MUSC: Start Cuts With President’s Pay
We’re sure MUSC President Ray Greenberg is a nice guy … of course we’re also sure he’s willing to lie through his teeth to make his school’s “budget crisis” look worse than it actually is.
In fact, the Medical University of South Carolina isn’t even experiencing a budget crisis, when you get right down to it.
The school is looking at a state budget “cut” of anywhere between $15-17 million this year, to be sure, but the school’s total budget (like the total budgets of USC and Clemson) is actually bigger than it was last year.
Which is no doubt why the school can still afford to sponsor swanky conferences down in the Virgin Islands at the same time President Greenberg is telling Palmetto State residents that his school is “left with few choices other than to scale back our programs and services to the people of South Carolina.”
Well, in addition to canning his Virgin Islands boondoggle (which he’s refusing to do), we’ve got another “choice” for Dr. Greenberg to consider – his own salary.
Based on this nifty report from Charleston’s WCBD-TV, it turns out we only reported part of Dr. Greenberg’s salary info when we told you that he makes “nearly $250,000 a year.”
In fact, he gets precisely $232,064 a year – but that’s just part of his salary.
Greenberg also draws a whopping $450,000 a year from the Medical University Hospital, which means his total salary is close to $700,000 a year.
So let’s get this straight – 1,200 MUSC employees are facing mandatory four-day furloughs over a four-month period beginning in January … for a “budget crisis” that is obviously nowhere near as bad as Greenberg is making it out to be.
Meanwhile, Greenberg is continuing to draw nearly three quarters of a million dollars in salary and refusing to cancel his school’s Virgin Islands getaway because … get this … it would be “negative for the institution and for the individual careers of the faculty involved.â€
Seriously?
This sort of arrogance is one of many reasons why South Carolina spends 17.8% of its budget on higher ed – compared to the national average of 10.1%. The other reason is that we’re trying to maintain thirty-three state-supported institutions (and over 80 campus locations) for a population of only four million people.
Which is flat out ridiculous.
And yet like the worthless bureaucrats they are, our research universities leaders continue to blow money out the wazoo, racking up millions in travel costs and six-figure salaries while the rest of us (including many hard-working higher ed employees) are struggling to make ends meet.
When lawmakers return to Columbia this January facing another round of huge budget cuts, they should immediately zero out the $232,064 Greenberg is pulling down from the school.
Paying that sort of coin to a guy who’s already making half a million is stupid under any circumstances, but it’s downright offensive in the budget environement we currently find ourselves in.
Finally, props to WCBD TV’s Tim Gehret for doing a damn fine investigative piece after we broke the Virgin Island story yesterday morning.
If more of our mainstream media reporters actually did their jobs and tracked this stuff down (instead of blindly accepting what government officials spoonfeed them), then maybe our leaders wouldn’t keep trying to pull crap like this.
Oh, and thanks to WCBD for following FITS on Twitter … “love y’all, mean it.”
Comments
By Frank on November 25th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Why? What would be the point in doing this to the same employees that make your organization work? I don’t think you have your facts straight. This looks like a witch hunt to try and find a South Carolina link to the AIG story, what with bailouts and trips. I have met Dr. Greenberg twice and he is an extremely intelligent and a very nice guy.
FMc
By Not Sayin', Just Sayin' on November 25th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Just please God don’t let them cut Lisa McGill from the payroll. The Statehouse’s aesthetics would be crushed.
By MUSC College of Medicine (COM) student on November 25th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
MUSC’s financial woes cannot be fully understood unless you delve into the massive, poorly conceived pet construction projects that dot the campus–from the under-utilized Ashley River Tower (which, just 2 months ago, had entire floors nearly empty) to the giant monolith arising at the corner of Bee and Ashley, the brand new facility for the College of Dental Medicine.
Some observers might even conclude that MUSC’s financial woes are mostly self-inflicted–hmmm, possibly a topic that deserves further scrutiny from some enterprising investigative journalist.
By One who knows more than you do about it on November 25th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I hope that the MUSC COM student is more critical in his or her thinking when dealing with patients.
His/her cynicism may seem sharp and clever, but it is merely ill-informed. I hope naively so, as contrasted with FITS’ intentional misrepresentations and vindictive, politically-orchestrated attacks. Who’s pulling your strings, FITS? I think those who know can figure it out.
FYI, there is not one penny of state money in the ART, which is filling up nicely now. Would one like to attend school at a university that is satisfied with a 60-year old hospital that is becoming woefully inadequate? Or one that would allow the state’s only Dental School to be crammed into a corner of a research building for a fifth decade? I hope not. South Carolina needs strategic investments, even in tough times, rather than robotic recitations of the “don’t spend” mantra.
By Catherine on November 25th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I agree with Frank. This is bordering on a witch-hunt — and again using WAY incorrect figures on how we fund higher ed. The academic center of MUSC receives less than 16% of its budget from appropriations. They generate more research than any other institution, they are better run, and they provide invaluable services across the State. Pick on someone you could even come close to in character — you’ve got other Presidents and agency directors who do FAR worse for this state.
By Frances on November 26th, 2008 at 8:14 am
One might argue whether any human being should be paid $700,000. But if your answer is yes, surely a candidate would be an individual like Dr. Greenberg, who has an MD and a PhD, an outstanding record of achievement throughout his career, works tirelessly on behalf of the health and educational needs of SC citizens, raises tens of millions of philanthropic dollars for his institutions, and is deeply admired by all who know him. I believe the writer of the Fitsnews piece is a disgruntled former employee of MUSC — an axe looking for a place to grind.
By fitsnews on November 26th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Frank/Catherine/Francis-
Our higher ed figures came directly from the National Association of State Budget Officers, which last time we checked was NOT comprised of “disgruntled former employees” at MUSC.
As for being on a “witch hunt” and having an “axe to grind” … you’re damn straight.
We’re just getting warmed up, matter of fact … so stay tuned.
FITS
By James the Foot Soldier on November 26th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
For those apparent newcomers to this site (Frank/Catherine/Francis) I’ve never heard Will say “don’t spend”.
However, he has shouted from the rooftops, along with a Governor (the pigs WERE appropriate) that our gov’ment (at ALL levels) was spending taxpayer funds at an ATROCIOUS clip.
And now that revenues are declining that clip is getting clippped.
Please, spare us the whining from academia (or anywhere else in gov’ment for that matter) saying “we’re cutting bone now”.
10% increases in spending each of the last four years means we haven’t even gone on a freakin’ diet yet.
By Bart on November 26th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Most MD/PhDs I know actually utilize their degrees and work as bench-to-bedside investigators, with far less income than MDs in private practice.
Compared to his peers, Greenberg’s salary is excessive.
By Murrow in mind on November 26th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
If there is nothing more to find, then no one should be worried.
By Stroker Ace on November 26th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
The competetive market drives the pay for all jobs, even university presidents and football coaches. The state gets a deal by only having to shell out a minimal salary, while letting private dollars pay the rest. Classic example is football coaches, Spurrier and Bowden each made close to 2 mil a year, but the state only paid 200k + plus or so. Were it not for the private dollars (i.e. booster club, foundations, TV Deals, etc) we could never hire these guys. So instead of blasting Dr. Greenberg for getting paid likely the same or less than he would in private practice, we should be working with him to improve MUSC and realize that the state is getting a deal when the private dollars pick up the other tab. It should also be noted that the majority of workers they are going to furlough are temps and not permanent employees anyhow. And as to the VIrgin Islands, if it were in LA would it be different…? even though it would probably cost more. It just happens to have the juiciness story factor for the islands….i notice when the Governor and his staff went to South Beach recently for a conference we heard little about that. Either taxpayer or private dollars or both paid for that trip (such as did staffers take annual leave to go..doubtful – who picked up the transportation tab?) either way dollars from both were used to stay in swanky South Beach for 5 days, but we heard little from you on that.
By Another opinion on November 27th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
As ususal, Mark has supplied you with incorrect information. First, while MUSC’s budget has gone up, the dollars supplied by the state have decline. In the last seven years, MUSC has received $100m less from the state while its real budget has gone from $1 billion a year to almost $2 billion now. I do not think the state really has a dog in this fight when they only furnish about 5% of MUSC’s total budget. With the cuts this year, the state will end up giving MUSC about $75 million.
Secondly, Dr. Greenberg is the CEO of a $2 billion dollar a year business that does have medical education as part of its mission. He leads one of the largest buinesses in SC and is paid less than any CEO I know. He receives about $250,000 from the state. If you have a problem with that then you can complain. The other amount he receives does not come from any state funds and contrary to what you reported it does not come from the hospital. Your source needs to check their facts. I can also tell you that Dr. Greenberg has turned down salaries double of what he makes now to continue turning MUSC into a world class academic medical center. He is the smartest person in SC and we need to do whatever we can to keep him here.
Being a mouth piece for Mark is not your style. You are starting to pick up his bad habits of presenting half truths and false information. If you want people to believe you then you have to check your facts in the future. I am expecting you to reply in some negative manner about me not knowing what I am talking about but trust me buddy, I do.
By James the Foot Soldier on November 27th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Well thank heavens the folks being furloughed at MUSC are “only” temporary workers living in their temporary homes trying to put a feast on the table for their temporary families.
How many temporary meals could be saved if the carribean vacation were cancelled?
Academiacs make me hurl.
By fitsnews on November 27th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Stoker-
First of all, Happy Thanksgiving!
We appreciate your perspective, but your prediction concerning our reply is inaccurate. You are participating intelligently in a public discourse, which we commend.
Certainly, we have disagreements (and you probably won’t like some of the future pieces we have planned on Dr. Greenberg), but that’s the way it goes.
All we ask is that you try to be a little more creative in taking shots at us. The whole “mouth piece for Mark” thing is a bit overplayed.
FITS
P.S. – Besides, “mouthpiece” = one word.
By James the Foot Soldier on November 27th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Another opinion: what portion of MUSC revenuess are generated from Medicaid (aka “state funds”)?
By helenup on November 27th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
The MUSC financial system, from which Greenberg and many others derive their above-market purses, is based upon a veritable shell game. Under one shell is MUSC, the umbrella over all other shells that covers the univerity; the second is the Medical Hospital Authority (a quasi-public entity that operates away from state scrutiny so their can hire and spend at will); and the third is University Medical Associates, which is the pool of money from doctors’ fees, etc. The UMA part is the big kitty from which much money is dispensed to cover big salaries and expenses. A “silent shell” is the MUSC Foundation. This is funded by charitable donations and is managed at a cost of 3%. Various funds (i.e. late Aunt Mamie’s memorial) established through the Foundation may be liquidated and dispensed for other purposes at the president’s discretion. The Foundation also pays for a lot of things without much scrutiny — except, perhaps the MUSC board of trustees, who generally are either retired from their professional careers, rather compliant with the president’s desires, or essentially comatose from their roles of accountability, reason and social morality.
By saltysam on November 27th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Reference a comment above stating that the Ashley River Tower (a title more fitting for a retirement condo) has “filled up nicely,” is due to a frantic shift of services unrelated to the original plan proposed to the FHA when the land was approved — for one oncology. Lots of cancer patients still in South Carolina needing more bedspace, I suppose. Meanwhile, other services are attempting to flea the new, handsome structure — most doctors hate it there and they prefer the surgery rooms in the “old” hospital to the fancy, flashy new ones in the tower. Inside baseball. But for hundreds of thousands (or more) to be spent on a marketing blitz that bears the icon reflecting this one building among so many is, quite frankly, a bad omen. There’s more than bad wiring and a nonfunctioning ambulance bay that smells like pluff mud from that towering debacle.
By One who knows more than you do about it on November 28th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Would that be the 2:1 federal portion of Medicaid, or the portion that doesn’t cover the cost of the services provided, James?
By One who knows more than you do about it on November 28th, 2008 at 10:32 am
What are you saying, saltysam? If the need for cardiovascular services declines from what was projected four years ago, and there is a need for more cancer services, should the ART not be reprogrammed to meet the changing s needs of the populace? And by the way, I am one of those doctors who works in the handsome new structure. I surely don’t see my colleagues attempting to flee the ART, so I challenge your assertion. In fact, many of the services in the 60 year-old hospital want to move into ART.
By One who knows more than you do about it on November 28th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Goodness gracious… the axe-grinders are out in force. helenup’s assertions about the MUSC Foundation are incorrect. The Foundation, like all 501(c)3 entities is audited independently every year. They also have been audited by the Centers of Economic Excellence Board. The audits have been clean. They also have a Board that includes community representatives. The Foundation does all that it can to honor the intent of each and every donor. They do not reprogram “Aunt Mamie’s memorial”.
The comments about “above purse” are dubious. I guess it depends on what comparison one wants to make. Faculty and administrative compensation (including all sources within the “shell game”) at MUSC fall pretty much in line with AHC and AAMC means from two years ago. And it is worthwile to note that a large part of faculty compensation is based on incentives… if one does not generate increasing amounts of work units, billings or collections, then one’s compensation does not go up, and may in fact decline.
By helenup on November 28th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Dear One Knows It all— your clarification that doctors/faculty are pushed to increase income — perhaps to focus on prescribing expensive and unwarranted therapies in order to boost their bottom lines — should provide great comfort to ailing and benefit-challenged citizens. I am sure that great accolades are expressed on those whose attention is weighted more on finance than therapeutic successes. And for the doctors that favor patient care over feeding the coffers? They likely evacuate the “excellence” of stepford-wife achievement in favor of their own inspired, destiny.
By saltysam on November 28th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Hey, know-it-all, everyone knows the books are cooked.
By roped on November 28th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Has it occured to anyone here, those who know and prognosticate, that Roper Hospital built a wonderul, efficient and state-of-the art cardiac facility for one-third of the “tower of power” overlooking the Ashley River. I wonder how many other “service lines” Roper had to shift to its new cardiac care facility to adjust for poor projections? (The comment that no taxpayer dollars were paid for MUSC’s new heart hospital is a total misrepresentation. Last I checked, the Federal Housing Authority, which underwrote construction of the MUSC hospital, is tied funded by taxpayers — from all across the country.) How’s the fundraising effort coming along to pay the balance on the new hospital? Wasn’t MUSC trying to raise $300 million? Tough times makes prospective contributors leery, weary and a little tight-fisted.
By One who knows more than you do about it on November 28th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
helenup — Sorry you feel that way. MUSC has hundreds of very fine physicians who in no way deserve your cynicism. Doctors must render quality, compassionate care first and foremost. The idea is to see more patients, not to create unnecessary laboratory tests. Medical necessity is a component of the billing formula, and if there is no justification for specific tests, they are disallowed. Unfortunately, MUSC must run like a business, like all hospitals. Otherwise, MUSC would not have been able to deliver over $100 million of uncompensated care last year.
saltysam — the external auditors would disagree with you about cooked books. But hey, you can base your beliefs on whatever you’d like.
By Another opinion on November 28th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
helenup: You are entitled to your opinion. What you have reported is not fact but rather your opinion. I know that many of the board members are in fact not retired and in fact take a financial loss from serving on this university board. The ones I know have very strong personalities and I do not think that they would let anyone, including Greenberg, run over them.
Based on your knowledge of MUSC I take it you are a current or former employee with a grudge. Doesn’t take a lot to figure that out!
By One who knows more than you do about it on November 28th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
wow roped. You’re confusing a lot of different facts, but you are making some important points. HUD is backing the bonds that financed the ART. The bond rate is more favorable because of that and because MUHA is a component agency of the State of South Carolina. Yet, it is also true that there is not a penny of state appropriations that funded construction of ART, and the bond payments will be made from future earnings… not from tuition or state appropriations.
The $300 million figure is the Capital Campaign goal for the university. Although donations for the hospital can be accepted through the Capital Campaign, the purpose of the Campaign is not to fund hospital construction. And as far as I know, the Campaign is doing very well, despite the economic downturn.
I don’t know the details of Roper’s financing of their heart center, but perhaps you should dig a little deeper to find out how much money their hospital has been losing the last few months… from what I hear from my private practice colleagues, it’s much worse than MUSC’s situation (which is improving). In any case, consumers can choose to receive their care at either place, and both provide quality care. Roper’s a fine hospital with many well-trained health care providers.
By MUSC Anon on November 28th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Does anyone know why ART so inadequately staffed by physicians at night?
Why are non-English-speaking Hispanic oncology patients admitted and then quickly discharged in the wee hours of the morning on a regular basis?
By Grey King on November 28th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Damn Will. I’m surprised you’re able to stop beating your girlfriend long enough to spew this much bullshit onto your shitty website. How much did Mark pay you to slam Ray like this?
All of this information completely fabricated. I guess no one ever told you the difference between ethical and unethical. Get a real job you fat son of a bitch.
And try out to stay out of jail this time.
-Grey King
By Grey King on November 28th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
You could learn a thing or two from a great guy like Ray Greenberg.
By helenup on November 28th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Dear Another Opinion, et al: thank you for clarifying that the trustees, like AIG and Baer Stearns directors, are ultimately responsible. While their personalities may appear strong on the surface, their expressed duties on behalf of the public and university have been unequivocally weak and irresponsible. And if they “take a loss” for serving as trustees, one might ponder what, on the back end, a few might be getting for their “service.” Watch out, fellas. More is known than you would ever have imagined, and no amount of smooth expression could possibly sugar-coat the bitter truth. So, keep rationalizing. (Opinions appear to be yours. You appear to dismiss a reading of the facts to suit your own defense. It’s done in court all the time.) Raise your right hand.
By helenup on November 28th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Grey — we are sure you have a few fine tidbits in your past, alleged and, in your case, real, probably. Getting a wee hot under the collar? Doesn’t truth sting? My goodness, if you believe that Greenberg is a model person for all to replicate, I have deep sympathy for your wife (or mistress — past ande present) or whatever employees you may have. My guess is that you lost your ass during the recent economic downturn, are owed a bunch of money from MUSC and others, and you are praying that things don’t fall apart faster than you could get your take. By the way, how’s the wife?
By Grey King on November 28th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
I’ll make sure to respond when you say something relevant to my original irrelevant comment “helenup”
By Countryboycansurvive on December 1st, 2008 at 11:53 am
Kudos to the column. Sunlight is sanitizing, by the way. Well done. Please also add to your well of information that most of the MDs at MUSC are deliberately lowballed in THESTATE salary database. As an MD at MUSC, my “reported” salary is about 80,000, but I make 6 times that because MUSC is willing to pay it. Many readers do not know that most MDs have it this way. Also, I only have an MD, which is just a professional degree (PhD is the highest degree…period), and I work fewer hours than my friends who are PhDs at MUSC, who work 70 to 80 hours per week and make 1/4 of what I make. They develop the medical and health tools (drugs, appraches, etc) that I eventually use in the clinic, and they get no credit and I just get paid even more. Not fair, but true. Thought a little honesty would be ok.
By James Betram on December 1st, 2008 at 10:11 pm
I agree with CountryBoycan survive. My salary as a M.D. at MUSC is less than that which is reportable in the state salary database(<30,000). I can assure you that I would never get out of bed and do the job that I do for that money. It is true to the UMA funds most physician salaries.
Clarification from another comment above, MUSC moved the oncology/cancer services from MUSC to ART to make the bottom line appear more favorable. Oncology was not moved due to increased demand. It was moved because it generates a lot of revenue. MUSC would not consider moving med/surg as it is a money loser! This is clearly a shell game. We will know soon how mismanaged MUSC has been in the opening of the ART. Look at Roper, it is successful in adding the same number of beds as the ART in less space at 1/2 the cost! Wait until East Cooper and Roper Mt. Pleasant open. Do you think they will suffer the same as the MUSC ART? I think it will be interesting to watch. As an insider at MUSC, I can tell you that up until recently, MUSC was planning a 100 million renovation of the Rutledge Tower (Old St. Francis Hospital). I mean this was just renovated prior to opening less than 8 years ago! MUSC has also purchased several plots of land in “strategic” locations to expand. Wonder what we will do with that property now? Also, the College of Dental Medicine is in its own building now. Can the administrator above tell me where the College of Medicine is located on the MUSC campus? I think not! There is no location for the College of Medicine. How embarassing for an employee to not know that. Maybe they have been in the office for too long!
By In response to the querulous James Betram on December 3rd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Dear James Betram (not your real name because you are not in the MUSC directory),
You have enough information to sound knowledgeable, but not enough to actually know what’s going on. The finances of MUHA are not broken down by facility (old hospital vs ART), so your reasoning about why oncology was moved to ART is faulty. MUHA was in the black last month, and most of us at MUSC hope that trend continues. If you were at the budget meeting that you so proudly advertised on another thread yesterday, you would have learned that national hospital census data dropped from March through November of this year, so the slow start in ART was not atypical. You also would have seen the cost comparisons between Roper’s 2006 expansion, ART and the two new planned East Cooper hospitals. Those numbers show that per square ft., the cost of ART is mid-range between Roper’s 2006 tower and the 2010-2011 hospitals in East Cooper. You also would have learned that the construction codes changed between the the times that the Roper Tower and ART facilities were designed, adding substantially to the cost of ART. You also would know that the cost of construction roared up at unprecedented rates between 2005 and 2008 due to the construction booms in China and India.
If you are “the MD” you seem to claim to be in another thread (and I don’t know many physicians who refer to themselves as “MDs”), then you also would know that ART has excess diagnostic capabilities so that extra beds can be added at a minimal cost. And if you want to compare Roper and MUHA, please do consider that MUHA needs to subsidize academic, research, and residency training missions that Roper does not.
To answer your question about the physical location of the College of Medicine… it is everywhere on campus. Which of the following buildings occupied nearly exclusively by COM would you like to name for the COM — BSB, CSB, Walton, CRI, STB, Rutledge Tower, IOP, or HCC (that’s well over 1 million square feet, by the way)? Perhaps the planned DDB or the Bioengineering Building? Oh, how about the old hospital and the ART (another million+ square feet), since few students from the other Colleges can sign on for rotations there because of all of the medical students on service? Do you begrudge the Colleges of Nursing and Pharmacy for occupying their ancient and tiny buildings? Or CHP’s new 40,000 square ft. twins? Or the College of Dental Medicine for finally (after 40 years of existence) having a 96,000 square ft. building of their own?
I have two suggestions for you. (1) If you have constructive ideas for how MUSC can be run better, why not talk to your dean instead of posting on an axe-grinder’s blog? (2) Consider going to work at Roper, where your income would depend entirely on your own efforts, and you wouldn’t need to trouble yourself with the academic administration, research, teaching, or resident education?
By mac on December 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Two suggestions: Greenberg leaves for Boston or someplace like it; MUSC gets a true leader, one who admits responsibilities for the raft of failures; and a leader who works with the governor and legislature in a more meaningful way to support this important institution; and Greenberg and other “top” officials take a REAL and substantial pay cut to offset the losses and deficits likely caused by they their collective fiscal and managerial abuses; and provide support to those who face lay-offs (i.e. Engineering and Facilities and lower level nursing staff), because without them this place will be filthy and broken down. The Joint Commission will be watching.
By Cindy McAllister on December 4th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Another comment to the out of touch reply posted above . . . it seems that MUSC leadership, after suffering a 15% state budget cut requiring the implementation of mandatory employee furloughs, plans to press ahead with putting up two additional buildings (Bioengineering / Drug Discovery) at an additional cost of 3.8 million per year to maintain and support. This is just reckless! The idea that we can afford a project like this is out of touch with basic fiscal responsibility. What I heard: we have the money, we must press ahead before the money disappears. What a poorly reasoned decision. First, it will be difficult if not impossible to attract funded (key word again is funded) researchers to these buildings if we are in financial distress as the University is currently facing. Second, our patients will have further problems with parking (most do not appreciate the idea of tower/garage parking and appreciate the G-Lot as it is. Third, I believe it was suggested that if we get in a situation where we cannot afford the upkeep of the new buildings, it might be possible to “mothball” some older buildings on campus and relocate to these sites. Seems like a stretch to me. . .
Finally, why not discuss ideas with the Dean? Well, this is an excellent question. The Dean of our college has not as of yet requested or met with the faculty to ask for opinions. I have not heard a presentation on our colleges approach to saving the budget. It is a great question. Obviously, you are really out of touch and do not understand how the information has not been disseminated to the faculty. In fact, we did not even get an email about the furlough plan. I learned of this from the media as usual. Would I go to the Dean with the Post and Courier to present my ideas? This is the current source of information with the exception of a few blogs. Remember that Blogs are for the free exchange of information. I think that if there were more free flow of information about the status of the University, this would not be a problem. For instance, the first communication from our leadership in a manner other than emails or letters was this week’s Town Hall Meeting. From the tone of your comments to James Betram, I can assume that you are an administrator at MUSC. I also know that your name is not “In response” as that is not in the MUSC directory.
By CATHY on December 4th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Is this the official communication blog for MUSC now? Most of the recent responders evidently attended the Town Hall forum on Tueday afternoon so why not complain then? Unfortunate that the dirty laundry isn’t kept on campus so we can all have a future by pulling together instead of this attack mania mode. Have any of you learned anything from the Excellence program? Check your notes, handouts and excellograms. Do any of you really believe this is going to help us through these tough times?
The Tuesday meeting was informative, respectful, and none of the animosity seen here was exhibited so who is really the weak Louis in this family, sorry Antoinette, but why not open questions there instead of this site?
Cindy, the dean does the best job possible communicating and it is up to the information seeker to find what info is available and it is plentiful. He hired an associate dean for COM communications, a well respected psychiatrist, and she manages the podcasts and the MUSC.edu website. Dr. Austin does a terrific job with both. That is the place you need to go for information from the dean, It even includes a video conversation with Dr. Greenberg explaining the budget cuts and furloughs to Dr. Austin. There is a separate heading for budget cuts. more information than anyone could want. It has helped those in my department understand the budgetary future. Might I point you in that direction instead of this site, you could find answers to a lot of questions – and it’s much more interesting for you as an employee and does not leave a nasty after taste.
Cathy
By Graham on December 4th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Recent History
May 2, 2008 — MUSC launched the public phase of a capital campaign to raise at least $300 million in private contributions by June 30, 2011.
During a kickoff ceremony held on the University’s campus, MUSC President Ray Greenberg, M.D., Ph.D., announced that the campaign, called “A Partnership of Promise,” already raised $207 million during its “quiet phase,” which began in July of 2004.
MUSC launched the campaign to fund projects and initiatives that otherwise would not be feasible with its current funding mechanisms. Although MUSC is a state-assisted institution, the state provides only 6.4 percent of the university’s annual operating budget
A Partnership of Promise aims to raise at least $300 million that will empower MUSC to enhance its overall academic, patient care and research environment. Specifically, the campaign will raise at least $100 million for endowed chairs and professorships; $100 million for new and upgraded facilities and equipment; $50 million for student scholarships and fellowships; and $50 million for academic centers and programs. Kickoff speaker Beverly Seinsheimer and her husband, Wally, made a million-dollar contribution that will build a preventive cardiology clinic in MUSC’s new hospital, Ashley River Tower.
The Seinsheimers had discussed an idea with MUSC physicians for a new clinic that would help prevent heart disease by promoting healthier lifestyle habits. While the need for such a center was urgent, the financial resources were nonexistent.
The Seinsheimer Clinic for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease is expected to open by the fall of 2008. When it does, it will offer comprehensive cardiovascular exams, nutrition assessments, counseling, rehabilitation, weight management, and exercise as means to improving cardiovascular health. “We’ve never felt richer.”
By Eric on December 4th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Cathy, reference the mass that assembled Tuesday to hear the latest “state of the university” BS; no one would have dared raise anything challenging or critical. El presidente was smooth, but cowardly, dripping honey on the hospital update, then passing off to Raymond, the Meek One, the really tough stuff. It was disappointing and not very helpful.
By James Betram on December 4th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
How much does an Associate Dean of Communication earn per year? How many days of employee furlough were needed to pay the Associate Dean of Communication? I agree with Cindy, there has been NO communication at MUSC except for the occasional letters suggesting that we turn off the lights and computers. I really hope that most of us do this when we can anyway. However, placeing serious hope on turing off lights and computers in the saving of jobs is creating false hope when we are creating new “Associate Deans of Communication”.
By Jerry on December 5th, 2008 at 9:41 am
When is the Board going to wake up and start looking at all of the waste and fraud happening on campus instead of simply rubber stamping every insane “wish list” of Ray Greenberg’s? Greenberg acts like a “dictator” not a leader.
When are we going to stop wasting millions on this crazy “Excellence” program that everyone knows is lunacy? If the highly paid few top administrators were capable of doing their jobs – there would be no need for outsiders to come in and do it for them. Every empolyee knows better than to put a negative comment on the sheet about the program, or God help them if they ask a question Ray Greenberg wouldn’t want asked
WHERE IS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS? WHERE IS THE OVERSIGHT? This place is a mess.
By uh-hem on December 5th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Has it occurred to anyone that the Board of Trustees is completely aware, and approving, of most everyting this man, Greenberg, has done? From the MUSC website, most of these useless old farts should be “retiring” from the board this month — and many have been on the board for years — but they are still around and will likely remain as long as our gasbag idiotic legislature approves of them. So let’s be real, people. The president will ask for all he wants, and as long as the board approves it, who’s to blame but the board? Then, who’s to blame but the legislature for re-upping these bastards; and, then, why the hell doesn’t Gov. Sanford step in? Bunch of worthless cowards, all of them.
By Jack on December 8th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Does anyone think for a moment the Board of Trustees is unaware of buying a building for the sole purpose of housing one person for a part-time job at a ridiculous salary to perform a service way out of the realm of expertise? Psychologist – web? HUH? That job application needs a review and so does the HR person who approved it. Buildings downtown are not cheap and Greenburg can’t write a check that size out of the office kitty for a good friend’s comfort and solitude without some process and approval. Add the stated salary and benefits to the price of housing and it is a repeat of Marie’s let them eat cake while people are starving.
I’m curious if one must pay parking for a part time job. That would be a real kicker to those poor $35,000/yr nurses who do pay to park. Certainly the Board is aware of this sensational folly meaning they approve of such behavior. Furloughs probably could be avoided but for the cost of this one little Greenburg luxury. I say off with their somethings and past time for all of them to retire. If any Board member has objected to any of this insanity let that one be the new president.
The morale buster – over the top titles and tenure to a web person – is a stab in the heart to the doctors who see patients, perform research and write academic papers for the betterment of medicine and MUSC. What did an earlier blogger report this woman wrote – how to get the man and your love novels? Sound like qualification to anyone else? Years of hard work and dedication skipped by one who knows how to find love to tenure and a title of assistant dean is one smart woman and one stupid dean. I’m a submarine captain if this is leadership. I’m not.
Boggles the mind to imagine what else is going on. We have heard of abuse of power, abuse of process, abuse of taxpayers’ funds and state equipment, but far and away the most egregious of all is the abuse of many and the extreme favors to few. A legislative audit is screaming for attention, Columbia, before the evidence disapears.
I can hear paper shredders and sharpening pencils all the way to Edisto.
Jack
By Nigel on December 8th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Cheers, Jack! Cheers to all of you who have had the guts to express all that is wrong at this institution that covers for a teaching hospital. Timing could not have been better for the president and his co-conspirators who had wasted countless millions of dollars during the past several years without protest from the board of “trustees,” or from diligent oversight, inquiry and reporting of state auditors or professional accounting firms. The scandal could grow much deeper, which likely is why no one in the legislature or on the board has the willingness to seek correction of it — and in the light of day. And the president hasn’t address a word of it, other than to seek out the individuals he suspects as “causing him such troubles.” He is pitiful, insipid individual whom I wouldn’t even classify as a man.
By gpfs on December 13th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Who doesn’t love to Monday morning quarterback and backseat drive ?
Like every employee everywhere, Dr. Greenberg’s performance needs to be reviewed. Gossip over his marriage and personal slights are irrelevant distractions and reflect personal pettiness. Things are never as simple as the “peanut gallery” likes to mince them down to be.
Everyone likes to ride the gravy train… until the gravy train slows or crashes- then it becomes every man for himself! MUSC like just about every other medical institution and business in this country is faced with financial issues that have not been seen in generations. Government funding is just a small portion of resources. Insurance reimbursements are a mess and constantly declining. Individuals have less to spend on everything including healthcare. The bank failures alone are making a huge negative impact on the South Carolina and Charleston economies. Like a lot of businesses, MUSC probably should not have hired so many people and taken on so many building projects when times were good. Like many businesses…. the economy is now shifted so that most businesses are downsizing to the essentials.
Just as when the Carolina and Clemson football coaches are paid millions to do their jobs, it is not that at face value their jobs are doing that much to mankind or education. But those successful programs elevate the schools to ultimately attract money, students and professors at a much higher level. Otherwise, one could argue that those football program monies are really better spent on actually educating South Carolina kids – books, teachers, computers! Many things flow from a successful football program and at an institution like MUSC, many things from the facilities, technology and top personnel. Nobody wants to be treated by a doctor from a LOW medical school with little current technology. We all want top docs from top training!
Dr. Greenberg is paid on par to his peers running similar institutions. In fact, his background and knowledge could net him buckets more money. Healthcare is one of the most complex businesses that there exists. It is not a business that just anyone can comprehend. MUSC also provides an incredibly generous amount of indigent care. Every day, all day there are people getting care who do not pay a cent because they don’t have it. This is great and essential to the community and the state. Perhaps people in South Carolina don’t realize how many areas across the country do not have ANY convenient indigent care and certainly not at an institution with state of the art technology and highly trained medical professionals. There are many communities where doctors don’t take ANY Medicaid patients and hospitals that turn ambulances around if the patient doesn’t have “good” insurance. Ultimately, poor healthcare deteriorates the entire area and economy.
Probably most people on this blog have themselves benefitted from this MUSC process and the business that has flowed from MUSC. Directly or indirectly. Including whoever started this blog. Directly or indirectly through the university, hospital, political game or residual business that flows from those entities.
No doubt, MUSC like every other institution, business, political office needs to be shorn up. I would bet that if in all of these bloggers, there are few who have NEVER attended an event or had a “perk” at taxpayer or shareholder expense. Especially those of you who have held political posts or been part of political staffs.
Most importantly, this public airing of personal issues is going to be harmful to MUSC, South Carolina and the healthcare of South Carolina citizens. Availability to high quality healthcare, recruitment of the best and brightest ( ( not necessarily the most likable ) and retention are essential to quality of life for citizens and an economy. It takes, money and even perks. Top recruitment also requires a great “atmosphere” for learning and for accomplishment. Public flogging and mudslinging might feel good and give some kind of political payback, but you will ultimately harm everyone at MUSC ( from janitorial staff on up ) and South Carolina as a whole. South Carolina is recognized by many as having some of the poorest educational systems in the country. Shredding your medical university and doing anything other than promoting it as a great place will hurt recruitment of top students, physicians and staff. It will also hurt the essential raising of private funds as MUSC is only partially government funded.
By Whippersnapper on December 13th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Damn well said, GPFS.
By Carl on December 13th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
gpfs – Idealistic and wish it were true but it’s not. Remember the French and Russian revolutions? Dr. Greenberg’s salary is way above those running similar institutions. And they spend more than three days a week at their job.
As far as comments in this column are concerned – thank God for Will Folks because at least we have a venue to expose the truth. The newspapers controlled by the “good old boys” and over the hill Board of Directors won’t correct the problems. Someone has to. Thanks again – Will – for this site.
By Whippersnapper on December 14th, 2008 at 12:55 am
This is a tough crowd.
By Jerry R on December 15th, 2008 at 2:27 am
I wonder what state or country Dr. Greenberg is in right now. Doubt it’s South Carolina.
By Whippersnapper on December 15th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
And is MUSC picking up the expenses for whatever “necessary” trip Dr. Greenberg is currently enjoying?
By Albert on December 16th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Why is this guy so apparently rotten that even when he visits his ailing mother that he is blasted with such disdain. Although I have heard that he would give up his own mother for a dollar, surely there is some sentiment there. People, it’s Christmas. Give it a break, even for Dr. Scrooge.