Presentation on theme: "Constitution Renewal Northern Ontario School of Medicine Academic Council Retreat March 3 rd, 2011."— Presentation transcript:
Constitution Renewal Northern Ontario School of Medicine Academic Council Retreat March 3 rd, 2011
Adhoc Constitution Review Committee Members then and now Roger Strasser Robert Barnett Brian Ross Sarah Newbery Len Kelly Ken Adams Michel Bonin Caelen Rody Gina Kennedy Geoffrey Hudson Rachel Ellaway Neelam Khapur Kiersten Parr Gerry Cooper
History Academic Council was formed in 2005 Full accreditation of our undergraduate MD program was achieved in 2009. Since this point, NOSM has broadened its mandate significantly, and moved beyond a startup organization. Academic Council turned its attention to redefining itself in 2009: focusing on membership issues
History In 2010, a commitment was made to renewal of AC focus
History A comprehensive issues brief was created by the AHCRC for the information of Council, and the February 2010 retreat in Thunder Bay was devoted to these issues. Debate and discussion took place on the following topics: –Academic Council Role & Function –Membership Principles and Structures –Standing Committee Composition
1)The position of Academic Council within NOSM and the challenges it creates 2)What authority we have to bring about positive change 3)What strategic values and guidelines can direct our actions. 4)Need for renewal for Academic Council: 1)Role 2)Structure 3)Standing Committees, and 4)Membership What Perspective was Gained?
Academic Council is the only body within the hierarchy of our academic governance with: Flexibility of structure necessary to ensure representation across faculty, administrative portfolios and learners Authority to create and govern committees across all academic areas The mandate for Social Accountability, adherence to Strategic Direction, and ability to define guiding Academic Principles DeanDean Academic Council is the single point of intersection between NOSM's academic authority and its mandated accountability to the residents of the North.
Our Scope of Authority Consider: The Undergraduate Medical Education Committee fits within the traditional faculty council model, and depends on Academic Council’s endorsements for efficacy. The Postgraduate Medical Education Committee is by definition, directly accountable to professional colleges and must ‘own’ their own academic decisions. However: Council retains authority to define the form and function of both standing committees through terms of reference, composition of membership, reporting requirements, etc.
What Guidelines Direct our Actions within NOSM NOSM Strategic Plan AC Academic Principles Letters Patent (Social Accountability Mandate) Defined as “providing undergraduate and postgraduate medical education programs that are innovative and responsive to the individual needs of students and to the healthcare needs of the people of Northern Ontario".
Strategic Plan OUR VISON Innovative Education and Research for a Healthier North.
Strategic Plan OUR MISSION The Northern Ontario School of Medicine (NOSM) is committed to the education of high quality physicians and health professionals, and to international recognition as a leader in distributed, learning-centred, community-engaged education and research.
Strategic Plan OUR VALUES Innovation Social Accountability Collaboration Inclusiveness Respect
AC Academic Principles OUR ACADEMIC PRINCIPLES (Draft): Interprofessional Integration Community oriented Inclusive Generalism Continuity
Role of Academic Council The retreat in February 2010 began with the following recommendation of the Ad Hoc Constitutional Review Committee to council: That the recognized role of Academic Council be that of the provision of strategic academic governance for NOSM, within the context of the School’s social accountability mandate, commitment to innovation and the key academic principles as agreed upon by Council.
Role of Academic Council It was the general feeling of Council, that the breath of this topic exceeded the amount of time available to discuss it during the retreat, however there was a sense that the Academic Council should play a central role in ensuring that the NOSM ‘Brand’ is valued by all academic programs within the school. Council should therefore have an oversight role for all academic programs within the school, in keeping with the strategic role proposed by the ACCRC. The production of Academic Principles was seen as essential to this function, as was the regular review of such to ensure continued relevance. Programs should be mandated to apply these principles in a process which seeks approval from Academic Council
Role of Academic Council This approval process must be supported by mechanisms which focus on program outcomes in light of our academic principles, social accountability mandate, and strategic directions. Committee reporting should speak solely to this context. This will aid us in recognizing the challenges our programs may have in achieving our strategic goals and stimulate discussion on how they can be supported. Reporting mechanisms must be clear, and provide for reciprocal discussion around issues which arise between AC and committees: We want to come together in discussion around our core issues, not create hierarchy without function. Our focus should be “Collegial governance of academic programs by faculty”. It was felt that a governance exercise would be useful to define our role further, with external input to provide additional perspectives on Academic Governance.
Composition of Standing Committees It was agreed that committee composition was dependent on the overall role of Council. There was a suggestion that currently; Academic Council casts its net too broadly in terms of what it considers ‘academic programs’. It was agreed that the Health Sciences Library Users Committee should no longer be a standing committee of AC, and suggested that the existence of committees focussed on Research, Informatics, Administration, Community Engagement, Promotions & Tenure, Dean’s portfolios, and CHPE should also be examined. Should these committees be determined to be out of scope of Council, the role of the Senior Leadership Group should also be re-examined to determine if they should oversee these bodies. With regards to the Admissions committee, there was no support to restructure such as a subcommittee of the Undergraduate Education Committee. There was a perceived issue around strategic accountability and the position which the committee holds within council, as Admissions is a ‘special case’.
Composition of Standing Committees The following changes in committee structure were endorsed: that the Health Sciences Library Users Committee become an advisory committee to the Director of the Health Sciences Library, not Academic Council that there be an additional standing committee on Health Sciences and Interprofessional Education which would oversee NODIP, the PA program and various interprofessional education programs. that the Tenure and Promotions committee become an advisory committee to the Dean That the Nominations Committee be granted an expanded role dealing with governance issues, and council functioning
Academic Council Structures Academic Council’s structure should flow from its function, especially when determining Council size and composition It was noted that operationally, it is difficult to have as large a Council as we have, however interest in participants of this body may decline if we transition some administrative members’ role to a non-voting state. With regards to function of the body, it was noted that there is some confusion with regards to our role as Council members. It was concluded that we are not constituent representatives, but collegial governors. It was suggested that some training with regards to the roles and responsibilities of governors would be benefit to Council members as new members are elected/appointed. This should be combined with general orientation materials defining scope and function of Council.
Academic Council Structures With regards to the current business of Council, it was suggested that all issues currently being discussed should not necessarily come to this body. Effort must be put into defining and implementing what goes where for discussion, with attention paid to balancing operational concerns with sufficient opportunity for Council to ensure adherence to our principles and accountabilities within our programs and communication of key messages to standing committees. Quality of representatives on Academic Council must supersede quantity of representatives as our primary concern. Further, the functionality of Council given the frequency and length of meetings must be considered. The suggested structure for council was 2:1 elected versus appointed members. A larger body would result in lack of opportunity for fulsome dialogue during meetings and would not aid engagement of members
Academic Council Structures Academic Council is structured to be accessible to faculty/others not on main campus. As such, this tacit community engagement must be considered in examining restructuring. Geographical representation was examined and it was recommended that clinical faculty representation be comprised of 7 members chosen from the geography in which they reside (mapping to approved geographic divisions within the Clinical Sciences Division). It was further suggested that positions be created for faculty ‘members at large’ including Aboriginal and Francophone faculty members from all divisions. This broader representation would help avoid silos of representation within council.
Membership Principles Council is currently reactionary. The end state of the current restructuring process may not reflect the ideal position for Council within the School. External advice and deliberate planning of Council function was recommended once more as an essential and cost effective activity. Discussion of principles for membership was seen as pre- emptive, and as such broader issues with regards to scope and function were examined. Members concurred that orientation of new members to key principles and practices of Academic Council was essential to combat confusion and malaise among members. With regards to composition, it was suggested that Council is large. In order to increase the ratio of elected faculty to administrative positions, corporate representation on council should be reduced.
Changes to Academic Council Constitution Minimal changes was suggested to enable focus on new direction: The Role of Council was clearly defined as Academic Governance for all programs in which NOSM is involved NOSM Mission, Vision and Values were updated Academic Principles were removed to a companion document, to promote longevity of the constitution, proper. Membership was modified to increase the number of elected members and decrease the number of non-elected members (2:1). Membership was broadened to be inclusive of all NOSM academic programs. Provision was made for non-council members acting as designates for specific chairs of standing committees to have voting privileges when attending Academic Council. Terms of office were lengthened to promote continuity of membership. Academic Council Terms of Reference will now be reviewed regularly, in conjunction with the refresh of the NOSM Strategic Plan.
Changes to Academic Council Constitution These changes were debated and passed as per process: Academic Council, on June 10 th, 2010 Joint Senate Committee, on June 26 th, 2010 –(Laurentian Senate, on September 21 st, 2010) –(Lakehead Senate, on October 1 st, 2010)
Looking Forward: A companion document will be created to house the Academic Principles of the NOSM Academic Council A procedural document will be created to define mechanism by which Academic Council will act in its governance function with its standing committees The standing committees of Council will be modified to reflect revised constitution and purpose Terms of reference for standing committees are to be modified individually to ensure appropriate interaction with Academic Council.
Looking Forward: The Adhoc Constitution Review Committee will take it’s marching orders from today’s discussion at Council.
Breakout Group Topics: 1)What do we need to be successful Academic Governors? 2)What structure and role considerations should be addressed in the proposed Nominations and Governance Committee? 3)How shall we evaluate our existing Standing Committees to ensure they speak to Academic Council needs? 4)What mechanisms should exist to empower Academic Council’s governance role with its Standing Committees ( Reporting requirements, criteria for when issues should escalate, scope of authority, etc) 5)Given our focus on programs, do gaps exist in our current Standing Committee composition? 6)As determined from the days discussion so far….otherwise, a second group may address #4