Several prior studies, including those in Illinois and Colorado, relevant to the potential merger of an academic health center such as UMB and another research university such as UMCP were organized around the analysis of and responses to a series of questions that addressed the benefits and risks of a merger.
We tested the “questions” approach in two ways. First, we consulted four USM presidents and a number of senior officers at several institutions (presidents Boesch, Hrabowski, Loh, Perman). Our discussions yielded several perspectives on the study in general, and informed the questions that might be developed. Second, there are questions implicit in the legislative language, and this informed the candidate questions included in this planning document. For example, the language speaks to an analysis of “ ... the advantages and disadvantages of merging UMCP and UMB under a single university and make a determination if such a merger is beneficial to the institutions involved and the University System of Maryland as a whole.” We also examined the criteria for measuring the results or “responses” to the questions. Based upon our discussions with the institutional leadership we determined that relevant and valid criteria for measuring answers to the questions could be found in institutional mission statements and strategic plans. We also incorporated into the questions leadership, organizational, and geographic criteria, and incorporated criteria related to earlier merger experiences involving a public academic health center and another public research university into the analysis both nationally and internationally.
The above described approach was well received by the presidents mentioned above. It is the chancellor’s recommendation to the board that we follow the “questions” approach. We have already circulated the candidate questions that follow to institutional leadership for their further advice and comment. We will discuss this issue with the entire Council of System Presidents (CUSP) at its June meeting. We have also identified the various aspects of the overall study process; related issues are presented in Section IV. Again, we seek to create a methodology that is thorough and complete. We also seek a Board process that will be recognized as objective and transparent by the stakeholders. The candidate questions (Section III) follow.