked for a report on the status and outcomes of projects funded during previous funding cycles (implemented in 1997).
• Made suggestions for members who would serve on the review team for the review of the Dean of the School of Pharmacy.

Conclusions:

 We have achieved a vision statement for the AHC that represents the faculty’s perspective on direction for the future.

 We have enhanced communication regarding the shared governance activities of the AHC FCC.

 We have addressed accountability in leadership in a number of ways: (1) by pushing for job descriptions for Deans and Department Chairs, (2) by participating in the review of Deans--commenting on the review process, reviewing reports, and making recommendations for membership on the review teams, (3) by collecting and analyzing documents for implementing University Policies, (4) by conducting a survey of the process for merit review to draw attention to how well leaders implement the compensation policy within departments and units, (5) by reviewing compacts and other financial documents to reflect on fiscal responsibilities of leaders, and (6) by lobbying for fairness in the allocation of AHC Faculty Research Development Grants.

Next, Professor Dworkin provided an update on the "visioning process." He pointed out that the process was initiated by the FCC last fall and began in February 2000. It was mandated to take six months and in July a final report was available. The process took place in three parts, beginning with a set of six questions defined by SVP Cerra for setting the process in motion. The six questions include: 1) What is the mandate of the AHC; 2) How can the AHC be a leader in the delivery of health care; 3) What is the AHC's vision for the educational process; 4) How can the AHC improve and enhance its research standing; 5) How does the AHC view the impending digital revolution; 6) Dealt with communication and governance.

The report was presented to the Board of Regents on July 14. The Board enthusiastically accepted the report, Professor Dworkin reported. It was clear from the response from members of the Board as well as the President that they viewed the report as an important document, he said.

Professor Dworkin then summarized a number of points that emerged from the report: