State Stem Cell Agency Facilities Working Group Transcript 4/5/08

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




California State Stem Cell Agency



REGULAR MEETING 4-5-08

BEFORE THE
SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL FACILITIES WORKING GROUP
INDEPENDENT CITIZENS' OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
TO THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE
ORGANIZED PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA STEM CELL RESEARCH AND CURES ACT
 
 
 
LOCATION:
THE WESTIN SAN FRANCISCO
1 OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY
MILLBRAE, CALIFORNIA
 
DATE:
APRIL 5, 2008
9 A.M.
 
REPORTER:
BETH C. DRAIN, CSR
CSR. NO. 7152
 
BRS FILE NO.:
79840
 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA; SATURDAY, APRIL 5, 2008
9 A.M.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. SO CAN WE CALL THE ROLL?
MR. TOCHER: MEMBER FEIT.
MS. FEIT: HERE.
MR. TOCHER: DEBORAH HYSEN.
MS. HYSEN: HERE.
MR. TOCHER: EDWARD KASHIAN.
MR. KASHIAN: HERE.
MR. TOCHER: ROBERT KLEIN.
MR. KLEIN: HERE.
MR. TOCHER: STUART LAFF
MR. LAFF: HERE.
MR. TOCHER: DAVID LICHTENGER.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HERE.
MR. TOCHER: JOAN SAMUELSON. DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: HERE.
MR. TOCHER: JEFF SHEEHY.
MR. SHEEHY: HERE.
MR. TOCHER: JANET WRIGHT.
DR. WRIGHT: HERE.
MR. TOCHER: WE HAVE A QUORUM.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. SO I'D FIRST LIKE TO OPEN UP THE FLOOR FOR ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS. NO PUBLIC COMMENT -- WE HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM. PLEASE STEP FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION.
MR. SIMPSON: JOHN SIMPSON WITH CONSUMER WATCHDOG, WHICH WAS FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE FOUNDATION FOR TAXPAYER AND CONSUMER RIGHTS. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT IT WAS A VERY LATE NIGHT LAST NIGHT FOR EVERYONE, BUT WE ALL THANK YOU FOR DOING THE HARD WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING. AND I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD. THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? OKAY.
MORNING, MR. VICE CHAIRMAN. SO, RICK, I'D LIKE TO HAVE US PROCEED WITH THE NEXT APPLICATION FOR REVIEW.
MR. KELLER: OKAY.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'M SORRY.
MR. KELLER: POINT OF ORDER. ON YOUR AGENDA WE HAD PASSED ON AGENDA ITEM 5, WHICH WAS CONSIDERATION OF THE GRANTS ADMINISTRATION POLICY PENDING YOUR FULL COMMITTEE. AND SINCE YOU HAVE -- WELL, WE CAN STILL WAIT. I SEE THAT JOAN IS NOT HERE. MAYBE WE SHOULD WAIT. IT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMITTEE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH THAT ITEM ON THE GRANTS ADMINISTRATION POLICY THAT YOU PASSED ON YESTERDAY.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I THINK WE CONTINUE TO PASS IF IT'S OKAY.
MR. KELLER: WANT TO REMIND YOU WE STILL HAVE THAT TO DO.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: TRY TO DO THAT AFTER THESE REVIEWS. AS A POINT OF JUST PUBLIC INFORMATION, BOB, WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE UTILITY JUST PUBLICLY?
MR. KLEIN: SURE. FIRST OF ALL, WE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL'S ADVICE LAST NIGHT. BRAIN PERFORMANCE FELL OFF TOWARDS THE END OF THE EVENING, AND I WASN'T VERY HIGHLY ARTICULATE ON A PARTICULAR POINT AT THE END OF THE NIGHT. BUT WE DID MAKE A DECISION RELATED TO NOT ALLOWING LEVERAGE PRIOR INFRASTRUCTURE EXPENDITURES. AND THAT HAS AN IMPLICATION FOR A DECISION WE MADE EARLIER IN THE NIGHT, WHICH IS THE ISSUE THAT WAS GIVING ME A GREAT DEAL OF TROUBLE AS TO CONSISTENCY.
RICK WILL PROBABLY BE PLEASED TO HEAR THIS. EARLIER IN THE EVENING, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT LOOKING AT INSTITUTIONS THAT WERE BENEFITING FROM CENTRAL PLANTS FOR UTILITIES. THOSE CENTRAL PLANTS ARE INFRASTRUCTURE. AND AS WE KNOW, MANY OF THE NUMBERS ON THE SCREEN WERE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WAS BUILT MANY YEARS BEFORE. SO ON A CONSISTENCY BASIS, THE POINT WAS DO WE WANT TO RECONSIDER THE INSTRUCTION WE GAVE EARLIER IN THE NIGHT AND JUST NOT HAVE THE CENTRAL PLANT INFRASTRUCTURE COUNTED AS LEVERAGE BECAUSE IT WAS A PRIOR EXPENDITURE AND BECAUSE IT WAS AN OFFSITE EXPENDITURE.
SO THE QUESTION IS, FOR CONSISTENCY, DO WE WANT TO JUST LEAVE UTILITIES OUT OF THE LEVERAGE EQUATION, GIVEN THE DECISION WE MADE LATER IN THE NIGHT AND GIVEN THAT WE WANT CONSISTENCY BETWEEN OUR DECISIONS? DOES THAT PROPERLY, DAVID, STATE THE POINT?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK SO. I THINK WE BASICALLY DECIDED THAT WE WANT TO WITHDRAW OUR --
MR. KLEIN: NO. WE NEED TO POLL THE MEMBERS. THAT'S JUST A STATEMENT OF BRINGING SOMETHING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE MEMBERS, SO WE NEED TO POLL THE MEMBERS.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO WE WANT TO KEEP WHAT OUR VOTE WAS AS THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP MOVING FORWARD, CORRECT, ON THIS ISSUE? SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE WOULD WITHDRAW OUR DIRECTION TO THE PRESIDENT TO GATHER MORE INFORMATION ON THE UTILITIES. SO IS THAT A MOTION? IT'S NOT REALLY A MOTION.
MR. KLEIN: SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE EVERYONE'S OPINION HERE. SO WE CAN EITHER HAVE A MOTION OR JUST GO DOWN AND ASK EACH PERSON. I THINK NOT TO PREJUDICE WITH A MOTION, IF WE COULD JUST GO THROUGH AND ASK EACH PERSON.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JANET.
DR. WRIGHT: I NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY
BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND -- BOB, CAN YOU --
MR. KLEIN: SURE. AT THE END OF THE EVENING, WE MADE A DECISION THAT OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WAS EXPENDED YEARS EARLIER WOULD NOT COUNT TOWARDS LEVERAGE. EARLIER IN THE EVENING WE'D GIVEN THE PRESIDENT A DIRECTION TO GO BACK AND DO A COST ALLOCATION OF THE CENTRAL PLANT UTILITIES, WHICH ARE OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE. SO THOSE TWO POSITIONS ARE INCONSISTENT, WHICH WAS GIVING ME A GREAT DEAL OF TROUBLE, BUT I DIDN'T EXPRESS IT CLEARLY LAST NIGHT.
THE ISSUE IS I THINK THE SIMPLEST WAY TO DO IT, SINCE WE HAVEN'T COUNTED IN OUR POINT SYSTEM ANYTHING DEALING WITH THE OFFSITE UTILITIES, IS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR LATER VOTE, JUST NOT TO CONSIDER OFFSITE UTILITY CORE COST.
DR. WRIGHT: I THINK THAT IS THE MOST -- THAT'S THE MOST DIRECT PATH TO CLARITY.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WANT TO ADD THAT ACTUALLY BOB AND I ACTUALLY BOTH CONCUR ON THIS ISSUE.
DR. WRIGHT: GETTING BACK TO THE WISDOM OF DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL AND OUR HAVING STOPPED A LITTLE SOONER.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ED KASHIAN.
MR. KASHIAN: I CONCUR.
MS. HYSEN: I CONCUR. AND FOR ME, I'D STILL LIKE TO CONSIDER IT IN THE VALUE PORTION BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A VALUE TO THESE OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE CENTRAL PLANT TIE-INS.
MR. SHEEHY: I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN FROM THIS DISCUSSION. I MISSED THIS PART.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DAVID.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I AGREE.
MS. FEIT: YES, I AGREE. I THINK WE NEED TO BE CONSISTENT IN WHAT WE DO FOR EVERYONE.
MR. LAFF: I AGREE.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: EXCELLENT. ALL RIGHT. GREAT. THANKS, BOB.
SO NOW WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE NEXT APPLICATION, WHICH WOULD BE UC MERCED, 00614-1.
MR. KELLER: MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS THE FIRST ONE IN THE CATEGORY OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS, AND SO WE DO HAVE THE SAME SET OF CHARTS THAT YOU LOOKED AT YESTERDAY RELATIVE TO LEVERAGE, COST PER SQUARE FOOT, COST PER PI. SO WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE, AND I'LL PUT UP THE PERTINENT CHART HERE.
MR. GROOM IS GOING TO BE PROVIDING THE SUMMARY OF THE STAFF ANALYSIS BEFORE YOUR WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION.
MR. GROOM: NO. 614, THIS IS A REMODEL OF AN EXISTING LEASED FACILITY FOR STEM CELL INSTRUMENTATION FOUNDRY TO PROVIDE CUSTOMIZED MICROSYSTEMS FOR QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL STEM CELLS. IT HAS 5,420 ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FEET AND 8,140 GROSS SQUARE FEET. THIS IS THE SMALLEST PROGRAM WE HAVE WORKED WITH.
IT INCLUDES SPACE FOR RESEARCH ACTIVITIES, OFFICES IN SUPPORT, AS WELL AS THE CORES. THE FOUNDRY IS A CLASS 1000 AND CLASS 100 CLEAN ROOM. THE FACILITIES DO NOT EXIST ANYWHERE AT THE INSTITUTION OR IN THE REGION. OCCUPANCY IS EIGHT EXISTING PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS AND THEIR RESEARCH TEAMS. COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT IS SCHEDULED FOR 2010. IT WOULD HAVE A CERTIFIED FROM LEED'S.
THE APPLICANT HAS THE LOWEST SPACE AND CIRM COST PER RESEARCHER AMONGST SPECIAL PROGRAMS. THAT'S KIND OF JUST A COMMENT WE NOTED. THE APPLICANT ALSO NOTES HOW THE FOUNDRY BENEFITS THE CIRM RESEARCH MISSION BY PROVIDING SERVICES FOR ALL OF CALIFORNIA STEM CELL RESEARCHERS. HOWEVER, THE LOCATION, WHICH IS 90 TO 350 MILES FROM MAJOR STEM CELL RESEARCH FACILITIES, COULD BE AN ISSUE.
THE LAB PLANNER ANALYSIS SCORES WERE FUNCTIONALITY B, VALUE SCORE B PLUS. THE LAB PLANNER NOTED THE BUDGET DID NOT INDICATE THE COST OF MICROFABRICATION TOOLING, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANT AND APPEARED LOW FOR CLEAN ROOM ASSEMBLY WITH SPECIALTY PIPING SYSTEMS AND VIBRATION ISOLATION SLABS.
WITH THAT, I'LL TURN THE DISCUSSION OF THE APPLICATION TO MEMBER HYSEN, THE PRIMARY REVIEWER, AND MR. LAFF, THE SECONDARY REVIEWER.
MS. HYSEN: THANK YOU. WELL, I THINK THIS PROPOSAL HAS A LOT OF MERIT. THE ONE NOTATION THAT I FOUND VERY INTERESTING WAS THAT THE STEM CELL INSTRUMENTATION FOUNDRY IS THE FIRST OF ITS KIND IN THE NATION, AND I'M ASSUMING THAT'S A TRUE STATEMENT. SO IT WOULD NOT ONLY BE UNIQUE TO CALIFORNIA, BUT UNIQUE TO THE COUNTRY.
SO IT IS A RATHER SMALL FACILITY, 678 ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FEET PER PI WHEN OUR AVERAGE IS ABOUT 3300, BUT THE REVIEWER DIDN'T SEEM TO HAVE ANY CONCERNS. AND PERHAPS BECAUSE IT'S A UNIQUE FACILITY, IT DOESN'T NEED TO HAVE THE LARGER COMPLEMENT OF SPACE. PERHAPS MR. COPENHAGEN COULD SPEAK TO THAT.
MR. COPENHAGEN: THE FUNCTION OF THE CLEAN ROOM FACILITY IS NOT WHAT YOU WOULD TYPICALLY FIND FOR WET BENCH LABORATORIES THAT MOST OF THE OTHER APPLICANTS HAD PUT INTO THEIR PROGRAMS. SO REALLY WHAT THEY ARE PROVIDING HERE IS THIS MOLECULAR FOUNDRY, THE NANOFABRICATION FACILITY, AS A RESOURCE. AND IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME RATIO OF SPACES THAT YOU WOULD SEE. IT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT. AND THE AMOUNT OF SPACE SEEMED APPROPRIATE. YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEY WERE PROVIDING, THEY WERE GENEROUS ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU A GOOD AMOUNT OF CLEAN ROOM FABRICATION, ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S NEEDED TO GO WITH THAT.
MS. HYSEN: SO I WANTED TO JUST RAISE THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF MY FELLOW WORK GROUP MEMBERS BECAUSE IT IS AN ANOMALY, BUT IT'S AN APPROPRIATE ANOMALY IN THIS CASE.
MR. COPENHAGEN: THAT'S CORRECT.
MS. HYSEN: THE COST PER PI WAS 380,000 AND CHANGE, WHICH IS WELL BELOW THE AVERAGE, SO FROM A VALUE STANDPOINT, THAT SEEMED TO BE VERY MUCH IN LINE. THE EFFICIENCY OF 66.3 PERCENT WAS SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THE AVERAGE.
ON THE FLIP SIDE, THE LOCATION ISN'T THE BEST, BUT THE PROPOSAL POINTED OUT THAT IT IS IN A GROWING AREA OF CALIFORNIA. THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY IS A GROWING AREA OF CALIFORNIA. UC MERCED IS OUR NEWEST UC INSTITUTION, AND IT'S THE FIRST UC BUILT IN MANY, MANY YEARS, DECADES, I BELIEVE. SO TO ME YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A BRAND NEW FACILITY AND THEY DO WANT TO ESTABLISH THEMSELVES. AND SORT OF LIKE THE LITTLE ENGINE THAT COULD, I WANT TO SUPPORT THEM.
I THINK THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY'RE STILL IN THEIR INFANCY STAGE. AND SO ON THE ONE HAND, THEY DON'T SEEM TO HAVE THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
AND THE BACKGROUND AND THE RESEARCH THAT SOME OF THE OTHER INSTITUTIONS HAVE. THE SCIENTISTS DID HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THE PROCESS THEY WERE DOING AT THE SCIF AND THE FACT THERE WAS ONLY ONE OF THE FACULTY THAT WAS QUALIFIED, I BELIEVE, TO DO THIS WORK. BUT I THINK IN THIS CASE PERHAPS IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME. I THINK THAT THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO GROW THE PROGRAM. SO I FOUND THIS NOT TO BE SO MUCH OF A DETRIMENT, THAT IT WAS REALLY SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD USE AS A LAUNCHING PAD.
THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE RANGE FOR LEVERAGE. I THINK IT'S REASONABLE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO MEET THEIR CONSTRUCTION DEADLINES. IT IS AN EXISTING FACILITY. THEY DO HAVE THEIR PLANS IN PLACE. IT SAID THEY'LL BEGIN THE PLANNING IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR FOLLOWING AWARD, I'M ASSUMING. AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO MISS THEIR TARGET. IT'S NOT THAT COMPLICATED.
THE RESEARCHERS DID NOTE THAT THEY SEEMED TO BE MISSING A PLAN ON HOW TO MANAGE THE FACILITY AND PROVIDE EXTERNAL ACCESS. AND HOPEFULLY THE UC MERCED FOLKS CAN SPEAK TO THAT BECAUSE ONCE YOU GET OVER THE GEOGRAPHICAL CHALLENGE OF BEING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STATE, IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO DETERMINE HOW OTHER RESEARCHERS COULD ACCESS THIS SITE.
I THINK, IN GENERAL, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO SUPPORT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST AN OPPORTUNITY TO GROW A PROGRAM IN AN AREA THAT DOESN'T HAVE THIS. AND THEY MAKE THE OBSERVATION THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF STUDENTS IN THE UC SYSTEM THAT HAVE NOT BEEN EXPOSED TO THESE KINDS OF RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES. AND SO FROM THAT STANDPOINT, IF WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT GROWING OUR YOUTH AND GETTING THEM INVOLVED IN THESE KINDS OF PROGRAMS AND PARTICULARLY THE KIND OF STUDENTS THAT GO TO UC MERCED, IT'S A DIVERSE POPULATION, PROBABLY A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF MINORITIES, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE -- FOR THAT REASON I THINK WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING NEW BLOOD, IF YOU WILL, INTO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, DEBORAH. STUART.
MR. LAFF: WELL, I CONCUR WITH WHAT DEBORAH SAID. I HAVE ONE QUESTION WHICH I'D LIKE TO ASK. I BELIEVE THIS IS GOING TO BE IN A LEASED FACILITY. AND SO MY QUESTION IS DO THEY HAVE A LONG-TERM LEASE SO THAT WE CAN BE REASONABLY ASSURED THAT, SHOULD THIS GO FORWARD, THAT THE MONEY WILL BE USED OVER SOME LONG PERIOD OF TIME. SO IF THEY CAN ADDRESS THAT QUESTION.
I HAVE A LOT OF CONFIDENCE IN THEIR ABILITY TO MEET THIS SCHEDULE. THEY HAVE A GOOD ARCHITECT, AND I JUST THINK THAT THEY CAN DO THIS. I DON'T THINK THERE'S MUCH QUESTION.
RENOVATIONS ARE TOUGH TO FORECAST IN TERMS OF COST. AND SO I AM RELYING ON THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE A STRONG TEAM AND WILL BE ABLE TO DO THAT, BUT I WAS TRYING TO FIND A CONTINGENCY, IF THEY HAD PUT THAT IN. RICK, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M BLURRY EYED.
MR. KELLER: THERE'S A CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY WITHIN THE BUDGET OF 409,000.
MR. LAFF: THAT'S PLENTY.
MR. KELLER: 5.8 PERCENT.
MR. LAFF: I DID NOTE ALSO THAT THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH UC DAVIS, BERKELEY, AND SAN FRANCISCO AS A PART OF THEIR SHARED KIND OF FACILITY. THEY HAVE AN ONGOING WORKING AGREEMENT. AND I THINK THEY EXPECT TO GO FORWARD AND MAKE MORE AS TIME GOES BY. I THOUGHT IT WAS A VERY INTERESTING AND POSITIVE APPLICATION.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, STUART. BEFORE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT STEP FORWARD, DO WE WANT TO HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? RICK.
MR. KELLER: I JUST WANTED TO ANSWER STUART'S QUESTION. THE SPACE HERE IS AT THE SITE OF THE FORMER CASTLE AIR FORCE BASE, WHICH WAS LAUNCH SPACE FOR THE CAMPUS BEFORE THE PERMANENT BUILDINGS WERE COMPLETED OUT THERE. SO I BELIEVE THEY HAVE A LONG-TERM LEASE, BUT WE'LL VERIFY THAT BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY MADE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENTS AND HAVE KIND OF A SECONDARY CAMPUS AT THE CASTLE AIR FORCE BASE SITE.
MR. LAFF: THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANKS, RICK. BEFORE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD, DO WE WANT TO HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE APPLICATION OR QUESTIONS OF CIRM STAFF? OKAY. SO I'D LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT, UC MERCED, TO STEP FORWARD. HOPEFULLY THEY'RE HERE. UC MERCED, GOING ONCE.
MR. KELLER: I THINK DANA SANTA CRUZ FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT IS HERE, BUT I DON'T SEE ANYONE FROM MERCED.
MS. SANTA CRUZ: GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS DANA SANTA CRUZ FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. IN TERMS OF THE LONG-TERM LEASE, I CAN GET YOU SOME DETAILS PROBABLY IN ABOUT A HALF HOUR, BUT WE DO HAVE A LONG-TERM LEASE IN THE FACILITY. AS RICK NOTED, IT WAS THE LAUNCHING PAD FOR THE UC MERCED CAMPUS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MANAGEMENT OF THE FACILITY IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD IN TERMS -- WHEN WE GO THROUGH APPROVAL OF THIS PARTICULAR FACILITY, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD ACTUALLY REQUIRE AS WELL. I DID NOTE THAT THE APPLICATION DID NOT HAVE THOSE DETAILS, AND I WOULD JUST ASK FOR THE INDULGENCE TO TRY TO GET THAT INFORMATION IN ABOUT A HALF HOUR OR SO BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE UC MERCED PEOPLE HERE THIS MORNING.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I GUESS THAT WOULD BE SAYING REGARDING THE --
MS. SANTA CRUZ: THE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND HOW PEOPLE WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE ACCESS TO THE SITE.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: NO. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE BUDGET SHEET ON THE COST OF THE MICROFABRICATION TOOLING.
MS. SANTA CRUZ: AND THE THIRD POINT WAS THE FACT THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING MISSING IN THE BUDGET.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, CAN WE KIND OF SHELF THIS APPLICATION UNTIL WE GET THOSE FOLKS HERE, AND WE'LL HOLD OFF OUR PRELIMINARY SCORING UNTIL WE GET THAT? IS THAT OKAY WITH EVERYBODY? OKAY. GREAT.
SO I'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS, IF ANY, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT APPLICATION, AND WE'LL JUMP BACK TO MERCED HOPEFULLY SOON.
MR. SIMPSON: JOHN SIMPSON, FOUNDATION FOR TAXPAYER AND CONSUMER RIGHTS. I HATE TO BE A GRINCH, BUT I QUESTION INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT IF THEY CAN'T TURN OUT REPRESENTATIVES. I WONDER IF PERHAPS YOU SHOULDN'T JUST GO FORWARD.
MR. KLEIN: MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK TRAFFIC, SICKNESS, WE DON'T KNOW THE REASON. THEY PUT A HUGE AMOUNT OF EFFORT INTO THE APPLICATION. THEY'RE A YOUNG INSTITUTION, AND THERE'S MANY POSSIBLE REASONABLE EXPLANATIONS, SO I DO THINK WE SHOULD JUST GO ON TO THE NEXT ONE AND COME BACK.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WOULD CONCUR. NEXT ONE WOULD BE UC SANTA BARBARA, 00616-1.
MR. GROOM: THIS IS A RENOVATION OF A PORTION OF AN EXISTING FACILITY TO ACCOMMODATE A CENTER FOR CELL BIOLOGY AND ENGINEERING. IT HAS 10,377 ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FEET AND 16,581 GROSS SQUARE FEET. THE TOTAL COST IS 6.3 MILLION, AND THE REQUESTED CIRM FUNDING IS 4.7 MILLION.
THERE IS A NEED TO CO-LOAD INVESTIGATORS IN ORDER TO EXPAND THEIR RESEARCH CAPACITY. THREE NEW RESEARCH PI'S WILL BE ADDED TO THE -- WILL BE NEW TO THE INSTITUTION. IT HAS NEW CORE FACILITIES THAT WILL ADD CAPABILITIES NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE AND SPACE FOR SUPPORT FUNCTIONS. NEW CORE FACILITIES INCLUDE A DEEP SEQUENCING CENTER AND A VIVARIUM.
COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT IS SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 2010. IT WILL HAVE A CERTIFIED LEED. IT HAS THE LOWEST COST PER SQUARE FOOT AND ALSO THE MOST EFFICIENT, WHICH THE CHART INDICATES. IT DOES, HOWEVER, HAVE THE HIGHEST CIRM COST PER PI.
WE NOTED THE FOLLOWING ISSUES. THE CIRM INVESTMENT PER RESEARCHER IS 50 PERCENT HIGHER THAN THE AVERAGE FOR SPECIAL PROGRAM APPLICANTS. THIS INVESTMENT IS HIGHER, WE BELIEVE, BECAUSE OF THE EXTENT OF THE REMODELING IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE PRODUCTIVE SPACE FOR THE PROGRAM. IT'S DIFFICULT TO BACK INTO SPACE.
THE SPACE PER RESEARCHER FOR THIS SPECIAL PROGRAM APPLICANT IS HIGHER THAN THE AVERAGE FOR INSTITUTES AND CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE, YET THE LEVERAGE IS LOWER THAN OTHER CIRM SPECIAL PROGRAM APPLICANTS.
THE LAB PLANNER GAVE THE FOLLOWING SCORES: FUNCTIONALITY C MINUS AND VALUE D. HE DID NOTE THAT THE DEDICATED SUPPORT SPACE FOR THE TRUE LABS IS AT A VERY LOW RATIO OF 1.1 TO .5 LAB TO SUPPORT SPACE. THE PLANS MAKE THE BEST USE OF SPACE GIVEN THE LIMITATION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURAL GRID, AGAIN, BACKING INTO THE SPACE.
WITH THAT, I'LL TURN OVER THE DISCUSSION OF THE APPLICATION TO MEMBER LAFF, THE PRIMARY REVIEWER, AND MR. KASHIAN, THE SECONDARY REVIEWER.
MR. LAFF: THANK YOU. I ACTUALLY WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE FUNCTIONALITY AND VALUE. AND WHILE I CONCUR WITH A LOT YOU SAID, IT IS A VERY DIFFICULT PROBLEM FOR THEM TO ACHIEVE A STRONG RATING BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY ARE RENOVATING COMPONENT PIECES OF THE BUILDING. IT'S NOT EVEN ONE PART OF THE BUILDING FOR THIS. THEY'RE DOING THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT PARTS. AND SO I'M NOT SURE THAT THEY COULD HAVE ACHIEVED ANY FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO IN A FACILITY THAT WAS ALREADY BUILT AND NOT BEING TOTALLY RENOVATED.
MR. COPENHAGEN: I UNDERSTAND. PART OF MY SCORING WAS NOT JUST THE COST, BUT LOOKING AT THE -- NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS GOING ON ON THE REST OF THE FLOOR BECAUSE IF YOU TAKE TWO SENIOR RESEARCHERS AND PUT THEM ON TWO DIFFERENT FLOORS OF THE BUILDING IN A TOUGH FIT, WHY SHOULDN'T I HAVE PUT THEM ON ONE FLOOR TO TRY TO GET THAT SYNERGY, THAT INTERACTION BETWEEN THE PEOPLE? AND THAT COULD SIMPLY BE WHAT ELSE IS ON THE FLOOR. SO I LOOKED AT IT AND SAID, YES, IT'S TOUGH TO DO THE RENOVATION IN AN OLD BUILDING. THE STRUCTURAL GRID OF THE BUILDING IS NOT IDEAL FOR THE CONFIGURATION OF A LAB, AND THEY WERE FIGHTING A LOT OF FIGHTS THAT YOU DO ON THESE RENOVATIONS.
BUT I THOUGHT THAT IF THESE TWO SCIENTISTS WERE THAT SIGNIFICANT, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT TOGETHER TO GET MORE BENEFIT OUT OF THE SYNERGY. SO THAT WAS A LOT TO DO WITH THE FUNCTIONALITY SCORE. IT WASN'T JUST THAT IT WAS A RENOVATION BECAUSE THOSE ARE TOUGH. ALSO NOT UNDERSTANDING OR KNOWING WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE REST OF THE FLOOR, SAYING THAT I'VE GOT MORE DISRUPTION GOING ON IN THIS BUILDING THAN I MIGHT HAVE HAD IF I HAD BEEN ABLE TO CO-LOCATE THEM. SO IT FELT LIKE AN AWKWARD SOLUTION. IT MIGHT BE SCIENTIFICALLY BRILLIANT, BUT JUST LOOKING AT IT FUNCTIONALLY, IT SEEMED AWKWARD.
MR. LAFF: THANK YOU.
APPARENTLY THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE PART OF A CAMPUSWIDE PROGRAM THAT GOES FOR A SILVER LEED. I'M NOT SURE HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT BASED ON WHAT THEY'RE DOING FOR THAT SPECIFIC BUILDING, SO THAT CAUSED ME SOME CONCERN.
I THOUGHT THAT THE BUDGET AND THE SCHEDULE FOR THESE WERE APPROPRIATE, ALTHOUGH I WOULD -- I ALWAYS WORRY ABOUT THE COST OF RENOVATIONS BECAUSE ONE NEVER KNOWS WHAT ONE IS GOING TO FIND WHEN THEY START OPENING UP WALLS AND FLOORS AND CEILINGS.
UNDER SHARED RESOURCES, I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT THEY DO HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH SEVERAL INSTITUTIONS, THE BURNHAM INSTITUTE, THE SAMSON DIABETES RESEARCH, COTTAGE HOSPITAL, AND CENTRAL COAST -- AND SEVERAL OTHER CENTRAL COAST INSTITUTIONS. SO I THINK THEY'RE WELL ESTABLISHED IN GETTING OTHER INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED WITH WHAT THEY'RE DOING. AND I THOUGHT THEY DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING THAT.
I ALWAYS FIND IT DIFFICULT TO JUDGE THE FUNCTIONALITY, ALBEIT AN EXPERT IS EXPLAINING IT TO ME.
IF SANTA BARBARA IS HERE, I WOULD LIKE TO GET THEM TO ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT YOU POSED, WHICH IS WHY DID THEY PLAN THE FACILITY THE WAY THEY DID AS OPPOSED TO WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING?
MR. COPENHAGEN: THE OTHER ISSUE WAS, IN LOOKING AT IT, IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF SUPPORT SPACE OR JUST EQUIPMENT SPACE OR OTHER SPACE TO SUPPORT THE LABORATORIES CAME UP SHORT, SO IT'S LIKE THEY WERE TRYING TO MAKE THE MOST THEY COULD OUT OF THE LABORATORY BENCHED AREA, BUT THEY WERE COMING UP SHORT ON JUST ENOUGH TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE TO REALLY SUPPORT THE SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMS.
MR. LAFF: THANK YOU. FOR THE BENEFIT OF SANTA BARBARA, IT IS ALWAYS HARD TO MAKE RENOVATIONS LIKE THEY ARE TRYING TO DO APPROPRIATE IN ALL AREAS. THAT IS A VERY DIFFICULT PROBLEM.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION. ED, YOU'RE THE SECONDARY, RIGHT?
MR. KASHIAN: I THINK SO. I HAVE A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW THAN MR. LAFF. THE MISSION HERE IS ESSENTIAL IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL MISSION. I APPLAUD THE UNIVERSITY OF SANTA BARBARA FOR PICKING A NICHE THAT NO ONE ELSE IS IN.
I FIND REMODELS TO BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, AND AS SUCH, ALTHOUGH THE PLANS WERE SKETCHY, I COULD UNDERSTAND WHY. PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I FIND THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DRAW A SET OF PLANS UNTIL YOU TEAR THE PLACE APART TO SEE WHAT THE HECK IS THERE AND THEN START IN AGAIN. HOWEVER, THAT BEING SAID, I AM DUBIOUS ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION COST IN THE PRESENTATION. IN A REMODEL, AND ESPECIALLY IN THIS ATMOSPHERE, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THE CONTRACTOR IS BEING PAID PERCENTAGEWISE IS MUCH LOWER THAN I WOULD SEE IN THE FIELD, IN MY OPINION.
AND I FEEL LIKE THE ISSUE THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE RIGHT NOW IS THAT I BELIEVE THE BUDGET IS UNDERSTATED. AND I'D LIKE TO INQUIRE FROM OUR PEOPLE AND ALSO FROM THE APPLICANT.
MR. GROOM: THE COST PER SQUARE FOOT, I'M LOOKING AT THAT. WE HAVE A SLIDE. WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE SLIDE. IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY, AS YOU CAN SEE, BELOW THE AVERAGE FOR AN ALTERATION, WITHOUT A DOUBT. IN MANY CASES WHEN YOU DO AN ALTERATION OF THIS -- IT'S NOT A REAL BIG ALTERATION. IT'S GOING TO BE A DESTRUCTIVE ALTERATION. THEY'LL PROBABLY PHASE IT, I WOULD ASSUME, WHICH YOU'RE RIGHT, IT COULD ADD COST AND INCONVENIENCE, WITHOUT A DOUBT, TO NOT ONLY THE RESEARCHERS THAT ARE GOING TO THE SPACE, BUT THE RESEARCHERS AROUND THEM.
THE BUDGET, AGREED, IT IS LOW. FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, WE HAVE TO ACCEPT WHAT BUDGET THEY PRESENT TO US UNFORTUNATELY OR FORTUNATELY BECAUSE IF THIS IS THE CORRECT BUDGET, THIS WILL BE A GREAT BUY.
MR. KLEIN: ED, I'D MAKE A COMMENT TOO THAT THEY'RE -- THE NOTICE OF GRANT AWARDS WILL REQUIRE THEM, IF THEY ACCEPT THE FUNDS, TO COMMIT TO PERFORM ON THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS DELIVERED. SO THE RESPONSIBILITY IF IT IS, IN FACT, TOO AGGRESSIVE A BUDGET IS ON THE INSTITUTION BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO MEET ANY SHORTFALL.
MR. KASHIAN: I UNDERSTAND, ROBERT. MY COMMENT WAS NOT ONE OF CRITICISM. MY COMMENT WAS MORE OF A HELP TO SEE HOW I CAN HELP THEM ACHIEVE THE GOAL THEY'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE.
MR. LAFF: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT GAVE ME SOME COMFORT IN THEIR BUDGET WAS THEY HAD JUST FINISHED FOUR SIMILAR PROJECTS OF RENOVATION AND THAT THEIR COSTS WERE BASED ON THOSE FOUR RENOVATIONS. AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT PIECE. WHILE I AGREE WITH ED, TILL YOU RIP IT ALL UP, YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE. I DID HAVE COMFORT THAT THEY HAVE RIPPED UP ENOUGH STUFF SO THAT THEY PROBABLY HAVE GOT MOST OF THE PROBLEM SOLVED.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, STUART.
ED, YOU HAVE SOME MORE OF YOUR REVIEW?
MR. KASHIAN: NO. I HAVE NO FURTHER.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK.
MR. KELLER: I JUST WANTED TO ADD, AND I'M SURE MEMBER KASHIAN REALIZES, THAT THE ESTIMATE THAT WE RECEIVED IS DATED FEBRUARY 21ST, WHICH IS A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE DEADLINE. AND I THINK WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE ASSUMPTIONS MAY BE A BIT TROUBLING. FOR INSTANCE, OVERHEAD AND PROFIT IS BUDGETED 4 PERCENT, GENERAL CONDITIONS AT 8, AND WE'RE FINDING THAT MOST OF THE APPLICATIONS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER GIVEN THIS CURRENT MARKET, ALTHOUGH THINGS ARE TURNING A BIT.
SO THERE'S OVER $350,000 BUDGETED FOR DEMOLITION. AND I AGREE WITH YOUR OBSERVATION IS THAT HIDDEN CONDITIONS ARE EXACTLY THAT, HIDDEN. SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT ON AN ALTERATION. I THINK THAT THE OBSERVATION IS THAT ONCE CIRM FUNDS IT, MR. KLEIN IS CORRECT, THAT OUR EXPECTATION IS THAT THE INSTITUTION IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK AS PRESENTED IN THE APPLICATION. AND IF THERE'S NOT SUFFICIENT DUE DILIGENCE IN SETTING THE BUDGET, THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE CONSEQUENCES FOR THAT LATER.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, RICK. I'D LIKE TO OPEN TO THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION BEFORE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT COME UP. SO I JUST WANT TO COMMENT ONE THING ABOUT THE COST STRUCTURE ON THIS PROPOSAL FROM MY EXPERIENCE. ALTHOUGH VERY AGGRESSIVE, CERTAINLY IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR THIS WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AN AGGRESSIVE NUMBER. AND THOSE GENERAL CONDITION AND FEE NUMBERS ARE KIND OF STANDARD IN THE INDUSTRY. SO I DON'T -- ESPECIALLY GIVEN THEY HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE PREVIOUSLY IN DEALING WITH SIMILAR PROJECTS, I HAVE NO REASON TO DISBELIEVE THAT THESE AREN'T ACHIEVABLE, FROM MY PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE.
SO HOPEFULLY UC SANTA BARBARA IS HERE. IF MERCED COMES IN, PLEASE ADVISE ME. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
MR. CLEGG: MY NAME IS DENNIS CLEGG, AND I'M CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOLECULAR, CELLULAR, AND DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY, AND ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE NEW CENTER FOR STEM CELL BIOLOGY AND ENGINEERING AT UC SANTA BARBARA. OUR VICE CHANCELLOR, MIKE WITHERILL, WANTED TO BE HERE, BUT HE'S CHAIRING A SESSION AT THE NSF IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
SO I WANTED TO MAKE JUST A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS, AND THEN I'D BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP AND ANY MORE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
FIRST, I'D LIKE TO, AGAIN, THANK THE CIRM STAFF FOR THEIR ADVICE AND GUIDANCE DURING THE PREPARATION OF THE APPLICATION AND THE REVIEWERS FOR ALL THE HARD WORK IN ANALYZING THESE COMPLEX PROPOSALS. YOU KNOW, I'D ESPECIALLY LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE TRANSCRIBER. I DON'T KNOW HOW SHE DOES THIS. AMAZING.
(APPLAUSE.)
MR. CLEGG: SO AS WAS MENTIONED, THIS PROJECT IS A RENOVATION IN AN EXISTING BUILDING. AND SO IN A LOT OF WAYS, IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT. IT'S NOT NEW CONSTRUCTION. AND WHILE A LAB PLANNER WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A BLANK CANVAS ON WHICH TO SKETCH OUT A NEW FACILITY, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE JUST WHAT A BARGAIN RENOVATION IS. OUR COST PER SQUARE FOOT IS THE LOWEST. AND AS WAS MENTIONED, WE THINK THAT'S A REALISTIC NUMBER. WE'VE JUST COMPLETED FOUR PROJECTS AND OVER 8,000 SQUARE FEET, SO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE GETTING INTO WHEN WE TEAR THIS BUILDING APART. WE'VE DONE IT MULTIPLE TIMES, CREATED BEAUTIFUL INTERACTIVE SPACE THAT'S ALLOWED US TO RECRUIT STELLAR FACULTY.
THE OTHER POINT I WANTED TO MAKE WAS THAT IN CONSIDERING -- WE CONSIDERED NEW CONSTRUCTION, BUT WE'RE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE OCEAN. AND SO WE'RE UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION. IT'S A SEVEN-STORY BUILDING. AND IF WE TORE IT DOWN AND BUILT A NEW BUILDING, WE'D ONLY BE ALLOWED FOUR STORIES. SO WE DECIDED, NO, WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THIS BUILDING. THE VIEWS ARE VERY NICE, AND IT'S A VERY WORKABLE BUILDING.
SO WE THINK OUR PROJECT IS A TREMENDOUS BARGAIN FOR CIRM AND FOR THE STATE AND THE UNIVERSITY.
THE OTHER GENERAL POINT I WANTED TO MAKE IS THAT BECAUSE IT'S A RENOVATION, IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EXISTING SPACE AND ADJACENT SPACES THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE PROJECT. AND SOME OF THAT CAME UP IN THE REVIEW.
THERE ARE ADJACENT AREAS THAT WILL BE USED BY THE NEW LABS IN TERMS OF SUPPORT, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THERE ARE ADJACENT GROUPS THAT WILL BE INTERACTING ON THE SAME FLOORS WITH THOSE GROUPS.
SO WE'RE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND OUR PROGRAM. IT WOULD ALLOW US TO BRING IN THREE NEW FACULTY, INCLUDING JAMIE THOMSON, WHO'S A LEADER IN THE FIELD, WHO'S EXPANDING HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA WITH A SATELLITE FACILITY AT UC SANTA BARBARA. AND IT ALLOWS US TO RECRUIT TWO NEW DISTINGUISHED FACULTY WHO WILL BE ENDOWED CHAIRS, WHICH ARE PART OF A CLUSTER HIRE THAT INCLUDES ADDITIONAL JUNIOR FACULTY, WHO WILL BE HOUSED OUTSIDE THE PROJECT. SO I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS.
MR. KLEIN: COULD YOU PROVIDE SOME COMMENTARY THAT RELATES TO THE LOGICAL LOCATION OF THESE INCREMENTS OF SPACE TO ADJOINING SPACE? IS THERE SYNERGY? ARE THESE COMPLEMENTARY SPACE THEY'RE LOCATED TO? REALIZING, OF COURSE, THAT I NOW UNDERSTAND THAT YOU RECRUITED JAMIE THOMSON BECAUSE HE'S GOT A BEACH VIEW OFF THE THIRD FLOOR.
MR. CLEGG: ACTUALLY HE DOESN'T, BUT HE WOULD LIKE ONE.
MR. KLEIN: TO GET SENIORITY IN THE BUILDING, YOU CIRCULATE PEOPLE. YOU COULD COMMENT ON THE ADJOINING SPACES, AND IS THERE A LOGIC IN TERMS OF THE COMPLEMENTARY NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THESE SPACES?
MR. CLEGG: YES. THANK YOU. THE SPACE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS ON TWO FLOORS, THE THIRD AND FOURTH FLOOR, ON THE ENTIRE WESTERN SIDE OF THE BUILDING, SO IT'S A BLOCK THAT COVERS TWO FLOORS THAT'S CONTIGUOUS, STACKED ONE FLOOR ON TOP OF THE OTHER. AND THEY'RE CONNECTED BY A STAIRCASE ON EITHER SIDE, A FREIGHT ELEVATOR, AND A PASSENGER ELEVATOR.
THE THIRD FLOOR IS ADJACENT TO THE NEW CIRM-FUNDED SHARED LAB, WHICH WILL BE A HUB OF ACTIVITY USED BY OVER 25 RESEARCHERS. THE FOURTH FLOOR SPACE WILL BE NEXT TO A CONFERENCE ROOM, WHICH WILL BE SORT OF THE HUB OF THE NEW CENTER. SO THERE WILL BE A LOT OF TRAFFIC TO THESE AREAS.
THIRD FLOOR HAS ERKKI RUOSLAHTI FROM THE BURNHAM INSTITUTE ADJACENT TO THE FACILITY. ERKKI IS ENGAGED IN STEM CELL RESEARCH, AND TWO OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGISTS AS WELL.
AND THE FOURTH FLOOR HAS DAVID LOWE, WHO IS AN EXPERT IN DNA METHYLATION AND IS ALSO ENGAGED IN STEM CELL RESEARCH. SO THERE WILL BE A LOT OF INTERACTIONS WITH PEOPLE ON THE FLOORS NEXT DOOR. AND, YOU KNOW, THE COMMENT WAS MADE THAT PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TO GO UP AND DOWN STAIRS. I DON'T KNOW. AT SANTA BARBARA PEOPLE LIKE STAIRS. IT'S A WAY TO GET EXERCISE DURING THE DAY. WE DO IT ALL THE TIME. WE'RE RUNNING UP AND DOWN STAIRS AND GOING ACROSS TO AN ADJACENT BUILDING CONSTANTLY. SO WE DON'T SEE THAT AS A VERY SIGNIFICANT BARRIER IN INTERACTION. PEOPLE WILL BE COMING TO THE CONFERENCE ROOM AND COMING TO THE SHARED FACILITY, AND WE THINK THERE'S A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR INTERACTIONS.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: COULD YOU COMMENT ON YOUR SHARED RESOURCES IN TERMS OF YOUR COLLABORATIONS WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS, PLEASE?
MR. CLEGG: SURE. HAPPY TO. AS MENTIONED, WE HAVE INTERACTIONS LOCALLY WITH THE BURNHAM INSTITUTE, SAMSON DIABETES INSTITUTE, WHICH IS A FIVE-MINUTE DRIVE AWAY, AND COTTAGE HOSPITAL ALSO LOCATED FIVE MINUTES AWAY. AND WE'VE ALSO PARTNERED WITH THE LOCAL CENTRAL COAST INSTITUTIONS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AT OUR NEW CENTER SO THAT THEIR STUDENTS WILL LEARN ABOUT STEM CELL RESEARCH AND GETTING ENGAGED IN STEM CELL RESEARCH. WE'VE ALSO ENTERED INTO THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONSORTIUM WITH USC, CALTECH, ETC. AND I KNOW WE'RE A WAYS AWAY FROM THEM, BUT WE MENTIONED IN OUR PROPOSAL WE'RE GOING TO HAVE STATE-OF-THE-ART COMMUNICATIONS FOR TELECONFERENCING SO THAT WE CAN SHARE COURSES WITH THEM.
WE ALREADY HAVE A NUMBER OF COLLABORATIONS WITH PEOPLE AT CALTECH, USC, AND CITY OF HOPE. WE ALSO ARE PART OF THE NEW SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONSORTIUM FOR REGENERATIVE EYE RESEARCH. WE HAVE AN ACTIVE EYE RESEARCH PROGRAM, AND THIS IS A NEW ORGANIZATION THAT WE'VE STARTED ALONG WITH UC IRVINE AND UCLA. AND SO WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS AT THE VARIOUS CAMPUSES AND HAVE ACTUALLY A DISEASE TEAM PROPOSAL THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED BY CIRM.
AND THEN LET'S SEE. I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION WE'RE COLLABORATING WITH THE MCGOWAN INSTITUTE AT UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AND WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY, AND WE'VE PUT IN A PROPOSAL TO THE ARMY FOR THE ARMED FORCES INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE, AFIRM. AND WE'RE HEARING THAT THEY'RE REVIEWING THAT FAVORABLY, AND THINGS ARE LOOKING GOOD TO SET UP A COLLABORATION WITH THOSE THREE INSTITUTIONS ALONG WITH RUTGERS.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU. SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE COLLABORATIVE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?
MR. KLEIN: WELL, I'D LIKE TO GO BACK TO STEVE. I KNOW, STEVE, THAT YOUR GRADES HERE ON VALUE WERE THIS D SCORE, AS YOU STATED YOURSELF, IS RELATED TO THE FACT THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE INFORMATION ON RELATED SYNERGIES OF SPACE AND DIDN'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON WHETHER THE ADJOINING SPACE WOULD PROMOTE USAGE, OR WAS IT JUST ISOLATED SPACE THAT WAS DISCONNECTED.
GIVEN THAT THE CAMPUS HAS INDICATED THAT THE THIRD FLOOR IS ADJACENT TO THE CIRM LAB, WHICH WE FUNDED AS A SHARED LAB, AND THE FOURTH FLOOR YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF EMINENT DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGISTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS, AND SOME OF THEM DOING STEM CELL RESEARCH SO THAT YOU HAVE LARGER AGGREGATIONS OF SPACES ON BOTH FLOORS COMMITTED SPECIFICALLY TO OUR AREA OF FOCUS, DOES THAT GIVE YOU A BETTER FEEL OF THE LOGIC OF THE LOCATION AND THE POTENTIAL VALUE THAT COULD BE RECEIVED FROM THIS SPACE?
MR. COPENHAGEN: IT CERTAINLY DOES. IT'S ALL A REAL SHORTCOMING, AND WITH THESE ADJACENCIES, THERE'S PROBABLY A VERY VALID REASON FOR SPLITTING THE TWO GROUPS APART OR THE TWO PROGRAMS -- SCIENTISTS APART. I'M NOT SURE WHAT MY GRADE WOULD CHANGE TO, BUT DEFINITELY WOULD COME UP SIGNIFICANTLY.
MR. KLEIN: IF I COULD ASK A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT. ONE OF YOUR SPECIALTY AREAS HERE IS BIOENGINEERING. AND THAT'S AN AREA THAT'S NOT AS HEAVILY DEVELOPED IN SOME OF THE OTHER APPLICATIONS. COULD YOU GIVE US SOME INSIGHT AS TO THE PARTICULAR STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE OF YOUR INSTITUTION IN BIOENGINEERING?
MR. CLEGG: YES. BE HAPPY TO. AND WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THAT AREA OF RESEARCH AS WELL. WE DON'T HAVE A MEDICAL SCHOOL AT UC SANTA BARBARA, BUT WE DO HAVE A VERY STRONG PROGRAM IN ENGINEERING, USUALLY RATED IN THE TOP TEN IN THE COUNTRY. AND IN PARTICULAR IN MATERIALS RESEARCH, WE HAVE SOME OF THE LEADING LIGHTS IN THE NATION.
WE ALSO HAVE EXPERTISE IN MICROFLUIDICS AND NOVEL DEVICE MANUFACTURE AS WELL AS A NANOFABRICATION UNIT AND CLEAN ROOM FACILITY THAT'S USED BY UNIVERSITIES AND BUSINESSES FROM THE AREA. SO THERE'S A LOT OF EXPERTISE THERE AND A LOT OF INTEREST IN STEM CELL RESEARCH AND BIOLOGY. ENGINEERS HAVE DISCOVERED THAT BIOLOGY IS COOL. AND BIOLOGISTS ALWAYS KNEW THAT, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF COLLABORATION GOING ON, FOR EXAMPLE, IN GENERATING NEW MECHANISMS AND DEVICES FOR CELL SORTING, WHICH IS VERY PERTINENT TO STEM CELL RESEARCH, NEW MATERIALS FOR STEM CELL CULTURE INVOLVED IN CULTURING UNDIFFERENTIATED CELLS AS WELL AS SELECTING FOR POPULATIONS OF DIFFERENTIATED CELLS THAT COULD BE USED IN THERAPEUTIC APPLICATIONS.
ONE OF THE MAIN FOCUSES OF THE NEW CENTER WILL BE TO GENERATE NEW BIOTECHNOLOGY FOR APPLICATION TO STEM CELL RESEARCH.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. VERY INTERESTING. AND THANKS FOR COMING TODAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? GREAT. THANK YOU. SO PUBLIC COMMENTS?
MR. SIMPSON: JOHN SIMPSON FROM CONSUMER WATCHDOG. SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW THAT OUR ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN AT ODDS WITH THE PROFESSOR THOMPSON OVER PATENTS. THAT SAID, I THINK YOU CANNOT UNDERESTIMATE THE VALUE OF RECRUITING HIM IN SOME WAY TO THE STATE. AND A 20-PERCENT FTE COMMITMENT TO SANTA BARBARA IS A TREMENDOUS THING. IT PROBABLY WILL FORGE IMPROVED TIES WITH MY NEMESIS WARF AND BRING ABOUT A MORE COOPERATIVE APPROACH TO STEM CELL RESEARCH.
I THINK IN SOME OF THESE THINGS THERE'S SOMETHING BEYOND THE BRICKS AND MORTAR VALUE, AND YOU NEED TO LOOK AT WHO THE PLAYERS ARE, AND I WANTED TO FOCUS A LITTLE BIT OF ATTENTION ON THAT AND JUST SAY THAT I THINK THAT, HAVING HEARD WHO ELSE IS GOING TO BE NEAR WHOM AND THAT SORT OF THING, THIS IS A VERY GOOD, VERY SOUND INVESTMENT. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WELCOMING MR. THOMSON WHEN HE COMES TO THE STATE AND CROSSING PATHS WITH HIM. WE DO SEE THINGS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY IN THE WORLD OF PATENTS, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WAS HIM AS MUCH AS WARF. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? SO AT THIS TIME WE SHOULD RECORD OUR PRELIMINARY SCORES FOR UC SANTA BARBARA.
(PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.)
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HAS MERCED SHOWN UP?
MR. KELLER: NO.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. SO AT THIS POINT I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT -- GIVE THEM ANOTHER MINUTE. NEED MORE TIME? ALL RIGHT. RICK, CAN WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT APPLICATION.
MR. KELLER: SURE. THIS IS THE ONE YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR. THIS IS THE LAST APPLICATION.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ARE THEY IN THE ROOM?
MR. KELLER: NOT AT THIS TIME, BUT THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT IS ON THE PHONE.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DID WE CHANGE THE SCHEDULE?
MR. KELLER: NO.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JUST MAKING SURE. LET'S PROCEED WITH THE REVIEW OF UC SANTA CRUZ, 00617-1, OUR LAST TECHNICAL REVIEW.
MR. GROOM: THEY MAY HAVE HEARD THAT WE WENT TILL ELEVEN LAST NIGHT.
NEXT ONE IS 617. THIS IS THE ONLY NEW CONSTRUCTION AMONGST THE SPECIAL PROGRAM GROUPING. IT'S ONE FLOOR OF A NEW FOUR-STORY SCIENCE BUILDING AND PART OF THE VIVARIUM IN THE BASEMENT. THE BUILDING WILL CONTAIN AN INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM INVOLVING CIRM AND NON-CIRM FACULTY FROM FIVE DEPARTMENTS. IT IS FOCUSED ON BASIC AND DISCOVERY RESEARCH AND WILL EXPAND THE EXPERTISE IN BIOINFORMATICS AND GENOMICS, CHROMATIN AND RNA REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT, AND OTHER NEW TECHNOLOGIES.
IT HAS APPROXIMATELY 13,000 ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FEET AND 20,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET. THE COST IS $12.8 MILLION, AND THE CIRM FUNDING REQUEST IS APPROXIMATELY 8.7 MILLION. THERE ARE SIX PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS AND THEIR RESEARCH TEAMS OF WHICH THREE WILL BE NEW HIRES. COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT IS SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 2010.
WE HAVE AS A CHART NOTE MADE AN ADJUSTMENT IN LEVERAGE. THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS FOR THE TENANT IMPROVEMENT COST OF THAT FLOOR. AFTER WE LOOKED INTO IT, RICK WENT BACK, CHALLENGED THEM BECAUSE WE HAD BEEN LOOKING AT OTHER FOLKS AND WHAT THEY HAD INCLUDED IN COST, AND SO WE DID MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT. SO THE LIGHT BLUE BAR UP THERE IS ADDED. THAT'S THE COST OF THE SHELL, WHICH WE HAD NOT INCLUDED BEFORE. SO THAT ADDED $9.8 MILLION TO THE LEVERAGE.
WE IDENTIFIED THE FOLLOWING ISSUES RELATED TO THE APPLICATION. THE APPLICANT INDICATED THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT WAS THE SUBJECT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE AND WAS INVALIDATED. THE CAMPUS IS ENGAGED IN A PROCESS TO COMPLETE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS. THE TIME NEEDED TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS IS NOT KNOWN, WHICH MAY FURTHER IMPACT THE SCHEDULE, ADDING AN ELEMENT OF RISK.
THE PROJECT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR PRIORITY CONSIDERATION BECAUSE COMPLETION IS PROJECTED FOR 2010, BEYOND THE TWO YEARS FROM THE APPROVAL OF THE GRANT. THE PLAN COMPLETION SCHEDULE FOR A SINGLE FLOOR OF -- OF THIS SINGLE CIRM FLOOR IS DEFINITELY RELATED TO THE LARGER BUILDING. THIS SCHEDULE COULD BE EXTENDED DUE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS.
THE LAB PLANNER GAVE IT A FUNCTIONALITY SCORE OF B AND A VALUE SCORE OF B PLUS. THE LAB PLANNER NOTED THE DESIGN IS A VERY EFFICIENT LAYOUT, MAXIMIZING THE AMOUNT OF ASF ON A FLOOR FOR RESEARCH. ALSO NOTED WAS THE RATIO OF LAB TO SUPPORT SPACE, WHICH WAS 1 TO .6, WHICH IS LOW FOR CURRENT RESEARCH FACILITIES.
WITH THAT, I TURN THE DISCUSSION -- THE APPLICANT OVER TO MEMBER KASHIAN, THE PRIMARY REVIEWER, AND MR. LICHTENGER, THE SECONDARY REVIEWER.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU.
MR. KASHIAN: THANK YOU. I FIND THIS PROGRAM TO BE AN EXCELLENT PROGRAM, AN EXCEPTIONAL VALUE IF IT'S
ABLE TO BE STARTED ON TIME. WE BENEFIT FROM THE FACT THAT WE'RE ONLY REMODELING THE COST OF A SHELL -- REMODELING THE FLOOR OF A BUILDING, AND THE SHELL HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN FUNDED BY OTHER SOURCES, THE STATE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION, IT'S AN EXCEPTIONAL VALUE FOR THE DOLLAR.
SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES AND THE OTHER ISSUES WERE ACCEPTABLE TO ME. LEVERAGE IS ALSO ACCEPTABLE, ALTHOUGH A BIT LOW IN TERMS OF MONEY, BUT IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE COST VERY ACCEPTABLE.
I HAVE SHARED RESOURCES ISSUES IS EXCELLENT IN MY OPINION AND THE FUNCTIONALITY. HOWEVER, AS STATED BY MR. GROOM, THIS AREA HAS A REPUTATION FOR HAVING A CONTENTIOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNIVERSITY. AND THE EIR UNDER WHICH THIS APPLICATION IS A PART OF IS IN THE COURTS AT THIS POINT. I BELIEVE THAT THEY SAY THAT THEY CAN'T MEET THE 24-MONTH DEADLINE. I BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO BE FURTHER THAN THAT, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT IT REQUIRES OUR HELP AND TOLERANCE IN TERMS OF TIME.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, ED. SO I'M THE SECONDARY REVIEWER ON UC SANTA CRUZ. I THOUGHT IT WAS OVERALL A VERY GOOD TO EXCELLENT APPLICATION. SO ON SUSTAINABILITY, THEY EXPECT TO ACHIEVE LEED CERTIFICATION AT SILVER. YOU KNOW, WITH THE COUNTING OF THE SHELL OF THE BUILDING, WHICH I THINK IS CLEARLY SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COUNTED PREVIOUSLY, IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT, I MEAN THEY HAVE CERTAINLY THE HIGHEST IN THIS CATEGORY BY FAR. AND, RICK, WHERE WOULD THEY BE IF WE COMPARED THEM TO THE OTHER APPLICANTS IN THE OTHER CATEGORIES? WOULD THEY BE THE THIRD HIGHEST?
MR. KELLER: WERE YOU SPEAKING OF COMPARISON IN LEVERAGE?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IN LEVERAGE. IF WE LOOKED AT THEM COMPARED TO THE CIRM INSTITUTE AND THE OTHER TWO CATEGORIES, WHERE WOULD THEY BE? THEY'RE NO. 1 IN THIS CATEGORY, AND THEY WOULD PROBABLY BE NO. 3 OVERALL? LET'S MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE RIGHT UPDATED ONE. YOU CAN LOOK FOR THAT AND I CAN TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.
SO I HAD SOME REAL CONCERNS, AS MEMBER KASHIAN BROUGHT UP AND MR. GROOM, ABOUT THEIR URGENCY. IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE NOT WANTING TO BE URGENT. I HAVE SOME REAL CONCERNS ABOUT THEIR ABILITY TO -- HOW QUICKLY THEY'LL BE ABLE TO DELIVER. SO THAT WAS MY BIGGEST AREA OF CONCERN IN THIS WHOLE APPLICATION. SO WHERE DO THEY FALL? THEY WOULD BE THE FOURTH HIGHEST?
MR. KELLER: I THINK AT THIS POINT STANFORD -- AMONG ALL APPLICANTS STANFORD WOULD BE ONE, AND I BELIEVE BERKELEY WOULD BE TWO, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE SOME ADJUSTMENT THAT YOU MADE LAST NIGHT TO 600 THAT AREN'T REFLECTED IN THE CHART BECAUSE THIS SLIDE HAD THE
ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE DISCUSSED FOR UTILITIES, AND IT NOW JUST INCLUDES THE THREE ADJUSTMENTS WE TALKED ABOUT.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. ANYWAY, THEY'D BE SOMEWHERE AROUND THIRD OR FOURTH. THAT'S FINE. AGAIN, JUST MAKING MY POINT, I THOUGHT THE LEVERAGE WAS EXCELLENT WHEN WE COUNTED THE SHELL OF THE BUILDING, WHICH I THINK IS QUITE APPROPRIATE GIVEN OUR DEFINITIONS.
I THOUGHT THIS SPACE SEEMED VERY FUNCTIONAL AND FLEXIBLE. I THOUGHT IT WAS DEFINITELY AT LEAST A B, PROBABLY A B PLUS IN TERMS OF FUNCTIONALITY. I THOUGHT THAT THE LOW COST OF THE PROJECT GAVE IT SOME NICE VALUE, SO OVERALL I THOUGHT IN VALUE IT WAS GOOD, AND OVERALL A GOOD APPLICATION.
SHARED RESOURCES SEEMED TO BE VERY GOOD, ALTHOUGH IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE, I'D LIKE TO ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. IS THE APPLICANT HERE?
MS. SANTA CRUZ: I'M SORRY THE SANTA CRUZ APPLICANT ISN'T HERE THIS MORNING. BUT IN TERMS OF THE QUESTION ABOUT THE EIR, WE DID ACTUALLY PUT QUITE A BIT OF FLOAT TIME INTO THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE AT TWO YEARS AND FIVE MONTHS TO DEAL WITH THE EIR ISSUES. WE ARE MAKING A LOT OF PROGRESS IN THAT AREA. AND THAT WAS THE REASON WHY THAT THE URGENCY IN TERMS OF BRINGING A FACILITY ONLINE IS LONGER THAN PERHAPS YOU WOULD HAVE NOTED IN A CONSTRUCTION SCOPE OF THIS SIZE.
WE'RE ALSO GETTING VALUE BECAUSE, AS YOU DID NOTE, IT'S PART OF A STATE FUNDED -- IT'S WITHIN A LARGER CONTEXT OF A STATE-FUNDED CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION FOR THE RECORD?
MS. SANTA CRUZ: MY NAME IS DANA SANTA CRUZ, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CAN YOU ANSWER ANY OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS WE HAD FOR THE APPLICANT ABOUT SHARED RESOURCES?
MS. SANTA CRUZ: NO.
MR. KLEIN: THERE IS IN THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO OUR QUESTIONS, THERE'S A SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THEIR SCIENTIFIC LETTER OF COLLABORATION WITH STANFORD UNIVERSITY. AND THEY IN THE PRIOR DISCUSSIONS WERE NOTED TO HAVE A PARTICULAR OUTSTANDING CAPACITY ON A STATEWIDE BASIS IN BIOINFORMATICS, AS A CONTRIBUTOR TO STANFORD AND OTHER PROGRAMS.
IN ADDITION, WE'VE PREVIOUSLY FUNDED THE SHARED LABS, A SHARED LAB FOR SANTA CRUZ. IS THAT IN THE SAME BUILDING? DOES OUR STAFF KNOW? RICK, DO YOU KNOW? IS THE SHARED LAB IN THE SAME BUILDING?
MR. KELLER: LET ME CHECK REAL QUICK.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU.
MR. SHEEHY: I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON BOB'S COMMENT. THEIR BIOINFORMATICS CAPABILITY HAS BEEN NOTED IN PEER REVIEW AT THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP AS BEING NATIONALLY KNOWN AND NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED AS A SUPERB RESOURCE. AND THE COLLABORATION WITH STANFORD HAS BEEN FURTHER ELABORATED, I BELIEVE, IN THE SHARED LABS. SO THAT IS A MEANINGFUL AND REAL COLLABORATION. SO I THINK BOTH OF THOSE --
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU.
MR. KELLER: THE SHARED LAB'S IN AN EXISTING BUILDING, AND THIS IS YET TO START CONSTRUCTION. SO IT WOULD NOT BE IN THE SAME BUILDING WITH THE SHARED LAB.
MR. KLEIN: SO THAT'S A SHARED RESOURCE OUTSIDE OF THIS BUILDING? THE SHARED LAB WOULD BE A SHARED RESOURCE OUTSIDE OF THIS BUILDING?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STEVE. YOU GAVE A B PLUS ON THE VALUE. CAN YOU JUST KIND OF --
MR. COPENHAGEN: THAT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS A TENANT IMPROVEMENT FIT-OUT, SO YOU WERE GETTING ALL OF THE COST FOR THE SHELL, AND IT WAS BEFORE THE DISCUSSION WENT ON AND ADDING IT TO LEVERAGE. SO IT WAS A REAL VALUE TO YOU GETTING THAT SPACE FREE AND ABLE TO BUILD OUT.
THEY ALSO HAVE ON THEIR FLOOR SUPPORT ROOMS THAT THEY NEEDED TO BE MORE SELF-CONTAINED. SO THAT IN AN EARLIER REVIEW, I HAD COMMENTED THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE SUPPORT ROOMS, AND THEY GOT BACK TO ME SAYING, NO, THEY'RE THERE AND THEY'RE LABELED. AND I BELIEVE YOU'VE GOT A REVISED REVIEW SHEET IN YOUR PACKET THAT COMMENTED ON THAT.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? PUBLIC COMMENT?
MR. SIMPSON: JOHN SIMPSON FROM CONSUMER WATCHDOG. I EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE EARLIER FAILURE OF UC MERCED SO SHOW. I GUESS IN FAIRNESS I SHOULD EXPRESS THE SAME CONCERN FOR THE RECORD HERE WITH THIS GROUP.
IT DOES TROUBLE ME. I KNOW IT'S A SATURDAY, BUT WE'RE ALL HERE. YOU WERE ALL HERE UNTIL 11 O'CLOCK LAST NIGHT. I WOULD THINK THE APPLICANTS SHOW A LACK OF COMMITMENT WHEN THEY DON'T TURN OUT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
MR. KLEIN: JOHN, DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE GET KUDOS FOR BEING HERE?
MR. SIMPSON: I BELIEVE, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT I BEGAN MY REMARKS THIS MORNING BY THANKING YOU ALL FOR WORKING SO LATE LAST NIGHT.
MR. SHEEHY: JUST TO BRIEFLY RESPOND TO THAT, AND GOING BACK TO THE DISCUSSIONS AT THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, WHEN WE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED ALLOWING REBUTTAL FROM APPLICANT INSTITUTIONS, THERE WAS NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY COME. IT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO REBUT. WE EXPLICITLY SAID THAT WE WERE NOT EXPECTING FORMAL PRESENTATIONS. SO I DO NOT THINK THAT ANY APPLICANT SHOULD BE PENALIZED FOR NOT BEING HERE.
YOU KNOW, THEY DO LOSE -- WE DO HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US. SO ANY DEFICIT IN INFORMATION THAT THEY MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. BUT I THINK THE MERE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT HERE SHOULD IN NO WAY BE REFLECTED IN THEIR SCORES BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT THE WAY THAT THIS REBUTTAL TIME WAS PROPOSED AT THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, THAT I DON'T THINK ANY APPLICANT SHOULD BE PENALIZED FOR NOT BEING HERE. BUT, AGAIN, WE WILL HAVE LESS INFORMATION ON CERTAIN OF THESE ISSUES. JAMES.
MR. HARRISON: STAFF IS CURRENTLY EXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF CONNECTING THEM BY TELEPHONE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. THAT'S A POSSIBILITY.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
MR. GROOM: I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY REALIZES THAT WE DID GET A REBUTTAL FROM THEM. WE MADE SOME CORRECTIONS. IT'S IN YOUR BOOK, THE YELLOW PAGES IN YOUR BOOK. SO WE HAVE GOT FEEDBACK FROM THEM THAT HAVE HELPED US UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO AND ALSO TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IF THERE WERE ISSUES, THESE WERE THE ANSWERS THAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE APPROPRIATE.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, RAY. SO I'VE BEEN GIVEN SOME NEW INFORMATION, THAT BOTH UC MERCED AND SANTA CRUZ WILL BE AVAILABLE VIA PHONE IN TEN MINUTES. SO WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE, IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE COMMITTEE, THAT WE PUT OUR PRELIMINARY SCORE IN HERE FOR SANTA CRUZ. AND THEN WE CAN TAKE A FIVE- TO TEN-MINUTE BREAK. BUT ISN'T THAT CLOSED DOOR.
MR. KELLER: CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION THAT JUST FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF YOUR TIME, WHILE YOU'RE WAITING FOR THAT PHONE, WE COULD TAKE UP THE GAP AND ADDRESS THAT. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO NEED A BREAK TO SUMMARIZE THE SCORING FOR THE LAST CATEGORY, SO WE'LL NEED HALF AN HOUR, SO I WAS TRYING TO BE MORE EFFICIENT WITH YOUR TIME.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO YOUR PROPOSAL IS THAT WE RECORD OUR PRELIMINARY SCORE, WE THEN TAKE UP THE GAP, AND THEN TAKE A BREAK, THEN TO HAVE THE CONFERENCE CALL.
MR. KELLER: YOU HAVE TO FINISH -- YOU MAY WANT THE INFORMATION FROM THE CALLS TO HELP INFLUENCE YOUR SCORING. I'M PRESUMING YOU WANT TO DO -- THE SEQUENCE WOULD BE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THESE POINTS OF ISSUE WITH THE CONSULTANTS AND THEN FINALIZE YOUR SCORES, AND THEN WE CAN DO THE BREAK.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. SO LET'S PROCEED ON THAT BASIS, IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE COMMITTEE, THAT WE HOLD OFF WITH OUR SCORING UNTIL AFTER WE'VE HAD THIS CONFERENCE CALL WITH BOTH APPLICANTS.
MR. KLEIN: WE CAN DO OUR TENTATIVE SCORING.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, RICK, SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO SCORING.
MR. KELLER: JAMES HARRISON WILL BE PROVIDING INFORMATION ON THIS AGENDA ITEM.
MR. HARRISON: BEAR WITH US FOR ONE SECOND WHILE WE GET THE POWERPOINT SLIDES UP.
SO WE'RE BRINGING TO YOU TODAY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FACILITIES GRANT ADMINISTRATION POLICY FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE ICOC. AS YOU WILL RECALL, YOU HAVE REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED THE PREVIOUS VERSION OF THE FGAP. THE ICOC HAS APPROVED IT, AND IT IS IN THE PROCESS OF OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW.
AS WE HAVE PROCEEDED THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WE HAVE REALIZED IT WAS NECESSARY TO MAKE CERTAIN REFINEMENTS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'D LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION TODAY.
SO THE FIRST ISSUE THAT ARISES IS THE NEED TO AMEND THE PROVISION RELATING TO GROUP II EQUIPMENT. YOU WILL RECALL AT THE TIME THAT YOU REVIEWED THE FGAP, THE ICOC HAD NOT YET MADE A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOCATE ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF GROUP II EQUIPMENT. SINCE THEN THE ICOC HAS, IN FACT, APPROVED THE AWARD OF UP TO $35 MILLION FOR GROUP II EQUIPMENT. SO THE FGAP AT PAGE 4 WOULD BE AMENDED TO CLARIFY THAT.
LIKEWISE, AT PAGE 5 WE WANTED TO MAKE VERY CLEAR WHAT WE THINK WAS CLEAR; BUT JUST TO BE EXPLICIT, WE ARE CLARIFYING THAT THE EXECUTION OF THE NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD IS CONTINGENT UPON AN AGREEMENT BY THE GRANTEE TO DELIVER A PROJECT OF THE SCOPE DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION AND ON THE SAME SCHEDULE REGARDLESS OF THE LEVEL OF CIRM FUNDING. AND THAT, OF COURSE, IS PART OF WHAT YOU ALL HAVE DISCUSSED THROUGHOUT THIS PROCEEDING.
SECOND, THE FGAP ALSO REQUIRES THAT THE GRANTEE IDENTIFY THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING OR COST SAVINGS TO COVER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE FUNDS REQUESTED AND THE AMOUNT OF THE CIRM GRANT AWARD IF, IN FACT, THE ICOC DETERMINES TO AWARD A GRANT TO THE APPLICANT.
ALSO ON PAGE 5 WE'VE MADE A SLIGHT MODIFICATION. AS YOU WILL RECALL, THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT PAYMENT OPTIONS. ONE OF THE PAYMENT OPTIONS ENTAILS AN UP-FRONT PAYMENT; THAT IS, ALL FUNDS. AND WE WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY FOR STAFF. IN THE PRIOR VERSION, THE UP-FRONT PAYMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE WITHIN TWO WEEKS AFTER EXECUTION OF THE NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD. WE WANTED TO GIVE OURSELVES SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WEREN'T UNFORESEEN OBSTACLES, SO WE'D EXTEND THAT TO 30 DAYS AFTER EXECUTION OF NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD.
ON PAGE 6 WE WANTED TO CLARIFY WITH RESPECT TO OPTIONS, PAYMENT OPTIONS 2 AND 3, THAT CIRM WILL WITHHOLD 10 PERCENT OF THE GRANT AWARD UNTIL PROJECT COMPLETION.
AND ON PAGE 7 WE WANT TO CLARIFY THAT GRANTEES WILL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A REVISED BUDGET TO CIRM WITHIN TEN DAYS OF AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. AS YOU KNOW, ESTIMATES THE GRANTEES HAVE PROVIDED MAY CHANGE AS THEY GET MORE DETAILED INFORMATION.
WE ALSO WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT CIRM HAS THE POWER TO ADJUST THE AMOUNT OF THE GRANT AWARD PROPORTIONALLY IF THE ACTUAL PROJECT COSTS, ONCE THEY HAVE A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, ARE LESS THAN THE APPLICATION ESTIMATES.
AND FINALLY, WE WOULD AMEND THE FACILITIES GRANT ADMINISTRATION POLICY TO CLARIFY THAT CIRM HAS THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE THAT THE GRANTEES CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT POSTCOMPLETION AUDIT OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES SO THAT CIRM CAN VERIFY THAT THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN SPENT APPROPRIATELY.
THAT IS A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, JAMES, WOULD THE PROCEDURE BE THAT WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE?
MR. HARRISON: YES. WE WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THESE PROPOSED CHANGES FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE ICOC.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO FIRST OPEN UP THE FLOOR TO ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION. I PERSONALLY THINK THESE CHANGES SEEM TO BE SELF-EVIDENT AND CLEAR TO ME. EXCELLENT JOB.
MR. KLEIN: I'D LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT TO REMIND US OF THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION WE HAD IN THE OPTION FOR FRONT-END FUNDING RATHER THAN LAST DOLLARS IN. AND THAT DISCUSSION WAS THAT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY, I WON'T SAY A PROBABILITY, MERELY A POSSIBILITY THAT WE CAN WORK OUT A PROGRAM BETWEEN THIS MEETING AND THE BOARD MEETING WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL APPLICANTS HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE OFFERS TO THE AGENCY, ALL OF WHICH WILL BECOME PUBLIC OFFERS, TO TAKE THE FRONT-END FUNDING IN EXCHANGE FOR A DISCOUNT ON THEIR REQUESTED ASSISTANCE OR CONTRIBUTION FROM THIS AGENCY. IN OTHER WORDS, IF, IN FACT, AN ENTITY WITH FAIRLY HIGH LEVERAGE HAS OUR FUNDS UP FRONT, THAT MEANS THEY CAN TAKE THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN AN INVESTMENT ACCOUNT AND KEEP IT IN THAT INVESTMENT ACCOUNT FOR APPROXIMATELY 22 MONTHS TO 24 MONTHS BECAUSE IF WE WERE GOING TO BE THE LAST DOLLARS IN, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID OUT AT THE END OF THE PROJECT.
REMEMBER, WE PAY ON A QUARTERLY BASIS. SO IF IT FALLS BEYOND THE QUARTER, IT'S GOING TO COME OUT SOMEWHERE IN MONTH 22 TO 24. THE PURPOSE OF EXPLORING IF WE CAN WORK OUT THIS IS THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO GO THROUGH A VERY TOUGH PROCESS OF CUTTING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THIS AGENCY. IF BETWEEN THIS MEETING AND THE BOARD MEETING WE CAN WORK OUT THIS TYPE OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ANY OF THE APPLICANTS, IF, FOR EXAMPLE, WE COULD WORK OUT AN AGREEMENT ON $100 MILLION AND WE WERE GIVEN 15 PERCENT EFFECTIVELY DISCOUNT ON THE REQUEST BECAUSE OVER THAT 22-MONTH PERIOD THEY WOULD EARN MORE THAN 15 PERCENT BY KEEPING THE MONEY IN THEIR ENDOWMENT ACCOUNTS, THAT 15 MILLION IS 15 MILLION WE DON'T HAVE TO CUT. THAT COULD SAVE A COUPLE OF PROGRAMS FROM CUTS THAT ARE SO DEEP THAT THEY COULD WIPE OUT THE APPLICANT'S PROJECT.
IF OUR MISSION IS, IN FACT, TO HAVE FUNDING FOR ALL THESE QUALITY SCIENTIFIC PROPOSALS ACROSS THE STATE, WE WANT TO USE EVERY OPPORTUNITY FOR CREATIVITY WE CAN TO PRESERVE THE MAXIMUM AND OPTIMAL FUNDING FOR THE INSTITUTIONS. SO THIS IS A CREATIVE CONCEPT WHICH PRESENTS ONLY A POSSIBILITY THAT WE CAN, IN FACT, PRESERVE SOME OF THE FUNDING THAT THESE INSTITUTIONS SO SORELY NEED.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SO I THINK IT'S A REALLY CREATIVE IDEA, AND I SUPPORT IT. I THINK IT'S STATED IN THE GAP. BUT IF THE MONEY IS PUT IN THIS ENDOWMENT ACCOUNT MANAGED BY THE INSTITUTION, ANY INTEREST DERIVED FROM THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE CIRM PROJECT.
MR. KLEIN: HERE'S THE SITUATION. IN A PARETO OPTIMAL NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE IS THAT IF ENDOWMENT ACCOUNTS ARE CURRENTLY EARNING 15 PERCENT ON AN ANNUALIZED BASIS, AND OVER 22 MONTHS THEY MIGHT EARN 25 PERCENT, THE ECONOMY IS NOT PARTICULARLY ROBUST AT THE MOMENT, SO THEY MIGHT FALL OFF INTO THE SECONDARY PERIOD, BUT THEY EARN 25 PERCENT. WHAT WE'RE SAYING TO THEM IS THAT IF YOU GIVE US A DISCOUNT POTENTIALLY, AND WE HAVE TO SEE, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE BEST OFFERS, IF THEY GIVE US A DISCOUNT OF 15 PERCENT, YOU KEEP THE OTHER TEN AS AN INCENTIVE TO YOU TO DO THIS PROGRAM BECAUSE THE 15-PERCENT SAVINGS IS GOING TO HELP US SAVE PROGRAMS.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE -- I'D LIKE TO --
MS. FEIT: JUST A COMMENT. IT'S MORE OF A QUESTION. I DON'T HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OR UNDERSTANDING FINANCIALLY OF THIS ARRANGEMENT FOR LARGE ENDOWMENT ACCOUNTS. BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO, IF THAT WERE TRUE, BOB, WE WOULD HAVE TO BE SURE THAT THESE FUNDS ARE IN AT LEAST INSURED OR SECURED ACCOUNTS THAT HAS A LONG-TERM GUARANTEE.
MR. KLEIN: IT'S NOT THAT OUR FUNDS WILL BE PUT INTO AN INVESTMENT ACCOUNT. THAT IS A POSSIBILITY, BUT GIVEN TAX RULINGS, EFFECTIVELY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, I WOULD EXPECT, IS THAT IN MOST CASES OUR FUNDS WOULD BE EXPENDED ON THE PROJECT, BUT THEY WOULD BE PERMITTED TO KEEP FUNDS THEY WERE PUTTING UP FOR THEIR LEVERAGE IN THE ACCOUNT AND KEEP IT THERE, SO FUNDS THAT ALREADY HAVE LONG-TERM INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS WITH LONG-TERM YIELDS. BUT IN ANY CASE, WE CANNOT AND WOULD NOT BRING TO THE BOARD ANY PROPOSAL EXCEPT IF IT WAS FROM AN INSTITUTION THAT HAD THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO GUARANTEE PERFORMANCE.
SO IF IT'S THE UC SYSTEM AND WE HAVE THE UC'S GUARANTEE, WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO ACCEPT THAT; BUT IF WE HAVE INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE UC SYSTEM, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL CREDIT RATING OF THE INSTITUTION TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A MEETING ESSENTIALLY OF YOUR STANDARDS OF CREDITWORTHINESS.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, I ASSUME WE WOULD STILL HAVE THE 10-PERCENT HOLD-BACK AND NOT COMMIT A HUNDRED PERCENT.
MR. KLEIN: NO. IF WE'RE -- IF WE HAVE A HIGH QUALITY, HIGH CREDIT GUARANTEE, THE BOARD -- I THINK THAT THIS PROPOSAL PROVIDES THE 10-PERCENT HOLD-BACK IS IN OPTIONS II AND III?
MR. HARRISON: THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. KLEIN: SO OPTION I IS THE FRONT-END PAYMENT; IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. HARRISON: THAT'S RIGHT. OPTION I IS FRONT-END PAYMENT. THE 10-PERCENT HOLD-BACK ONLY APPLIES TO OPTIONS II AND III, WHICH ARE DOLLARS IN AFTER THE APPLICANT HAS SPENT ITS MATCHING FUNDS, OPTION II. AND OPTION III IS CIRM DOLLARS IN AFTER THE APPLICANT HAS SPENT ALL OF ITS MATCHING AND LEVERAGE.
MR. KLEIN: SO THERE'S TWO PERSPECTIVES ON THIS. IN ONE SENSE WE WILL HAVE GOTTEN THE HOLD-BACK ON THE FRONT END IN THE FORM OF A DISCOUNT BECAUSE, INSTEAD OF HOLDING IT BACK, THEY'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING THEIR REQUEST BY THAT AMOUNT. AND THE SECOND POINT IS, AGAIN, WE'RE ONLY GOING TO DO THIS IF WE HAVE A PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE BY A MONEY GOOD INSTITUTION WITH A HIGH CREDIT VALUE.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO BUT IT -- OUR FACILITIES WORKING GROUP HAS GIVEN TO THE PRESIDENT THE ABILITY TO PENALIZE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF URGENCY ISN'T MET, HOW WOULD WE DEAL WITH THAT IF THERE WASN'T A HOLD-BACK?
MR. KLEIN: WELL, WE'RE IN AN INTERESTING POSITION WHERE EACH OF THESE INSTITUTIONS IS LOOKING TO US FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS OF GRANTS. SO WE HAVE THE ABILITY, IF SOMEONE WERE NOT TO PERFORM, TO SUGGEST TO THEM, BEFORE THEY GOT THEIR NEXT GRANT FUNDS, THEY HAD TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL PRIOR AGREEMENTS WITH THIS AGENCY. SO WE HAVE AN UNUSUALLY STRONG ENFORCEMENT CAPACITY, AND WE'RE ONLY DOING THIS WITH HIGH QUALITY CREDIT GUARANTEES FROM INSTITUTIONS.
MR. HARRISON: THE FGAP DOES PROVIDE FOR NONPERFORMANCE PENALTIES.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IF WE PAY THEM A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE CIRM DOLLARS, HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THAT?
MR. HARRISON: AS BOB SAID, THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US WOULD BE THROUGH OUR ABILITY TO WITHHOLD GRANT FUNDS FOR RESEARCH.
MR. KLEIN: WOULD THEY RATHER NOT GET THE NEXT $100 MILLION OF GRANT FUNDS OVER THE NEXT X NUMBER OF YEARS, OR WOULD THEY RATHER GIVE US THE $5 MILLION BACK?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: FAIR ENOUGH. MY CONCERN IS THAT I DON'T WANT TO INTERFERE WITH THE ABILITY OF THE PRESIDENT TO BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO ALL THE APPLICANTS. SO IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THAT ONE OR MORE OF THE APPLICANTS MAY NOT PERFORM IN THIS CATEGORY OF URGENCY, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY INTEND AND MAKE BEST-FAITH EFFORTS, THAT THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO MEET REQUIREMENTS, AND THE PRESIDENT DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE SOME KIND OF PENALTY. SO I JUST DON'T WANT TO TAKE AWAY THAT WE HAVE DECIDED TO GIVE THE PRESIDENT THAT CAPABILITY.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, AND IF YOU NEED TO SAY SOMETHING, BOB, PLEASE DO; BUT, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO ADOPT MR. HARRISON'S PROPOSAL HERE.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: FAIR ENOUGH.
DR. WRIGHT: SECOND.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WE SECOND THE MOTION AND WE SORT OF JUST MOVE ON BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO GET THESE SCORES TO STAFF AND THEY NEED TO INPUT THOSE NUMBERS.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AGREED.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: AND WE HAVE STILL THE PART II.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AGREED. SO CAN WE CALL ROLL?
MR. TOCHER: SO THE MOTION IS TO FORWARD THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON TO THE ICOC, THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN THE DRAFT.
MARCY FEIT.
MS. FEIT: APPROVED.
MR. TOCHER: DEBORAH HYSEN.
MS. HYSEN: APPROVED.
MR. TOCHER: ED KASHIAN.
MR. KASHIAN: APPROVED.
MR. TOCHER: ROBERT KLEIN.
MR. KLEIN: APPROVED.
MR. TOCHER: STUART LAFF.
MR. LAFF: APPROVED.
MR. TOCHER: DAVID LICHTENGER.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: APPROVED.
MR. TOCHER: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YES.
MR. TOCHER: JEFF SHEEHY.
MR. SHEEHY: YES.
MR. TOCHER: JANET WRIGHT.
DR. WRIGHT: YES.
MR. TOCHER: AND THE MOTION CARRIES.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: EXCELLENT. THANK YOU, JAMES. THANK YOU, SCOTT. SO, RICK, DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY NOW TO PUT ON OUR APPLICANTS?
MR. KELLER: YEAH, WE DO. I'LL FIRST CALL DR. MARIA PALLAVICINI, WHO IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE STEM CELL PROGRAM AT UC MERCED.
(PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.)
MR. KELLER: WE HAVE YOU TIED IN ON THE SPEAKER PHONE, AND I'M GOING TO TURN THIS OVER TO THE CHAIR OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, DAVID LICHTENGER, AND THERE'S QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN POSED ON THE APPLICATION. AND THE MEMBERS WILL IDENTIFY THEMSELVES IN ASKING QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
MS. PALLAVICINI: THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. WE DID NOT REALIZE THAT WE NEEDED TO BE THERE OR SHOULD BE THERE, SO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER BY PHONE.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THIS IS DAVID LICHTENGER. I'M THE CHAIR. SEVERAL MEMBERS HAD A QUESTION REGARDING THE COST OF THE MICROFABRICATION TOOLING, WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT COST, AT LEAST IN OUR MIND, AND APPEAR TO BE VERY LOW FOR THE CLEAN ROOM ASSEMBLY AREA. SO CAN YOU TALK TO US ABOUT THE TOOLING THAT'S REQUIRED AND THE ESTIMATED COST AND HOW YOU PLAN ON ADDRESSING THOSE COSTS? ARE THEY CARRIED IN THIS BUDGET?
MS. PALLAVICINI: IT'S A LITTLE BIT FUZZY ON THE QUESTION. ARE YOU ASKING ME ABOUT THE COST OF EQUIPPING THAT FACILITY?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES.
MS. PALLAVICINI: OKAY. SO WE ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL BE EQUIPPING THE FACILITY WITH INSTRUMENTS THAT WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT FROM EITHER PHILANTHROPISTS OR IN PARTICULAR FROM SANDIA LABORATORIES TO PROVIDE EQUIPMENT FOR THAT FACILITY. WE ALSO HAVE OUR OWN FACULTY, AS PART OF THEIR START-UPS THEY HAVE AGREED TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT OR TO TAKE SOME OF THE EQUIPMENT THAT'S CURRENTLY IN THEIR LABORATORIES AND PLACE IT IN THAT FACILITY.
WE ALSO ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL BE DOING SOME FUND-RAISING FOR EQUIPMENT TO BE PLACED IN THAT FACILITY DURING THESE NEXT TWO YEARS. WE FULLY ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY EQUIP THE FACILITY TO BE ABLE TO CARRY OUT THE PROPOSED OBJECTIVES OF THAT FACILITY.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DO WE HAVE AN AMOUNT THAT YOU INTEND ON PUTTING INTO THE FACILITY? HAVE YOU PUT TOGETHER A BUDGET, AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT BEYOND WHAT YOU SHOW IN THE APPLICATION BECAUSE IT DOES APPEAR TO BE VERY LOW? AND THE FACILITY WOULD NOT APPEAR TO BE FUNCTIONAL BASED ON THESE NUMBERS.
MS. PALLAVICINI: SO DO I HAVE A BUDGET FOR THE EQUIPMENT THAT'S GOING TO GO INTO THE FACILITY BEYOND THOSE THAT WE HAVE ALREADY IDENTIFIED AS EQUIPMENT?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CORRECT.
MS. PALLAVICINI: SO WE ANTICIPATE THAT THE EQUIPMENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING WILL FORM THE FOUNDATION FOR THE EQUIPMENT THAT'S NEEDED IN THAT FACILITY. IN TERMS OF A BUDGET FOR ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT, WE ANTICIPATE WE'LL NEED SOMEWHERE AROUND $300,000 ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: TOTAL? THAT WOULD BE TOTAL OF --
MS. PALLAVICINI: LET'S TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THAT FACILITY. IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FACILITY AS A WHOLE, IN TERMS OF THE LAMINAR AIR FLOW HOODS, IN TERMS OF THE FLOW CYTOMETERS, ALL OF THE FACILITY, OR IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CLEAN ROOM IN THE FACILITY? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE CLEAN ROOM EQUIPMENT? ARE YOU TALKING -- WHICH IS THE BULK OF THE FACILITY, OR ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE ENTIRE FACILITY?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOTH. BUT THE ENTIRE FACILITY, BUT THE GROUP II EQUIPMENT BUDGET. RICK, AM I STATING THIS CORRECTLY?
MS. PALLAVICINI: SO THE MAJOR PART OF THE EQUIPMENT THAT WE NEED FOR THAT FACILITY IS GOING TO BE IN THE CLEAN ROOM, AND THAT'S THE EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT THAT WE DON'T HAVE AT THIS POINT IN TIME. SO WE WILL NEED TO HAVE ABOUT $300,000 ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT FOR THAT CLEAN ROOM TO MAKE IT BE FUNCTIONAL BEYOND THAT THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IDENTIFIED AS SOURCES. AND WE WILL BE DOING FUND-RAISING FOR THAT EQUIPMENT.
THE OTHER EQUIPMENT THAT WILL BE ELSEWHERE IN THE FACILITY IS GOING TO BE EQUIPMENT THAT WILL COME FROM FACULTY START-UPS BECAUSE WE WILL BE PLACING FACULTY IN AND AROUND THAT FACILITY. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FLOW CYTOMETER AND CELL SORTER WE'LL BE MOVING FROM CAMPUS. AND WE ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL HAVE THE FUNDS TO OUTFIT THE ADDITIONAL ROOMS AROUND THAT MAIN CLEAN ROOM, MICROFAB, NANOFAB AREA.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THAT ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT?
MS. PALLAVICINI: FOR THE ENTIRE FACILITY?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BEYOND THE $300,000 YOU'VE IDENTIFIED.
MS. PALLAVICINI: SO BEYOND THE 300,000 THAT I HAVE IDENTIFIED AS NEEDING TO RAISE MONEY FOR, THE VALUE OF THE EQUIPMENT IN THAT FACILITY, I WOULD SAY, RIGHT NOW IS ABOUT 1.2 MILLION.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ADDITIONAL BEYOND WHAT YOU SHOW IN THE APPLICATION?
MS. PALLAVICINI: I'M SORRY. IT'S A LITTLE FUZZY. DID YOU ASK IN ADDITION TO WHAT I WOULD HAVE IN THE APPLICATION?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES.
MS. PALLAVICINI: I KNOW THAT I NEED TO RAISE $300,000 TO EQUIP THAT CLEAN ROOM. I KNOW THAT WE WILL NEED TO HAVE PROBABLY ANOTHER 600,000 THAT WE WILL NEED TO RAISE FOR OTHER EQUIPMENT TO SUPPORT THOSE OTHER ROOMS. I WOULD SAY 1.2 MILLION IS ABOUT RIGHT WHEN YOU THINK OF OTHER PERIPHERALS THAT WE WILL NEED TO HAVE TO COMPLETELY SET UP THAT ENTIRE FACILITY.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
MS. HYSEN: I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS THAT I RAISED IN MY PRIMARY REVIEW. GOOD MORNING. THIS IS DEBORAH HYSEN. I WAS THE PRIMARY REVIEWER ON THIS.
ONE THING THAT WAS NOTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEWERS AND I ALSO SAW IT WAS THAT THERE IS NO PLAN IN PLACE AS TO HOW YOU WOULD MANAGE THIS FACILITY AND CONTROL ACCESS TO THE RESEARCHERS. AND ALSO THAT THERE WERE NO FORMAL INSTITUTIONAL COLLABORATIONS IDENTIFIED. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CATEGORY FOR US BECAUSE THIS IS IN THE SHARED RESOURCES CATEGORY.
AND THE PROPOSAL MADE IT CLEAR THAT THIS WAS A UNIQUE FACILITY, IN FACT, POTENTIALLY FIRST IN THE NATION TO DO THIS STEM CELL INSTRUMENTATION FOUNDRY AND THE WORK THAT GOES ON IN THERE. BUT THEN SAYING THAT, IT WASN'T CLEAR HOW YOU WOULD MANAGE THIS FACILITY AND OFFER IT UP FOR THAT SHARING OPPORTUNITY.
MS. PALLAVICINI: OKAY. SO YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT HOW WE WILL OPERATE THE FACILITY AND HOW WE WILL ENSURE THAT THERE'S ACCESS TO ANYBODY DOING STEM CELL BIOLOGY WHO WANTS TO USE IT?
MS. HYSEN: CORRECT, AND THEN IF YOU'VE ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED A FORMAL COLLABORATION WITH AN ADJACENT INSTITUTION THAT WOULD, AS A MATTER OF COURSE, USE THAT ON AN ONGOING BASIS.
MS. PALLAVICINI: SO CURRENTLY OUR FACULTY ARE COLLABORATING WITH FACULTY AT UC BERKELEY ON MICROFABRICATION, NANOFABRICATION FOR STEM CELLS. ALSO WITH FACULTY AT UCSF, PARTICULARLY WITH BRUCE CONKLIN AND HIS LABORATORY. WE HAVE FORMAL COLLABORATIONS WHERE WE'RE ACTUALLY OFFERING JOINT COURSES RIGHT NOW CALLED COLLABORATORIES WITH FACULTY AND STUDENTS AT UCSF, PARTICULARLY AROUND THE AREA IN BIOENGINEERING AND SINGLE CELL FATE MEASUREMENTS.
SO THESE ARE ONGOING COLLABORATIONS, AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY FORMAL COLLABORATIONS, BUT COLLABORATIONS ARE GOING TO EVOLVE VERY NATURALLY AS INVESTIGATORS IN CALIFORNIA AND ELSEWHERE REALIZE THAT THERE IS THIS CAPABILITY TO DESIGN AND DEVELOP MICRODEVICES TO ALLOW THEM TO MEASURE WHATEVER PROPERTIES OF A STEM CELL THEY'RE INTERESTED IN, WHETHER IT BE THE RESPONSE TO CALCIUM MODULATION IN THE ENVIRONMENT OR THEIR RESPONSE TO MECHANICAL STRESS OR WHATEVER.
SO WE ANTICIPATE THAT THIS FACILITY IS GOING TO BE ONE THAT THE USE WILL BE GROWING AS INDIVIDUALS REALIZE THERE IS THIS CAPABILITY OUT THERE TO HELP THEM WITH THEIR RESEARCH. WE DO HAVE A VERY ACTIVE PLAN IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO MARKET THE RESOURCES AND THE POTENTIAL OF THIS FACILITY TO ALL CIRM INVESTIGATORS, TO GRADUATE GROUPS, TO VARIOUS PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS AS WELL THAT WILL ENSURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE STEM CELL RESEARCHERS IN CALIFORNIA UNDERSTAND THAT THIS RESOURCE IS AVAILABLE TO THEM.
THIS RESOURCE REPRESENTS A MAJOR INVESTMENT FROM OUR CAMPUS. AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE A START-UP CAMPUS, AND EVERY DOLLAR THAT WE HAVE, WE VERY CAREFULLY THINK ABOUT THE PRIORITIES ON HOW WE SPEND IT. SO OUR COMMITMENT TO THIS FACILITY IS VERY HIGH BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY INVESTIGATORS AND SCHOOLS OF SCIENCES AND SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING THAT SEE THIS AS A VERY ATTRACTIVE WAY TO NOT ONLY RECRUIT NEW FACULTY, BUT ALSO TO ALLOW THEM TO ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS THAT THEY ARE INTERESTED IN PURSUING. SO WE ANTICIPATE THAT THIS FACILITY WILL BECOME VERY VISIBLE AND VERY ATTRACTIVE TO RESEARCHERS ACROSS CALIFORNIA.
WE WILL HAVE SOME INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT TO STAFF THE FACILITY AND TO ENSURE THAT IT'S OPERATIONAL, AND WE HAVE THAT COMMITMENT. I DON'T KNOW. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
MS. HYSEN: YES.
MR. KLEIN: THIS IS BOB KLEIN, MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE. ON THE 1,200,000 OF ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT, IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT PART OF THAT WILL COME AS AN ELEMENT OF NEW FACULTY RECRUITMENT PACKAGES SO THAT THIS IS GOING TO COME AS YOU HIRE THAT FACULTY AND LOCATE THEM TO THIS FACILITY?
MS. PALLAVICINI: THAT IS PART OF IT. THE OTHER PART OF IT IS THAT WE WILL RAISE -- THROUGH PHILANTHROPY WE WILL RAISE FUNDS TO HELP OFFSET THOSE COSTS.
MR. KLEIN: SO WHAT PORTION OF THIS EQUIPMENT WOULD FIT INTO THE CATEGORY OF NEW FACULTY RECRUITMENT PACKAGES AS THE EQUIPMENT COMPONENT? WHAT PORTION OF THE 1,200,000?
MS. PALLAVICINI: WELL, I CAN ONLY GIVE MY BEST ESTIMATE ON THAT BECAUSE, OF COURSE, THE FACULTY THAT WE RECRUIT WILL DETERMINE THE KIND OF RESOURCES THAT THEY WILL BRING WITH THEM FROM THEIR OTHER INSTITUTIONS WHEN THEY RELOCATE VERSUS WHAT WE WILL ACTUALLY NEED TO HELP PROVIDE FOR THEM.
MR. KLEIN: THAT'S A REASONABLE APPROACH. SO WHAT WOULD THAT NUMBER BE?
MS. PALLAVICINI: WELL, I'LL GIVE MY BEST ESTIMATE, AND I WOULD SAY WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TO RAISE MAYBE ABOUT HALF OF THAT OR MAYBE A THIRD OF THAT, SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 300 TO 500,000.
MR. KLEIN: THREE TO 500,000 WOULD BE PART OF THE FACULTY PACKAGES?
MS. PALLAVICINI: NO. I WOULD SAY THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO BE RAISING. I THINK THE REST OF THE EQUIPMENT THAT WE WOULD NEED IN THERE WOULD BE COVERED BY FACULTY START-UP PACKAGES.
MR. KLEIN: SO IT'S THE RECIPROCAL OF THE NUMBER. SO SEVEN TO 900,000 WOULD BE PART OF THE FACULTY PACKAGES, AND YOU HAVE TO SEPARATELY RAISE THREE TO 500,000?
MS. PALLAVICINI: YES. I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE.
MR. KLEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MS. PALLAVICINI: YOU'RE WELCOME.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING AVAILABLE ON THE PHONE. HAVE A GOOD DAY.
MS. PALLAVICINI: THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.
MR. KLEIN: MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST AS A COMMENT RELATED TO THIS INFORMATION, FROM THE DISCUSSION WE JUST HAD IN TERMS OF MY INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION, I WOULD CONCLUDE THAT ON A COMPARABLE BASIS WITH THE OTHER INSTITUTIONS THAT TALKED ABOUT EQUIPMENT COMING FROM FACULTY PACKAGES, THAT OUTSIDE OF THE FACULTY PACKAGES, THEY HAVE TO RAISE THREE TO 500,000. SO IF WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE BUDGET, A 400,000 NUMBER MIGHT BE A REASONABLE NUMBER TO ADD TO THE TOTAL COST TO REALIZE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RAISE OUT OF THEIR SHARE.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. SO AT THIS POINT WE'LL RECORD OUR PRELIMINARY SCORES. AND ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS NOW THAT WE'RE DONE WITH MERCED?
DR. NOLTA: JAN NOLTA, DIRECTOR OF THE STEM CELL PROGRAM AT UC DAVIS. SINCE MARIA WASN'T HERE TO HEAR THE DISCUSSION, I'D JUST LIKE TO FILL IN FOR HER SINCE SHE WASN'T ASKED WHEN SHE GOT ON THE PHONE. THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT THEIR SCIENTISTS BEING RELATIVELY ISOLATED. I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT THEY PARTICIPATE IN OUR CIRM-FUNDED TRAINING PROGRAM. AND WE DO HAVE A TELEMEDICINE SITE THERE, AND A LOT OF THEIR STEM CELL SCIENTISTS AND FACULTY AND STUDENTS AND TECHNICIANS PARTICIPATE IN OUR LECTURES THAT WE HAVE AT UC DAVIS, SO WE COMMUNICATE IN THAT WAY.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? IF WE COULD RECORD OUR PRELIMINARY SCORES FOR UC MERCED.
(PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.)
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GOOD MORNING. CAN YOU HEAR US OKAY?
DR. HAUSLER: YES, I CAN HEAR YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. THIS IS DAVID LICHTENGER. I'M THE CHAIR OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. WE DID HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION. MEMBERS? I GUESS WE HAD SOME CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR SCHEDULE OF THE PROJECT. COULD YOU TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME KIND OF LEGAL CHALLENGE AND THERE'S SOME ISSUES IN TERMS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS?
DR. HAUSLER: YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CORRECT.
DR. HAUSLER: OKAY. SO WE HAVE OTHER UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS THAT CAN SPEAK TO MORE OF THE DETAILS ON THE CONSTRUCTION ISSUES. I WAS GOING TO CONSULT ON THE SCIENTIFIC PARTS OF IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE MOVING FORWARD AS BEST WE CAN WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. THERE IS -- THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CHALLENGES, WHICH IS TYPICAL IN SANTA CRUZ. THERE IS A KIND OF A SLOW GROWTH FACTION IN SANTA CRUZ. SO WE HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THAT, BUT I THINK WE HAVE MUCH BETTER COMMUNITY RELATIONS NOW WITH OUR NEW CHANCELLOR. GEORGE BLUMENTHAL HAS BEEN OUTSTANDING. AND I DEFINITELY THINK THAT THESE THINGS ARE BEING WORKED THROUGH.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. CAN YOU COMMENT A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR SHARED RESOURCES AND ANY AGREEMENTS AND FORMAL RELATIONSHIPS YOU HAVE WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS?
DR. HAUSLER: WE HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH STANFORD HERE IN TERMS OF THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY, AND WE WORK TOGETHER IN TERMS OF TRAINING PROGRAMS WITH STANFORD. WE HAVE SOME GOOD CONNECTIONS WITH UCSF AS WELL. THERE ARE -- SO IN WHAT -- I MEAN WE EXPECT TO BE WORKING BACK AND FORTH. OUR PEOPLE HAVE GONE FOR TRAINING THERE SPECIFICALLY AT STANFORD, AND WE HAVE PLANS TO RECIPROCATE. WE HAVE A STRONG BIOINFORMATICS GROUP HERE IN PARTICULAR, AND SO WE ANTICIPATE HAVING CROSS TRAINING WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN GENOMICS AND BIOINFORMATICS AS APPLIED TO STEM CELL RESEARCH.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? WELL, RICK, WERE YOU GOING TO ADD SOMETHING? THANK YOU FOR BEING AVAILABLE ON THE PHONE THIS MORNING AND FOR YOUR APPLICATION. HAVE A GOOD DAY.
DR. HAUSLER: OKAY. THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE FOR US TO RECORD OUR FINAL SCORES FOR THE THREE APPLICANTS IN THIS CATEGORY OF CIRM SPECIAL PROGRAMS. WE'LL RECORD OUR FINAL SCORES, AND THEN I GUESS WE'LL COLLECT THE BOOKS, AND THEN WE'LL TAKE A BREAK.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: QUESTION TO RICK. HOW LONG DID YOU SAY YOU NEEDED TO INPUT THIS DATA? DID YOU SAY YOU NEEDED 20 MINUTES?
MR. KELLER: WE NEED 20 MINUTES TO HALF AN HOUR. HALF AN HOUR WOULD BE PREFERRED.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: OKAY. DO YOU RECOMMEND THAT WE RECONVENE AT 11:25? WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE, JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE NEED A FEW MINUTES TO FINISH.
MR. KELLER: WE'RE GOING TO GO AT DOUBLE SPEED AND GET IT DONE IN 20 MINUTES, SO WE COULD RECONVENE AT QUARTER AFTER, AND THEN WE CAN GO AS FAR AS YOU WANT TILL LUNCH.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT, WE'LL RECONVENE AT 11:15. WE'LL TURN IN OUR SCOREBOOKS TO STAFF.
(A RECESS WAS TAKEN.)
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. SO BEFORE WE GO ON TO THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, I REALIZE THAT I HADN'T CALLED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE GAP, CHANGES TO THE GAP. SO AT THIS POINT I'D LIKE TO INVITE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO COMMENT ON THE CHANGES TO THE FACILITIES GAP, SO WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION AROUND THOSE POINTS. THANK YOU.
MR. SIMPSON: JOHN SIMPSON, CONSUMER WATCHDOG. I SUSPECT THIS MAY HAVE RESULTED FROM MY EXUBERANCE IN SUGGESTING TO THE CHAIRMAN THAT A PARTICULAR CONCEPT BORDERED ON BRILLIANT, AND I THINK HE MAY HAVE WANTED TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD.

THAT PARTICULAR ITEM IS THE FACT THAT THIS PROVISION TO ALLOW DISCOUNTING THE MONEY, IF IT GOES IN ON A FIRST-COME BASIS, SEEMS TO ME TO BE A POSSIBLE WAY OF GETTING AN INTERESTING SOLUTION TO WHAT IS GOING TO BE YOUR BIGGEST PROBLEM. AND I MEAN I THOUGHT ALL ALONG THE NOTION THE LEVERAGE AND GETTING EXTRA CREDIT FOR THAT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA, BUT IT DAWNED ON ME LAST NIGHT THAT THE PEOPLE WHO GOT THE BIGGEST BUCKS IN LEVERAGE MAY BE PEOPLE WHO DON'T EVEN REALLY NEED YOUR HELP THAT MUCH. SO THIS IS A WAY TO KIND OF DEAL WITH THAT PROBLEM, AND I JUST WANTED TO GET ON THE RECORD THAT THAT WAS VERY GOOD IDEA, AND WE SUPPORT IT VERY MUCH.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR AFFILIATION.
MS. GLADSON: REBECCA GLADSON, UC IRVINE.
MS. MASON: JANET MASON, UC IRVINE. I WANTED TO ASK FOR CLARIFICATION CONCERNING THE GAP POLICY REGARDING SHARING POTENTIAL PROJECT SAVINGS WITH CIRM. I'M WONDERING, GIVEN THAT YOU ARE CALLING FOR SHARING SAVINGS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE WILL BE CUTS TO THE BUDGET. IF WE ARE ABLE TO GET A BID IN THAT HELPS MAKE UP FOR A PORTION OF THE CUT, WILL WE BE ALLOWED TO RETAIN FULL CIRM AWARD, OR WOULD THAT BE TREATED AS A PROJECT SAVINGS AND A FURTHER REDUCTION OF THE CIRM AWARD WOULD BE REQUIRED?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WELL, THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT, BUT IT'S A GOOD QUESTION THAT I THINK WE CAN OPEN UP TO DISCUSSION, AND THEN ALSO THE BOARD CAN ADDRESS IN MAY.
MR. KLEIN: JAMES, I THINK THE WAY THE GAP IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED PROJECT SAVINGS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO OUR SHARING THOSE SAVINGS. HOWEVER, UNDERSTANDING THE REAL SUBSTANTIAL CHALLENGE OF INSTITUTIONS TO MEET THESE CUTS THAT WILL HAVE TO BE MADE, JUST SPEAKING INDIVIDUALLY, I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GAP THAT SAYS THAT THOSE SAVINGS THAT JUST OFFSET CUTS WE'VE MADE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO SAVINGS. OTHERWISE THERE'S A DOUBLE PENALTY.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, BOB, I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. LET'S OPEN IT UP TO THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION.
SO DO WE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION, THEN? LET'S SEE IF THERE ARE OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS FIRST.
MS. GLADSON: MAKE YOUR COMMENT AND I'LL GO NEXT.
MR. KLEIN: LET ME ASK. ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS INDIVIDUAL POINT?
MS. GLADSON: NOT PRECISELY.
MR. KLEIN: BECAUSE IF IT'S A SEPARATE POINT, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO BY ADDRESSING IT INDIVIDUALLY IS MAKE A MOTION THAT WE EXCLUDE FROM SAVINGS THE AMOUNT OF SAVINGS UP TO THE AMOUNT OF THE CUTS WITH A CONTINUATION OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE FULL PLANS AND SPECS BE BUILT. IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT?
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SECOND.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THOUGHT WE WERE ASKING IF THERE WERE OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE.
MR. KLEIN: THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS POINT, SO IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS POINT BEFORE GOING TO ANOTHER UNRELATED POINT.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'M FINE WITH THAT, BUT I'D LIKE TO GET THE PRESIDENT'S PERSPECTIVE ON THIS.
DR. TROUNSON: I'D LIKE TO HEAR A FULL DISCUSSION BEFORE -- A FULLER DISCUSSION BEFORE --
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO WE'RE OPENING IT UP FOR DISCUSSION NOW ON THE MOTION. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY PERSPECTIVE ON THIS? IT SEEMS, AT LEAST ON THE SURFACE, TO MAKE SENSE TO ME, THAT IF WE'VE CUT AN INSTITUTION AND THEN THEY'RE ABLE TO THROUGH AGGRESSIVE BIDDING OR WHATEVER PROCESS THEY EMPLOY BE ABLE TO SAVE MONEY, THAT IT HAS SOME EFFECT.
JAMES, HOW DOES IT SHOW NOW IN TERMS OF THE GAP? HOW IS IT SHARED?
MR. HARRISON: CURRENTLY IF THERE ARE SAVINGS, EVEN IF THE SAVINGS RESULT FROM THE APPLICANT'S EFFORTS TO CUT COSTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE AMOUNT OF THE CIRM AWARD, CIRM WOULD BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THOSE SAVINGS. SO BOB KLEIN IS CORRECT. THE WAY THAT THE FGAP IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, CIRM WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO SHARE IN THOSE SAVINGS. SO WE WOULD NEED TO AMEND IT AS BOB SUGGESTED IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE APPLICANT'S CONCERN.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HOW DOES CIRM SHARE? PROPORTIONATELY?
MR. HARRISON: PROPORTIONATELY TO THE AMOUNT OF THE AWARD. I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST, MR. CHAIR, THAT PERHAPS A CONCRETE EXAMPLE MIGHT HELP EVERYONE UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WOULD WORK. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF AN APPLICANT ASKED FOR A $35-MILLION AWARD, BUT WAS AWARDED $30 MILLION, THE APPLICANT HAS TWO CHOICES TO ADDRESS THAT SHORTFALL. EITHER THE APPLICANT CAN RAISE ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO COVER IT; OR IF THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO ACHIEVE COST SAVINGS, IT WOULD REDUCE THE COST OF THE PROJECT BY $5 MILLION. THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION AS LONG AS THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT IS IDENTICAL TO WHAT WAS PROPOSED.
UNDER THE FGAP AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, CIRM WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO SHARE PROPORTIONATELY IN THAT $5 MILLION EVEN THOUGH IT'S A SAVINGS WE WOULD HAVE ALREADY, IN A SENSE, RECOUPED FROM THE INITIAL REDUCTION.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I HAVE A QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT WHO RAISED THIS ISSUE. I MEAN DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT KIND OF SAVINGS POTENTIALLY YOU WOULD BE LOOKING TO BRING TO BEAR?
MS. GLADSON: THERE'S REALLY NO SIGNIFICANT NUMBER THAT WE CAN PUT OUT BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS ADDRESS AND DEAL WITH MARKET CONDITIONS. SO AS HAS BEEN COMMENTED ON SEVERAL TIMES, THE MARKET IS A LITTLE BIT FLATTER THAN WHAT IT WAS A FEW MONTHS AGO. SO HOW TO CAPTURE THE BENEFIT OF THAT. AND IT'S IMPORTANT IN STRUCTURING BIDS THAT WE MAXIMIZE THAT OPPORTUNITY.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I GUESS, AGAIN --
DR. TROUNSON: SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I HAVE THAT I'D BE WANTING TO DISCUSS WITH MY COLLEAGUES IS IF THE COST SAVING CREATED SOME IMPEDIMENT ON DELIVERY OF THE SCIENCE SIDE, FOR EXAMPLE, OR INTERFERED WITH THE ABILITY OF THE FACILITY TO OPERATE. IF THAT COST SAVING HAD AN IMPEDIMENT ON EITHER OF THOSE TWO, THEN I WOULD HAVE SOME CONCERNS.
IF THE COST SAVING IS INDEPENDENT OF THOSE TWO THINGS, THEN I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO OBJECTION. SO THAT WOULD BE THE ISSUE THAT I'D WANT TO EXPLORE UNDER THAT PROPOSAL, WHETHER IT DID HAVE AN IMPACT EITHER IN THE SCIENCE OR THE FACILITY.
MR. KLEIN: MR. CHAIRMAN, THE PROPOSAL IS DIRECTLY INTENDED TO ADDRESS DR. TROUNSON'S POINT IN THAT THE SAVINGS IS ONLY CONSIDERED TO THE EXTENT THEY'RE BUILDING EVERYTHING PER PLANS AND SPECS IN TERMS OF THE ENTIRE PROGRAM, EQUIPMENT AND BUILDING. SO THEY HAVE TO DELIVER EVERYTHING THEY PROMISED TO, AND ONLY THEN ARE THEY TRUE SAVINGS.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, YOU KNOW, BOB -- MARCY, PLEASE.
MS. FEIT: IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE'RE DOUBLE-DIPPING TO THEM IN A SENSE BECAUSE FIRST WE SAY WE'RE GOING TO DECREASE YOUR REQUESTED ASK FOR FUNDS, LET'S USE THE SAME EXAMPLE, FROM 35 TO 30. AND THEN WE SAY BUT IF YOU'RE EFFICIENT AND YOUR BIDS COME IN EFFICIENT, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE SOME OF THAT. SO IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE SLAPPING THEM ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FACE HERE.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE INITIAL INTENT OF THE WORKING GROUP TO WANT TO CAPTURE SAVINGS WAS IF THE PROJECT CAME IN MAYBE AT THE END AND WAS UNDER BUDGET BY 10 MILLION, THAT CIRM HAD A RIGHT TO RECOUP A PORTION OF THAT SAVINGS. SO IT FEELS KIND OF LIKE WE'RE DEALING WITH TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. I CAN'T REMEMBER OUR DISCUSSIONS, AND MAYBE SOME OF THE OTHER MEMBERS WANT TO ADDRESS THIS, BUT IT FEELS A LITTLE UNFAIR TO THE APPLICANTS TO BE TAKING MONEY FROM THEM AND THEN TAKING MORE MONEY FROM THEM IF THEY'RE EFFICIENT IN THEIR BIDDING PROCESS. IT JUST DOESN'T FEEL LIKE THAT WAS THE INTENT.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, MARCY. I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU. I GUESS THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS ON THIS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT REGARDING TO THE MOTION ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THERE REALLY -- YOU KNOW, THERE'S THE PLANS, AND DEPENDING ON HOW FULLY THEY'RE DEVELOPED, AS STUART COULD PROBABLY ATTEST TO THIS, IS THAT THERE MAY BE VALUE ENGINEERING IDEAS THAT ARE OUT THERE. MY CONCERN IS THE DEVIL IN THE DETAILS IN THIS, THAT ACTUALLY ALAN'S POINT THAT ACTUALLY THAT THE SCIENCE IN THE FACILITY IS NOT COMPROMISED. SO I WOULD BE VERY AMENABLE TO SUPPORTING THIS MOTION IF WE COULD HAVE SOME KIND OF FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO DEAL WITH ALAN'S CONCERN AND MY CONCERN ON THIS.
MR. KLEIN: SO SPECIFICALLY, TO MAKE SURE THE INTENT OF THE MOTION IS ACHIEVED, I'D AGREE TO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS TO BE CONVINCED THAT THE SCIENCE AND THE MISSION ARE NOT COMPROMISED.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WELL, ALSO I'D LIKE SENIOR STAFF ON THE FACILITIES SIDE. FINE. REGARDING SCIENCE AND FACILITIES, I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
MR. KLEIN: PRESIDENT CAN USE WHOMEVER HE FEELS.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT WORKS FOR ME.
MR. KLEIN: I THINK THE SECOND ACCEPTED IT AS WELL.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO ANY MORE DISCUSSION BEFORE WE CALL ROLL ON THIS?
MR. HARRISON: JUST TO BE CLEAR, AS A MATTER OF PROCESS, IF THE ICOC WERE TO AWARD AN APPLICANT LESS THAN THE APPLICANT REQUESTED, THEN THE APPLICANT HAS A PERIOD OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO IDENTIFY TO CIRM EITHER THE ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE AVAILABLE TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT OR SAVINGS. AND IT'S AT THAT POINT IN TIME THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE TO BE SATISFIED THAT THE SAVINGS THE APPLICANT HAS ACHIEVED DO NOT COMPROMISE THE SCIENCE.
MR. KLEIN: AND THERE'S THE ADDITIONAL STEP. THERE ARE CONTINGENCIES IN THESE CONTRACTS; AND IF THE CONTINGENCIES ARE NOT USED OR A PORTION IS NOT USED, THEY COULD RECEIVE SAVINGS FROM THAT SOURCE TO OFFSET THE CUT. AND THAT WOULD BE AT A LATER POINT; BUT, OF COURSE, SINCE THE PRESIDENT -- SINCE THEY WOULD HAVE GONE FORWARD ON THE FULL PLANS AND SPECS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, THE SAVINGS FROM THE CONTINGENCY SHOULD BE REASONABLY AVAILABLE TO THEM.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JAMES, ONE CLARIFICATION QUESTION. BUT THAT WOULD ALSO BE THE CASE THAT UPON PROJECT COMPLETION OR ANY TIME DURING THE PROJECT, IF IT WAS DETERMINED BY THE PRESIDENT THAT, AGAIN, SOMETHING REGARDING THE SCIENCE IN THE FACILITIES WAS COMPROMISED, THAT WE WOULD HAVE THAT SAME CAPABILITY BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T BE THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN WHERE THERE WERE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND THEN SOMETHING WAS BUILT THAT WAS DIFFERENT SUBSTANTIALLY THAN WHAT'S ON THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
MR. HARRISON: ULTIMATELY THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED UNDER THE NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD TO COMPLETE A PROJECT OF THE SCALE AND SIZE AND ON THE TIME SCHEDULE PROVIDED IN THE APPLICATION. SO ALL THOSE SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE INCLUDED.
MR. KLEIN: I THINK DAVID'S POINT IS APPROPRIATE THOUGH, THAT THE APPLICANTS NEED TO REALIZE IN CONTEXT THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY ALL THE WAY THROUGH, THAT IF YOU GET TO THE END OF THE PROJECT AND THERE IS A CONTINGENCY SAVINGS, AND IT APPEARS THAT PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN CUT, THAT WILL HAVE TO BE MET, WHICH IS, ON THE ONE HAND, THAT'S A MORE OBVIOUS CASE. BUT IF A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED AND IT'S NOT REALLY AN EQUAL, AND THAT CREATED A MAJOR SAVINGS, THE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO SAY THIS ISN'T REALLY EQUIVALENT. THIS ISN'T A REAL SAVINGS.
MS. FEIT: ANOTHER POINT OF CLARIFICATION. SO GETTING BACK TO THE EXAMPLE, IF THE INSTITUTION ASKED FOR 35 MILLION, WE ONLY AWARDED 30 MILLION, THEY GO OUT THROUGH PHILANTHROPY AND RAISE FIVE MILLION, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE ANY FROM THAT. BUT AT THE END OF THE PROJECT, CONTINGENCY ISN'T RESOLVED TILL THE PROJECT IS REALLY FINISHED. AND WE SAID IN THE BEGINNING THAT ANY SAVINGS REALIZED THROUGH THAT PROCESS, CIRM WOULD SHARE IN THAT. SO ARE WE STILL SAYING THAT, OR ARE WE SAYING, NO, WE'RE GOING TO LET THEM HAVE ALL THE CONTINGENCY SAVINGS?
MR. KLEIN: ONLY UP TO THE CUT. THEY CAN HAVE THE CONTINGENCY SAVINGS ONLY UP TO THE CUT.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO JUST BEFORE WE -- I WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AGAIN ON THIS, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE POINT THAT I WAS ALSO REFERRING TO POTENTIAL DESIGN-BUILD TRADES ON THE MEP SIDE WHERE THOSE PLANS MAY NOT BE FULLY DEVELOPED. AND THERE MAY BE AN INTENTION TO PROVIDE A CERTAIN TYPE OF SYSTEM, AND THEN THINGS GET CHANGED IN THE FIELD. THAT'S SPECIFICALLY MY CONCERN, DR. TROUNSON.
AT THIS POINT I'D LIKE TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MOTION. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. I'VE ASKED. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO VOTE. CAN WE HAVE A RESTATEMENT OF THE MOTION?
MR. HARRISON: LET ME SEE IF I CAN RESTATE IT. THE CALCULATION OF PROJECT SAVINGS WILL NOT INCLUDE SAVINGS ACHIEVED TO MEET THE REDUCTION IN A GRANT AWARD PROVIDED THE COST SAVINGS DOES NOT IMPEDE THE SCIENCE.
MR. KLEIN: AND THE COST SAVINGS DOES NOT EXCEED THE CUT THAT HAS OCCURRED, THE REDUCTION THAT HAS OCCURRED.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AND THE INTENT OF THE -- NOT ONLY JUST THE SCIENCE. IT'S ALSO THE FACILITIES --
MR. KELLER: I JUST HAVE A QUESTION THAT, AS I LISTEN TO THAT, THERE MAY BE THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE YOU PROVIDE AN AMOUNT OF FUNDS BECAUSE YOU THINK ON A MERIT -- ON THE BASIS OF MERIT, THAT'S ALL THE MONEY THAT YOU THINK IS NEEDED. SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REQUEST AND WHAT YOU DECIDE MAY BE A VERY APPROPRIATE REDUCTION; YET UNDER THIS LANGUAGE, IT WOULD IMPLY THAT IT'S ALLOWING SAVINGS THEN TO BE ACCRUED BY THE APPLICANT. I JUST POSE THAT.
MR. KLEIN: RICK, WE'VE EVALUATED ALL OF THESE BUDGETS. THERE'S MATCHING FUNDS, AND THERE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE MUCH MORE SUBSTANTIAL MATCHING FUNDS REQUIRED. SO WE'VE GOT LOTS OF INSULATION TO THAT ISSUE OF WHETHER EVERY DOLLAR IS NEEDED. FOR EVERY DOLLAR THEY SPEND OF OURS, THEY'VE GOT TO SPEND A DOLLAR OF THEIRS, WHICH IS A GOOD DISCIPLINE. SO I WOULD SUGGEST WE DON'T GET TO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL BECAUSE WE HAVE ALL THIS LEVERAGE INSULATION TO PROTECT US.
MR. HARRISON: LET ME TRY ONE MORE TIME. SO THE MOTION WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: THE CALCULATION OF PROJECT SAVINGS WILL NOT INCLUDE SAVINGS ACHIEVED TO MEET THE REDUCTION IN A GRANT AWARD PROVIDED THAT THE COST SAVINGS DO NOT COMPROMISE THE SCIENCE OR FACILITY AND DO NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF THE REDUCTION IN THE GRANT AWARD.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT SOUNDS RIGHT TO ME. CAN WE CALL ROLL NOW ON THIS.
MR. TOCHER: MARCY FEIT.
MS. FEIT: YES.
MR. TOCHER: DEBORAH HYSEN.
MS. HYSEN: YES.
MR. TOCHER: KASHIAN.
MR. KASHIAN: YES.
MR. TOCHER: KLEIN.
MR. KLEIN: YES.
MR. TOCHER: LAFF.
MR. LAFF: YES.
MR. TOCHER: LICHTENGER.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES.
MR. TOCHER: SERRANO-SEWELL
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YES.
MR. TOCHER: SHEEHY.
MR. SHEEHY: YES.
MR. TOCHER: WRIGHT.
DR. WRIGHT: YES.
MR. TOCHER: AND THE MOTION PASSES.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO THE MOTION CARRIES. SO NOW WE'LL OPEN UP TO NEW POINTS.
MS. GLADSON: THIS IS A QUESTION DEALING WITH FROM AN INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE, WE'VE GOT SEVERAL PROJECTS THAT ARE DESIGN-BUILD. AND AS DESIGN-BUILD DELIVERY, EACH DESIGN-BUILD TEAM IS GOING TO TRY TO BRING ADDED VALUE AND BEST VALUE TO THE PROJECT. SOMETIMES THAT RESULTS IN ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. IT MAY RESULT IN ENHANCEMENTS TO THE PROJECT.
WILL THOSE BE VIEWED AS PROJECT SAVINGS? BECAUSE EACH OF YOUR TEAMS, YOU'VE GOT MULTIPLE TEAMS ON ALL THESE DESIGN-BUILDS, ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR A WAY AT GETTING THE BID. AND THE WAY YOU GET THE BID IN DESIGN-BUILD IS TO BRING THE BEST VALUE.
MR. KLEIN: IF I CAN UNDERSTAND. IF IN THE DESIGN-BUILD THEY'RE ABLE TO SAY IN THIS BUDGET WE CAN BUILD MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR RESEARCH THAN WHAT WE PROMISED, WILL WE PENALIZE THE APPLICANT BY SAYING IF YOU BUILD MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE WITH THE DOLLARS, WE WANT A PORTION OF THAT MONEY?
MS. GLADSON: CORRECT. THAT'S THE QUESTION.
MR. KLEIN: I THINK OUR MISSION IS TO BUILD MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND EXPAND OUR SCIENTIFIC CAPACITY. SO JUST TO HELP THE PROCESS, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT IF IN THE DESIGN-BUILD PROCESS WE'RE BEING PROVIDED MORE THAN IS IN THE PLANS AND SPECS, THERE NOT BE A SURCHARGE ON THAT, THAT IT NOT BE TREATED AS A SAVINGS SUBJECT TO RECAPTURE OF A PORTION OF THAT VALUE BY CIRM.
DR. WRIGHT: SECOND.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DISCUSSION?
SO ON THE FACE OF IT IT SOUNDS REASONABLE, BUT I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT WE'RE MISSING ON THIS ISSUE. SO YOUR SUGGESTION IS THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU HAVE IN MIND OTHER THAN SQUARE FOOTAGE?
MS. GLADSON: NOT NECESSARILY JUST SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT TO INCENTIVIZE THE DESIGN-BUILD TEAMS TO LOOK FOR EVERY INNOVATIVE COST SAVING MEASURE THAT THEY CAN COME UP WITH. WHETHER IT'S HOW DUCT WORK IS ROUTED OR WHATEVER ELSE, THAT WE CAPTURE ALL OF THOSE SAVINGS. AND HOPEFULLY IT DOES RESULT IN ADDITIONAL SQUARE FEET, AND AT A MINIMUM, IT KEEPS ALL THE PROJECTS ON BUDGET.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. I DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN. THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE PRESIDENT HAVING THE CAPABILITY BECAUSE, AS WE KNOW, THERE ARE MANY, MANY TIMES WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING, FOR EXAMPLE, A VIVARIUM, YOU CAN SUBSTITUTE MATERIALS THAT MAY, IN FACT, BE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS EXPENSIVE. AND YET IT DOESN'T PROVIDE THE SAME LONG-TERM CARE AND CAPABILITY OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME FOR THE FACILITY.
MR. KLEIN: THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROVE IN NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD THAT THEY'RE GETTING WHAT WE BARGAINED FOR.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WHAT IS YOUR CONCERN EXACTLY? WHAT ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT? TELL ME WHAT YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT.
MS. GLADSON: WHAT I THINK IS POSSIBLE IS THAT WHEN WE GO OUT TO BID ON THESE PROJECTS, AND YOU HAVE TWO TEAMS THAT ARE COMPETING, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK TO EDGE EACH OTHER OUT. AND IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THAT THEY CAN COME IN WITH AN ADDITIONAL, SAY, 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF SPACE. WOULD THAT 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF SPACE BE CONSIDERED A SAVINGS PROVIDED ALL THE QUALITY IS MAINTAINED ON THE ORIGINAL PROGRAM?
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SAVINGS FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED?
MS. GLADSON: IF YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU GET AN ADDITIONAL 5,000 SQUARE FEET OVER AND ABOVE, WOULD THAT BE SEEN AS THE SAVINGS?
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: TO MY QUESTION THOUGH, THE SAVINGS FROM WHAT? FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED TO CIRM?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT'S NOT A SAVINGS.IT'S A BONUS.
MR. KLEIN: IT COULD BE CONSIDERED A SAVINGS UNDER SOME CONTRACTS BECAUSE YOU'VE GOTTEN -- YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO BUILD YOUR BASIC SQUARE FOOTAGE AT LESS COST, SO YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO USE THE SAVED MONEY TO BUILD MORE SPACE.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHERE THE BENCHMARK IS. THAT'S ALL I WANT TO KNOW. I GET THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF PEOPLE COMPETING AND GETTING THE BEST PRODUCT. I FULLY ENDORSE THAT. THAT'S BRILLIANT. WHEN WE COMPARE, IN YOUR EXAMPLE, THE 5,000 SQUARE FEET, WHAT ARE WE COMPARING IT AGAINST?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ALSO, THE PART I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING IS SO WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID CIRM IS GOING TO DO IF YOU BUILD A BIGGER FACILITY? ARE YOU AFRAID YOU'RE GOING TO BE PENALIZED, OR ARE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR MORE CREDIT? THAT'S WHAT I'M UNCLEAR ON.
MS. GLADSON: NO, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR MORE CREDIT, BUT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THAT THE BASE PROGRAM COULD HAVE BEEN BUILT FOR LESS MONEY, AND THEN YOU SAY DELTA DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BASE, IT'S A SAVINGS.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO CAN YOU ANSWER THE VICE CHAIR'S QUESTION?
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ANYBODY CAN ANSWER IT.
MR. KLEIN: THEY'RE COMPARING IT AGAINST THE ORIGINAL PROMISE. SO IF THEY BUILD MORE THAN THE ORIGINAL PROMISE, THEY DON'T WANT THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE TO HAVE BEEN BUILT WITHIN THE ORIGINAL BUDGET, AND SO WHAT YOU WOULD DO IS DEEM THAT ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AS TO HAVE BEEN BUILT WITH SAVINGS AND, THEREFORE, WE WOULD PENALIZE THEM BY TAKING PART OF THAT MONEY.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WOULD SUPPORT THE MOTION, ASSUMING YOU'RE PUTTING ADDITIONAL RESEARCHERS AND PI'S IN THE SPACE, YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. SO --
DR. TROUNSON: I DON'T SEE THIS AS A SAVING. I SEE IT SIMPLY AS A BENEFIT, A BENEFIT TO THE WHOLE OF CALIFORNIA. IT WON'T BE READ BY CIRM AS IN ANY WAY A SAVINGS. IT'S IN OUR MISSION TO EXPAND THE OPPORTUNITY, AND SO THIS IS MONEY FROM HEAVEN.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GO GET IT.
MS. GLADSON: THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE'LL NOW CALL ROLL ON THIS ISSUE? PUBLIC COMMENT. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION FIRST?
MR. SIMPSON: JOHN SIMPSON, CONSUMER WATCHDOG. ON THE FACE OF IT, THIS SOUNDS GREAT. YOU ARE GETTING VALUE ADDED FOR YOUR BUCKS. MY ONLY QUESTION WOULD BE WHAT IF THE ADDITIONAL VALUE IS A NEW BUILDING OR A NEW WING THAT'S NOT DEDICATED TO CIRM PURPOSES? WOULD THAT BE A POSSIBLE SAVINGS? AND I GUESS THAT WOULD BE OKAY, BUT I'M NOT SURE.
MR. KLEIN: MY MOTION IS THAT THIS ADDITIONAL SPACE WOULD BE, AS A CONDITION, COMMITTED TO STEM CELL RESEARCH. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO THE SECOND?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS?
MR. ROMNEY: MARK ROMNEY WITH UC DAVIS. I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA, BUT ONE SITUATION IS THAT ANY SAVINGS FOR ANY PROJECT, THEN, SHOULD BE APPLIED FOR MORE ADDITIONAL SPACE OR MORE EQUIPMENT. IF YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE TAKING THEIR SAVINGS OF WHAT THEY DID BY A COMPETITIVE SITUATION AND BUILDING MORE SPACE, ANY APPLICATION SHOULD BE ABLE TO THEN, ANY SAVINGS, INSTEAD OF RETURNING IT TO CIRM, SHOULD BE APPLIED FOR MORE SPACE.
MR. KLEIN: THEY'RE ALLOWING ANYONE TO DO THIS. THIS APPLIES TO ANY PROJECT.
DR. WRIGHT: DAVID, THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. THIS IS REALLY ABOUT ADDITIONAL VALUE. THAT MAY BE SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT IT MAY BE IN SOME OTHER FORM, SO WE MAY WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION -- I DON'T THINK YOURS WAS CONFINED TO SQUARE FOOTAGE.
MR. KLEIN: MINE WASN'T RESTRICTED. SO IF THEY CAN GET BETTER EQUIPMENT --
DR. WRIGHT: ENHANCED VALUE OF SOME SORT.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. SO DO WE WANT TO RESTATE THE MOTION.
MR. HARRISON: JUST GIVE US A MOMENT TO TRY TO. IF THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO DELIVER ENHANCED VALUE FOR THE PROJECT, EITHER IN THE FORM OF SQUARE FEET OR EQUIPMENT THAT IS IDENTIFIED IN THE APPLICATION AND THE SPACE OR EQUIPMENT IS COMMITTED TO STEM CELL RESEARCH, THEN IT SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS SAVINGS SUBJECT TO RECAPTURE BY CIRM.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AS LONG AS IT'S DEDICATED TO CIRM RESEARCH. HE SAID STEM CELL RESEARCH.
MR. HARRISON: AS LONG AS IT IS COMMITTED --
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WELL, IT COULD BE COMMITTED TO OTHER STEM CELL RESEARCH.
MR. KLEIN: IT'S COMMITTED UNDER THE CIRM GAP COMMITMENT. THE GAP COMMITMENT UNDER CIRM IS TEN YEARS.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, I'M SAYING THAT I WANT IT COMMITTED TO THE CIRM PROJECT, NOT TO OTHER STEM CELL RESEARCH ON THE CAMPUS.
MR. KLEIN: IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT'S COMMITTED TO STEM CELL RESEARCH. THAT'S SUFFICIENT.
MR. HARRISON: UNDER THE FGAP CURRENTLY, THE BUILDING HAS TO BE COMMITTED TO STEM CELL RESEARCH, NOT NECESSARILY TO CIRM-FUNDED STEM CELL RESEARCH.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. FAIR ENOUGH. SO CAN WE CALL ROLL ON THIS.
MR. TOCHER: MEMBER FEIT.
MS. FEIT: YES.
MR. TOCHER: HYSEN.
MS. HYSEN: YES.
MR. TOCHER: KASHIAN.
MR. KASHIAN: I'M GOING TO VOTE YES, BUT I'D LIKE TO STATE A POSITION THAT I HAVE. I BELIEVE THAT WE OUGHT TO PROVIDE ALL OF THE APPLICANTS WITH WHATEVER INNOVATIVE MEASURES THAT THEY MAY DEEM POSSIBLE TO MEET OUR BUDGET SCHEDULE AND TRUST OUR PRESIDENT TO BE ABLE TO ANALYZE THOSE AS OPPOSED TO TAKING EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE. I'M GOING TO VOTE YES ON THIS ISSUE UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS.
MR. TOCHER: KLEIN.
MR. KLEIN: YES.
MR. TOCHER: LAFF.
MR. LAFF: YES.
MR. TOCHER: LICHTENGER.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES.
MR. TOCHER: SERRANO-SEWELL.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YES.
MR. TOCHER: SHEEHY.
MR. SHEEHY: YES.
MR. TOCHER: WRIGHT.
DR. WRIGHT: YES.
MR. TOCHER: THE MOTION CARRIES.
MR. KLEIN: JOAN IS HERE.
MS. SAMUELSON: YES.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE GAP. GOOD. ANY MORE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS? I ASKED TWICE.
SO I'D LIKE TO WELCOME JOAN BACK TO THE MEETING AND ACKNOWLEDGE IT'S JOAN'S BIRTHDAY TODAY. HAPPY BIRTHDAY.
(APPLAUSE.)
MS. SAMUELSON: THANK YOU. SO MUCH FOR KEEPING THAT UNDER THE RADAR.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I THINK AT THIS POINT I GET TO RELINQUISH MY CHAIRMANSHIP TO THE VICE CHAIR, WHO WILL BE TAKING OVER AS CHAIRING THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW FOR THE LARGE FACILITIES APPLICATIONS.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: FIRST, I WANT TO THANK CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER. HE DID A FANTASTIC JOB THIS MORNING AND LAST NIGHT.
(APPLAUSE.)
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: AND I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT -- THANK THE PRESIDENT'S STAFF AND THE CHAIRMAN'S STAFF AND THE PUBLIC AND MY COLLEAGUES FOR AGREEING TO MEET ON A SATURDAY. IT WAS AN ISSUE THAT I KIND OF PUSHED, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF RESISTANCE, BUT WE'RE DOING IT. SO I DO APPRECIATE IT. IT HELPS WITH MY SITUATION. SO THANK YOU FOR THE RECORD ON THAT POINT.
AND, OF COURSE, THESE, LIKE, FLOWERS FOR ME AND JOAN AND THE BALLOONS ARE VERY TOUCHING. I DON'T THINK IT WILL BE THE LAST BIRTHDAY I SHARE WITH ALL OF YOU. IT WASN'T THE FIRST, BUT IT'S GOOD TO BE IN GOOD COMPANY WITH FRIENDS.
SO LET'S GET STARTED WITH THE PART 2 PROGRAMMATIC PIECE OF THIS. I THINK NOW, RICK, WE'LL ASK YOU TO JUST WALK US THROUGH.
MR. KELLER: FIRST, A QUESTION FOR THE VICE CHAIR. THERE'S A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HERE THAT WERE HERE YESTERDAY TO SUPPORT THE TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ANSWER QUESTIONS AND SO FORTH. AND IT'S BEEN POSED TO ME ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE REPRESENTATIVES, SOME MAY CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY AND SEE THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE IN PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. IS THERE AN EXPECTATION OF PEOPLE BEING IN THE ROOM THAT COULD ANSWER QUESTIONS OR WHATEVER ABOUT APPLICATIONS?
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I'LL LEAVE IT TO THE APPLICANT'S PLEASURE. IF THEY WISH TO STAY, THEY CAN. IF ISSUES ARE RAISED AND THEY'RE IN THE ROOM, WE'LL DECIDE AT THAT POINT WHETHER WE WANT TO POSE THEM TO THE APPLICANTS, BUT THERE'S NOTHING REQUIRING YOU TO STAY. THERE WAS A BIT OF AN EXPECTATION, ALTHOUGH NOT TOTALLY REQUIRED, FOR THE PART 1 PART, BUT NOT REALLY FOR PART 2.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, ALTHOUGH MY RECOMMENDATION MIGHT BE FOR THEM TO STAY BECAUSE THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: LEAVE AT YOUR PLEASURE OR STAY.
MR. KELLER: THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW BEGINS WITH THE STAFF HAVING PREPARED THE DISPLAYS THAT SHOW THE SCORING THAT YOU DID DURING THE TECHNICAL REVIEW. AND SO WE'RE ABOUT -- WHAT YOU MAY WANT TO DO, HOWEVER, IS TO DISCUSS PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES WHERE YOU WOULD BASICALLY BE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE FROM THE SCORING AND ANY OTHER ISSUES IN TERMS OF YOUR OBJECTIVE THAT WOULD HELP THE WORKING GROUP ACHIEVE A PARTICULAR -- ITS GOAL OF A SLATE OF APPLICATIONS THAT FITS WITHIN THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS THAT WERE THE TENTATIVE ALLOCATION BY THE ICOC.
SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION FIRST, AND THEN WE CAN DECIDE AND WE WOULD EITHER START WITH THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND WORK UP OR AT INSTITUTES AND WORK DOWN.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I'D LIKE TO START WITH THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND MOVE UP. THAT WAY WE HAVE THE BENEFIT OF JEFF AND MARCY PARTICIPATING.

MR. KLEIN: MR. VICE CHAIRMAN, IN THIS CASE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S POSSIBLE TO DISPLAY INFORMATION THAT RELATES TO ALL CATEGORIES, BUT WE CAN ONLY DISCUSS SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE WHILE MARCY FEIT AND JEFF SHEEHY ARE IN THE ROOM; IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. HARRISON: THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. KLEIN: BUT WE CAN DISPLAY INFORMATION THAT MAY RELATE TO THE WHOLE THING, BUT WE JUST CAN'T DISCUSS ANY INFORMATION RELATED TO THE INSTITUTES.
MR. HARRISON: THAT'S RIGHT. THE DISCUSSION HAS TO STAY FOCUSED ON THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND THE NEXT LEVEL, THE CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IS THAT UNDERSTOOD? THANK YOU. SPECIAL PROGRAMS.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS NOW. AND, JEFF, I'LL GET TO YOU. IS IT ALSO POSSIBLE TO GET A QUICK GLIMPSE OF ALL OF THE APPLICATIONS AND WHERE THEY STAND SIMILAR TO THIS SORT OF HANDOUT THAT MS. KING PASSED OUT? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW? THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. IT WAS SUGGESTED BY MR. KLEIN THAT WE GET A GLIMPSE OF THIS, AND THEN WE CAN GO BACK TO THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS ONE. JUST WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: MR. VICE CHAIR, IS THERE A WAY FOR US TO SHOW THE SUMMARY SCORES AS A NUMERICAL AS WE HAVE IN THIS HANDOUT ON A DIFFERENT PROJECTOR SCREEN; IN OTHER WORDS, TOTALS?
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THE KEEPER OF CHARTS.
MR. SHEEHY: JUST TWO OTHER PIECES OF INFORMATION, I THINK, MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR OUR DISCUSSION. ONE IS THE AMOUNT OF REQUEST PER INSTITUTION. AND THEN THE GLOBAL NUMBERS THAT HAVE TENTATIVELY BEEN ALLOCATED FOR THE BOARD FOR EACH CATEGORY SO WE ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE WE'RE WORKING AROUND.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IS THERE A WAY TO COMPILE AND GET THAT INFORMATION ON ONE SPREADSHEET OR GRAPH OF SOME KIND? WHAT JEFF WANTED WAS THE AMOUNT REQUESTED FOR EACH INSTITUTION, EACH APPLICANT.
MR. SHEEHY: WE CAN DO THAT BY CATEGORY. WHILE WE'RE IN THE CATEGORY, WE KNOW WHAT HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY ALLOCATED AND THEN WHAT'S BEEN REQUESTED, SO AS WE START TO DO OUR PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, WE KNOW HOW WE FIT.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: MAKES SENSE.
MS. LEWIS: I CAN SHOW YOU WHAT'S UP ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW. SO WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW HAS THE REQUESTED AMOUNTS, BUT NOT THE SCORES. AND WE'LL WORK TO GET YOU A SPREADSHEET THAT HAS BOTH THE SCORES. THAT'S ENOUGH?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: MR. VICE CHAIR.
MR. SHEEHY: YOU MIGHT WANT TO THROW THE SCORES UP ON ANOTHER SCREEN.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: MR. VICE CHAIR, IS THERE A WAY TO SHOW THE REQUESTED AMOUNTS AND ALSO THE LEVERAGE FOR EACH OF THE APPLICANTS ACROSS ALL THE APPLICATIONS?
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: BEFORE WE BOMBARD STAFF WITH CAN YOU SHOW THIS AND CAN YOU SHOW THAT, ALAN AND RICK AND AMY, I THINK YOU ARE GETTING A SENSE OF THE COMMITTEE AS SORT OF THE DATA POINTS THAT WE WANT TO LOOK AT, SO IF YOU NEED A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO MAYBE COMPILE ALL THAT, THAT'S OKAY. BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO START THIS PROCESS AND THEN ASK CAN YOU PUT THAT UP. TO ME THAT WON'T BE PRODUCTIVE. WHAT I'VE HEARD IS THE AMOUNT REQUESTED.
MR. KELLER: IT MIGHT BE FRUITFUL FOR US ALL IF YOU GO TO LUNCH, THEN WE CAN STAY HERE AND NOT HAVE LUNCH AND PUT TOGETHER THESE TABLES. WE'RE WILLING TO DO THAT.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HOW ABOUT A SHORT LUNCH?
MR. KELLER: WE JUST NEED SOME TIME.
MR. KLEIN: THE VICE CHAIR HAS SUGGESTED THAT I SHOULD RAISE ONE ITEM THAT MIGHT BE CALCULATED DURING LUNCH THAT WOULD HELP MOVE THIS ALONG.
SO THAT ITEM WOULD RELATE TO EQUALIZING, AND I WILL DISCUSS THIS RIGHT NOW AND PRESENT IT ONLY AS TO SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND TO CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE BECAUSE WE'D HAVE TO LATER DISCUSS IT AS TO INSTITUTES. AND THAT WOULD BE TO START OFF TO CREATE A BASELINE OF INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT WHICH WOULD BE A ONE-TO-ONE LEVERAGE. THAT WOULD HELP GET US STARTED ON THIS PROCESS.
THE INTENT HERE IS THAT WE'RE DEPENDENT ON ALL THE INSTITUTIONS TO AT LEAST SHOW A BASELINE OF COMMITMENT TO THIS ENTERPRISE SO THAT WE CAN REACH THE BROADEST SPECTRUM OF PROGRAMS POSSIBLE BECAUSE WE'LL SERVE OUR MISSION BETTER IF WE CAN HAVE A BROADER SCIENTIFIC AND CLINICAL PROGRAM IN CALIFORNIA.
SO I WOULD PROPOSE AS A MOTION FOR DISCUSSION THAT WE ADJUST THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE TO A ONE-TO-ONE LEVERAGE.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WILL SECOND THE MOTION.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THERE'S A SECOND. IS THERE DISCUSSION AMONGST THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS?
MR. SHEEHY: YOU KNOW, I THINK WE MAY BE VEERING DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO CONFLICTS TERRITORY, NOT KNOWING WHAT THE LEVERAGE POINTS ARE IN THE INSTITUTES, BUT I THINK THERE'S ONLY ONE SPECIAL PROGRAM THAT HAS THE LEVERAGE NECESSARY TO NOT BE PENALIZED UNDER THIS PARTICULAR -- SO WE'RE KIND OF PREJUDGING WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS BY ADOPTING THIS MOTION.
AND I NOTE THAT IF WE LOOK AT THE BUDGET THAT THE ICOC, THE TARGETED FUNDING AMOUNT, THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS WOULD FIT WITHIN THAT. AND I THINK -- I JUST FEEL A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT PENALIZING SOME OF THE SMALLER INSTITUTIONS THAT INVOLVE RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNTS OF MONEY THAT HAVE REALLY, I THINK, DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF PUTTING FORTH SOMETHING. THEY SHOULD BE JUDGED ON THE MERITS. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE SAME FUND-RAISING CAPACITY AS OTHER INSTITUTIONS. THESE ARE REALLY THE GREEN FIELDS OF STEM CELL RESEARCH. AND IF WE KIND OF PUT THIS ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON THEM BECAUSE, AS I LOOK AT THIS ON THESE THREE, WE READJUSTED SANTA CRUZ, SO I THINK THEY ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE A ONE TO ONE, BUT NONE OF THE OTHER TWO HAVE A ONE TO ONE.
MR. KLEIN: THAT'S --
MR. SHEEHY: SO WE'VE DECIDED RIGHT OFF THE BAT THAT WE'RE GOING TO PENALIZE THEM FOR NOT HAVING ONE TO ONE. I JUST THINK, ADDITIONALLY, WE'RE CHANGING THE RULES OF THE GAME IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME BECAUSE WE DIDN'T TELL PEOPLE THAT IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE ONE-TO-ONE LEVERAGE, YOU WOULDN'T BE FUNDED. WE'RE SETTING UP A WHOLE NEW CRITERION FOR DETERMINING FUNDING BY SAYING YOU HAVE TO HAVE ONE-TO-ONE LEVERAGE TO HAVE ANY REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF BEING FUNDED, AND WE SHOULD HAVE PUT THAT OUT AT THE VERY BEGINNING.
WE DID SAY THAT WE WOULD GIVE POINTS FOR LEVERAGE. WE DID SAY THAT WE WOULD -- BUT THESE THREE ARE ALL WITHIN THE TARGETED FUNDING AMOUNT, VERY CLOSE TO THE TARGETED FUNDING AMOUNT, WHICH IS 18.4 MILLION FOR THAT CATEGORY. AND THEN TO SUDDENLY SAY, WELL, YOU DON'T HAVE ONE-TO-ONE LEVERAGE EVEN THOUGH THE THREE OF YOU COLLECTIVELY CAME IN WITHIN THE AMOUNT THAT THE ICOC IN ITS INFINITE WISDOM THOUGHT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO ALLOCATE FOR SPECIAL PROGRAMS SEEMS TO ME TO BE A STRETCH.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: DAVID. CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF, I'M NOT SURE. I THINK WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS SEE HOW IT WOULD AFFECT -- DURING THE BREAK TO HAVE STAFF SHOW HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT ALL THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT APPLICANTS. ISN'T THAT CORRECT, BOB?
MR. KLEIN: YEAH. WE'RE TRYING TO BRING THIS POINT UP SO THAT THEY CAN DO THE CALCULATIONS DURING THE BREAK. AND DURING THE BREAK, FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, NOT FOR DISCUSSION, THEY CAN SHOW IT AS IT APPLIES TO ALL THREE CATEGORIES. WE CAN ONLY DISCUSS IT WHEN WE COME BACK FROM THE BREAK AS TO SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE. BUT INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES, THEY COULD THEORETICALLY PUT IT ON THE SCREEN.
MY MOTION IS RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE TWO CATEGORIES.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE?
MR. SHEEHY: I JUST THINK THIS IS A NOVEL METRIC THAT HASN'T BEEN INTRODUCED BEFORE. WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HOW WELL -- EVALUATING YOUR BUILDING, EVALUATING YOUR SCIENCE. AND SUDDENLY THE KEY METRIC BECOMES LEVERAGE. AND WE'RE ONLY STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO COME UP WITH 20 PERCENT, AND PEOPLE HAVE CERTAINLY GONE BEYOND THAT. BUT SUDDENLY TO RAISE TO PRIMARY, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE THIS ONE-TO-ONE MATCH, I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT PARTICULAR -- WHY DON'T WE LOOK AT FUNCTIONALITY? WHY DON'T WE LOOK AT VALUE? WE HAD FIVE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. AND SUDDENLY LEVERAGE, IT SEEMS TO ME, THAT WE'RE ASSIGNING THAT A HIGHER ROLE IN THE HIERARCHY. I'M NOT SURE WHY. I KNOW WE'VE GOT TO COME UP WITH SOME WAY TO SKIN THE CAT BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING FOR MORE MONEY.
MR. KLEIN: THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
MR. SHEEHY: I KNOW THAT WE HAVE CONFLICTS ISSUES, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I WANT LEVERAGE TO BE DETERMINANT. I WOULD RATHER SEE SCIENCE BE DETERMINANT IF I HAD TO HAVE A CHOICE OR SOME SORT OF GLOBAL VIEW STRATEGICALLY WHAT WE NEED TO HAVE WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN TERMS OF FUNDING OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. BUT THE LEVERAGE, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, WHY DON'T WE JUST GIVE EVERYTHING -- WELL, I CAN'T SAY TO THE INSTITUTION THAT HAS THE MOST LEVERAGE BECAUSE I'D PROBABLY BE IN VIOLATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. BUT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE LEVERAGE AS SUCH A KEY FACTOR.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO LIMIT TODAY'S CUTS TO 50 MILLION. I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT GOAL FOR US TODAY OR THIS PORTION OF DISCUSSION.
AS TO MR. KLEIN'S MOTION, IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER -- SOMETIMES I CAN'T SEE TO MY LEFT. SO IF THERE'S SOMEONE TO MY LEFT THAT WISHES TO SPEAK TO THIS MOTION.
MS. SAMUELSON: YES, I WOULD LIKE TO. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE ARE VALID COMPETING CONSIDERATIONS. BUT I TEND TO AGREE WITH JEFF. AND IN PART BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I'M PREPARED TO KNOW ENOUGH TO KNOW HOW POSSIBLE IT IS.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER? IF NOT, I'D LIKE TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MOTION UNLESS THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF. NONE. NONE. ARE THERE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE MOTION?
MS. SAMUELSON: AS TO STAFF, IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF WHATEVER KNOWLEDGE THE STAFF HAS ABOUT THE CAPACITY TO MEET THIS CHALLENGE. NOT NECESSARILY INSTANTLY, BUT AFTER A BREAK OR WHATEVER.
DR. TROUNSON: SORRY. I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHY, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT TAKING A PERCENTAGE THAT'S BASED ON THE FIGURES THAT HAVE BEEN COMPOUNDED RIGHT ACROSS THE SECTOR OF ALL OF THOSE CHARACTERISTICS AND TAKE A PERCENTAGE OF WHAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED AND SEE WHERE YOU END UP. YOU MAY END UP NOT VERY FAR OFF WHERE YOU WANT TO GO, AND YOU THEN CONSIDERED ALL OF THE MATTERS, INCLUDING VALUE, INCLUDING LEVERAGE, AND EVERYTHING IN IT.
MY COUNSEL IS MAYBE TO TRY THAT, TO HAVE A LOOK AT IT AND JUST SEE WHERE IT IS BECAUSE, IF I UNDERSTAND IT, IT STILL MIGHT NEED TO BE ADJUSTED BY THE ICOC FOR SCIENCE, BUT IT MAY GIVE -- WOULD MAKE ALL OF THE DISCUSSION THAT YOU'VE BEEN HAVING PARTICULARLY RELEVANT. SO I THINK IT DOES ADDRESS JEFF'S POINT, BUT IT ALSO INCORPORATES STRONGLY BOB'S POINT.
MR. KLEIN: IF I COULD UNDERSTAND, ALAN, HOW WOULD YOU APPLY A PERCENTAGE? YOU MEAN A PERCENTAGE FROM THE TOP TO THE BOTTOM? OR HOW WOULD YOU DO THE PERCENTAGE?
DR. TROUNSON: THERE'S A REQUESTED -- REQUEST OF CIRM FOR THAT VALUE. WE HAVE A PERCENTAGE WHICH HAS BEEN DEVELOPED ON THE SCORING SHEETS WHICH INCLUDE ALL OF THE FACTORS. AND THEY WERE THE FACTORS THAT YOU ASKED TO PUT IN VARIOUS COMPONENT POINTS TOO. THAT'S HOW YOU SET THIS UP. AND SO IF YOU'VE GOT 75 -- IF YOU'VE GOT A HUNDRED POINTS, YOU MIGHT ARGUE THAT THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY PERFECT. YOU WOULD GET EVERYTHING THAT YOU ASKED FOR. BUT IF IT WAS ONLY 75 PERCENT ON THIS SCALE, YOU MIGHT SAY THAT THAT POINT WOULD BE ARGUING FOR ONLY 75 PERCENT OF THE REQUESTED GRANT.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TROUNSON. ONE LAST COMMENT FROM BOB.
MR. KLEIN: SO IN UNDERSTANDING THIS, ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES WOULD BE NOT TO CREATE SUCH A DEEP CUT IN ANY PARTICULAR INSTITUTION THAT WE KNOCK OUT THE ABILITY TO PERFORM. AND SO IF WE WERE GOING TO ADDRESS IT ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE TRY AND LIMIT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF ANY CUT.
MR. KLEIN: SO IN UNDERSTANDING THIS, ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES WOULD BE NOT TO CREATE SUCH A DEEP CUT IN ANY PARTICULAR INSTITUTION THAT WE KNOCK OUT THE ABILITY TO PERFORM. AND SO IF WE WERE GOING TO ADDRESS IT ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE TRY AND LIMIT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF ANY CUT.
BUT THE OTHER ISSUE IS THE ABSOLUTE DOLLAR AMOUNT. IN SMALL ABSOLUTE DOLLARS, AT A MILLION FOUR, TO BRING IT UP TO ONE TO ONE, ONE COULD ARGUE THAT SANTA BARBARA COULD, IN FACT, RAISE A MILLION FOUR. SO IT'S A HIGH PERCENTAGE, BUT IT'S A RELATIVELY SMALL DOLLAR AMOUNT WITH AN INSTITUTION THAT'S BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME AND IT'S CAPABLE PERHAPS TO REACH THAT FIGURE.
BUT THE OTHER THING IS THAT I THINK THAT THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THE COMMENT THAT DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL MADE, WHICH IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO -- OUR TARGET TODAY IS TO CUT 50 MILLION, AND YOUR COMMENT THAT THE ICOC IS CHARGED WITH TAKING BOTH OF THESE SCORES TOGETHER AND LOOKING AT THE SCIENCE IN-DEPTH, AND MAKING THOSE FINAL ADJUSTMENTS WEIGHING SCIENCE AND FACILITY SCORES.
SO IT'S IMPORTANT THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHAT YOU PROPOSE, SUBJECT TO COMMITTEE ADOPTION, IS THAT WE CUT 50 MILLION AND LEAVE 24 MILLION FOR THE IN-DEPTH SCIENCE REVIEW WITH THE ICOC. AND IN ADDITION, THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY, ONLY AS A POSSIBILITY, THAT THE UP-FRONT FUNDING WILL SOLICIT CERTAIN DISCOUNTS THAT WILL REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF THE 24 MILLION THAT NEEDS TO BE CUT. SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF REASONS NOT TO CUT THE LAST 24 MILLION AT THIS LEVEL.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. SHEEHY: JUST IN TERMS OF PROCESS, I THINK IF -- I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A MOTION THAT WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT $50 MILLION IN CUTS, AND PUT THAT ON THE TABLE AND GET THAT PROCESS STARTED.
SECOND, I AM STILL UNCOMFORTABLE WITH ANY -- IF WE'RE GOING TO START TO VEER OUTSIDE OF THE TARGET FUNDING AMOUNTS, I THINK THAT DISCUSSION IN EACH CATEGORY SHOULD TAKE PLACE. THOSE HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE ICOC. SO I DON'T -- WHEN I LOOK AT THE SPECIAL PROGRAM CATEGORY, I'M LOOKING AT I NEED $115,000. I'M NOT LOOKING AT NEEDING $50 MILLION. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE SUDDENLY BREAKING OUT OF THE STRAIGHTJACKET THAT THE ICOC PUT ON US. PART OF THE REASON THEY DID THAT WAS TO MAINTAIN A CERTAIN CONFLICT OF INTEREST PURITY BECAUSE I CAN VOTE ON THIS CATEGORY KNOWING THAT NONE OF THIS MONEY WILL AFFECT MY INSTITUTION. IF WE'RE GOING TO START TO BREAK THAT UP, I FEEL LIKE I SHOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE BECAUSE THEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GLOBAL NUMBERS. BUT I WANT THAT DECISION TO BE MADE RIGHT NOW.
ARE WE GOING TO WORK WITHIN THE PARAMETERS THAT WERE SET UP BY THE ICOC OR NOT?
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: JEFF, I'M GOING TO RESPOND TO THAT, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO VOTE.
I SAW BOB'S PROPOSAL WITH THIS ONE TO ONE AS MERELY AN ADDITIONAL DATA POINT AND NOT PREDETERMINATIVE OF ULTIMATELY MY OPINION AND DECISION WE MAKE TODAY. WE ARE CERTAINLY HIGHLIGHTING ONE OF THE CRITERIONS. WE ARE. AND YOU BRING UP A VALID POINT, THAT WHY DON'T WE HIGHLIGHT THESE OTHER ONES? I STILL THINK IT'S A GOOD DATA POINT THAT WILL BE HELPFUL, ONLY HELPFUL, IN OUR DISCUSSION AND NOT PREDETERMINATIVE.
IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MOTION?
MR. KLEIN: AS THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, I'D LIKE TO ASK. I WOULD LIKE TO PERHAPS, AS YOU SAY, CREATE A DATA POINT, BUT I THINK DR. TROUNSON'S MOTION IS VERY INTERESTING. AND MAYBE WHILE WE'RE ON BREAK, WE CAN IN THE MOTION SAY THE MOTION IS TO HAVE THE STAFF PRESENT BOTH CASES, THE ONE-TO-ONE MATCH AND THE APPROACH DR. TROUNSON HAS OUTLINED SO THAT WE CAN SEE HOW THESE DIFFERENT APPROACHES AFFECTS THE APPLICATIONS.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BUT, BOB, I DON'T THINK WE NEED A -- WHY CAN'T WE JUST DIRECT STAFF TO GIVE US SOME SCENARIOS AND YOU CAN WITHDRAW THE MOTION?
MR. KLEIN: THE INTENT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THE MEMBERS FEEL THAT THIS IS A REASONABLE WAY TO PROCEED.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE'RE JUST ASKING STAFF TO ANALYZE --
MR. KLEIN: I THINK IT'S UP TO THE VICE CHAIR.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH HAVING -- MAKING A FORMAL STATEMENT BY WAY OF MOTION. I DON'T WANT TO PROLONG THE PROCESS. I THINK WE NEED TO GET SOMETHING TO EAT AND GIVE STAFF THE TIME THEY NEED.
MR. KELLER: JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION. IS IT ONE-TO-ONE LEVERAGE, CIRM TO LEVERAGE, OR DOES IT INCLUDE THE MATCH?
MR. KLEIN: INCLUDING THE MATCH. CONSIDER ALL THEIR FUNDS.
MR. KELLER: SO CIRM FUNDS ONE, MATCH PLUS LEVERAGE ONE.
MR. KLEIN: EXACTLY. THAT'S ONE APPROACH. AND THE OTHER APPROACH TO LOOK AT IS DR. TROUNSON'S APPROACH.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IS THERE COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC?
MR. SIMPSON: JOHN SIMPSON, CONSUMER WATCHDOG. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU'VE -- I'VE GOT TO AGREE WITH JEFF. YOU'RE VERY CLOSE TO PUTTING HIM INTO CONFLICT HERE. IT SEEMS TO ME YOU'VE GOT TO WORK WITHIN THE PREDETERMINED AMOUNTS FROM THE ICOC. I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN AVOID THAT. AND THAT WOULD MEAN YOU'VE GOT ONLY ABOUT $115,000 IN THE ONE CATEGORY, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT PROBLEMS IN THE OTHERS. AND I THINK DR. TROUNSON'S APPROACH MIGHT BE WHAT NEEDS TO COME TO BEAR IN THE OTHER TWO AS A POSSIBILITY. I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN ESSENTIALLY GO AGAINST THE GUIDANCE AND PARAMETERS THAT THE ICOC SET UP.
MR. KLEIN: THE ICOC SET UP THOSE GUIDELINES BEFORE WE HAD ANY APPLICATIONS. AND IF YOU LOOK DOWNSTREAM, YOU WILL FIGURE OUT THE MATH IS THAT IF WE DON'T MODIFY THOSE CATEGORIES, WE'RE GOING TO RUN OUR HEAD INTO THE WALL IN CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE. SO THE ISSUE IS LET'S GET SOME DATA UP, AND LET'S LET THIS COMMITTEE DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WITHIN THE PARAMETERS THAT THE ICOC SET FORTH AND THAT ARE EMBODIED IN THE RFA.
MR. REED: I'M STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND. I THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS A 20-PERCENT LEVERAGE REQUIREMENT. NO. THIS IS NOT CORRECT. MATCH. MATCH.
NOW, ONLY THING I REALLY AM CONCERNED WITH IS THAT NOTHING ON THIS MOTION WOULD DISQUALIFY ANY ONE OF OUR APPLICANTS.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ABSOLUTELY NOT. IS THERE ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENT FROM THE COMMENT? SEEING NONE, MR. TOCHER, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MR. TOCHER: TO RESTATE, THE MOTION TO ADJUST THE BASELINE OF THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT TO A ONE-TO-ONE LEVERAGE FOR SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE.
MARCY FEIT.
MS. FEIT: NO.
MR. KLEIN: I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE MOTION.
MS. SAMUELSON: POINT OF INFORMATION. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MOTION.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
MS. SAMUELSON: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MOTION WELL ENOUGH TO VOTE. I'M SORRY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT A DATA POINT IS RELATIVE TO WHETHER THIS IS A REQUIREMENT OR NOT.
MR. KLEIN: THIS IS A MOTION RIGHT NOW TO GIVE US THE INFORMATION UNDER TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES.
MS. SAMUELSON: ALL WE'RE DOING IS VOTING ON WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO REQUEST OF STAFF --
MR. KLEIN: THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WHILE WE'RE AT BREAK, SO WHEN WE COME BACK, WE'LL HAVE THESE TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES.
MS. FEIT: WHY DO WE NEED TO VOTE? MR. KLEIN: SO THAT WE AGREE WHAT THE STAFF IS GOING TO DO AND WHAT APPROACH WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: MR. CHAIR.
MR. KLEIN: THERE'S A ROLL CALL IN ORDER THAT'S IN PROCESS.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: PEOPLE CAN VOTE THE WAY THEY WANT. SCOTT, CAN YOU CALL THE ROLL.
MR. TOCHER: SURE. I'LL START FROM THE TOP. FEIT.
MS. FEIT: NO.
MR. TOCHER: HYSEN.
MS. HYSEN: THIS IS JUST ONE MORE WAY TO CONSIDER? YES.
MR. TOCHER: KASHIAN.
MR. KASHIAN: I'M VOTING YES. IF THIS IS SIMPLY A WAY OF UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUE, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT I WANT IT UNDERSTOOD IT DOESN'T COMMIT MY VOTE TO ANY FUTURE DECISIONS.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IT DOES NOT.
MR. TOCHER: KLEIN.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IS THAT A YES?
MR. KASHIAN: YES.
MR. KLEIN: YES.
MR. TOCHER: LAFF.
MR. LAFF: NO.
MR. TOCHER: LICHTENGER.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES.
MR. TOCHER: SAMUELSON.
MS. SAMUELSON: YES.
MR. TOCHER: SERRANO-SEWELL.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I'M THE VICE CHAIR, SO CALL ME LAST.
MR. TOCHER: SHEEHY.
MR. SHEEHY: I'M ABSTAINING ON THIS. I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS WOULD IMPACT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
MR. TOCHER: WRIGHT.
DR. WRIGHT: YES.
MR. TOCHER: SERRANO-SEWELL.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YES.
SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A 30-MINUTE LUNCH BREAK. WE'RE GOING TO ASK STAFF TO COMPILE THAT DATA. MR. KELLER, IF YOU NEED ANY OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO STICK AROUND TO AID AND HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE WILL DO SO. AND, MR. HARRISON, ALSO DURING THE BREAK, I'D ALSO LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT ANY CONFLICT ISSUES THAT MR. SHEEHY OR ANY OTHER MEMBERS MAY HAVE AND TO GIVE THEM COUNSEL.
MR. KELLER: BEFORE YOU BREAK, I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE -- REITERATE THE FACT THAT WE ARE -- WE'LL WORK IS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE TO GET THIS PULLED TOGETHER. WE HAVE A HARD STOP. THE ROOM -- THIS ROOM EVAPORATES AT 3 P.M. IT'S NO LONGER OUR ROOM. SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE WORK DILIGENTLY TO A CONCLUSION.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. SO RESUME AT FIVE TO ONE. RESUME AT FIVE MINUTES TO ONE, 12:55.
(A RECESS WAS TAKEN.)
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WE'LL CALL THIS MEETING OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP BACK TO ORDER. THANK YOU FOR EVERYONE'S PATIENCE, AND THANK YOU, STAFF, FOR COMPILING THIS DATA WHILE WE WERE EATING LUNCH. APPRECIATE IT.
SO WHY DON'T WE START WITH THE INFORMATION THAT WAS REQUESTED FROM THE COMMITTEE BEFORE WE WENT INTO RECESS. AND ONCE WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION, DR. TROUNSON, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE PERHAPS COMMENT ON IT AND LEAD US IN A DISCUSSION WHERE YOU DEEM APPROPRIATE.
DR. TROUNSON: THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. IT WILL COME UP ON YOUR SCREEN IN A MOMENT. WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED, AT LEAST ONE OF THE ANALYSES THAT YOU GAVE US THAT WE WERE CHARGED TO DO OVER LUNCHTIME, WAS TO TAKE WHAT YOU'VE BEEN CONSIDERING, WHICH ARE THE FIVE FACTORS THAT ARE BUILT INTO YOUR CONSIDERATIONS DURING THE LAST TWO DAYS, THE FUNCTIONALITY BEING WORTH 15 POINTS OUT OF 100, THE URGENCY 20 POINTS, SHARED 15 POINTS, LEVERAGE 25 POINTS, AND VALUE 25 POINTS.
SO THAT COMPUTES OUT OF 100 AS A PERCENTAGE. THERE WILL BE SOME OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ACHIEVE MARKS AS HIGH AS 95, SO THEY'RE ALMOST PERFECT, ONLY LOST FIVE POINTS IN THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH. THE LOWEST ONE WAS 73. SO THERE'S A SPREAD OF 20 ODD POINTS.
NOW, IF YOU MAKE THAT PERCENTAGE A PERCENTAGE OF THE REQUESTED FUNDING FROM CIRM AND WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO GET CLOSE TO $50 MILLION IN SAVINGS, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU APPLY THAT PERCENTAGE? USING YOUR FIGURES THAT YOU USED DURING THESE LAST TWO DAYS, YOU GET TO AN OVERALL SAVING OF 47 MILLION AS SHOWN ON THE -- 47 AND A HALF MILLION AS SHOWN ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SLIDE.
WE'VE TAKEN OFF THE NAMES JUST TO PREVENT ANY VIEW OF -- YOU KNOW, THAT MIGHT BE A CONFLICT, VICE CHAIR. IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE ANYTHING ELSE BUT THAT. AND IT SHOWS YOU THAT SOME ORGANIZATIONS WILL HAVE A LOSS OF AROUND 800,000. AND THE LARGEST LOSS, IF YOU LIKE REDUCTION, WILL BE AROUND EIGHT MILLION.
NOW, I THINK IF YOU CAN CONSIDER THOSE, CONSIDER THOSE FIGURES, WE WOULD -- THE AGENCY WOULD CONSIDER GETTING THAT CLOSE TO 50 MILLION AS A KIND OF DONE DEAL BECAUSE WE DO KNOW THAT THE ICOC WANT TO MAKE SOME MINOR ADJUSTMENTS. AND WE'RE ABLE -- WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO FIND WAYS OF ACCOUNTING FOR A RELATIVELY SMALL SUM IN THE OVERALL.
SO WHAT I'M RECOMMENDING TO YOU, I THINK IT DOES ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT JEFF SHEEHY RAISED, I THINK IT ADDRESSES SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT BOB KLEIN RAISED, THAT THIS IS -- THIS MIGHT BE A POSITION THAT YOU COULD ADOPT GIVEN THAT YOU SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN GENERATING THOSE EARLY FIGURES. AND IT GETS CLOSE TO SOMETHING THAT WE COULD PROBABLY DEAL WITH.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB KLEIN. MR. KLEIN: I THINK THAT ALAN'S APPROACH IS SUPERIOR TO MY APPROACH BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO GO THROUGH IT IN STEPS. AND IT EFFECTIVELY LIFTS THE LEVERAGE TO ONE TO ONE, AND THAT'S APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE LEVERAGE IS ABOUT 25 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL POINTS, AND IT AMOUNTS TO ABOUT 19 MILLION OF THOSE ADJUSTMENTS UNDER THAT SYSTEM. SO 18 MILLION IS EXACTLY 25 PERCENT OF 72 MILLION. I THINK THAT THIS APPEARS TO BE SUPERIOR AND GETS IT DONE IN ONE STEP; WHEREAS, MINE DIDN'T, SO I THINK THIS IS A VERY GOOD APPROACH. BUT WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY MOTIONS. THIS IS JUST AN INFORMATIONAL STATEMENT ON THIS.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IT IS AN INFORMATIONAL STATEMENT, BUT WE MIGHT GET INTO SOME OF THE TEXTURE AND GRANULARITY OF THIS CHART HERE. SO IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, BOTH MARCY AND JEFF, BASED ON JAMES' RECOMMENDATION, ARE GOING TO JUST STEP OUT, WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD IDEA.
DR. TROUNSON: WE CAN PUT THE NAMES BACK IF YOU ARE HAPPY THERE.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I GUESS WE CAN NOW BARRING NO CONFLICTS WITH THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT, AND I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY, MR. TOCHER.
MR. TOCHER: THAT'S CORRECT.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SO YOU COULD PUT THE INSTITUTION'S NAME ON. GOOD IDEA.
MS. HYSEN: RICK, CAN I ASK FOR THOSE OF US THAT ARE OPTICALLY CHALLENGED, ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE PRINTOUTS FOR US TO LOOK AT BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE, FOR ME AT LEAST.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: MR. LICHTENGER.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I DO LIKE THE PRESIDENT'S SUGGESTION IN THAT IT ACCOMPLISHES MOST OF WHAT WE WANTED TO ACHIEVE TODAY IN ONE FELL SWOOP. IN THAT SENSE, IT SEEMS TO BE ELEGANT AND KIND OF SIMPLE AND SCIENTIFIC IN A CERTAIN WAY.
SO MY ONLY CONCERN ON THIS PARTICULAR METHODOLOGY IS THAT IT DOES PENALIZE THE HIGH SCORE, YOU KNOW. SO THAT WAS MY ONLY CONCERN THAT I JUST WANT TO RAISE, BUT IT DOES KIND OF GET US ALMOST THERE.
MR. KLEIN: EVERYONE GETS WHAT THEIR SCORE WOULD HAVE AWARDED THEM. IF THEY GOT A 95 SCORE, THEY GOT 95 PERCENT OF THE FUNDING.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AND THE GOOD THING IS IT DOES ACCOUNT EQUALLY, NOT EQUALLY, BUT IT DOES ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE VARIOUS DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA AS WE SET OUT IN OUR ORIGINAL DEFINITION. SO I GUESS THIS IS -- TO ME IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE THE BEST, SIMPLE, ELEGANT SOLUTION WE HAVE TOWARDS THIS FUNDING ISSUE.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: JANET WRIGHT.
DR. WRIGHT: I THINK WE ARE SORT OF APPROACHING THE HEATED AGREEMENT. I'M STRUCK BY THE SIMPLICITY OF IT AND ALSO THE EQUITABLE -- APPARENT EQUITABILITY OF THIS, IF THAT'S A WORD, BECAUSE OUR MISSION IS TO FUND ALL OF THESE PROGRAMS TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS APPROACH.
MR. KLEIN: LET ME ASK A PROCESS QUESTION IF I COULD, VICE CHAIR. WE COULD HAVE A MOTION TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THEM; BUT THEN AFTER -- ASSUMING THAT THAT WERE TO PASS, SEGREGATE OUT CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS, ASK MARCY FEIT AND JEFF SHEEHY TO COME BACK IN, AND ASK THEM IF THEY WOULD PROPOSE ANY AMENDMENTS TO THOSE TWO SECTIONS. JUST OUT OF A DESIRE --
MS. SAMUELSON: I HAVE A COMMENT.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: OKAY.
MS. SAMUELSON: I'M NOT SO CRAZY ABOUT IT. LET ME GIVE YOU A COUPLE EXAMPLES. UC MERCED, IN LEVERAGE THEY SCORED EIGHT POINTS BELOW THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE. STANFORD SCORED 100 PERCENT, A HUNDRED -- 25 OUT OF 25. OF COURSE, STANFORD CAN DO THAT. THAT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE MERITS. AND I THOUGHT IT WAS WONDERFUL TO BE FUNDING MERCED.
NOW, TO LOSE 10 PERCENT OF THE FUNDS THAT WOULD COME TO THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE A SCORE OF 85 COMPARED TO STANFORD BECAUSE THEY LOST THOSE POINTS ON LEVERAGE WHEN THEY'RE A BRAND-NEW INSTITUTION AND DON'T HAVE THEIR OWN CONSTITUENCY AND FOR ALL SORTS OF REASONS AREN'T A BUNCH OF FAT CATS OUT AT UC MERCED, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A LESS ROBUST CAPITAL PROGRAM, AND I DON'T LIKE THE SOUND OF THAT.
I ALSO HAPPEN TO BE CONCERNED ESPECIALLY ABOUT BUCK BECAUSE I REALLY THINK THAT'S A VERY INNOVATIVE EFFORT, AND THAT IT'S GOING TO DO SOMETHING IN A WAY THAT NONE OF THE OTHER CAPITAL INVESTMENTS ARE GOING TO DO BY PROVIDING THIS ENVIRONMENT FOR VERY INTERESTING COLLABORATIONS AND CONVENING PERHAPS ON AN INTERNATIONAL BASIS. I THINK IT COULD BE VERY INTERESTING. THEY HAVE A BRAND-NEW LITTLE INSTITUTE. MAYBE IT'S FIVE YEARS OLD. I DON'T THINK IT'S ANY OLDER THAN THAT, MAYBE A FEW YEARS. THEY'VE BEEN DOING WONDERFUL THINGS, TURNING OUT ALL KINDS OF BREAKTHROUGH INTERESTING SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS IN THE AREA OF AGING.
BUT I'M NOT SO SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO RAISE MONEY LIKE SOME OF THESE OTHER WEALTHY, LONG-STANDING INSTITUTIONS DO. TO PENALIZE THEM, AGAIN, IT'S THE SAME BASIS, IT JUST DOESN'T FEEL LIKE WHAT WE WANT TO DO IN THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, WHICH IS GIVE ANOTHER LOOK AND WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA WE REALLY CARE ABOUT THE MOST, AND THOSE ARE THE ONES I CARE ABOUT.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU, JOAN.
MR. KLEIN: IN TERMS OF THE YOUNG INSTITUTIONS, I THINK A NUMBER OF US WILL NEED TO REALLY CONTRIBUTE TIME TO TRY AND HELP THEM RAISE MONEY. IT'S A FAIR POINT, JOAN, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME. THEY'RE MOVING THE SCREEN AROUND PRETTY FAST, BUT IF IT'S 769,000 FOR MERCED OR A MILLION TWO FOR SANTA BARBARA OR A MILLION FOUR FOR SANTA CRUZ, I MEAN THOSE ARE ACCOMPLISHABLE NUMBERS. AND, FRANKLY, THEY STARTED OUT WITH HUGELY LESS LEVERAGE THAN THE REST OF THEM. AND THE REASON I BRING THAT UP IS THAT EVERYONE HAS TO HAVE AN INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT FOR THIS TO WORK. EVERYONE HAS TO CONTRIBUTE FOR THIS TO WORK. WHEREAS, STANFORD'S CONTRIBUTING THREE TO ONE AND UCSF AND UC BERKELEY AND OTHERS HAVE VERY HIGH LEVELS OF LEVERAGE. THESE SMALL INSTITUTIONS HAVE VERY LOW LEVELS OF LEVERAGE EVEN UNDER THIS FORMULA. AND I JUST THINK WE HAVE TO GO OUT AND HELP THEM FILL THOSE GAPS. BUT I THINK THOSE ARE ACCOMPLISHABLE.
THEY ARE IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTIONS. I THINK THESE INSTITUTIONS ARE GREAT, YOUNG, THEY'RE MAKING A GREAT NEW CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIELD. AS YOU KNOW, JOAN, I SPOKE IN FAVOR OF A LOT OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUCK PROJECT. I THINK THEY HAVE A TREMENDOUS INSTITUTION AS WELL, AND THEY ARE A YOUNG INSTITUTION, PROBABLY ABOUT 12 OR 14 YEARS OLD, BUT THEY --
MS. SAMUELSON: FROM THE BUILDING OF THE BUILDINGS RATHER THAN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INSTITUTE.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB, ARE YOU GOING TO WRAP UP YOUR THOUGHT?
MR. KLEIN: I DO THINK THAT IF YOU LOOK AT ALMOST ANY OTHER ALLOCATION, YOU ARE GOING TO COME OUT EFFECTIVELY MATHEMATICALLY AT LEAST AT THIS LEVEL ON THE INSTITUTIONS YOU'RE ADDRESSING.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. WHEN WE ADOPTED OUR FGAP, WE HAVE IN THERE SORT OF AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM, IF YOU WILL, WHERE THE INSTITUTIONS CAN GET SOME MONEY UP FRONT AND WE HAD ALL THAT DISCUSSION. WE DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE IS GOING TO TAKE US UP ON THAT PROVISION IN THE GAP, BUT AN INSTITUTION COULD, RIGHT?
MR. KLEIN: UH-HUH.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WITH THAT SAVINGS, I THINK PART OF THE IDEA, THE POLICY BEHIND THAT WAS WE COULD THEN APPLY THAT OR THAT WOULD FREE UP ADDITIONAL DOLLARS?
MR. KLEIN: IT WOULD. BUT REMEMBER, IF WE'RE CUTTING 47 MILLION SIX, APPROXIMATELY 50 MILLION, TODAY, THERE'S STILL THEN 27 MILLION TO CUT AT THE ICOC BASED UPON THE OVERALL INTEGRATION OF SCIENTIFIC SCORES AND FACILITY SCORES. SO WE'VE GOT TO CHALLENGE -- WE'RE CHALLENGING OURSELVES BETWEEN NOW AND THAT BOARD MEETING TO FIND A WAY TO TRY AND REDUCE THAT GAP. WE'RE NOT LEAVING THE BOARD WITHOUT MAJOR CHALLENGES HERE.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: DAVID LICHTENGER.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK STAFF, IF WE WERE TO APPLY THIS MODEL, HOW IT DEALS WITH THE BUCKETS OF MONEY THAT THE ICOC GAVE US, THE RANGE, SO THAT WE COULD KNOW, BECAUSE I'M ALMOST READY TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS PARTICULAR MODEL TO PROPOSE THIS AS THE SOLUTION, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE HOW IT AFFECTS THE BUCKETS OF MONEY AND IF IT'S WITHIN THE RANGE THAT ICOC HAS RECOMMENDED. ACTUALLY IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T BECAUSE WE'RE SHORT BY -- I'D LIKE TO SEE IF IT CUTS -- I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT NUMBER ANYWAY.
MR. KELLER: TWO THINGS. WE CAN DO THAT, BUT I'LL HAVE TO DO A RESORT AND PUT IN SOME SUMMATIONS. BUT YOU ALSO ASKED TO HAVE THIS PRINTED OFF. SO IF I CAN TAKE THIS DOWN AND HAVE SOME COPIES MADE OF THIS DISPLAY --
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT'S FINE.
MR. KELLER: -- SO THAT WE CAN GET IT STARTED TO PRINT.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: MR. VICE CHAIR, COULD I BE SO BOLD?
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I'M GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM MR. KLEIN.
MR. KLEIN: SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE BENEFIT -- AS TO THE CIRM INSTITUTES, AND I'M SPECIFICALLY NOT ADDRESSING CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE OR SPECIAL PROGRAMS, SO WE CAN GET MARCY AND JEFF BACK IN FOR THAT, BUT AS TO THE INSTITUTES, THAT WE ADOPT THIS METHODOLOGY PROPOSED BY OUR ESTEEMED AUSTRALIAN IMPORT OF GREAT TALENT, DR. TROUNSON, FOR MAKING REDUCTIONS IN THE REQUESTS.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SECOND.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SECOND BY MR. LICHTENGER. DISCUSSION AMONG THE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS? MR. KASHIAN.
MR. KASHIAN: I UNDERSTAND THE DEFICIT ISSUE AND TERMS, AND NOW I'M SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE LOWER GROUP, THE SMALLER GROUP. THEIR DEFICIT FROM THE ICOC BUDGET IS SOMETHING AKIN TO 500,000. WHAT'S THE DEFICIT BETWEEN THE REQUEST AND THE AMOUNT?
DR. TROUNSON: 72 MILLION.
MR. KASHIAN: WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REQUEST OF THE THREE APPLICANTS AND THE AMOUNT ALLOCATED BY THE ICOC TO THIS CATEGORY?
DR. TROUNSON: I THINK YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER CATEGORY, THE CATEGORY WITH SEVEN IN. YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING AS BOB KLEIN.
MR. KLEIN: I THINK I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL ALLOCATION MADE BY THE BOARD THAT ED IS REFERRING TO BEFORE WE EVEN SAW THE APPLICATIONS. AND THAT HAS 18 MILLION FOR THIS CATEGORY; IS THAT RIGHT?
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: 18.4 MILLION.
MR. KLEIN: 18.4 MILLION. AND THEY HAVE REQUESTED ESSENTIALLY $18 MILLION. BUT REALIZE THAT WE CAN'T DEAL -- GIVEN THAT WE NOW HAVE THE APPLICATIONS AND GIVEN THAT WE NOW HAVE INFORMATION THE ICOC NEVER HAD, WE CAN'T MAKE THAT BUDGET OF 18 MILLION WORK BECAUSE IT BUSTS THE BUDGETS FOR CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A VIABLE CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE PROGRAM, WE HAVE TO NOW READJUST THE BUDGET BASED UPON THE KNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE.
MR. KASHIAN: I AGREE WITH THAT. HOWEVER, IF YOU CAN TAKE THE PERCENTAGE OF THE ALLOCATION FOR THE LOWER INSTITUTES AND HAVE THEM MAKE UP THAT PERCENTAGE AS OPPOSED TO DEALING AT A MUCH LARGER DEFICIT. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THEY SHOULDN'T GET A CUT. I'M JUST SAYING IT SHOULD BE PROPORTIONATE TO THEIR REQUEST.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS?
MS. HYSEN: I'M UNCLEAR WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. I THOUGHT IN THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, BEFORE WE DECIDED HOW WE WOULD BEGIN TO FUND, THAT WE'D LOOK AT THE USE AND CONTRIBUTION SCORE THAT THE SCIENTIFIC GROUP APPLIED SO THAT WE COULD COMPARE AND CONTRAST TO OUR SCORE SO THAT WE HAD THOSE TWO UP, AND THEN WE WOULD START TO IDENTIFY FUNDING.
I THOUGHT THAT THE CHIEF SCIENTIST WOULD BE HERE TO HELP US WITH THAT BECAUSE I'VE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT -- I CAN SEE BASED ON WHAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME THAT WE MAY HAVE AWARDED HIGH SCORES ON FACILITIES WHERE THE SCIENTISTS AWARDED A LOW SCORE. AND CONVERSELY, WE DID THE SAME WITH THE OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM. SO I THOUGHT THE PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW WAS TO GET BOTH SCORES UP SO THAT THAT SCREEN HAD ANOTHER CHART SO WE COULD SEE, AND THEN WE STARTED TO TALK ABOUT FUNDING. IN MY OPINION, I'D LIKE TO DEFER THE MOTION FOR HOW WE FUND UNTIL WE GET THROUGH THAT PIECE.
MR. KLEIN: THE ORIGINAL PROGRAM INTENT WAS FOR THE DEEP SCIENCE REVIEW TO BE DONE AT THE ICOC, WHO HAS THE ABILITY TO GO IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, GO THROUGH THE SCIENCE SCORES IN-DEPTH TO SEE THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION, AND INTEGRATE IN THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION THE SCIENTIFIC SCORES AND OUR SCORES. WE CAN DO SOME SCIENTIFIC ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE WE HAVE SCORES, BUT IN TERMS OF OUR CENTRAL MISSION --
MS. HYSEN: BUT OUR BOOK SAYS WE'RE GOING TO DO EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. OUR BOOK SAYS THE VICE CHAIR -- IN TODAY'S SESSION THE VICE CHAIR WILL ASK WORKING GROUP MEMBERS TO COMMENT ON THE SCORING INFORMATION DISPLAYED FOR THE PARTICULAR CATEGORY OF APPLICANTS WITH AN EMPHASIS ON COMPARING AND CONTRASTING THE FACILITY WORKING GROUP'S SCORES AND GRANTS WITH THE WORKING GROUP USE SCORES. THE CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE USE SCORE ASSIGNED BY THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM IS THE FUNDING. THAT'S MY CONFUSION.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WHAT YOU RAISED, DEBORAH, IS WHAT IS ABSOLUTELY SAID FOR THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PUTTING THOSE USE SCORES FOR THE INSTITUTES. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S -- IT WILL BE INTERESTING. SO SINCE WE COMMITTED TO DOING THAT, THEN LET'S DO IT.
SO FOR THE SEVEN INSTITUTES, MR. KELLER.
MR. KELLER: WE DISTRIBUTED THE SUMMARY.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: OF THE USE SCORES.
MR. KELLER: SHOULD BE IN YOUR FOLDERS.
MR. KLEIN: I THINK WHAT SHE'S ASKING, AND A VERY REASONABLE REQUEST, IS JUST TO CREATE A COLUMN WHERE YOU PUT THE USE SCORES UP NEXT TO EACH OF THOSE SO THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CROSS-CORRELATE.
MS. HYSEN: I THINK THE INTENT, AND PERHAPS THE INTENT IS WHAT I'D LIKE TO HEAR, I THOUGHT THE INTENT IS THAT THE FACILITY WORKING GROUP HAS A CERTAIN SET OF EXPERTISE. FOR ME IT'S REAL ESTATE. AND I CLEARLY DON'T WANT TO BUILD ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT PROGRAM WITHIN IT. AND I THINK FROM WHAT I SAW OF THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, IT ALLOWED ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY I MAY HAVE SCORED THAT INSTITUTION VERY HIGH ON THE REAL ESTATE END OF THE SPECTRUM, BUT THE SCIENTISTS CLEARLY DON'T BELIEVE IT'S THE RIGHT PROGRAM. SO WHY WOULD I WANT TO GIVE MONEY TO THEM TO BUILD A BUILDING THAT THE SCIENTISTS DON'T BELIEVE WILL PRODUCE? IS THAT THE INTENT?
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: NO, NOT ENTIRELY. I THINK THE INTENT WAS, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, MAYBE I UNDERSTOOD IT WRONG, THE INTENT WAS JUST TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC WORKING GROUP DID. BUT THE PRIMARY STATUTORY -- OUR MANDATE IS TO DEAL WITH FACILITIES. THAT'S IT, PERIOD. IN THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, WE CAN TAKE -- WE CAN LOOK AT OTHER BITS OF INFORMATION, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS USE SCORE IS GOING TO BE ABOUT.
MS. HYSEN: WE CAN TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATION. DOESN'T HAVE TO DRIVE.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: CORRECT. YES, THAT'S THE INTENT OF IT. SO WE HAVE THE USE SCORES UP NOW PER YOUR REQUEST. THEY'RE ALSO IN HERE SOMEWHERE.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON DEBORAH'S QUESTION AND COMMENT. SO, DEBORAH, I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION AND YOUR CONCERN. BUT GIVEN THAT THERE MAY BE SOME CREATIVE WAYS WHERE --
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: LET'S JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THIS HERE. WE HAVE OUR CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER PRESENT.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL THE APPLICANTS OR JUST THE INSTITUTES?
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THE MOTION WAS TO THE CIRM INSTITUTES, SO THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE RIGHT NOW.
MR. KLEIN: CAN YOU JUST HIDE THOSE COLUMNS THAT ARE NOT CIRM INSTITUTES?
MS. HYSEN: FOR ME, WHEN I THINK OF WHAT THE SCIENTISTS THOUGHT OF IN PROVIDING THIS SCORE, I MAY HAVE LOOKED AT ASSIGNING A VALUE OR A FUNCTIONALITY SCORE, THAT IF THE SCIENTISTS DID NOT FEEL THAT THE FACILITY PROVIDED THE VALUE OR THE FUNCTIONALITY, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW IF MY SCORE SHOULD BE MODIFIED IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR SCORES.
DR. CSETE: MAY I SPEAK TO THAT? SO THE USE SCORE IS A SUMMATION OF THE X, Y, AND Z OR X AND Y PLUS OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT WENT IN. BUT I THINK THE FUNDAMENTAL THING TO CONSIDER IS THAT ALL OF THE INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED, NO MATTER WHAT CATEGORY TODAY, ARE THOSE WHERE THE SCIENCE WAS DEEMED MOST MERITORIOUS. AND WE WEREN'T PRIVY IN THE REVIEW PROCESS TO KNOWING PARTICULARS ABOUT THE BUILDING. THERE WAS GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS ABOUT THE BUILDING, BUT IT WAS THE SCIENCE SORT OF IN ISOLATION.
WE DID HEAR COMMENTS IN SOME OF THE BACK AND FORTH AFTER PART 2 ABOUT HOW THE SCIENTISTS FELT THAT THE BUILDING CONTRIBUTED TO OR SYNERGIZED THEIR WORK. BUT IN TERMS OF THE INTERACTION OF THE BUILDING AND THE SCIENCE, THAT WAS NOT A MAJOR PART OF THE USE SCORE.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU.
MS. HYSEN: CAN I SPEAK TO THAT? MAYBE BECAUSE
I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE. IF, FOR INSTANCE, A FACILITY OFFERED MULTIPLE THINGS, A VIVARIUM, A CORE IMAGING FACILITY, I FELT THAT THAT RAISED THE VALUE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING MORE THAN IT SEEMED THAT THE SCIENTISTS FELT THAT WAS VALUABLE. SO I UNDERSTAND YOU DON'T THINK THE SCIENTISTS WERE SPEAKING TO THE FACILITY DESIGN, BUT THAT IS PART OF THE DESIGN. AND SO I GAVE A VALUE SCORE, EVEN LIKE THE SHARED RESOURCES, I GAVE A VALUE SCORE TO THE THINGS, THE SCIENTIFIC THINGS THAT WERE IN THAT BUILDING. AND WHAT CONCERNS ME IS I MAY HAVE GIVEN A VERY HIGH VALUE SCORE FOR A SCIENTIFIC ELEMENT THAT PERHAPS THE SCIENTISTS DIDN'T RATE SO HIGHLY.
SO WHEN I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE SCORES TO SORT OF NORMALIZE, IF YOU WILL, EITHER BRING MY EXPECTATION DOWN OR PERHAPS ILLUMINATE THE SCIENTISTS ON A PARTICULAR ELEMENT OF THE BUILDING THAT WOULD ENHANCE THEIR WORK, I THOUGHT THAT WAS PART OF TODAY'S DISCUSSION.
DR. CSETE: IT IS. BUT, AGAIN, THE SCIENCE IS FACILITATED BY LOTS OF THINGS THAT WERE IN BUILDINGS IN SOME APPLICATIONS AND LOTS OF THINGS THAT WERE COLLECTIVELY BROUGHT TOGETHER OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING FOR SOME APPLICATIONS. SO IT'S THE TOTALITY, NOT THE BUILDING ITSELF.
NOW, THERE WAS A SCORE FOR THE USE OF FACILITY AS PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC APPLICATION, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN GET DOWN TO THE SPECIFICS FOR EXACTLY THE KINDS OF REASONS THAT WE HAVE PROBLEMS TALKING ABOUT LEVERAGE. YOU CAN LOOK AT THE DISCREPANCIES. AND I THINK THE X, Y, AND Z SCORES MAY HELP YOU LOOK AT THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE WAY WE WOULD BE ORDERED IF WE WERE ORDERED JUST BASED ON SCIENCE AND THE WAY WE WOULD BE ORDERED IF WE WERE ORDERED JUST BASED ON THE PART 2 DISCUSSION.
AGAIN, I THINK THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE SCIENCE AS A WHOLE WAS CONSIDERED MERITORIOUS TO PROCEED TO THIS PHASE. AND IT WAS THE TOTALITY OF THE BUILDING AND ALL OF THE OTHER CORES AND THINGS BROUGHT INTO IT TO MAKE THE SCIENCE GO FORWARD THAT YOU HEARD ABOUT IN PART 2.
MS. HYSEN: LET ME ASK A QUESTION. IF WE WANTED TO KEEP OUR SCORES PRISTINE, IF WE SAID THAT THE TOP SCORES GET THE MONEY AND THE BOTTOM SCORES FALL OUT, AND LET'S JUST TAKE UCLA AS AN EXAMPLE. IT HAPPENS TO BE ONE OF THE BOTTOM SCORES FOR US, BUT A TOP SCORE FOR THE SCIENTISTS. AND LET'S SAY THERE ISN'T ANYONE ABOVE US THAT GETS TO MAKE A DECISION. OF COURSE, THERE ARE. IF OUR DECISION TODAY IS THAT BOTTOM INSTITUTIONS FALL OUT, WHAT WOULD THE SCIENTISTS' RESPONSE BE TO THAT?
DR. CSETE: THAT THEY FALL OUT ALTOGETHER?
MS. HYSEN: IF THAT WAS THE WAY IN WHICH WE APPROACHED THIS TODAY.
DR. CSETE: WELL, THAT WOULD BE DISASTROUS FOR THE TEAMS THAT FALL OUT. THAT'S HOW THEY WOULD RESPOND.
MS. HYSEN: AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS HOW DO WE FIGURE OUT A WAY TO TAKE SOME ASPECT OF THE SCIENTIST SCORE TO BALANCE OUR REAL ESTATE SCORE?
MR. KLEIN: IF I CAN SUGGEST, THERE IS A PRETTY BIG BALANCE IN THERE RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF THE ABILITY TO GET THE STATEWIDE DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES. BECAUSE WITH THESE ADJUSTMENTS, UCLA AND UC IRVINE, WHO BOTH ASKED FOR A LOT OF MONEY AND PUT UP LESS THAN MATCH, ARE NOW ONE TO ONE. THE PEOPLE ABOVE THAT WITH THESE ADJUSTMENTS ARE AT A TWO-TO-ONE LEVERAGE OR MORE, OR APPROXIMATELY TWO TO ONE. THEY'RE CLOSE. I DON'T THINK -- SAN DIEGO ISN'T EXACTLY AT TWO TO ONE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEW NUMBER IS ON THE OTHER SIDE, BUT THEY'RE VERY HIGH LEVERAGE.
SO BASICALLY THE ONLY DISCONTINUITY HERE BETWEEN THE SCIENCE SCORES OF SIGNIFICANCE IS UCI AND UCLA. WITH THOSE TWO CASES, YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF DO WE BUY OURSELVES TWICE AS MUCH CAPACITY BECAUSE WE HAVE TWICE AS MUCH LEVERAGE AT AN 84 SCORE, OR DO WE BUY OURSELVES AN 80 OR AN 88 SCORE, OR DO WE BUY OURSELVES HALF AS MUCH RESEARCH AT A 92 OR 90 SCORE? THE FACT IS THAT THE REASON THAT THEY'RE DOWN THERE IS BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T REALLY HELPED THE OVERALL PROGRAM AS MUCH AS EVERYONE ELSE HAS IN TERMS OF EXPANDING OUR CAPACITY TO REACH GOOD SCIENCE.
ON A PROBABILITY THEORY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE NIH HISTORY, BUYING MORE SCIENCE AND MORE SCIENCE OF QUALITY, AND ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED TO BE OF QUALITY, IS A BETTER PROBABILITY IN TERMS OF GETTING OUTCOMES WE'RE SEARCHING FOR.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, I'M STRAINING TO LOOK AT IT, BUT I'LL READ IT OUT -- I WON'T READ IT OUT, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE USE SCORES AND THE FACILITY WORKING GROUP SCORES FOR MOST OF THE APPLICANTS IN THIS CATEGORY EXCEPT FOR TWO, THEY MIRROR ONE ANOTHER IN FACT. THE ONES THAT DON'T REALLY MIRROR ONE ANOTHER ARE, TO NO SURPRISE, THE USE SCORE FOR UCLA WAS 90, OUR SCORE WAS 73, UC IRVINE, THE USE SCORE WAS 92, FACILITIES WORKING GROUP SCORE WAS 80. WHAT I HEAR BOB SAYING, THAT'S REFLECTED IN WHAT WE'RE GIVING THEM OR WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING. THEY'RE GETTING LESS MONEY.
DR. CSETE: MAY I SAY ONE MORE THING? YOU WERE, I THINK, TOLD TO CONSIDER THE SCIENCE, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU WANTED TO DO. THERE WAS NO FORMULA DEVELOPED BY THE ICOC OR IN ANY PART OF THE PROCESS ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD CALCULATE THAT. SO CONSIDERING IS WHAT WE'RE DOING.
MS. HYSEN: I'M TRYING TO WORK INTO BOB'S AND ALAN'S ARGUMENT, AND I WASN'T THERE EARLIER BECAUSE I WANTED TO KEEP OUR REAL ESTATE SCORES SOMEWHAT PRISTINE, AND I FELT THAT THIS WAS SORT OF A BASTARDIZATION OF THAT PROCESS. WHEN YOU DO ADD AND YOU COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE SCIENCE SCORES IN THERE, THEN IT REALLY DOES TELL ME WE SHOULDN'T DROP ANYONE OUT OF THE EQUATION. AND THERE HAS TO BE A WAY TO CONSIDER EVERYONE IN THIS EQUATION BECAUSE IF IT WAS JUST TO BE THE REAL ESTATE SIDE OF ME, I'D SAY, LOOK, EVERYBODY HAS A FAIR SHOT AT IT, AND THE APPLICATIONS STOOD ON THEIR OWN. THEREFORE, THE ONES THAT DROP OUT ARE X AND Y. AND I THINK HEARING FROM YOU AND SEEING THE SCORES UP THERE, THAT WOULD BE DISASTROUS. AND SO TO FIND A WAY FOR ME TO FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE PRESENTATION, I NEEDED TO SEE THIS. THANK YOU.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: DAVID LICHTENGER.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I JUST WANT TO COMMENT TO DEBORAH'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ABOUT THIS. SO WE ARE THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. WE'RE NOT THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. AND THERE IS, INTERESTING ENOUGH, A VERY HIGH DEGREE OF CORRELATION BETWEEN THE USE SCORE AND THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP SCORE HERE. AND I THINK IN THE COUPLE OF CASES WHERE THEY DON'T CORRELATE, I THINK THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF ALLOWING THE ICOC TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS EXACTLY HOW THEY WANT TO DEAL WITH IT. AND ALSO THAT THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL COST SAVINGS IDEAS THAT ARE JUST BEING EXPLORED THAT POSSIBLY MAY YIELD SOME DOLLARS.
I JUST THINK THIS IS THE MOST SIMPLE, ELOQUENT WAY TO KEEP THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP'S WORK CLEAN AND DEAL WITH WHAT WE HAVE OUR EXPERTISE IN. THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU, DAVID. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS?
MS. SAMUELSON: I'M GOING TO TAKE A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW, AND SINCE THERE'S A PENDING MOTION, MAYBE I WOULDN'T STATE A MOTION, BUT I WANT TO GIVE YOU MY THOUGHT ABOUT IT, WHICH IS THAT MY -- ONE OF MY CONTINUING PRIORITIES THAT'S HIGHER FOR ME IS GETTING THESE FACILITIES PROVIDED AROUND THE STATE AND TO GET A VERY ROBUST CAPITAL PROGRAM GOING. AND I LIKED THEM ALL. IT SOUNDED TO ME LIKE THE SCIENTIFIC SCORE FOR UCLA WAS VERY HIGH, AND I DIDN'T HEAR ONE ON UCSB. PERHAPS WITH THOSE TWO EXCLUDED, BUT PROBABLY WITH THEM INCLUDED, I'M COMFORTABLE FUNDING EVERYBODY. ESPECIALLY WHEN I LOOK AT THE FACT THAT THE TOP THREE, THEY GET INTO THE 90S BECAUSE THEIR LEVERAGE SCORE IS HIGHER THAN THE OTHERS. SO REALLY THESE ARE ALL IN THE 80S WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LAST TWO.
AND SO I WOULD WANT TO CONSIDER SOMETHING THAT PRO RATA PROPORTIONATELY, BASED ON HOW MUCH MONEY IS IN THE BUDGETS OR SOMETHING, TRIMS ALL OF THEM TO GET RID OF THAT 50 MILLION. THEN IF THEY CAN RAISE MORE MONEY, THEY CAN BUILD A RICHER CAPITAL PROJECT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WE CAN WORK OUT ALL THE DETAILS, BUT I WOULD NOT TO PENALIZE THEM IN THE WAY THAT I THINK THE MOTION DOES.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE? MR. KELLER.
MR. KELLER: I WON'T ADD MUCH TO THIS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION ABOUT THE USE SCORE BECAUSE I WROTE THE PROCEDURE, AND WE DID HAVE A CONSULTATION ABOUT THAT. AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THIS WAS REALLY IN RESPONSE TO SOME THINGS THAT HAPPENED ON THE SHARED LABS WHERE THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP WAS IN KIND OF ONE BALLPARK IN TERMS OF THE PROJECT AND THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP WAS IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BALLPARK. THIS WAS JUST THE OPPORTUNITY. AND I THINK OUR CONCLUSION WAS IT MAY OR MAY NOT COME INTO PLAY, BUT LET'S INCLUDE IT BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY WAS AT 50 FOR THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, YOU WOULD WANT TO KNOW THAT.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT ITEM OF INFORMATION. I'M GLAD IT'S IN THERE. I'M GLAD DEBORAH INSISTED THAT WE PUT IT UP HERE. I THINK IT VALIDATES THE MOTION. AND NOW I'LL ASK IF THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
MR. REED: DON REED. I AM CONCERNED THAT WE ARE HELPING -- GIVING THE MOST HELP TO THOSE WHO NEED THE LEAST HELP. I THINK WE ARE LOSING TRACK OF WHAT OUR ULTIMATE GOAL IS, WHICH IS JUST TO ADVANCE THE SCIENCE. WINSTON CHURCHILL ONCE SAID, TO EVERY COMPLICATED QUESTION, THERE IS AN ANSWER WHICH IS SIMPLE, ELEGANT, AND WRONG. I FEAR THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. WE FOUND A WAY, BASED ON LEVERAGE, TO SOLVE A VERY DIFFICULT PROBLEM. I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD COMPLICATE IT AGAIN. I REALLY -- I LOOK AT THE SCORES, AND I KNOW THE SCIENCE PROGRAMS THAT ARE GOING ON TO SOME EXTENT. AND I FEEL THAT THE REAL VALUE WE'RE GOING TO GET IS THE SCIENCE.
NOW, THE LEVERAGE IS ALREADY GOING TO REWARD THEM TREMENDOUSLY. STANFORD IS ALREADY GOING TO GET MUCH MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK BECAUSE THEY HAVE THIS TREMENDOUS FUND-RAISING MACHINE GOING. I WISH EVERY COLLEGE IN THE COUNTRY HAD THIS. BUT I KNOW UCI. I KNOW THEIR SCIENCE PROGRAM. FOR THEM TO BE SCORED LIKE AN 80 FOR THE TOTAL SCORE, I THINK IS JUST COMPLETELY WRONG.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, DON. THAT IS, AS I UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS UP HERE, AND THIS WAS DR. TROUNSON'S SUGGESTION, THIS IS TOTALITY AND AVERAGE OF ALL THE WORKING GROUP SCORE. SO IT WASN'T JUST WHAT BOB HAD SUGGESTED. BOB HAD SUGGESTED LET'S DO THIS LEVERAGE THING. OKAY. WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S A BAD IDEA NOW. WE LIKED ALAN'S IDEA. SO THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SEEING UP HERE NOW. I JUST WANTED THAT CLARIFICATION. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO CHANGE YOUR MIND, WHICH IS FINE, BUT I JUST WANTED YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT YOU SEE UP THERE IS THE AVERAGES FOR THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP SCORE AND THAT RANKING. THAT TAKES IN ALL OF THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE BASED OUR SCORES ON TODAY: FUNCTIONALITY, SHARED RESOURCES, LEVERAGE WAS ONE OF THEM. SO THAT'S WHAT'S UP HERE NOW. I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE YOUR MIND, BUT I JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT.
MR. REED: WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT. I DON'T PRETEND TO UNDERSTAND THIS FULLY AT ALL. YOU GUYS OPERATE AT A WHOLE DIFFERENT WAVELENGTH THAN MY SMALL BRAIN CAN HANDLE. I DO KNOW I WANT THE SCIENCE TO MOVE FORWARD, NO. 1. I KNOW YOU ALL DO TOO. I JUST HATE THE THOUGHT OF A FIRST-RATE SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTION BEING GIVEN SECOND-RATE FUNDING, ALTHOUGH THIS IS MAGNIFICENT. PROP 71 IS MAGNIFICENT. IN OUR HIGH LEVEL STANDARDS, TO GET A LESSER LEVEL OF FUNDING WHEN THE SCIENCE IS SO OUTSTANDING JUST SEEMS TO BE A MISTAKE. MY THOUGHTS.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I HAVE TO TELL YOU, DON, IT PAINS ME. IT DOES PAIN ME BECAUSE I KNOW THE GOOD THAT UCI DOES FOR PEOPLE WITH M.S. THEY'RE PUTTING IN A LOT OF HOURS. THEY CARE ABOUT THESE PEOPLE. THEY ALWAYS OPEN THEMSELVES UP TO THE M.S. COMMUNITY WHEN THEY WANT TO DO TOURS OF THE FACILITIES. DR. KEIRSTEAD AND HIS TEAM, THEY DO AN ENORMOUS PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORT. I THINK THEY'RE REALLY THE MODEL. MORE INSTITUTIONS NEED TO DO MORE OUTREACH TO ADVOCACY GROUPS. WHERE I'M STANDING RIGHT NOW, IT IS WHAT IT IS, AND WE JUST HAVE TO MOVE ON. YOUR POINTS ARE REALLY WELL TAKEN.
MR. REED: OF COURSE, THIS IS THE ULTIMATE FUNDING MECHANISM, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, ON EARTH. AND MY OBJECTIONS ARE INTENSELY FELT, BUT THEY'RE QUIBBLES IN COMPARISON WITH THE MAGNIFICENT THINGS YOU GUYS ARE DOING.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. OTHER MEMBERS FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK?
MR. SIMPSON: JOHN SIMPSON, CONSUMER WATCHDOG. ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SOME PLACES THAT ARE SLIGHTLY OUT OF WHACK BETWEEN THE SCIENTIFIC AND THE FACILITY SCORE, I LOOKED BROADER INTO ALL OF THEM, AND I WAS STRUCK BY HOW MUCH IN ALIGNMENT THEY ARE. AND IT SEEMS TO ME, NO MATTER HOW YOU DO THIS, IT IS AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT DECISION. AND I SHARE MY FRIEND'S VIEWS ABOUT THE CONCERN THAT THE RICHEST ARE GETTING OFF THE EASIEST. I THINK YOU CERTAINLY WILL HAVE TO REDOUBLE YOUR EFFORTS TO TRY TO DO ANYTHING YOU CAN TO GET THE STANFORDS OF THE WORLD TO ACT IN THE GREATER GOOD AND RECOUP SOME OF THAT MONEY. BUT I DON'T REALLY SEE MUCH OF A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS THAN WHAT YOU'VE GOT BEFORE YOU NOW, PARTICULARLY AFTER THOSE NUMBERS WERE PUT AT MEMBER HYSEN'S REQUEST. I WAS QUITE IMPRESSED WITH THE WAY THEY CAME INTO ALIGNMENT OR REASONABLE ALIGNMENT.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION? IF NOT, MR. TOCHER, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MR. TOCHER: SURE. TO RESTATE THE MOTION, IT IS TO RECOMMEND AN AWARD FOR EACH APPLICATION FOR A CIRM INSTITUTE GRANT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT REQUESTED MULTIPLIED BY THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP SCORE.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: AS SHOWN RIGHT THERE.
MR. TOCHER: FEIT. SORRY. HYSEN.
MS. HYSEN: YES.
MR. TOCHER: KASHIAN.
MR. KASHIAN: YES.
MR. TOCHER: KLEIN.
MR. KLEIN: YES.
MR. TOCHER: LAFF.
MR. LAFF: ABSTAIN.
MR. TOCHER: SAMUELSON.
MS. SAMUELSON: NO.
MR. TOCHER: WRIGHT.
DR. WRIGHT: YES.
MR. TOCHER: LICHTENGER.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES.
MR. TOCHER: SERRANO-SEWELL.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. THE MOTION CARRIES.
PERHAPS WE CAN TAKE THIS -- I THINK WE CAN ASK JEFF AND MARCY TO RETURN, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE. IT WOULD PROBABLY BE BEST, HAVING JUST TAKEN THIS APPROACH, TO TAKE THE SAME APPROACH FOR THE OTHER TWO CATEGORIES AS WELL.
MS. HYSEN: IT SAYS TO DO THAT IN THE BOOK, TO SET UP THE USE SCORES AND DO THE SAME COMPARE AND CONTRAST.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SO WHY DON'T WE DO THAT, MR. KELLER, THE USE SCORES FOR CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS.
DR. TROUNSON: JUST REMOVING NAMES SO THAT --
MR. KLEIN: INFORMATIONALLY THEY CAN SEE IT.
DR. TROUNSON: DO YOU WANT TO SEE THE TABLE, JUST THE ONES --
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO ME. JUST THE ONES THAT WE'RE VOTING ON. CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE LEFT FOR CONSIDERATION. INSTITUTES ARE DONE.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: LET'S NOT CONFUSE THE ISSUE BY HAVING THEM UP THERE.
MR. KLEIN: MR. HARRISON, ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE DECISION INFORMATIONALLY, CAN THEY KNOW WHAT WE DID?
MR. HARRISON: IT'S A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: MR. HARRISON, WHY DON'T YOU EXPLAIN WHAT WE JUST DID.
MR. HARRISON: WITH RESPECT TO CIRM INSTITUTES, THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP COMMITTEE VOTED ON A MOTION TO RECOMMEND AN AWARD FOR EACH APPLICANT THAT IS EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT REQUESTED MULTIPLIED BY THE PERCENTAGE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP SCORE. SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF AN APPLICANT'S SCORE WAS 95 PERCENT, THEN THE APPLICANT WOULD RECEIVE UNDER THIS METHOD 95 PERCENT OF THE AMOUNT REQUESTED.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S THE CHART UP THAT WAS UP HERE BEFORE YOU LEFT. SO WHAT'S REMAINING ARE THE CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE AND CIRM SPECIAL PROGRAMS.
ALSO, IN OUR DISCUSSION DEBORAH HYSEN BROUGHT UP A VERY GOOD POINT, AND THAT WAS DURING THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, WE NEEDED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE USE SCORES. THAT'S WHAT STAFF'S DOING NOW. AND IT ACTUALLY ENDED UP BEING VERY HELPFUL.
SO WE'LL SEE WHAT THAT CORRELATION IS, ALIGNMENT IS NOW FOR CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS. WE CAN SEE IF WE WANT TO PROCEED THE SAME WAY. ANYBODY WISH TO COMMENT?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I GUESS, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT AND THEN MAKE A MOTION, THAT WE DEAL WITH THE INSTITUTES -- NO -- THE CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE AND THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS THE SAME WAY AS WE DEALT WITH THE INSTITUTES IN THE SAME METHODOLOGY, TAKING THEIR FACILITIES WORKING GROUP SCORE AND MULTIPLYING IT TIMES THEIR REQUESTED AMOUNT AS THE RECOMMENDED AMOUNT TO THE ICOC. THAT'S THE MOTION.
MR. KLEIN: SECOND.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THERE'S A SECOND TO THE MOTION. DISCUSSION AMONGST THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS? YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION?
MR. KLEIN: IF I CAN COMMENT AND SPEAK TO THE MOTION. THE ONE OBVIOUS, THIS ALIGNMENT HERE IS WITH SANTA CRUZ, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, AS THE SCORES WERE PREVIOUSLY SHOWN, THAT SANTA CRUZ HAD A LOWER
SCORE ON URGENCY BECAUSE THERE'S A CONCERN ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL SIDE OF WHETHER IT'S GOING TO RUN INTO HEAVY PROBLEMS THAT CREATE A RISK TO THE PROGRAM, AND THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE DOES NOT HAVE IT BEING COMPLETED WITHIN THE 24-MONTH PERIOD. SO WE'RE DIRECTED BY THE INITIATIVE, IN FACT, TO CREATE A PRIORITY ON THE OTHER PROJECTS. AND BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER SCORE, THEY'VE MAINTAINED THEMSELVES FOR FUNDING, AND THEY'VE MAINTAINED THEMSELVES REASONABLY IN ALIGNMENT, BUT BEHIND ONE OTHER PROJECT IN THAT CATEGORY.
SO THAT IS, I THINK, THE REASON THAT IT'S NOT AT THE TOP OF THE CATEGORY.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: FURTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE?
MS. SAMUELSON: ONCE AGAIN, I AM JUST NOTING THAT I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT BECAUSE I WOULD PREFER A COMPETING MOTION ALONG THE SAME LINES AS THE ONE I SUGGESTED BEFORE, WHICH, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WEREN'T HERE, WOULD REACH THE 50 MILLION REDUCTION BY A PROPORTIONATE DECREASE ON EITHER EVERY FUNDED APPLICANT OR ALL BUT THE LAST TWO. AND THE APPLICANTS WOULD BE FREE TO RAISE THE REST OF THE MONEY UP TO THEIR TOTAL BUDGET IF THEY WERE ABLE TO.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE? LOOKING TO MY LEFT. LOOKING TO MY RIGHT. JEFF? ANYONE?
MR. SHEEHY: I JUST WANT TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR. SO THIS METRIC IS BEING APPLIED ACROSS THE BOARD.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. SHOULD THE MOTION PASS.
MR. SHEEHY: I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR THAT WE WERE -- THIS IS VERY OBJECTIVE AND ACROSS THE BOARD.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. SEEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE, ARE THERE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?
MR. SIMPSON: JOHN SIMPSON, CONSUMER WATCHDOG. NOT TO DELAY THE PROCESS, BUT WOULD IT BE INSTRUCTIVE TO RUN THE IMPLICATIONS OF A PRO RATA PERCENT -- EQUAL PERCENTAGE CUT FOR EVERYBODY, JUST TO SEE WHAT THAT DOES, OR IS THAT NOT WORTH THE TROUBLE?
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: NO. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? SEEING NONE --
MS. SAMUELSON: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE NUMBERS.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: LET ME DO ONE THING FIRST. PRESIDENT TROUNSON, YOU WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT.
DR. TROUNSON: MR. VICE CHAIR, JUST TO SAY THAT IN THE CASE OF SOME OF THESE SMALLER INSTITUTES, IT'S MY
VIEW THAT WE SHOULD DO ALL IN OUR POWER OUTSIDE THIS FRAMEWORK TO ASSIST THEM TO MAKE THEIR NEEDED REVENUES ONLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE PROBABLY LESS CAPACITY THEMSELVES. SO I'LL DO MY BEST ON BEHALF OF THE AGENCY IN ENCOURAGING COLLEAGUES THAT I KNOW TO HELP THIS PROCESS. SO I THINK THERE ARE OTHER WAYS IN WHICH TO HELP. SO I DON'T THINK THE COMMITTEE NEEDS TO FEEL NECESSARILY IT'S GOING TO DISADVANTAGE THESE SMALLER INSTITUTIONS.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: MR. KELLER. THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMENT.
MR. KELLER: IN RESPONSE TO THE ISSUE OF PRO RATA AND THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, WE'RE $74 MILLION SHORT ON $336,000 MILLION, WHICH IS A 22-PERCENT SHORTFALL. IF YOU APPLY THAT UNIFORMLY, THAT MEANS ANY SCORE THAT'S ABOVE 78 IS RECEIVING BETTER THAN IT WOULD DO UNDER A PRO RATA REDUCTION. ANYTHING UNDER 78 WOULD BE TAKING A LARGER CUT THAN A PRO RATA CUT.
MR. KLEIN: AND FOR MEMBER SAMUELSON, AT THE BOARD LEVEL WHERE WE'LL HAVE A CHANCE -- THERE'S ANOTHER $27 MILLION TO CUT, WE WILL -- I'LL MAKE SURE THAT STAFF PROVIDES YOU AT THE BOARD LEVEL A PRO RATA CUT SO YOU CAN SEE THAT AS AN OPTION, AND IT CAN BE DISCUSSED AS AN OPTION.
MS. SAMUELSON: GREAT.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS?
MS. HYSEN: I JUST WANT TO ADD THAT I THINK ALL OF US WANT TO SEE THE SMALLER INSTITUTIONS THAT DON'T HAVE THE MONEY BE AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY, BUT I DON'T THINK OUR CHARGE, BECAUSE IF IT WAS OUR CHARGE, WE SHOULD HAVE HAD IT AS A CATEGORY CALLED NEED. AND WE DID NOT HAVE A CATEGORY CALLED NEED, AND I THINK WE ALL FEEL BADLY. I WAS A PRETTY VOCAL ADVOCATE FOR UC MERCED. I HATE TO SEE THEM HAVE ANY MONEY TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM BECAUSE I THINK THEY NEED IT THE MOST, BUT THAT WASN'T OUR CHARGE. AND I THINK BOB'S COMMENT ABOUT THE BOARD CLEARLY HAS THIS OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. ALAN CERTAINLY WITH HIS AND BOB'S FUND-RAISING EFFORTS, THERE ARE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES OUT THERE. I FEEL BADLY, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WAS OUR CHARGE.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ARE THERE FURTHER COMMENTS?
MR. KASHIAN: I DO. I'D LIKE TO ECHO DEBORAH'S COMMENTS. BUT ALSO, AM I TO UNDERSTAND, ALAN AND ROBERT, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HELP THESE SMALL INSTITUTIONS RAISE THE CAPITAL NECESSARY TO MAKE THIS COMMITMENT?
MR. KLEIN: I'VE MADE AN OPEN INVITATION TO ALL INSTITUTIONS, AND THEY'VE TAKEN ME UP ON IT.
MR. KASHIAN: BELIEVE ME. I'M GOING TO HOLD YOU BOTH TO IT.
MR. KLEIN: AND KNOWING, ED, THAT YOU ARE SUCH A GREAT FUND-RAISER, YOU CAN EXPECT A CALL BECAUSE ED HAS BEEN A LEADER IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA IN RAISING MONEY FOR NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS FOR YEARS.
MR. KASHIAN: I'LL BE THE FIRST ONE IN
(APPLAUSE.)
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: JEFF.
MR. SHEEHY: JUST ONE FINAL COMMENT. I JUST THINK THIS IS A VERY ELEGANT SOLUTION THAT RECOGNIZES THE HARD WORK OF THIS COMMITTEE. I WANT TO COMMEND STAFF FOR THIS. I WANT TO SAY I KNEW WE WERE HIRING A GREAT SCIENTIST AND GREAT LEADER, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE HIRING SOLOMON. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
DR. WRIGHT: THIS SHOULD BE RENAMED THE TROUNSON METHODOLOGY.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IF THERE'S NO FURTHER COMMENTS, MR. TOCHER, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MR. TOCHER: SO THE MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND AN AWARD FOR EACH CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS APPLICANT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT REQUESTED MULTIPLIED BY THE TOTAL FACILITIES WORKING GROUP SCORE.FEIT.
MS. FEIT: YES, EXCEPT FOR THOSE ITEMS IN WHICH I AM IN CONFLICT.
MR. TOCHER: HYSEN.
MS. HYSEN: YES.
MR. TOCHER: KASHIAN.
MR. KASHIAN: YES.
MR. TOCHER: KLEIN.
MR. KLEIN: YES.
MR. TOCHER: LAFF.
MR. LAFF: YES.
MR. TOCHER: SAMUELSON.
MS. SAMUELSON: YES.
MR. TOCHER: SHEEHY.
MR. SHEEHY: YES.
MR. TOCHER: JANET WRIGHT.
DR. WRIGHT: YES.
MR. TOCHER: LICHTENGER
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES.
MR. TOCHER: SERRANO-SEWELL.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. MOTION CARRIES.
MR. KLEIN: COULD I ASK, IN TERMS OF THE TRANSCRIPT, HE SAID IT VERY QUICKLY, DID YOU GET THE FACT THAT IT WAS CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS?
THE REPORTER: YES.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: MR. KELLER, IS THERE FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP?
MR. KELLER: I BELIEVE THAT THAT CONCLUDES YOUR AGENDA. BUT I THINK THAT'S IT.
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I DO TOO. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP WOULD LIKE TO MAKE BEFORE WE ADJOURN?
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I JUST WOULD LIKE TO THANK RICK KELLER AND THE CIRM STAFF FOR DOING AN UNBELIEVABLE JOB.
(APPLAUSE.)
CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: STEVE COPENHAGEN, WHO IS NOT A CIRM MEMBER, BUT AN UNBELIEVABLE EFFORT AND TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF DATA AND ANALYSIS AND PROFESSIONALISM. JUST BLEW ME AWAY. THANK YOU AGAIN.
(APPLAUSE.)
MR. KLEIN: I'D LIKE TO SAY AS WELL RAY GROOM WAS A GREAT CONTRIBUTOR HERE. WE DEEPLY APPRECIATE THAT. WE APPRECIATE THE PRESIDENT AND HIS STAFF, MELISSA KING AND JENNA PRYNE AND PAT BECKER FOR BRINGING THIS TOGETHER LOGISTICALLY IN TERMS OF OPERATIONS TODAY. I'D LIKE TO THANK AMY LEWIS, WHO ALWAYS IS MAGIC WITH THE NUMBERS, SCOTT TOCHER AND JAMES HARRISON.
BUT THIS IS A VERY EFFECTIVE AND SPECIAL AFTERNOON WHERE WE COULD HAVE FACED AN IMPOSSIBLE PROBLEM, AND I WANT TO THANK ESPECIALLY OUR VICE CHAIR AND OUR PRESIDENT FOR AN ELOQUENT SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM.
(APPLAUSE.)
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THERE WAS ONE PIECE THAT I WASN'T SURE ABOUT, AND I WAS COMPLETELY HUNDRED PERCENT WRONG. AND THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT THE REAL ESTATE EXPERT MADE WITH THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REVIEW REALLY ENLIGHTENED THE DISCUSSION. SO ED, DEBORAH, DAVID, AND STUART, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
(APPLAUSE.)
VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IF THERE'S NO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, WE STAND ADJOURNED.
(THE MEETING WAS THEN CONCLUDED AT 2:13 P.M.)
 
 
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
 
 
I, BETH C. DRAIN, A CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER IN AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL FACILITIES WORKING GROUP TO THE INDEPENDENT CITIZEN'S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OF THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE IN THE MATTER OF ITS REGULAR MEETING HELD AT THE LOCATION INDICATED BELOW
 
 
THE WESTIN SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT
1 OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY
MILLBRAE, CALIFORNIA
ON
APRIL 4, 2008
 
 
WAS HELD AS HEREIN APPEARS AND THAT THIS IS THE ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT THEREOF AND THAT THE STATEMENTS THAT APPEAR IN THIS TRANSCRIPT WERE REPORTED STENOGRAPHICALLY BY ME AND TRANSCRIBED BY ME. I ALSO CERTIFY THAT THIS TRANSCRIPT IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING.