State Stem Cell Agency Facilities Working Group Search Committee Transcript 5/20/05
This is an uncertified HTML copy of the transcript. 
Click here for a certified PDF transcript.
California State Stem Cell Agency
REGULAR MEETING 5/20/05
|
|||||||||
| DATE: | FRIDAY, MAY 20, 2005 2:30 PM |
||||||||
| LOCATION: | CITY OF HOPE NEEDLEMAN BUILDING ADMINISTRATION CONFERENCE ROOM/ROOM 116 1500 EAST DUARTE ROAD DUARTE, CALIFORNIA UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER UCLA STANFORD UNIVERSITY |
||||||||
| REPORTER: | BETH C. DRAIN CSR. NO. 7152 |
||||||||
| BRS FILE NO: | 72483 | ||||||||
| DUARTE, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, MAY 20, 2005 | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: IS OUR CHAIRMAN HERE? IS -- | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? | |||||||||
| MS. KING: NOT YET, RIGHT, AMY? WE DO NOT YET HAVE BOB KLEIN? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: NO. WE MUST NOT. CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT THE MINIMUM NUMBER IS FOR A QUORUM FOR THIS COMMITTEE? | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: YOU NEED FIVE. | |||||||||
| MS. DALY: DR. LOVE IS HERE. | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: AND YOU HAVE FIVE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: EXCELLENT. THEN I'D LIKE TO CONVENE THE MEETING. I'D LIKE TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR TAKING TIME FROM THEIR BUSY SCHEDULES. AND WE WILL COMMENCE WITH ROLL CALL, PLEASE. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: MICHAEL FRIEDMAN. | |||||||||
| DR. FRIEDMAN: HERE. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: BOB KLEIN. TED LOVE. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: HERE. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: CLAIRE POMEROY. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: HERE. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: FRANCISCO PRIETO. JOHN REED. GAYLE WILSON. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WE KNOW YOU'RE THERE, GAYLE. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: GAYLE WAS THERE, RIGHT, UCLA? DID WE LOSE UCLA? ALSO, DR. POMEROY, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE DR. PRIETO HAS YET JOINED YOU; IS THAT TRUE? | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: THAT IS CORRECT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WE HAVE TO WAIT A COUPLE MORE MINUTES. I'M VERY SORRY. WE DON'T QUITE HAVE A QUORUM, AND SO WE CAN'T CARRY OUT BUSINESS. | |||||||||
| ARE THERE -- I GUESS THIS MEETING CANNOT BE FORMALLY CONVENED UNTIL WE HAVE PEOPLE, THE MINIMUM NUMBER. BUT LET ME JUST ASK. WE HAVE NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE YET. ARE THERE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AT OTHER SITES? | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: THERE ARE HERE IN PALO ALTO. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. THAT'S EXCELLENT. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: THERE ARE HERE AT UC DAVIS AS WELL. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: TERRIFIC. I'M REALLY GLAD TO HEAR THAT. | |||||||||
| MS. SHREVE: CAN YOU HEAR US FROM UCLA? | |||||||||
| MS. KING: NOW WE CAN HEAR YOU. IS GAYLE WILSON THERE? | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: SHE IS HERE. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: GREAT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WE COULDN'T HEAR YOU, SO NOW WE HAVE A -- | |||||||||
| MS. KING: WE KNOW DR. REED ISN'T COMING; BUT UNTIL FRANCISCO GETS THERE, WE DON'T YET HAVE A QUORUM. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OKAY. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: IS IT CORRECT THAT WE CAN'T EVEN CONVENE THE MEETING VERSUS WE CAN'T TAKE A VOTE? | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: RIGHT. I THINK, DR. FRIEDMAN, YOU CAN CONVENE THE MEETING WITH LESS THAN A QUORUM, BUT YOU CAN'T TAKE ANY ACTION. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. I WILL -- I WOULD LIKE TO THEN CONVENE THE MEETING. AND I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BECAUSE WE HAVE A NUMBER OF THINGS TO DO. | |||||||||
| MAY I JUST GIVE THE GENERAL OPENING COMMENTS, THEN, THAT WE TYPICALLY GIVE. PUBLIC COMMENT IS VERY WELCOME AT THESE MEETINGS. WHAT I ASK, PLEASE, IS THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, SHOULD YOU WISH TO, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION. IT'S NOT NECESSARY, BUT IT'S OFTEN HELPFUL. I ASK YOU PLEASE TO CONFINE YOUR REMARKS TO THREE MINUTES OR LESS IN ORDER TO GIVE EVERYONE A CHANCE TO COMMENT. AND WE WILL CERTAINLY AT EACH POINT IN THE FORMAL PROCEEDINGS PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR, FIRST, MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO GIVE US THEIR COMMENTS AND THEN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. | |||||||||
| WHAT I'D LIKE TO BEGIN WITH IS WE'RE UP TO THE THIRD ITEM OF OUR AGENDA, THE CONSIDERATION OF DISEASE ADVOCATE MEMBERS OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. AND THE REASON THAT WE'RE BRINGING THIS FORWARD IS THAT, AS MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP MAY KNOW, BUT AS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY NOT YET BE AWARE, SADLY ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE INDEPENDENT CITIZENS' OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE WILL BE LEAVING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND LEAVING HER RESPONSIBILITIES. PHYLLIS PRECIADO IS MOVING TO ANOTHER LOCATION. WE'RE VERY SORRY TO LOSE HER, BOTH BECAUSE OF HER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GENERAL COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS, BUT ALSO THAT SHE WAS ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PATIENT ADVOCATES ON OUR PARTICULAR WORKING GROUP. | |||||||||
| THIS ABSENCE MEANS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE OR WILL NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF PATIENT ADVOCATES ON THIS COMMITTEE, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL. | |||||||||
| I UNDERSTAND THAT MR. BUSTAMONTE IS IN THE PROCESS OF SCREENING CANDIDATES AND CONSIDERING OTHER CANDIDATES TO RECOMMENDED FOR MEMBERSHIP. WE WILL CERTAINLY WAIT TO FIND OUT WHO HE NOMINATES FOR THIS. THIS HAS TO BE A DIABETES DISEASE REPRESENTATIVE, I UNDERSTAND. | |||||||||
| GIVEN THE EXTRAORDINARY NUMBER OF SUBCOMMITTEES THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO SERVE ON, IT'S NOT A SIMPLE THING TO SIMPLY PICK ANOTHER DISEASE ADVOCATE WHO CURRENTLY EXISTS ON THE ICOC AND ASK THEM TO STEP IN AT THIS TIME. BEFORE OUR WORKING GROUP WILL BE FULLY STAFFED AND READY TO CARRY OUT ITS BUSINESS, WE WILL NEED TO FILL THIS POSITION. AND I JUST POINT THIS OUT TO EVERYONE. | |||||||||
| MELISSA, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE I SHOULD SAY ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR THING? | |||||||||
| MS. KING: THE ONLY THING FOR THIS SUBCOMMITTEE TO KEEP IN MIND AS WE DO LOOK FOR ANOTHER PATIENT ADVOCATE MEMBER IS THAT ALL OF OUR PATIENT ADVOCATE MEMBERS FOR THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP HAVE TO ACTUALLY BE SERVING ON THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP SIMULTANEOUSLY. AND SINCE DR. PRECIADO IS ON BOTH OF THOSE, WHAT WE SEEK AT MINIMUM IS FOR A PATIENT ADVOCATE, EITHER ONE OF THE ONES THAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE ICOC OR THE NEWLY APPOINTED ONE, TO SERVE ON BOTH THE GRANTS AND THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: RIGHT. AND WE'RE MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE -- THE STAFF WILL BE MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION TO MR. BUSTAMONTE TO, AS HE SCREENS CANDIDATES, TO PLEASE INDICATE TO THEM THAT THE EXPECTATION IS THAT WE WOULD HOPE THAT THEY WOULD BE READY TO SERVE ON TWO, IF NOT ALL THREE, OF THE WORKING GROUPS BECAUSE THAT WILL BE REQUIRED. AND SO HE WILL BE ASKING IF THEY'RE WILLING TO DO THAT SO THAT WHOEVER COMES ON, THE NEW PERSON WILL UNDERSTAND THE MAGNITUDE OF THE EFFORT. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: ALTHOUGH WE CAN'T REQUIRE THEM TO DO THAT, IT WOULD BE GOOD IF THEY AT LEAST HAD AN INTEREST IN AND POSSIBLY AN ABILITY TO TIMEWISE SERVE ON ONE OR MORE OF THE WORKING GROUPS. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THEY WOULD ALMOST HAVE TO, BUT YOU CAN'T REQUIRE IT. I UNDERSTAND. AND SO WE LEAVE THAT TO MR. BUSTAMONTE, WHO I'M SURE WILL MANAGE THAT COMPETENTLY WITHOUT ANY DOUBT. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: THIS IS CLAIRE POMEROY FROM DAVIS. MELISSA, CAN YOU REMIND US WHO THE OTHER POTENTIAL PATIENT ADVOCATE CANDIDATES WOULD BE? IT WOULD BE FRANCISCO AND I'M JUST BLANKING. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: WELL, ONE POTENTIAL OPTION IS JONATHAN SHESTACK, WHO ALREADY IS SERVING ON BOTH GRANTS AND STANDARDS WORKING GROUPS; HOWEVER, TIMEWISE THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE TASKING. WE'D BE THEN ASKING HIM TO SERVE ON ALL THREE, LIKE PHYLLIS AND SHERRY LANSING WERE BOTH SIGNED UP TO DO. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: THAT'S A LOT. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: OTHER OPTIONS ARE VERY BUSY PEOPLE, NOT THAT YOU'RE NOT ALL BUSY, BUT BUSY PEOPLE LIKE DR. THAL, DR. STEWARD, DR. BLACK. NO, I'M SORRY. NOT DR. BLACK. ACTUALLY -- | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: AND DR. PRIETO. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: -- DR. PRIETO, EXACTLY. THE LIST IS NOT LONG OF WHO WE HAVE CURRENTLY SERVING ON THE ICOC AS A PATIENT ADVOCATE WHO IS EITHER NOT ON ANY OF THESE WORKING GROUPS RIGHT NOW, OR THE ONLY OTHER OPTION IS JONATHAN SHESTACK, BUT HE'S ALREADY ON TWO. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: SO THIS IS NOT -- THERE'S NO ACTION THAT WE CAN TAKE ON THIS TODAY. I JUST POINT THIS OUT TO EVERYONE. WE WILL ASK MR. KLEIN TO MAKE THIS POINT AT THE NEXT FULL ICOC MEETING IN TERMS OF SOLICITING INTEREST TO JOIN BOTH THE REVIEW AND THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. | |||||||||
| ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT? | |||||||||
| MS. KING: NO. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: LET'S GO ON. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: THEY'VE ALREADY AGREED TO SERVE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE, IT'S LISTED THERE, BUT SHERRY LANSING, JOAN SAMUELSON, DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL, JEFF SHEEHY, AND JANET WRIGHT HAVE ALL AGREED TO PARTICIPATE. AND OUR GRATITUDE TO THEM FOR THEIR WILLINGNESS TO SERVE. | |||||||||
| GOOD. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: CAN THIS COMMITTEE GO AHEAD WITHOUT THE FULL DISEASE ADVOCATES? CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: MR. HARRISON, WOULD YOU PLEASE COMMENT ON WHETHER OR NOT -- WHETHER THIS COMMITTEE CAN ACTUALLY FUNCTION WITHOUT THE FULL COMPLEMENT OF DISEASE ADVOCATES. | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: THERE IS NOTHING THAT REQUIRES THAT THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP HAVE ALL OF ITS MEMBERS APPOINTED BEFORE IT BEGINS TO FUNCTION. SO IT COULD BEGIN TO FUNCTION IF IT WAS ONE SHY. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT'S VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, GAYLE. I WAS UNDER THE WRONG IMPRESSION. THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: JAMES, THEN IS THE MAIN REQUIREMENT FOR THE WORKING GROUP THAT THEY HAVE TO JUST HAVE WHAT WOULD BE A QUORUM OF THE FULL WORKING GROUP IN ORDER TO DO ANY BUSINESS? | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: THAT'S CORRECT. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: OKAY. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: GOOD TO KNOW. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: WE WILL HAVE TO OFFICIALLY APPROVE THIS SLATE OF PATIENT ADVOCATES AT THE ICOC MEETING THOUGH, RIGHT? | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: THAT'S RIGHT. ABSOLUTELY. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: IF WE HAD A QUORUM HERE, SHOULDN'T WE OFFICIALLY MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION AND VOTE ON IT OR NOT? | |||||||||
| MS. KING: YES. ACTUALLY THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE ALREADY AGREED, AND THAT'S MORE THE ANGLE WITH THE PATIENT ADVOCATE MEMBERS. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: YOU'RE QUITE RIGHT. PROCEDURALLY YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. SO WHEN WE'RE JOINED BY EITHER MR. KLEIN OR DR. PRIETO, WHEN EITHER ONE OF THOSE TWO INDIVIDUALS JOINS US, WE WILL COME BACK AND TAKE A VOTE ON THAT. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A QUORUM THEN, SIX? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: FIVE. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: JOHN REED IS NOT JOINING US TODAY. CURRENTLY WE ARE MISSING DR. PRIETO AND BOB. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: WHAT'S THE QUORUM OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP? IF THERE ARE 11 MEMBERS ON IT, DOES THAT MAKE SIX? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: MR. HARRISON, AGAIN, COULD YOU -- | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: HOLD ON ONE MOMENT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: HE'S LOOKING IT UP. | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: IT WOULD BE SEVEN MEMBERS. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: ALTHOUGH -- | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: DR. FRIEDMAN, THIS IS TED LOVE. WHAT WERE WE GOING TO VOTE ON? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WE WERE GOING TO VOTE TO RECOMMEND THE SLATE OF PATIENT ADVOCATES THAT I JUST NAMED WHO HAVE AGREED TO SERVE ON THIS COMMITTEE. WE WERE GOING TO VOTE TO APPROVE THAT SLATE TO GO FORWARD TO THE FULL ICOC FOR THEIR ENDORSEMENT AT THE NEXT MEETING. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: OKAY. ON THE OTHER COMMITTEES WE'VE GENERALLY DONE IT AS ONE FULL SLATE, SO WE SELECTED THE CANDIDATES WHO WERE NONPATIENT ADVOCATES AND KIND OF AS A FULL SLATE. SO I WAS WONDERING WHY WE WOULD DO IT DIFFERENTLY. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: JUST BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING LITTLE BITES RATHER THAN BIG BITES. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: OKAY. NO OBJECTION. JUST CURIOUS. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: NO PROBLEM. THIS DOES GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO INVITE COMMENTS FROM -- OBVIOUSLY IF THE OUR LITTLE COMMITTEE HAS ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THIS SLATE OF ADVOCATES, I WOULD ASK FOR THAT. AND THEN WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS ASK WHETHER THERE ARE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT JUST THE SLATE OF PATIENT ADVOCATES. SO ANYTHING FROM -- LET'S JUST GO ANYTHING IN PALO ALTO? | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: NO. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I THINK THE BIGGER ISSUE IS FOR US TO GET ON WITH SELECTION OF THE OUTSIDE PEOPLE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I AGREE. SACRAMENTO? | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: NO. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THERE'S NO ONE HERE. UCLA, PLEASE? | |||||||||
| MS. SHREVE: THERE'S NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OKAY. THEN WE'VE HAD OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND APPRECIATE THAT. WE WILL COME BACK AND VOTE ON THIS WITH A FULL SLATE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE REAL ESTATE SPECIALISTS THAT WE'D LIKE TO SELECT. | |||||||||
| CAN WE THEN PLEASE GO TO ITEM NO. 4, WHICH IS A DISCUSSION OF THE REAL ESTATE SPECIALISTS. AND LET ME BEGIN BY FIRST THANKING THE WORKING DUETS OF REVIEWERS WHO WERE KIND ENOUGH TO HAVE TELEPHONE OR IN-PERSON INTERVIEWS WITH EACH OF THESE ELEVEN PEOPLE THAT ARE LISTED HERE. DRS. POMEROY AND PRIETO, DR. LOVE AND MR. KLEIN, DR. REED AND GAYLE WILSON EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR TOGETHER MET WITH THESE PEOPLE AND WERE KIND ENOUGH TO SUPPLY RATINGS AND COMMENTS BACK. I'M VERY GRATEFUL FOR YOUR EFFORTS IN DOING SO. | |||||||||
| THIS WAS A REALLY SOLID LIST OF SPECIALISTS AND REALLY VERY ATTRACTIVE SET OF CANDIDATES. | |||||||||
| WHAT I THOUGHT WE WOULD DO IS JUST TO RECAPITULATE WHAT WE HAD SAID WE WOULD TRY AND BRING FORWARD TO THE FULL ICOC AT ITS NEXT MEETING. | |||||||||
| WE WANTED TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF FOUR HIGHLY QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS; BUT IF THERE ARE MORE THAN FOUR HIGHLY QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS, WE WANTED TO GIVE THE ICOC A CHANCE TO SELECT FROM A SLIGHTLY LARGER POOL. WHETHER THAT'S SIX OR EIGHT PEOPLE, WE ALL AGREED THAT WE WANTED TO GIVE THEM AN EXTRA OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS. | |||||||||
| WE WILL AT THE NEXT ICOC MEETING PRESENT SUMMARIES, WRITTEN SUMMARIES, OF THE COMMENTS THAT YOU REVIEWERS HAVE SUPPLIED TO US INDICATING YOUR REVIEWS OF THESE INDIVIDUALS AND THE SCORING FOR THESE INDIVIDUALS. | |||||||||
| AND YOU RECALL THAT AT A PREVIOUS MEETING WE HAD A DISCUSSION OF AND A FORMAL ADOPTION OF A SCORING SYSTEM THAT I THOUGHT WAS REALLY ELEGANT THAT THIS GROUP CAME UP WITH THAT REALLY WORKED VERY WELL, LOOKING AT THEIR PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE, THEIR EXPERTISE, THEIR COMPETENCIES, AND SO FORTH. OF COURSE, ALL OF THESE ELEVEN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SCREENED FOR THE KINDS OF CONFLICTS OR THE KINDS OF PROHIBITIONS WHICH WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BAR THEM FROM BEING EVEN CONSIDERED. SO THEY'VE ALL PASSED THAT INITIAL SCREEN. | |||||||||
| WHAT WE HAVE, THEN, IS A LIST OF THESE PEOPLE. WE HAVE SCORES THAT HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE A DISCUSSION OF EXACTLY WHO SHOULD GO FORWARD AS OUR HIGHEST RECOMMENDED GROUP. SINCE NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES FAILED, FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THIS INFORMATION GOES FORWARD TO THE ICOC SO THAT EVERY MEMBER WILL HAVE THE SENSE THAT HE OR SHE HAS THE FULL SLATE TO LOOK AT. | |||||||||
| THERE ARE -- OF THE ELEVEN PEOPLE, THERE ARE SEVEN, ACTUALLY EIGHT OUT OF THE ELEVEN WHO HAVE THE HIGHEST SCORES THAT WE CAN ASSIGN. THERE ARE THREE PEOPLE WHO HAVE JUST SLIGHTLY LOWER SCORES, AND WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS THAT WE DISCUSS EACH OF THE PEOPLE WITH THE LOWER SCORES FIRST. UNLESS THERE'S A STRONG SENTIMENT FROM ANY OF THE REVIEWERS, I WOULD SAY THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS WILL BE RETAINED AS A POTENTIAL POOL FOR CONSIDERATION LATER, BUT WILL NOT GO FORWARD AS OUR HIGHEST RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SLATE. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: I AGREE WITH THAT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE, THE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE EXCELLENT SCORES, I DON'T MEAN THIS IN ANY SORT OF DISRESPECTFUL WAY, BUT THIS WAS THE BEST OF THE VERY BEST. MR. JOHN ARCHIBALD, MR. ROBERT D'ELIA, AND MR. STUART SHIFF HAD SCORES THAT WERE SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN THEIR COUNTERPARTS. AND WHAT I WOULD ASK IS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN ANY COMMENTS THAT ANY OF THE REVIEWERS HAVE, EITHER BY READING THE MATERIALS OR BY THEIR OWN DIRECT INTERACTIONS WITH THESE INDIVIDUALS, THAT WOULD ELEVATE THEM TO THE UPPERMOST TIER. | |||||||||
| IF I MADE THAT CLEAR, WHAT I WOULD DO IS I WOULD ASK FIRST SACRAMENTO, IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT, AND I'LL REPEAT, MR. ARCHIBALD, MR. D'ELIA, AND I APOLOGIZE IF I'M MISPRONOUNCING HIS NAME, AND MR. SHIFF. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: THIS IS CLAIRE POMEROY. I JUST WANT TO BRING UP A SLIGHTLY RELATED POINT. YOU KNOW, THIS FEELS A LOT LIKE A PERSONNEL ACTION, AND I WONDER IF YOU CAN JUST HELP ME BY HAVING COUNSEL COMMENT. YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE -- WHEN YOU ARE RANKING PEOPLE, YOU BY DEFINITION START CRITIQUING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PEOPLE. AND THAT'S OFTEN WHY WE HAVE PERSONNEL ACTIONS IN CLOSED SESSION. SO COULD COUNSEL JUST COMMENT ON THAT? | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: SURE. UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE CAUGHT IN A BIT OF A CATCH 22. THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP ARE NOT CONSIDERED PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES FOR PURPOSES OF CONFLICT LAWS AND OTHER STATE LAWS UNDER THE ACT ITSELF. SO, THEREFORE, BECAUSE THE EXCEPTION IN BAGLEY-KEENE FOR PERSONNEL ACTIONS ONLY APPLIES TO STATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, WE ARE OBLIGATED TO DISCUSS THESE CANDIDATES, UNCOMFORTABLE AS IT IS, IN OPEN SESSION. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: CAN I ASK, THEN, IF IT WOULD -- IF IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO REDACT FOR THE -- TO REDACT THE EVALUATIONS AT ALL? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: IN OTHER WORDS, TO REDACT WHO THE REVIEWERS WERE. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: WELL, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW -- | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I UNDERSTAND, CLAIRE. I UNDERSTAND. MR. HARRISON, THAT'S A QUESTION WE NEED TO ASK YOU. | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: SO THESE ARE THE SUMMARIES THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT'S CORRECT. | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S NOT A CLEAR ANSWER. I THINK THERE IS A GOOD ARGUMENT THAT THE SUMMARIES ARE NOT THEMSELVES PUBLIC RECORDS UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO MAKE THEM SO BECAUSE THERE IS A DELIBERATIVE PROCESS EXCEPTION UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT FOR NOTES AND OTHER DRAFTS THAT REFLECT YOUR MENTAL IMPRESSIONS. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: BUT THEY WERE JUST HANDED OUT AT THE PUBLIC SESSION FOR THIS MEETING. | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: I SEE. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: THIS IS MELISSA AT CITY OF HOPE. JUST A QUICK COMMENT ON THAT. AND I APOLOGIZE THAT THERE WAS NOT UNIFORMITY ACROSS SITES. BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THAT FOR EVERY OTHER SITE THERE IS JUST ONE FOLDER OF INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC SO THAT AT THE VERY LEAST THESE EVALUATIONS COULD NOT BE TAKEN AWAY BY ANY PUBLIC MEMBER. AND IF THE SUBCOMMITTEE SO CHOSE, AND, JAMES, MR. HARRISON, IF THIS WAS OKAY, WE COULD JUST PULL THAT PART OF THE BOOK OUT SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN'T EVEN LOOK THROUGH IT, AND IN SACRAMENTO YOU COULD JUST REMOVE THAT DOCUMENT FROM PUBLIC CONSUMPTION, IF POSSIBLE. I DON'T KNOW. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY KNEW THAT THE INTENTION WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS GOT THESE EVALUATIONS, BUT THAT THERE WERE NOT COPIES OF IT LAYING AROUND FOR THE PUBLIC NECESSARILY, CERTAINLY NOT TO WALK AWAY WITH. | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: I WOULD RECOMMEND TO, IN AN EFFORT TO PROTECT THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THOSE MATERIALS, THAT THEY BE RETAINED AND NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: I'VE JUST BEEN CORRECTED. THEY WERE NOT HANDED OUT TO THE PUBLIC HERE IN SACRAMENTO. I GUESS THAT MEANS THEY WOULD NOT BE HANDED TO THE PUBLIC AT THE ICOC; IS THAT CORRECT? | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: THAT'S CORRECT. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: WELL, IN THAT CASE, I'M A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. I APOLOGIZE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU, CLAIRE. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: DR. FRIEDMAN, THIS IS TED LOVE. I WOULD SAY THAT, FOLLOWING UP ON DR. POMEROY'S POINT, I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE -- | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: EXCUSE ME. WE NEED -- WE NEED TO HAVE EVERYBODY ON MUTE WHO ISN'T TALKING, PLEASE. GO AHEAD. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: I WOULD FEEL PERSONALLY MORE COMFORTABLE, GIVEN THAT I DID INTERVIEW THREE CANDIDATES, MAKING A CASE FOR THE VERY TOP CANDIDATE AND EXPLAINING WHY I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE VERY TOP CANDIDATE. ALL THREE PEOPLE I TALKED TO I THOUGHT WERE EXCELLENT. AND I THOUGHT IT WAS AMAZING THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO GIVE THEIR TIME, BUT I THINK I'D STILL FEEL BETTER TALKING ABOUT THE POSITIVE ATTRIBUTES OF MY NO. 1 CHOICE AS MY FIRST CONVERSATION ANYWAY. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. OTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS? | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: GAYLE WILSON. JOHN REED AND I INTERVIEWED FOUR, THREE OF WHOM WE GAVE THE HIGHEST MARKS. THE ONLY REASON THE OTHER ONE DIDN'T GET AS HIGH, FRANKLY, IS HE WAS JUST YOUNGER AND LESS EXPERIENCED. NOTHING AGAINST HIM. | |||||||||
| MY SECOND COMMENT IS WHEN WE HAD TALKED ABOUT BRINGING FORTH EIGHT NAMES, THAT'S THE NUMBER I REMEMBER. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: YES. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: THAT THE ICOC WOULD PICK THE TOP FOUR. I THINK THERE ARE SOME OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. IF WE HAVE ALL TOP PEOPLE, HOW DO YOU PICK FOUR? I THINK, FOR INSTANCE, THERE SHOULD BE SOME GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WELL, AND I THINK THAT'S A VALID POINT, GAYLE. SO LET ME THEN, BASED UPON THIS VERY USEFUL DISCUSSION, LET ME PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING. THERE ARE, IN FACT, EIGHT PEOPLE WHO HAVE GOTTEN 4 OR 4+, WHICH ARE THE HIGHEST MARKS THAT THE REVIEWERS COULD GIVE. AND I MUST TELL YOU I REVIEWED THE COMMENTS FOR EACH OF THE CANDIDATES, AS I'M SURE MANY OF YOU DID, AND I SUPPORT, BASED UPON MY READING AND MY EVALUATION, THE SCORES OF 4 OR 4+ THAT WERE GIVEN. | |||||||||
| I WOULD SAY THAT THERE ARE EIGHT INDIVIDUALS, MR. DOMS, MR. FRAGER, MR. HYSEN -- MS. HYSEN, MR. KASHIAN, MR. LAFF, MR. LICHTENGER, AND MR. MOCK, AND MR. SPIEKER ALL OF WHOM HAD 4 OR 4+ SCORES BY THEIR NAMES. AND I HEAR A GOOD DEAL OF SENTIMENT TO SAY THAT THIS SHOULD BE THE SLATE WHICH IS SENT FORWARD TO THE -- WE'RE NOT TAKING A VOTE BECAUSE WE DON'T YET HAVE A QUORUM, BUT THAT THERE'S A LOT OF SENTIMENT ABOUT THESE ARE THE INDIVIDUALS WHO SHOULD GO FORWARD. | |||||||||
| THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE 4+, AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN THE IDEA THAT THE TWO 4+ SHOULD BE AT THE VERY TOP WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION, THAT THESE BE CONSIDERED THE TWO TOP PEOPLE, BUT THE REST, THE OTHER SIX, ARE UNIFORMLY GOOD CANDIDATES WITH EXCELLENT EXPERIENCES AND SKILLS. AND WE CAN LEAVE IT TO THE ICOC TO PICK. I THINK HAVING SOME BACKUPS, HAVING SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE AVAILABLE SHOULD EXTRA PEOPLE BE NEEDED ON AN AD HOC BASIS TO SUPPLEMENT PARTICULAR QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT COME UP. I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY MUCH IN OUR INTEREST TO HAVE A POOL WHICH IS SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN THE FOUR WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND VETTED AND ARE AVAILABLE TO SERVE IF ASKED. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: YOU WILL NOTICE UNDER SCORE 2, THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF BLANKS. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: YES. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: I KNOW FOR ONE OF THEM IS A 4+. AND I WAS NOT GIVING PLUSES. I ALWAYS LOVED TO GET A+ WHEN I WAS IN SCHOOL. I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT HERE, BUT JOHN REED DID. AND, FOR INSTANCE, UNDER NED SPIEKER IN THAT ONE BLANK SHOULD BE A 4+. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: I WOULD DO THE SAME THING. I HAD GAYLE'S EXACT REACTION TO THE PLUS SYSTEM. I LIKED IT WHEN I OCCASIONALLY GOT ONE, BUT I WASN'T THINKING ABOUT IT HERE. I WOULD ACTUALLY GIVE, AT LEAST FOR ME, A 4+ FOR RUSTY DOMS. AND I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED, IF BOB WERE ON THE PHONE, HE WOULD DO THE SAME THING. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. QUITE FRANKLY, THE DIFFICULTY HERE IS THESE WERE EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD FOLKS, ALL OF WHOM HAD DEEP SKILLS, REAL COMMITMENT TO DOING THIS, AND THIS WAS A VERY HARD, VERY HARD ANALYSIS. WE ARE MISSING TWO, THREE SCORES. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: IN A COUPLE OF CASES, LET ME JUST CLARIFY, IN A COUPLE OF CASES, THE REASON THERE ARE NOT TWO SCORES IS BECAUSE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR BOTH MEMBERS OF THE INTERVIEW TEAM TO DO THE INTERVIEW, AND THAT'S DEFINITELY THE CASE WITH MR. FRAGER. AND THEN IN THE CASE OF DAVID LICHTENGER AND NED SPIEKER -- | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WE GOT THAT ONE JUST NOW. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: I DID ALL FOUR OF THEM TOGETHER. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE PROBABLY -- YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THESE OTHER SCORES. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THE OTHER MEMBER DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO DO IT. SINCE THOSE ARE 4S, THEY MAKE IT TO THE TOP TIER ANYWAY. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: I'M STILL STUCK ON PROCESS HERE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: GOOD. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS THAT IN ADDITION TO THE GEOGRAPHIC BALANCE THAT GAYLE MENTIONED, THERE'S ALSO SORT OF SKILL BALANCE, AND THIS BECAME CLEAR TO ME AS I WAS INTERVIEWING PEOPLE. I NOTE THAT FOR THE OTHER WORK GROUPS ONE SLATE OF SORT OF FINALISTS WAS RECOMMENDED AND THEN AD HOCS. | |||||||||
| I WONDER IF WE WERE TO PUT FOUR NAMES FORTH AS SORT OF OUR FIRST CHOICES, IF WE SHOULD BRIEFLY HEAR ABOUT EACH OF THESE 4S AND TRY DO SOME BALANCE. I'LL GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE, PUBLIC EXPERIENCE VERSUS PRIVATE EXPERIENCE, CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE VERSUS LEASING EXPERIENCE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I THINK THAT'S A VERY, VERY GOOD POINT THAT YOU'RE MAKING, CLAIRE. AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH THE EIGHT CANDIDATES WHO ARE AT THE VERY TOP HERE AND TO HEAR WHAT THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS ARE THAT WOULD RECOMMEND THESE INDIVIDUALS FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THE TOP TIER. AND I THINK QUESTIONS OF EXPERIENCE, PARTICULAR SKILLS, OR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION ARE VALID FOR DISCUSSION HERE. | |||||||||
| CAN WE JUST PROCEED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER THEN? WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS ASK, AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SPEAK OBVIOUSLY FIRST FOR YOUR EXPERIENCE, IF YOU INTERVIEWED THE INDIVIDUAL, SECOND IF YOU'VE HAD ANY EXPERIENCE OR KNOWLEDGE OF THIS INDIVIDUAL EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY NOT HAVE INTERVIEWED HIM OR HER, AND THIRD, ANYTHING THAT YOU READ THAT LEADS YOU TO HAVE CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS. SO COULD WE BEGIN PLEASE WITH MR. DOMS. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: THIS IS FRANCISCO PRIETO. I DID JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I WAS HERE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WELCOME. WE'RE VERY PLEASED TO HAVE YOU. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: I'LL ECHO THAT -- WHEN WE GET TO THE CANDIDATE, I'LL ECHO WHAT CLAIRE SAID, THAT THERE WAS ONE CANDIDATE WHO STOOD OUT BECAUSE OF SORT OF THE UNIQUENESS OF HER EXPERIENCE, AND I'LL BRING THAT UP WHEN WE GET TO HER. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: VERY GOOD. I'M DELIGHTED. AND SHE'S ONLY TWO AWAY, SO WE'RE ALMOST THERE. | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: WE HAVE A QUORUM. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, SO WE CAN NOW REALLY GET SERIOUS. | |||||||||
| ANY COMMENTS, PLEASE, OF UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF MR. DOMS? MR. DOMS IS ONE OF OUR HIGHEST RANKING INDIVIDUALS. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: I'LL KIND OF QUICKLY REVIEW HIM, IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT WOULD BE GOOD. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: MR. DOMS AND I -- MR. DOMS WAS INTERVIEWED ACTUALLY BY ME AND BOB TOGETHER. BOTH OF US HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH HIM. AND JUST SO THE PEOPLE HAVE A PERSPECTIVE ON HIM, HE'S ACTUALLY A GENTLEMAN WHO HAD A VERY SUCCESSFUL CAREER AT BUILDING A PRIVATE REAL ESTATE FIRM, WHICH HE SOLD, PRESUMABLY FOR A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT. AND SINCE THAT TIME, HE'S ACTUALLY SPENT ALMOST ALL OF HIS TIME GIVING HIS TIME TO PLACES LIKE POMONA, THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, BUILDING BUILDINGS AT POMONA, BUILDING BUILDINGS IN L.A. MORE IN ADVISORY, KIND OF HIGH-LEVEL ROLE. SO I THINK GEOGRAPHICALLY HE'S IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. | |||||||||
| THE REAL STRENGTH OF THIS GUY IS THAT HE IS REALLY VERY, VERY SHARP, HAS A LOT OF EXPERIENCE AT A HIGH LEVEL THINKING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN, AND ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION OF BUILDINGS FROM VERY SMALL SIZE UP TO A 650-PATIENT -- 650-BED HOSPITAL AT USC. | |||||||||
| I THINK BOTH BOB AND I WERE EXTREMELY IMPRESSED WITH HIM AND FELT THAT HE'S SOMEONE WHO HAS A LOT OF TIME. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HE IS PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN IN TERMS OF STEM CELL RESEARCH, AND HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT HE ACTUALLY FELT THIS GROUP SHOULD MEET MORE FREQUENTLY BECAUSE IN HIS EXPERIENCE IN BUILDING BUILDINGS, YOU REALLY NEED TO STAY ON TOP OF THE PROCESS BEFORE THINGS ARE DONE WHICH ARE IRREPARABLE OR VERY EXPENSIVE TO REPAIR. | |||||||||
| SO I ACTUALLY DID KIND OF WRITE UP A SUMMARY OF HIM, WHICH IS CONTAINED HERE, THAT LISTS SPECIFIC STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES. AGAIN, IF I COULD JUST EMPHASIZE, THE ONLY WEAKNESS OF HIM IS THAT HE HASN'T REALLY BEEN THE OWNER OF BUILDINGS. HE'S REALLY BEEN MORE IN THE SUPERVISORY KIND OF OVERSIGHT ROLE, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE ROLE THAT WE ACTUALLY WANT THIS COMMITTEE TO PLAY TO BEGIN WITH, BUT HE DOES NOT HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE OF BUILDING A BUILDING FROM INSIDE OF A COMPANY, FOR EXAMPLE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TED. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT MR. DOMS FROM ANY OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS? | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: I WAS THE ONE THAT HAD RECOMMENDED HIM. I DON'T KNOW HIM PERSONALLY, BUT HIS REPUTATION HERE IN LOS ANGELES AS A BUILDER, AS WELL AS JUST A PERSON IS JUST ABSOLUTELY TOPNOTCH. I THINK WE WOULD BE LUCKY TO HAVE HIM. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: EXCELLENT. CAN WE GO ON PLEASE -- I'M NOT TRYING TO CUT THE DISCUSSION SHORT, BUT I WANT TO MOVE AHEAD. SO WE CAN STOP AND TAKE MORE TIME WITH ANY OF THESE. THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE END WHEN WE FINISH THESE INDIVIDUALS. | |||||||||
| THE NEXT IS MR. FRAGER. ANY COMMENTS ABOUT MR. JAMES FRAGER, ALSO HIGHLY SCORED? | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: I GUESS I'LL GET MY TWO OUT OF THE WAY. I HAD A CHANCE TO INTERVIEW MR. FRAGER. UNFORTUNATELY, BOB WASN'T ABLE TO JOIN IN, SO I WAS THE ONLY ONE FROM THE GROUP WHO HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH HIM. | |||||||||
| OBVIOUSLY A MUCH YOUNGER PERSON; BUT AS YOU CAN SEE AS YOU GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT HIS CV, VERY FAST RISER IN HIS CAREER. HE'S NOW EMPLOYED AT A FIRM WHICH IS A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FIRM IN THE SAN DIEGO AREA. I'M BLANKING ON THE NAME. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: IT'S ACTUALLY HIS OWN COMPANY. IT'S TAYLOR FRAGER. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: RIGHT. ACTUALLY IT DIDN'T START OUT AS HIS OWN COMPANY, WHICH KIND OF SPEAKS TO WHAT I WAS SAYING. HE WAS HIRED THERE AND WITHIN, I THINK, 18 MONTHS OF BEING THERE, THEY ACTUALLY PROMOTED HIM TO THE POSITION OF BEING PRESIDENT AND A COOWNER OF THE COMPANY. HE DIDN'T BUILD THE COMPANY. HE CAME TO THE COMPANY, BUT I THINK TESTAMENT AT HOW TALENTED HE IS. HE ROSE TO A POSITION OF NOW BEING A PARTIAL OWNER OF THE COMPANY. | |||||||||
| THE ONLY THING ABOUT HIM THAT I THINK WOULD MAKE ME RANK HIM A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN MR. DOMS, QUITE FRANKLY, WHO I WOULD GIVE THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE SCORE TO, WAS THAT I SENSE THAT MR. FRAGER IS PRETTY BUSY. AND BEING HONEST, HE WAS LATE FOR HIS INTERVIEW, AND EVEN AT THE END OF HIS INTERVIEW, IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT HE HAD TO MOVE ON. SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY. BUT VERY TALENTED, VERY BRIGHT. WE'D BE LUCKY TO HAVE HIM, BUT I DO THINK THAT TIME BALANCE WOULD BE AN ISSUE, AND THAT'S WHY I RANK HIM A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN MR. DOMS. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: IF I COULD JUST ASK YOU A QUESTION, PLEASE. AS I READ YOUR REVIEW, HE HAS HAD EXPERIENCE WITH GMP FACILITIES AND FDA APPROVED FACILITIES, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT MR. DOMS AND SOME OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES DID NOT HAVE. AM I CORRECT IN THAT? | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. BECAUSE HE'S BEEN WORKING FOR THESE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FIRMS, HE'S WORKED WITH COMPANIES LIKE AMGEN, HE'S WORKED WITH CITIES. HE'S REALLY BEEN INVOLVED IN A VERY BROAD WAY. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: SO IN PICKING UP ON THE POINT THAT WAS MADE EARLIER, WE'RE LOOKING FOR SKILL DISTRIBUTION, FOR EXPERIENCE DISTRIBUTION, AND FOR GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. THAT'S AN INTERESTING -- AGAIN, WHETHER HE IS SELECTED TO BE ONE OF THE PRIMARY FOUR, WHETHER HE IS AN AD HOC MEMBER WHO'S AVAILABLE FOR SPECIFIC THINGS, OR WHETHER THE ICOC CHOOSES TO NOT HAVE HIM AT ALL, I JUST THINK THAT WE WANT TO ASSEMBLE THESE SORTS OF INFORMATION. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: THAT'S A GOOD POINT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I THINK I INTERRUPTED SOMEBODY. PLEASE LET ME ASK YOU TO COMMENT. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: TED, FRANCISCO PRIETO HERE. JUST A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR COMMENT THAT HE SEEMED VERY BUSY. DID YOU GET THE FEELING THAT HE WAS COMMITTED TO THE ENTERPRISE ENOUGH THAT HE'D BE WILLING TO DEVOTE SUFFICIENT TIME AND ENERGY TO IT? | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: WELL, I'M BEING A BIT CRITICAL HERE OBVIOUSLY; BUT WHEN I SCHEDULE AN INTERVIEW WITH SOMEBODY, I GENERALLY AM AVAILABLE AT THE SCHEDULED INTERVIEW, AND HE WASN'T. AND WHEN WE WENT TO CHASE HIM DOWN, HE WASN'T READILY AVAILABLE. WE DID MANAGE TO GET HIM ON THE PHONE THAT DAY; AND WHEN WE GOT HIM ON THE PHONE, HE WAS VERY IMPRESSIVE TO TALK TO. BUT IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR TOWARD THE END OF THE INTERVIEW THAT HE HAD TO GO. AND IT WAS A LITTLE BIT BEFORE I WAS READY TO TERMINATE THE INTERVIEW. BUT THAT'S JUST THAT I SHOULD BE HONEST AND MENTION. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT'S EXCELLENT. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING CRITICAL. IT'S INTERESTING YOU MENTION THAT ONE OF OUR FOUR CANDIDATES MADE THE POINT, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING DONE, ASK A BUSY PERSON. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: THAT'S A GOOD POINT. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: HE WAS A VERY BUSY PERSON, BUT HE DID NOT MAKE US FEEL AS IF WE WERE RUSHING HIM IN ANY WAY. INTERESTING CONTRAST. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: VERY GOOD. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: I BELIEVE THAT JOHN REED RECOMMENDED MR. FRAGER. I DON'T KNOW HIM. I'M JUST SORRY THAT WE DON'T HAVE JOHN TO GIVE HIS IMPRESSION OF HIM BECAUSE HE ACTUALLY KNOWS HIM. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: HE MENTIONED THAT JOHN HAD NOMINATED HIM. THEY'RE BOTH IN THE YOUNG PRESIDENTS ORGANIZATION IN SAN DIEGO. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: ONE QUESTION I HAVE. I WONDER, YOU MADE THE COMMENT IN YOUR EVALUATION, I PRESUME THIS IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, THAT A LIMITED HISTORY OF COMMUNITY AND CIVIC INTEREST. AND I JUST WONDER IF YOU GOT THE FEELING AT ALL THAT PERHAPS HE SAW THIS AS A NETWORKING OPPORTUNITY NOTCH ON THE RESUME, SO TO SPEAK, RATHER THAN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SIT DOWN AND GET SOME WORK DONE. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: WAS THAT TO ME? | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: YES, TED. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: WELL, I MEAN I DID WONDER ABOUT THAT, BUT I DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONVERSATION DIRECTLY ALONG THOSE LINES. AND I THINK THAT'S THE KIND OF THING, AS GAYLE SAID, IT'D BE NICE TO GET JOHN'S PERSPECTIVE IF JOHN ACTUALLY KNOWS HIM. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WELL, WE HAVE THE GOOD FORTUNE OF HAVING ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR A COMPLETE DISCUSSION OF THIS. AND I THINK I'LL ASK MELISSA TO PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT DR. REED IS PREPARED TO SPEAK TO THIS AT THE ICOC MEETING SO THAT WE WILL HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: I'LL POINT OUT THAT HE IS THE ONLY ONE ON THIS LIST FROM THE SAN DIEGO AREA. I SEE HE'S THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS WORKED ON GMP AND FDA APPROVED FACILITIES. THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY PUT HIM UP IN THE TOP FOUR, BUT I THINK HE'D BE A REAL ASSET TO HAVE WORKING FOR US. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I THINK YOU MAKE A VERY GOOD POINT, GAYLE. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THIS IS BOB KLEIN. I APOLOGIZE. I WAS IN MEETINGS WITH A STATE SENATOR ABOUT THE ORTIZ LEGISLATION. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU, BOB. WELCOME. WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DISCUSSING THESE CANDIDATES. AND WE'RE JUST UP TO -- IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT MR. FRAGER, I'M LOOKING FORWARD VERY MUCH TO HEARING THE DISCUSSION OF MS. HYSEN, PLEASE. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: FRANCISCO AND I HAD A GREAT TALK WITH HER. VERY IMPRESSIVE PERSON. STARTED OFF WITH A LONG HISTORY IN PRIVATE REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT AND THEN MOVED INTO STATE SERVICE. AND SHE WAS THE ONLY ONE WE TALKED TO WHO HAD A LOT OF HISTORY WORKING WITH STATE GOVERNMENT. SHE'S CURRENTLY THE ACTING CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DGS. AND I THOUGHT THAT BROUGHT A REALLY IMPORTANT PERSPECTIVE. | |||||||||
| SHE HAS DONE A LOT OF BUILD VERSUS LEASE DECISION, AND WE SPENT SOME TIME TALKING ABOUT PERFORMANCE-BASED CONTRACTING AND INCENTIVES. AND SHE SPECIFICALLY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING THE BUILDING OF THE RICHMOND LABORATORY BUILDING FOR HEALTH SERVICES. SO, YOU KNOW, WHERE THEY DO THE SMALLPOX VACCINE RESEARCH. SO SHE HAD EXPERIENCE WITH ANIMAL FACILITIES, PERIMETER SECURITY, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. | |||||||||
| SO I THOUGHT IT WAS REALLY A GREAT MIX OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EXPERIENCE. THE ONLY QUESTION WAS THAT SHE WAS INTERVIEWING FOR A COUPLE OF POSITIONS. MELISSA, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE ABLE TO FIND OUT WHAT HER CURRENT POSITION IS GOING TO BE. ONE OF THEM WAS IN A LEADERSHIP ROLE WITH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: RIGHT. I STILL HAVE NOT HEARD BACK FROM HER OR BEEN ABLE TO GET AHOLD OF HER. IT MAY BE BECAUSE SHE'S IN SOME KIND OF TRANSITION PERIOD. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET AHOLD OF HER FOR A COUPLE WEEKS NOW. STILL TRYING. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: SHE WAS JUST AMAZINGLY IMPRESSIVE, COMMITTED, AND BROUGHT A REMARKABLE SPECTRUM OF EXPERIENCE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU, CLAIRE. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: I REALLY HAD THE SAME SORT OF IMPRESSION FROM MS. HYSEN. SHE'S REALLY ONE OF TWO OUT OF OUR FOUR WHO I THOUGHT STOOD OUT BECAUSE SHE HAD VERY UNIQUE EXPERIENCE AND AN EXCELLENT GRASP OF THE INTERFACE BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FROM A POINT OF VIEW THAT OUR OTHER CANDIDATES COULD NOT REALLY ADDRESS. I WOULD ABSOLUTELY PUT HER AT THE TOP OF MY LIST. I THINK THAT HER UNIQUENESS WOULD MAKE HER A UNIQUE ASSET FOR US. SO I REALLY, IF SHE IS AVAILABLE, WOULD WANT TO SEE HER AS PART OF THE WORKING GROUP. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU, FRANCISCO. IT'S ALSO NOTED THAT SHE HAS PERSONAL INTEREST IN STEM CELLS, HAS PERSONAL FAMILY EXPERIENCE WITH DIABETES. AND BOTH REVIEWERS COMMENTED ON THE PASSION THAT SHE SEEMS TO BRING TO THIS. | |||||||||
| ARE THERE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE THAT HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, PLEASE, ABOUT MS. HYSEN? | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: JUST KIND OF PICKING UP ON SOME OF THE POINTS THAT WERE MADE, I WAS TRYING TO KEEP A LIST OF GEOGRAPHY, GMP, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. WHERE IS SHE GEOGRAPHICALLY? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: SHE'S IN SACRAMENTO, I BELIEVE. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: I'M NOT SURE WHERE SHE'S FROM ORIGINALLY. I BELIEVE SHE TOLD US, BUT I DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: DOESN'T MATTER. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: SHE DOES HAVE STATEWIDE EXPERIENCE, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS VERY VALUABLE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: TED, YOU AND I ARE MAKING THE SAME KIND OF CHART OBVIOUSLY AS WE GO THROUGH THIS. EXCELLENT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE, ABOUT MS. HYSEN? | |||||||||
| I THEN WOULD SUGGEST, PLEASE, THAT WE MOVE TO MR. KASHIAN. AND IF I COULD HAVE EITHER OF THE REVIEWERS COMMENT, PLEASE, ON MR. KASHIAN. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: GAYLE WILSON. JOHN REED AND I INTERVIEWED HIM. MR. KASHIAN IS SORT OF A FIXTURE IN THE FRESNO AND THE VALLEY AREA, HAS BEEN A VERY SUCCESSFUL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER, VERY INVOLVED IN THE CREATION OF UC MERCED. I BELIEVE HE SAID HE WAS ON THE FOUNDING GROUP TO BRING A UC CAMPUS TO THE VALLEY. | |||||||||
| HE'S BEEN A VISIONARY. HE SAID HE FEELS VERY QUALIFIED TO REVIEW FACILITIES GRANTS, AND PARTICULARLY THE FINANCING ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSALS. HE'S VERY FAMILIAR WITH ENERGY EFFICIENT BUILDINGS AND HAS WON CALIFORNIA AND NATIONAL AWARDS FOR CREATING GREEN BUILDINGS. HE SAID HIS EXPERIENCE WITH PERMITTING IS EXTENSIVE. HE HAS VERY CREATIVE IDEAS OF WAYS TO SAVE TIME AND MONEY FOR THE STATE. YOU KNOW, I THINK HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE TOP OF THE FOUR THAT WE INTERVIEWED, BUT THE FACT THAT HE CAME FROM THE VALLEY, I FELT, WAS A REAL PLUS. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: HE'S ON THE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL BOARD, THE LARGEST PUBLIC HOSPITAL IN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY. SO HE HAS BEEN -- HE'S BEEN INVOLVED DURING THE PERIOD THAT THEY EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO TEACHING FACILITIES THERE AS A PART OF THE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL. THIS IS BOB KLEIN. I DIDN'T INTERVIEW HIM, BUT I KNOW WHO HE IS. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: HE ALSO HAS EXTENSIVE FINANCING EXPERIENCE, IT SAYS. THANK YOU. OTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE, ABOUT MR. KASHIAN? | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IS HE A REGENT? | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: NO. HE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT BEING A TRUSTEE AT UC MERCED. I THINK EACH OF THE UC CAMPUSES HAS A GROUP THAT ARE NOT REGENTS, BUT THEY DO WORK FOR THAT PARTICULAR CAMPUS. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT MAKES SENSE. THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY WHAT IT IS. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: VERY GOOD. OKAY. CAN WE MOVE TO MR. STUART LAFF, PLEASE. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: FRANCISCO AND I INTERVIEWED MR. LAFF. HE WAS VERY IMPRESSIVE, LONG HISTORY OF WORK IN REAL ESTATE, AND MORE RECENTLY CONSULTATION REGARDING SORT OF FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF REAL ESTATE OPPORTUNITIES. | |||||||||
| HE'S MANAGED BUILDINGS. HE'S DONE JOINT VENTURES FOR EDUCATION BOND MEASURES, AND I THOUGHT THAT BROUGHT SOME, PERHAPS, HOPEFULLY PERTINENT EXPERIENCE. AND HE'S DONE GENERAL MANAGEMENT OF BUILDING PROJECTS FOR L.A. COMMUNITY COLLEGES, BOND ISSUE IN THE L.A. SCHOOL DISTRICT, AS WELL AS PRIVATE. | |||||||||
| ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY IMPRESSED ME WAS HIS EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY SERVICE AND PROFESSIONAL VOLUNTEERISM. HE IS ON THE LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION, BOARD MEMBER OF A CHARTER SCHOOL ORGANIZATION. HE'S INVOLVED WITH THE L.A. BUSINESS COUNCIL. AND HE'S VERY COMMITTED TO PUBLIC SERVICE. HAS GOOD EXPERIENCE DEALING WITH THE MEDIA, ESPECIALLY ABOUT BOND ISSUES, GOOD SPECIFICS. HE WAS JUST VERY IMPRESSIVE WITH A BROAD BACKGROUND. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: AGAIN, I THINK CLAIRE AND I AGREED ON ALL FOUR OF OUR INTERVIEWS, AND THIS WAS A VERY STRONG CANDIDATE. EXPERIENCE IN BANKING, EXPERIENCE IN ACCOUNTING, COMMUNITY SERVICE, AND VERY ACCOMPLISHED INDIVIDUAL. ANOTHER ONE WHO I WOULD HATE TO LOSE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: VERY GOOD. OTHER PEOPLE ON THE COMMITTEE WHO KNOW THIS INDIVIDUAL OR WHO HAVE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT MR. LAFF, PLEASE? | |||||||||
| MS. KING: I JUST WANTED, ESPECIALLY GAYLE WILSON, TO KNOW THAT THIS PERSON ACTUALLY CAME IN THROUGH ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, GAYLE. A GENTLEMAN THAT YOU HAD RECOMMENDED TO US FROM AE COM. AND HE PUT FORTH MR. LAFF AS WHAT HE THOUGHT A BETTER CANDIDATE, AND THE GENTLEMAN I'M SPEAKING ABOUT IS RAY HOLDSWORTH AT AE COM. THE COMPANY THAT MR. LAFF WORKS FOR IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AE COM, AND THEY WORK TOGETHER. LIKE I SAID, MR. HOLDSWORTH, WHILE INTERESTED HIMSELF, PUT MR. LAFF AS WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS A BETTER CANDIDATE FOR THIS WORKING GROUP. JUST THOUGHT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW THAT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. LET'S PROCEED, THEN, TO MR. LICHTENGER. REVIEWERS -- I'M SORRY. LET ME JUST POINT OUT THAT I BELIEVE MR. LAFF IS FROM THE LOS ANGELES AREA, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. MR. LICHTENGER IS FROM THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA, I BELIEVE SANTA CLARA. ANY OF THE REVIEWERS COMMENTS, PLEASE, ABOUT MR. LICHTENGER. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: JOHN REED AND I BOTH INTERVIEWED HIM. WE BOTH HAD POSITIVE FEELINGS ABOUT HIM, AND WE'D PROBABLY GIVE HIM A 4+. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OKAY. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: HE'S HAD 20 YEARS REAL ESTATE EXPERIENCE, DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, ALL IN CALIFORNIA. HE'S A FAIRLY RECENT IMMIGRANT TO CALIFORNIA. MOST OF HIS EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN IN NEW YORK. HIS COMPANY IN CALIFORNIA IS SOMETHING CALLED INTEGRITY OFFICE SOLUTIONS. WHAT THEY DO, THEY PROVIDE TURNKEY OPERATION TO ALL KINDS OF BUSINESS. THEY FIND OUT WHAT THE BUSINESS NEEDS, AND THEY CONSTRUCT IT. THEY DO EVERYTHING DOWN TO THE FURNITURE. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: GAYLE, THIS IS BOB KLEIN. I DIDN'T INTERVIEW HIM, BUT I MET HIM PREVIOUSLY. AND MY RECOLLECTION WAS THAT IN NEW YORK HE BUILT LOTS OF BIG MEDICAL FACILITIES, HOSPITALS, RESEARCH CENTERS; IS THAT RIGHT? | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: I THINK I REMEMBER HE SAID ABOUT 10 TO 15 PERCENT OF HIS BUSINESS WAS THAT. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RIGHT. BUT THEY WERE -- I ACTUALLY TALKED TO HIM DURING THE CAMPAIGN BECAUSE I WAS INTERESTED IN INFORMATION ON MEDICAL BUILDINGS. HE SEEMED TO HAVE LOTS OF INFORMATION ON THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, AND CONSTRUCTION. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT'S VERY USEFUL. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: HIS STATED EXPERTISE IS KEEPING THE CAPITAL COSTS DOWN. I THINK HE WOULD BE VERY CREATIVE AT ANY KIND OF RENOVATION AND SAVING MONEY IN RENOVATION AND REDUCING THE COST. HE SAID HE'S A REAL ESTATE BROKER. HE HAS ALSO CALLED BACK, I BELIEVE CALLED THE CIRM STATING HOW REALLY INTERESTED HE IS, HOW MUCH HE IS INTERESTED IN GETTING INVOLVED. HIS SON IS NOW EIGHT. AT THE AGE OF TWO DEVELOPED A RARE FORM OF EYE CANCER. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, HE AND HIS WIFE HAVE FOUNDED A CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION. | |||||||||
| SO FOR ALL HIS REAL ESTATE EXPERTISE, HE BRINGS THE EXTRA PASSION THAT I THINK JOHN AND I -- IT REALLY RESONATED WITH BOTH OF US. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE RESUME SAID HE'S DONE MISSION CRITICAL DATA CENTERS, BIOTECH, AND ENGINEERING LABS, CLEAN ROOMS, MEDICAL FACILITIES, OFFICE AND MANUFACTURING. BUT VERY, VERY DEEP TECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION KNOWLEDGE OF THE KIND OF FACILITIES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: THIS IS MELISSA. JUST TO BACK UP WHAT GAYLE WILSON SAID, HE DOES ACTUALLY CALL IN PROBABLY ONCE A WEEK TO GET AN UPDATE ON HOW EVERYTHING IS GOING WITH THE CIRM AND TO LET ME KNOW HE'S SO INTERESTED AND NOT PRESSURING THE SUBCOMMITTEE, BUT JUST WANTS TO MAKE SURE HE KNOWS THE TIMING. AND SO HE'S VERY INTERESTED IN BOTH THE SUCCESS OF THE CIRM AND POTENTIALLY SERVING ON THIS WORKING GROUP. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. OTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE, ABOUT MR. LICHTENGER? CAN WE MOVE, THEN, PLEASE, TO MR. MOCK. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: WE REALLY LIKED MR. MOCK WHEN WE INTERVIEWED HIM. LONG HISTORY OF REAL ESTATE EXPERIENCE, PORTFOLIO ASSET MANAGEMENT AND REAL ESTATE CONSULTATION. HE WAS ORIGINALLY APPROACHED BY BOB ABOUT THE SITE HEADQUARTERS, AND HAS KIND OF STAYED IN TOUCH WITH THE INITIATIVE SINCE THEN. HE'S DONE A LOT OF TI NEGOTIATIONS. HE'S CURRENTLY SORT OF MANAGING THE PORTFOLIO FOR A COUPLE OF MAJOR COMPANIES. LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH ARCHITECTURE AND BUDGETING PROCESS, LEASE NEGOTIATIONS, TI'S, AND CONTRACTS. | |||||||||
| HE EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF FUNCTIONAL BUILDINGS AND NOT WASTING MONEY ON TAJ MAHALS. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT HIS TIME IS REALLY HIS OWN, AND THAT HE WAS WILLING TO TAKE THE TIME THAT WAS NEEDED TO GIVE REALLY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE APPLICATIONS, WHICH WASN'T SOMETHING WE HEARD FROM EVERYBODY. | |||||||||
| WE RATED HIM JUST BELOW THE OTHER TWO CANDIDATES THAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT JUST BECAUSE HIS EXPERIENCE DIDN'T SEEM AS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO SORT OF THE BIOTECH WORLD. ALTHOUGH HE HAD DONE WORK WITH PLACES LIKE GENENTECH AND STUFF. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: RIGHT. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: I THINK HE'S ALSO DONE WORK FOR UCSF, BUT AGAIN NOT SPECIFICALLY WITH BIOTECH. BUT HE CERTAINLY PRESENTED VERY WELL, KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS. I'D HAVE NO HESITATION HAVING HIM ON THE WORKING GROUP. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DR. PRIETO, JUST HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY -- MAYBE YOU JUST ALREADY SAID THIS WHEN I WAS JUST REREADING A PART OF THIS DOCUMENT. BUT HE DOESN'T HAVE THE SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE OF MEDICAL FACILITIES OR HOSPITAL FACILITIES, DOES HE? | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. HE HAS A LOT OF OTHER EXPERIENCE IN BUILDING MANAGEMENT AND ASSET MANAGEMENT AND, YOU KNOW, HAD -- WAS ABLE TO TALK INTELLIGENTLY ABOUT IT, BUT ADMITTED HE DIDN'T HAVE SOME OF THOSE DIRECT PERSONAL EXPERIENCES. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: I THINK THAT WAS PRECISELY WHY WE PUT HIM, OF THE FOUR, THIRD ON OUR LIST, EVEN THOUGH HE WAS INCREDIBLY DEDICATED AND ARTICULATE. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: HE SEEMED LIKE SOMEBODY WHO'S VERY BRIGHT AND ABLE TO GRASP RELEVANT ISSUES VERY QUICKLY, BUT I WOULD HAVE TO PUT HIM A NOTCH BELOW SOMEONE LIKE STUART LAFF. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. OTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE, ABOUT MR. MOCK? LET'S GO, THEN, TO MR. SPIEKER, THE LAST CANDIDATE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK YOU SKIPPED STUART SHIFF. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: DELIBERATELY. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WHAT WE'RE DOING IS CONCENTRATING ON THE TOP EIGHT SCORING INDIVIDUALS. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I SEE. OKAY. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: AND ALL ELEVEN WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE ICOC WITH INFORMATION AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE ICOC TO REVISIT THIS. BUT WHAT WE WERE GOING TO TRY AND DO, BOB, IS TO, IF WE CAN, SELECT THE TOP EIGHT. AND IF WE HAVE SOME CLEAR PREFERENCES WITHIN THAT TOP EIGHT, TO HELP DIRECT THE ICOC TO THAT FOR THEIR DISCUSSION. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, IF IT HELPS, I RECOMMENDED SHIFF, BUT HE DOESN'T HAVE THE MEDICAL EXPERTISE THAT SOME OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE HAVE, SO I THINK THAT, FROM EVERYTHING THAT I KNOW, HE DOESN'T -- THE RATING SEEMS CORRECT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OBVIOUSLY HE'S A VERY SKILLED AND VERY GOOD PERSON, BUT THIS IS ONLY THE BEST OF THE BEST, AND SO THAT'S THE PROBLEM. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'M JUST BEING TOTALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE RATING SYSTEM. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. MR. SPIEKER, PLEASE. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: JOHN REED AND I INTERVIEWED HIM. HE'S THE FIRST PERSON WE INTERVIEWED. WE THOUGHT, WELL, WE JUST CAN'T GET ANY BETTER THAN NED SPIEKER. JOHN REED DID NOMINATE HIM, JUST SO YOU KNOW. HE CAN SPEAK BETTER ON HIM THAN I CAN. | |||||||||
| NED SPIEKER SAID HE'S HAD 35 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. HE IS NOW THE PRESIDENT AND CEO OF SPIEKER PROPERTIES. DEMONSTRATED LEADERSHIP AS WELL AS COMMUNICATION SKILLS, PART OF THE SCORING THAT WE LOOKED AT RELEVANT TO WHAT WE NEED ON THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. BOB KLEIN, DO YOU KNOW HIM? | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I KNOW ABOUT HIM. LET ME ASK YOU. WHO DID YOU INTERVIEW BESIDES HIM? | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: WE INTERVIEWED ED KASHIAN, DAVE LICHTENGER, AND STUART SHIFF. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, HE'S GOT A FABULOUS REPUTATION. THE ISSUE IS THAT THESE OTHER PEOPLE THAT YOU MENTIONED, KASHIAN AND LICHTENGER, THEY HAVE THE SPECIALIZED EXPERTISE IS THE ONLY WAY I DIFFERENTIATE THEM. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: LET ME JUST SAY THIS. I DID NOT PUT NED SPIEKER ON MY TOP LIST OF FOUR ONLY BECAUSE -- I MEAN I THINK HE COULD BE TERRIFIC FOR US, BUT NOT SOMETHING HE WAS REALLY SEEKING; WHEREAS, DAVID LICHTENGER JUST -- NED SPIEKER, I KNOW, WOULD DO A GREAT JOB FOR US, BUT HE SAYS I GOT OTHER THINGS I'M DOING. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD INDICATION. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: CAN I ASK A QUESTION, I GUESS, TO GAYLE THEN. WOULD YOU HAZARD A RANKING OF THE CANDIDATES YOU INTERVIEWED? | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: YEAH. I WOULD. I WOULD HAVE STUART SHIFF AS NO. 4, DAVID LICHTENGER AND NED -- DAVID LICHTENGER NO. 1, NED SPIEKER NO. 2, AND THE ONLY REASON I PUT ED KASHIAN NO. 3, I WOULD DEFINITELY WANT HIM UP THERE IN THE TOP, BUT HE'S FROM THE VALLEY. SO I WOULD PUT DAVID LICHTENGER NO. 1. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OKAY. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY THAT'S A REALLY INTERESTING WAY OF THINKING ABOUT THIS THAT YOU JUST SUGGESTED. GAYLE, YOU SHARED WITH US WHO YOUR NO. 1 PERSON IS. I WONDER IF I COULD JUST GO AROUND TO THE VARIOUS SITES AND ASK FOR YOUR NO. 1 CANDIDATE, IF YOU COULD, PLEASE. | |||||||||
| AND, GAYLE, YOU GAVE MR. LICHTENGER. IF I COULD ASK, FRANCISCO, COULD YOU PLEASE SHARE WITH US WHO YOUR NO. 1 CANDIDATE THAT YOU INTERVIEWED? | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: DEBORAH HYSEN. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. MAY I ASK, CLAIRE, FOR YOUR NO. 1? | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: HYSEN. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. MAY I ASK TED FOR YOURS? | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: MR. DOMS. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: MR. DOMS. THANK YOU. MR. KLEIN, MAY I ASK FOR YOURS? | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: MR. DOMS. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OKAY. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IT'S AMAZING HOW CONSISTENTLY WE SEE THESE THINGS. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: NO. WELL, IT'S VERY INTERESTING TO ME BECAUSE I'VE LISTED PEOPLE WHO I THOUGHT WERE AT THE VERY TOP, AND THE PEOPLE IN MY VERY TOP ARE MR. DOMS, MS. HYSEN, AND MR. LICHTENGER. SO I GUESS I WAS PERSUADED BY YOUR REVIEWS. THAT'S NOT TO FORESHADOW A VOTE OR ANYTHING. I APPRECIATE THIS. | |||||||||
| WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS WHILE WE DIGEST THIS INFORMATION, I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A PERIOD OF PUBLIC COMMENT. AND SO IF -- AND THEN WE'LL PROCEED TO A PROCEDURAL ISSUE AND TRY AND VOTE ON WHO WE CONSIDER TO BE -- WE'LL DIVIDE THE QUESTION UP. DO WE WISH TO GO FORWARD WITH ALL EIGHT OF THESE INDIVIDUALS? THAT WILL BE THE FIRST QUESTION. AND THE SECOND QUESTION WILL BE DO WE HAVE ANY DIFFERENTIATION OR GRADIENT? I DON'T WANT TO PICK ONE, TWO, THREE, AND FOUR. I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARY. WHAT I WOULD ONLY SUGGEST IS WHETHER WE WANT TO HAVE A TOP GROUP OF FOUR OR FIVE AND THEN ANOTHER VERY CLOSE FOLLOW-ON GROUP OF FOUR OR THREE, OR HOW WE WISH TO DO THAT. | |||||||||
| SO WHILE WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THAT, I WONDER IF I COULD BEGIN BY ASKING IF THE PUBLIC HAS ANY COMMENTS. AND I'D LIKE TO BEGIN IN SACRAMENTO, IF I MAY, PLEASE. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: NONE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: MAY I ASK AT STANFORD IF THERE ARE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS, PLEASE? | |||||||||
| MR. REED: YEAH. THIS IS DON REED. I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE EXPERTISE OR THE AREA. I WOULD JUST SAY IF IT'S A VERY CLOSE CALL BETWEEN PEOPLE, I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE THE PERSON THAT REALLY WANTS IT, THAT FEELS THE MOST DRAWN TO IT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE A DIFFICULT JOB. | |||||||||
| ALSO, WE DID NOT HAVE A GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SESSION LIKE WE USUALLY DO, AND I HOPE THAT THERE WILL BE ONE LATER ON BECAUSE I HAVE AN UNRELATED ITEM TO BRING UP. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: IT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. I APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THAT. THAT'S MY FAULT ENTIRELY. AFTER THIS PIECE OF BUSINESS, I WILL ABSOLUTELY PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. I THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT TO OUR ATTENTION. YOUR POINT -- | |||||||||
| I DID, I'M JUST TOLD. I'M THE PERSON THAT WE NEED STEM CELLS FOR BECAUSE MY MEMORY IS FAILING. BUT I'M GLAD THAT MELISSA WAS HERE TO KEEP TRACK OF THINGS. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER I ASKED FOR IT. WE'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER CHANCE BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A SHAM. WE REALLY ARE INTERESTED IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT, SO WE WILL TAKE THE TIME TO DO THAT. | |||||||||
| AT UCLA, GAYLE, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS THERE, PLEASE? | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: THERE IS NOT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THEN WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST, PLEASE, IS A MOTION FROM ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF OUR WORKING GROUP TO PLEASE INDICATE WHETHER YOU WISH TO ACCEPT THE SLATE OF EIGHT GOING FORWARD, AND THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A SECOND MOTION ABOUT HOW YOU WISH TO CHARACTERIZE OR GRADE -- HAVE SOME WITHIN THIS RANKING GRADED. ANY MOTION, PLEASE? | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: I SO MOVE THAT WE PUT FORTH THESE EIGHT PEOPLE, BUT I'M INTERESTED IN THE SECOND MOTION MORE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I KNOW. ME TOO. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SECOND. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: DO WE NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE, MR. HARRISON? | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: YOU DO. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THEN MAY I CALL FOR A -- MELISSA WILL CALL FOR A ROLL CALL. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: BEFORE WE DO THAT, ARE THE EIGHT THAT WE'RE PUTTING FORWARD THOSE WHO WERE RANKED FOUR? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: LET ME REPEAT. YES. AND THANK YOU, FRANCISCO. THESE ARE ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE RANKED FOUR OR BETTER. IT CONSISTS OF MR. DOMS, FRAGER, MS. HYSEN, MR. KASHIAN, LAFF, LICHTENGER, MOCK, AND SPIEKER. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: SO THE MOTION IS THAT WE PUT THESE FORWARD AS ALL CAPABLE AND RECOMMENDED CANDIDATES? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT'S CORRECT. AND FOR FULL CONSIDERATION BY THE ICOC, IF THEY WISH TO PICK AND CHOOSE A DIFFERENT GROUP THAN THAT, WE MAY IN OUR SECOND MOTION, BUT WE'RE NOT THERE YET. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: OKAY. THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I WILL VOTE YES. | |||||||||
| 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 IS ABSENT. GAYLE WILSON. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: YES. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. THAT PASSES. NOW, I WILL BE VERY HAPPY TO HEAR DISCUSSION AND ENTERTAIN A SECOND MOTION CONCERNING WHETHER WE WISH TO OR HOW WE WISH TO MAKE THIS A MORE DIGESTIBLE PRESENTATION TO THE ICOC. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: I'LL PUT FORTH A MOTION JUST FOR DISCUSSION. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: THAT WE RECOMMEND MR. DOMS, MS. HYSEN, MR. LAFF, AND MR. LICHTENGER AS THE FOUR APPOINTEES, WITH MR. KASHIAN AS THE FIRST ALTERNATE, AND THE REMAINING THREE AS AD HOC MEMBERS/ALTERNATE MEMBERS. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT'S A VERY CLEAR PROPOSAL. IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT? AND THEN WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: I'LL SECOND. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. THAT WAS FRANCISCO? THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION, PLEASE, ABOUT THIS? | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BETWEEN MR. LAFF AND MR. KASHIAN, HOW -- CLAIRE, WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE THE DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: VERY FEW. AND I'M OPEN TO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE ORDER. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, I WOULD -- I HAVE TO LOOK BACK SINCE I DIDN'T INTERVIEW MR. LAFF. DID HE HAVE MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITY EXPERIENCE? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: HIS DISTINGUISHING FEATURES, MR. KLEIN, ARE A DEEP COMMITMENT TO COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SERVICE, A LONG EXPERIENCE -- FINANCIAL AND BANKING EXPERIENCE. THOSE ARE THE -- | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: AND BONDS. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: PROJECTS THAT WERE SPONSORED BY BONDS. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I WOULD SUGGEST THAT MR. KASHIAN HAS MAJOR EXPERIENCE IN ACQUIRING FOR THE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, THE DEFAULTED FRESNO COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL FACILITY, AND DEVELOPING IN CONJUNCTION WITH UC SAN FRANCISCO A TEACHING FACILITY AS PART OF THE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, AND AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF THE MAJOR HOSPITAL FOR YEARS THAT DOUBLED OR MORE IN SIZE, THAT THAT SPECIFIC RELEVANT EXPERIENCE MIGHT JUSTIFY REVERSING THE RANKING AND MAKING MR. KASHIAN NO. 4 AND MR. LAFF THE FIRST ALTERNATE. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: MAY I, AS A POINT OF INFORMATION, JUST MENTION THAT THERE'S A VERY NICE BALANCE, CLAIRE, THAT YOU'VE GIVEN TO THIS SLATE. MR. DOMS IS FROM THE LOS ANGELES AREA, MS. HYSEN FROM THE SACRAMENTO AREA, MR. KASHIAN FROM THE CENTRAL VALLEY, MR. LICHTENGER FROM NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. MR. LAFF IS FROM THE LOS ANGELES AREA. SO THERE'S BOTH A DISTRIBUTION OF SKILLS AND GEOGRAPHY. | |||||||||
| AND NOW I JUST WOULD INVITE FURTHER DISCUSSION, PLEASE. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: DO WE NEED AN ALTERNATE? IS THAT SORT OF THE WAY WE WANT TO HAVE THIS STRUCTURED, OR SHOULD WE JUST PUT FORTH THE OTHER FOUR AS AN AD HOC GROUP THAT WE COULD USE AND CALL ON? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT'S A PERFECTLY FAIR QUESTION. ANOTHER COMPROMISE THAT COULD BE PUT FORWARD IS SIMPLY TO PICK FIVE TOP PEOPLE AND HAVE THREE OTHERS, AND LET THIS -- BECAUSE, IN FACT, THIS WILL BE SORTED OUT AT THE ICOC DISCUSSION. AND THE FINENESS OF AN ALTERNATE OR SO FORTH, WE COULD SIMPLY SAY THAT THESE ARE THE TOP FIVE, AND THAT THE OTHER THREE ARE SUPERB, BUT FOR EXPERIENCE OR TIME OR OTHER REASONS ARE NOT IN OUR VERY MOST SELECT GROUP. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO AT LEAST THINK -- I HAVE A FEELING THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET THE FOUR. AND JUST KNOWING THAT THE FIVE -- OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE, AND IF I WEREN'T ON THIS COMMITTEE, I WOULD PROBABLY WANT THIS COMMITTEE, IF POSSIBLE, TO TRY TO NARROW IT TO FOUR RATHER THAN GIVE US FIVE AND LEAVE IT UP TO US. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: TED, WE APPRECIATE YOUR COURAGE. THANK YOU. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: IT'S EASIER TO BE COURAGEOUS WHEN YOU'RE NOT THE CHAIRMAN. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DR. FRIEDMAN, I THINK WE GOT TO FOUR WITH A FIRST ALTERNATE. I WOULD WONDER IF CLAIRE WOULD ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF FOUR PLUS MAKING ALL THE OTHERS ALTERNATES? | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: YES. WITH THE FOUR BEING DOMS, HYSEN, KASHIAN, AND LICHTENGER? | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: THE ONE REASON I WAS GOING FOR A FIRST ALTERNATE WAS THIS REMAINING QUESTION OF WHETHER DEBORAH HYSEN'S EMPLOYMENT IS GOING TO ALLOW HER TO SERVE. I THINK WE MIGHT BE DEALING WITH HAVING THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING TO REPLACE ONE OF THESE CANDIDATES EARLY ON. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT YOU'RE MAKING, CLAIRE. THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: I THINK WE HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN THE WORKING GROUPS THAT WERE NAMED AT THE ICOC MEETING WHERE THE SUBCOMMITTEE BROUGHT FORWARD THE SLATE WITH THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS THAT IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE INITIATIVE AND ALTERNATES, AND ALTERNATES WERE SET AS A SEPARATE CATEGORY FROM AD HOC. AND I THINK THAT THERE IS A USEFUL DISTINCTION THERE. I'D AGREE WITH TED, THAT I THINK WE SHOULD TRY TO COME UP WITH A FINAL RECOMMENDATION THAT'S WITHIN THOSE NUMERICAL LIMITS, AND JUST PUT THAT UP BEFORE THE ICOC. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: EXCELLENT. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: THEN HAVE ALL THE OTHER FOUR BE ALTERNATES SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE A POOL TO DRAW FROM. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: ACTUALLY WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT WE DO ALONG THE STRUCTURE OF CLAIRE'S FIRST PROPOSAL, FOUR MEMBERS AND A FIRST ALTERNATE, AND THE REST AD HOC OR ALTERNATE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE TERMINOLOGY IS THAT CRITICAL. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BY DESIGNATING THE REST AS ALTERNATES, THEN IF THERE'S ANOTHER VACANCY THAT OCCURS, THEY CAN DRAW FROM IT IMMEDIATELY. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: THAT'S A GOOD POINT. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: THAT'S AN ADVANTAGE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: EXACTLY. GOOD. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, PLEASE? WE'VE HAD A MOTION AND A SECOND. I'LL JUST RESTATE THE MOTION JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO THIS PROCEDURALLY AS CLEARLY AS POSSIBLE. MR. DOMS, MS. HYSEN, MR. KASHIAN, AND MR. LICHTENGER ARE THE TOP SLATE. MR. LAFF IS THE FIRST ALTERNATE. THE OTHER THREE INDIVIDUALS, MR. FRAGER, MR. MOCK, MR. SPIEKER, ARE CONSIDERED ALTERNATES AND THOROUGHLY ACCEPTABLE AS WELL SHOULD ONE OF THE OTHERS NOT BE ABLE TO SERVE. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: RIGHT. YES. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: GOOD. LET'S CALL THE ROLE, IF WE MAY, PLEASE. I WOULD VOTE YES. | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: DR. FRIEDMAN, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I'M SORRY. YOU'RE QUITE CORRECT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| PUBLIC COMMENT PLEASE, FIRST FROM SACRAMENTO. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: NONE. THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THEN FROM UCLA, PLEASE. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: NO ONE HERE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: FROM STANFORD, PLEASE. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: NONE HERE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THERE'S NO ONE HERE AT CITY OF HOPE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. HARRISON, FOR POINTING THAT OUT. | |||||||||
| WE'LL PROCEED TO A VOTE, PLEASE. AND I WILL BEGIN BY VOTING YES. | |||||||||
| 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 IS ABSENT. GAYLE WILSON. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: YES. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO CONDUCT ONE OTHER PIECE OF BUSINESS, TO GO BACK TO NO. 3 FOR A MOMENT, THAT WE DIDN'T VOTE ON A PROCEDURAL VOTE, WHICH IS TO RECOMMEND TO THE ICOC AS THE PATIENT ADVOCATE MEMBERS OF THIS FACILITIES WORKING GROUP THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS. WE HAD THE DISCUSSION, AND WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THAT TIME. I CERTAINLY WOULD ENTERTAIN MORE DISCUSSION IF THAT'S NECESSARY NOW, BUT THE FIVE INDIVIDUALS THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING ARE MS. LANSING, MS. SAMUELSON, MR. SEWELL, MR. SHEEHY, AND DR. WRIGHT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE YET ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL APPOINTED EITHER FROM OUR CURRENTLY EXISTING PATIENT ADVOCATES OR FROM MR. BUSTAMONTE'S SELECTION OF A NEW ADVOCATE. | |||||||||
| I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THAT SLATE OF PATIENT ADVOCATES GOING FORWARD TO THE NEXT ICOC MEETING. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: SO MOVED. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: SECOND, PLEASE. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: SECOND. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU, GAYLE. ANY DISCUSSION, PLEASE, FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS? | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: DR. FRIEDMAN, DO WE ALSO NEED TO RECOMMEND CHAIRS OR CO-CHAIRS? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WELL, THAT'S NO. 5. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: I'M SO SORRY. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: FRANCISCO, THANK YOU BECAUSE I'M USUALLY ACCUSED OF BEING THE PERSON WHO IS RACING AHEAD. AND I'M SO GLAD TO HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE JUST TO TAKE THE HEAT OFF OF ME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NO, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. WE NEED TO DISCUSS THAT. YOU'RE AHEAD OF THE CURVE. | |||||||||
| AND I PRESUME THAT WE NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE -- MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FROM PALO ALTO. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: NONE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: SACRAMENTO. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: NONE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: UCLA. NONE. LET'S GO AHEAD WITH A VOTE, PLEASE THEN. I WOULD VOTE YES FOR THIS SLATE. | |||||||||
| 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 IS ABSENT. GAYLE WILSON. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: YES. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU, GAYLE. MUST HAVE BEEN MUTED OR SOMETHING. THANK YOU. THAT'S QUITE COMPLETE. | |||||||||
| NOW, I SAID JUST A MOMENT AGO THAT I WANTED TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO MAKE ANY GENERAL COMMENTS, AND I DO WANT TO TAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY NOW BEFORE WE GO TO ITEM NO. 5, WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERATION OF CANDIDATES TO SERVE AS CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. SO WE CAN TAKE A STEP BACK FROM THAT ITEM OF BUSINESS, PLEASE, AND INVITE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. I BELIEVE WAS THAT INDIVIDUAL IN SACRAMENTO? | |||||||||
| I'M SORRY, DON. PLEASE MAKE YOUR COMMENTS, AND I APOLOGIZE. | |||||||||
| MR. REED: IF I MISSED MY EARLIER SPOT, I APOLOGIZE. YOU'RE RUNNING A BEAUTIFULLY ORGANIZED MEETING. | |||||||||
| I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ORTIZ LEGISLATION, AND I WOULD INVITE EVERYBODY THAT CAN POSSIBLY COME UP. THERE'S A MEETING THIS THURSDAY AT 1 O'CLOCK, ROOM 4302 IN SACRAMENTO. THERE WAS A MEETING JUST A COUPLE DAYS AGO WHICH WAS VERY -- SHE IS A VERY POWERFUL PERSON, AND IT'S JUST BEING RAILROADED THROUGH VERY FAST. SO IF ANYBODY HAS ANY FEELINGS ON THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WILL BE IMPOSED ON THIS THROUGH A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, IT WOULD BE A VERY GOOD THING TO GET UP THERE AND HELP. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DON, ON MONDAY IT'S ON THE AGENDA AS AN AGENDIZED ITEM BECAUSE OF ITS CRITICAL IMPORTANCE. | |||||||||
| MR. REED: IS THAT IN PLACE OF THURSDAY OR IN ADDITION TO? | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: OUR MEETING. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IN ADDITION TO THURSDAY. | |||||||||
| MR. REED: THE SACRAMENTO ONE IS THURSDAY OR MONDAY? | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THURSDAY IS SACRAMENTO. MONDAY IS OUR BOARD MEETING THAT IT'S AGENDIZED AS A CRITICAL DISCUSSION ITEM. | |||||||||
| MR. REED: OKAY. THEN I AM HAPPY TO BE PROVEN IRRELEVANT AS I OFTEN AM. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ALWAYS APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: YOU'RE NEVER IRRELEVANT. YOU JUST JUMPED THE GUN. THAT'S ALL. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? OKAY. | |||||||||
| MELISSA REMINDS ME THAT WE HAVE -- JUST GOING BACK TO ITEM NO. 4 FOR A MOMENT, WE HAD SAID EARLIER THAT THE OTHER THREE INDIVIDUALS IN ADDITION TO THE EIGHT THAT WERE SENT FORWARD AS OUR PRIMARY AND OUR ALTERNATES, THAT THE OTHER THREE INDIVIDUALS WERE VERY TALENTED AND THEIR NAMES WOULD GO FORWARD FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES AS WELL, MR. ARCHIBALD, MR. D'ELIA, AND MR. SHIFF. | |||||||||
| I PRESUME THAT STILL IS ACCEPTABLE. AND THESE COULD SERVE AS AD HOC MEMBERS. IF WE NEED TO ACTUALLY FORMALLY CONSIDER AND VOTE ON THAT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T LET THAT SLIP THROUGH. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: HAVING THEM GO FORWARD AS AD HOC MEMBERS WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA. SO I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION FOR THEM TO BE AD HOC MEMBERS. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU, MR. KLEIN. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: SECOND. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: I KNOW THAT MR. ARCHIBALD ACTUALLY HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TIME COMMITMENT AND MAYBE SOME MISPERCEPTIONS ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT THE ROLE INVOLVED. SO I MIGHT JUST AMEND THAT TO SAY IF THEY'RE CONTACTED BY STAFF AND AGREE THAT THEIR INTEREST WOULD REMAIN. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I THINK THAT'S A FAIR WAY TO SAY IT, CLAIRE. ANOTHER WAY TO SAY IT WOULD BE TO SAY THAT THESE WOULD BE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE AS AD HOC MEMBERS. AND SHOULD THEY CHOOSE NOT TO, OBVIOUSLY WE UNDERSTAND THAT THESE ARE VERY, VERY BUSY PEOPLE. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, I WILL TAKE THAT AS FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: I HOPE THEY ALL WILL BE CONTACTED BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN PUT IN THE PROCESS HERE. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: ABSOLUTELY. THIS IS MELISSA. I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN IN CONTACT WITH ALL OF THE CANDIDATES BEYOND THESE ELEVEN, ALL 25. AND I WILL CLOSE THE LOOP CERTAINLY WITH ALL ELEVEN THAT YOU'VE BEEN DISCUSSING TODAY. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: AND THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT THAT'S BEING MADE. LET'S FIRST VOTE ON THIS, AND THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS. | |||||||||
| IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION THAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ABOUT THESE THREE BEING OFFERED THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE AD HOCS? SACRAMENTO? | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: JUST A QUESTION. CAN WE HAVE IT RESTATED BEFORE WE VOTE? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: CERTAINLY. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE MOTION IS THAT THREE INDIVIDUALS, MR. ARCHIBALD, MR. D'ELIA, AND MR. SHIFF, WOULD BE INVITED TO BE AD HOC MEMBERS IF THE ICOC APPROVES THAT. AND THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE MOTION. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: ANY DISCUSSION AT STANFORD? OR AT UCLA? | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: NO. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: ANY PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE? | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: NONE HERE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THEN WHAT I WOULD -- WE HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER ROLL CALL, SO I WILL VOTE YES, PLEASE. | |||||||||
| 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 IS ABSENT. GAYLE WILSON. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: YES. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| IF I COULD RECOMMEND, PLEASE, THAT A FORMAL LETTER OF APPRECIATION BE DRAFTED BY THE STAFF. AND, MR. KLEIN, IF I COULD ASK THAT EITHER YOU SIGN IT OR SOMEBODY SIGN IT IN YOUR STEAD, THANKING THESE INDIVIDUALS FOR THEIR APPLICATION, INFORMING WHO'S GOING FORWARD. I'M SURE YOU WILL FIND THE RIGHT WORDS FOR IT. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I CERTAINLY WILL. AND I WOULD POINT OUT THAT PEOPLE LIKE STUART SHIFF AND NED SPIEKER ARE FABULOUS. THEY'RE THE BEST IN THE WORLD IN OFFICE BUILDINGS. THEY CAN BE GREAT AD HOC SPECIALISTS, AND I'M SURE THE OTHER PEOPLE HAVE THE SAME QUALITY. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: IT'S A REALLY DEEP APPRECIATION FOR THEM GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS. YOU KNOW -- I LEAVE THE PHRASING OF IT TO YOU AND THE STAFF, BUT JUST OUR SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION THAT EVERYBODY BE FORMALLY THANKED FOR PARTICIPATING. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: WE'VE DONE THAT. KATE SHREVE HAS DONE THAT WITH THE OTHER TWO WORKING GROUPS, AND I'LL WORK WITH KATE AND BOB ON THIS. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. EXCELLENT. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: MICHAEL, I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD TO THAT. I THINK IT ACTUALLY REQUIRES GREAT COURAGE OF PEOPLE TO APPLY FOR THESE KIND OF POSITIONS AND PUT THEMSELVES UP FOR REVIEW IN A PUBLIC FORUM LIKE THIS. SO I REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO THANK EVERYBODY WHO APPLIES FOR THIS. LET THEM KNOW THAT WE THINK THEY WERE ALL TERRIFIC PEOPLE, TERRIFIC CANDIDATES, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THEM IN ONE CAPACITY OR ANOTHER. I REALLY WANT TO MAKE THAT WE EMPHASIZE THE POSITIVE NOTE TO EVERY PERSON WHOSE NAME WAS UNDER REVIEW TODAY. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: TED, THIS IS BOB KLEIN. I THINK THAT IT WOULD PROBABLY BE APPROPRIATE, WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE COMMITTEE, TO ADD THAT EVERY ONE OF THESE IS OUTSTANDING IN THEIR REAL ESTATE KNOWLEDGE, BUT WE WERE LOOKING FOR SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE. AND THAT'S WHAT IS GUIDING THE SELECTION WE'RE MAKING. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I THINK THOSE ARE JUST SUPERB POINTS, AND THE STAFF IS OBVIOUSLY CAPTURING THAT. SO GOOD. THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| IF WE COULD PROCEED, PLEASE, TO NO. 5, WHICH IS CONSIDERATION OF CANDIDATES TO SERVE AS CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. MELISSA, COULD I ASK YOU OR MR. HARRISON TO STATE ANY SORT OF BINDING RULES THAT DICTATE OR LIMIT THIS. | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: I BELIEVE, DR. FRIEDMAN, THAT THE ONLY BINDING RULES, AS DETERMINED BY THE ICOC AT THE LAST MEETING, ARE THAT THE CHAIRS WILL SERVE AN INITIAL TERM OF ONE YEAR. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: BUT IT COULD BE RENEWABLE. | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: CORRECT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THE CHAIR -- MELISSA, PLEASE. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: THE ONE THING THAT I WAS GOING TO BRING UP, AND I'M SORRY I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO DO THAT EARLIER WITH YOU, DR. FRIEDMAN, IS THAT, LIKE WE'VE DONE WITH THE OTHER WORKING GROUPS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, HAVING A SCIENTIST SERVE AS THE CHAIR AND A PATIENT ADVOCATE SERVE AS THE VICE CHAIR OR CO-CHAIR IN THE CASE OF THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP. I'M JUST THINKING OUT LOUD. A SIMILAR STRUCTURE HERE WOULD PROBABLY BE GOOD, PROBABLY ONE OF THE REAL ESTATE CANDIDATES AS THE CHAIR BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE ON FACILITIES, AND A PATIENT ADVOCATE AS POTENTIALLY A VICE CHAIR OR CO-CHAIR. I'M NOT RECOMMENDING THAT. I'M JUST THINKING OUT LOUD TO HELP THE DISCUSSION. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: MELISSA, THE ONLY OTHER THING I MIGHT ADD IS I THINK SOMEBODY WHO REALLY HAS THE TIME. I WOULD IMAGINE THAT BEING THE CHAIR WILL REQUIRE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME. SOMEBODY WHO HAS THE TIME TO PUT INTO THAT SPECIAL ROLE IS KIND OF THE WAY I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE RUSTY DOMS AS THE CHAIRMAN. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: I WAS GOING TO DO THE EXACT SAME THING, SO I'LL SECOND THAT. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: I GOT AHEAD OF YOU. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I THINK THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO -- I'M -- I HAVE A QUESTION, AND I COULD USE THE COMMITTEE'S ADVICE ON THIS. IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD WHEN WE HAVEN'T ASKED MR. DOMS IF HE WOULD AGREE TO SERVE IN THAT CAPACITY, NOR CAN WE EVEN ASSURE HIM THAT THE ICOC WILL SELECT HIM IN THAT CAPACITY. SO WE CAN CERTAINLY EXPRESS A PREFERENCE. AND, TED, I HAVE TO SAY MR. DOMS SOUNDS LIKE A -- WOULD BE MY FIRST CHOICE GIVEN HIS EXPERIENCE AND FREE TIME AND SO FORTH. BUT I GUESS I COULD USE SOME ADVICE FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABOUT HOW FAR WE GO WITH THIS RIGHT NOW SINCE WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A SLATE SELECTED. IT SEEMS -- | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, THE OTHER COMMITTEES DID COME WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR CHAIR AND CO-CHAIR. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY TO DO THAT. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: DR. FRIEDMAN, IF I RECALL IN THE GRANTS GROUP, THE PERSON WHO WAS SELECTED TO BE PUT FORTH AS A POSSIBLE CHAIR WAS CONTACTED AND ASKED, IF THEY WERE APPROVED BY THE ICOC, WOULD THEY BE WILLING TO HAVE THEIR NAME GO FORTH AS CHAIR. AND MAYBE WE COULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT'S AN EXCELLENT SUGGESTION, CLAIRE. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THAT? WE WOULD THEN TASK MELISSA OR OTHERS TO PLEASE REACH OUT TO WHOEVER WE ULTIMATELY CHOOSE, AND WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THAT POINT YET, TO ASK WHETHER THAT INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE WILLING TO SERVE IN THAT CAPACITY. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: JUST LOOKING OVER THE CANDIDATE EVALUATIONS HERE, I'D SAY THAT ANY OF OUR TOP FOUR OR REALLY THE TOP FIVE HAVE LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE. SO I THINK WE'D BE HARD-PRESSED TO GO WRONG. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: I AGREE WITH THAT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I THINK YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. JUST AS WE DID BEFORE, IN ORDER TO JUST MAKE IT EASY FOR THE ICOC, I THINK I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO SAY WHO THE FIRST PERSON WE'D REACH OUT TO. AND IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION, I'D BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN IT. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: I WILL BE HAPPY TO MOVE THAT WE PROCEED TO CONTACT MR. DOMS, ASK HIM IF HE'D BE WILLING TO SERVE AS THE INTERIM CHAIRMAN. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND IF HE WOULD, TO THEN RECOMMEND HIM AS THE PREFERENCE? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: CORRECT. IS THERE A SECOND, PLEASE? | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'LL SECOND IT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU, MR. KLEIN. ANY DISCUSSION, PLEASE, FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN UCLA? GAYLE, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: I'M ALL FOR HIM. CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: SACRAMENTO. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: I THINK I CAN SUPPORT THAT. CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: PALO ALTO, PLEASE. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: NO COMMENT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS, PLEASE, AT ANY OF THE SITES? AND RATHER THAN JUST READ THROUGH THE NAMES, WHAT I WOULD ASK YOU TO DO IS I WILL GIVE A MOMENT OF SILENCE, AND PLEASE SOMEONE SPEAK UP BECAUSE I'M SURE YOU'RE TIRED OF HEARING ME MONOTONOUSLY REPEAT THE THREE CITIES OVER AND OVER AGAIN. I APOLOGIZE. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON OFFERING MR. DOMS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE AS THE CHAIR? | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: PALO ALTO REFUSES TO COMMENT UNTIL YOU SAY PALO ALTO. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I AM SUITABLY REBUKED. IS THERE ANYONE AT PALO ALTO? GOOD. I'M JUST GLAD THAT CLAIRE HASN'T CHASTISED ME FOR NOT SAYING DAVIS INSTEAD OF SACRAMENTO BECAUSE I REALIZE THE ERROR OF MY WAYS. AND I'M SURE THAT GAYLE IS GOING TO SAY WHY DON'T YOU SAY WESTWOOD, BUT THAT'S OKAY. I'M LEARNING ON THE JOB. SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO TRY AND MAKE PROGRESS IN A REGULAR FASHION. | |||||||||
| IF THERE IS -- SERIOUSLY, IF THERE IS NO PUBLIC COMMENT, I'D LIKE TO, I GUESS, ASK FOR A VOTE, PLEASE. I'D LIKE TO VOTE YES IN FAVOR OF OFFERING MR. DOMS THE OPPORTUNITY. AND IF HE AGREES, TO THEN PUT HIS NAME FORWARD AS THE CHAIR. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: KNOWING THAT I'M SECOND, THIS IS BOB KLEIN, I VOTE YES. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: TED LOVE. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: YES. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: CLAIRE POMEROY. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: YES. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: FRANCISCO PRIETO. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: YES. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: GAYLE WILSON. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: YES. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| NOW, THAT'S HALF THE BATTLE. THE OTHER HALF, OF COURSE, IS THE POSSIBLE VICE CHAIR. I LIKE VERY MUCH THE SUGGESTION OF AN ADVOCATE TO SERVE IN THAT CAPACITY. AND I WILL ENTERTAIN ANY SUGGESTIONS ABOUT HOW YOU'D LIKE TO PROCEED. THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD SAY IS WE CAN'T PICK THE PLAYER TO BE NAMED AS THE VICE CHAIR. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: THE UNKNOWN. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: IT'S LIKE EVERY OTHER SPORTS DEAL. THE PLAYER TO BE NAMED IS THE MOST CRITICAL PERSON. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: CAN YOU REMIND US? THE GRANTS WORK COMMITTEE, WAS SHERRY THE VICE CHAIR OF THE GRANTS? | |||||||||
| MS. KING: CORRECT. AND STANDARDS, I BELIEVE. | |||||||||
| KATE SHREVE; IS THAT CORRECT? | |||||||||
| MS. SHREVE: JOAN SAMUELSON. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: JOAN IS GRANTS. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: JOAN IS GRANTS. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SHERRY IS STANDARDS. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: SHERRY IS STANDARDS, SO IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO LOOK AT THE OTHER PEOPLE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT'S AN EXCELLENT SUGGESTION. IF I MAY REMIND YOU, IT'S DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL, JEFF SHEEHY, JANET WRIGHT. THOSE ARE THE OTHER THREE NAMES. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, DAVID IS -- WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT HERE. I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT IN THE NEXT 45 DAYS, DAVID IS VERY DEEPLY INTO THE LEGISLATION, BUT THAT'S GOING TO PASS OVER BEFORE THIS BECOMES REAL ACTIVE. SO DAVID HAS THE LEGAL TRAINING, WHICH MIGHT BE VERY HELPFUL ON THE REAL ESTATE SIDE. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: THIS IS FRANCISCO PRIETO. I WAS THINKING ALONG THE SAME LINES, THAT I THINK DAVID, HAVING THE LEGAL SKILLS, WOULD BE VERY VALUABLE IN THIS POSITION. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: DO I HEAR A MOTION FOR INVITING MR. SERRANO-SEWELL TO SERVE AS THE VICE CHAIR, ASSUMING THAT HIS PARTICIPATION WILL BE APPROVED BY THE ICOC BECAUSE HE'S ALREADY ON THE ICOC? AND IS THAT A MOTION THAT I'M HEARING? | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: I'LL SO MOVE, YES. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: SECOND. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: ANY DISCUSSION, PLEASE, BY THE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS? ANY DISCUSSION, PLEASE, BY THE PUBLIC? I'D LIKE TO THEN ASK FOR A VOTE, AND WE'RE -- MELISSA IS GETTING READY TO RECORD THE VOTES, SO I VOTE YES. | |||||||||
| 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 IS ABSENT. GAYLE WILSON. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: YES. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. VERY EFFICIENTLY DONE. | |||||||||
| THIS BRINGS US, THEN, TO THE SIXTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA. AND THIS IS A DISCUSSION OF SOMETHING THAT CHAIRMAN KLEIN DISCUSSED AT THE LAST GENERAL ICOC BOARD MEETING AND SOMETHING THAT WE WANTED TO SPEND SOME TIME DISCUSSING HERE. | |||||||||
| PERHAPS THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO PROCEED WOULD BE, MR. KLEIN, IF I COULD ASK YOU, AND I'M GOING TO LIMIT YOUR REMARKS TO THREE MINUTES, MR. KLEIN, WHETHER YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE ANY BACKGROUND OR INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. YOU'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS A GREAT DEAL AND HAVE CERTAINLY DISCUSSED IT WITH A NUMBER OF THE ICOC MEMBERS, AND I KNOW YOU'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS A LOT. COULD YOU PLEASE SHARE WITH THIS GROUP AT THIS MOMENT WHAT YOUR LATEST THOUGHTS ARE AND DIRECTIONS THAT YOU WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SEEING US PROCEED WITH OUR DISCUSSIONS. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, TO SUMMARIZE, AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING, DR. FRIEDMAN, HOPEFULLY WITH YOUR APPROVAL BASED ON OUR PRIOR DISCUSSION, I PROPOSED TO THE BOARD THAT IN ORDER TO LEARN ENOUGH TO INTELLIGENTLY HAVE COMPETITIONS FOR FACILITIES, GIVEN THAT FACILITY TYPES WERE VERY DIFFERENT, AND THERE MAY BE UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE STATE THAT WE'RE NOT AWARE OF, THAT WE PUT TOGETHER A REQUEST FOR LETTERS OF INTENT FOR INSTITUTIONS AROUND THE STATE, AND ONLY NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS QUALIFY UNDER THE INITIATIVE, WHO WOULD BE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN CASE STUDIES TO PROPOSE SPECIFIC FACILITIES. MIGHT BE A REHAB FACILITY, MIGHT BE CONVERSION OF USE, MIGHT BE NEW CONSTRUCTION, MIGHT BE A FACILITY CONNECTED TO A CENTER OF EXCELLENCE, SUCH THAT WE COULD, THROUGH THE WORKING GROUP, IDENTIFY, FIRST OF ALL, INVENTORY OF ALL THE DIFFERENT IDEAS IN THE STATE, SEE WHERE THE OPPORTUNITIES WERE, AND SELECT, THEN, HOPEFULLY AT THE JUNE MEETING, VARIOUS CASE STUDIES THAT WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH BECAUSE WE FOUND THAT IN THE CASE OF THE COMPETITION FOR THE HEADQUARTERS, WE HAD A VERY EXACTING VIEW OF WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT, AND STILL THERE WERE LOTS OF QUESTIONS THAT AROSE THAT WE LEARNED THROUGH THE PROCESS, AND IT RAISED ISSUES OF FAIRNESS. | |||||||||
| IN THIS CASE IF WE DO CASE STUDIES, AND IN THE FALL, HAVING DONE THE CASE STUDIES, THEN WITH THE MODEL IN PLACE, HAVING EVERYONE COMPETE, WE WILL HAVE A MUCH HIGHER LEVEL OF INFORMATION. AND MY CULTURE IS THE LEGAL CULTURE WHERE YOU WORK BY CASE STUDIES, AND THAT'S HOW YOU LEARN. SO IT'S PERHAPS THAT CONDITIONING THAT SUGGESTS THIS AS A LEARNING TOOL HERE THAT WILL HELP THE APPLICANTS AND HELP THE INSTITUTE REFINE ITS KNOWLEDGE SO THAT WE CAN BETTER MEET THE NEEDS OF THE STATE. | |||||||||
| BUT WE WOULD SEND OUT SPECIFICALLY A LETTER OF INTENT, ASKING FOR A FIVE-PAGE CONCEPT STUDY, FIVE-PAGE WRITTEN CONCEPT DESCRIPTION. THEY CAN ATTACH ADDENDA OR EXHIBITS THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE, AND WE WOULD BRING THOSE TOGETHER AT THE JUNE MEETING. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: NO, MR. KLEIN, WE COULDN'T DO IT BY JUNE. I THINK BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO ISSUE THE LETTER, AND I THINK THE JULY MEETING WOULD BE -- WE CAN CERTAINLY BRING IT BACK FOR THE JULY MEETING, BUT IT'S SO LATE IN THE MONTH OF MAY, THAT I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT GIVES US ENOUGH TIME. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: POINT WELL TAKEN, MR. CHAIRMAN. CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: BUT OTHER THAN THAT -- | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BRING IT BACK AT THE JULY MEETING FOR SELECTIONS OF CASE STUDIES THAT COULD PROCEED WHICH WOULD NOT STOP US FROM ACCEPTING OTHER CASE STUDIES LATER THAT WE WOULD ALSO STUDY. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: IF I COULD JUST ALSO ELABORATE, AS YOU'VE DESCRIBED THIS TO ME, THIS IS NOT IN ANY SENSE A GUARANTEE OR COMMITMENT FOR FUNDING. QUITE THE OPPOSITE. THIS IS MERELY TO ALLOW THE REAL ESTATE COMMITTEE AND THE SCIENCE COMMITTEE THE CHANCE TO BEGIN TO INVENTORY DIFFERENT IDEAS TO HELP THEM AT A TIME WHEN THERE IS GOING TO BE A STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND TO HELP PEOPLE DEVELOP CASE STUDY MODELS. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IN A SPECIFIC PRODUCT TYPE, YOU KNOW, WE MAY PUT -- DECIDE THAT WHEN THIS CASE STUDY GOES OUT TO BID AND COMPETING WITH OTHER OPPORTUNITIES, THAT IT NEEDS AT LEAST A ONE-TO-ONE LOCAL MATCH. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: RIGHT. ANY OTHER NUMBER OF OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ANY NUMBER OF A HUNDRED OTHER VARIABLES. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: SO LET ME JUST LAY THIS OUT FOR THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT, AT LEAST AS I WOULD RECOMMEND AND ENVISION. THIS IS JUST FOR DISCUSSION, AND I VERY MUCH WELCOME THE COMMENTS OF MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS AND ALSO THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION. | |||||||||
| THE USE OF CONSTRUCTION FUNDS IS, I CONSIDER, A HIGHLY SENSITIVE MATTER AS PART OF THIS INITIATIVE. AND THERE IS A CAP BY THE LEGISLATION OF 10 PERCENT OF THE $3 BILLION TO COME FROM STATE FUNDS. NOW, I KNOW THAT MR. KLEIN AND OTHERS THINK THAT THERE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITIES FOR RAISING BONDS OR FINDING PRIVATE PHILANTHROPY TO SUPPLEMENT AND PERHAPS GREATLY MAGNIFY THAT. AND THOSE ARE INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS, BUT I WOULD URGE US NOT TO GET INTO THOSE TODAY EXCEPT TO SAY THAT THEY ARE WORTH EXPLORING AND IMPORTANT. | |||||||||
| SUFFICE IT TO SAY, THOUGH, IF WE HAVE $300 MILLION OF STATE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR FACILITIES, I HAVE EVERY REASON TO SUSPECT THAT THERE WILL BE A VASTLY LARGER NUMBER OF REQUESTS COMING IN THAN COULD BE SATISFIED BY THAT AMOUNT. WE'RE VERY KEEN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE BEST USE OF EVERY TAX DOLLAR, EVERY BOND DOLLAR. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MAKE THE BEST USE OF THE TIMING OF FACILITIES SO THAT FACILITIES THAT NEED TO BE CONSTRUCTED EARLY IN THE COURSE OF THIS 10-YEAR OR MORE CYCLE ARE DONE -- ARE PLANNED AND EXECUTED IN A VERY EFFICIENT WAY. | |||||||||
| WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FACILITIES MEET THE NEEDS OF THE SCIENTISTS AND THE SCIENCE IN ORDER TO SERVE THE PATIENTS BETTER. AND SO WHILE ZACH HALL AND OTHERS HELP, FROM THE TOP DOWN, DESCRIBE WHAT THE STRATEGIC PLAN WILL BE FOR THE FIRST YEAR, TWO, OR THREE OF THIS INITIATIVE, WE THINK THAT THERE'S A VALUE IN HAVING A BOTTOMS-UP APPROACH AS WELL, WHICH IS GARNERING INFORMATION FROM INSTITUTIONS AROUND THE STATE ABOUT WHAT SORT OF FACILITIES THEY THINK WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING AS AN ORGANIZATION. | |||||||||
| AND SO I SEE THESE AS COMPLEMENTARY AND MUTUALLY HELPFUL APPROACHES TO THINKING ABOUT A VERY IMPORTANT RESOURCE. IF I MAY JUST SAY A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS THAT ARE MY PERSONAL OPINION AND I FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT. THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN DEALT WITH AND WILL BE DEALT WITH BEFORE I WILL RECOMMEND SPENDING A SINGLE DOLLAR ON FACILITIES. AND I SAY THAT TO SORT OF LAY OUT, TO MARK A PLACE OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS AN ICOC TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE FULL DESCRIPTION OF WHAT SORTS OF RESEARCH CAN BE CONDUCTED IN A FACILITY THAT IS PARTIALLY OR ENTIRELY CONSTRUCTED OR RENOVATED WITH PROPOSITION 71 FUNDS, WHAT INTERACTIONS WITH INDUSTRY MAY OR MAY NOT TAKE PLACE THERE. WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT FACILITY AFTER PROPOSITION 71 LAPSES, THE FUNDING DIRECTLY LAPSES. I LIST THESE NOT AS AN INCLUSIVE LIST, BUT JUST AS A BEGINNING OF A VERY LONG LIST. | |||||||||
| THESE ALL NEED TO BE DEALT WITH AND ANSWERS NEED TO BE GIVEN BEFORE WE CAN COMMIT FUNDS BECAUSE THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE SPENDING THIS MONEY IN A VERY APPROPRIATE AND REASONABLE WAY. AND IT IS MY PURPOSE HERE TO SAY THIS, IF YOU WILL, ON THE PUBLIC RECORD TO SAY THAT WE ALL, ALL OF US ON THE ICOC RECOGNIZE THAT THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES. WE ARE NOT GLOSSING OVER THEM. WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE MAKING FUNDING DECISIONS UNTIL WE'VE DEALT WITH THESE AND MANY, MANY OTHER ISSUES, BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE ARE NOT ENTIRELY CAPABLE OF IDENTIFYING ALL THE POTENTIAL QUESTIONS AND ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE DEALT WITH. AND THAT'S WHERE THE PUBLIC HAS A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE IN OUR CONSIDERATIONS, OF COURSE, IN ALL OF THE PROPOSITION 71 CONSIDERATIONS. | |||||||||
| AND I'VE BEEN SPEAKING WITH MR. KLEIN TO SORT OF HAVE A PILOT STUDY, IF YOU WILL, OF GARNERING PUBLIC COMMENTS IN A MORE EFFECTIVE WAY. WE DO PROVIDE SPEAKING MOMENTS AT THIS KIND OF MEETING AND AT THE ICOC PUBLIC MEETINGS, AND THOSE, OF COURSE, ARE VERY VALUABLE. | |||||||||
| A SECOND SOURCE OF COMMUNICATION IS INDIVIDUALS SEND US LETTERS. I GUESS THAT A THIRD SOURCE IS INDIVIDUALS SUE US, AND THAT'S PROBABLY A WAY OF COMMUNICATING AS WELL. BUT I'M PARTICULARLY INTERESTED AND HAVE BEEN SPEAKING WITH MR. KLEIN ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ON OUR WEBSITE FOR THE CIRM HAVING A MECHANISM WHERE CITIZENS CAN SEND THEIR COMMENTS AND THOUGHTS AND SUGGESTIONS TO US IN A DIRECT WAY THAT WOULD BE SEGREGATED BY THINGS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH FACILITIES, THINGS HAVE THAT TO DO WITH PATIENT SAFETY OR CONFIDENTIALITY OR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. | |||||||||
| WE CAN HAVE THE WEBSITE DESIGNATED IN CERTAIN WAYS SO THAT CITIZENS COULD FEEL FREE TO COMMUNICATE WITH US. MR. KLEIN HAS MADE THE VERY THOUGHTFUL SUGGESTION THAT WE CAN BEGIN TO DESIGN A FORM SO THAT WE WOULD UNDERSTAND IF A COMMENT COMES IN FROM SOMEONE WHO HAS A PARTICULAR KIND OF BACKGROUND, AN EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE, PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. WE COULD HELP USE THAT INFORMATION TO GIVE US A BETTER SENSE OF WHAT THAT INDIVIDUAL'S COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS ARE NESTED IN OR WHERE THEY SPRING FROM. AND THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE YET TO BE DONE. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THIS IS ALL SET UP. IT IS NOT. | |||||||||
| I AM SUGGESTING THAT I THINK AT LEAST AS A PILOT TRIAL, IT WOULD BE VERY VALUABLE AND WORTHWHILE FOR CITIZENS TO BE ABLE TO COMMENT ON FACILITIES-TYPE ISSUES, AND THAT I'M WORKING WITH MR. KLEIN TO HELP DESIGN HOW OUR WEBSITE, THE CIRM WEBSITE, MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO THAT. AND IF I MAY ASK, I'LL ASK MELISSA TO PLEASE COMMENT AS WELL. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: I WAS JUST POINTING OUT TO DR. FRIEDMAN THAT AT LEAST AS OF RIGHT NOW I'M STILL THE PERSON THAT PUTS EVERYTHING UP ON THE WEBSITE, WORKING WITH TEAL DATA CENTER IN SACRAMENTO THAT ACTUALLY DOES THE BACK-END WORK ON THE WEB. I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH DR. FRIEDMAN AND BOB TO PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER FOR THIS. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THIS WOULD JUST MERELY MEAN HAVING A PORTAL IN WHICH PEOPLE COULD COMMENT, AND WE COULD MAKE SURE THAT WE ACCEPT -- THAT WE HAVE A WAY OF GETTING THOSE COMMENTS. IT'S JUST ANOTHER MECHANISM THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE GATHERING THE PUBLIC'S COMMENTS, AND IT WOULD BE A WAY OF ASSURING THE PUBLIC THAT THEY HAVE ACCESS TO US. THOSE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T ABLE TO COME TO THESE MEETINGS, THOSE PEOPLE WHO FEEL LIKE THEY DON'T WANT TO WRITE A LETTER, IT WOULD BE A WAY TO GATHER THAT INFORMATION. | |||||||||
| CAN I TELL YOU WHETHER THERE WILL BE A LOT OF VALUABLE INFORMATION PROVIDED THERE OR SOME VALUABLE INFORMATION? WELL, FRANKLY, IT DOESN'T MATTER AS LONG AS THERE'S ANY GOOD IDEA THAT COMES THROUGH, IT'S PROBABLY WORTH IT TO US. WE'RE SERVING IN THE INTEREST OF OUR CITIZENS HERE OF THE STATE, AND THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WAY TO DO IT. | |||||||||
| SO I MAKE THAT AS A SUGGESTION BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO GET MY FELLOW COMMITTEE MEMBERS' COMMENTS ON THAT, NOT THE DETAILS OF EXACTLY HOW WE'LL DO IT, BUT TO GENERALLY STATE THAT BEFORE WE TAKE ANY STEPS AS AN ICOC COMMITTEE, WE WILL HAVE ALL THE DETAILS DEALT WITH, AND WE WANT TO GIVE THE PUBLIC THE MAXIMUM OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE WITH US THEIR THOUGHTS, CRITICISMS, CONCERNS, AND IDEAS. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DR. FRIEDMAN, THIS IS INCOMING INFORMATION. THIS IS -- YOU'RE NOT, AGAIN, JUST TO RECLARIFY FOR EVERYONE, YOU'RE NOT SUGGESTING THOSE COMMENTS ALL BE MAINTAINED AS POSTED ON THE WEB. THIS IS JUST TO COLLECT INFORMATION? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. AND THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. I MEANT THIS AS AN ENTRY PORTAL ONLY. WE WOULDN'T POST THIS INFORMATION SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD FEEL THAT THEY COULD SHARE WITH US ANYTHING THEY WANTED WITHOUT THIS BEING IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT A BULLETIN BOARD. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT A BLOG. I'M TALKING ABOUT MERELY A WAY OF COMMUNICATING WITH US SO THAT WE COULD GET THE BEST IDEAS. DATA CAPTURE. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: I JUST -- A COMMENT ABOUT THAT, AND THEN I'D LIKE TO ASK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE. THAT I WOULD HOPE WE'D DO IT IN SOME WAY THAT MINIMIZES ANY EXTRA WORKLOAD THAT WE PUT ON OUR VERY HARDWORKING AND LIMITED BY THE INITIATIVE STAFF. THAT WE LIMIT THEIR WORKLOAD TO FORWARDING THE COMMENTS TO US ON THE ICOC. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I REALLY THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING. AND TO BE PERFECTLY FRANK WITH YOU, I WASN'T EVEN SURE WHETHER EVERYBODY ON THIS COMMITTEE WOULD WANT ACCESS TO THAT. I'M NOT TRYING TO KEEP YOU AWAY FROM INFORMATION. I AM MERELY SAYING THAT I'M PREPARED TO TAKE ON THE EXTRA WORK OF READING THAT MATERIAL. OBVIOUSLY I'LL SHARE IT WITH WHOEVER WANTS IT. | |||||||||
| BUT I FULLY ACCEPT YOUR POINT THAT THE STAFF IS HEAVILY BURDENED, BUT I DO THINK WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC THAT WE REALLY ARE INTERESTED IN THEIR COMMENTS. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: I CAN DEFINITELY FORWARD IT ON TO YOU. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: I HAVE A QUESTION ALSO ABOUT THE CASE STUDY MODELS. IS THIS ESSENTIALLY AN OPEN-ENDED RFP THAT WE'RE PUTTING OUT? | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AT LEAST I WAS PROPOSING THAT RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT WE ASK FOR INITIAL LETTERS OF INTEREST WITH A FOCUS IN PARTICULAR, AS THE INITIATIVE SPECIFIES, GIVING A PREFERENCE TO PROJECTS THAT CAN BE BUILT WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE GRANTS ARE MADE. AND ASSUMING WE CAN GET THROUGH OUR LITIGATION, THESE GRANTS WOULD BE MADE AT THE END OF THIS YEAR. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: IF I COULD ADD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AS WELL. RATHER THAN CALLING THIS AN RFA OR RFP, I ACTUALLY WOULD CALL THIS RFI. IT'S A REQUEST FOR IDEAS. AND IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS A DIGESTIBLE UNIT, I WOULD SAY THAT THE REQUEST WOULD BE THAT ONE AND ONLY ONE IDEA COME FROM EACH NONPROFIT INSTITUTION. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU ARE LIMITED IN TERMS OF WHEN THE FULL FUNDING IS AVAILABLE. INSTITUTIONS WILL PUT IN AS MANY FACILITIES GRANTS AS THEY WISH TO. WE'RE NOT RESTRICTING THAT. | |||||||||
| I THINK, HOWEVER, AS A CASE STUDY, AS A PILOT PROGRAM, JUST TO KEEP THIS AT A WORKABLE LEVEL, I WOULD ASK EACH INSTITUTION, AND THE STAFF WILL COMPOSE A LETTER THAT WE WILL THEN ISSUE AND HAVE READY FOR THE JUNE MEETING, MR. KLEIN, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU, WHICH SAYS FIVE PAGES ONLY MAX, ONE IDEA FOR EACH NONPROFIT INSTITUTION, AND THAT WE HAVE YET TO THEN TALK ABOUT HOW THOSE IDEAS WILL BE SORTED AND SIFTED AND HOW WE WILL -- I MEAN THE FIRST THING THAT WE WILL DO IS JUST COMBINE THE IDEAS, HOW MANY ANIMAL FACILITIES, HOW MANY WET LABS, HOW MANY DATA CENTERS, HOW MANY THIS, HOW MANY THAT, AND WE CAN SORT OF LOOK AT THAT AND BEGIN TO GET SOME IDEA OF WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF FACILITIES THAT PEOPLE ENVISION WILL BE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE SCIENCE AS THIS GOES FORWARD. HOW MANY BASIC FACILITIES? HOW MANY CLINICAL FACILITIES, AND SO FORTH. | |||||||||
| AND THEN TO BEGIN TO SAY, NOW, HOW CAN WE DELVE INTO THIS MORE DEEPLY AND UNDERSTAND SOMETHING ABOUT HOW ONE MIGHT SHARE RESOURCES, WHAT THE OPTIMAL LOCATION MIGHT BE. HAVE WE FORGOTTEN ABOUT UNIQUE KINDS OF FACILITIES THAT MIGHT BE EXCEPTIONALLY IMPORTANT? AND BEGIN TO DO WHAT REALLY IS MORE QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENTS AT THIS POINT. | |||||||||
| AT SOME POINT THERE WILL BE A REQUEST FOR THE APPLICATIONS. AN RFP OR RFA PROCESS WILL COME FORWARD. THIS IS MERELY TO HELP GIVE ZACH HALL AND OTHERS A SENSE OF WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF FACILITIES THAT WE WISH TO BE THINKING ABOUT. AT LEAST THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DR. FRIEDMAN, IT'S AN ITERATIVE PROCESS WHERE THE IDEAS CAN BE MORE FULLY DEVELOPED, SO WHEN WE REALLY GO TO HAVE A COMPETITION, WE REALLY HAVE EXPLORED THE IDEAS AND THE QUESTIONS PEOPLE NEED ANSWERED, AND WE PUT OUT A THOUGHTFUL DOCUMENT THAT REALLY BRINGS OUT THE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF EACH TYPE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I THINK THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I ENVISION. I FEAR I'VE TALKED TOO MUCH. I REALLY DO WANT TO HAVE -- I WOULD ASK FOR OTHER COMMENTS FROM FIRST THE BOARD AND THEN ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS. SO PLEASE, GAYLE, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS YOU HAVE AT UCLA? | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: NO. I FIND THIS AN INTERESTING THING TO CONSIDER. I HADN'T THOUGHT VERY MUCH ABOUT IT BEFORE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OKAY. DAVIS, PLEASE. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: IN CONTRAST, I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. AND I THINK THAT IT'S A LITTLE UNCLEAR TO MANY OF US EXACTLY HOW THIS PROCESS IS GOING TO GO, WHICH MAKES IT SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT TO DECIDE WHETHER TO ENDORSE IT OR NOT. I'VE HEARD SORT OF TWO VERSIONS. | |||||||||
| I THINK IT'S NOT CLEAR WHAT THE GOAL OF HAVING THESE IDEA LETTERS IS. AND IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME WHAT THE INSTITUTIONS GET OUT OF THE PROCESS. IF I COULD JUST SORT OF LAY OUT ALL MY QUESTIONS, AND MAYBE THEY CAN GET ADDRESSED. | |||||||||
| SO CLEARLY THIS IS NOT AN INSTITUTION'S TOTAL PLAN BECAUSE THAT WILL COME LATER. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: CORRECT. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: AND THIS IS JUST, SAY, A SLICE OF THEIR PLAN. BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO GIVE PEOPLE SOME IDEA OF THE SIZE OF THE PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE CASE STUDIES, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY SHOULD INCLUDE, HOW THEY WILL BE REVIEWED, WHEN -- YOU KNOW, A TIMETABLE BY WHICH THEY WILL BE REVIEWED AND FEEDBACK WILL BE PROVIDED. | |||||||||
| I GUESS I'VE HEARD IT VERY CLEARLY THAT NO FUNDS WOULD BE AWARDED EVEN FOR CASE STUDIES AT THIS POINT, BUT I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE VERY CLEAR TO PEOPLE IF THAT'S WHAT'S BEING SAID. | |||||||||
| AND I WOULD ALSO URGE US TO THINK VERY CAREFULLY ABOUT THIS ONE IDEA PER INSTITUTION BECAUSE THAT REALLY WORKS AGAINST THE COLLABORATIVE PROPOSAL THAT CUTS ACROSS INSTITUTIONS, WHICH IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO. | |||||||||
| SO THERE ARE JUST SO MANY UNKNOWNS, THAT IT MAKES ME A BIT UNCOMFORTABLE ENDORSING ANYTHING AT THIS POINT TILL IT'S MORE CLEAR. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: CLAIRE, THIS IS BOB KLEIN. THE LAST POINT YOU JUST MADE, DR. FRIEDMAN'S VERY GOOD POINT HERE IS THAT ANY INSTITUTION MAY HAVE ONE IDEA AS TO THEIR INSTITUTION, BUT WE DO WANT TO ENCOURAGE COLLABORATIVE IDEAS. SO MAYBE THEY WOULD BE PERMITTED ONE IDEA JUST RESTRICTED TO THEIR INSTITUTION AND ONE IDEA THAT IS COLLABORATIVE THAT BRINGS IN MULTIPLE INSTITUTIONS. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: THAT WOULD ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR CONCERN VERY NICELY, I THINK. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I WOULD FIND THAT UTTERLY AGREEABLE. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THEN SECONDLY, THERE'S A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS YOU RAISE, CLAIRE, THAT COULD BE TAKEN OFF OF THIS TAPE TRANSCRIPT AND ADDRESSED IN THE APPLICATION. BUT AS TO SCALE AND SIZE, THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT WE HAVE TO GET ENOUGH PRELIMINARY INFORMATION FROM AROUND THE STATE TO GET SOME IDEA OF WHAT THE NEEDS ARE. AND THEN IN THE CASE STUDY PROCESS IN THE INITIAL PHASE, THE WORKING GROUP COULD COME BACK TO THE ICOC FOR DIRECTION WHEN THEY SAW MORE MATURE INFORMATION ON THE SCALE OF THE CHALLENGE BEFORE US. | |||||||||
| AS DR. FRIEDMAN MENTIONED, I PERSONALLY THINK THAT OUR 300 MILLION WILL END UP BUILDING AT LEAST 600 MILLION IN FACILITIES THROUGH SOURCES OF PHILANTHROPY AND OTHER SOURCES OF FINANCING THAT WE CAN IDENTIFY, BUT STILL IT'S VERY LIMITED IN TERMS OF THE TOTAL NEEDS FOR THE STATE. AND I THINK IT'S A PROCESS WHERE THE WORKING GROUPS, WHILE THEY'RE DOING THE CASE STUDIES, ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE ICOC TO GET DIRECTION. AND AS DR. FRIEDMAN SAID, THERE WILL BE A STRATEGIC PLAN IN PROCESS WHICH WILL POTENTIALLY PROVIDE SOME OF THAT DIRECTION GIVEN THAT THE STRATEGIC PLAN HAS THE BENEFIT OF INPUT FROM THIS PROCESS AS TO THE TOTAL DEMAND OUT THERE. | |||||||||
| BUT ONE THING WE DON'T WANT TO DO IS WE WANT TO THROUGH THE CASE STUDY GIVE BACK ENOUGH INFORMATION TO THE INSTITUTIONS SO THAT THEY DON'T GO OUT AND SPEND MASSIVE AMOUNTS ON PLAN SETS FOR SOMETHING FAR TOO BIG FOR WHAT WE COULD HELP THEM ACHIEVE, FOR EXAMPLE. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: THAT IS, YOU KNOW, A GREAT SERVICE. LET ME GIVE A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, AND MAYBE THAT WILL HELP CLARIFY IT FOR EVERYBODY AS IT CLARIFIES IT FOR ME. | |||||||||
| OBVIOUSLY, MANY MAJOR RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS WILL HAVE AN IDEA FOR A WET LAB COMPONENT AND AN ANIMAL COMPONENT AND A DATA CENTER AND MAYBE A GMP FACILITY, FOR EXAMPLE. NOW, WOULD THEY BE EXPECTED TO JUST PUT THE WET LAB IN AS THE CASE STUDY, OR WOULD THEY HAVE ALL FOUR COMPONENTS IF THAT WAS THE SPECTRUM THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY NEEDED? | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ANIMAL FACILITY, YOU KNOW, VERY FEW INSTITUTIONS HAVE THAT EXPERTISE. AND THE ANIMAL FACILITY SOUNDS TO ME LIKE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE COLLABORATIVE AND COULD BE PROPOSED AS SERVING LARGE PORTIONS OF THE STATE. THE WET LAB FACILITY IS IN ANOTHER CATEGORY THAT MIGHT JUST SERVE A SINGULAR INSTITUTION. THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED OF APPLICATIONS. | |||||||||
| IF THE WET LAB IS PART OF A DIFFERENT FACILITY, THEN THE THIRD CATEGORY YOU MENTIONED UNDER THE PROPOSAL WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE, YOU WOULD PUT FORTH, YOU KNOW, YOUR BEST AND MOST INNOVATIVE TWO IDEAS, ONE THAT WOULD SERVE MULTIPLE INSTITUTIONS AND ONE THAT WOULD SERVE JUST YOUR OWN INSTITUTION. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: SO THIS SHOULD CLEARLY NOT BE YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PROPOSAL THAT YOU WOULD PUT IN LATER AS YOUR FACILITIES PROPOSAL? | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S RIGHT. AND HOPEFULLY EVERYONE WILL LEARN FROM THE PROCESS WHERE THIS KNOWLEDGE IS INTEGRATED IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN, AND THE ICOC SITTING AS A FULL BOARD THEN PROVIDES INFORMATION THAT WILL BE HELPFUL TO EVERYONE IN SUBMITTING THEIR OVERALL PLAN. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: AND THEN ONE OTHER QUESTION. FOR THE RESPONSES, A BUDGET SHOULD BE INCLUDED, RIGHT? | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. BECAUSE WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT JUST WHAT'S THE RAW DEMAND AND THEN INTEGRATE THAT INTO THE STRATEGIC PLAN, AND THEN BRING BACK USEFUL INFORMATION AFTER THE ICOC REVIEWS IT AND GIVES DIRECTION. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: CLAIRE, I DON'T ENVISION THAT THE NUMBERS WOULD BE FULLY VETTED. THESE WOULD BE ESTIMATES, I BELIEVE. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JUST CONCEPTUAL. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I'M SORRY. I INTERRUPTED. PLEASE GO AHEAD. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: BOB AND DR. FRIEDMAN, ARE WE ANTICIPATING AND WILL THIS BE SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE LETTERS THAT WE WILL NOT BE THE SOLE SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR FACILITIES PROPOSALS? | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE INITIATIVE SPECIFICALLY SAYS THERE'S A PREFERENCE FOR LEVERAGE. IT MAKES IT ONE OF THE CRITERIA THAT'S IN THE INITIATIVE. AND SO I WOULD THINK THAT THAT SHOULD BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION WHEN WE SEND OUT THE REQUEST FOR LETTERS. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: IT'S NOT AN ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION. IT SIMPLY SAYS -- I THINK THERE WILL BE -- THERE WILL BE THE RECOGNITION THAT IF YOU HAVE ALTERNATIVE SOURCES, THAT MAKES IT A MORE ATTRACTIVE PROPOSITION. IF IT'S A SHARED FACILITY, THAT MAKES IT A MORE ATTRACTIVE PROPOSITION. WE WILL BE ABLE, I THINK, TO COME UP WITH A HIERARCHY WITHIN THOSE THINGS THAT ARE PROPOSED. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: OKAY. THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: CLAIRE, IF I COULD GIVE YOU MY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, WHICH MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN BOB'S ANSWER, WHICH IS IF YOU ENVISION THAT HAVING THE ANIMAL FACILITY AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE WET LAB, I WOULD SEE THOSE ACTUALLY GOING IN TOGETHER. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO CLARIFY BECAUSE I COULD SEE GOING EITHER WAY. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: THAT'S WHY I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU REALLY -- IT WOULD BE -- YOU WOULD WANT A MOUSE FACILITY FOR YOUR WET LAB. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: ATTACHED. AND THAT'S WHY I THINK IF YOU HAVE, LET'S SAY, THAT UC DAVIS WAS GOING TO PROPOSE A MONKEY COLONY, WHICH IS SOMETHING YOU'RE UNIQUELY QUALIFIED TO DO. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: LET'S SAY THAT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT WOULD BE -- THAT MIGHT BE JUST A STAND-ALONE FACILITY BECAUSE IT COULD EASILY BE SEEN AS SOMETHING THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE PRIMATE BREEDING FACILITIES OR LABS ALL OVER THE STATE, IT WOULD BE MY VISION. YOU WOULD SAY, WELL, THAT'S SORT OF A STAND ALONE. BUT A WET LAB THAT HAS WITHIN IT, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER COMPONENTS THAT ARE KEY, I WOULD SORT OF SEE THOSE AS INTEGRAL. BUT, AGAIN, I WOULD TAKE YOUR ADVICE AND THOUGHT ON THIS. | |||||||||
| THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL ADVANTAGE HERE. WE TALKED ABOUT THE STRATEGIC PLANNING ADVANTAGE. WE TALKED ABOUT BEGINNING TO GET SOME IDEA OF JUST THE PRACTICALITY OF PHASING AND TIMING ON WHAT KINDS OF FACILITIES NEED TO BE BUILT WHEN. WE TALKED ABOUT HOW THIS MIGHT HELP US UNDERSTAND THE BUDGET AND WHAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE. THAT'S VERY VALUABLE. | |||||||||
| THERE'S A FOURTH THING THAT I THINK IS AWFULLY VALUABLE, WHICH IS THAT WE HAVE TO LEARN WHAT THE INTERACTIONS WILL BE THE BETWEEN THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THE FACILITIES REVIEW COMMITTEE. BECAUSE NONE OF THESE WILL BE SEEN AS STAND-ALONE FACILITIES. THEY ALL NEED TO BE NESTED IN THE SCIENCE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE SCIENCE IS WORTHWHILE, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING TO TALK THEN ABOUT WHETHER THE FACILITY MAKES SENSE. | |||||||||
| THERE'S A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING THAT ED HOLMES AND I HAVE ABOUT HOW THESE COMMITTEES MIGHT BEGIN TO INTERACT, BUT IT WILL ACTUALLY BE UP TO THE CHAIRS AND THE VICE CHAIRS OF THESE WORKING GROUPS AS TO HOW THEY ACTUALLY FIGURE OUT HOW THEY PASS IDEAS BACK AND FORTH ONE TO THE OTHER. AND I SEE THESE CASE STUDIES AS VERY GOOD MODELS FOR UNDERSTANDING WHAT SOME OF THOSE INTERACTIONS MIGHT BE. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: AREN'T THE PATIENT ADVOCATE MEMBERS OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP OVERLAPPING WITH THE SCIENTIFIC GRANTS WORKING GROUP? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I SEE THAT AS A HUGE ADVANTAGE, YES. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: I WOULD THINK THAT THAT'S A VERY LARGE INTERFACE THERE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OH, NO. NO. IT IS. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT HAVING THE PEOPLE KNOWLEDGEABLE. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FORMAL PROCESS WHICH IS THAT THE SCIENCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MIGHT SAY WE WANT TO SEE THE IDEA FIRST; AND THEN IF WE THINK THE SCIENCE IS GOOD, WE SEND IT TO FACILITIES. OR FACILITIES MIGHT WANT TO SAY WE WANT TO SEE WHETHER IT'S EVEN POSSIBLE TO DO THIS, AND THERE WILL BE JOINT REVIEWS. I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNANCE PROCESS, THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ACTUAL APPLICATIONS. | |||||||||
| I CAN SEE A DOZEN DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOING IT, AND I'M SURE THEY'LL COME UP WITH A GOOD ONE. BUT THIS IS JUST A WONDERFUL CHANCE FOR THEM TO THINK ABOUT HOW THEY WORK TOGETHER. THE ADVOCATES ARE A COMMON BRIDGE. THAT'S SUPERB. THE EXPERTS FOR THESE TWO COMMITTEES, THE MEDICAL AND RESEARCH EXPERTS AND THE FACILITIES EXPERTS, WON'T OTHERWISE COME TOGETHER. AND WE NEED TO HELP THEM FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THAT WORK. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: THAT'S A QUESTION I WOULD HAVE. CAN WE BRING THEM TOGETHER? IS THERE A REASON WHY TWO WORKING GROUPS COULD NOT SCHEDULE A JOINT MEETING? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: QUITE THE CONTRARY. IN FACT, THEY WILL. I'M NOT GOING TO PRE-DICTATE THAT TO THEM. I'M JUST GOING TO SAY WE KNOW THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK CLOSELY TOGETHER. WE KNOW THAT THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME PASS-BACK, SOME CROSSTALK. AND I WOULD LEAVE IT TO THE CHAIRS AND VICE CHAIRS AND THE MEMBERS TO SAY WHAT THE MOST -- AND THE STAFF, QUITE FRANKLY, TO SAY WHAT THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO DO THAT IS. ALL I KNOW IS IT'S GOT TO BE DONE. | |||||||||
| AND ONE OF THE PERIPHERAL ADVANTAGES OF THESE CASE STUDIES IS THAT IT BEGINS TO HELP PEOPLE THINK ABOUT, GEE, WHAT KINDS OF INTERACTIONS AND HOW WOULD THEY BE STRUCTURED. IT JUST MIGHT BE VERY HELPFUL TO SOLVE SOME OF THE PRACTICAL DETAILS. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DR. FRIEDMAN, THIS IS BOB. POTENTIALLY IF WE CAN THINK ABOUT CALLING THE QUESTION ON JUST THIS PORTION THAT DEALS WITH CASE STUDIES. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT IF THERE'S TIME UNDER THIS SAME ITEM OF CONSIDERATION, IT SAYS CONSIDERATION OF THE PROCESS FOR REVIEWING FACILITIES GRANT PROPOSALS, IT WOULD BE GOOD IF WE HAD TIME IN THIS MEETING TO ALSO JUST ADDRESS THE SAME SUBJECT THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE OTHER SUBCOMMITTEES DEALING WITH WORKING GROUPS. THAT IS, THAT IF WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION BACK TO THE BOARD, TO PUT ON THE RECORD AT THE BOARD THAT POLICY AND CRITERIA FOR PROJECT SELECTION WOULD BE DEVELOPED BY THIS WORKING GROUP IN PUBLIC HEARINGS. SO MUCH LIKE THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE, THERE WOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF ITS WORK AND A CONFIDENTIAL HEARING PART. | |||||||||
| BUT THE ISSUE IS DO WE HAVE TIME TO CONSIDER THAT, AND ARE WE AT A POINT WHERE WE CAN CALL FOR THE QUESTION ON THIS CASE STUDY LETTERS OF INTENT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, LET'S REVIEW WHAT THAT MOTION MIGHT SOUND LIKE. YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE ICOC THIS PILOT PROJECT OR CASE STUDY FORMAT, REQUESTING -- REQUESTS FOR IDEAS TO COME IN, THAT THE CATEGORIES WOULD BE AS DESCRIBED, THE FIVE PAGES, APPENDED MATERIALS AND SO FORTH, ONLY FROM NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS, THAT THERE WOULD BE TWO KINDS OF PROPOSALS THAT WOULD BE OF INTEREST. ONE IS A UNIQUE FACILITIES PROPOSAL, THE SECOND WOULD BE SHARED FACILITIES OR CORE FACILITIES, AS DR. POMEROY TALKED ABOUT. YOU TALKED ABOUT HAVING THIS ANNOUNCED AT THE JUNE MEETING WITH APPLICATIONS OR THESE LETTERS TO COME IN TO -- | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JULY MEETING. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: -- THE JULY MEETING, AND THAT THEN OTHER IMPORTANT DETAILS TO BE WORKED OUT. THE LETTER WOULD HAVE TO BE DRAFTED BY STAFF. THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE ISSUED AFTER THE JUNE MEETING. DOES THAT CAPTURE SOME OF WHAT YOU WERE PROPOSING? | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YEAH. WE'RE ACTUALLY ONE STEP DOWNSTREAM FROM THAT IN THAT THE BOARD AT THE END OF THE LAST MEETING AUTHORIZED OUR COMMITTEE HERE TO ACTUALLY PROCEED WITH THIS IF WE WISH TO. SO THAT THE MOTION WOULD ACTUALLY BE THAT IF WE ADOPT IT, THEN WE COULD DIRECT STAFF TO ISSUE THE LETTER. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION, PLEASE? | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: I'LL SECOND IT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR ANY DISCUSSION. THERE ARE A LOT OF IMPORTANT DETAILS. CLAIRE HAS LISTED SOME, BUT THERE ARE OTHER IMPORTANT DETAILS AS WELL THAT NEED TO BE CLARIFIED. OTHER COMMENTARY, PLEASE, FROM THE COMMITTEE. AND LET'S START IN PALO ALTO, PLEASE. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: NO COMMENTS HERE. CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: UCLA, PLEASE. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: NO COMMENTS HERE EITHER. CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: DAVIS, PLEASE. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: NONE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: DO WE NEED TO TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THIS? | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: DO YOU WANT TO ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, DR. FRIEDMAN? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE, FROM UC DAVIS. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: ONE COMMENT. | |||||||||
| MR. O'SHEAR: DAN O'SHEAR. I'M FROM THE J. DAVID GLADSTONE INSTITUTES IN SAN FRANCISCO. I GUESS IT'S JUST A CLARIFICATION OF THIS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REQUEST FOR IDEA VERSUS A LETTER OF INTENT. AND I'M ASKING THE QUESTION BECAUSE WHAT I HEARD ABOUT THE REQUEST FOR IDEA IS TO PUT FORTH THE SINGLE MOST INNOVATIVE IDEA. AND IF ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES IS TO GET SOME SENSE OF SCOPE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THAT WITH A REQUEST FOR IDEA. SO I WAS JUST LOOKING FOR SOME CLARIFICATION ABOUT THAT. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK, DR. FRIEDMAN, THE POINT HERE IS THAT WE REALLY DO NEED TO BE ABLE AT THE ICOC LEVEL TO EVALUATE THE LEVELS OF DEMAND OUT THERE AND HOW MANY INSTITUTIONS HAVE HOW MUCH DEMAND OUT THERE. WHAT, DR. FRIEDMAN, WOULD YOU THINK IF THEY WERE ABLE TO SEND IN MORE THAN ONE, BUT TO PRIORITIZE SO THAT THEY WOULD GIVE US THEIR MOST IMPORTANT IDEA BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO REALLY FUNCTIONS HERE. ONE IS TO UNDERSTAND THE LEVEL OF DEMAND AND THE SCOPE OF DEMAND, BUT THE OTHER ONE IS TO PICK OUT ACTUAL CASE STUDIES. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: I'M REALLY GLAD THIS CAME UP BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT I WAS STRUGGLING WITH THE IDEA OF ONE PROPOSAL THAT WAS NARROW VERSUS THE TOTAL SPECTRUM. ONE WAY TO SOLVE THIS THAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT IS WE COULD DESIGNATE THAT YOU SHOULD PUT FORTH YOUR MOST INNOVATIVE IDEA, BECAUSE THAT'S SORT OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET, BUT INCLUDE A PAGE WHERE YOU SAID HOW THIS FIT INTO THE OVERALL SCOPE OF YOUR PROGRAM AND OUTLINE YOUR PROGRAM. | |||||||||
| JUST TAKING MYSELF, IF WE WERE GOING TO RENOVATE SOME LABS, I COULD ALSO SAY, WITHOUT THE SPECIFICS, PLUS I'M GOING TO HAVE AN ANIMAL MOUSE FACILITY, PLUS I'M GOING TO HAVE A DATA CENTER, PLUS A CLINICAL TRIALS AREA, AND JUST OUTLINE HOW THIS FIT INTO THE LARGER PICTURE. MAYBE THAT WOULD ACCOMPLISH BOTH GOALS. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I WOULD TAKE THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I THINK IT'S AN EXCELLENT SUGGESTION | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: WILL WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THESE LETTERS BEFORE THEY GO OUT? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: YES. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: NOT ONLY THAT, NOT JUST THE LETTER, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF THE STAFF CAN PLEASE AT LEAST MOCK UP A FORM SO THAT THE INFORMATION WILL COME BACK IN A STANDARDIZED WAY. OTHERWISE, IT'S GOING TO BE A NIGHTMARE TRYING TO DISSECT OUT DIFFERENT KINDS OF FORMS. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DR. FRIEDMAN, WHAT ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF YOU JUST REACHING OUT TO INDIVIDUAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR IDEAS BECAUSE IF YOU CIRCULARIZE THE WHOLE LETTER TO ALL OF US, THEN YOU HAVE TO CALL ANOTHER NOTICED MEETING. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. WE WILL REACH OUT ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS TO GET IDEAS THEN. | |||||||||
| OTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, PLEASE? THAT WAS A VERY VALUABLE ONE. FROM PALO ALTO. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: THERE IS ONE COMMENT. | |||||||||
| MR. REED: JUST AS SOMEBODY WHO READS AN AWFUL LOT OF PAPERWORK AND IT'S EASY TO GET MOUNTAINS OF AND GET BURIED UNDER IT, WHAT ABOUT HAVING YOUR MAIN IDEA BE THE FIVE-PAGER, AND ANY ADDITIONAL IDEAS BE LIMITED TO ONE PAGE, JUST TO KEEP THE AMOUNT OF READING TIME DOWN? | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DON, THAT'S WHAT CLAIRE JUST PROPOSED AND I ACCEPTED. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I THOUGHT THAT WHAT CLAIRE PROPOSED, AND WE SHOULD ASK CLAIRE, WAS A FIVE-PAGE FOR THE BIG IDEA, AND THEN ONE PAGE THAT CAPTURES, JUST LISTS ALL THE OTHER THINGS, NOT ONE PAGE EACH. WHICH DID YOU INTEND, CLAIRE? | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: ONE PAGE TOTAL. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. AND THAT WOULD BE A SIMPLE LISTING WITH NO PREJUDICE ABOUT -- THERE'D BE NO DISADVANTAGE IN DOING THAT. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: EXACTLY. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ONE PAGE WOULD LIST EVERYTHING, CLAIRE, BUT YOU'D STILL HAVE THE FIVE PAGES ON YOUR INNOVATIVE IDEA. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: EXACTLY. ONE PAGE TOTAL IN ADDITION. SORRY. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: I THINK WE'RE ALL AGREEING. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I THINK SO TOO. HEARING NO OTHER COMMENT, I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO A VOTE, PLEASE. WE'VE DONE A LOT OF VOTING AT THIS MEETING. | |||||||||
| AND I'D LIKE TO VOTE YES ON THIS ITEM. MR. KLEIN: THIS IS BOB KLEIN. I'M NEXT ON THE LIST, I BELIEVE. I VOTE YES. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: TED LOVE. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: I VOTE YES. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: CLAIRE POMEROY. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: YES. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: FRANCISCO PRIETO. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: YES. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: GAYLE WILSON. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: YES. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: JOHN REED IS ABSENT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THIS THEN BRINGS US TO THE LAST NOTED ITEM, WHICH, MR. KLEIN, YOU HAD A COMMENT ABOUT PROCESSES THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BECAUSE THE PUBLIC HAS SUCH A GREAT INTEREST IN KNOWING WHICH WAY WE'RE GOING IN TERMS OF WHETHER THIS WORKING GROUP WILL BE -- HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS OR ONLY CONFIDENTIAL MEETINGS, I'VE HEARD IT DISCUSSED AT THE BOARD PREVIOUSLY SOME THOUGHTS THAT POLICY AND DISCUSSIONS OF CRITERIA FOR PROJECT SELECTION ARE AN APPROPRIATE CATEGORY, AND THERE MAY BE OTHERS, FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS OF THIS WORKING GROUP, AND THAT IT WOULD -- IF WE COULD REACH A CONCEPTUAL IDEA, AS THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP DID, THAT POLICY AND CRITERIA FOR PROJECT SELECTION AND OTHER APPROPRIATE ITEMS WOULD BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS OF THIS WORKING GROUP. AND BUT THERE COULD BE CONFIDENTIAL SESSIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU ARE TRYING TO EVALUATE WHETHER THE SCIENTIFIC OR STAFF OR THE PHYSICIAN/SCIENTISTS IN A PARTICULAR INSTITUTION COULD HANDLE THE SIZE OF FACILITY THAT THEY WERE PROPOSING. BUT THERE CERTAINLY ARE AREAS WHERE CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSIONS MIGHT BE IMPORTANT. | |||||||||
| THE BASIC CORE CONCEPT IS POLICY AND CRITERIA FOR PROJECT SELECTION. CAN WE DEFINITELY SUGGEST THAT THAT WOULD BE PART OF A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR THIS WORKING GROUP? THAT'S THE QUESTION. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE MY FELLOW COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO COMMENT FIRST IN PALO ALTO. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: COULD WE RESTATE WHAT I'M COMMENTING ON AGAIN? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WHAT BOB -- AND LET ME TRY AND SUMMARIZE IT, IF I UNDERSTAND IT. BOB IS SAYING THAT HE'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION OF WHICH PORTIONS OF THE FACILITIES PROCESSES WOULD BE PUBLIC AND WHICH WOULD BE PRIVATE. BOB HAS MADE THE CASE THAT GENERAL PROCEDURAL, GENERAL PHILOSOPHIC DISCUSSIONS WOULD BE, STANDARDS KINDS OF DISCUSSIONS, THOSE WOULD BE ENTIRELY PUBLIC. | |||||||||
| BOB HAS MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT WHEN IT COMES TO THE ACTUAL REVIEW OF INDIVIDUAL PROPOSALS, THAT, SIMILAR TO THE SCIENTIFIC WORKING GROUP, THOSE BE CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVATE. | |||||||||
| DID I SAY THAT CORRECTLY, MR. KLEIN? | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. AND I WAS HOPING THAT WE COULD AT LEAST GET A MOTION OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION, IF IT GOES IN THAT DIRECTION, WHERE WE COULD AT LEAST BE IN A POSITION TO REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD MEETING ON MONDAY THAT POLICY AND GENERAL STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR PROJECT SELECTION WOULD BE DECIDED IN PUBLIC MEETINGS, AND THAT WE'RE WORKING ON REFINING THAT LANGUAGE, BUT THAT'S THE CONCEPTUAL STATEMENT. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: I WOULD SAY I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THESE KINDS OF PROPOSALS AND GENERAL SCIENTIFIC GRANT PROPOSALS, BUT THE CONCEPT, BOB, TO ME MAKES A GREAT DEAL OF SENSE. AND I THINK IT WOULD, IN FACT, ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO COME FORWARD WITH THEIR MOST INNOVATIVE IDEAS IF THEY FEEL THAT THOSE IDEAS ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC SCRUTINY AND COMPETITION. | |||||||||
| BUT I WOULD ASK DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT UNDER BAGLEY-KEENE, OR CAN WE DO THAT UNDER BAGLEY-KEENE? | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THIS IS AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND SO RIGHT NOW UNDER THE INITIATIVE, UNLESS WE CHANGE IT, IT'S ALL CONFIDENTIAL. SO THE POINT IS WE'RE TRYING TO SAY TO THE PUBLIC WHAT CAN WE MAKE PUBLIC IN THE SPIRIT OF TRYING TO LISTEN TO REQUESTS FOR MORE PUBLIC DISCUSSION. AND IF WE CAN MAKE ALL OUR POLICIES, OUR CRITERIA FOR PROJECT SELECTION, OUR STANDARDS FOR PROJECT SELECTION ALL DECIDED IN A PUBLIC SESSION, THAT WOULD BE A HELPFUL MESSAGE FOR THE PUBLIC, IF WE THINK THAT THAT'S APPROPRIATE. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE. AND THE OTHER THING I WOULD EVEN SUGGEST IS THAT -- AND MAYBE YOU ALREADY ARE SUGGESTING THIS -- IS THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THESE IN PUBLIC, WE MAY NOT EVEN HAVE TO MENTION THE NAME OF THE INSTITUTION. WE COULD SIMPLY NUMBER THEM OR ALPHABETIZE THEM OR SOMETHING, CODE THEM SO THAT THERE'S NO TYING BACK, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BECAUSE THEY'RE PRETTY UNIQUE, THAT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT BECAUSE CHARACTERISTICS ARE SUCH THAT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE INSTITUTION. BUT I'M TRYING TO LIMIT DOWN THE ISSUE TO AT LEAST GET TO A CONCEPTUAL AGREEMENT ON MAKING PUBLIC JUST THE POLICY, CRITERIA, AND STANDARDS FOR PROJECT SELECTION. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: MR. KLEIN, LET ME USE MY CHAIRMAN'S PREROGATIVE TO SAY SOMETHING AT THIS MOMENT, AND IT MAY BE CONTRARIAN, SO I BETTER SAY IT EARLY IF I'M GOING TO TOSS A HAND GRENADE INTO THE DISCUSSION. | |||||||||
| I STRONGLY SUPPORT YOUR POSITION ON POLICY, PROCEDURES, PHILOSOPHY BEING A PUBLIC DISCUSSION. I ACTUALLY, THOUGH, ASK THE QUESTION: WHY WOULDN'T WE HAVE FACILITIES GRANT REVIEWS IN PUBLIC? AND THERE ARE A FEW AREAS THAT I CAN THINK OF WHERE I WOULD ASK FOR CONFIDENTIALITY. THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE SCIENCE REVIEWS WHERE THERE'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, WHERE THERE'S AN INTENSE COMPETITION WITH SCIENTISTS, NOT FROM CALIFORNIA, BUT FROM OTHER PLACES, AND THAT INSIGHTS INTO THAT RESEARCH GIVES UNIQUE ADVANTAGES OR DISADVANTAGES, AND THAT IT BECOMES VERY PERSONAL. AND SO I ACCEPT THE NECESSITY OF A SCIENTIFIC REVIEW BEING UNDER CLOSELY HELD, CLOSED PROCEEDINGS. | |||||||||
| I WOULD ARGUE THAT, TO ME, A FACILITIES APPLICATION SHOULD BE DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS. IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC DONORS -- AS YOU TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, YOU'RE EXPECTING LEVERAGED KINDS OF PROPOSALS, AT LEAST IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES. THERE MAY BE FOUNDATIONS OR DONORS WHERE THIS INFORMATION IS SENSITIVE, AND THEY WISH IT TO BE HELD CONFIDENTIAL. I WOULD RESPECT THAT. I THINK THAT THERE MAY BE SOME BONDS ISSUES AND SOME RATING ISSUES ABOUT AN INSTITUTION, SOME FINANCIAL ISSUES THAT FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, ALTHOUGH I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT THOSE WOULD BE TODAY, BUT I'M WILLING TO BELIEVE THAT THERE MAY BE SOME ISSUES THAT THEY'D LIKE TO KEEP CONFIDENTIAL AND AREN'T PUBLICLY DISCLOSED. I WOULD BE RESPECTFUL OF THAT. | |||||||||
| SHORT OF THAT, I WOULD LIKE -- IT SORT OF DOESN'T BOTHER ME TO HAVE A PUBLIC DISCUSSION IN WHICH YOU SAY WHAT DOES IT COST TO RENOVATE PER SQUARE FOOT? WHAT DOES IT COST TO BUILD PER SQUARE FOOT? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO HERE? HOW MUCH OF IT IS SHARED? HOW MUCH OF IT IS UNIQUE? I KNOW I MAY BE TAKING AN EXTREME POSITION. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ALL OF THOSE EXAMPLES YOU'RE GIVING ME I WOULD AGREE WITH. BUT WHAT WOULD YOU DO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, IF YOU COULD ONLY DO UCLA OR USC, AND THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE WERE ASKED TO EVALUATE WHICH FACULTY COULD BETTER ACCOMPLISH MORE SCIENCE AT THIS FACILITY? | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: BOB, LET ME INTERRUPT YOU. YOU SEE, I SAID THAT I WOULD HAVE THE SCIENCE REVIEW, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR WHAT THE INDIVIDUAL LABORATORIES WOULD BE DOING AND THE INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATORS, THAT WOULD BE A CLOSED SCIENTIFIC REVIEW EXACTLY AS THE NIH DOES IT, EXACTLY AS PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS DO IT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE -- YOU WOULD GET FEEDBACK FROM THE SCIENCE REVIEW COMMITTEE THAT SAYS WE SEE WHICH PROJECTS ARE BEING PROPOSED, AND WE THINK THESE ARE VALID PROJECTS, AND WE THINK THESE ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE FACILITIES GROUP TO CONSIDER. | |||||||||
| NOW, WE PASS THIS TO THE FACILITIES GROUP, AND YOU PUT ON THE FILTER OF IS IT SHARED? IS IT UNIQUE? IS IT COST-EFFECTIVE? WILL IT BE BUILT IN THE RIGHT TIME SCALE? ARE THERE TOO MANY FACILITIES LIKE THIS IN ONE GEOGRAPHIC AREA VERSUS ANOTHER? ALL THE UNIQUE CONSIDERATIONS AND CRITERIA THAT THE FACILITIES GROUP WOULD BRING TO PLAY WOULD BE PUBLIC. THERE WOULD BE A PRIVATE, IF YOU WILL, MEETING TO SAY THAT THE SCIENCE QUALIFIES AND GOES FORWARD. | |||||||||
| I HAVEN'T WORKED OUT ALL THE DETAILS ABOUT THIS, BUT I'M JUST RECOMMENDING THAT WE BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO HAVE WHAT REALLY CAN BE PUBLICLY DISCUSSED AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK WE CAN COMMUNICATE THAT INTENT, BUT CERTAINLY LITIGATION WOULD HAVE TO BE CONFIDENTIAL. CERTAINLY NEGOTIATIONS OVER LAND FOR A FACILITY YOU WOULDN'T WANT PUBLIC BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T WANT THE LAND SELLER TO KNOW WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS SO THAT THEY COULD ANTICIPATE WHAT THEY COULD GET OUT OF THE INSTITUTION. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF -- I THINK WHAT STANDARDS SAID IS THEY NAMED A NUMBER OF EXCEPTIONS AND SAID AND OTHER IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS THAT THE CONFIDENTIALITY IS CRITICAL TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE MISSION OF THE COMMITTEE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: AND I TAKE YOUR POINT. I THINK THOSE ARE VALID CONSIDERATIONS. THE DEFAULT POSITION WOULD BE THE DISCUSSION IS PUBLIC EXCEPT UNDER THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT AND SUPPORT IT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN SAYING IN GENERAL THEY'LL BE PRIVATE WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS. WE'RE GOING TO SAY THEY'RE PUBLIC WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS. I BELIEVE EVERY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WOULD BE SENSITIVE TO UNIQUE NEGOTIATIONS OR FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS OR A DONOR WHO WISHES TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS OR SO FORTH. OBVIOUSLY UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE WOULD BE RESPECTFUL. | |||||||||
| SO I DON'T THINK YOU WANT US TO TRY AND CRAFT ALL THE WORDS AND EXCEPTIONS TODAY, BUT WE WOULD NEED TO, BEFORE THIS IS TAKEN TO THE ICOC, AT LEAST TO HAVE A FURTHER DISCUSSION OF WHAT SOME OF THOSE CRITERIA MIGHT BE SO THAT WE CAN HAVE AN EXPRESSION OF SENTIMENT TO THE ICOC BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES WHO VOTE ON THIS. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHAT THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE DID THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL, SO THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS WHICH DIRECTION WE'RE GOING, IS HAVE A CONCEPTUAL RESOLUTION AS YOU JUST ARTICULATED IT SO THAT THEY KNOW THAT WE'RE WORKING ON IT AND INTEND TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THIS BEING PUBLIC. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL BECAUSE THE PUBLIC, WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION, IS ASSUMING WE'RE GOING TO TRY AND KEEP EVERYTHING PRIVATE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OKAY. | |||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: DR. FRIEDMAN, IT'S JAMES HARRISON. WHAT THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP SEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE IS DOING IS THE STAFF IS ACTUALLY DRAFTING PROPOSED RULES TO GOVERN THE MEETINGS OF THE STANDARDS WORKING GROUP WHICH WILL COME BACK TO THE ICOC FOR APPROVAL. SO THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE FINER DETAILS. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO WHAT WE WOULD DO IS IF WE COULD PASS A RESOLUTION AS YOU JUST ARTICULATED IT; AND THEN IF THE ICOC APPROVES OUR CONCEPT, THEN STAFF WOULD BE DIRECTED TO DRAFT IT, BRING IT BACK TO THIS COMMITTEE FOR SPECIFIC REVIEW. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I'D LIKE TO HAVE -- THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. I'D LIKE TO HAVE DISCUSSION, PLEASE, FROM VARIOUS COMMITTEE MEMBERS FIRST, AND THEN THE PUBLIC. GAYLE, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS, PLEASE? | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: WELL, I JUST THOUGHT -- YOU KNOW, YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO BE THROWING A BOMB IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL THIS, SO I THINK IT'S A VERY THOUGHTFUL PROPOSAL. AND I ALSO THINK THAT AS MUCH AS WE CAN HAVE IN PUBLIC IS GOOD, SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. I'M GLAD TO KNOW I'M NOT THE ONLY ANARCHIST. IT MAKES ME FEEL SO MUCH BETTER, GAYLE. | |||||||||
| CAN I ASK, PLEASE, AT UC DAVIS FOR YOUR COMMENTS? | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: I WAS READY TO PULL THE PIN ON YOUR GRENADE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: EXCELLENT. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: I THINK THAT ABSOLUTELY OUR DEFAULT POSITION SHOULD BE THAT EVERYTHING IS PUBLIC UNLESS THERE ARE STRONG, COMPELLING REASONS. THE EXAMPLE THAT BOB GAVE IS A GOOD ONE. WE DON'T WANT TO TIP OUR HANDS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT A PIECE OF LAND BECAUSE THAT OBVIOUSLY IS AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND ALLOWS THE LANDHOLDER TO JACK THE PRICE UP. BUT WITHOUT -- OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS, WHICH WE SHOULD HAVE STAFF PREPARE FOR US AND REVIEW AT THE ICOC, THE DEFAULT POSITION ABSOLUTELY SHOULD BE THAT ALL OUR DISCUSSIONS ARE IN PUBLIC. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: THERE'S OBVIOUSLY CONSENSUS THAT THE PHILOSOPHIES AND THE GENERAL CRITERIA SHOULD BE PUBLIC. I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THE CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT TO EVALUATE FACILITIES WITHOUT EVALUATING THE SCIENCE THAT WILL HAPPEN WITHIN THOSE FACILITIES. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: EXACTLY. I THINK WHAT DR. FRIEDMAN WAS SUGGESTING IS THAT THE SCIENCE EVALUATION PORTION THAT COMES FROM THE SCIENCE COMMITTEE WOULD BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: I WOULD PERSONALLY BE SURPRISED THAT YOU COULD HAVE A DISCUSSION OF A FACILITIES GRANT WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE SCIENCE, SO I THINK THAT FUNCTIONALLY IT MAY BE THAT YOU END UP CLOSING A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE GIVING ANY MONEY OUT FOR A FACILITY WITHOUT CONSIDERING IN THE DISCUSSION OF THAT THE SCIENCE THAT WILL HAPPEN WITHIN IT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: LET ME JUST CLARIFY MY POINT HERE BECAUSE YOU AND I ARE IN SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT. I BELIEVE THAT THE SCIENCE COMMITTEE WOULD SAY THERE ARE THESE WONDERFUL IDEAS, AND WE SEE A JUSTIFICATION FOR N THOUSAND FEET OF LAB SPACE AND ANIMAL FACILITIES, A PET SCANNER, WHATEVER IT IS. THE SCIENCE COMMITTEE REVIEWS THIS AND BELIEVES THIS IS APPROPRIATE. AND THEN THAT'S ALL DONE AS YOU WOULD REVIEW ANY SCIENTIFIC GRANT UNDER THOSE CONFIDENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS. | |||||||||
| YOU THEN WOULD SAY, OKAY, WE HAVE A JUSTIFICATION FOR N THOUSAND FEET OF LAB SPACE IN THIS SORT OF FACILITY AND SO FORTH. THEN IT GOES TO THE FACILITIES GROUP, AND YOU SAY YOU'RE PROPOSING TO DO THIS AT $8,000 A SQUARE FOOT. UNACCEPTABLE. YOU'RE ASKING TO DO THIS WHEN THERE'S AN INSTITUTION 20 MINUTES AWAY THAT HAS ALREADY GOT THIS FACILITY. WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHY YOU AREN'T SHARING THEIR FACILITY. OR YOU'RE SETTING UP A FACILITY THAT IS UNIQUE IN YOUR AREA. EXPLAIN TO US WHY YOU'RE NOT SHARING IT WITH OTHER SISTER INSTITUTIONS IN YOUR LOCALE. OR IT GOES ON AND ON. THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, I THINK, CAN ABSOLUTELY BE DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC AND SHOULD BE. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: I THINK THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS THAT WHEN THE FACILITIES GROUP GETS AN APPLICATION, THEY'RE GOING TO GET AN APPLICATION FROM TWO DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS FOR A WET LAB. AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SAY WE THINK THE MONEY SHOULD GO TO INSTITUTION X OVER INSTITUTION Y. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE A RANKING. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO JUSTIFY THAT RANKING ON THE BASIS OF THE SCIENCE AS WELL AS THE FACILITIES PART. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: BUT, CLAIRE, THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AT THE ICOC MEETING. THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE A DISCUSSION, A PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE GRANTS, AND INSTITUTIONS WILL BE COMPETING. WE WON'T GET INTO DETAILS ABOUT WHY INSTITUTION A IS SUPERIOR TO INSTITUTION B, BUT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN PUBLIC ANYWAY. AND YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE REAL ESTATE EXPERTS TALKING ABOUT WHETHER THE GENOMICS CORE AT INSTITUTION A IS BETTER THAN THE B. THEY WILL BE ACCEPTING THAT FROM THE SCIENCE COMMITTEE. THAT'S WHY WORKING OUT THE DETAILS OF HOW THESE TWO COMMITTEES INTERACT IS REALLY PRETTY IMPORTANT AND A LITTLE BIT TRICKY RIGHT NOW. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT WITHOUT THOSE DETAILS WORKED OUT, I DON'T THINK WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WILL BE DISCUSSED AT THE FACILITIES MEETING. SO I PERSONALLY WOULD BE VERY COMFORTABLE ENDORSING TODAY PHILOSOPHIES AND GENERAL CRITERIA SHOULD BE OPEN AND THAT MORE DISCUSSION IS NEEDED ABOUT HOW THE ACTUAL GRANTS WILL BE REVIEWED BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DEFINED THE PROCESS. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET ENDORSED TODAY. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WELL, BOB, I'M SORRY. THAT'S MOST OF WHAT WE'RE -- SOME OF US WANT TO GET ENDORSED TODAY. THE OTHER IS THE DEFAULT POSITION THAT, IN GENERAL, DISCUSSIONS WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. AND NOT JUST AS A SORT OF GENERAL, VAGUE STATEMENT, BUT THAT WE WILL REALLY STRETCH TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEREVER POSSIBLE, WITHOUT VIOLATING CONFIDENTIALITY, FISCAL RESTRAINT, OR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, THAT WE REALLY ADHERE TO THAT. I'M PROPOSING SOMETHING ONE STEP ABOVE WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: CLAIRE, WHAT DR. FRIEDMAN ARTICULATED IS, IN FACT, MY THOUGHT OF WHERE WE SHOULD GO, BUT CAN'T WE MAKE THAT STATEMENT THAT DR. FRIEDMAN JUST MADE AND ALSO RECOGNIZE IN THE COMMUNICATION THAT THE SCIENCE AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SCIENCE TO THE FACILITY IS INTENDED TO BE A CONFIDENTIAL EVALUATION BECAUSE EFFECTIVELY, I THINK, AS DR. FRIEDMAN SAID, WHEN THE FACILITIES GROUP FORWARDS A FACILITY TO THE BOARD, IT WILL SAY WE HAVE RECOMMENDED THIS BASED UPON A HIGH SCIENCE EVALUATION AND ALL OF THIS DETAIL ON THE FACILITY AND WHY IT MAKES SENSE AND WHY THE DOLLARS MAKE SENSE, ETC. | |||||||||
| WE DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE EXACTLY HOW THIS PROCESS IS ARTICULATED TODAY, BUT CAN'T THE DEFAULT POSITION REALLY BE PUBLIC HEARINGS? | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: I THINK IT CAN. IT'S THE ENUMERATION OF THE EXCEPTIONS, THAT IT WILL BE CRITICAL TO THE WORDING OF THE MOTION. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: OKAY. AND THE ENUMERATION OF THE EXCEPTIONS IS SOMETHING THAT THE STAFF IS GOING TO TRY AND WORK OUT AND BRING BACK TO US. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: OKAY. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IS THAT CORRECT, DR. FRIEDMAN? CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I'M SORRY. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE ENUMERATING OF THE EXCEPTIONS IS SOMETHING THE STAFF IS GOING TO TRY AND WORK OUT AND BRING BACK. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I'M VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: I WOULD JUST SAY I TEND TO AGREE WITH CLAIRE, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. AND, DR. FRIEDMAN, I DEFINITELY AGREE AND UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, BUT I THINK THERE ARE LIKELY TO BE THINGS THAT WE DON'T FULLY ANTICIPATE THAT COULD COME UP THAT WOULD BE HIGHLY INJURIOUS TO SOMEONE OR SOME PROCESS, AND WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT EITHER HAVING SOME LANGUAGE THAT COVERS SOMETHING UNEXPECTED IN THE PROPOSAL, OR WE MAY COMPROMISE OURSELVES ULTIMATELY. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DR. LOVE, ON THE STANDARDS SIDE, I THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE, THEY'RE GOING TO ENUMERATE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS AND ALSO HAVE A PROVISION AND SAY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WHERE IT'S CRITICAL TO THE MISSION OF THE WORKING GROUP THAT THE INFORMATION REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: I'D BE MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE IF WE HAD THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE IN THERE BECAUSE I THINK WE DON'T WANT TO BIND OURSELVES AND ULTIMATELY HURT THE INITIATIVE. | |||||||||
| DR. PRIETO: ISN'T THAT WHAT WE'RE ASKING STAFF TO COME BACK WITH? | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YEAH. EXCEPTIONS AND THAT SPECIFIC TYPE LANGUAGE, DR. LOVE. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: OKAY. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: GIVEN THIS DISCUSSION, NOW THAT I THINK WE'VE REFINED IT, I WOULD LIKE TO ACCEPT -- I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FROM YOUR LAST STATEMENT, DR. FRIEDMAN, WITH THE SPECIFICATION THAT WE WOULD COMMUNICATE THIS TO THE ICOC AND ASK THEM TO APPROVE THE CONCEPT WITH STAFF TO BRING BACK TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, INCLUDING THE EXCEPTIONS AND A SPECIFIC MISSION STATEMENT THAT DEALS WITH -- THAT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO ADJUST UNANTICIPATED CRITICAL SITUATIONS WHERE CONFIDENTIALITY WOULD BE IMPORTANT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OKAY. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: I WOULD SECOND THAT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION, PLEASE, FROM THE COMMITTEE? | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: I THINK WE BETTER RESTATE THE ENTIRE MOTION. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: I'D BE HAPPY TO. I THINK THE MOTION WAS FOR US TO HAVE THE DEFAULT POSITION BE THAT AS MUCH OF THE DISCUSSIONS WOULD GO ON IN PUBLIC AS POSSIBLE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CERTAIN DEFAULTS, AND WE HAD SOME SPECIFIC DEFAULTS, BUT WE'RE GOING -- WE WILL HAVE A MORE GENERAL ELABORATION OF THE DEFAULT LANGUAGE BY THE STAFF. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT PUBLIC DISCUSSION INCLUDE STANDARDS, CRITERIA FOR SELECTION, POLICY, AND MANY OTHER AREAS. THOSE AREAS ARE WORTH USING AS EXAMPLES BECAUSE THE PUBLIC IS SPECIFICALLY INTERESTED IN THOSE BEING IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: IS THAT A CLEAR ENOUGH STATEMENT, CLAIRE? | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: IT'S GOING TO BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW IT'S TRANSCRIBED FOR PRESENTATION TO THE ICOC. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: IT WILL BE INTERESTING. | |||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DR. FRIEDMAN, WE CAN LOOK TO YOU REVIEWING THE TRANSCRIPTION. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I CAN PROMISE YOU THAT I WILL, AND HAVE SOME EXAMPLES AT THE ICOC MEETING THAT I CAN EXPLAIN SO PEOPLE WILL UNDERSTAND PRECISELY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. | |||||||||
| OTHER DISCUSSION, PLEASE, PALO ALTO. | |||||||||
| DR. LOVE: THERE'S A PUBLIC COMMENT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: I'M VERY HAPPY TO GET PUBLIC. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMITTEE COMMENTS? GOOD. LET'S GO TO PUBLIC. PLEASE, THE PUBLIC COMMENT. | |||||||||
| MR. REED: I THINK IT'S -- THIS SAME SITUATION CAME UP AT THE RECENT MEETING IN SACRAMENTO ON THE PRIVACY ISSUE. AND THE CRITICS OF US WERE SAYING THAT IT WAS ESSENTIAL THAT THE CRITERIA AND THE RESULTS BE TRANSPARENT, BUT EVEN THEY COULD UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR SOME PRIVACY IN THE PROCESS. SO I THINK AS LONG AS WHAT YOU ARE WORKING TOWARDS IS EXCELLENT AND WOULD BE IN TOUCH WITH THE PUBLIC'S MOOD TO WANT TO KNOW, BUT ALSO TO UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR SOME PRIVACY IN THE MIDDLE AS LONG AS THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE WHICH STATES THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR PRIVACY IN THE MIDDLE IN THE PROCESS ITSELF, BUT THAT THE CRITERIA BEFOREHAND IS CLEAR, TRANSPARENT, AND THE END RESULT IS TRANSPARENT. | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: I LIKE THAT WORDING. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. ARE THERE OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS, PLEASE? | |||||||||
| HEARING NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE THEN, PLEASE. I WILL VOTE YES. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: OKAY. I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY CIRCLE TO GAYLE WILSON NEXT. I UNDERSTAND SHE HAS TO LEAVE EARLY. | |||||||||
| MS. WILSON: YES. | |||||||||
| MS. KING: AND BACK TO 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 IS ABSENT. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| ARE THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS THAT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO DISCUSSION THAT HAVE BEEN NOTICED AND WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR DISCUSSION? | |||||||||
| ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? AND NOW I'M WILLING TO ENTERTAIN GENERAL COMMENTS OR ANY COMMENTS WHATSOEVER THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO GIVE. ANY COMMENTS IN SACRAMENTO, PLEASE? | |||||||||
| DR. POMEROY: NONE. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: PALO ALTO. | |||||||||
| MR. REED: JUST ALWAYS WATCH THE CAMARADERIE AND THE COURTESY AND THE CIVILITY OF PEOPLE WORKING TOGETHER. THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: WHICH COMMITTEE HAVE YOU BEEN ATTENDING? | |||||||||
| MR. REED: I TRY TO ATTEND ALL OF THEM. | |||||||||
| CHAIRMAN FRIEDMAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. THAT'S VERY KIND OF YOU, SERIOUSLY. | |||||||||
| ANY COMMENTS, PLEASE, FROM UCLA? AND THERE ARE NO COMMENTS HERE EITHER | |||||||||
| IS THERE ANY REASON NOT TO SUSPEND, NOT TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT THIS MOMENT THEN? | |||||||||
| I'D LIKE TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR KIND ATTENTION THIS AFTERNOON. I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN FOR THE THOUGHTFUL AND CAREFUL WAY THAT YOU INTERVIEWED AND SCREENED ALL THE CANDIDATES. YOU'VE REALLY MADE A COMPLEX PROCESS AS LITTLE BURDEN AS POSSIBLE, AND I'M VERY GRATEFUL TO ALL THE HARD WORK THAT EACH ONE OF YOU HAS PUT IN. I REALLY DO APPRECIATE IT VERY, VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. | |||||||||
| AND WITH THAT, I WILL CLOSE THIS MEETING AND WISH EVERYBODY A GOOD WEEKEND. THANKS, EVERYBODY. PLEASE TAKE CARE. | |||||||||
| (THE MEETING WAS THEN ADJOURNED AT 05:14 P.M.) | |||||||||
Facebook Updates 
YouTube Videos 
Twitter 
Flickr Images
LinkedIn
Research Blog
RSS Feeds
