Text of President
McCormick’s February 15, 2015
Response to January 27, 2012 Senate Statement on Separation of
Rutgers-Camden
Dear Mr. Swalagin:
Thank
you for sending me the
statement approved by the University Senate at its January 27 meeting. As noted in your letter, the statement
expresses the Senate’s strong opposition to any action
that would remove
Rutgers-Camden from Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, and
its
support for the formation of a consortium for strengthening higher
education in
South Jersey.
As
the Senate is aware, the proposal
for merging Rutgers-Camden into Rowan
University was made
by Governor Christie’s advisory committee on
the University
of Medicine and
Dentistry of New
Jersey.
It is part of a larger recommendation for statewide
restructuring that
would also integrate the UMDNJ Robert
Wood Johnson
Medical School,
the UMDNJ School of Public Health, and
the Cancer
Institute of
New Jersey into Rutgers University. The proposed restructuring, which Governor Christie has endorsed, is
still at a
conceptual stage, and many significant administrative and academic details would need to be
addressed if
this proposal moves forward. To take
effect, such a plan needs to be put forward by an act of the
Governor
(and, if accomplished through legislation, by both houses of the
Legislature),
and approved by the Rutgers Boards of Governors and Trustees.
On the
following pages is the text of my February 6
testimony before the New Jersey Senate Higher
Education Committee regarding the UMDNJ
Advisory Committee report, including my position on the
Rutgers/Rowan
proposal.
I
appreciate having this expression of the Senate’s position and
will take it
into consideration before making
a
recommendation to the Boards of Governors and Trustees about how Rutgers should proceed. The
recommendation I make
will be based on what I believe is best for the entire university and
achieving
excellence for Rutgers.
Sincerely
yours,
Richard L. McCormick
President Richard L.
McCormick
Testimony before the Senate
Higher Education Committee
Monday, February 6, 2012
Madam
Chair, Senator Cunningham, fellow committee members: thank you for the
opportunity to speak today about the final report of the UMDNJ Advisory
Committee. Over the past year, I and
other Rutgers administrators met on a number of occasions both with the
Advisory Committee as a whole and with its individual members. This advisory committee was a very thoughtful
and committed group of leaders with a clear interest in giving New
Jersey the
best possible system of higher education and medical education. I’m proud to note that most of them
earned
degrees from our state university.
The
chairman, Dr. Sol Barer, has a PhD from Rutgers and is the former CEO
of
Celgene Corporation. The other members
included Bob Campbell, who has an MBA from Rutgers and is the former
Vice
Chairman of Johnson & Johnson; Joyce Wilson Harley, a Douglass
College and
Rutgers-Newark Law graduate who is executive director of administrative
services at Essex County College; Anthony Perno, president and CEO of
Cooper’s
Ferry Development Association and a graduate of Rutgers-Camden Law; and
Dr. Harold
Shapiro, former President of Princeton University.
The
reports of the UMDNJ Advisory Committee, reflecting many months of
study and
deliberation, propose sweeping realignments of higher education in New
Jersey.
The
interim report, issued in September of last year, recommended the
integration
of the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, the School of Public Health,
and the
Cancer Institute of New Jersey into Rutgers.
All of those entities are located in New Brunswick and
Piscataway. In fact many of the Robert
Wood Johnson
Medical School and School of Public Health offices and classrooms sit
on
Rutgers property, in buildings owned by Rutgers.
More
significantly, we have many faculty members with joint appointments at
Rutgers
and the medical school, our institutions co-manage research institutes
such as
the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine, and all of the PhD
programs
in the life sciences at Rutgers-New Brunswick are joint programs with
Robert
Wood Johnson Medical School.
The
recommendation to integrate these entities with Rutgers is logical, it
makes
logistical sense, and most important, it will benefit New Jersey. Indeed, integration of these institutions
will launch Rutgers and medical education and research in New Jersey on
a path
to become not only a national leader, but a global leader as well.
If
I may, I would like to discuss some of the benefits of the integration
proposed
in the committee’s interim report and endorsed by the governor.
A
comprehensive university-based health sciences center would:
·
Attract
the best medical talent;
·
Bring
to our state the latest medical advances and technologies;
·
Improve
access to clinical trials offering hope for intractable
diseases;
·
Significantly
increase the flow of federal and industry research
dollars into the state; and
·
Enable
our residents to receive world-class medical care locally.
From
an academic and research point of view, integrating these entities
would result
in a health sciences presence that is larger than the sum of its parts.
Over
the past few years, Rutgers faculty and researchers have brought to New
Jersey
outside research grants that have approached or surpassed $400 million
a
year. The university ranked 56th
out of all research universities in America for R&D expenditure. When the medical school and associated
entities are integrated, that total will grow and Rutgers’ rank
will
immediately move to 32nd—in the company of
universities like Harvard
and Purdue and positioned to move much higher.
The
critical mass that will be created by combining our schools, the
elimination of
conflicting protocols and bureaucratic barriers to collaboration will
enable
the combined schools to seek major scientific grants and other funding
that
have often escaped us because of these hindrances.
Rutgers’
rank among the world’s greatest research universities will be
further
enhanced. New Jersey’s prominence as
an
international leader in the bio and pharmaceutical industries will grow
as
well. New Jersey faces fierce
competition from other states and from around the world for these
industries’
investment. As the HealthCare Institute
of New Jersey has argued, policies that promote private sector
collaboration
with our universities are critical to improving the climate for the
life
sciences.
The
benefits that would accrue to the university and to the state would be
significant, substantial, and sustainable.
The quality of life for all New Jerseyans, from all points of
view –
educational, employment, economic, and health – will be improved. The benefits from making these transformative
steps today, will shape New Jersey’s future and guide New
Jersey’s economy for
decades.
These
changes, which are so logical and make so much logistical sense, are
nevertheless extraordinarily challenging.
Adding 5,000 employees to the payroll and integrating data
systems, HR
functions, telephone systems, and the raft of other seemingly routine
aspects
of running the “business side” of the academic ledger has
already required the
hiring of additional staff and consultants.
Our immediate estimate is that the integration will cost more
than $40
million in one-time expenses. This
integration will be challenging but doable—and eminently worth
doing.
The
final report of the UMDNJ Advisory Committee, which was recently
announced,
embraced, and endorsed by the Governor, suggests even more dramatic
changes to
higher education in New Jersey.
In
addition to reaffirming the recommendation to integrate Robert Wood
Johnson
Medical School into Rutgers, it called for a revamped and recast health
science
university in Newark, known as the New Jersey Health Sciences
University, which
would be based on the existing UMDNJ schools in Newark.
The
report also called for continued state ownership, but private
operation, of
University Hospital. Keeping University
Hospital open and fulfilling its critical role for the residents of the
greater
Newark community is essential to New Jersey’s largest city.
Lastly
with respect to Newark, the report called for increased collaboration
between
the colleges and universities through the adoption of a formal
memorandum of
understanding between the New Jersey Health Sciences University, NJIT,
and
Rutgers-Newark. This will expand the
opportunities for joint research and will benefit all three
institutions.
Most
controversially, the report recommended the expansion of Rowan
University, in
Glassboro, to include all of the Rutgers-Camden campus, including all
of the
undergraduate programs as well as the Rutgers-Camden law school and the
Rutgers-Camden business school.
That
recommendation is difficult for Rutgers.
The Camden campus has been an integral part of the university
for more
than 60 years. At the same time that
other investment was leaving Camden, Rutgers continued to expand by
building
new dorms and classrooms in the city, maintaining a vibrant campus in
the city,
increasing enrollment, and adding course offerings at the campus.
We
have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Camden and have plans
to
continue that investment. Rutgers
constructed a major new law school facility; improved the recreation,
dining,
and residential facilities; and contributed to the critical
redevelopment of
Cooper Street. We have made the campus
an increasingly sought-out place in Camden: a place where students can
be safe,
have a great college experience, and graduate with a world-class
education.
The
goals articulated by the Barer committee for South Jersey are laudable,
including increased access to higher education, intensifying the level
of
research conducted, and ensuring collaboration between Rutgers-Camden
and
Cooper-Rowan. But I believe these goals
can be achieved by other means.
First,
through formalized collaboration between our two schools (like that
which the
Advisory Committee has proposed for three institutions in Newark);
next,
through the construction of new buildings in Camden that would house
lab space,
classrooms, and other facilities that would be shared between our
schools; and
also through the ability for students at Rowan to take classes at
Rutgers-Camden and vice versa. These and
other steps could effectively and efficiently achieve the goals set
forth by
the Barer Committee.
Given
our choice, if we could pick and choose among the recommendations of
the UMDNJ
Advisory Committee, we would not want to turn over the Rutgers-Camden
campus to
Rowan University, in Glassboro. I
can’t
imagine that either the Rutgers Board of Governors or the Board of
Trustees
would willingly relinquish the campus, nor would I recommend that
course, if
there were the possibility of choosing among the recommendations.
At
this point, however, we don’t know if we will have a choice
because the exact
contents of a plan are understandably unclear.
We do not yet know whether the global restructuring as
recommended by
the committee will move as a single package, with linkage between all
of the
parts, or if the parts will move independently of one another. We also do not yet know the vehicle for the
restructuring – whether this will be done by an executive
reorganization plan
or by legislation.
These
are important questions, and I hope and expect that they will all be
answered. What is clear, however, is the
role that the Rutgers governing boards will play in this process.
Once
the determination is made as to the content of the restructuring and
the
vehicle for the restructuring, the Rutgers Board of Governors and the
Board of
Trustees, as required by the Rutgers Act of 1956, will consider the
restructuring and will hold a vote on the proposed changes that affect
Rutgers.
Prior
to that vote, but after fully understanding the nature and the content
of the
restructuring, I will be making a recommendation to the Rutgers boards.
My
obligation, as president, is to make a recommendation based on what is
in the
very best interests of the entire university, taking into consideration
the
near-term and the long-term consequences of any course of action, and
to fully
explore and understand how a decision will affect our ability to move,
as
Governor Kean so aptly put it, from a good university to a truly great
one. My recommendation will be based on
all of
those factors and how they affect our nearly 250-year old university.
Thank
you again for the opportunity to address your committee.
I will be happy to take your questions.