State Stem Cell Agency Facilities Working Group Search Committee Transcript 3/16/05

This is an uncertified HTML copy of the transcript.  Click here for a certified PDF transcript.




California State Stem Cell Agency



REGULAR MEETING 3/16/05

BEFORE THE
SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL RESEARCH FACILITIES
WORKING GROUP SEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
INDEPENDENT CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
TO THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE
LOCATION: CITY OF HOPE
ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM
NEEDLEMAN BUILDING
1500 EAST DUARTE ROAD
DUARTE, CALIFORNIA

UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER CAMPUS
SUITE 3010A, 3RD FLOOR
ELLISON BUILDING
4860 Y STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

STANFORD UNIVERSITY
S362
318 CAMPUS DRIVE WEST
STANFORD, CALIFORNIA

BURNHAM INSTITUTE
ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM
BUILDING 4
10901 N. TORREY PINES ROAD
LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA

NUVELO, INC.
GENETICS ROOM
675 ALMANOR AVENUE
SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA

DATE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2005
1:00 P.M.
REPORTER: MARIANNE SEGALLA
BRS FILE NO: 72038
DUARTE, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2005
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. THIS IS MIKE FRIEDMAN, MELISSA KING, AND OUR TRANSCRIPTIONIST SPEAKING FROM DUARTE, CALIFORNIA.
MS. KING: BOB?
MS. FRAMDANA: WE'RE HERE.
MS. KING: OKAY. GREAT. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE QUITE A CROWD AT STANFORD.
MS. FRAMDANA: WE'RE HERE.
MS. KING: OKAY.
MS. FRAMDANA: HELLO.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: HELLO.
MS. FRAMDANA: HI, THIS IS NICOLE FRAMDANA, BOB KLEIN'S ASSISTANT.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: GREAT. WE WILL A --
MS. KING: WHO ELSE IS ON THE LINE? WE KNOW WE'VE GOT STANFORD. DO WE HAVE UC DAVIS?
MS. CARRASCO: YES. DR. POMEROY SHOULD BE HERE ANY MINUTE NOW.
MS. KING: GREAT.
MS. CARRASCO: I'M STAFFING THE MEETING. THIS IS SUSAN.
MS. KING: HI, SUSAN. AND DO WE HAVE DR. LOVE AT NUVELO? I'LL TAKE ROLL CALL IN A MINUTE. I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF WE HAVE EVERYBODY ON THE LINE.
DR. LOVE: YES, I'M HERE.
MS. KING: GREAT. OKAY. AND DO WE HAVE BURNHAM ON THE LINE?
SPEAKER: YES.
MS. KING: EXCELLENT. OKAY.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WONDERFUL. WE'LL WAIT, I BELIEVE -- WELL, I HAVE 1 O'CLOCK, SO LET'S GET STARTED. MELISSA, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
MS. KING: ABSOLUTELY. MICHAEL FRIEDMAN?
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: HERE.
MS. KING: BOB KLEIN?
MR. KLEIN: HERE.
MS. KING: TED LOVE?
DR. LOVE: HERE.
MS. KING: FRANCISCO PRIETO? JOHN REED?
SPEAKER: HE'LL BE HERE MOMENTARILY. HE'LL BE HERE.
MS. KING: OKAY. GAYLE WILSON? AND CLAIRE POMEROY?
DR. POMEROY: HERE.
MS. KING: OKAY. GREAT. SO IS DR. PRIETO PLANNING TO JOIN IN UC DAVIS, AND HE'S JUST NOT THERE YET?
DR. POMEROY: THAT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING.
MS. KING: OKAY. GREAT.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: VERY GOOD. AND YOU'LL JUST TELL US WHEN HE JOINS US. I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR ACCOMMODATING THIS SCHEDULE. I KNOW THAT YOU'VE GOT A BUSY SCHEDULE, AND IT'S HARD TO FIT THIS MEETING IN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR -- AGAIN, THIS DISTRIBUTED METHOD OF MEETINGS IS SO MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE AND CONVENIENT. IT'S A GREAT PLEASURE, AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE. WE WILL, AS WE HAVE BEFORE, WORK EXTRA SPECIAL HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COMPLY WITH ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS AND EXPECTATIONS.
I WILL REMIND THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO MAY BE SITTING AT SOME OF THE OTHER SITES. AS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME AND APPRECIATED. YOU WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT AT EACH POINT OF DISCUSSION. AND SO YOU'LL HAVE MULTIPLE CHANCES TO SPEAK. YOU'RE INVITED TO GIVE US YOUR NAME, BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARY SHOULD YOU CHOOSE NOT TO.
I WOULD THOUGH ASK, THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR USUAL, OUR TRADITIONAL RULES, THAT YOU LIMIT TO COMMENTS, PLEASE, TO THREE MINUTES OR SO TO ALLOW ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP TO PLEASE HAVE A CHANCE TO ADEQUATELY CONVEY THEIR PERSPECTIVE. THAT HAS NEVER BEEN A PROBLEM IN THE PAST, AND I'M SURE THAT IT WON'T BE TODAY, BUT I JUST MENTION THAT.
SO WHY DON'T BE BEGIN. I BELIEVE YOU EACH HAVE PACKETS OF INFORMATION. THERE ARE THREE PRINCIPAL TOPICS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING TODAY. AND THERE ARE THREE DOCUMENTS THAT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE AT THE VARIOUS SITES. THE FIRST IS THE PROPOSED TIMELINES FOR THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP NOMINATION PROCESS. THE SECOND, THE PROPOSED SCORING SYSTEM FOR THE REAL ESTATE SPECIALIST CANDIDATES. THE THIRD IS A DRAFT WORKSHEET FOR USE DURING THE SCREENING PROCESS, THE ACTUAL INTERVIEWS THAT WILL TAKE PLACE.
AND, OBVIOUSLY, DISCUSSION AND COMMENTS ARE WELCOME ON ALL OF THESE THINGS. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, IF I MAY, IS SIMPLY TO BEGIN WITH THE FIRST TOPIC ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS THE PROPOSED TIMELINES FOR THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP.
MELISSA, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS YOU WANT TO MAKE ABOUT THIS?
MS. KING: YES, ABSOLUTELY. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE END OF THE TIMELINE, AND THIS IS LABELED PROPOSED TIMELINE FOR FACILITIES WORKING GROUP NOMINATION PROCESS, AGENDA ITEM NO. 3. IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 3, IT SAYS THAT WE WOULD SEEK TO HAVE THE COMMITTEE READY TO PRESENT ITS CANDIDATES TO THE FULL ICOC ITS SLATE OF CANDIDATES FOR THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP TO THE FULL ICOC AT THE JULY 12TH MEETING.
AND ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THAT, WE COULD POTENTIALLY DO IT SOONER, BUT ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THAT IS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT STAGGERING THE DIFFERENT WORKING GROUP/SUBCOMMITTEES SLATE RECOMMENDATIONS SO THAT NOT -- THERE'S NEVER AN ICOC MEETING AT WHICH TWO OF THOSE ARE HAPPENING BECAUSE THEY MIGHT TAKE LONG DISCUSSION TIMES. SO WE'RE PLANNING TO DO IT FOR THE JULY 12TH MEETING. AND THERE'S FLEXIBILITY. IF STANDARDS AND GRANTS DO THEIRS SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, AND WE WANTED TO DO OURS IN JUNE, WE COULD DO THAT. WE JUST NEED TO STEP UP THE TIMELINE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT IN THERE BECAUSE I KNOW THEY ARE SEEKING TO DO THEIRS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BUT THEN AGAIN, IT'S ALREADY MARCH AND SOON TO BE APRIL. SO I --
MR. KLEIN: MELISSA, ISN'T THAT ALSO -- THIS IS BOB KLEIN -- ISN'T THAT ALSO BECAUSE THE PROPOSED SCHEDULING ASSUMES THAT THE GRANTS AND STANDARDS WOULD MOVE FORWARD EARLIER THAN FACILITIES BECAUSE OF THE CORE RELATIONSHIP OF THE INFORMATION FROM THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP AS TO WHERE THE DEMAND IS COMING FROM IT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE FACILITIES GROUP, THE PETITION.
MS. KING: YEAH.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. IN FACT, AND JUST TO RESTATE, WHAT WE HAD MENTIONED AT A PREVIOUS MEETING. BECAUSE FACILITIES WILL BE DRIVEN BY THE SCIENCE, WE WANTED TO HAVE THE OTHER TWO WORKING GROUPS COMPLETE THEIR BUSINESS BEFORE WE BEGIN THE PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING FACILITIES, GRANTING MECHANISMS, AND SO FORTH. SO YOU'RE QUITE CORRECT IN THAT, AND THAT WAS A CONSCIOUS DECISION.
I ALSO THINK, CANDIDLY, THAT THERE'S ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY HERE, WHICH IS THAT THEIR LEARNINGS FROM THE OTHER TWO WORKING GROUPS THAT WE CAN INCORPORATE TO MAKE OUR PROCESS EVEN MORE EFFICIENT. GIVEN THE RECOGNITION OF HOW MUCH, ESPECIALLY OUR PATIENT ADVOCATE REPRESENTATIVES, WILL BE DOING, ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO MAKE THE PROCESS MORE EFFICIENT OR STREAMLINED WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE QUALITY OR THE TRANSPARENCY TO SOMETHING THAT WE'D LIKE TO STRIVE FOR, SO THAT WAS ANOTHER CONSIDERATION.
BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMENT.
DR. REED: I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW -- JOHN REED HERE. I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW I HAVE JOINED THE CALL A FEW MINUTES AGO.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU, JOHN. VERY GOOD TO HAVE YOU HERE, OR THERE, WHEREVER YOU ARE, METAPHORICALLY HERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S VERY GOOD.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS -- YOU HAVE ALL HAD A CHANCE TO READ THIS. I SEE LITTLE REASON TO ACTUALLY WALK THROUGH THIS UNLESS A MEMBER OF THE WORKING GROUP WISHES TO DO SO. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO AT THIS POINT, IF IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH ALL THE MEMBERS, IS TO ASK, PLEASE, FOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND DISCUSSION. AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, IF I MAY, IS JUST TO PROCEED IN ORDER. AND WHAT WE'LL DO IS HAVE A ROUND OF COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION FROM THE MEMBERS. AND THEN, WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER ROUND OF DISCUSSION FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO MIGHT BE PRESENT.
SO IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE, COULD I PLEASE ASK JOHN REED, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO RAISE ABOUT THE TIMELINE? THAT'S THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION AT THIS MOMENT.
DR. REED: I HAVE NONE. THERE'S ONE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC HERE, GENE LORY. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO. WE'RE GOOD HERE IN SAN DIEGO.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. COULD I ASK AT UC DAVIS, CLAIRE OR FRANCISCO, ANY COMMENTS,DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS?
DR. POMEROY: NO QUESTIONS.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: COULD I ASK, DR. LOVE, ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE?
DR. LOVE: YES. I ALSO THINK -- THERE ARE NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE. SO IT'S JUST ME.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OKAY.
DR. LOVE: I GUESS MY QUESTION HAS ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT NO MATERIAL ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE JULY 12TH DATE. IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S NOT ONLY THAT, THERE'S PROBABLY AN ADVANTAGE TO DELAYING US TO THAT DATE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I THINK THAT'S AT LEAST MY ANALYSIS, TED. I THINK THAT THE OTHER POINT, THOUGH, THAT MELISSA RAISED IS IF FOR SOME REASON THIS WHOLE PROCESS GOES MUCH MORE QUICKLY, WE'RE NOT ADVERSE TO MOVING IT AHEAD. BUT I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO SET DEADLINES FOR OURSELVES SO THAT WE DON'T -- WE DON'T GET SLIPPAGE.
DR. LOVE: THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: CAN I ASK IF AT STANFORD THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, OR POINTS OF DISCUSSION?
MR. KLEIN: THIS IS BOB KLEIN. I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL POINTS OR COMMENTS. I THINK THAT THERE IS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC HERE WHO HAS AN INFORMATIONAL QUESTION.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT WOULD BE GOOD. COULD WE INVITE, THEN, THE PUBLIC TO MAKE COMMENTS, AND WE'LL BEGIN AT STANFORD, PLEASE.
MR. REED: YEAH, THIS IS DON REED. I JUST MISSED SOMETHING EARLIER. ONE OF THE -- YOU SAID ONE OF THE MEETINGS WAS MOVED FORWARD, THE TIMELINE. I'M TAKING NOTES BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE ISN'T HERE. THE MEETING WAS MOVED FORWARD?
MS. KING: NO. ACTUALLY, WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, DON, THIS IS MELISSA, IS JUST THAT WE HAVE SET A GOAL IN THIS TIMELINE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING FOR THIS SUBCOMMITTEE TO HAVE ITS CANDIDATE SLATE READY TO RECOMMEND TO THE FULL ICOC BY JULY 12TH. HOWEVER, WE COULD PROBABLY STEP THAT UP AND MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION IN JUNE IF THE GRANTS AND STANDARDS WORKING GROUP SEARCH SUBCOMMITTEES HAVE MADE THEIR SLATE RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE THE JUNE ICOC MEETING, WHICH BOTH OF THEM ARE WORKING TOWARD DOING, BUT I'M NOT YET CERTAIN IF THEY'LL BE ABLE TO DO THAT. SO WE'LL EITHER DO OURS IN JULY, OR POSSIBLY STEP IT UP AND DO IT IN JUNE. THAT WAS THE ONLY POINT THAT I WAS MAKING.
MR. REED: THANK YOU.
MS. KING: OKAY. THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AT UC DAVIS? I DON'T REMEMBER, CLAIRE, IF YOU SAID THERE WAS OR NOT, WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT.
DR. POMEROY: WE DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC HERE. WOULD YOU LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ABOUT THE PROPOSED TIMELINES? OKAY. AND HE WILL DEFER AT THIS MOMENT.
LET ME -- LET ME JUST MAKE ONE OTHER POINT, IF I MAY, AND THEN A QUESTION, MELISSA. THE OTHER POINT IS THIS IS A TIMELINE THAT I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT TO LAY OUT AND FOR US TO TRY AND ADHERE TO. THAT SAID, THE QUALITY OF OUR DISCUSSIONS, THE QUALITY OF THE VETTING PROCESS, GETTING THE VERY BEST CANDIDATES, AND DOING THIS IN THE MOST PROFESSIONAL WAY IS, OF COURSE, THE PRIMARY GOAL.
AND IF FOR ANY REASON THE TIMELINE SLIPS, IF IT'S IN THE INTEREST OF BETTER QUALITY, THEN I'M CERTAINLY GOING TO BE OKAY WITH THAT. I THINK THAT WE'VE LAID OUT A SCHEDULE HERE THAT WILL ALLOW US TO BOTH HAVE GOOD QUALITY DISCUSSIONS AND VETTING AND HAVE AN APPROPRIATE TIMELINE.
MELISSA, IS THERE ANY ACTION, FORMAL ACTION, THAT WE NEED TO TAKE ON THIS?
MS. KING: I DON'T THINK SO. AS LONG AS EVERYBODY'S COMFORTABLE WITH THIS TIMELINE. I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK WE NEED TO VOTE ON IT.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I DON'T THINK WE NEED A VOTE, BUT IT WOULD BE THE SENSE OF THE COMMITTEE, THEN, THAT WE WILL PRESENT THIS TO THE FULL ICOC AT THE NEXT MEETING. AND THIS WILL BE, OF COURSE, MATERIAL THAT WILL BE POSTED ON THE WEB BEFORE THAT.
MS. KING: RIGHT.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: SO THAT EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT OUR EXPECTATIONS ARE.
MS. KING: YES. AND I DO HAVE TWO POINTS TO MAKE RELATED TO THAT FOR THIS SUBCOMMITTEE TO CONSIDER DURING THIS DISCUSSION AS WELL. AND THOSE ARE ONE, WHEN WILL WE HAVE OUR NEXT MEETING? IT WOULD BE GOOD TO TRY AND GET THAT SCHEDULED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SINCE ALL OF YOU ARE SO BUSY. AND THEN SECOND, DO WE WANT TO INCLUDE THE NOMINATION DEADLINE OF APRIL 18TH, WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE IN THIS TIMELINE, AS OPPOSED TO THE ONE THAT IS NOW LISTED ON THE WEBSITE, WHICH IS MARCH 28TH.
I'M BASICALLY ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO GO BY THIS PROPOSED TIMELINE AND CHANGE THE NOMINATION DEADLINE TO APRIL 18TH.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: AND I'M HAPPY TO HAVE DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, FIRST MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. JOHN, ANY COMMENTS YOU HAVE ABOUT THAT?
DR. REED: NO, NOT HERE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: FRANCISCO OR CLAIRE, I SHOULD SAY?
DR. POMEROY: NO, THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: TED?
DR. LOVE: SOUNDS FINE WITH ME. I'M ON BOARD.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: MR. CHAIRMAN?
MR. KLEIN: NO. NO PROBLEM.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I PREFER TO HAVE THE EXTRA TIME, BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE THIS PROCESS TO BE AS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, AND TO HAVE AS MUCH ACCESS TO GOOD NAMES AS WE POSSIBLY CAN GET. AND I BELIEVE THE MINIMAL INCREASE IN TIME HERE IN ORDER TO GARNER MORE PUBLIC COMMENTARY IS A REALLY VALUABLE THING. SO I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THAT. GOOD.
IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO THE TIMELINES, WOULD IT BE ALL RIGHT THEN IF WE MOVE TO THE SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS THE PROPOSED SCORING SYSTEM. I WANT TO THANK MELISSA FOR WORKING SO HARD ON THIS. WHAT WE TRIED TO DO HERE WAS TO MAKE IT AS STRAIGHTFORWARD AND SIMPLE, TO INTEGRATE THE VARIOUS EXPECTATIONS THAT WE HAD FOR EACH OF THE FOUR PUBLIC MEMBERS. THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN CALIFORNIA, WHO HAVE REAL SKILLS WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY SCIENTIFIC PROPERTY, AND WHO HAVE NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, THAT THEY WON'T PROFIT IN ANY INDIRECT OR DIRECT WAY.
AND AS WE BEGAN TO SEE NAMES COMING IN, IT STRUCK US THAT THESE WERE HIGHLY QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS, AND THAT IT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT TO DISTINGUISH ONE FROM THE OTHER. AND SO IN ORDER TO HELP OUR WORKING GROUP MEMBERS HAVE AN OBJECTIVE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD WAY TO ASSIGN RANKINGS, WE CAME UP WITH A SIMPLE SYSTEM WHICH LAYS OUT -- THIS IS TAKEN FROM THE BODY OF THE PROPOSITION AS TO WHAT THE GOALS AND EXPERIENCES SHOULD BE AS MODIFIED BY THE -- OUR COMMITTEE AND THE ICOC WHAT WE THOUGHT SHOULD BE ADDITIONAL THINGS.
WE'VE ASSIGNED SOME ARBITRARY LEVELS HERE, MORE THAN 15 YEARS, MORE THAN 10 YEARS, MORE THAN 8 YEARS. ONE COULD ARGUE WITH THAT; AND IF THE MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO PICK DIFFERENT THRESHOLDS, WE'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ACCOMMODATE THEM IN THAT REGARD. BUT I THINK THERE'S REAL VALUE IN HAVING SOME OBJECTIVE CRITERIA THAT WILL ALLOW THESE TEAMS, AND YOU RECALL WE HAVE TEAMS OF TWO PEOPLE, EACH OF WHOM WILL BE ASSIGNED A COHORT OF CANDIDATES TO THEN RANK THOSE CANDIDATES, WILL THEN INTEGRATE ALL THOSE. WE'LL THEN BRING TO THE ICOC A SLATE OF PEOPLE. AND WE'RE GOING TO BRING A SLATE WHICH IS LARGER THAN THE MINIMUM NUMBER THAT WE NEED IN ORDER TO GIVE THE ICOC A CHANCE OF REAL CHOICE. AND WE WILL HAVE AS MANY HIGHLY, HIGHLY QUALIFIED CANDIDATES AS WE CAN FIND TO BRING FORWARD.
AND SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, IF I MAY, IS TO INVITE THE COMMITTEE'S COMMENT AND CRITICISM AND SUGGESTIONS ON THIS DRAFT SCORING DOCUMENT. AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A ROUND OF DISCUSSION FROM THE PUBLIC. SO MAY I BEGIN THIS TIME AT STANFORD, PLEASE. MR. KLEIN?
MR. KLEIN: MR. CHAIRMAN, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WOULD IN THE ALTERNATIVE QUALIFY UNDER ONE OF THESE BOXES. THEY WON'T PICK UP SCORING IN EACH OF THESE BOXES. THESE ARE ALL POINTS IN THE ALTERNATIVE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY, THAT'S RIGHT. IF YOU FILLED IN -- LET'S LOOK AT CATEGORY 4, FOR EXAMPLE, THE HIGHEST. IF A PERSON HAD MULTIPLE -- WE SAY TWO OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA UNDER THE SECOND BULLET POINT. IF THE PERSON HAD FOUR OR MORE, THAT WOULD MAKE THAT PERSON HIGHER QUALIFIED YET. AND WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL TEAMS TO HELP SCORE THOSE.
IN A SENSE, FILLING THOSE DOTS IN HELPS YOU TO KNOW JUST HOW QUALIFIED THE PERSON IS. BUT THIS WAS -- WE WANTED TO GET SOMETHING THAT WAS SIMPLE AND NOT TOO CUMBERSOME. AND MELISSA WAS CAREFUL TO AVOID ANY SUGGESTION OF CHAD.
MR. KLEIN: I UNDERSTAND. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF SOMEONE WERE TO HAVE 15 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE UNDER THIS CATEGORY, THEY MIGHT GET MORE POINTS, BUT THEY WOULD ALSO GIVE COMMENTARY WHICH MIGHT SAY THAT THEY HAD FOUR DIFFERENT OF THE CRITERIA MET UNDER THE BULLET POINT VERSUS TWO.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. KLEIN: YOU GET THE BENEFIT OF BOTH THE NUMERICAL SCORE AND THE COMMENTARY.

 

CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: EXACTLY. THAT'S EXACTLY CORRECT. AND IN ORDER TO GET THE FOUR, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE -- YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE THE MAJOR FEATURES REPRESENTED. YOU COULDN'T HAVE 15 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND NONE OF -- AND NONE OF THE SECOND BULLET POINT.

MR. KLEIN: RIGHT.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: RIGHT. RIGHT. YOU'RE READING IT EXACTLY AS WE INTENDED IT.
MR. KLEIN: NO ADDITIONAL COMMENT.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: TED, ANY COMMENTS THAT YOU HAVE, PLEASE?
DR. LOVE: NO. I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD DOCUMENT. I DIDN'T REALLY THINK ABOUT CANDIDATES. MAYBE THE ONLY THOUGHT I HAD IN THERE WAS THAT SOMETIMES, I THINK, WE'LL RUN INTO CANDIDATES THAT HAVE DONE EXTRAORDINARY THINGS THAT MAY OVERCOME YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BEING THE NUMBER ONE THING BECAUSE THIS IS VERY MUCH, I THINK, DRIVEN BY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. BUT I THINK THERE'S A FLEXIBILITY TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. AND THERE IS A PLACE ON THE SCORING SHEET, THE WORKSHEETS THAT I BELIEVE EVERYONE HAS SEEN, WHERE YOU DO HAVE OTHER UNIQUE FEATURES THAT THE CANDIDATE HAS, AND YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT TEXT IN THERE, YOU KNOW, SOME EXTRAORDINARY THING THAT WE DIDN'T THINK OF IN THESE CRITERIA. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, TED.
CLAIRE, ANY COMMENTS THAT YOU HAVE, PLEASE?
DR. POMEROY: YEAH, I HAD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. I FIRST WANT TO CONGRATULATE YOU ON COMING UP WITH SUCH A GOOD SYSTEM. MY FIRST COMMENT RELATES TO WHERE TED, I THINK, WAS GOING, WHICH IS I HAVE THIS ANXIETY THAT WE'LL HAVE THE PERFECT CANDIDATE ON ALL ACCOUNTS WHO ONLY HAS, YOU KNOW, 12 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. AND WE LEAVE THEM OUT BY THIS.
THE PROBLEM WITH THESE SCORING CRITERIA IS, YOU KNOW, FULL DISCLOSURE KIND OF RECRUIT IS THAT YOU MIGHT BE CHALLENGED IF YOU TOOK SOMEONE WHO ONLY MET OFFICIALLY A THREE BECAUSE OF THEIR 12 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND DIDN'T TAKE SOMEONE WHO CAME OUT AS A FOUR, EVEN THOUGH THE PERSON WITH 12 WAS THE VERY BEST CANDIDATE YOU COULD POSSIBLY IMAGINE. I'M WONDERING IF WE WANT TO PUT RANGES IN FOR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, YOU KNOW, AND WE COULD GIVE WEIGHT WITHIN THAT. BUT I DO HAVE THAT CONCERN.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: MELISSA WANTS TO MAKE A COMMENT, AND THEN I'LL COMMENT. SO PLEASE, MELISSA.
MS. KING: THANKS. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT, CLAIRE, I THINK THAT YOUR IDEA TO INCLUDE A RANGE IS GOOD. AND MAYBE WE WANT TO PUT THE RANGE HERE OF 10 TO 15, SINCE FOR A 3, YOU NEED 10 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. BUT I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT, WHERE I WAS GETTING THE IDEA FOR 15 YEARS WAS FROM A LOT OF THE CANDIDATES THAT WE'VE GOTTEN ALREADY FROM SOME COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND FROM OTHER CHANNELS.
AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ACROSS THE BOARD THE CANDIDATES THAT WE WERE GETTING THAT TENDED TO HAVE A LOT OF THE CRITERIA THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR, OR AT LEAST ONE OR MORE, ALSO HAD 20 TO 25 YEARS EXPERIENCE. SO I ACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT 15 WAS PRETTY LOW AS FAR AS THE NUMBER OF YEARS THAT PEOPLE I EXPECT TO APPLY FOR THESE POSITIONS WILL HAVE.
BUT I'M ALSO HAPPY TO PUT A RANGE IN THERE. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW.
DR. POMEROY: YEAH. WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF THOUGHT, LIKE I SAID. BUT I MIGHT BE COMFORTABLE IF THE TOP TWO CATEGORIES WERE, SAY, YOU KNOW, 10 TO 15 PLUS. AND YOU'VE GOT MORE CREDIT IF YOU WERE 15.
MS. KING: UH-HUH .
DR. POMEROY: BUT IT DIDN'T LEGALLY BOX US IN
DR. PRIETO: DR. FRIEDMAN?
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: YES.
DR. PRIETO: HI, FRANCISCO PRIETO HERE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OH, WELCOME, FRANCISCO.GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE. PLEASE.
DR. PRIETO: THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO ECHO CLAIRE'S COMMENT. I HAD THE SAME THOUGHTS WHEN I SAW THESE CRITERIA BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT SOMEONE WHO CAME ACROSS IN INTERVIEW AND, YOU KNOW, IN OUR OTHER EVALUATIONS AS CLEARLY A TOP CANDIDATE TO BE DOWNGRADED BECAUSE OF LACK OF A CERTAIN NUMBER OF YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. I REALIZE EXPERIENCE IS IMPORTANT, BUT I'D BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH A RANGE OR HAVING A SOFTER CRITERIA THERE.
MR. KLEIN: THIS IS BOB KLEIN. IF I COULD ASK A QUESTION. CLAIRE AND DR. PRIETO -- DR. POMEROY AND DR. PRIETO.
DR. POMEROY: YOU PICKED UP THE BODY LANGUAGE HERE.
MR. KLEIN: THE QUESTION I HAD IS PERHAPS WE COULD MELT THESE TWO BY SAYING THAT IF SOMEONE HAS ONLY 8 -- HAD EIGHT OR TEN YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, THEY COULD MOVE INTO THE TOP CATEGORY IF THEY HAD THREE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA.
DR. POMEROY: YOU KNOW, I LIKE WHERE YOU'RE GOING.
MR. KLEIN: SO IF YOU COULD SAY THAT SOMEONE QUALITATIVELY MET THREE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, THEN EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD A LOWER NUMBER OF YEARS, THEY COULD MOVE INTO THE TOP CRITERIA.
DR. LOVE: AND GET THE HIGHEST SCORE.
MR. KLEIN: THAT'S RIGHT.
DR. POMEROY: YEAH, I'D BE TOTALLY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
DR. LOVE: I LIKE THAT.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: AND THAT'S A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD MODIFICATION THAT WE COULD MAKE.
IF I COULD ADD ONE OTHER THING, THOUGH. I DIDN'T SEE THE SCORING SYSTEM AS A HARD NUMERIC SYSTEM. I SAW THIS AS A WAY OF BEGINNING TO FILTER CANDIDATES. I WOULD, FOR EXAMPLE, LEAVE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE TWO-MEMBER TEAMS FIRST AND THEN TO THE DISCRETION OF OUR ENTIRE SUBCOMMITTEE, AND THEN TO DISCRETION OF THE ENTIRE ICOC OF, YOU KNOW, WHICH CANDIDATES WE ULTIMATELY PICK.
AND IT WOULDN'T BE NECESSARILY BASED ON A NUMERIC SCORE. I WAS USING THESE SCORES AS A WAY OF BEGINNING TO GROUP CANDIDATES, BUT I AM TOTALLY COMFORTABLE WITH THE IDEA OF MELDING -- BLENDING, IF YOU WILL, TO GIVE GREATER POWER TO MORE OF THE CRITERIA AND SOME FLEXIBILITY ON YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.
DR. POMEROY: IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ALL AGREEING ON THIS, BUT I WOULD JUST SAY THAT WE JUST NEED TO REMEMBER THAT WHEN WE REJECT SOMEBODY, OR DON'T ACCEPT SOMEBODY, THEY MAY COME BACK AND LOOK AT THIS AND CHALLENGE US. SO WE DO WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT KEEPING IT PRETTY FLEXIBLE.
I HAD ONE OTHER COMMENT, IF I MIGHT, WHICH IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT TACK. I THOUGHT THAT MIGHT BE NICE TO PUT IN SOME CRITERIA ABOUT OPENNESS, COMMUNICATION SKILLS, LEADERSHIP, LACK OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I MEAN, SINCE TRANSPARENCY AND NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST HAVE BEEN SO IMPORTANT TO EVERYONE, WHY NOT PUT THEM IN THE CRITERIA?
MR. KLEIN: I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. PARTICULARLY, WE HAVE SPECIFIC CONFLICT REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN THE INITIATIVE ON THIS MATTER. AND WE SHOULD PROBABLY PUT THOSE RIGHT INTO THE CRITERIA BECAUSE THOSE ARE THRESHOLDS TO QUALIFY. DR. POMEROY: EXACTLY.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I THINK THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION, AND WE COULD CERTAINLY MODIFY THAT TO HAVE -- TO SAY THAT IF ANY OF THESE THINGS ARE TRUE, THE PERSON CANNOT BE A CANDIDATE. AND WE WILL LIST THOSE OUT.
MS. KING: AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY ABOUT THAT, THAT THE EXCLUSION CRITERIA THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE LAST MEETING ARE ACTUALLY INCLUDED ON THE NOMINATION FORM. AND ALREADY WE'VE BEEN USING, DR. FRIEDMAN AND I, HAVE BEEN USING THOSE EXCLUSION CRITERIA, ALONG WITH ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL, AS WE SCREEN THE CANDIDATES THAT COME IN THE DOOR. AND ALREADY TWO OF THE CANDIDATES THAT HAVE COME THROUGH TO US RECOMMENDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS, WE'VE HAD TO AGREE WITH THEM THAT ACTUALLY THEY SHOULDN'T EVEN APPLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE CONFLICT.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE CAN --
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I LIKE THIS AS A SECOND SCREEN.
MS. KING: YEAH.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WE DO IT THE FIRST TIME, AND THEN WE DO IT A SECOND TIME. AND I THINK THAT JUST ADDS CREDIBILITY TO THE PROCESS.
DR. POMEROY: YEAH. I THINK THIS REALLY ABOUT CLARIFYING IN ONE PLACE --
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT'S FINE.
DR. POMEROY: WHAT OUR VALUES ARE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I LIKE THAT, CLAIRE. THANK YOU.
FRANCISCO, ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS THAT YOU HAVE?
DR. PRIETO: NO, I AGREE. WELL, BOTH ON THE NEGATIVE CRITERIA AND ON THE POSITIVE CRITERIA, OPENNESS AND LEADERSHIP SKILLS, PEOPLE WHO HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT. I THINK IT'S STATING OUTRIGHT THAT THOSE ARE INCLUDED IN OUR CRITERIA, I THINK, HELPS TO -- MAY HELP TO EXPLAIN SOME OF THE DECISIONS WE MAKE. THAT IF PEOPLE WILL SAY THAT A CERTAIN PERSON NUMERICALLY, OR ON WHATEVER BASIS, HAD MORE EXPERIENCE, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME BACK AND SAY FROM THE OUTSET WE WERE LOOKING FOR OTHER THINGS AS WELL, AND WE SAW THEM IN THIS PERSON --
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I THINK --
DR. PRIETO: -- WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I THINK THAT'S A VALUABLE SET OF POINTS YOU'RE MAKING. THANK YOU.
COULD I ASK, PLEASE, IF JOHN REED HAS ANY COMMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE?
DR. REED: I HAVE NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO MAKE BEYOND WHAT OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE MADE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: SUPER. CAN I ASK, THEN, FOR A ROUND OF PUBLIC COMMENT, DISCUSSION, AND QUESTIONS? AND I'LL BEGIN HERE IN DUARTE. ANY COMMENTS?
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC -- JOHN, THERE'S SEVERAL PUBLIC MEMBERS WHERE YOU ARE?
DR. REED: NO. I HAVE TWO HERE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OH, TWO HERE. GOOD. WOULD THEY LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING?
DR. REED: NO. THEY HAVE DECLINED.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OKAY. CLAIRE AND FRANCISCO, ANY PUBLIC?
DR. POMEROY: NONE.
DR. PRIETO: NO, THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: TED?
DR. LOVE: NO. NO ONE HERE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: AND IN STANFORD. BOB, ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC?
MR. KLEIN: NO. NO ONE HERE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OKAY.
SO THIS HAS BEEN A VERY VALUABLE DISCUSSION. LET ME JUST SUMMARIZE, IF I MAY, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE CAPTURED THINGS. I THINK IT WOULD BE VALUABLE TO HAVE A SHORT, IF YOU WILL, OVERALL COMMENT AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS THAT SAYS THAT WHILE THESE NUMERIC CRITERIA ARE IMPORTANT, THERE ARE A VARIETY OF OTHER CATEGORICAL FEATURES THAT MEMBERS WILL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IN SCORING CANDIDATES.
THAT WE MAKE MORE FLEXIBLE THE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, AND WE GIVE EXTRA WEIGHT TO HAVING MORE OF THE CRITERIA; THAT WE INDICATE THINGS SUCH AS COMMUNICATION SKILLS, LEADERSHIP, THE OTHER GENERAL LEADERSHIP ASPECTS THAT WERE MENTIONED, ESPECIALLY BY FRANCISCO, TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE GET SOME ADDITIONAL WEIGHT; AND THAT WE WON'T BE ACCUSED LATER OF NOT HAVING ADHERED STRICTLY TO A VERY PRECISE FORMULA SINCE WE'RE SAYING FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THIS IS NOT A PRECISE FORMULA. IT'S A GENERAL SET OF GUIDELINES.
WE WILL INCLUDE THE DISQUALIFYING CRITERIA IN A FORMAL WAY, SO THAT WILL BE PERFECTLY SEEN, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE IT IN ANOTHER PLACE. BUT THIS WILL BE A DOUBLE-CHECK ON IT. AND I HOPE -- DOES THAT SEEM TO CAPTURE THE GENERAL TENOR OF THE DISCUSSION?
MR. KLEIN: I THINK SO.
DR. POMEROY: SOUNDS GOOD.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: GOOD. THEN AGAIN, MELISSA, WE DON'T NEED A FORMAL ACTION ON THIS? I WOULD, HOWEVER, SAY THAT I BELIEVE THIS SHOULD BE POSTED ON THE WEB AS WELL BECAUSE I'D LIKE THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO AREN'T AT THESE MEETINGS TO SEE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
MS. KING: YES.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: AND I ASSUME THERE WILL BE NO OBJECTION TO THAT.
MS. KING: NO. AND WHAT I CAN DO IS MODIFY IT AND SEND IT BACK TO EVERYBODY.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: EXACTLY. SO WHAT MELISSA IS SAYING IS SHE'LL MODIFY THIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DISCUSSION, SHE'LL SEND IT TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, AS WE USUALLY DO, WITH YOUR QUICK TURNAROUND AND APPROVAL, IT WILL THEN BE POSTED, AND IT WILL BE THE WORKING DOCUMENT.
MR. KLEIN: MR. CHAIRMAN, ON THE CRITERIA ITSELF, SO THAT THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS THERE WAS A CONSENSUS, IT MIGHT BE A GOOD THING JUST TO HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT THOSE WITH THE CLARIFICATIONS YOU'VE STATED.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN THAT, BOB. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION?
DR. PRIETO: FRANCISCO PRIETO. CAN I SO MOVE.
MR. KLEIN: SECOND.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: IT'S BEEN SECONDED. AND WHAT I'LL DO IS ASK, IS THERE ANYONE -- IS THERE ANY ONE OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS THAT WISHES TO VOTE AGAINST THIS?
MR. KLEIN: YOU NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE BECAUSE IT'S A TELECONFERENCE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU.
MR. KLEIN: I JUST LEARNED THAT MYSELF RECENTLY.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT, SO I'M GLAD TO KNOW THAT. THEN, MELISSA, WOULD YOU PLEASE BE SO KIND AS TO CALL THE ROLL.
MS. KING: ABSOLUTELY. ALL RIGHT. MICHAEL FRIEDMAN?
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I'M IN FAVOR.
MS. KING: BOB KLEIN?
MR. KLEIN: YES.
MS. KING: TED LOVE?
DR. LOVE: YES.
MS. KING: CLAIRE POMEROY?
DR. POMEROY: YES.
MS. KING: FRANCISCO PRIETO?
DR. PRIETO: YES.
MS. KING: JOHN REED?
DR. REED: YES.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, BOB, FOR THAT -- FOR MAKING THAT CLEAR. GOOD.
THE THIRD ITEM WE HAVE ARE THE DRAFT WORKSHEETS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT TOGETHER FOR -- AGAIN, I HOPE THE COMMITTEE DOESN'T MIND. WE HAVE, MELISSA AND I, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THIS PROCESS AS SIMPLE AS WE COULD MAKE IT BECAUSE WE REALLY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT YOU COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE WORKING ON THIS. AND TO MAKE THIS AS SIMPLE AS WE COULD MAKE IT, NOT ONLY FOR YOU TO SCORE CANDIDATES, BUT FOR US TO SHARE AROUND WHEN WE GET TOGETHER TO GO THROUGH WHAT I SUSPECT IS GOING TO BE A DIFFICULT FINAL ROUND OF SELECTION JUST BASED ON THE QUALITY OF THE EARLY CANDIDATES.
MELISSA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON ANY OF THIS, PLEASE?
MS. KING: SURE. FIRST OF ALL, I JUST WANT TO TELL EVERYBODY THAT I SENT THIS DOCUMENT THAT DR. FRIEDMAN IS TALKING ABOUT TO EVERYBODY VIA E-MAIL. AND IT IS VERY MUCH A DRAFT, BUT IT ISN'T NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE NEED TO PUT ON THE WEBSITE. AND SO I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR PEOPLE'S COMMENTS ON THIS AND FOR OTHER IDEAS FOR THINGS TO ADD TO IT. BUT IT'S NOT A DOCUMENT THAT IS -- THAT IS THERE FOR PUBLIC EITHER. IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT I HAD E-MAILED TO THE COMMITTEE. I'M HOPING YOU ALL HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU, OR THAT YOU REMEMBER THE DOCUMENT DR. FRIEDMAN IS TALKING ABOUT.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THE GOAL HERE WAS TO HAVE A CONSISTENT FORMAT SO THAT WHEN WE ALL GOT TOGETHER, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE MERGING ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT IDEAS.
MR. KLEIN: WE CAN'T ACTUALLY TAKE ANY ACTION ON AND ITEM THAT WE DON'T HAVE DISTRIBUTION COPIES FOR THE PUBLIC.
MS. KING: RIGHT. AND THERE'S NO ACTION, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO TAKE.
MR. KLEIN: OKAY.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I JUST -- I ASK YOU TO LOOK AT YOUR E-MAILS. AND YOU CAN EACH USE YOUR OWN SCORING SHEETS, OF COURSE, COME UP WITH ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE.
MS. KING: THIS IS JUST A SUGGESTED DOCUMENT TO WORK FROM. AND IF ANYONE HAD ANY COMMENTS, WE COULD TAKE THOSE.
MR. KLEIN: WILL YOU POST THAT ON THE WEBSITE?
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I THINK ACTUALLY WE SHOULD.
MS. KING: YES. SURE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I SEE NOT PROBLEM IN DOING THAT. I THINK IT IS -- IT IS JUST A DRAFT OF A WORKING DOCUMENT. AND I THINK, AGAIN, SINCE THERE'S -- SINCE IT'S UTTERLY INNOCUOUS AND SIMPLE AND WOULD BE DESIGNED BY ANYBODY, I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO JUST POST IT ON THE WEBSITE.
MS. KING: AND THIS IS A WORKSHEET THAT THE INTERVIEW TEAMS CAN USE WHILE YOU'RE DOING YOUR INTERVIEWS OF CANDIDATES. BUT LIKE DR. FRIEDMAN SAID, YOU CAN CERTAINLY GO OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF THIS ON THIS WORKSHEET.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: MAKE UP YOUR OWN IF YOU WANT TO.
MS. KING: RIGHT. THIS IS JUST A SUGGESTION. SO CERTAINLY WE CAN PUT IN ON THE WEBSITE, THOUGH.
DR. PRIETO: MELISSA?
MS. KING: YES.
DR. PRIETO: FRANCISCO PRIETO HERE. I GUESS THAT PERHAPS FOR LEGAL REASONS, WE HAVE TO PUT IT ON THE WEBSITE. IT JUST LOOKS TO ME LIKE A VERY BLANK OPEN SPREADSHEET TO SIMPLIFY OUR NOTE TAKING DURING THE INTERVIEWS.
MS. KING: EXACTLY.
DR. PRIETO: ANY CHANCE WE MIGHT RUN OUT OF SERVER SPACE ONE OF THESE DAYS?
MS. KING: EXACTLY. I'M FINE PUTTING IT ON THE WEBSITE, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT WE REALLY NEED TO.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE UP THERE A SHORT TIME, GUYS. IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE UP THERE LIKE, YOU KNOW, TWO MONTHS, AND THEN IT'S GOING TO COME DOWN. BUT I THINK RIGHT NOW, IN AN ABUNDANCE OF TRANSPARENCY, I WOULD RATHER HAVE EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING THAT SOMEONE COULD CONCEIVABLY HAVE AN INTEREST IN AVAILABLE TO THEM, AND THEN THEY CAN SEE THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT IT'S -- IT'S JUST VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND SIMPLE. THERE'S NOTHING TO IT.
MR. KLEIN: AND THAT'S JUST MY STATEMENT IS THAT IT'S -- THERE'S NOT MUCH INFORMATION THERE. IT'S JUST THAT IN THE SPIRIT OF TOTAL DISCLOSURE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT. I'D RATHER -- I'D RATHER BE EXTRA, EXTRA CAUTIOUS IN MAKING SURE THAT WE MAKE ALL THIS MATERIAL AVAILABLE AND THEN PEOPLE CAN DO WITH IT AS THEY WISH.
MS. KING: ALL RIGHT. I WILL GET THAT UP ON THE WEBSITE.
DR. POMEROY: AWESOME.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: COOL. ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS OR OTHER -- MELISSA, WHAT OTHER BUSINESS --
MS. KING: RELATED TO THAT, ACTUALLY --
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: NO. NO. NEXT -- OTHER AGENDA ITEMS.
MS. KING: SURE. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 WAS JUST AN INFORMATIONAL UPDATE ON CANDIDATE IDENTIFICATION THAT DR. FRIEDMAN AND I CAN GIVE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE JUST SO YOU KNOW WHERE WE ARE. AND THE REASON I'M DOING A LOT OF THE TALKING, FORGIVE ME, IS BECAUSE I AM THE ONE THUS FAR THAT HAS BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE INFORMATION ON CANDIDATES FROM THOSE OF YOU ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE AS WELL AS THOSE SENT IN VIA THE WEB AND THROUGH OTHER CHANNELS.
AND I JUST WANTED TO, ALONG WITH DR. FRIEDMAN, THANK EVERYBODY THAT HAS SENT US CANDIDATES. AND LIKE HE WAS COMMENTING ON, WE DO HAVE SOME VERY GOOD ONES COMING IN THE DOOR THAT I AM GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF PRESCREENING AND GETTING THEM TO FILL OUT OUR INFORMATION FORM, MAKING SURE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY VERY CLEAR CONFLICTS WITH OUR EXCLUSION CRITERIA, AND THEN SENDING THEM TO HIM FOR VETTING, AS YOU ALL KNOW, BEFORE HE WILL THEN SEND THOSE CANDIDATES TO THE DIFFERENT INTERVIEW TEAMS ONCE HE'S HAD TIME TO -- HAD TIME TO VET THEM AND PUT THEM INTO CATEGORIES FOR THOSE OF YOU ON THE DIFFERENT INTERVIEW TEAMS. SO THAT YOU'RE NOT -- SO THAT NO ONE INTERVIEW TEAM IS GETTING ALL THE REALLY GOOD CANDIDATES VERSUS -- JUST AN EVEN SPREAD OF CANDIDATES.
MAYBE YOU WANT TO TALK MORE ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS IN THAT AREA.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: YEAH. I THINK THIS REALLY WILL SORT OF BE ASSIGNED IN A ROTATING RANDOM ORDER FOR CANDIDATES THAT MEET THE MINIMAL CRITERIA. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BETTER, AS WE -- NOW THAT WE'VE DEVELOPED A SYSTEM OF SCORING, TO BEGIN TO DISTRIBUTE TO THE VARIOUS TEAMS THE BIOGRAPHIES OF THE POTENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR YOU TO BEGIN THE PROCESS. AND I CERTAINLY WILL DO THIS ANY WAY THAT YOU ALL THINK IS MOST COMFORTABLE FOR YOU.
I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE PREFERABLE NOT TO WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE ALL THE WHOLE BOLUS, AND THEN DROP THOSE ON YOU, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF WEEKS FROM NOW. BUT IF THAT IF THERE ARE WHAT APPEAR TO BE QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS, THAT WE BEGIN TO DISTRIBUTE THOSE NOW. THE ADVANTAGE OF THAT, I THINK, IS TWOFOLD. ONE IS IN TERMS OF WORKFLOW. AND THE SECOND IS IN TERMS OF EXPERIENCE. IS THAT WE ALL GET BETTER AS WE READ MORE AND MORE OF THESE BIOS AND BEGIN TO TALK TO MORE AND MORE PEOPLE.
WE BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND CERTAIN NUANCES THAT, AT LEAST, WEREN'T SO APPARENT TO ME AT THE BEGINNING. SO WE GET BETTER AND BETTER AS THE PROCESS GOES ON. AND SO IF THAT FORMAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, MELISSA AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO -- WILL BE HAPPY TO DO THINGS IN THAT WAY.
SO LET ME JUST ASK FOR ANY DISCUSSION OR COMMENTARY, FIRST FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS, ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS THE WAY YOU'D LIKE TO PROCEED, OR IF THERE'S ANOTHER WAY THAT MELISSA AND I CAN MAKE THIS MORE EFFICIENT FOR YOU. AND THEN LAST, FOR ANY PUBLIC COMMENTARY.
SO CAN WE START, PLEASE, AT UC DAVIS. CLAIRE OR FRANCISCO, ANY COMMENTS THAT YOU HAVE ABOUT THAT GENERAL APPROACH?
DR. PRIETO: THAT SOUNDS FINE TO ME. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION WHETHER IT WILL BE CIRCULATED BY E-MAIL, OR -- I ASSUME THAT THAT'S OUR USUAL MANNER OF COMMUNICATING NOW.
MS. KING: WE CAN DO THAT EITHER WAY, ACTUALLY, SO IF E-MAIL WORKS FOR EVERYBODY, THAT WOULD MEAN THAT YOUR STAFFER OR YOU WOULD NEED PRINT THINGS OUT, SO YOU'D HAVE IT READY FOR YOU IN ORDER TO CONDUCT THE INTERVIEWS. WE CAN ALSO SEND YOU HARD COPIES IF THAT MAKES IT EASIER FOR YOU.
DR. PRIETO: I THINK E-MAIL IS FINE; AND IF WE SAVE A LITTLE MONEY ON PRINTING COSTS, SO MUCH THE BETTER.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: IT ALSO MAKES IT HARDER TO LOSE, IN MY EXPERIENCE.
DR. POMEROY: YES.
DR. PRIETO: YES.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I MEAN, I KNOW IT'S SITTING IN MY COMPUTER ON MY DESK, IF I NEED IT. SO CLAIRE, ANY COMMENTS THAT YOU HAVE, PLEASE? DR. POMEROY: NO. I'M COMFORTABLE. THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: JOHN, ANY COMMENTS FROM YOU?
DR. REED: NO. EVERYTHING SOUNDS FINE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: TED?
DR. LOVE: EVERYTHING SOUNDS GREAT.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: BOB KLEIN, PLEASE.
MR. KLEIN: (NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OKAY.
MR. KLEIN: I'M SORRY. I WAS ON MUTE SOUNDS GOOD.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OH, OKAY. GOOD. I ASSUMED THAT SILENCE WAS AGREEMENT HERE.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF THE PUBLIC HAS ANY COMMENTARY. AND AT STANFORD, ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING?
MR. KLEIN: NO.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: TED?
DR. LOVE: NO.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: AT UC DAVIS?
DR. POMEROY: NO.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: JOHN, IN SAN DIEGO?
DR. REED: NONE HERE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OUR REPRESENTATIVE HERE? NO. SO THERE ARE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THAT.
MELISSA, YOU'D LIKE TO ADD ANOTHER THING.
MS. KING: YES. JUST ON MORE THING I WANTED TO LET THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS KNOW. WE'VE GOT A GOOD NUMBER OF CANDIDATES THUS FAR. WE'VE GOT 18 CANDIDATES THAT HAVE COME IN FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS VIA THE WEB AND A COUPLE OF OTHER CHANNELS. AND THEY'RE -- WE'VE GOT GOOD GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. WE'VE GOT CANDIDATES FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, AS FAR SOUTH AS SAN DIEGO, AND ALL THE WAY UP THROUGH SACRAMENTO.
SO JUST SO THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT. BUT ALSO IT IS DEFINITELY THE CASE THAT WE ARE OPEN TO AND WOULD LOVE TO RECEIVE MORE CANDIDATES FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND ALSO FROM CONTACTS THAT YOU MAY HAVE, THAT YOU COULD ASK TO SEND US CANDIDATES. AND IF YOU HAVE PEOPLE CONTACT ME DIRECTLY ABOUT GETTING THE FORMS AND GETTING MORE INFORMATION, THAT'S PERFECT.
THEY CAN ALSO GO TO OUR WEBSITE. AND THE INFORMATION FORM IS AVAILABLE THERE FOR PEOPLE TO DOWNLOAD AND SEND BACK TO US.
DR. PRIETO: MELISSA?
MS. KING: YES.
DR. PRIETO: FRANCISCO PRIETO HERE. JUST A QUESTION. WHEN WE DIVIDE THESE UP AMONG THE INTERVIEW TEAMS, ARE WE ANTICIPATING THAT THESE WOULD BE FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEWS, OR WILL WE SET UP TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS?
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: FRANCISCO, OBVIOUSLY FACE-TO-FACE IS WONDERFUL, BUT I THINK THAT'S VERY DIFFICULT. AND I WAS ENVISIONING TELEPHONE, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSIONS. IF THE CANDIDATE WISHES TO MAKE HIM OR HERSELF AVAILABLE AT A CONVENIENT PLACE, THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL. IF THE TWO-PERSON TEAMS WISH TO DO THIS AS A SORT OF A CONFERENCE CALL, THAT WOULD BE IDEAL, OF COURSE, AND THAT WOULD BE JUST FINE. SO IT WOULD BE A THREE-WAY TELECON OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WE LEAVE THIS TO YOU FOR YOUR FLEXIBILITY.
MR. KLEIN: SO THAT WE -- I'M SORRY. WE COULD DO THIS SEPARATELY AND THEN COMPARE NOTES.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: YOU CERTAINLY COULD DO THAT. YOU COULD TO IT TOGETHER IF THAT'S MORE CONVENIENT. YOU COULD DO IT FACE-TO-FACE, OR YOU COULD DO REMOTELY.
MR. KLEIN: SO WE HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: ABSOLUTELY.
MS. KING: AND THE MAIN THING IS THAT THE REASON WE HAVE INTERVIEW TEAMS OF NO MORE THAN TWO IS BECAUSE NO MORE THAN TWO MEMBERS OF THIS SUBCOMMITTEE CAN BE MEETING AT ONCE WITHOUT IT BEING CONSIDERED A MEETING THAT NEEDS TO BE PUBLICLY NOTICED. SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TWO-PERSON COMMITTEES. SO YOU CAN DO IT INDIVIDUALLY, YOU CAN DO IT AS A TEAM OF TWO, BUT YOU CAN'T GROUP WITH OTHER TEAMS UNLESS WE'RE HAVING A FULL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: RIGHT. RIGHT. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. THANK YOU FOR MAKING THAT.
MS. KING: AND THAT'S ABOUT ALL AS FAR AS THE UPDATE ON THE CANDIDATES.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I'M ALSO LOOKING FORWARD TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAKING SUGGESTIONS ABOUT QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS THAT THEY KNOW OF. I THINK WE WILL HAVE OUR WORK CUT OUT FOR US TO NARROW THIS DOWN TO A GROUP THAT ULTIMATELY IS APPROVED. THESE LOOK LIKE SOME GOOD PEOPLE.
IF THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER ON THAT, I WOULD THEN LIKE TO, VERY BRIEFLY, TOUCH ON THE FITTH TOPIC, THE CONSIDERATION OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS WORKING GROUPS. AND, MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. KLEIN, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'D LIKE TO TO COMMENT AND MAKE A SUGGESTION, SO MAY I CALL ON YOU FIRST, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE FULL ROUND OF DISCUSSION LATER.
MR. KLEIN: FIRST OF ALL, AS I PREVIOUSLY REFERENCED ON THIS CALL, IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE FACILITIES GROUP THAT IT BENEFIT FROM THE KNOWLEDGE ON THE GRANT WORKING GROUP AS TO WHERE THE DEMAND IS BEING GENERATED BECAUSE THAT GIVES INSIGHT AS TO WHERE THERE MAY BE CAPACITY ISSUES FOR FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT.
BUT I CALL TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION THAT ONE OF OUR REAL CHALLENGES IS THAT WE NEED TO GET WORKING GROUP MEMBERS WHO ARE PATIENT ADVOCATES, SIX OF THEM THAT ARE ALSO PATIENT ADVOCATES ON THE GRANT COMMITTEE. THAT WAS INTENDED TO CREATE A STRUCTURAL INTERRELATIONSHIP IN THE KNOWLEDGE BETWEEN THOSE COMMITTEES.
SEPARATELY, I WOULD STATE THAT PERHAPS, MR. CHAIRMAN, AFTER THE DISCUSSION, THAT AS THE CHAIRMAN, YOU COULD, BETWEEN THIS MEETING AND THE NEXT MEETING, HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF STANDARDS AND GRANTS WORKING GROUP OR SEARCH COMMITTEES ABOUT SOME WAY TO NARRATIVELY DESCRIBE THE INTERCHANGE THAT'S EXPECTED BETWEEN THESE WORKING GROUPS BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO PEOPLE WE'RE ASKING TO SERVE ON THE WORKING GROUP. IF THAT NARRATIVE COULD BE BROUGHT BACK, THEN THIS SUBCOMMITTEE COULD THEN DISCUSS THAT NARRATIVE TO TRY AND REALLY INCORPORATE EVERYONE'S KNOWLEDGE, VIEWS, AND EXPERIENCE IN FILLING OUT THE FLESH ON A CONCEPTUAL KIND OF OUTLINE IN NARRATIVE FORM.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT SEEMS A VERY SOLID SUGGESTION. AND IT WOULD GIVE US A TOPIC FOR OUR NEXT MEETING OF THIS WORKING GROUP, THIS SUBCOMMITTEE, AND I WOULD BE ENTIRELY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. CAN I GET ANY DISCUSSION THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO OFFER WITH REGARD TO THIS? I DON'T REALLY HAVE -- THERE'S NOTHING -- THERE'S NO REPORT TO MAKE HERE. THIS IS REALLY -- THIS IS REALLY AN INTENTION OF COLLABORATION AND COOPERATION TO MAKE SURE THAT EACH OF THE WORKING GROUPS IS SENSITIVE TO AND COMPLEMENTARY OF THE OTHER WORKING GROUPS. AND I THINK THIS IS A FINE SUGGESTION.
SO ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR OTHER POINTS? TED, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING?
DR. LOVE: NO. I THINK BOB'S SUGGESTION MADE A LOT OF SENSE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: GOOD. AT UC DAVIS PLEASE, CLAIRE OR FRANCISCO?
DR. PRIETO: WELL, IT BECAME APPARENT TO ME AS I -- AS I LOOKED THIS OVER, THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE SO MUCH OVERLAP OF PATIENT ADVOCATES ON THE THREE WORKING GROUP COMMITTEES, THAT THE SHARING OF INFORMATION IS GOING TO BE INEVITABLE. IN FACT, I THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES BACK TO THE WHOLE COMMITTEE, I WOULD ASSUME.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT'S MY -- THAT'S MY VISION AS WELL, FRANCISCO.
MR. KLEIN: IF I COULD COMMENT ON THAT. FRANCISCO, ON THE GRANT COMMITTEE -- HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET SOME DEFINITION OR GUIDANCE OR PROCESS WHEREBY THE SCIENTIST -- SCIENTIST AND PHYSICIAN SCIENCTISTS COULD IN ADDITION TO JUST EVALUATING THE GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS, PROVIDE SOME FEEDBACK THAT THOSE PATIENT ADVOCATES COULD BRING TO THE GRANT COMMITTEE, OR THE CHAIRMAN FROM ONE COMMITTEE CAN REFER TO THE OTHER THAT QUANTIFIES THIS DEMAND COMING FROM DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS.
DR. PRIETO: FRANCISCO PRIETO HERE. BOB, DO YOU MEAN QUANTIFIED IN TERMS OF GRANT TOTAL AMOUNT?
MR. KLEIN: WELL, QUANTIFIED IN TERMS OF THE DEMAND LEVELS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE SCIENTIFIC AND THE PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE GRANT WORKING GROUP WILL BE IN A POSITION, WHEN THEY'RE ANALYZING PROPOSALS, TO GET A SENSE, POTENTIALLY, OF WHETHER -- OF WHAT THE RANGE OF SPACE DEMANDS AND EQUIPMENT DEMANDS THAT ARE BEING GENERATED BY THESE GRANT PROPOSALS.
SO IF THEY SEE FOUR OR FIVE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS COMING FROM A SINGLE INSTITUTION THAT NEEDS A PARTICULAR TYPE OF ROBOTICS OR A SPECIFIC VERY EXPENSIVE TYPE OF MICROSCOPE, THAT INFORMATION NEEDS TO GO DOWN TO THE FACILITIES COMMITTEE; SO IF THEY ARE GOING TO FUND SOMETHING, THEY'RE GOING TO TRY AND CREATE A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITHIN THE INSTITUTION AMONG THOSE GRANTS PETITIONERS SO THAT WE DON'T END UP WITH FOUR DIFFERENT REQUESTS FOR ROBOTICS OR A MICROSCOPE.
DR. PRIETO: I THINK WE MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT SOME WAY OF FORMALIZING OR QUANTIFYING THAT SO THAT AT THE LEVEL OF THE WHOLE BOARD, WE COULD LOOK AT THESE ISSUES. WE COULD -- I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, PUT ON SORT OF A SPREADSHEET, BUT SOME WAY OF ORGANIZING THE DATA.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: FRANCISCO, I THINK IT'S VERY MUCH THE INTENTION HERE. AND THAT TO START OFF WITH THE LARGEST AND MOST EXPENSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS, HOW THOSE WILL BE SHARED, NOT JUST AMONGST THE INVESTIGATORS OF A SINGLE INSTITUTION, BUT AMONGST INSTITUTIONS IN AN AREA, AND THEN INSTITUTIONS ACROSS THE ENTIRE STATE -- INSTITUTIONS ACROSS THE ENTIRE STATE. SO THAT WE DO WANT TO HAVE A SENSE OF -- WE WANT TO PUT THE ECONOMIC AND THE MORAL INCENTIVES FOR PEOPLE TO WORK TOGETHER, AND THAT NOT ONLY IS BETTER SCIENCE, IT'S ALSO A MORE EFFICIENT USE OF THE PUBLIC'S DOLLARS.
DR. POMEROY: SO PERHAPS THE NARRATIVE THAT'S DEVELOPED SHOULD SORT OF SAY THAT AS A VISION. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IN THE NARRATIVE IS TO DESCRIBE THE ROLE THAT WOULD BE ANTICIPATED FOR THE PATIENT ADVOCATE MEMBERS IN TERMS OF CROSS-COMMUNICATION, THE OTHER MEMBERS, THE WHOLE BOARD, AND THE STAFF OF CIRM, AND PUT A -- DIVVY UP SOME OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES THERE AND CLARIFY WHO'S GOING TO BE DOING THAT COMMUNICATION.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT SUGGESTION. IT WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO PACE THEMSELVES. THIS IS A FORMIDABLE AMOUNT OF WORK FOR AT LEAST A SUBGROUP OF THE ICOC MEMBERS. ALTHOUGH, AS ONE OF THEM POINTED OUT TO ME AT THE LAST PUBLIC MEETING, HE VERY WELL KNEW THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE REQUIRED AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I WASN'T BEING INAPPROPRIATELY CONCERNED ABOUT HOW HE'S GOING TO SPEND HIS TIME. I ASSURED HIM THAT IT WAS ONLY GENERAL SYMPATHY I WAS EXPRESSING NOT ANY DOUBTS ABOUT HIS ABILITY TO MARSHAL HIS OWN TIME.
MR. KLEIN: GOING ALONG DR. POMEROY'S SUGGESTION TOO, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT ANOTHER PLAYER OR POTENTIAL PARTICIPANT IN THE PROCESS IS THAT THE FACILITIES COMMITTEE HAS THE ABILITY TO, AS WAS PREVIOUSLY REFERENCED, HIRE AD HOC EXPERTS TO EVALUATE GRANT PROPOSALS OF THE SPECIALIZED TYPE. BUT IT SHOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO HIRE ON AN AD HOC BASIS INDIVIDUALS WITH EXPERTISE WHO COULD GO OUT AND SURVEY ON A FORECASTED BASIS THE SPECIAL EQUIPMENT NEEDS OR SPACE NEEDS IN AN AREA SO THAT THAT INFORMATION COULD COME BACK FROM AN EXPERT SOURCE TO THE COMMITTEE. AND THE COMMITTEE IS LOOKING AT INFORMATION NOT ON A REACTIONAL BASIS, BUT AT LEAST HAS SOME FORECASTED ABILITY TO SEE WHERE IT IS EXPECTED DEMAND IS GOING TO COME FROM FOR A FACILITIES.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: VERY GOOD.
DR. PRIETO: BOB, ALSO, AND DR. FRIEDMAN, I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT, AND I HOPE WE'LL KEEP IT IN MIND. WOULD THE STAFF HELP US TO IDENTIFY SOME OF THE PEOPLE WITH THAT EXPERTISE TO DO THE CONTRACT WITH.
MR. KLEIN: YES. THE STAFF COULD HELP US IDENTIFY THE PEOPLE WITH THAT EXPERTISE, BUT INDEED, SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE PUTTING ON THIS COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF THEIR PRIOR EXPERTISE, THEY MAY HAVE PREVIOUSLY, BEFORE THEY RETIRED, FOR EXAMPLE, BUILT LABS IN EACH OF THE STATE MIGHT KNOW SPECIFIC EXPERTS IN THE AREA. WE WOULD ALSO HOPE THAT INSTITUTIONS ON THE BOARD WOULD THROUGH THEIR FACULTIES KNOW PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPERT IN THE EQUIPMENT AREA, FOR EXAMPLE.
DR. PRIETO: GOOD POINT.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: AND, OF COURSE, THIS WILL BE THE DECISION OF THAT WORKING GROUP AND NOT US. WE DO, HOWEVER, FEEL -- AT LEAST I FEEL AN OBLIGATION TO STAFF THEM TO THE EXTENT OF WE'VE ALREADY PULLED, AND I'VE GIVEN TO MELISSA THE REVIEW TEAMS FROM NIH FOR FACILITIES FOR MANY YEARS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS.
WE'VE GATHERED THE STUDY SECTIONS TO CAPTURE NAMES OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE SERVED IN PUBLIC CAPACITIES FOR REVIEWING THESE KIND OF PROPOSALS. THIS WILL JUST BE ONE SET OF DATA THAT WILL BE PROVIDED SHOULD THIS WORKING GROUP REQUEST IT. BUT, OF COURSE, AS BOB SAYS, THEY'LL HAVE THEIR OWN CONTACTS AND THEIR OWN IDEAS, AND WE'LL HELP IN ANY WAY THAT WE CAN.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE, FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS ABOUT THIS TOPIC? AND THEN WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS, IF THERE AREN'T ANY, TO OPEN IT TO THE PUBLIC. SO FIRST, ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS?
DR. REED: JOHN REED IN SAN DIEGO.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: PLEASE, JOHN.
DR. REED: YEAH. I THINK IT'S MORE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION IN TERMS OF WHAT THE MANDATE OF THIS COMMITTEE IS. OUR DISCUSSIONS SEEM TO BE STRAYING IN THE DIRECTION OF SOME OF THE MECHANICS OF HOW THE REVIEW PROCESS WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED. AND I GUESS I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THAT IS REALLY WHAT CIRM STAFF IS FOR, AND OUR ESTEEMED PRESIDENT, DR. HALL, TO HELP ENVISION SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT THE WORKING GROUPS WILL BE CONFRONTED WITH AND TO SUPPLY THEM WITH THE INQUIRY SYSTEMS THAT THEY NEED TO PERFORM THOUGHTFUL REVIEWS OF, YOU KNOW, DEALING WITH ISSUES SUCH OF DUPLICATION OF RESOURCES, RELATIVE NEW RESOURCES, THE IMPACT OF RESOURCES.
IN THINKING ABOUT HOW THIS ALL INTEGRATES ON A STATEWIDE LEVEL, I WOULD SEE AS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CIRM STAFF TO COME UP WITH PROCEDURES FOR MAXIMIZING THE BENEFIT OF THE DOLLARS AND PROVIDE THE REVIEW GROUPS WITH THE INFORMATION THEY NEED TO REALLY EVALUATE THOSE IN A RELEVANT CONTEXT.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WELL, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT, JOHN. BUT I THINK THAT OUR GOAL HERE REALLY IS TO JUST OFFER INITIAL HELP AND ASSISTANCE. AND SINCE THIS WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED BY THE ICOC, IS NOT TO BE EXCLUSIONARY, NOT TO SAY, OH, THIS IS THE WAY IT MUST BE DONE. QUITE THE CONTRARY, IT'S JUST TO SAY, WE'VE GOT SOME IDEAS TO HELP SIMULATE. I AND I'M SURE SOME OTHER OTHER PEOPLE ON THE PANEL HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH DR. HALL ABOUT HIS WELCOMING INPUT AND IDEAS.
AND IT WAS REALLY IN THAT SENSE THAT WE'RE OFFERING JUST SOME GENERAL SUGGESTIONS, NOT A PROSCRIPTIVE FORMULA FOR HERE'S EXACTLY HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE. YOU'RE QUITE RIGHT, JOHN, WHEN YOU SAY THAT THIS IS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE PRESIDENT AND OF THE STAFF AND OF THE ACTUAL WORKING GROUPS THEMSELVES.
DR. REED: SO IF WE WANTED TO OFFER, SAY, A MENU OF SUGGESTED ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE REVIEW PROCESS, WOULD WE NEED TO, THEN, AGENDA THAT AND DEVOTE A PORTION OF A FUTURE MEETING TO SETTING FORTH A LIST OF SUGGESTIONS?
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I HAD ENVISIONED THE NEXT MEETING WHEN WE'RE ABLE TO CIRCULATE SOMETHING THAT WE'VE GOTTEN BACK FROM THE SCIENTIFIC GROUP AND FROM THE STANDARDS TO BE ABLE TO INTEGRATE SOME OF THEIR IDEAS, TO BEGIN TO CAPTURE IDEAS FROM OUR SUBCOMMITTEE, TO CAPTURE IDEAS FROM THE PUBLIC, AND THEN IT SORT OF FORMS A NUCLEUS OF WHAT ULTIMATELY GETS CHOSEN.
MR. KLEIN: THE OTHER THING THAT'S IMPORTANT HERE, DR. REED, IS THAT THE PUBLIC IS VERY FOCUSED ON THE FACT THAT TO THE EXTENT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POLICY, YOU KNOW, POLICY IS TO TRY AND SHARE EQUIPMENT BETWEEN FACILITIES WHEN CAPABLE OR WITHIN A FACILITY -- WITHIN AN INSTITUTION WHEN YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF RESEARCHERS UTILIZING THE SAME EQUIPMENT AND THE SAME TYPE OF EXPERIMENTS.
THOSE -- THE PUBLIC WANTS TO SEE THOSE KINDS OF GENERAL POLICIES KIND OF PUT ON TABLE AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE SO THEY CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THE INSTITUTION WILL WORK ON A POLICY LEVEL WITH, OF COURSE, DR. HALL DECIDING ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO IMPLEMENT THAT POLICY. BUT THESE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT YOU JUST REFERENCED, THE PUBLIC ALSO WANTS TO UNDERSTAND ENOUGH ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WILL THERE BE -- WILL THERE BE THE KIND OF THE CAPACITY TO DO FORECASTING OF DIFFERENT NEEDS, OR WILL WE BE OPERATING ON A REACTIVE FASHION.
CERTAINLY WITH LIMITING THE STAFF TO 50, YOU DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY ON STAFF TO HAVE THE KIND OF SPECIALIST WE NEED FOR FORECASTS, SO THAT THINGS -- HOW IS THIS GOING TO HAPPEN. BY HAVING AN OPEN DISCUSSION AT THIS LEVEL, THE PUBLIC GETS AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW IT MAY HAPPEN. IN FACT, DR. HALL MAY DECIDE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH A FIRM INSTEAD OF AD HOC HIRING OF INDIVIDUALS, BUT A CONTRACT WITH A FIRM THAT DOES THAT KIND OF FORECASTING. BUT AT LEAST WITH AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW IT'S GOING TO OPERATE AND TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION FORESIGHT OF OTHER --
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: AND IT DOES GIVE THE PUBLIC ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT, TO LEARN AND TO COMMENT --
MR. KLEIN: RIGHT.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: -- AND ENGAGE IN A DIALOGUE, AND THAT, OF COURSE, IS VERY USEFUL.
DR. REED: OKAY. SO WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO AGENDING THAT -- PUTTING IT ON THE AGENDA FOR A FUTURE MEETING.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: CORRECT. AND IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY. I'VE BEEN TASKED WITH MEETING WITH THE, INDIVIDUALLY, THE HEADS OF STANDARDS AND OF THE SCIENTIFIC SUBGROUPS TO BEGIN TO FORMULATE SOME THOUGHTS THAT WOULD BE WORTH DISCUSSING. AND OBVIOUSLY, PEOPLE NOW STIMULATED BY THIS DISCUSSION WILL BE GIVING IT SOME THOUGHT. SO THAT THERE WILL BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR RICH DISCUSSION AT THE NEXT MEETING.
COULD I ASK, PLEASE, WHETHER THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE COMMENTARY. AND IF WE COULD BEGIN IN SAN DIEGO.
DR. REED: NONE HERE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: AT UC DAVIS, PLEASE.
DR. POMEROY: NONE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: DR. LOVE?
DR. LOVE: NONE HERE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. AND IN PALO ALTO, PLEASE?
MR. KLEIN: YES, WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC HERE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: GOOD.
MR. KLEIN: CAN YOU HEAR PHIL?
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WE CAN'T HEAR.
MR. KLEIN: I'M GOING TO ASK HIM TO APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: PLEASE DO. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
MR. POSNER: PHIL POSNER FROM ORAL. JUST A SUGGESTION WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CORE FACILITIES. TYPICALLY, NIH CORE FACILITIES, VA CORE FACILITIES, ARE DEEDED TO THE UNIVERSITY, NOT TO THE INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATOR. AND WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING YOUR CORE FACILITIES, YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER A TIMEFRAME TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE, IN FACT, USED FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH.
YOU ALSO HAVE TO DEAL WITH MAKING THIS OPERATION UPTAKE (UNINTELLIGIBLE). BUT THE MOST PRESSING ISSUE, I THINK, FOR ICOC IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN THE INITIAL GRANT EXPIRES, THAT THOSE FACILITIES ARE VALUABLE, PARTICULARLY THE CLINICAL FACILITIES, ARE CONTINUED TO USE FOR RESEARCH RATHER THAN OTHER THINGS THAT THE UNIVERSITY MIGHT THINK ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN ICOC DOES.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMENT. THAT'S A COGENT POINT.
MR. KLEIN: THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POLICY COMMENT ALONG THE LINES OF A POLICY THAT NEED TO BE DEVELOPED. I CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT THE INITIATIVE EVEN REFERENCED SPECIFICALLY THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE EQUIPMENT IS NOT USED -- IS NOT USED UNDER THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH OR OTHER VITAL RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES, THAT A PORTION OF THE EQUIPMENT COST MIGHT BE A LOAN TO THE INSTITUTION, WHILE THE OTHER PORTION IS A GRANT, SO THAT THE INSTITUTE CAN RECOVER THAT PORTION OVER TIME THAT IS NOT BEING USED FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH UNLESS THERE IS A TRANSITION OF THAT PORTION OF THE EQUIPMENT INTO A STEM CELL RESEARCH FUNCTION.
SO THERE ARE POLICY ISSUES LIKE THAT THAT WILL NEED TO BE DISCUSSED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: GOOD. I'D LIKE TO ASK THAT -- WE HAVE THREE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN DUARTE. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS? THEY'RE DEMURRING AS WELL AT THIS MOMENT.
THEN LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I THINK WE'RE PERILOUSLY CLOSE TO CONCLUDING THIS MEETING.
DR. POMEROY: CAN I -- THIS IS CLAIRE POMEROY. CAN I ASK A POINT OF CLARIFICATION?
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: PLEASE, CLAIRE.
DR. POMEROY: WE TALKED A LOT TODAY ABOUT HOW THE SEARCH COMMITTEE IS GOING TO IDENTIFY THE REAL ESTATE SPECIALIST. I STILL HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO IDENTIFY THE PATIENT ADVOCATES ON THIS COMMITTEE. THEY'RE A BIG CHUNK OF THIS COMMITTEE. ARE WE GOING TO -- IS THERE A PROCESS ALREADY IN PLACE FOR HOW WE CHOOSE THOSE?
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: CLAIRE, LET ME TRY, AND MELISSA IS VERY GOOD ABOUT THIS, TO HELP ME GET THROUGH THE NUMEROLOGY OF THIS. I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE SIX MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATES WHO, FROM THE ICOC PARENT COMMITTEE, THAT WILL SERVE ON THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP.
MS. KING: THERE ARE SIX OF THE SEVEN THAT ARE ON GRANTS.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: AND THERE ARE SEVEN WHO ARE ON THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT SIX PEOPLE WHO ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY SERVING ON THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP WILL BE SERVING ON THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. THERE IS ADDITIONALLY, I BELIEVE, ONE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WILL BE -- ADVOCACY COMMUNITY WHO WILL BE SERVING SIMULTANEOUSLY ON ALL THREE WORKING GROUPS.
AND WE -- SINCE OUR ADVOCATE PARTICIPANTS COME FROM THE GRANTS COMMITTEE, WE NEED TO WAIT FOR THEM TO IDENTIFY THE SIX -- THE SEVEN INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE ON THEIR COMMITTEE SO THAT THEN SIX OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WOULD AGREE TO SERVE ON THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. IF I HAVEN'T CONFUSED YOU COMPLETELY, MELISSA CAN SAY IT PROBABLY BETTER.
DR. POMEROY: WELL, ACTUALLY THAT WAS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH MY UNDERSTANDING. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS HOW WILL WE CHOOSE WHICH SIX OF THE SEVEN. I AGREE WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE GRANT SEARCH COMMITTEE GETS THEIR WORK DONE.
MR. KLEIN: WELL, IT MAY BE COMPLETELY SELF-LIMITING, DR. POMEROY, IN THAT BECAUSE INDIVIDUALS ONLY HAVE SO MUCH TIME, IT MAY BE THAT IT'S HARD TO EVEN GET THE SIX.
DR. POMEROY: I AGREE. SO WE'RE GOING TO ASK FOR VOLUNTEERS, THEN, AMONG THE ELIGIBLE?
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: CORRECT. THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, YES.
DR. PRIETO: MR. CHAIRMAN?
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: YES, PLEASE.
DR. PRIETO: I WAS -- THIS IS FRANCISCO PRIETO. IT WASN'T CLEAR TO MY MIND THAT THOSE SIX ON THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP WOULD BE SIX OF THE SEVEN RATHER THAN THAT THEY WOULD BE SIX OF THE TEN. AND THE STANDARDS WOULD BE SEVEN OF THE TEN.
MS. KING: THE WAY THE INITIATIVE IS WRITTEN IS ACTUALLY THAT THERE WILL BE FIVE PATIENT ADVOCATES FROM THE ICOC ON THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP, AND THERE WILL BE SEVEN PATIENT ADVOCATES FROM THE ICOC ON THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. AND THEN, THAT THERE WILL BE SIX MEMBERS OF THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP ON THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, WITH THE FULL INTENT THAT THOSE SIX WOULD BE SPECIFICALLY SIX THE SEVEN PATIENT ADVOCATES THAT ARE ON THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. SO IT ACTUALLY IS AN OVERLAP OF PATIENT ADVOCATES IN THIS CASE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: MY UNDERSTANDING, DR. PRIETO, IS THAT IT'S FAIRLY -- IT'S FAIRLY RIGID IN THAT INTERPRETATION.
MR. KLEIN: IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE WOULD BE PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS OR SCIENTISTS ON THE GRANT WORKING GROUP WHO WOULD AGREE TO WORK ON THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, BUT IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.
MS. KING: RIGHT.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WELL, ANYWAY.
MS. KING: THE LIKELIHOOD IS THAT WE'LL END UP WITH SIX PATIENT ADVOCATES ON THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. AND THEY WILL BE SIX OF THE SEVEN THAT WILL SERVE ON THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP.
DR. PRIETO: THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: YOU'RE VERY WELCOME. ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS, PLEASE, OR OTHER POINTS OF DISCUSSION THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBER WOULD LIKE TO RAISE AT THIS MOMENT?
MR. KLEIN: IS THAT A GENERAL QUESTION?
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: YES, SIR.
MR. KLEIN: WELL, JUST AS A VERY POSITIVE NOTE, AS A FOOTNOTE TO THIS MEETING, THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES ANNOUNCED ITS PLANS TODAY TO SPEND 20 MILLION OVER FIVE YEARS TO ESTABLISH A STEM CELL INSTITUTE TO COMPETE FOR PROPOSITION 71'S GRANT MONEY. UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS SAID THE MONEY DRAWN FROM EXISTING ACCOUNTS WOULD PAY FOR A DOZEN NEW FACULTY POSITIONS, SALARIES, SUPPLIES, AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING LAB SPACE, WHICH IS A VERY NICE RESULT INCREMENTALLY FOR PROP 71.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: AND THOSE OF YOU WHO WISH TO READ MORE ABOUT IT, THERE'S QUITE A GOOD ARTICLE IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES THAT I'M SURE IS AVAILABLE ON THE WEB. AND THAT'S A -- IT'S A VERY POSITIVE SORT OF OCCURRENCE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE, FROM OTHER SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS?
DR. REED: YES. JOHN REED HERE. THE ONLY THING I CAN SAY ABOUT UCLA IS IT TOOK YOU LONG ENOUGH.
MR. KLEIN: WELL, I WOULD SAY THAT, DR. POMEROY, WE'D BE DELIGHTED IF YOU WOULD CALL IT UC DAVIS OF UCLA.
DR. POMEROY: WE HAVE SOME PLANS.
MS. KING: NO PRESSURE.
MR. KLEIN: WE'LL BE DEEPLY APPRECIATIVE.
CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: GOOD. WELL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AGAIN, COGNIZANT OF EVERYONE'S BUSY SCHEDULE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY MAKES THIS A PLEASURE FOR ME TO CHAIR THIS SUBCOMMITTEE IS THE EFFICIENCY OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE THOUGHTFULNESS OF HOW YOU PROCEED WITH THINGS. I BELIEVE THAT WE'VE COMPLETED ALL THE AGENDA ITEMS, BUSINESS THAT WE PLANNED TO CONDUCT.
BEFORE ADJOURNING THIS MEETING, I ASK AGAIN WHETHER THERE ARE ANY TOPICS THAT MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, OR IF THERE ARE FINAL STATEMENTS THAT ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO OFFER AT THIS TIME, WE CERTAINLY ARE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN THEM. AND WHAT I'LL DO IS SIMPLY ASK YOU TO SPEAK UP.
HEARING NOTHING THEN, MAY I THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR INDULGENCE AND PARTICIPATION TODAY, AND LOOK FORWARD TO -- MELISSA WILL BE IN TOUCH ABOUT THE SUBSEQUENT TELEPHONIC MEETING AND WILL BE DISTRIBUTING THE MODIFIED MATERIALS THAT RESULTED FROM THE DISCUSSION TODAY.
I THANK EVERYBODY VERY, VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HARD WORK, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SPEAKING TO YOU IN THE NEAR FUTURE. THANKS, EVERYBODY. BYE BYE.
(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT 2:05 P.M.)