Johnite.net

...home of the St. Johns Medical College Community

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home

Dr Mohan's response to post on this website

E-mail Print PDF

I am filled with a burning sense of being wronged by a post that appeared in Johnite.net in my name, but not posted by me! It took me completely by surprise. I could only add a “comment” on the post as my immediate response. I realize now, after some deep reflection, that I need to say some things very clearly. The present post is all my own

The first thing is something Anura Kurpad brought to my attention this afternoon, forthright as he always is – I had been a part of the core committee myself, and yet it appeared that I was only pointing fingers others. I immediately saw the point. So, let it not be thought that I am shirking from accepting some responsibility myself. Thank you, Anura, for doing exactly what a good friend should do.

A couple of people met me, and a few messaged me, “complimenting” me for the write-up. I feel no sense of achievement about the write-up. People have sought to make it sound like some glass ceiling had been broken. There was no glass ceiling. There is no case for compliments.

When viewed in the public domain, the write-up looks like a litany against the deeds of some people with malevolent intent. The narrative is not about persons – it is about the failure of a system. I would like everybody to understand this, before they begin to point fingers, or engage in the familiar nudge-nudge wink-wink routine. Let not voyeurism take the place of soul-searching. The questions we honestly need to ask ourselves is whether we would have done anything any differently if we were doing them, and whether we would feel the same sangfroid if we were the persons being blamed. I am afraid that the answer to both questions is in the negative. These are human foibles, and we are as vulnerable to them as anybody could be. No need to place unnecessary burdens on peoples’ conscience with a touch of righteousness.

The issues and actions that form the substance of that post could be part of the organizational behavior of any organization. If anything, there is a warning in it for those of us working with the Alumni Association (and other organisations in their private capacities) to ensure that our colleagues have the support to be correct in their actions. The sort of advice that Anura gave me today is a good example. We should strive even more now to ensure rectitude and credibility.

I understand, again from what people have told me, that the write up has demoralized alumni who are/were potential donors, and there is some kind of movement to withhold contributions to any cause associated with St John’s. This would be gross, inappropriate and counterproductive overreach. The task before us is to ensure that the donations are utilized well, and their benefits maximized. There are plenty of campus causes that require continual support from the Alumni – ­Student scholarships, Student placement, faculty exchanges, re-skilling of faculty, research, innovations and community initiatives. I would strongly urge those that can give to do so generously, but ensuring that the cause they are donating for is served. Accountability must be both achieved and sought for. Do not extend a cold hand.

I would like to acknowledge the many non-alumni among the donors, including faculty and religious houses. We should appreciate them for their generosity. We usually reserve our accolades to alumni, leaving the former out. Their sacrifices for St John’s are precious. There are also a few who have been repeatedly but silently giving of their hard earned monies, and some more, to St John’s. They shun any public acknowledgement, and often a private one too. Let us be grateful to them.

As a pioneer batch member wrote in, nothing could be sweeter than corrections happening rapidly, and the establishment of systems to avoid recurrence of such issues.

A. Mohan

 

 

 

 

An Update on the Knowledge Centre

E-mail Print PDF

 

An update on the “Knowledge Centre”
Preamble
The story of the blind men and the elephant is all too familiar; the story of the “Knowledge centre” at St John’s bears similarity to the elephant story, even if the analogy is only applicable to the concept.
It was in the mid-2000’s that concept was first floated. It was inspired, we were told, by similar centres that existed in some institutions of international repute. To one proponent, it was a centre for innovation. To another, it was a to be a skills-training centre. To a third, it was to be a place for cutting-edge research. To yet another, it was to be a state-of-art digital library with multimedia rooms, teleconferencing, telemedicine and web-based learning & communication. IN course of time, as the Golden Jubilee approached, it was expropriated as the Golden Jubilee commemorative – first by the Alumni Association, and later by the management.
It was sometime in early 2008, or so, that this was shared with the staff & local alumni at a meeting chaired by the then Director. Details were not forthcoming, but there was an impression that brainstorming at the back-end would give concrete shape to the proposition, and the details would be forthcoming in due course. Two things stand out in memory, though: 1) the then Dean was confident that the Alumni would be raise the funds for the venture – a figure of USD Two hundred thousand would be the targer, and 2) another senior functionary of the institution declared that the alumni would never disappoint, and the sceptics in the audience should temper their scepticism.
In due course, a new team of Director & Associate Directors took office. At some point, the new team felt that the “full potential” of St John’s was not being realised, and the institution was “stunted” by it’s limited annual intake of only 60 undergraduate medical students. St John’s “had not grown with the times”, and therefore, there was a need to revisit the intake. Numbers were crunched, and it was concluded that with the existing staff an intake of 150 students annually could be achieved. The only constraints would be the classrooms and similar “physical” facilities. The original building plan was revisited – and it was found that that the completed Robert Koch Bhavan had been visualised as a “H” shaped building, and therefore another wing could be added perpendicular to the existing north-south wing at its southern end. It was conceived that this new structure would accommodate the additional infrastructure required for the proposed yearly intake of 150 undergraduate medical students, and the second floor of this structure would house the “Knowledge Centre”.
A team from what was then the “Medical education cell” was asked to give inputs on the requirements for the “Knowledge centre”. Considerable work was put in, and the space requirements were computed. It is clear from this that while some things were agreed upon, the contours of the whole project were as yet unclear, and a great deal of iteration continued to be under way. Broadly, it was decided that the “Knowledge Centre” would have the following:
  • A “basic skills” section for undergraduate training
  • An “advanced skills” section for postgraduate training
  • A hi-tech simulation centre for highly specialised training needs
  • A cadaver dissection lab
  • A demonstration room
  • A lecture-cum-conference hall
  • A debriefing room
  • A telemedicine facility for rural doctors & sister-doctors
  • An E-learning lab
  • A digital library & conference rooms for web-conferencing
  • Network connectivity for multiple workstations, and for all the above
  • Plug-and-play connectivity for devices that may be added on in future
  • Information repository & back-up server(s) – including a virtual I.T. environment
  • Sluice, Storage, Utility, Network, Janitor & Support facilities
It was also clear that as architectural designs were as yet to be developed, inputs regarding the space requirements would be provided to the architect(s) for incorporation in the building design.
Preparatory work
In preparation for the setting up of the centre, an team consisting of faculty from the Medical Education Department and a couple of others was tasked with providing the specific inputs required – equipment, technology, layout, infrastructure, spacing, etc. Members of the team visited other institutions that had similar facilities, and interacted with their academic & managerial staff to understand both the physical facilities and the operational details. Information was obtained on the source of manikins, simulators, etc., and quotations were obtained. Financial projections were made, albeit as estimates.
The architect for the project had been identified, and a series of meetings were held to finalise the designs & drawings. At this point, I may mention that based on the drawings prepared by the architect, different areas were identified for attracting donations – with naming privileges extended to the donors. The construction work started in early 2013, so that there would be some progress to show to the alumni who were attending the Golden Jubilee celebrations.
August 2013, and later
In August 2013, a day prior to the launch of the Golden Jubilee celebrations, a meeting took place at which George Varghese, Marian Kamath, Venkatanarayan, Salim Yusuf, Brian Pereira & Jovita Peiris Crasta were present, representing the NA Chapter alumni; Kishore Murthy, Thelma Rodrigues Narayan, Dominic Misquith and myself were invited to attend as representatives of local alumni (not as the Alumni Association representatives). Fr Glen Mascarenhas was representing the management. I am not sure if the minutes have been recorded by anybody, or circulated.
Salim Yusuf had been selected to speak on behalf of the NA Chapter, and he began the discussion with some of the thoughts overseas alumni had in general about the practices of the incumbent management of St John’s, and how that was coming in the way of more donors supporting various activities in the Institution. In particular, he referred to the “opaque” manner in which donations were being handled, with everything going into the CBCI accounts – and not into separate accounts in the name of the cause for which the donation had been made. He, George Varghese & Jovita Crasta forcefully argued for the St John’s management to be more “open” in these matters, and follow good practices in handling donations. There appeared to be unanimity in both the grouse voiced, and the appeal made. The team repeatedly referred to the need for a mechanism for handling donations and their utilisation which would also include alumni.
Fr Glen Mascarenhas assured everybody that there had been no “misuse” of any donation in his watch (wonder what he was hinting at, though!). He was unable to explain why different accounts did not exist for each cause, and no statement of utilisation had ever been sent to the donors. He only said that the “Bishops” had their own way of looking at things, and “he would do his utmost to be transparent, and reform some of the practices”. Nobody present was satisfied, and he excused himself saying he had to attend a meeting with some Bishops. The meeting ended inconclusively.
At this juncture one may actually wonder why the Alumni Association office-bearers were not part of these discussions, or even activity related to the Knowledge Centre. By December 2011, stung by the lack of any progress in preparations for the Golden Jubilee, the responsibility for organising the Jubilee was taken over by the management from the Alumni Association, and a multi-functional core-committee with intramural and extramural representatives was set up to organise the Jubilee. One of the “sub-committees” of this group, headed by Swarnarekha Bhat, was tasked with developing the “Clinical Skills Lab”. Since much of the background work had been done by the same group, the only thing that remained to be done was to launch the skills lab, pending construction of the permanent facility.
That launch was expected to take place at a “Simulation workshop” to be held in September 2013, when Kumar Belani and his team from University of Minnesota would be in Bangalore. That workshop never took place – as a consequence of mischief and sabotage – thanks to some malevolence on the part of one of the leading lights of the Medical Education department who had a running ego-clash with Swarnarekha Bhat. Swarnarekha met Prem Pais, the then Dean, and withdrew from the project in order that peace may reign and progress be made.
This happened at a rather poignantly critical juncture in the history of St John’s: The incumbent Dean, Prem Pais, had been told that his tenure would end in December 2013 (i.e. in 3 months’ time). The Director Fr Lawrence had also been told that his tenure would come to an end as scheduled in 2014. Fr Mathew Kattiyangal, the College administrator had asked to be relieved by March 2014 as he could not deliver on his responsibilities due to interference and obstruction from his notional superiors in the institution. This has largely to do with the construction of the new block.
Looking back, it appears that the entire exercise between March 2012 and August 2013 had been undertaken to present a “good face” to the alumni attending the Jubilee. Post-August 2013, serious issues cropped between the Architect (the leading architect of Bangalore, suggested by Ranga Nayak) and Fr Glen Mascarenhas. Fr Glen refused to pay the architect his fees, claiming that “his understanding was that the Architect would do the work free of cost”. This dispute ran for a long time, and is as yet not settled. Fr Glen also started making numerous ad-hoc changes to the plans, which annoyed the architect no end. He stopped supervising the construction and his participation now is only to the extent that he hands over drawings as and when required.
The entire layout of the second-floor of the building has been changed; demolitions were carried out to already constructed structures and the estimated loss is over Rupees Forty-five lakhs. These alterations were ostensibly carried out in the watch of the Dean Srinivasan, Vice-dean Sandhya Avadhany and Fr Glen Mascarenhas. The architect was not consulted as these were thought to be “internal changes” not requiring any approval or input from the architect.
Finance
The financial proposals for the block were presented to the Governing Board between September 2011 and March 2012, and approved. However, no specific allocation was made for the “Skills lab”, and a verbal assurance was given that Rupees One Crore would be initially released for purchase of simulators & manikins. When the September 2013 workshop led by Kumar Belani & his Minnesota team did not take place (refer above), this matter never came up again. As of now no one is any wiser about how much money has been allocated, and how much will eventually be spent and for what.
The donations from Alumni and others towards various named privileges were specifically for certain areas of the “Knowledge centre” which has not come up.
Epilogue
Post-September 2013, there was no “driver” for the project. The incumbent Dean knew he was on his way out, and took no further interest. The incumbent Director knew he was on his way out and lost all interest in the project. The incumbent College administrator had already asked to move out, and had washed his hands off the project. The Core committee for the Golden Jubilee scarcely met, and no further progress was reported by the management on the project. The project was being handled by Fr Glen – perhaps, with inputs the new Dean and his team. The new Director, to the best of my knowledge, has not brought this matter up in public.
To sum-up, there is now no “Knowledge Centre” – no body, no face, no soul, no spirit, no master. It is perhaps a residual thought in the minds of some who took it to heart, and hoped for something good to come up. It may cease to be even that in a couple of years’ time.
 

Link to Dr Preethi John's Book

E-mail Print PDF
Image result for dr preethi john
It has information about a book that I compiled - would be nice for surgeons from St. John's to read, especially any women - and perhaps other specialties too..thanks!
-Preeti
   

Information and questions answered about the student scholarships

E-mail Print PDF
The above picture is one of the White Coat  Ceremony of the new incoming batch of freshmen of Saint John's batch of 2015.
The AA committee has ratified that they will under their leadership be starting a corpus to provide scholarships for five incoming students who are bright but cannot afford the fee structure of the medical college.
Below are some of the questions that may be of interest to any Johnite or any one else who wishes to support this cause.The AA now has a standing ,that donations will be characterized under 8O G so folks in India or those who donate in rupees could avail of the tax advantage and they are also  working hard to obtain an FRCA status so folks in the US and other places can also obtain a tax advantage.(as of today has not happened hopefully will soon)
This year a student who secured 68 rank in the CET and was admitted into the class of 2015 declined to register with Saint Johns as he could not afford the fees.It is causes such as this  of the young man should question the alumni if our old beloved institution is becoming a place only where the rich and smart can thrive.If you wish to make it a school where one or five students who are the bright and are willing to work hard and who make the grade and who cannot afford the fee structure should be admitted,then this is something that you should support with all your heart in whichever currency you wish to donate.If you wish to ask more questions please do they will be answered.
1:What is the amount you wish to achieve.?

Reaching 2.5 Crore INR is the initial objective/goal for the USP (unique scholarship plan). This Principal will be enough to cover the fees of one student for 5 years or 5 students for 1 year each. We can add onto it as we progress down the years.
2.If they pledge is there a time limit when they can give the AA the amount ..is there a time frame to make the donation.?

Currently no time frame set....up to the individual. However, we have to ensure the money is in our bank account before December of the calendar year so that we can send an intimation to the college management/CBCI to include it in their "prospectus" so that incoming students or aspiring Johnites are made aware that there is such a merit cum means scholarship that they can apply for it (we find a lot of good students not joining SJMC after making it through the interviews et al simply because their parents cannot bear the burden of the education/fee structure @ st johns & hence opt for other colleges).
Therefore, the Faster we raise this corpus, the faster we can implement it.
3 What is the criteria the AA will use to give the deserving student the scholarship money.?

Criteria will be Merit Cum Means...will be set by the "stakeholders" (includes donors, AA executives & management) ONLY after the corpus has been raised.
4 Once a student get the scholarship does he have to perform at a certain level to keep getting the scholarship in the subsequent years.

Yes...there is proposed to be an "ongoing" monitoring program /system in place where a base minimum criteria is to be set to claim scholarship for the next year so the standard has to be maintained else, it will be revoked.
5 if a deserving student gets the money till they graduate  then how do they repay the institution for the gift they got through the AA scholarship.

We propose to "link" the acceptance of the scholarship to a "compulsory" honouring of the erstwhile 'bond' or Rural Outreach for the specified 2 yrs past completion of MBBS & we may also put in other riders' (as decided upon by the committee instituted) to ensure they can "pay it forward" & suggestions most welcome.
 


Page 4 of 87