Comments From The Readers
By
Leonard Zwelling
I didn’t write the comments below. They were posted on my blog following my piece after the Pisters “retirement.” Here’s the whole text submitted by one “Greg Mendel” followed by the one from anonymous. I’m guessing “Mendel” is a geneticist.
“Pisters was a tyrant, and his departure for whatever reason caused the MDACC faculty to breathe a collective sigh of relief!
His legacy will be that he destroyed the spirit of collegiality that once existed and created a culture of fear with the policies that he directed. Any faculty deemed “unprofessional,” however that might be defined, could be subject to salary reduction or termination. Peer-review appeals processes were replaced with him having the final decision in any matter. As a result, faculty have been silenced. The “unprofessional” mantra has been weaponized and used in retaliation against many faculty during his tenure. That is evident in multiple Safety Surveys where the biggest problem has remained “fear of speaking up.” That is also evident in his weekly President’s Advisory Council meetings where there is never a probing question or dissenting opinion – to do so would one at risk of being ostracized and alienated.
Whoever assumes the role of President should seriously consider reforming the shared governance committee that Chancellor McRaven established, reconstitute the Faculty Senate as allowed by Texas law, and re-examine many of the punitive policies and practices that Pisters implemented. Greater faculty involvement in each of these areas will go a long way to improving faculty morale and trust in the leadership!”
Several years of weak and misguided leadership, from the president on down through the VPs and AVPs, has resulted in a significant loss of talent. Sadly, the exodus will continue for as long as the deputies remain in these positions for which they were never qualified.
I would personally like to see the next president actively recruit back exceptional individuals who have left in recent years.
And rein in the attorneys and surveillance tactics. The police state has become completely unbearable.
I don’t think I could have said this any better than these two did. I wanted to post them separately myself because both are so articulate and spot on.
These comments should serve as warnings to the next President of MD Anderson. If that person wants to have a partnership with the faculty to accomplish common goals, the door is open. However, the key to that door rests in the hands of the new president. The faculty will always do its job. It will care for patients and do it better than any other team of cancer doctors in the world. It will continue to make strides in research, but more support in the face of diminishing grant funds from the federal government would be welcomed. Teaching needs to be actively appreciated, too.
More than anything, however, if the new leadership wants an engaged and enthusiastic institution, the new president might consider consulting with the faculty on a regular basis and re-forming something like the Faculty Senate keeping this new advisory body in compliance with UT policy.
As these comments indicate, Peter Pisters was a lousy president. He did not respect the faculty nor even think the faculty was important other than to provide him with money. He knew nothing about laboratory research and only recently appointed competent leadership in the scientific arena. His leadership teams in academics and operations were woeful. In short, he did a poor job and, in some ways, was even worse than his predecessor, who was so terrible the Chancellor had to forcibly remove him.
The Regents must find a new leader of great accomplishment and clarity of vision. To do so will require faculty involvement in the process and I don’t mean the current executives, divisional leaders, or department chairs. I mean one assistant professor, one associate professor, and one professor on the search committee, preferably with a mix of clinical and research talents.
During the process of identifying a new leader, a critical question must be asked. “What are the first three things you will do if you get the job?” If the answer is I’ll analyze things slowly and see where the institution is now, reject the candidate. Any person vying for this job ought to have done his or her homework and KNOW what the problems are, who the poor performers have been, and have a plan on day one on how to change what is currently in place.
To his credit, John Mendelsohn did two critical things early in his presidential tenure that created a successful early period for his presidency and established his credibility with the faculty prior to the Enron and ImClone scandals.
First, he got rid of almost the entire leadership team that Dr. LeMaistre had assembled around him and got his own people. Good decision.
Second, he personally went to every academic department and asked the faculty face-to-face where the problems were and what was needed to make them more productive. He wrote it all down and acted accordingly getting new leadership in Biostatistics and Pathology quickly.
That is what needs to happen again.
Reread “Dr. Mendel’s” and Anonymous’ comments. If you agree with them that the Pisters reign was dreadful, fear-filled, and wholly insensitive and that a “new dawn” (quoting Grace Slick from Woodstock) is needed, get vocal. Get active. Now is the time.
Your voice has to be heard all the way to Austin, so scream.
