To: Members of Ad Hoc Curricular Subcommittee on OTM, Members of Curricular Committee.
Re: Conclusions Regarding SGA OTM Survey
I was very surprised to find that the final document presented to the Curricular Committee from the Ad Hoc Subcommittee was significantly changed from that discussed at the committee level. I believe the final document is a "Whitewash" of the OMM department and does not represent an objective evaluation of the student survey. Although the committee reportedly received 3 charges, the committee chose instead to spend its time denigrating the student survey rather than seeking it merits and completely ignored consideration of anything else.
I attended every meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee excepting one when I was out of town. At one meeting someone even noted that Dr. Margaret Wilson and I were the only non OMM department clinical faculty present. For all practical purposes Dr.'s Boling, Cleaver, and Kline should not be considered to be members of the task force as they had nothing what so ever to do with its conclusions. This committee was therefore heavily weighted to members of the OMM department and their domination in the meetings has destroyed any possibility of an objective evaluation. This is analogous to having a fox check on the status of the hen house.
I addressed the members of the Ad Hoc Committee via memo on June 2, 2000 at which time I indicated that the students taking the initiative to create, distribute and evaluate a survey indicated a problem and that there were findings that objectively indicated a problem. The Ad Hoc Committee's report does not acknowledge any problems. Materials I had submitted for inclusion in that document were removed without my knowledge because I had to leave at the end of the last meeting to lecture.
In summary , the lack of material addressing valid issues of student concern demonstrated in the SGA survey is a gross injustice to the effort and intent of that survey. The lack of any action steps directed at correcting the departmental problems perceived by the students negates any validity to the submitted conclusions. We have had five weeks of 2 hour meetings arguing about verbiage and semantics without addressing any point of relevance about the student concerns.
Jeffrey Morasco, D.O.
