State Stem Cell Agency Facilities Working Group Transcript 11/15/07

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

California State Stem Cell Agency

REGULAR MEETING 11-15-07

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:

210 KING STREET

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

DATE:

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2007

1 P.M.

REPORTER:

BETH C. DRAIN, CSR

CSR. NO. 7152

BRS FILE NO.:

79838

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2007

1 P.M.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. I'D LIKE TO ASK RICK KELLER TO PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

MR. KELLER: DAVID LICHTENGER.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HERE.

MR. KELLER: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: HERE.

MR. KELLER: MARCY FEIT. DEBORAH HYSEN.

MS. HYSEN: HERE.

MR. KELLER: ED KASHIAN.

MR. KASHIAN: HERE.

MR. KELLER: BOB KLEIN.

MR. KLEIN: HERE.

MR. KELLER: STUART LAFF. JEFF SHEEHY.

MR. SHEEHY: HERE.

MR. KELLER: JOAN SAMUELSON. JANET WRIGHT.

DR. WRIGHT: HERE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO ASK TAMAR TO CONFIRM THAT A QUORUM IS PRESENT.

MS. PACHTER: THERE IS A QUORUM PRESENT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. FIRST, LET ME WELCOME ALL OF THOSE IN ATTENDANCE HERE TODAY FOR THE MEETING FOR THE SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL RESEARCH FACILITIES WORKING GROUP OF THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE. COPIES OF THE AGENDA AND OTHER MATERIALS ARE AVAILABLE AT THE DOOR IF YOU DON'T HAVE A COPY. IN ADDITION, THE MEMBERS THAT ARE PARTICIPATING BY TELEPHONE TODAY, WE ALSO HAVE -- IS DR. MURPHY JOINING US OR NOT?

MR. KELLER: I RECEIVED A CALL, A NOTE FROM HIM A FEW MINUTES AGO, AND HE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO JOIN US OR JOIN LATE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HOPEFULLY HE'LL BE JOINING US. I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE RICK KELLER, WHO IS THE SENIOR OFFICER FOR SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL RESEARCH FACILITIES FOR CIRM. HE WILL BE LEADING THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION TODAY ON THE PROCESS TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE WORKING GROUP'S REVIEW OF PART 2 OF THE MAJOR RESEARCH FACILITIES GRANT PROGRAM. ALSO IN ATTENDANCE IS GENERAL COUNSEL TAMAR PACHTER, INTERIM SCIENTIFIC OFFICER PAT OLSON, AS WELL AS OTHER CIRM STAFF.

MR. KLEIN: IS JAMES HARRISON ON THE LINE AS WELL?

MR. HARRISON: I AM HERE, BOB.

MR. KLEIN: OKAY. GOOD.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ALSO JAMES HARRISON, OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL.

I'D LIKE TO NOW MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM 4, CONSIDERATION OF THE PROCESS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE MAJOR FACILITIES GRANTS REVIEW. BEFORE I ASK RICK TO PRESENT THE MATERIALS FOR TODAY'S MEETING, I WANT TO BRIEFLY REVIEW THE OVERALL PROCESS FOR THE GRANT PROGRAM.

THE MAJOR FACILITIES GRANT PROGRAM IS A COMPONENT OF CIRM'S SCIENTIFIC STRATEGIC PLAN. IT IS AIMED AT PROVIDING FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES, TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY AND CAPABILITY FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH IN CALIFORNIA. THE INDEPENDENT CITIZEN'S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE HAS APPROVED $227 MILLION FOR THIS GRANT PROGRAM.

REVIEW OF THIS PROGRAM IS TO OCCUR IN TWO PARTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE RFA OR REQUEST FOR APPLICATION. A PART 1 REVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED LATER THIS MONTH BY THE SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL RESEARCH GRANTS WORKING GROUP. THAT REVIEW WILL ADDRESS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ASPECTS OF THE APPLICATION. THE ICOC WILL CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP AT ITS MEETING IN JANUARY.

PART 2 OF THE REVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED BY THIS WORKING GROUP AND CONSISTS OF THE TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL REVIEW OF ITS APPLICATIONS. ONLY THOSE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE ICOC IN ITS REVIEW OF PART 1 WILL BE ASKED TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION OF PART 2.

THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP REVIEW IS SCHEDULED TO TAKE PLACE ON APRIL 4TH AND 5TH HERE IN SAN FRANCISCO AT CIRM.

MR. KELLER: ACTUALLY AT THE MIYAKO.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AT THE MIYAKO HOTEL. THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WORKING GROUP WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE ICOC AT THE MEETING SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 23D AND 24TH. AT THAT TIME THE ICOC WILL MAKE FINAL DECISIONS ON THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING PROVIDED TO THE APPLICANTS.

FINALLY, I WANT TO MAKE NOTE THAT WHILE THE ICOC HAS APPROVED 277 MILLION IN CAPITAL FUNDS, IT WILL BE CONSIDERING PROVIDING ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE EQUIPMENT TO AUGMENT THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE UNDER THIS PROGRAM. CONSIDERATION OF THIS ISSUE IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR THE DECEMBER ICOC MEETING.

THAT OUTLINES THE OVERALL PROCESS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, RICK, COULD YOU START US OFF, PLEASE.

MR. KELLER: BEFORE I START, I WANTED TO LET TAMAR GIVE A BRIEF COMMENT REGARDING THE WORKINGS OF THE WORKING GROUP.

MS. PACHTER: I KNOW ALL OF YOU READ YOUR BYLAWS EVERY NIGHT BEFORE YOU GO TO SLEEP.

MR. KASHIAN: SOMETHING I FORGOT TO DO LAST NIGHT.

MS. PACHTER: BUT I WANTED TO REMIND YOU, NOW THAT THE APPLICATIONS FOR PART 1 OF THE MAJOR FACILITIES RFA ARE IN, THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP ARE PROHIBITED UNDER THE BYLAWS FROM HAVING ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH APPLICANTS ABOUT THEIR APPLICATION.

MR. KLEIN: CAN'T REALLY HEAR TAMAR.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SHE'S GOING TO COME OVER, BOB.

MS. PACHTER: SO, BOB, I WAS JUST REMINDING THE MEMBERS THAT UNDER THE BYLAWS, NOW THAT THE PART 1 APPLICATIONS ARE IN, THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE BYLAWS THAT PROVIDES THAT MEMBERS OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP SHOULD NOT DISCUSS WITH APPLICANTS THEIR APPLICATIONS, A PENDING APPLICATION. AND I WAS ADDING THAT THAT DOESN'T MEAN, OF COURSE, THAT YOU CAN'T DISCUSS ANYTHING WITH AN APPLICANT AT AN OPEN MEETING. WHAT THAT MEANS IS YOU SHOULDN'T BE HAVING OFFLINE CONVERSATIONS WITH APPLICANTS ABOUT THEIR APPLICATIONS. AND I JUST WANTED TO ASK IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.

MR. KLEIN: TAMAR, THIS IS BOB KLEIN. I PREVIOUSLY TALKED TO VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THIS, CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN, I THINK, AND/OR OTHER MEMBERS, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE MAY BE DONATIONS FROM DONORS WHO COME TO US. AND THOSE DONORS WHO ARE RELATED TO SOME APPLICANT WHO HAS PUBLICLY ON FILE AN APPLICATION, WHILE WE CAN'T TALK TO THE DONOR ABOUT THE APPLICATION, THE DONOR CAN ASK US TO SEE THE HISTORY, WHICH IS A PUBLIC RECORD, OF WHAT GRANTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR THAT INSTITUTION OR OTHER HISTORICAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THAT INSTITUTION.

SO THE POINT IS WE CAN'T TALK TO THE INSTITUTIONS ABOUT THEIR APPLICATIONS, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T ANSWER QUESTIONS AS TO PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION OF DONORS WHO WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE PARTICULAR INSTITUTION WHERE WE HAVE A PUBLIC HISTORY OF MAKING GRANTS THAT WE CAN POINT THEM TO.

MS. PACHTER: YES. THAT'S NOT ADDRESSED AT ALL IN THE BYLAWS, BOB. YOU'RE RIGHT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, TAMAR, I JUST WANT TO MAKE -- SO ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANY MEMBERS OF THE GROUP MAY GET, WE WOULD JUST REFER THIS TO RICK OR TO YOU, CORRECT?

MS. PACHTER: YES. AND THE STAFF HAS SET UP A FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS SYSTEM ON THE WEBSITE SO THAT WHEN WE RECEIVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE RFA OR ABOUT AN APPLICATION, WE CAN RESPOND SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE THE ANSWER.

MR. KASHIAN: COULD YOU PLEASE FORWARD THAT INFORMATION?

MS. PACHTER: THE BYLAWS?

MR. KASHIAN: NO. NO. THE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION LINE SO IF SOMEONE CALLS ME, I CAN TELL THEM WHAT TO DO.

MS. PACHTER: SURE. ABSOLUTELY.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT WOULD BE GREAT IF IT COULD BE SENT TO ALL THE MEMBERS, RICK, JUST SO WE CAN ALL HAVE A STANDARD RESPONSE. IF WE GET ASKED ANY QUESTIONS, WE CAN REFER THEM TO THE SAME.

MR. KELLER: WE'LL MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THAT WEB ADDRESS.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ISSUES BEFORE RICK GOES AHEAD AND PRESENTS THE POWERPOINT? THANK YOU, RICK.

MR. KELLER: I APOLOGIZE FOR IT BEING KIND OF WARM IN HERE, BUT WE HAD, I THINK, A LITTLE PROBLEM WITH THE AIR CONDITIONING. BUT IT'S A WARM DAY IN THE CITY, SO THOSE OF YOU WHO AREN'T HERE, IT'S VERY WARM, BUT WE ARE WORKING ON IT. SO I APOLOGIZE.

WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH SEVERAL SLIDES HERE RELATED TO THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE MAJOR FACILITIES GRANT REVIEW. OUR OBJECTIVES REALLY INVOLVE THE TWO MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE REVIEW, THE TECHNICAL REVIEW, THAT IS BASED ON THE CRITERIA, AND THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, WHICH ALLOWS THE GROUP TO RESPOND TO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE RFA.

LET ME GO THROUGH THE TECHNICAL REVIEW PROCESS AND REMIND YOU, DRAWING FROM THE EXPERIENCE THAT WE HAD FROM THE SHARED LAB AND SCORING SYSTEM --

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: EVERYONE HAS A COPY OF THIS, CORRECT?

MR. KELLER: THAT'S RIGHT. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE NOTES, THAT'S FINE.

THE TECHNICAL REVIEW PROCESS WILL CONSIST OF THE PREPARATION OF A STAFF ANALYSIS, AND THAT STAFF ANALYSIS WILL BE SIMILAR IN SCOPE TO THE STAFF ANALYSIS THAT WAS PREPARED FOR THE SHARED LAB, BUT IT WILL BE EXPANDED SOMEWHAT. I'LL GET INTO THAT IN A MINUTE.

THE REVIEW PROCESS WILL THEN BE THAT ALL FACILITIES WORKING GROUP MEMBERS WOULD REVIEW THE STAFF ANALYSIS. APPLICANTS WOULD THEN BE PROVIDED THE STAFF ANALYSIS, AND THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN COMMENTS TO THE WORKING GROUP. AND THEN THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP REAL ESTATE MEMBERS WOULD LEAD THE DISCUSSION OF EACH CANDIDATE INSTITUTION'S APPLICATION AT THE MEETING.

MR. SHEEHY: I CAN'T REMEMBER. ARE THESE STAFF ANALYSES PUBLIC DOCUMENTS?

MR. KELLER: THEY ARE ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFTS UNTIL PUBLIC, AND I'LL GO THROUGH THAT.

MR. SHEEHY: I THOUGHT SO. I KNEW THERE WAS A LITTLE --

MR. KLEIN: RICK, TO EXPAND ON THAT, THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP REAL ESTATE MEMBERS WILL LEAD THE DISCUSSION; BUT AFTER THEY'VE MADE THEIR COMMENTS, THEN THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE CAN FULLY PARTICIPATE IN THAT DISCUSSION.

MR. KELLER: ABSOLUTELY. YES. I'M SURE THAT'S THE EXPECTATION. BUT JUST THAT THEY WOULD BE THE PRIME PARTICIPANTS, I THINK, IS WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER WORDING.

MR. KLEIN: NO. I THINK THE LEAD PARTICIPANTS BECAUSE WITHOUT PREJUDICING HOW MUCH ANY ONE MEMBER SAYS BECAUSE ANY MEMBER MAY HAVE A LOT TO SAY ABOUT ANY APPLICATION.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT MAKES SENSE, BOB. I THINK EVERYONE HAS A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING ON THAT. SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

MR. KELLER: GOING BACK TO THE ISSUE OF THE STAFF ANALYSIS, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE YOU WILL BE A STAFF ANALYSIS THAT IS AN ASSESSMENT OF THE APPLICATION AND HOW WELL IT RESPONDS TO THE REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN OUTLINED IN THE RFA AND IN THE APPLICATION. AND THAT WILL LARGELY BE BASED ON NUMERICAL DATA IN TERMS OF COMPARATIVE INFORMATION ABOUT COSTS AND FUNCTIONALITY AND THE OTHER CATEGORIES OF REVIEW IN TERMS OF SHARED RESOURCES AND LEVERAGE, AND THOSE ISSUES -- AS WELL AS SCHEDULE INFORMATION. SO ALL THAT INFORMATION IS FACTUAL RELATIVE TO OUR STAFF REVIEW OF THE APPLICATIONS AND SUMMARIZATION OF HOW WELL THE RESPONSES TO THAT -- HOW WELL THE APPLICANT HAS RESPONDED TO THE REQUESTED INFORMATION.

IN PREPARING THAT, WE WILL BE USING AN ADDITIONAL LOOKING INTO THE PROSPECT OF SUPPLEMENTING OUR STAFF FOR A TEMPORARY TIME TO HELP WITH THAT ANALYSIS AS WELL AS ENGAGING A PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL PLANNING FIRM THAT WOULD HELP US ON SOME OF THE MORE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE APPLICATIONS. AND --

MR. SHEEHY: CAN I JUST -- SO I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE. I LIKE THAT YOU HAVE NUMERICAL DATA BECAUSE IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE REALLY OBJECTIVE STUFF THAT PEOPLE -- SO IT'S CLEAR WHAT WE'RE DOING. CAN YOU JUST KIND OF, AND I HATE TO BE THE DUMMY HERE, WALK ME THROUGH WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE AND HOW THAT MIGHT BE PRESENTED IN A WAY. I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO GET LATER TO SCORING, SO I'M PERHAPS ANTICIPATING. BUT IF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SCORE, LET'S JUST TAKE SOMETHING LIKE SHARED RESOURCES OR FUNCTIONALITY.

MR. KELLER: THE EXPECTATION IS THAT WE WOULD GARNER FROM THE INFORMATION REQUESTED OF THE APPLICANT AND BE ABLE TO LOOK AT PRETTY CONSISTENT MILESTONES OR STANDARDS OR RESPONSE RELATIVE TO THOSE CRITERIA. SO, FOR INSTANCE, ON FUNCTIONALITY WE MIGHT LOOK AT -- WE WOULD HAVE IN THE REQUIREMENT AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW EFFICIENT THE BUILDING DESIGN IS RELATIVE TO GROSS SQUARE FEET, TO ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FEET, OR USABLE SQUARE FEET. WE WOULD -- AGAIN, UNDER FUNCTIONALITY, WE WOULD SAY WHAT IS THE EXPECTED CAPACITY OF THIS SPACE IN TERMS OF EITHER NUMBER OF RESEARCHERS OR NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS. AND THAT WOULD GIVE AN INDICATION OF HOW FUNCTIONAL THAT SPACE IS RELATIVE TO OTHER APPLICATIONS.

SO THAT INFORMATION WOULD BE IN A NARRATIVE FORM AND IN A NUMERICAL SUMMARY THAT WOULD BE FACTUAL THAT WOULD BE GARNERED FROM THE APPLICATION TO GIVE IT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE REVIEW.

MR. SHEEHY: SO LET'S SAY THAT I HAVE FIVE APPLICATIONS COMPETING ON THE INSTITUTE LEVEL. I WOULD BE ABLE TO SET THIS REPORT DOWN AND BE ABLE TO DO A SCALE AND BE ABLE TO SAY, LIKE IN FUNCTIONALITY, WHAT DID WE ASSIGN, 15 POINTS, I'D BE ABLE TO SAY THIS ONE SHOULD BE CLOSEST TO 15 POINTS AND THIS ONE MAYBE SHOULD BE FURTHEST AWAY FROM 15 POINTS, AND THERE WOULD BE A GOOD EVIDENCE BASIS THAT WOULD BE FAIRLY EVIDENT SO THAT I COULD -- IF I WERE SCORING, IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, BOTH IN TERMS OF PUBLIC RECORD AND IN TERMS OF SCORING, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE EVIDENCE BASE IS REALLY STRONG SO THAT -- YOU GET WHERE I'M GOING WITH THAT? I WANT TO HAVE GOOD, CONCRETE --

MR. KELLER: RIGHT. I WANT TO MAKE THE --

MR. SHEEHY: I'M HOPING.

MR. KELLER: -- COMMENT THAT I DON'T WANT TO IMPLY THAT BY CALLING THIS NUMERICAL, THAT SOMEHOW NUMERICAL IS THE ONLY CONSIDERATION. SO, FOR INSTANCE, IF A FACILITY WAS HIGHLY SPECIALIZED, AND BECAUSE OF THE NEED FOR HIGHER THAN NORMAL ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS OR HVAC REQUIREMENTS, THERE MIGHT BE VERY LOW EFFICIENCY OF THAT PARTICULAR PROPOSAL. SO IN MY MIND THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE A DETRIMENT IF THERE'S A JUSTIFICATION PROVIDED THAT SAID, WHILE THIS IS ONLY 60 PERCENT OR 55 PERCENT EFFICIENT, COMPARED TO SOME OTHERS THAT MIGHT BE 70 PERCENT EFFICIENT, THERE MIGHT BE GOOD REASON, AND WE WOULD WANT TO BRING THAT OUT WITHIN THE STAFF ANALYSIS.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. I THINK THAT -- JEFF, I JUST WANT TO EXPOUND A LITTLE BIT ON THIS TO THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP. SO THERE'S GOING TO BE TWO POINTS. ONE IS GOING TO BE THE DATA AND WHAT WE HOPE IS PULLING OUT THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATION IN A VERY CLEAR, CONCISE WAY WHERE IT CAN BE COMPARED EASILY. AND THEN THERE WILL BE A SEPARATE KIND OF OPINION WHICH WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT AS A SEPARATE ITEM, CORRECT, RICK?

MR. KELLER: YES.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, JEFF, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS, YOU WILL SEE THE KIND OF DATA THAT WE'VE PULLED OUT THAT IS CLEARLY KIND OF THINGS THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE PUT IN THEIR APPLICATION. BY THE WAY, WE ARE GOING TO SEND THAT -- HOW ARE WE HANDLING THAT, RICK, IN TERMS OF THE APPLICANTS OR IN TERMS OF THIS PART OF THE --

MR. KELLER: THE REVIEW OF THE STAFF ANALYSIS? CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YEAH. WILL WE SEND THAT OUT CONCURRENTLY?

MR. KELLER: WE HAVE CURRENTLY SCHEDULED, BETWEEN THE COMPLETION OF THE STAFF ANALYSIS AND THE SCHEDULED REVIEW SESSION, TWO WEEKS TO DISTRIBUTE THE STAFF ANALYSIS. WITHIN THAT TWO WEEKS, A DRAFT WOULD BE CIRCULATED TO YOU ALL TO REVIEW. AND WE WOULD EXPECT IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN THERE THAT NEEDED FIXING, YOU'D LET US KNOW. THEN WE WOULD ADVISE THE APPLICANTS OF THE STAFF ANALYSIS BEING AVAILABLE.

AND ONCE WE -- AND THEY WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, THEN, TO PREPARE A RESPONSE TO THE STAFF ANALYSIS OR A COMMENT LETTER. AND ONCE WE HAVE THAT COMMENT LETTER, PARTICULARLY IF THERE ARE ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE ARE ACCURATELY CONVEYED IN OUR STAFF ANALYSIS, WE WOULD THEN MAKE THE STAFF ANALYSIS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AT THAT POINT, HAVING GARNERED THE ADDITIONAL ADVICE FROM BOTH THIS GROUP AND COMMENT LETTERS FROM THE APPLICANT.

MR. SHEEHY: ON THIS EXPERT OPINION, IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE THAT BE EXPRESSED IN SOME SORT OF WAY IN WHICH THE DIFFERENT OPINIONS CAN BE EVALUATED AGAINST EACH OTHER; I.E., AS A NUMERICAL VALUE? SO, FOR INSTANCE, AT THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, PEOPLE GIVE SCORES, EXTERNAL EXPERT OPINIONS GIVE SCORES, AND GIVEN THAT THESE ARE THE TWO PLACES WHERE SOME MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP, I KNOW MYSELF, I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO NECESSARILY INDEPENDENTLY EVALUATE VALUE AND FUNCTIONALITY.

BUT IF I GOT SCORES FROM, YOU KNOW -- WHEREAS, THE OTHER QUESTIONS, LIKE LEVERAGE, THAT'S GOING TO BE -- AND THAT'S POLICY -- THERE'S A LOT OF POLICY THAT'S GOING TO GO INTO PLAY THERE AS WELL, BUT THAT'S DOLLARS. URGENCY, I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD. SHARED RESOURCES, AGAIN, STRAIGHTFORWARD; AND IF WE WANT TO FUDGE AROUND WITH THAT, THERE'S GOING TO BE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS THAT COME INTO PLAY ON THAT AND HOW WE MAY DECIDE WHAT LEVEL OF POINTS WE WANT TO GIVE TO EACH. BUT THESE TWO SEEM TO BE THE HARDEST --

MR. KELLER: RIGHT.

MR. SHEEHY: -- THE HARDEST ONES FOR US TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND AND ONES WHERE WE OUGHT TO GET AN OPINION. YOU CAN SET TWO OPINIONS SIDE BY SIDE, BUT HOW DO YOU -- WITHIN THE REVIEW THERE SHOULD BE SOME WAY FOR THEM TO EITHER RANK OR SCORE SO THAT WE GET SOME SENSE OF WHAT -- A GOOD, CLEAR SENSE OF WHAT SHOULD GET OUR HIGHEST AMOUNT OF POINTS AND WHAT SHOULD GET OUR LOWEST AMOUNT OF POINTS. AND THESE ARE JUST OPINIONS, BUT THESE OPINIONS, I THINK, SHOULD HAVE SOME NUMERICAL VALUE IN SOME WAY OR SOME SCALE OR SOME WAY THAT WE CAN PUT THEM IN A VERY OBJECTIVE MANNER AS OPPOSED TO JUST SITTING HERE WITH ALL THESE DIFFERENT -- I MEAN I MAY GET THIS OPINION, I MAY NOT UNDERSTAND THE ENTIRE OPINION; BUT IF THE OPINION SAYS I THINK THIS IS THE BEST ONE, YOU KNOW, SCORES THIS AS THE HIGHEST ONE AND SCORES ANOTHER ONE AS LOWER AND ANOTHER AS LOWER, THEN I HAVE A SCALE AND I CAN SEE WHERE THEY SHOULD FIT.

MR. KLEIN: JEFF, THIS IS BOB KLEIN. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, FOR EXAMPLE, ON EFFICIENCY?

MR. SHEEHY: NO. I'M TALKING ABOUT VALUE AND FUNCTIONALITY WHERE WE'RE GETTING SEPARATE OPINIONS BY EXPERT REVIEWERS, WHICH I THINK IS A GREAT ADDITION TO THIS. I THINK THAT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT FEATURE. BUT I WONDER IF, ALONG WITH THE OPINION, WE COULD GET SCORES. AND WE CAN TAKE THOSE SCORES INTO ACCOUNT, AND THEY CAN EITHER BE ON A HUNDRED-POINT SCALE OR THEY CAN BE, LIKE FOR VALUE, A 25-POINT SCORE, BUT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE SCORES THERE SO THAT IF MY SCORE SIGNIFICANTLY DEVIATES FROM THE EXPERT, DAVID AND ED --

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ALL YOU REAL ESTATE EXPERTS.

MR. SHEEHY: -- YOU REAL ESTATE EXPERTS CAN COME BACK AND, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH THE EXPERT OPINION, AND YOU MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT -- AND YOU MAY EXPRESS IT IN THE MEETING, ETC., ETC., BUT FOR ME IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE THAT NUMBER.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I DON'T THINK WE'VE GOTTEN THERE YET, BY THE WAY.

MR. KELLER: CAN I JUST EXPRESS TWO POINTS IN RESPONSE TO JEFF'S COMMENTS? ONE IS THAT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD, WHO IS A LABORATORY PLANNER, ARCHITECT WHO CAN LOOK AT THESE DRAWINGS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF PEERSHIP OF THE DESIGNERS AND GIVE YOU AN OPINION ABOUT WHAT THEY THINK OF IT RELATIVE TO VALUE AND FUNCTIONALITY. I CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT. I HAVE MY ABILITY TO DO OTHER ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND, IN FACT, THOSE TWO ASPECTS AS WELL, BUT NOT FROM A PEER STANDPOINT.

SO I EXPECT THAT IF WE HAVE -- WE EXPECT TO HAVE ONE OF THOSE, ONE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEWER, AND WE'RE LOOKING -- THE ATTEMPT IS TO HAVE SOMEONE FROM OUT OF STATE, BUT A FIRM THAT WOULD LIKELY HAVE A CALIFORNIA PRESENCE SO THAT THEY WOULD BE AWARE OF THE MARKET AND UNDERSTAND THE CALIFORNIA SYSTEM.

THE SECOND POINT IS THAT WHETHER OR NOT THAT OPINION IS EXPRESSED IN WORDS OF HIGHEST QUALITY OR LOWEST RANK OR WHATEVER, THAT'S UP TO -- THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO ELICIT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST PROCESS FOR THIS REVIEW. SO IF WE HIRED AN EXPERT REVIEWER TO PROVIDE THIS, AND IF YOU WANT THAT TO BE SCORED ON A SCALE OF WHATEVER, A THROUGH F OR ZERO TO A HUNDRED, WE CAN WRITE THAT INTO WHAT WE WANT A CONTRACT FOR IN TERMS OF THE PRODUCT. IT WILL BE A NON-NEGOTIABLE -- I MEAN WE'RE GOING TO ASK THEIR OPINION, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE THEIR OPINION.

MR. SHEEHY: RIGHT. RIGHT.

MR. KASHIAN: I HAVE A QUESTION ALONG THE SAME LINES. WHEN YOU'RE SAYING OPINION, OPINION IS THAT OF THE STAFF OR OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE EXPERTS IN WHATEVER SUBJECTS YOU'RE DEALING WITH. ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL ME THAT WE'RE BOUND BY THOSE OPINIONS?

MR. KELLER: NO. I WAS SAYING WE WOULDN'T CHANGE --

MR. KASHIAN: SO AN OPINION AND I CAN USE MY OWN JUDGMENT?

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CORRECT.

MR. KELLER: WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO WAS THAT IF I DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE EXPERT OPINION, THE ARCHITECTURAL FIRM THAT PROVIDED THE EXPERT OPINION, IT'S NOT UP TO ME TO CHANGE HIS OPINION BECAUSE WE'RE UNDER CONTRACT TO CIRM. I WOULDN'T DO THAT.

MR. KASHIAN: I WOULD WELCOME THE OPINIONS.

MR. KELLER: RIGHT. YOU HAVE YOUR OWN JUDGMENT.

MR. KASHIAN: BUT I REQUEST THE FREEDOM TO BE ABLE TO USE MY OWN JUDGMENT ON EVERY ISSUE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ABSOLUTELY.

MR. KELLER: IT IS INPUT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

MR. KLEIN: JEFF, IN TERMS OF A NUMERICAL ASSIGNMENT, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS HERE IS THAT IF THEY'VE DONE THEIR JOB PROPERLY, A LARGE NUMBER OF THESE MAY BE VERY GOOD. SO I THINK IF WE -- IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GO A, B, C, D, OR SOMETHING. THE KEY IS WHOEVER IS GIVING THE OPINION HOPEFULLY IS INSTRUCTED THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO GIVE SOMEONE A D EVEN IF IT WOULD BE A VERY GOOD PLAN OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THERE ARE BETTER PLANS ABOVE IT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DID SOMEONE ELSE JOIN THE CONFERENCE CALL?

DR. WRIGHT: THIS IS JANET. I'VE BEEN LISTENING ON THE CELL PHONE AND GOTTEN TO A LAND LINE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, JANET.

MR. KLEIN: JEFF, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU?

MR. SHEEHY: WELL --

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE INDEPENDENT OUTSIDE EXPERT PRESENT THEIR OPINIONS. SO THAT'S WHAT THE SUBJECT MATTER IS.

MR. KLEIN: SO I WAS TRYING TO -- JEFF, DID MY COMMENT MAKE SENSE TO JEFF?

MR. SHEEHY: IT DOES, BOB. I GUESS MY BIAS, MY STRONG FEELING WOULD BE THAT IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE A NARRATIVE AND WITH THAT SOME SORT OF SCALE SO THAT WE HAVE AN OBJECTIVE. YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE COMES BACK TO ME AND SAYS YOU SCORED SOMEBODY THIS WAY, UNLESS I HAVE -- I WANT TO HAVE A NICE EVIDENCE BASE FOR MY SCORING THAT'S REALLY CONCRETE. AND AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, I THINK NUMBERS MAKE IT EASY TO DO THAT. YOU KNOW, IT CAN BE AN A, B, C, D. IT CAN BE A ONE TO A HUNDRED SCALE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A NARRATIVE. I DON'T THINK ANYONE WOULD ARGUE THERE'S GOT TO BE A NARRATIVE PART. I THINK THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO ASK THEM TO SCORE, I THINK WE SHOULD ASK THEM TO SCORE THEM RELATIVE TO THE OTHER APPLICATIONS. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO EVERYONE?

MR. KLEIN: NO, DAVID. WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY HERE IS THEY SHOULD SCORE THEM RELATIVE TO A QUALITY STANDARD BECAUSE WE COULD MISREPRESENT PUBLICLY THE OUTCOME IF WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, 12 APPLICATIONS THAT MAKE IT TO THE FACILITIES GROUP AND THEY'RE ALL VARIATIONS OF VERY GOOD TO EXCELLENT. WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE THE BOTTOM THREE, IF THEY THINK -- THEY'RE ACTUALLY VERY GOOD, WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM AN F JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE AT THE BOTTOM OF AN OTHERWISE GOOD GROUP. YOU MIGHT GIVE SOMEONE A TEN AND SOMEBODY A NINE AND SOMEONE AN EIGHT AND SOMEONE A SEVEN; BUT IF, IN FACT, THESE ARE ALL VERY GOOD, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO USE THE WHOLE SCALE AND GO TO A THREE JUST BECAUSE IT'S IN THE BOTTOM QUADRANT OF WHAT IS OTHERWISE EXCELLENT WORK.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. VICE CHAIR.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IN NO WAY, THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID, ARE THE CONSULTANTS' REPORTS, THE STAFF ANALYSIS A SUBSTITUTE FOR EXERCISING OR OWN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT. IT'S NOT. IT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID. IT'S WORTH SAYING AGAIN. JUST AS OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE ICOC WILL NOT BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE ICOC EXERCISE OF THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT ULTIMATELY WHEN THEY AWARD THESE GRANTS. FINE. EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT.

I THINK HAVING NUMERICAL DATA IS A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE JUST HAVE TO TRUST THAT WE'RE GOING TO RETAIN THE RIGHT KIND OF EXPERTS. AND I HAVE EVERY CONFIDENCE THAT WE WILL. THE NARRATIVE IS CRUCIAL, BUT HAVING THE THEREFORE PART OF IT WOULD BE INSTRUCTIVE. AGAIN, NOT MEANT TO SUBSTITUTE MY OWN JUDGMENT, BUT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THEY NEED TO HAVE A QUALITY STANDARD OR IT'S ALL VERY NICE, I DON'T KNOW. LOOK, THEY'RE GOING TO BE ASSIGNED -- I ASSUME THE -- I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW THE CONSULTANTS WILL BE ASSIGNED THEIR TASK. THAT WILL BE UP TO STAFF, QUITE FRANKLY, AND WHETHER THEY LOOK AT FOUR OR THREE OR TWO, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, JUST IN TERMS OF WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, I THINK IS A GOOD WORK DOCUMENT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION WE NEED TO HAVE ON IT. CAN WE JUST MOVE FORWARD?

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WELL, I DO -- RICK, I THINK DO YOU NEED FURTHER -- DO WE NEED TO DECIDE TODAY HOW WE WANT THE CONSULTANTS TO --

MR. KELLER: WHAT I NEED TO KNOW IS IF YOU WANT THAT EXPERT OPINION EXPRESSED AS I FORESAW A NARRATIVE THAT WOULD BE BASED ON THE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT OF THAT INDIVIDUAL OF HOW THAT APPLICATION MEETS A NATIONAL STANDARD RELATIVE TO THE TOPIC AT HAND. IS IT REFLECTIVE OF THE APPROPRIATE KIND OF FUNCTIONAL LAYOUT OF LABORATORY SPACE, OR IS IT 20 YEARS OLD OR NOT REFLECTIVE?

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE VALUE AND FUNCTIONALITY?

MR. KELLER: THAT'S CORRECT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE'RE NOT GOING TO ASK THEM FOR AN OVERALL SCORE, JUST ON THOSE TWO ITEMS?

DR. WRIGHT: WHEN THERE'S A BREAK, I NEED TO ASK A QUESTION.

MR. KELLER: I WAS EXPECTING THEM TO GIVE AN -- BECAUSE THOSE TWO ARE SO INTERTWINED, I WAS EXPECTING THEM TO PROVIDE KIND OF A COMPOSITE SCORE FOR VALUE AND FUNCTIONALITY FROM YOUR EXPERT. BECAUSE IF YOU WANT THAT TO BE PARTITIONED, AGAIN, WE CAN DO THAT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I KIND OF FEEL I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT PARTITIONED. ED.

MR. KASHIAN: I UNDERSTAND WHAT JEFF IS SAYING. I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE. IF WE'RE HIRING AN EXPERT AND HE'S GIVING US HIS OPINION, I WOULD ASSUME HIS OPINION WOULD SAY TO HIS FIELD THIS IS EXCELLENT OR THIS IS VERY GOOD OR SOME SUCH THING. TO ASK HIM TO SCORE IT OR NOT SCORE IT I DON'T THINK IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF EVERYONE. JEFF WANTS, I BELIEVE, THE EXPERT OR WHOEVER IS GIVING THE OPINION TO HAVE THEIR OPINION RELATIVE TO THE PARTICULAR APPLICATION. DOES THIS MEET HIS STANDARDS OR THIS DOESN'T MEET HIS STANDARDS.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: DO YOU THINK THERE'S ANY HARM IN THE CONSULTANT PROVIDING A NUMERICAL SCORE, ANY HARM?

MR. KASHIAN: A NUMERICAL SCORE RELATIVE TO WHAT?

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: INDUSTRY STANDARD, NATIONAL INDUSTRY STANDARD FOR --

MS. HYSEN: IS THERE?

MR. KASHIAN: I WANT TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THERE ISN'T ANY INDUSTRY STANDARD. WE'RE CUTTING NEW TERRITORY.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, JEFF, I ACTUALLY KIND OF -- I'M STARTING TO THINK ED MAY BE ONTO SOMETHING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE REVIEWING AN APPLICATION, SOMETIMES IT'S VERY DIFFICULT OTHER THAN SAYING THIS IS EXCELLENT OR VERY GOOD. YOU KNOW, IT IS HARD TO GET AN EXACT SCORE. I DON'T HAVE STRONG OPINION. I CAN GO EITHER WAY ON THIS.

DR. WRIGHT: LET ME ASK MY QUESTION. I AM IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH JEFF, THAT FOR THOSE OF US WHO DON'T DO THIS FOR A LIVING, HAVING SOME GUIDANCE IN ADDITION TO THE NARRATIVE IN TERMS OF SCORING, THAT WOULD BE VERY VALUABLE. WHAT I NEED FROM RICK IS CLARITY ABOUT IS THIS GOING TO BE A SINGLE REVIEWER WHO LOOKS AT ALL OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR VALUE AND FUNCTIONALITY, OR WE'RE GOING TO ASK SEVERAL REVIEWERS TO REVIEW FOR VALUE AND FUNCTIONALITY? BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO RELY ON THE NARRATIVE, I DON'T WANT TO HEAR NARRATIVES FROM SEVERAL DIFFERENT PEOPLE. IT REALLY MAKES TRYING TO QUANTIFY OR EVALUATE THESE VERY DIFFICULT IF IT'S COMING FROM SEVERAL REVIEWERS.

MR. KELLER: DR. WRIGHT, THE INTENT WOULD BE TO HAVE A SINGLE FIRM WITH A LEAD PERSON FROM OUT OF STATE WHO IS AN EXPERT IN TERMS OF LAB PLANNING AND DESIGN. ASSOCIATED WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO HIM THAT WOULD BE DEALING WITH COST AND OTHER TYPE FACTORS THAT COULD BE BROUGHT TO BEAR IF HE NEEDED THEM IN ORDER TO FULFILL OUR REQUEST FOR AN OPINION ON VALUE AND FUNCTIONALITY.

ONE FIRM OR ONE CONSULTANT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE REVIEWS SO THAT WE HAVE A CONSISTENT BASIS. I DON'T THINK -- I THINK IT WOULD BE TOO DIFFICULT BECAUSE, BY DEFINITION, PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT IS A JUDGMENT. AND IF IT VARIES, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO SERVE THIS WORKING GROUP WELL. SO I WANT TO HAVE AS UNIFORM A CIRCUMSTANCE AS POSSIBLE.

DR. WRIGHT: THANK YOU.

MS. HYSEN: I JUST APPLAUD THE FACT THAT YOU'RE GETTING A LABORATORY PLANNER ON BOARD. IT MADE MY JOB DIFFICULT, I THOUGHT, IN THE SHARED LAB GRANTS TO NOT HAVE THAT EXPERTISE. IF THERE IS A STANDARD, THEN IT WOULD BE NICE TO ADHERE TO THAT STANDARD. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS ONE. I'M DEFERRING TO YOU GUYS TO TELL ME THAT. BUT I LIKE THE MIX OF THE QUALITATIVE DATA PROVIDED BY THE EXPERT AND THE QUANTITATIVE DATA PROVIDED IN THIS NUMERICAL ANALYSIS. I DON'T MIND THAT THEY ALSO THEN PROVIDE A NUMERICAL RATING, BUT I DO LIKE THE MIX OF BOTH.

MR. KELLER: THE ONLY THING I WOULD CAUTION ABOUT A NUMERICAL SCALE AS OPPOSED TO MAYBE AN ALPHANUMERIC WOULD BE I DON'T THINK YOU WANT THE CONSULTANT BEING THE ONE THAT IS -- WE WERE CAREFUL IN THE SHARED LABS THAT STAFF DID NOT SCORE THE PROPOSALS SO THAT IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE EVALUATIVE PROCESS THAT YOU ALL WENT THROUGH RESULTED IN THE SCORE. SO IF THEY HAD A DIFFERENT SCALE, EITHER ZERO TO TEN OR A THROUGH F OR WHATEVER, THEN IT DOESN'T GET -- YOU THEN CAN, AGAIN, INTERPRET THAT IN TERMS OF IS THAT AN 85 OR A 15 OR 14?

DR. WRIGHT: TO BOB'S POINT, THIS REVIEWER COULD JUDGE THEM ALL A'S OR B PLUSES, RIGHT? IT'S NOT AGAINST ONE ANOTHER --

MR. KELLER: IT'S ALL HOW YOU WANT TO DO IT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF, I MEAN WE COULD HAVE A SIMPLE THAT THIS IS BASED AGAINST A NATIONAL STANDARD, AND WE COULD HAVE AVERAGE, ABOVE AVERAGE, YOU KNOW, OR WE COULD GO WITH THE NUMERICAL. I DON'T FEEL STRONGLY. I DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN ABOUT USING NUMERICAL, BUT WE COULD HAVE A VOTE.

MR. SHEEHY: I LIKE THE A TO F. I'D BE HAPPY WITH A TO F. AND THAT SEEMS THAT THAT'S FAIRLY NEUTRAL IN TERMS OF HOW WE INTERPRET THAT FOR OUR OWN SCORING. FOR JANET AND I, I THINK WE WOULD GET A LOT OF INFORMATION FROM A TO F. YOU WOULD TAKE THAT THE SAME WAY YOU MIGHT TAKE A REPORT CARD AND GO, WELL, I DIDN'T LIKE THAT TEACHER THAT MUCH, AND YOU HAD THE KNOWLEDGE BASE TO TAKE A DIFFERENT STANCE ON THAT. FOR THOSE OF US WHO DON'T, IT WOULD BE A VERY FIRM DIRECTION, WHICH IS ALL I'M LOOKING FOR IS A CLEAR DIRECTION.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: MY ONLY PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALL -- THERE'S DIFFERENT -- YOU KNOW, AN A AT ONE COLLEGE MAY MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS AT DIFFERENT PLACES. I KIND OF LIKE THE AVERAGE, ABOVE AVERAGE, EXCELLENT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, SAYING A C MAY NOT BE SEEN AS GOOD; BUT IF WE PUT IT IN THE CONTEXT THAT IT'S AVERAGE AGAINST A NATIONAL STANDARD, THAT TO ME SEEMS BETTER.

MR. SHEEHY: IT'S A LINGUISTIC.

MR. KELLER: COULD I MAKE AN OFFER TO, AS WE GO DOWN THE PATH OF ENGAGING THIS LAB PLANNING EXPERT, I'M SURE THAT THERE ARE --

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: STANDARDS THEY HAVE.

MR. KELLER: -- THERE MAY BE SOME VEHICLES AVAILABLE THAT THEY'VE USED IN THE PAST THAT HAVE WORKED WELL, BUT I UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY WHAT YOU'RE AFTER AND WE'LL WORK ON THAT.

MR. SHEEHY: AND THE ONLY OTHER POINT THAT WE KIND OF LEFT OUT THERE IS DO WE WANT TO DIVIDE VALUE AND FUNCTIONALITY? I ACTUALLY WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.

MR. KELLER: YES, I GOT THAT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO WE'LL PLAN THAT WE'LL DIVIDE VALUE AND FUNCTIONALITY, THAT WE'LL GET SOME INPUT FROM THE EVENTUAL EXPERT THAT WE RETAIN, AND WE WILL TRY TO GET SOME KIND OF SCORING THAT GIVES US A SENSE, BUT NOT A STRICT NUMERICAL SCORING.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: DID WE, AND I PROBABLY MISSED IT AND YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTION -- YOU PROBABLY ANSWERED IT, RICK -- DID WE DECIDE, AND DAVID, DID WE DECIDE ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO MEASURE THESE APPLICATIONS AGAINST ONE ANOTHER, AGAINST THE NATIONAL -- INDIVIDUALLY AGAINST THE NATIONAL STANDARD? HOW DID WE LEAVE THAT, TO REFRESH MY MEMORY?

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK AGAINST A NATIONAL STANDARD.

MR. KELLER: AS I SAID, ENGAGING A PROFESSIONAL, WHO'S BY DEFINITION, THAT PROFESSIONAL HAS SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE IN A FIELD.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS BY ANY MEMBERS? BOB? JANET?

DR. WRIGHT: NO, THANKS.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, PLEASE PROCEED.

MR. KELLER: THEN SLIDE 7 TAKES YOU TO KIND OF WHAT THE ACTUAL TECHNICAL REVIEW MEETING, HOW IT WOULD TAKE PLACE ON APRIL 4TH AND 5TH, THAT WE WOULD MEET IN OPEN SESSION TO REVIEW THE APPLICATIONS. WE WOULD GROUP THOSE APPLICATIONS INTO THE CATEGORIES, AND I'LL REVIEW THOSE IN A MINUTE. WE WOULD PROVIDE AN ORAL STAFF SUMMARY OF THE STAFF ANALYSIS. THEN THE REAL ESTATE WORKING GROUPS WOULD COLLECTIVELY DISCUSS STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AND POSE QUESTIONS AND PRESENT THEIR GENERAL IMPRESSIONS OF THE APPLICATION, AS WELL AS THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP ENGAGING IN THAT DIALOGUE TO HAVE AN OVERALL DISCUSSION OF THE APPLICATION. THEN --

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WEREN'T WE GOING TO HAVE ONE OF THE REAL ESTATE EXPERTS LEAD THAT REVIEW, CORRECT, IN THE TECHNICAL? AM I INCORRECT?

MR. KELLER: I THOUGHT THERE WAS A CONSENSUS THAT IT WOULD BE -- THAT DR. MURPHY AND BOB, IN REVIEWING THIS, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT A COLLECTIVE DISCUSSION.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK WE WERE GOING TO HAVE IT, BUT I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE WHOEVER THE REAL ESTATE EXPERT WHO DID THAT REVIEW WOULD BE THE --

MR. KELLER: SURE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, DIDN'T WE DECIDE THAT WE THOUGHT IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO HAVE WHOEVER DID THAT REVIEW TO LEAD THAT DISCUSSION?

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I THOUGHT IN A PREVIOUS SLIDE THERE WAS SOME REFERENCE TO THAT, RICK.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, ARE YOU THERE?

MR. KLEIN: I'M HERE.

MR. KELLER: THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT IN THE REVIEW OF THE INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION BY A REAL ESTATE SPECIALIST, WOULD THERE STILL BE THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO LEAD THAT DISCUSSION BY ONE HAVING BEEN ASSIGNED THE REVIEW?

MR. KLEIN: THE PRIOR DISCUSSION WAS THAT THE REAL ESTATE -- THERE WOULD BE SOMEONE ASSIGNED, BUT THEN THE OTHER REAL ESTATE EXPERTS WOULD COMMENT, AND AFTER THEIR COMMENTS ARE THERE, THEN ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WOULD, OF COURSE, HAVE A FREE DISCUSSION, OPEN DISCUSSION ON EACH APPLICATION. SO THE REAL ESTATE EXPERTS WOULD LEAD BY OPENING THE DISCUSSION TECHNICALLY ON THE APPLICATION. THAT WAS THE PRIOR DISCUSSION.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, I THINK WHERE THE CONFUSION CAME, RICK, IS THAT IF YOU LOOK AT SLIDE 7 VERSUS 11, THEY'RE A LITTLE DIFFERENT. ELEVEN, I THINK --

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: AND FOUR. CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AND FOUR. THAT'S WHERE I GOT CONFUSED WAS THAT SLIDE 7 WAS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT 4 AND 11 SAID.

MR. KELLER: I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I -- WE STILL WILL HAVE ASSIGNMENTS OF INDIVIDUAL REVIEWS PREPARED BY THE REAL ESTATE MEMBERS. THEN THERE WOULD BE KIND OF A TWO-STAGE DISCUSSION. THAT'S THE WAY I'M HEARING PROPOSED, ONE WITH THE REAL ESTATE GROUP KIND OF LEADING ON ISSUES, AND THEN OPENING UP TO THE FULL WORKING GROUP.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: NO. THAT SECOND --

MR. KASHIAN: I THINK THE REVIEW IS SLIDE 11.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE ALL FACILITY -- THAT THERE WAS -- WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THE REAL ESTATE EXPERT WHO DID THE REVIEW TO LEAD THE DISCUSSION WITH ALL THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP MEMBERS.

MR. KELLER: OKAY.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

DR. HALME: PUBLIC QUESTION. WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE REAL ESTATE MEMBER WHO DID THE REVIEW? BECAUSE I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WHERE THERE'S A PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REVIEWER THE WAY IT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST. THAT MAY BE WHAT YOU HAVE IN MIND, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT -- WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR YOU TO HAVE DONE THE REVIEW AS OPPOSED TO SOMEONE HAD DONE THE REVIEW?

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK IT'S RELEVANT WE ADDRESS THIS QUESTION IN THE PUBLIC NOW. SO THE WAY WE'RE ENVISIONING IT IS TO HAVE ONE REAL ESTATE EXPERT DO ONE PRIMARY REVIEW, BUT LEAD A DISCUSSION WITH ALL THE MEMBERS, INCLUDING THE REAL ESTATE EXPERTS. AM I CORRECT ON THIS, RICK?

MR. KELLER: YES.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ALL THE MEMBERS AND HAVE AN OPEN DISCUSSION AND PRESENTATION OF THIS REVIEW AND JUST HAVE A DIALOGUE SO THAT EVERYONE CAN BE INVOLVED IN ACTUALLY FORMING THEIR OWN OPINION AND THEIR OWN SCORING ON THAT. SO THERE WILL NOT BE A SECONDARY REVIEW THE WAY THERE WAS IN THE SHARED LABS.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT JUST VERY QUICKLY, RICK, SO STAFF WILL THEN ASSIGN THREE TO FIVE, WHATEVER ENDS UP BEING THE NUMBER, INSTITUTIONS TO THE FOUR REAL ESTATE EXPERTS ON THIS COMMITTEE.

MR. KELLER: RIGHT. MY INTENTION WOULD BE, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE PRESIDENT, TO BALANCE IT OUT BASED ON THE NATURE OF THE APPLICATIONS AMONG --

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THREE CATEGORIES OR HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, THE ONLY THING, IF I LOOK AT SLIDE 7, 11, I THINK WHERE THE -- IS THAT THE STAFF WILL SUMMARIZE THE STAFF ANALYSIS ON A PARTICULAR APPLICATION, AND THEN THE REAL ESTATE MEMBER THAT DID THAT REVIEW WILL THEN LEAD THE DISCUSSION AFTER STAFF PRESENTS. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

MR. KELLER: FINE. YES.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DOES THAT WORK FOR EVERYONE?

MS. HYSEN: I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON SLIDE 7. IF THE REAL ESTATE MEMBER LEADS THE DISCUSSION, IS THE COLLECTIVE DISCUSSION THEN WITH ALL OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP?

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YEAH. I THINK THERE WAS JUST A LITTLE CONFUSION ON IT. SO THE STAFF WILL DO A -- SUMMARIZE THE APPLICATION AND START OUT THAT WAY, AND THEN THE REAL ESTATE EXPERT THAT HAS REVIEWED THAT APPLICATION WILL THEN LEAD THE DISCUSSION WITH ALL THE MEMBERS.

MR. SHEEHY: SO THE REAL ESTATE MEMBER'S REVIEW WILL BE A FULL WRITTEN REVIEW. WILL IT BE SCORED?

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I THINK THE WAY RICK AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS WAS THAT THE REAL ESTATE EXPERT WAS NOT GOING TO GIVE A PUBLIC SCORE, BUT HE WAS GOING TO LEAD THE DISCUSSION AND KIND OF TALK THE SAME WAY WE DID IN THE SHARED LABS. AT LEAST I REMEMBER WHEN I TALKED ABOUT MY REVIEW IN THE SHARED LABS, I TALKED ABOUT --

MR. KELLER: I THINK IT WAS JUST THROUGH THE EDITING PROCESS, IT GOT KIND OF GARBLED. IN THIS LAST BULLET ON SLIDE 7 WHERE I SAY DISCUSS STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES, I MEAN IT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT IS DONE AT THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. THAT SHOULD BE THE PART THAT'S COMING FROM THE LEAD REVIEWER.

MR. SHEEHY: WILL THAT BE -- SO WE HAVE -- ARE WE TALKING ABOUT -- I MEAN, WELL, THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP ASSIGNS A SCORE, AND THEN THEY EXPLAIN THAT SCORE BY A DISCUSSION OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES. SO IT'S THE SCORE REALLY ALMOST THAT IS INTEGRATED INTO THE DISCUSSION OF THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AND NOT DISAGGREGATED. I MEAN I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, SO I HAVE NO OPINION. I JUST WANT TO -- SO THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE A SCORE ASSIGNED, BUT IS THERE SOMETHING GOING TO BE WRITTEN DOWN? IS THIS JUST GOING TO BE A CONVERSATION? IS THIS GOING TO BE SEPARATE FROM THE STAFF?

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. IT WILL BE SEPARATE FROM THE STAFF.

MR. KELLER: THE WAY THIS WAS DISCUSSED WITH DR. MURPHY AND THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WAS THAT THIS WOULD BE A DISCUSSION -- THAT THE DISCUSSION WILL BE LED BY THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP PRIMARY REVIEWER, BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE A DOCUMENT. THAT IS, IT WOULD BE BASICALLY NOTES AND COMMENTS THAT THEY WOULD MAKE IN ORDER TO MAKE THE ORAL PRESENTATION.

MR. SHEEHY: WOULD THAT BE ORGANIZED BY THE DIFFERENT CRITERIA THAT WE'VE --

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: LET ME COMMENT ON THAT. AND I THINK AS THE CHAIR, DAVID, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE SOME DIRECTION TO THE REAL ESTATE EXPERTS IN GIVING THEM SOME GUIDANCE AS TO WHAT YOU THINK THE EXPECTATIONS ARE. I'M NOT ONE OF THE REAL ESTATE EXPERTS. I DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS. IT'S GOING TO BE YOU FOUR THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO GO THROUGH -- THIS IS HOW I ENVISION IT -- TO GO THROUGH EACH APPLICATION AND REALLY FOCUS ON, WHEN THAT APPLICATION COMES UP FOR DISCUSSION, WHAT YOUR GENERAL IMPRESSIONS ARE. THIS IS WHAT THE INSTITUTION IS. THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT. I LIKE THIS. I DIDN'T LIKE THAT. COLLEAGUES, THEN IT'S OPEN TO THE FLOOR.

IT WASN'T MY EXPECTATION, I MAY BE WRONG, DAVID, THAT IT WOULD BE A DETAILED, IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS, BUT RATHER JUST KEEPING IT VERY GENERAL, KEEPING IT GENERAL, AND THEN WE JUST SORT OF MOVE ON. AND THEN DOWN THROUGH THE PROCESS, AS IT'S BEEN RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, EACH ONE OF US WOULD ASSIGN AN INDIVIDUAL SCORE, THERE WOULD BE THE AGGREGATE SCORE, ETC., ETC.

DAVID, WAS THAT SORT OF YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW YOU THOUGHT THIS PROCESS MIGHT WORK IN TERMS OF THE REAL ESTATE EXPERTS?

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT WAS MY THOUGHT PROCESS.

MR. KASHIAN: I WANT TO ANSWER JEFF'S CONCERN. I'M GOING TO EVALUATE AS ONE OF THE REAL ESTATE PEOPLE AN APPLICATION. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I'VE EVALUATED A SCORE UNTIL AFTER I HEAR THE DISCUSSION. SO THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT YOU ARE GOING TO GET AN APPLICATION PRESENTATION, YOU ARE GOING TO GET THE OPINION OF THE STAFF, YOU'RE GOING TO GET MY OPINION, AND THEN THIS GROUP AS A WHOLE HAS TO DECIDE WHAT THE SCORES ARE FOR THEMSELVES AFTER DISCUSSION. WHAT YOU SAY MIGHT INFLUENCE MY DECISION ABOUT THE AREA. I'M GIVING YOU MY BEST OPINION.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK THAT'S A GREAT POINT THAT ED IS BRINGING UP BECAUSE I MAY HAVE DONE SOME PRELIMINARY -- I KNOW THIS HAPPENED ON THE SHARED LABS. I DID SOME PRELIMINARY SCORING; AND THEN WHEN I MIGHT HAVE HEARD ED OR DEBORAH'S OPINION ON SOMETHING, I ACTUALLY MOVED -- I'M NOT SAYING THERE WERE DRAMATIC CHANGES, BUT THERE WERE SOME SHIFTS IN TERMS OF MY SCORING. SO I DO THINK WE SHOULD PRESENT IN A GENERAL WAY, BUT NOT HAVE FINAL SCORING AND RELEASE THAT.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU THINK THIS IS A WRITTEN DOCUMENT THAT YOU WOULD PROVIDE? I DIDN'T THINK IT WOULD BE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: NO, I WASN'T THINKING IT WOULD BE WRITTEN.

MR. KASHIAN: SIMPLY MY OPINION OF THE REVIEW.

MR. SHEEHY: I HAD TWO POINTS. ONE IS THAT I WASN'T VISUALIZING -- AGAIN, I'M JUST WORKING OFF ANALOGY TO THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. AND WHAT HAPPENS THERE IS PEOPLE OFFER THEIR PRELIMINARY SCORES. THE DISCUSSION TAKES PLACE AND THEN SCORES ARE RESTATED. AND THERE'S VERY OFTEN, ESPECIALLY WITH ROBUST DEBATE, IT'S VERY INTERESTING WHEN PEOPLE MARKEDLY RESTATE THEIR SCORES. IT'S ALSO VERY INTERESTING WHEN SOMEONE DIGS IN AND SAYS I'M STICKING WITH A 90. BOTH OF THOSE ARE VERY

INFORMATIVE MOMENTS. I'M NOT WEDDED TO ANY SCORING IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE. I WAS JUST DESCRIBING A SEPARATE PROCESS.

THIS SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT PROCESS. I'M NOT -- I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS. THE ONLY RECOMMENDATION I MIGHT MAKE, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW FEASIBLE IT IS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH, BUT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE APPLES ARE REVIEWED BY APPLES. IN OTHER WORDS, I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY SPREAD OUT THE CATEGORIES AMONGST REVIEWERS. BUT LET'S SAY WE HAVE FIVE INSTITUTES AND FIVE CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE AND FIVE PROGRAMS, TRY TO HAVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE ONE PERSON DO THE INSTITUTES, ONE PERSON DO THE CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE SO THAT THERE'S A BASIS OF COMPARISON WITHIN THE REVIEWER'S MIND SO THAT -- BECAUSE I THINK IT'S INFORMATIVE IF A REVIEWER CAN SEE EVERYBODY WHO'S COMPETING AGAINST EACH OTHER, AND THEN THERE'S A UNIFORMITY TO THAT OPINION. THAT'S JUST --

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF, THAT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA. I THINK THAT I'D LIKE TO -- I THINK THAT WE WILL HAVE TO SEE EXACTLY HOW MANY APPLICANTS KIND OF GET PAST PART 1 FIRST. I MEAN HOW MANY APPLICATIONS DO WE HAVE?

MR. SHEEHY: SEVENTEEN.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SEVENTEEN. BUT I DO THINK THERE'S SOME VALIDITY TO YOUR POINT ABOUT TRYING TO KEEP IT AS CONSISTENT AS POSSIBLE.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: TAKE IT UNDER ADVISEMENT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO JEFF'S POINT? I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE, AND I'D LIKE TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

MR. KELLER: COUPLE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE MEETING THAT DRAW FROM THE EXPERIENCE IN THE SHARED LAB WAS THAT ONCE THE DISCUSSION IS COMPLETED, THEN EACH MEMBER OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP COULD CAST AN INDIVIDUAL SCORE FOR THAT APPLICATION, BUT THAT SCORE WOULD BE PRIVATE. AND THEN THE STAFF WOULD COLLECT THOSE AND WOULD CALCULATE THE AGGREGATE SCORE FOR EACH APPLICATION. AND THAT'S SIMILAR, AGAIN, TO THE PROCESS ON THE SHARED LAB.

OBVIOUSLY, FOLLOWING UP ON JEFF'S POINT, WE WOULD WANT, OF COURSE, TO DISCUSS THESE BY CATEGORY AS WELL. AND SO I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GROUP THEM BY THE PROGRAM AND FUNDING LINES OF THE INSTITUTES, CENTERS, AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND DEAL WITH THOSE INDIVIDUALLY.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: NOW, THE STAFF CALCULATES THE AGGREGATE SCORE FOR EACH APPLICATION. SO THAT WILL BE THE -- WHEN YOU JUST ADDED UP EACH CATEGORY, LET'S SAY SOMEONE GETS AN 80. THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO BE -- IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE THINKING OF? WE WON'T HAVE THE AGGREGATE, I GUESS, OF EACH INDIVIDUAL CATEGORY -- DO YOU FOLLOW ME? -- FOR THIS. WE COULD DO IT THAT WAY.

MR. KELLER: IF SOMEBODY SAID WHAT WAS THE SCORE FOR VALUE --

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WHAT WAS THE AVERAGE FOR VALUE, WE COULD DO IT THAT WAY. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD ILLUMINATE THE PROCESS IN ANY WAY. NEVER MIND. IT WAS A FOLLOW-UP ON JEFF'S POINT WHEN YOU SORT OF SEE WHERE PEOPLE ARE COMING AT AVERAGEWISE FOR EACH CATEGORY.

MR. KELLER: IT MAY ENTER INTO THE PROGRAMMATIC WHERE YOU'RE LOOKING BACK AT WHAT YOU DID AND YOU WANT TO SAY WHY IS THIS WHERE IT IS.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: RIGHT.

MR. KELLER: BY THE TIME YOU'VE GONE THROUGH 12, 15 OF THESE, YOU MAY WANT TO COME BACK AND REVISIT AN ISSUE. WE CAN COLLECT THE DATA, AND WE'RE LOOKING INTO A MORE SPEEDY WAY OF TURNING THAT AROUND SO THAT WE CAN DO THAT MAYBE ON AN EXCEL SPREADSHEET AND HAVE YOU SCORE IT ELECTRONICALLY.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT COULD BE AN OPTION.

MR. KELLER: YES.

MR. KASHIAN: I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT HOW MANY APPLICATIONS YOU EXPECT TO REVIEW AT ONE MEETING.

MR. KELLER: ALL OF THEM.

MR. KASHIAN: HOW MANY IS ALL OF THEM? TWENTY OR FIFTY?

MR. KELLER: WE HAVE 17.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SEVENTEEN APPLIED FOR PART 1, SO PRESUMABLY SOME NUMBER LESS THAN 17 WILL MAKE IT PAST THE SCIENCE.

MR. KELLER: THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET APPROVAL BY A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP AND THEN APPROVAL BY THE ICOC IN JANUARY IN ORDER TO GET INTO THE PROCESS FOR PART 2 REVIEW. SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ATTRITION WILL BE.

MR. KASHIAN: I KNOW IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE, BUT WHAT WOULD YOU GUESS WOULD BE COMING TO THE APRIL MEETING?

MR. KELLER: I CAN'T ADVISE YOU ON THAT.

MR. KASHIAN: I'M NOT ASKING FOR ADVICE. I'M ASKING WOULD YOU SAY TEN? WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS DOES EVERYBODY HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME WITHIN A FOUR- OR FIVE-HOUR PERIOD TO GIVE THOSE PEOPLE ADEQUATE ATTENTION?

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: LET ME JUST SAY, ED, AS A COLLEAGUE, WE'RE SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY AND SATURDAY, AND WE'RE STARTING OUR FRIDAY MEETING AT TWO. THAT WAS A REQUEST THAT I HAD MADE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THOUGHT IT WAS ONE.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: OKAY. ONE. ON REFLECTION NOW I'M SAYING MAYBE WE NEED TO START EARLIER THAT DAY IF THAT STILL WORKS WITH EVERYBODY'S SCHEDULES. YOU'RE RIGHT. THE MAGNITUDE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME.

MR. KASHIAN: IF YOU HAVE TEN APPLICANTS AND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, IS IT FAIR TO ALLOCATE?

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: LET ME JUST SAY THAT IF IT WORKS WITH EVERYBODY'S SCHEDULE, THIS IS JUST A SIDE THING, DAVID, IF IT WORKS WITH EVERYBODY'S SCHEDULE AND IF WE COULD START EARLIER THAT DAY, I CAN MAKE IT WORK FOR MY SCHEDULE GIVEN JUST THE MAGNITUDE OF THE ASSIGNMENT.

BUT AS TO THE ISSUE OF HOW MANY APPLICATIONS --

MR. KASHIAN: THE REASON I WAS ASKING FOR NUMBERS IS TO GET AN ESTIMATE OF TIME.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WE DON'T KNOW.

MR. KLEIN: DAVID, YOUR SUGGESTION IS A VERY GENEROUS ONE, TO CHANGE THAT STARTING TIME. I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL PROBABLY.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, IF YOU COULD PLEASE MAKE IT SO.

MR. KELLER: OH, SURE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR.

MR. KELLER: I HAVE PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS PRESENTED OF THE CRITERIA FOR SCORING. WE'VE SPENT TEN HOURS OF PUBLIC MEETINGS AND SO FORTH. WE DON'T NEED TO GO INTO THESE WITH ANY KIND OF DETAIL, BUT CERTAINLY WANTED TO REMIND YOU OF THE CATEGORIES THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH WITHIN THE SCORING.

MR. SHEEHY: CAN I JUST ASK, BECAUSE I NOTICE YOU MENTION, WILL THERE BE ANY OPPORTUNITY IN THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR FEEDBACK FROM THE INSTITUTIONS?

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: AT THE ACTUAL MEETING ITSELF?

MR. SHEEHY: AT THE ACTUAL MEETING ITSELF.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK, RICK, WE WERE GOING TO GET INPUT TO THE STAFF REVIEWS, RIGHT? TELL US HOW -- I KNOW WE DISCUSSED THIS, BUT TELL ME --

MR. KELLER: AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WE WOULD HAVE THE -- AFTER YOU HAVE REVIEWED THE STAFF ANALYSIS INITIALLY, SO AFTER THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, YOU WILL GET IT TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE MEETING. SO SAY YOU DO A QUICK REVIEW AND SAY I'M FINE WITH THE STAFF ANALYSIS OR HERE'S SOMETHING I CAUGHT THAT NEEDS TO BE CHECKED OUT, THEN WE WOULD MAKE THAT STAFF ANALYSIS AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANTS, AND THEY WOULD BE OFFERED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE A LETTER TO THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP DEALING WITH THAT STAFF ANALYSIS.

AND ONCE THOSE LETTERS ARE RECEIVED, AND WE WOULD GIVE A THREE- OR FOUR-DAY RESPONSE TIME FOR THAT BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY WORKING WITH TWO WEEKS HERE, THEN WE WOULD REVIEW THOSE AND MAKE ANY FINAL COMMENTS OR EDITS WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE TO THE STAFF ANALYSIS. AND THAT WOULD BECOME THEN A PUBLIC DOCUMENT.

MR. SHEEHY: WE'RE HAVING A PUBLIC MEETING, WE DISCUSSED AN APPLICATION. IF THE APPLICANT IS THERE AND THEY WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT, IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, ISN'T THERE GOING TO BE SOME OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS DIALOGUE? IT SEEMS TO ME WITH THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY AND THIS LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY, THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO BUILD IN THAT OPPORTUNITY. YOU THINK ABOUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS ENTIRE PROCESS. AT WHAT POINT IS THERE -- I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT PRESENTATIONS AT ONE POINT, WHICH I PERSONALLY WAS VERY SUPPORTIVE OF, BUT THEN I'M NOT A PAPER PERSON. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT COULD BE GLEANED FROM HEARING FROM APPLICANTS. BUT I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THAT MAY HAVE FALLEN OFF THE TABLE, BUT I THINK THE NOTION THAT YOU COULD HAVE AT LEAST SOME WAY TO RESPOND.

MR. KELLER: I THINK IT'S A MATTER OF YOU DECIDING HOW YOU WANT TO GET THAT RESPONSE INFORMATION CLARIFIED TO WHAT LEVEL AND JUST MANAGING THE OVERALL PROCESS TO --

MR. SHEEHY: I WOULD RATHER -- IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE PLACES WHERE THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO DIRECTLY PUBLICLY PROVIDE FEEDBACK, THE GRANTS REVIEW IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE PLACE. THERE MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY AT THE ICOC FOLLOWING THE GRANTS REVIEW, BUT IN GENERAL THERE'S SO MUCH RESPECT FOR THE SCIENTIFIC OPINIONS THAT ARE EXPRESSED, THAT SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO REALLY BUNGLE IT AT THE GRANTS REVIEW. THIS SEEMS LIKE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE -- I DON'T KNOW. WE HAVE APPLICANTS IN THE AUDIENCE, BUT THIS WOULD BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO GET SOME FEEDBACK. YOUR APPLICATION HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, YOU'VE HEARD ALL OF THIS, YOU'VE MADE IT TO THIS POINT. IF YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT, IF YOU DIDN'T THINK SOMETHING WAS REPRESENTED RIGHT, IF WE HAVE A QUESTION, WE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, WE COULD ASK THAT QUESTION.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK THERE'S POTENTIALLY TWO OPTIONS. ONE OPTION IS WE COULD ALLOW EVERY APPLICANT WHO MAKES IT TO PART 2 TO PRESENT FOR 10 OR 15 MINUTES. NOW, I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK THAT WOULD NECESSARILY BE, GIVEN HOW TIGHT OUR SCHEDULE WILL BE AND HOW MUCH WE'LL HAVE ON OUR PLATE, BUT THAT IS AN OPTION.

THE OTHER OPTION IS TO HAVE THOSE APPLICANTS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS BY THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP WHEN WE'RE REVIEWING THEIR APPLICATION. I THINK THAT WOULD PERFECTLY MAKE GOOD SENSE, THAT THE APPLICANTS COULD BE AVAILABLE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO EVERYONE?

MR. KLEIN: WELL, LET ME UNDERSTAND THAT, DAVID. I HAD THOUGHT THAT THE PRIOR DISCUSSION HAD BEEN IF THE APPLICANTS WERE AWARE OF SOME INFORMATION THAT IT APPEARED FROM THE DISCUSSION WAS NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD, THAT THEY COULD GET UP AND GIVE US SOME FEEDBACK SO THAT WE COULD REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE KEY POINTS WERE IN THEIR PROPOSAL SO WE DON'T JUST KEEP GOING FORWARD WITHOUT REALIZING THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE DID -- BOB, WE DID DISCUSS THAT. ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS THAT WAS -- THAT THEY HAD OBJECTION TO OR THOUGHT THAT IT WASN'T -- WE DIDN'T GET IT CORRECT.

MR. KELLER: RIGHT. THAT COMMENT LETTER PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT TO BE CORRECTED. THE DELIBERATIONS -- I GUESS THE QUESTION IS IF SUBSEQUENT TO THE REVIEW OF THE STAFF ANALYSIS AND THE OPINION THAT THERE'S SUBSTANTIAL DISCUSSION BY THIS GROUP THAT LEADS TO A DIFFERENT TOPIC THAT WASN'T PART OF THE STAFF ANALYSIS, WOULD THERE BE THE OPPORTUNITY TO --

MR. KLEIN: I WOULD IDENTIFY WITH JEFF'S COMMENT THAT I MEAN THERE'S A LOT OF MONEY HERE. AND IF THEY'VE HEARD THE DISCUSSION AND REALIZE WE'RE REALLY NOT UNDERSTANDING IT, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD GIVE EACH OF THEM A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME TO TRY AND HIGHLIGHT THOSE POINTS THAT WE'RE REALLY NOT GETTING.

MR. SHEEHY: I MEAN I THINK MAYBE BEFORE WE SCORE, AFTER WE'VE HAD OUR DISCUSSION, BEFORE WE ACTUALLY SIT DOWN AND WRITE DOWN OUR SCORES, IT'S NOT MANDATORY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOW UP, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PREPARE AN ELABORATE PRESENTATION, BUT THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY, IF YOU'RE AN APPLICANT AND YOU'VE BEEN IN THE AUDIENCE AND YOU'VE HEARD DISCUSSION OF YOUR APPLICATION. AND IT MAY BE THE BEST WAY TO DO IT IS MAYBE TO BE PRETTY FIRM. I THINK THE CHAIR IS WELL ABLE TO DO THIS, TO NOT HAVE A RECAPITULATION OR AN ARGUMENT; BUT IF THERE WERE THINGS THAT WERE SAID THAT YOU DON'T AGREE WITH, YOU HAVE THE CHANCE TO REBUT, SO TO SPEAK, OR TO OFFER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND NOT TO GET INTO A LONG DISCUSSION, BUT THAT THAT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE TO US RIGHT BEFORE WE MAKE OUR SCORES JUST SO THAT THERE'S A TOTAL FAIRNESS -- THAT WE CAN CREATE AS MUCH FAIRNESS IN THE PROCESS AS POSSIBLE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HERE'S THE THING. WHAT HAPPENS IF WE GET AN APPLICANT AND THEY DON'T DISPUTE STAFF'S ANALYSIS, RIGHT, AND, THEREFORE, THEY DON'T GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO STATE WHATEVER THEY FEEL THEY WOULD WANT TO STATE TO US, BUT YET OTHERS OBJECT. SO THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET IN FRONT OF THE WORKING GROUP TO KIND OF HAVE ANOTHER KIND OF, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, PITCH. WHAT I WANT TO AVOID IS FULL-BLOWN -- WHAT I WANT TO AVOID IS I DON'T WANT THE APPLICANTS TO OBJECT AS A WAY OF GETTING IN FRONT OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP TO KIND OF TELL US HOW WONDERFUL THEIR APPLICATION IS.

MR. KLEIN: SO AFTER THE DISCUSSION, WHY CAN'T YOU JUST, OUT OF FAIRNESS, GIVE EACH APPLICANT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME FOR KIND OF A SUMMARY STATEMENT AND CORRECTION?

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB, I'VE GIVEN THIS A LOT OF THOUGHT. AND THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS WE CAN DO THIS. BUT I THINK WHAT HAS DRIVE, IN MY OPINION, WHAT NEEDS TO DRIVE THIS DECISION IS JUST BEING PRAGMATIC. WE'RE GOING HAVE TWO FULL DAYS TO MAKE A DECISION. THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ENOUGH TIME. AND I THINK IF WE ALLOW THE APPLICANTS TO MAKE A PRESENTATION -- BOB, WE ARE BEING FAIR TO THE APPLICANTS BY ALLOWING THEM TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO STAFF REPORTS. THAT'S VERY FAIR. SO IN TERMS -- IN MY MIND, IN TERMS OF THE FAIRNESS, WE'VE DONE OUR JOB.

IF WE GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO AN APPLICANT TO SPEAK FOR WHATEVER REASON, WHETHER IT BE TO GIVE A SUMMARY, TO COMMENT ON THEIR COMMENTS, WHATEVER, YOU GIVE AN APPLICANT AN INCH, THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE A MILE. AND THEY'RE ALL GOING TO HAVE THEIR TIN CUPS OUT WANTING MONEY. I DON'T WANT THIS PROCESS TO BECOME UNRULY.

MR. KLEIN: BUT IF YOU GIVE --

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB, LET ME FINISH. AND IT THEN BECOMES, IN MY OPINION, I COULD BE WRONG, KIND OF AN UNRULY PROCESS. AND WE HAVE THE SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF INFORMATION TO MAKE A DECISION. WE'LL HAVE THE STAFF ANALYSIS. WE'LL HAVE THE CONSULTANTS' REPORTS. WE WILL HAVE REVIEWED THE APPLICATIONS OURSELVES. WE WILL HAVE GIVEN THE APPLICANTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT. YOU KNOW, IF THEY STILL HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT STAFF DID, THAT'S LIFE IN THE BIG CITY. UNLESS THERE'S SOME GLARING THING, THEY CAN STILL GIVE US SOMETHING THAT DAY, I SUPPOSE, A WRITTEN DOCUMENT OF SOME KIND, BUT WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT GIVING THE APPLICANTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO OPEN THIS UP AS PRECEDENCE FOR THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP OR AT AN ICOC MEETING, BOB, AND THAT WILL GIVE SOME PRECEDENCE FOR APPLICANTS TO SPEAK AT THE ICOC. HEY, I WANT A CHANCE TO TALK, I WANT TO GIVE A SUMMARY. WE JUST HAVE TO BE VERY SENSITIVE ABOUT OUR DUTIES AND THE TIME. MY ARGUMENT IS A PRAGMATIC ARGUMENT. THAT'S ALL.

MR. SHEEHY: FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS WHY I SUGGESTED WE DO IT BEFORE WE SCORE, AND I ALSO WOULD RELY ON THE CHAIR TO MAKE CLARITY ABOUT THE GROUND RULES. I THINK IF I ASK -- IF AN APPLICANT HAS BEEN ASKED TO PROVIDE -- HERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY. IF WE'RE ALL -- IF EVERYBODY IS GLOWING ABOUT AN APPLICATION, I'M READY TO GIVE IT A HUNDRED POINTS MYSELF. AND I THINK ONLY, YOU LAWYERS KNOW ABOUT THIS, WHEN YOU'RE WINNING A CASE, YOU SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP. I REMEMBER YOU AT APPEALS COURT. I THINK I'M JUST -- I'M WINNING. I'M NOT GOING TO GET TOO MUCH INTO THIS. ATTORNEYS HAVE A STRONG SENSE OF NOT TO STOP A HORSE THAT'S RUNNING THE WAY YOU WANT IT TO RUN.

APPLICANTS DO PUT THEMSELVES AT RISK IF THEY GET UP THERE AND THEY START TALKING ABOUT STUFF THAT'S NOT RELEVANT. HOWEVER, I DO -- IF WE HAVE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THEIR APPLICATION, WE'VE BROUGHT UP INFORMATION THAT WE'VE HAVEN'T DESCRIBED IN THE APPROPRIATE WAY, THIS IS THEIR CHANCE TO ADDRESS THAT. IF THEY MAKE GOOD ARGUMENTS, THEY CAN AFFECT THE SCORE. BUT IF THEY GET UP THERE AND WASTE OUR TIME, START TO TELL US ABOUT WHAT A FABULOUS, BEAUTIFUL PLACE THIS IS GOING TO BE, I THINK THAT THAT'S GOING TO HURT THEM. AND I THINK THE CHAIR CAN SAY THAT IN DIRECTION AND ACTUALLY CUT THEM OFF AND SAY, "I DON'T THINK YOU ARE GOING TO HELP YOUR CASE. YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUES AT THIS TIME AS PROVIDED FOR. IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE, I HAVE TO TELL YOU, IT MAY NOT HELP YOUR SCORE, AND MAY ACTUALLY HURT YOUR SCORE, "AND TRY TO GUIDE IT THROUGH THE MECHANISM OF THE CHAIR. BUT I JUST FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE HAVING GONE THROUGH THIS ENTIRE PROCESS AND NOT GIVING PEOPLE A CHANCE TO GET UP AND TALK ABOUT IT. AND THIS IS SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER GRANTS THAN WE'VE EVER GIVEN. THEY'RE INCREDIBLY COMPLEX.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OTHER GRANTS WE GIVE ARE SCIENTIFIC GRANTS. AND IF PEOPLE WANT TO START DEGRADING THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS AS SCIENTISTS, THEN HAVE AT IT. WE'LL FIGURE OUT ANOTHER WAY TO REVIEW THE GRANTS IN PUBLIC, AND JOHN SIMPSON WILL LOVE US.

MR. KASHIAN: MR. CHAIRMAN, I REALLY SUPPORT DAVID'S POINT OF VIEW WITH THE FOLLOWING CAVEAT. JEFF STARTED OUT HIS DISCUSSION BY SAYING WHAT IF I WANT TO ASK THEM A QUESTION THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND. WHAT I'M SAYING, WOULD IT BE FAIR TO HAVE THEM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS BY THE PANEL BEFORE THEY MAKE THEIR DECISION RATHER THAN MAKING A PRESENTATION OF SOMETHING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. I TOTALLY SUPPORT DAVID'S POINT OF VIEW.

MR. SHEEHY: I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT PRESENTATIONS, BUT IF THEY WANT TO GET UP, THERE'S A PERIOD OF TIME.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S A PRESENTATION.

MR. SHEEHY: WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS. THAT'S AVAILABLE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DEBORAH, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS?

MS. HYSEN: I AGREE WITH ED.

MR. KLEIN: DEBORAH, WHAT WERE YOU AGREEING WITH?

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WITH ED AND DAVID.

MS. HYSEN: WITH ED, THAT IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC QUESTION, THAT THEY SHOULD ANSWER THE SPECIFIC QUESTION. I THINK THAT THIS SHOULDN'T TURN INTO A DOG AND PONY SHOW. THEN THEY'LL ALL FEEL OBLIGATED TO BRING THEIR SCIENTISTS, THEIR BEST WHATEVER, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD USE OF THEIR TIME. SO A SPECIFIC QUESTION WOULD BE GOOD.

MR. KLEIN: I PERSONALLY THINK IT SHOULD BE BROADER THAN THAT. I'VE BEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS WHERE EVEN THOUGHTFUL PEOPLE SUBMITTING FULLY DEVELOPED APPLICATIONS CAN SIT BEFORE A COMMITTEE AND REALIZE THAT A PORTION OF THE APPLICATION IS NOT BEING UNDERSTOOD; AND/OR IN REVIEWING WHAT THE STRONG POINTS OF THE APPLICATIONS ARE, THEY'VE COMPLETELY MISSED FOUR OR FIVE REALLY UNIQUE, STRONG POINTS. I THINK WE HAVE TWENTY TO $50 MILLION AT RISK ON SOME OF THESE GRANTS, THAT GIVING EACH OF THEM TEN MINUTES, THEY'RE LIMITED IN TIME, IT'S GOING TO BE HIGHLY UNDER CONTROL, DAVID, AND GIVING THEM TEN MINUTES TO JUST HIT THE HIGH POINTS AND CORRECTIONS CAN PROVIDE THAT EXTRA MEASURE OF INSULATION.

THIS IS THE LARGEST INDIVIDUAL GRANTS WE'LL EVER SEE IN THE WHOLE PROGRAM. AND AT THAT LEVEL, I THINK THE EXTRA TEN MINUTES EACH WOULD BE VALUABLE.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: AS I SEE IT, DAVID, THERE'S REALLY TWO PROPOSALS ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW. LET ME TAKE THE LIBERTY OF SORT OF SUMMARIZING THEM. ONE IS SORT OF JEFF AND BOB'S. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU AGREE WITH BOB, JEFF. GENERALLY SPEAKING, THEY GIVE A PRESENTATION; IF THERE'S QUESTIONS, YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO COMMENT ON THE COMMENTS.

MR. SHEEHY: I BELIEVE IN GIVING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FEEDBACK.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THE PROPOSAL.

THE OTHER PROPOSAL IS LIMITED IN SCOPE; AND THAT IS, IF THERE IS ONLY A QUESTION, THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE AVAILABLE, BUT THERE'S NO PRESENTATION, THERE'S NO EXPECTATION OF A PRESENTATION, ONLY IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, THEY'RE THERE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

MR. SHEEHY: THEY CAN'T ASK QUESTIONS?

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: NO.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO ACTUALLY INTERESTING ENOUGH AT THIS POINT, I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP AND SEE IF THE PUBLIC HAS ANY OPINION ON THIS SUBJECT MATTER. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION, DON.

MR. REED: THIS IS DON REED. MY FEELING IS THAT ABOUT A YEAR PROBABLY HAS BEEN SPENT BY THE APPLICANTS PREPARING FOR THIS. AND I THINK THAT THEY NEED A LAST CHANCE TO GIVE THEIR BEST SHOT. WE DON'T WANT THEM TO WALK AWAY FEELING, WELL, GEE. IF WE JUST HAD A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME, WE COULD HAVE WON. WE DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THEM WITH NEGATIVE FEELINGS TOWARDS THE PROCESS. THIS IS A HUGE, HUGE PART OF THEIR APPLICATION. SO I'D BE IN FAVOR OF ERRING ON THE SIDE OF GIVING THEM A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA TIME. I KNOW IT'S EASY FOR ME TO SAY AS A WATCHER. YOU GUYS ARE DOING THE WORK, BUT I'D RATHER ERR ON THE SIDE OF GIVING THEM A LITTLE BIT EXTRA TIME TO SUM UP THEIR BEST CASE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ANY OTHER PUBLIC?

MR. SIMPSON: THIS IS JOHN SIMPSON.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HEY, JOHN. GO AHEAD, PLEASE.

MR. SIMPSON: I AGREE WITH DON. I THINK YOU NEED TO GIVE THEM SOME LIMITED, FINITE, VERY SHORT OPPORTUNITY TO RESTATE THEIR BEST CASE. AND AS JEFF HAS JUST SAID, MANY OF THEM MIGHT UNDERSTAND THAT THE BEST THEY CAN DO WOULD BE REMAIN SILENT. I THINK YOU OUGHT TO OFFER THEM THE OPPORTUNITY OF, SAY, A THREE-MINUTE COMMENT. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE HAVE ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.

DR. HALME: THIS IS DINA HALME FROM UCSF, AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF UCSF AND UC IRVINE. WE AGREE WITH JOHN SIMPSON. WE THINK THAT A THREE-MINUTE REBUTTAL WOULD ALLOW US TO PREVENT -- AS AN APPLICANT, IF THE DISCUSSION IS MISINFORMED OR INCORRECTLY INFORMED, TO RESPOND TO THAT, BUT TO NOT DO A DOG AND PONY SHOW ABOUT WHY WE'RE SO GREAT. JUST IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO PREVENT A MISTAKE, BUT NOT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION. NOTHING WOULD BE PREPARED. ESSENTIALLY YOU WOULD HAVE TO COME AND YOU'D LISTEN TO THE DISCUSSION, AND YOU EITHER STAND UP AND SAY YOU GOT IT RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, OR I THINK YOU GOT IT MOSTLY RIGHT --

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU GOT IT RIGHT IN YOUR OPINION. DR. HALME, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MATTER HERE. IT DOESN'T. IT HAS NO BEARING.

DR. HALME: THAT MAY BE. BUT IF THE POINT OF GIVING ME THREE MINUTES TO RESPOND IS TO SAY IN MY OPINION I THINK YOU GOT ALL THESE THINGS RIGHT, BUT I'M CONCERNED THAT YOU MISINTERPRETED WHAT WE WROTE, WHAT WE INTENDED BY THIS SENTENCE WAS SUCH-AND-SUCH AND YOU'RE ALL SAYING SOMETHING ELSE, THEN THAT WOULD BE IT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU.

DR. HALME: THESE ARE MY THREE MINUTES.

MR. OREAR: MY NAME IS RALPH OREAR, AND I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE IDEA THAT APPLICANTS HAVE A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO STAFF SUMMARY. I THINK THAT WHAT WAS BUILT INTO IT SO FAR IS THAT ONCE THE STAFF ANALYSIS IS DONE, ALL THE EMPIRICAL DATA IS THERE, TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THAT TO MAKE SURE IT'S FACTUALLY ACCURATE AND THAT ANY MISCONCEPTIONS OR MISUNDERSTANDINGS ARE COVERED AT THAT POINT. I THINK THAT GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS?

DR. WRIGHT: MY OWN MUTE BUTTON GOT IN MY WAY A LITTLE WHILE AGO. I THINK EVERYBODY SAID IT. TO ME THE RISKS ARE THAT WE'VE COME THIS FAR, WE'VE BEEN SO CAREFUL AND SO THOUGHTFUL AND PROCEEDED METHODICALLY, BUT TO FAIL TO HEAR PEOPLE, FAIL TO ALLOW THEM A CHANCE TO CLARIFY, OR TO KEEP FROM BEING MISUNDERSTOOD, I THINK THE EFFORT THAT WE SPEND THERE IS WELL WORTH IT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I'D LIKE TO -- BOB, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, BUT MY THOUGHT PROCESS, ACTUALLY I LIKE THE PUBLIC'S IDEA ABOUT A THREE-MINUTE REBUTTAL OR CLARIFICATION PERIOD WHERE IT IS A NO POWERPOINT ALLOWED, AND ESSENTIALLY THEY CAN RESPOND TO ANYTHING THEY FEEL IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS THAT WE GOT WRONG OR ANYTHING THEY FEEL THAT WE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND OR WE UNDERSTOOD FULLY OR WE MISSED IN OUR DISCUSSION. I WOULD KIND OF SUPPORT THAT THREE-MINUTE RULE WITH THE CHAIR'S DISCRETION, THAT IF IT IS A COMMERCIAL, THAT I CAN CUT THEM OFF.

MR. KLEIN: DAVID, I THINK THAT YOU'RE CREATING TOO ARTIFICIAL AND TIGHT A STRUCTURE IN THAT WE NEED TO GIVE OURSELVES ENOUGH ROOM THAT WE DON'T CREATE A PROCEDURE THAT WE THEN VIOLATE BECAUSE WE FOUND OUT THAT THERE'S A MORE COMPLEX PROBLEM THAN CAN BE DISCUSSED IN THREE MINUTES. SO I WOULD SUGGEST A TEN-MINUTE GUIDELINE THAT CAN BE REASONABLY VARIED BY THE CHAIR BASED UPON THE NEEDS OF THE COMMITTEE.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: LET ME --

DR. WRIGHT: ...,RIGHT, BOB?

MR. KLEIN: SOME PEOPLE MAY NOT NEED TEN MINUTES.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SOME PEOPLE MIGHT NOT NEED THAT.

MR. KLEIN: NO POWERPOINT. YOU CAN SAY NO POWERPOINT SO THAT IT AVOIDS KIND OF A SHOW BEING PUT ON. BUT IF SOMEBODY HAD AN ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO POINT OUT AND ANSWER ON FUNCTIONALITY OR SOMETHING, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DISPLAY THAT. BUT YOU JUST COULD SAY IN THE GUIDELINES THAT THERE ARE NO SHOWS THAT ARE ALLOWED HERE. THIS IS JUST TECHNICAL INFORMATION.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, ONE SECOND. JEFF, PLEASE.

MR. SHEEHY: I ACTUALLY LIKE THE CHAIR'S SUGGESTION AND DR. HALME'S. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I HAD IN MIND WAS A SHORT PERIOD. I THINK THE THREE-MINUTE --

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I THINK SHE DISAGREES WITH A PIECE OF BOB'S RECOMMENDATION.

DR. HALME: NOT THE ICOC CHAIR, BUT THE WORKING GROUP CHAIRS.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU AGREE WITH BOB?

DR. HALME: DAVID.

MR. SHEEHY: WHEN I FIRST BROUGHT THIS UP, THAT'S WHAT I ENVISIONED WAS JUST AN OPPORTUNITY TO REDRESS, TO REBUT. AND I THINK THE THREE-MINUTE -- FRANKLY, THREE MINUTES IS A LONG TIME TO TALK. I THINK IT GETS EXTENDED IF WE HAVE BACK AND FORTH. IF THEY'RE MAKING GOOD POINTS, WE WILL DRAG THAT OUT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AT THE CHAIR'S -- BOB, IF THERE'S A COMPLEX ISSUE THAT NEEDS MORE THAN THREE MINUTES, I WILL EXTEND WHATEVER THE RELEVANT AMOUNT OF TIME NECESSARY FOR THE WORKING GROUP TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE.

MR. KLEIN: THAT'S REASONABLE.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I THINK, AS I UNDERSTOOD, WHAT JEFF AND DAVID IS SAYING IS A REASONABLE COMPROMISE FROM MY POSITION BECAUSE I DON'T WANT -- I DON'T SUPPORT WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, BOB.

MR. KLEIN: OKAY. I'M PREPARED WITH WHAT WAS JUST CLARIFIED BY THE CHAIR.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THREE MINUTES, THERE'S NO EXPECTATION THAT THEY SPEAK, THAT IF THERE'S ISSUES OF REDRESS AND FOLLOW-UP, THAT THAT IS THEN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AT THE CHAIR'S DISCRETION --

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IT COULD BE EXTENDED.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: -- IT COULD BE EXTENDED IF I FEEL THAT THE ISSUE AT HAND NEEDS FURTHER CLARIFICATION IN ORDER FOR THE MEMBERS TO HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: CAN I HAVE TWO MORE FOLLOW-UPS, AND THE FIRST ONE IS WOULD THE APPLICANTS THEN -- SO REDRESS IS A TWO-WAY CONVERSATION. IF THEY WANT TO REDRESS, WE SAID THEY THEN COULD, RIGHT?

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR.

SECONDLY, AT WHAT POINT WOULD WE AFFORD THIS THREE MINUTES? WHERE IN THE PROCESS DO WE ENVISION HAVING THESE THREE MINUTES? BEFORE SCORING. SO SORT OF TOWARDS THE END.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: TOWARDS THE END OF THE DISCUSSION, BUT BEFORE SCORING.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD BE THE PLACE WHERE IT WOULD MAKE SENSE BECAUSE THEY WOULD SAY THE WORKING GROUP HAS HAD THIS DISCUSSION, I'VE BEEN TAKING NOTES, THERE'S THIS AND THERE'S THAT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BUT ARE WE SCORING EVERYONE'S AT THE END?

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: EACH INDIVIDUALLY.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AS WE'RE GOING ALONG, BUT WE'RE GIVING THE FINAL --

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I'M JUST SAYING WHERE? WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE PEOPLE THREE MINUTES?

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK GIVE THEM THREE MINUTES TOWARD THE END OF THE DISCUSSION ON THAT PARTICULAR APPLICATION.

MR. SHEEHY: THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. SO LIKE WE DISCUSS UC IRVINE. WE HAVE THE PRESENTATION. WE'VE FINISHED OURSELVES. AND THEN THERE'S THREE MINUTES FOR UC IRVINE TO SAY YOU GOT IT WRONG --

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: EXACTLY.

MR. SHEEHY: -- ON THIS POINT. YOU HAD THIS BIG DISCUSSION.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OR YOU GUYS GOT IT REALLY RIGHT. YOU REALLY FULLY UNDERSTOOD OUR APPLICATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MR. SHEEHY: I ACTUALLY WOULD JUST SCORE IT --

DR. HALME: I LOOK FORWARD TO SAYING THAT.

MR. SHEEHY: I WOULD HOPE THE CHAIR WOULD DISCOURAGE THOSE COMMENTS.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'M KIDDING. I'M TEASING.

MR. SHEEHY: THAT COMES INTO THE PITCH. I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY'S FEELING HERE THAT WE DON'T NEED THE SALES PITCH.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE DON'T NEED THE SALES PITCH.

MS. HYSEN: ONE QUESTION AND A CONCERN, AND

PERHAPS THE ATTORNEYS HERE. I'M CONCERNED THAT AN APPLICATION MAY COME IN AND BE FAULTY IN SOME MANNER, AND THAT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT THAT MISTAKE IN THIS FORUM, AND THAT MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE?

MS. HYSEN: IF, FOR INSTANCE, THEY MISSED SOMETHING, IT ISN'T A QUESTION OF WE DON'T GET IT, THEIR APPLICATION MISSED A POINT. AND THEY CAN SEE IN OUR DIALOGUE, OOPS, I MESSED UP. AND THEN THEY'RE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT IT HERE. AND I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S LEGALLY APPROPRIATE.

MR. KELLER: OUR INTENT, BECAUSE OF THE TWO-STEP PROCESS, WE'RE INVITING THE APPLICANTS WHO ARE SUCCESSFUL ON THE PART 1 TO PROPOSE ON PART 2. I THINK WE HAVE LATITUDE HERE THAT IF THERE ARE CURATIVE DEFICIENCIES, OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO REVIEW EACH APPLICATION; AND IF THERE IS A PIECE MISSING, A DOCUMENT THAT IS NOT PROVIDED, WE WILL CONTACT -- I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT IT'S IN OUR BEST INTEREST THAT THE APPLICANTS RESPOND FULLY TO THE RFA AND NOT BE CAUGHT ON SOME TECHNICALITY. SO WE WILL GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CORRECTIVENESS AT THAT VERY FIRST --

MS. HYSEN: AT THE FIRST STEP, NOT AT THIS STEP.

MR. KELLER: RIGHT. WHEN WE RECEIVE THE APPLICATION, OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO REVIEW IT FOR COMPLETENESS.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: RIGHT. IF THEY'RE NONRESPONSIVE IN SOME WAY. WHAT I UNDERSTOOD DEBORAH TO SAY IS IT'S NOT AN ISSUE OF THE APPLICATION BEING NONRESPONSIVE, THEY FORGOT TO PUT A FINANCIAL STATEMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT IT'S A MORE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE WITH THEIR APPLICATION, AND THAT THE APPLICANT SEES THIS THREE-MINUTE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. THEY GET THE SENSE OF THE STAFF COMMENTS AND THE BACK AND FORTH. HEY, I'M GOING TO USE THIS THREE MINUTES, AND I'LL FIND A CREATIVE WAY TO INSERT IT BECAUSE IT WON'T BE DIFFICULT TO FIGURE THAT PART OF IT OUT, AND GIVE THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO SWITCH A SCORE OR INCREASE MY SCORE OR GET IN THE NEXT CATEGORY.

I CAN SEE DEBORAH'S POINT, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE JUST NEED TO BE CLEAR. AT SOME POINT THERE IS A DEADLINE. THAT'S ALL.

MR. KLEIN: WELL, BUT --

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: AT SOME POINT THERE'S A DEADLINE AT WHICH WE DON'T TAKE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO MAKE OUR DECISION. IF WE WANT TO SAY THAT DEADLINE IS WHEN THE APPLICANT USES THEIR THREE MINUTES, FINE. FINE. BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND DEADLINES IN A COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS TO MEAN THAT AT ALL.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GO AHEAD, BOB. WHAT WERE YOU GOING TO SAY?

MR. KLEIN: WE'RE NOT -- THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE PURCHASING AUTOMOBILES. THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE OUR MISSION IS TO CREATE THE VERY BEST RESEARCH FACILITIES IN THE STATE. AND WHILE ON THE SHARED LABS WE DID A BUNCH OF CURATIVE MEASURES WHICH WERE IN EXCESS OF WHAT WE WOULD HAVE WANTED TO DO, IT IS CRITICAL TO US THAT WE AS A COMMITTEE RETAIN OUR AUTHORITY AND DON'T BOX OURSELVES IN BY SAYING WE WON'T UNDER ANY CONDITIONS HAVE A CURATIVE MEASURE WHERE WE MIGHT TAKE ONE OF THE FINEST INSTITUTIONS IN THE ENTIRE STATE AND KNOCK IT OUT FOR SOME HIGHLY TECHNICAL REASON. WE HAVE TO RETAIN OUR CURATIVE POWER IF WE'RE GOING TO BE TRUE TO OUR MISSION BECAUSE THIS IS A ONE-TIME EVENT, AND WE WOULDN'T WANT TO SACRIFICE TREMENDOUS EXPERTISE AND A PHENOMENAL SCIENTIFIC CAPACITY BECAUSE WE SURRENDERED OUR TECHNICAL ABILITY TO HAVE A CURATIVE PROVISION.

SO I WOULD JUST CAUTION US NOT TO HAVE, YOU KNOW -- WE CAN HAVE A VERY STRONG DIRECTION TO THE APPLICANTS THAT WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT THEM, BUT WE NEED TO RETAIN THE POWER TO CURE TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T INADVERTENTLY REALLY SACRIFICE SOME HUGE OPPORTUNITY.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING MORE. WE GOT OTHER THINGS TO DEAL WITH.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE? DO WE HAVE A CONSENSUS OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP? I THINK WE WANT TO HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT IS THERE A CONSENSUS NOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED ON THIS?

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I WANT TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT ANYTHING THAT, AND I'M GOING TO STATE IT AGAIN IN APRIL, AND THIS IS MY OWN OPINION, THAT ANY ORAL DISCUSSION WILL HAVE ZERO IMPACT ON MY DECISION BECAUSE I WILL BASE MY DECISION, WHICH I'M LEGALLY ENTITLED TO DO, ON THE WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION PRESENTED TO ME SUBSEQUENT TO THE MEETING ON -- OUR APRIL MEETING, WHICH I CAN DO. PEOPLE, YOU MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION, BUT FOR ME THAT'S WHAT I AM MOST COMFORTABLE WITH.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: FAIR ENOUGH. WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.

MR. REED: I JUST THOUGHT I HEARD TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS BEING TALKED ABOUT. IT SEEMED TO ME THAT DEBORAH HYSEN WAS TALKING ABOUT SWEETENING THE POT, WHICH WE ALL AGREE THERE HAS TO BE A DEADLINE AT WHICH NOTHING NEW CAN BE ADDED. AND THEN IT SOUNDED LIKE BOB WAS TALKING ABOUT CURATIVE STATEMENTS. SO IF THERE WAS AN ERROR OR SOMETHING THAT HAD TO BE FIXED, IT SEEMED LIKE THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT PURPOSES BEING TALKED AT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I THINK THERE'S AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THERE ARE CURATIVE MEASURES, STAFF IS GOING TO ADDRESS THAT WITH THE APPLICANTS EARLIER IN THE PROCESS, CORRECT, RICK?

MR. KELLER: WITH RESPECT TO THOSE ITEMS THAT DEAL SPECIFICALLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICATION.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO THERE WILL BE -- IN TERMS OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICATION, IF THERE ARE ITEMS THAT ARE CURABLE --

MR. KELLER: CAN I OFFER. MAYBE THE DISTINCTION HERE IS THAT SAY, FOR INSTANCE, WE SAID THAT YOU ARE TO, AS PART OF THE VALUE, EXPLAIN HOW YOUR PROJECT IS INNOVATIVE OR HOW IT IS SUSTAINABLE, AND IF YOU MADE A JUDGMENT THAT SAID, WELL, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WAS INADEQUATE BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT IT DID NOT EXPLAIN FULLY HOW THEY'RE RESPONDING TO THOSE TWO ISSUES, THE QUESTION BECOMES CAN THEY THEN ORALLY COME IN AND FIX THAT DEFICIENCY BY PRESENTING IN THREE MINUTES THIS IS WHAT WE MEAN BY THIS, THIS IS WHAT WE MEAN BY SUSTAINABILITY. SO THAT'S ADDING TO THE UNIVERSE OF INFORMATION THAT IS BEING DEVELOPED IN A COMPETITIVE WAY.

WHILE I THINK WE AGREE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE BEST VALUE FOR THE DOLLARS INVESTED, WE ALSO NEED PEOPLE THAT COMMUNICATE, AND PART OF IT IS COMMUNICATING WELL.

MR. KASHIAN: MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO HAVE DAVID MAKE THE MOTION HE'S MAKING AND CALL FOR THE QUESTION.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DO WE NEED TO HAVE A MOTION ON THIS? NO, WE DON'T NEED A MOTION ON THIS. IS EVERYONE COMFORTABLE WITH WHERE WE'RE GOING ON THIS? DEBORAH, BASICALLY THAT THREE-MINUTE -- FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THAT THREE MINUTES IS REALLY FOR THE APPLICANT IF, A, THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY FELT THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP REALLY JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT THEIR APPLICATION OR DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE WHAT THEY MEANT TO COMMUNICATE, THEY WOULD HAVE --

MS. HYSEN: BUT I THINK RICK MAKES A GOOD POINT. I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THE CHAIR AND OUR QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT HOW WE SET A TIGHTER PARAMETER AROUND THAT. IF WE SAY, FOR INSTANCE, THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN RESPONDENT X IS INADEQUATE, IT DOES ALLOW FOR THEM TO COME UP AND PROVIDE A WHOLE SERIES OF THINGS WHICH CAN POTENTIALLY SWEETEN THE POT. SO I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON OUR QUESTION TO THAT INDIVIDUAL TO TIGHTEN THE TYPE OF RESPONSE BECAUSE IF WE SAY IT'S INADEQUATE, IT CERTAINLY ALLOWS THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO ELABORATE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WELL, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, DEBORAH, AND ACTUALLY I KIND OF AGREE WITH DAVID, ALTHOUGH I MIGHT NOT BE SO SET IN STONE ON HOW YOU'RE VIEWING IT IN TERMS --

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I'M A PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND A CONCESSION LEASE ATTORNEY. I ADVISE MY CLIENT ALL DAY LONG ABOUT HOW TO GO ABOUT THE COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS. I THINK LIKE A PUBLIC CONTRACTS LAWYER. AND I'M JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW MY OWN ADVICE I WOULD GIVE MY OWN CLIENT. THAT IS, SET A PROCESS ANY WAY YOU WANT. YOU CAN DO THAT. BUT SET A DEADLINE AND MAKE SURE THERE'S A LINE IN THE SAND. THAT'S ALL. THAT'S ALL I ADVISE MY CLIENT TO DO.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: MAYBE THE DEADLINE IS THAT THEY CAN'T PRESENT ANY NEW WRITTEN INFORMATION AT THIS THREE-MINUTE PRESENTATION. THEY CAN ONLY TALK TO ANY ISSUES. TAMAR.

MS. PACHTER: YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO BE A PUBLIC MEETING. AND WE ALWAYS BUILD INTO OUR PUBLIC MEETINGS OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. AND BECAUSE WE ARE THE STATE, WE DON'T INTERFERE WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT. SO ANYBODY CAN REALLY GET UP AND SAY ANYTHING IN A PUBLIC MEETING. AND THE REAL ISSUE IS HOW EACH OF YOU ARE GOING TO DECIDE TO USE THAT INFORMATION. AND YOU MAY DECIDE, GEE, THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT BEFORE THE EXPERTS WHO SO CAREFULLY REVIEWED THE APPLICATION. SO MAYBE I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. THAT WOULD BE DAVID'S POSITION. OR MAYBE YOU THINK THERE'S SOMETHING HIGHLY CREDIBLE THAT YOU SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.

I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL DECISION FOR EACH OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS PANEL TO MAKE. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE WHAT IT IS THEY CAN GET UP AND SAY WHEN YOU GIVE THEM TIME AT THE PUBLIC MIC. IT'S REALLY A DECISION THAT EACH ONE OF YOU IS GOING TO MAKE ABOUT WHAT WEIGHT THAT IS GOING TO HAVE IN YOUR DECISION.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: BUT IT'S TWO DIFFERENT CONTEXTS, THOUGH, TAMAR. ONE CONTEXT IS IF WE SAY TO THE APPLICANTS WE'RE GOING TO AFFORD YOU THREE MINUTES, THAT'S ONE THING, AND THAT'S SORT OF A RULE WE'RE MAKING. YOU'RE RIGHT. IT'S A PUBLIC MEETING, SO AT SOME POINT IN THE AGENDA, WE HAVE TO MAKE EVERYBODY INCLUDING THE APPLICANTS CAN SPEAK. THAT'S SORT OF A DIFFERENT THING. YOU'RE RIGHT. WE CAN'T INTERFERE. IF THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT TODAY'S WEATHER, THEY COULD. BUT IF WE SAY WE'RE SETTING ASIDE THREE MINUTES SPECIFICALLY FOR YOU TO TALK ABOUT XYZ, WE CAN DO THAT, AND ASK THAT THEY ONLY SPEAK TO XYZ. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DIGGING INTO RIGHT NOW, MAYBE A LITTLE TOO MUCH, BUT HOW WE CAN SET THE PARAMETERS, IF ANY, IF ANY, TO THAT THREE MINUTES.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO LET RICK FINISH HIS PRESENTATION. EVERYONE OKAY WITH THAT?

MR. KASHIAN: I'D LIKE TO ASK JUST ONE SHORT QUESTION. I FEEL LIKE, AS AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER, IF I'M UNCLEAR ABOUT AN APPLICATION, AM I ENTITLED TO ASK THE APPLICANT A SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT ISN'T INVOLVED IN THAT THREE MINUTES? AND I BELIEVE I SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO DO THAT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK YOU ARE ENTITLED TO ASK THAT. AND I GUESS WE WON'T HAVE THE CLOCK TICKING.

MR. KASHIAN: IF THAT'S A YES ANSWER, I DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE WITHIN THE THREE MINUTES. IF THERE WAS A QUESTION FROM A WORKING GROUP MEMBER TO AN APPLICANT, WE WOULD TRY TO SORT OF LIMIT THINGS WITHIN A THREE-MINUTE CONTEXT, ED; AND AT THE CHAIR'S DISCRETION, HE COULD EXTEND THAT THREE MINUTES.

MR. KLEIN: DAVID, I DISAGREE WITH THAT. I THINK YOU'RE TAKING THE RIGHTS AWAY OF THE FACILITIES GROUP MEMBER. IF THERE'S AN ISSUE THAT ONE OF THE MEMBERS IS NOT CLEAR ON, I THINK WE HAVE A REAL OBLIGATION TO ALLOW THAT MEMBER TO ASK THAT QUESTION AND GET AN ADEQUATE RESPONSE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WOULD AGREE WITH BOB ON THIS, DAVID. I THINK THAT IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS AND WE WANT TO ASK THE APPLICANT QUESTIONS, THAT IS NOT GOING TO GO TOWARDS THEIR THREE-MINUTE TALK TIME. SO, AGAIN, AT MY DISCRETION, WE CAN EXTEND THAT IF THERE'S AMBIGUITIES OR QUESTIONS WE HAVE. I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON FROM THAT. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT A LOT, BUT I THINK WE HAVE A GENERAL CONSENSUS OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH IT. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ON TRACK TO GIVE APPLICANTS A THREE-MINUTE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. AND THEN IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS, WE'LL ASK THE APPLICANTS THOSE QUESTIONS BEFOREHAND.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ONE LAST POINT TO RICK, AND THAT IS PLEASE INCLUDE THIS DISCUSSION IN THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ICOC. MAYBE AT THE ICOC THERE MIGHT BE A DISCUSSION ON IT AS WELL ON THIS POINT. SO IF IT'S BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE PROCESS, IT NEEDS TO BE INCORPORATED INTO WHATEVER PRESENTATION YOU MAKE, RIGHT?

MR. KELLER: I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT. THE PRESENTATION I'M MAKING RELATIVE TO --

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: RELATIVE TO THE DECEMBER 1ST MEETING AT THE ICOC. DECEMBER 12TH. ASSUMING THAT THIS ITEM IS BEFORE THE ICOC ON DECEMBER 12TH. THAT WILL BE UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR OF THE ICOC.

MR. KELLER: WE DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THE PROCEDURES OR PROCESSES THAT YOU'RE ADOPTING HERE NEED TO BE APPROVED BECAUSE THEY APPROVED THE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION, WHICH YOU DID --

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. YES. YES.

MR. KELLER: THE ICOC APPROVED THAT. THIS IS MORE THE --

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: OKAY. IF ICOC APPROVED IT, THEN FINE. NEVER MIND.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK.

MR. KELLER: I THINK WE'VE REALLY RUN THROUGH THE TECHNICAL REVIEW PROCESS, AND THE CHECKMARKS HERE ARE TALKING ABOUT JUST WHAT WE ACCOMPLISHED IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS, HOW THE WORKING GROUP WILL CONDUCT ITS DISCUSSIONS, AND THEN HOW THAT WILL LEAD TO A SCORE. SO ALL THAT, IF YOU RECALL, THEN LEADS, WE SCORE THE APPLICANTS, AND WE GO INTO WHAT IS CALLED FOR IN THE INITIATIVE, PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'VE HAD A REQUEST BY THE VICE CHAIR TO TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IS THAT OKAY? JUST TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK BECAUSE WE'RE DONE WITH TECHNICAL, AND WE CAN START WITH PROGRAMMATIC.

DR. HALME: CAN WE GET ONE PUBLIC COMMENT ON TECHNICAL? IT CAN BE AFTER THE BREAK. DINA HALME, UCSF AGAIN ON BEHALF OF UCSF AND UC IRVINE. WE FEEL THAT IF THERE WILL BE A PRIMARY REVIEWER, WHICH WAS NOT ORIGINALLY CLEAR TO US IN THE MATERIALS, IT SOUNDS LIKE WILL BE THE CASE, THAT WE WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT THERE BE A SECONDARY REVIEWER RATHER THAN ONLY A FREE FOR ALL. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF APPLICATIONS AND NOT THAT MANY PEOPLE, BUT CERTAINLY IN THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF SCIENTIFIC REVIEW, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE SOMEBODY WHOSE JOB IT IS TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY DISAGREE WITH THE PRIMARY REVIEWER. OTHERWISE THE PRIMARY REVIEWER ESSENTIALLY CAN CARRY THE DAY, AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO READ ALL THE APPLICATIONS WITH THE SAME DEGREE OF DETAIL.

AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST, JUST GIVEN THE MAGNITUDE OF THE DECISIONS, THAT IF THERE'S A PRIMARY REVIEWER, THAT THERE'S ALSO A SECONDARY REVIEWER.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I THOUGHT, AND I DIDN'T WANT TO BRING IT UP AT THE TIME, BUT I THOUGHT THE TERM "PRIMARY REVIEWER" WAS WRONG. I THOUGHT WHEN WE WERE LOOKING TOWARDS THE REAL ESTATE EXPERTS, IT WAS FOR THEM TO JUST TO GIVE GENERAL IMPRESSIONS AND LEAD THE DISCUSSION AND SET THE GROUNDWORK, THAT IT WASN'T A PRIMARY REVIEW AS IT'S UNDERSTOOD WHEN WE DID OUR SHARED LABS AND AS IT'S UNDERSTOOD IN THE SCIENTIFIC GRANTS CONTEXT. IT'S NOT -- I DIDN'T WANT TO SAY IT BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO DELAY THE MEETING. IT'S NOT REALLY A, QUOTE, PRIMARY REVIEW BECAUSE THEN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO THINK SHOULDN'T THERE BE A SECONDARY REVIEW.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO --

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SO THAT WOULD BE SORT OF MY ANSWER.

DR. HALME: MY ANSWER WOULD BE THAT IF SOMEONE IS LEADING THE DISCUSSION, THEY ARE BY DEFAULT THE PRIMARY REVIEWER.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HERE'S THE THING. WE ARE GETTING AN OUTSIDE REVIEW AS WELL. SO I GUESS WE --

DR. HALME: THAT IT COMES DOWN TO THE LOGISTICS, RIGHT. YOU'VE GOT A PIECE OF PAPER THAT RICK WILL EITHER PRESENT PARTS OF OR NOT. HE CAN'T DESCRIBE THE WHOLE THING. AND THEN YOU'VE GOT SOMEONE WHO'S PASSIONATELY SAYING I THINK THIS IS GREAT, OR I THINK THIS IS REALLY, REALLY SUBPAR. AND SOMEBODY SHOULD BE WELL VERSED ENOUGH TO RESPOND TO SAY I AGREE THIS IS REALLY GREAT OR THIS IS REALLY SUBPAR, OR I DISAGREE AS A MATTER OF FACT.

I KNOW THAT IN DISCUSSIONS OF THE SHARED LABS, FOR INSTANCE, THERE WERE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE BUILDING THE BEST LABS OR MANY ADEQUATE LABS. THOSE ARE LEGITIMATE DISTINCTIONS AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT GIVEN THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY YOU HAVE. SO I JUST FEEL LIKE IT ENDS UP BEING VERY ARBITRARY AS TO WHO GETS ASSIGNED TO BE THE PRIMARY REVIEWER, AND THAT IT'S LESS ARBITRARY IF YOU HAVE TWO ASSIGNMENTS RATHER THAN ONE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. WE HAVE ANOTHER MEMBER. PLEASE STATE YOUR INSTITUTION AND YOUR NAME.

MR. CLEARY: JOHN CLEARY, USC. ACTUALLY A DIFFERENT TOPIC. I WANTED TO COME BACK TO A SIDE COMMENT, DAVID, THAT YOU MADE, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTOOD. YOU HAD MENTIONED AT ONE POINT, I DIDN'T QUITE HEAR, EITHER THAT APPLICATIONS WOULD BE SCORED IN SUCCESSION, OR THAT YOU'D WAIT UNTIL AN ENTIRE LEVEL HAD BEEN DISCUSSED AND THEN SCORE ALL OF THEM AT THAT TIME. AND IF YOU CAN PLEASE DESCRIBE FOR US WHAT THE PLAN IS, WE'D APPRECIATE IT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, RICK, I DON'T THINK WE ACTUALLY FINALIZED THAT, DID WE?

MR. KLEIN: MAYBE SOMEONE SHOULD EXPLAIN THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW AS WELL SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S TWO.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE WERE -- BOB, WE WERE GOING TO GO TO THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. SO I GUESS, RICK, CAN WE ANSWER THAT WHEN WE GET BACK FROM BREAK? BUT IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. WE'LL TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.

(A RECESS WAS TAKEN.)

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER. OKAY. SO WE HAD A VERY -- IS EVERYONE BACK? BOB?

MR. KLEIN: I'M HERE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JANET?

DR. WRIGHT: YES.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. GOOD. SO WE HAD A QUESTION FROM THE GENTLEMAN FROM USC, WHICH ACTUALLY WAS A GOOD QUESTION FROM THE PUBLIC. I LIKE THAT. SO ABOUT THE SCORING PROCESS. SO, RICK, WHAT I WAS THINKING WE COULD DO IS AFTER EACH APPLICATION AND THE REVIEW AND THE COMMENTS, IF ANY, FROM THE APPLICANT, THAT THE MEMBERS CAN DO A PRELIMINARY SCORE FOR THAT APPLICATION, AND THEN WE HAVE A CHOICE OF EITHER PUTTING THE FINAL SCORE AT THE VERY END OF ALL THE APPLICATIONS FOR ALL OF THEM OR WE COULD POTENTIALLY DO IT IN GROUPING IT; FOR EXAMPLE, AFTER ALL THE REVIEWS FOR THE CIRM INSTITUTES AND THEN THE CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE AND THEN THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS.

SO I'D LIKE TO GET MEMBER'S COMMENTS ON THIS POINT IF ANYONE HAS STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THIS.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WE CAN DO IT AT THE WORKING GROUP.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I THINK EVERYONE AGREES WE SHOULD DO PRELIMINARY SCORES AFTER WE'VE HAD THE REVIEW, DISCUSSION, AND COMMENTS FROM OR POTENTIAL COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT. AND THEN THE QUESTION IS DO WE WAIT TO THE VERY END TO PUT OUR FINAL SCORES, OR DO WE DO FINAL SCORES FOR EACH GROUPING OF APPLICATIONS?

MR. KELLER: I'M NOT FOLLOWING YOU. SO IF APPLICANT A COMES IN AND YOU DISCUSS THAT APPLICATION A, THEN YOU SCORE IT. THAT'S PRELIMINARY?

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: NO. YOU DO A PRELIMINARY -- SO, FOR EXAMPLE, SO LET'S JUST SAY HYPOTHETICALLY, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THERE ARE THREE APPLICANTS FOR THE CIRM INSTITUTES, RIGHT, AND I'M JUST USING THAT NUMBER, THAT AFTER EACH REVIEW, I WOULD BE MARKING DOWN WHAT MY PRELIMINARY SCORES WERE, BUT I MIGHT GO BACK AND REVISIT THOSE SCORES AFTER I'VE HEARD ALL OF THOSE.

MR. KELLER: THAT'S WHAT I WANTED. AT THE END OF ALL OF THE INSTITUTES, LET'S SAY THERE ARE SEVEN OR EIGHT INSTITUTES, THEN YOU WOULD AT THE END OF THOSE, YOU WOULD THEN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW ALL SEVEN INDIVIDUALLY, YOUR SEVEN SCORES, AND MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT YOU NOW HAVE MORE COMPARABLE INFORMATION.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CORRECT. OR THE OTHER OPTION IS THAT WE DO THAT AT THE VERY END AFTER WE REVIEWED THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS.

MR. KELLER: I THINK JUST IN TERMS OF LOGISTICS, IT MAKES SENSE TO DO EACH ONE AS A MODULE AND COMPLETE YOUR THOUGHT ON IT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF.

MR. SHEEHY: IT'S REALLY A STRUCTURAL ISSUE. WHEN DO YOU COLLECT THEM? BECAUSE --

MR. KELLER: WELL, WE WOULD COLLECT THEM AT THE VERY END. SO YOU DO CIRM INSTITUTES, TECHNICAL SCORES, PRELIMINARY, PRELIMINARY, PRELIMINARY, AND THEN SAY, OKAY, YOU NEED TO MAKE YOUR INSTITUTES FINAL. NOW WE'LL GO INTO THE CENTERS FOR EXCELLENCE, PRELIMINARY, PRELIMINARY, PRELIMINARY. OKAY, WE'RE DONE, ADJUST YOUR FINAL. AND THEN WE'D DO THE SPECIALS.

MS. PACHTER: FOR PURPOSES OF CONFLICTS, TO INTERJECT A LEGAL ISSUE, IT WILL BE IMPORTANT TO COMPLETE THE DISCUSSION OF THE INSTITUTES BEFORE MOVING ON TO THE DISCUSSION OF THE CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE OR SPECIAL PROGRAMS BECAUSE THERE WILL BE MEMBERS WHO ARE RECUSED FOR DISCUSSION OF THE INSTITUTES WHO WILL THEN COME BACK INTO THE ROOM FOR INSTITUTES AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS. SO THAT SHOULD FACTOR INTO YOUR DECISION AS WELL.

MS. HYSEN: FOR ME, I'LL LOSE MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT AND MY PRIMARY FOCUS IF I GO OFF THAT CATEGORY. I THINK THAT --

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT'S FINE.

MS. HYSEN: -- WHAT I'VE FOUND IS THERE'S SO MUCH INFORMATION IN HERE, THAT TO FOCUS ON THOSE GROUPS AND THEN DECIDE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT'S FINE. I DON'T HAVE -- I THINK THAT MAKES GOOD SENSE. YES, JEFF.

MR. SHEEHY: ONLY THING I WOULD SUGGEST IS CREATING SEPARATE SCORE SHEETS AND ACTUALLY COLLECTING THE SCORES AFTER EACH CATEGORY. AND THAT ACTUALLY GIVES YOU A LEG UP IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY ADDING IT UP.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I LIKE THAT IDEA.

MR. KELLER: OKAY.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GOOD SUGGESTION.

MR. SHEEHY: PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW WILL GO FASTER, AND THEN THAT ALSO TAKES -- THEN THAT REALLY DOES, IN TERMS OF THE CONFLICTS, THAT DOESN'T HAVE -- LEAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT THAT CATEGORY MIGHT STILL BE LIVE SIMPLY BY THE FACT THE SCORE SHEETS ARE STILL THERE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, JANET, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU?

MR. KLEIN: MAKES SENSE TO ME.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. SO BE IT. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? GOOD. I LIKE THAT.

MR. KELLER: SO THAT TAKES US THROUGH THE TECHNICAL REVIEW. I'VE GONE OVER THAT. THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, WE WOULD PREPARE THE USUAL HISTOGRAM CHART DISPLAYING THE SCORES, AND WE WOULD GO CATEGORY BY CATEGORY AGAIN IN PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. SO YOU WOULD THEN CONSIDER WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE FOR THE -- BASED ON THE TARGET FUNDING LEVEL THAT HAD BEEN DESIGNATED FOR THAT CATEGORY BY THE ICOC WHEN THEY ESTABLISH THE TARGET AMOUNT.

I DIDN'T SAY THAT RIGHT. YOU WOULD KNOW -- YOU WILL BE GIVEN A TARGET AMOUNT BY THE ICOC AT THE JANUARY MEETING WHEN THEY KNOW HOW MANY APPLICATIONS ARE COMING FORWARD TO PART 2. THEN YOU WOULD RECOMMEND A SPECIFIC FUNDING LEVEL FOR EACH APPLICATION. YOU WOULD DO THIS FOR EACH CATEGORY. YOU WOULD ALSO THEN HAVE THE ABILITY TO DISCUSS THE AMOUNT WITHIN THE DESIGNATED RANGE FOR THAT CATEGORY AND, IF NECESSARY, RECOMMEND A FUNDING RANGE SHOULD BE ADJUSTED FOR ANY CATEGORY OF FUNDING.

SO THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MONEY THAT WAS -- IF THE ICOC APPROVES AN AMOUNT PER CATEGORY, AND YOU WANT, BASED ON YOUR REVIEW IN PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, THAT YOU SEE THAT IT IS MERITORIOUS TO GO ABOVE IN ONE AND BELOW IN ANOTHER, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD CONSIDER UNDER THIS BULLET.

OKAY. THEN THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT WOULD THE FUNDING BE PER APPLICATION, THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE DISCRETION WITHIN THE RANGES, FULL DISCRETION WITHIN THE RANGES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE RFA, AND THAT YOU WOULD REACH A CONSENSUS ON THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING BASED ON YOUR PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW OF EACH APPLICATION IN EACH CATEGORY. SO --

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THIS WILL BE DONE THE SAME WAY AS THE SHARED LABS AND NOT IN PUBLIC, CORRECT?

MR. KELLER: THIS WAS PUBLIC.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THIS WAS PUBLIC IN THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW?

MR. KELLER: YES, IT WAS.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. I THOUGHT THAT WAS PART OF THE --

MR. KELLER: WELL, YOU HAD RECEIVED THE SCIENTIFIC SCORES IN PRIVATE --

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IN PRIVATE. I SEE. MR. KELLER: -- SESSION WITH DR. CHIU. SINCE PART 1 WILL HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, EVERYONE WILL KNOW THE SCORES OF PART 1. SO THERE'S NO NEED TO HAVE THAT SESSION.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY.

MR. KELLER: SO WHAT COMES OUT OF THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW IS A RECOMMENDATION AT OR BELOW THE ICOC APPROVED AMOUNT OR A RECOMMENDATION TO INCREASE FUNDING IF YOU SEE THE NEED TO CORRECT OR DEAL WITH THAT CIRCUMSTANCE.

MS. PACHTER: JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT'S TO MOVE FUNDING BETWEEN BUCKETS. SO YOU MAY DECIDE THAT THE ICOC -- ICOC PUT $10 MILLION INTO THE CIRM SPECIAL PROGRAMS.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: PER APPLICATION.

MS. PACHTER: NO. $10 MILLION FOR THE WHOLE BUCKET.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: OKAY. THANKS.

MS. PACHTER: AND AFTER REVIEWING THE APPLICATIONS, YOU MAY DECIDE NONE OF THEM ARE WORTHY, AND SO YOU MAY RECOMMEND TO THE ICOC THAT THAT MONEY INSTEAD BE PUT IN CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE OR CIRM INSTITUTES. SO IT'S NOT A RECOMMENDATION TO INCREASE THE TOTAL AMOUNT. IT'S A RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE MONEY BETWEEN BUCKETS.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO CONCEIVABLY WE COULD HAVE APPLICANTS WHERE THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP DOES NOT RECOMMEND FUNDING, CORRECT?

MR. KELLER: I THINK IT'S MORE LIKELY THAT -- WE'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY IS BEING REQUESTED. SO IN THIS CASE IF THERE WERE, SAY, FOUR APPLICANTS IN THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS CATEGORY AND WE ASSUME 10 MILLION IS AVAILABLE FOR EACH, THAT'S 40 MILLION. AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT LOOKING AT THEIR REQUEST, THEIR REQUESTS WERE 5 MILLION, 8 MILLION, AND 10 MILLION AND 10 MILLION. SO THERE'S ACTUALLY A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT MORE AVAILABLE THAN IS BEING REQUESTED, AND IT'S GOT TO BE A COMPETITIVE PROCESS.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THIS PROGRAMMATIC PART MYSELF. SO WE KNOW WHAT THE BUCKET WILL BE, RIGHT? AND WE KNOW WHAT THE APPLICANTS ARE ASKING FOR. BUT DURING PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, WE CAN DECIDE TO INCREASE OR DECREASE THOSE AMOUNTS OR TO RECOMMEND NO FUNDING; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. PACHTER: THAT'S CORRECT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THIS WAS AND/OR, RIGHT, THOSE TWO SUBDASHES?

MR. KELLER: RIGHT.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IT'S AND/OR. DOES EVERYBODY GET THAT? I JUST FIGURED THAT OUT RIGHT NOW. YOU KNOW, FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS AT OR BELOW THE ICOC APPROVED AMOUNT, AND WE JUST HAD, LIKE, A LITTLE DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT OR RECOMMENDATION TO INCREASE FUNDING. RICK'S QUESTION TO US IS WHICH -- WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD LOOK LIKE.

MR. KELLER: I GUESS IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, AS TAMAR EXPLAINED, IT WOULD BE RECOMMEND TO CHANGE FUNDING BETWEEN CATEGORIES BECAUSE THE INCREASE --

MS. PACHTER: MOVE MONEY THAT WAS ORIGINALLY ASSIGNED TO ONE BUCKET TO ANOTHER BUCKET.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES, JEFF.

MR. SHEEHY: SHOULD NOT THE WORKING GROUP BE ABLE TO RECOMMEND INCREASE IN THE GLOBAL NUMBER?

MS. PACHTER: WELL, THAT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION. I MEAN GENERALLY THE ICOC HAS NOT ASKED THE WORKING GROUP TO GIVE IT A RECOMMENDATION ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY SHOULD BE IN THE RFA. THAT'S BEEN EXCLUSIVELY AN ICOC CONCERN.

MR. SHEEHY: CAN I TALK ABOUT THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP? THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP HAS ACTUALLY --

MS. PACHTER: BUT THAT MOVED MONEY FROM THE SEED -- FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE TO THE SEED.

MR. SHEEHY: IN THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION OF THE SEED GRANTS, THE WORKING GROUP STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT THE ICOC -- NOW, IT HELPED WE HAD THE CHAIR SAYING I KNOW WHERE MONEY IS, WHO HAD A BIG HIP POCKET, BUT THAT THEY MADE A STRONG RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE QUALITY OF THE APPLICATIONS TO FIND ADDITIONAL MONEY. SO --

MS. PACHTER: THIS IS SIMILAR -- I THINK IT'S SIMILAR IN THAT REALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS THREE RFA'S IN ONE, RIGHT? WE'RE DOING CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE, INSTITUTES, AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS. AND SO THE ANALOGY TO THE SEED AND COMPREHENSIVE GRANTS, WHICH WERE REVIEWED AT THE SAME TIME, WAS THAT THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP SAID, GEE, THE SEEDS ARE SO GOOD, THERE'S MONEY LEFT, THERE ARE MORE THAT YOU SHOULD FUND. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS TO SAY, GEE, IF THERE'S TOO MUCH MONEY, WE THINK, IN ONE BUCKET AND THERE ARE MERITORIOUS APPLICATIONS THAT ARE UNDERFUNDED IN ANOTHER BUCKET, SO WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU MOVE IT.

BUT THE TRUTH IS THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP CAN RECOMMEND ANYTHING IT LIKES TO THE ICOC.

MR. KELLER: I WAS GOING TO MENTION THAT I THINK THIS CAN BE HANDLED BY THE ICOC IN JANUARY WHEN THEY -- BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ESTABLISH THE AMOUNT PER CATEGORY. AND THE CONTEXT OF THAT CAN BE EXPRESSED. THE ICOC CAN EXPRESS WHAT WE INTEND THERE; AND IF THAT LATITUDE IS WHAT YOU INTEND, THE ICOC INTENDS, RATHER, THAT CAN BE COMMUNICATED AS PART OF THE ACTION AT THE JANUARY MEETING TO SAY WE WANT YOU -- THESE ARE OUR TENTATIVE AMOUNTS PER, WE WANT TO STAY WITHIN THIS OR COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT AMOUNT.

THE REASON THAT THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP IS BECAUSE THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP HAS THAT MIDDLE CATEGORY, THAT FUND WHEN FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE. SO YOU'VE GOT KIND OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE A KIND OF WHAT-IF CIRCUMSTANCE TO THE ICOC IN TERMS OF IF FUNDING IS AVAILABLE, THESE ARE MERITORIOUS.THIS IS MORE A BRIGHT LINE IN TERMS OF FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS. AND SO YOU'RE GOING TO COME OUT WITH A HARD RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO THE BUCKETS? THAT'S GOING TO BE THE ISSUE. DO YOU GO BACK AND SQUEEZE THINGS TO STAY WITHIN THE BUCKET, OR DO YOU STAND PAT AND SAY THIS IS A MERITORIOUS PROGRAM; THEREFORE, WE'D LIKE TO SEE SOME ADJUSTMENT IN THE DOLLARS.

MR. KASHIAN: IF YOU'RE ESTABLISHING THE BUCKET, IS THE GOAL OF THE ICOC TO GET ALL THE MONEY OUT THE DOOR? OR IF THERE IS MONEY LEFT OVER, IS THERE A SECOND ROUND OF APPLICATIONS?

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: NO. NO SECOND ROUND.

MS. PACHTER: THERE'S NO SECOND ROUND OF APPLICATIONS, BUT THERE ARE OTHER FACILITIES THAT THE ICOC COULD FUND AND THAT ARE IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN.

MR. KASHIAN: SO THE GOAL ISN'T TO GET IT ALL OUT THE DOOR, JUST MERITORIOUS. AND IF THERE'S SOME MONEY LEFT OVER, THEY CAN REALLOCATE IT.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IF THERE'S MONEY LEFT OVER.

MS. PACHTER: IF THERE'S MONEY LEFT OVER.

MR. KASHIAN: IF THERE'S MONEY LEFT OVER. IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING, DAVID?

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YEAH, MINE.

MS. PACHTER: THERE'S A LIMITED AMOUNT OF FACILITIES MONEY AVAILABLE IN THE WAY THAT ISN'T THE RESEARCH. SO YOU'RE ACTUALLY DEALING WITH A SMALLER POT.

MR. SHEEHY: SEE, AND THAT'S THE CONTEXT THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT WE'RE FIXED AT -- WE CAN ONLY SPEND A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF OUR OVERALL FUNDING ON FACILITIES. SO, YOU KNOW, IF WE NEED OTHER FACILITIES DOWN THE LINE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT. SO THERE'S BOTH. THERE'S BOTH -- YOU'RE RIGHT HERE IN THE MIDDLE BECAUSE WE ALL RECOGNIZE WHAT A MASSIVE BOOST THIS WOULD BE TO GET A LOT OUT THE DOOR RIGHT NOW TO GET THIS THING GOING, BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE DON'T WANT TO BE WASTEFUL AT ALL BECAUSE THERE IS THIS POTENTIAL FOR HAVING OTHER NEEDS THAT WE HAVEN'T ANTICIPATED DOWN THE LINE AND WE'RE FIXED AT WHAT WE CAN SPEND ON BUILDINGS.

MR. KASHIAN: THANK YOU. THAT CLARIFIES IT.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES, MR. VICE CHAIR.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THIS IS TO RICK. TO THE FIRST ONE, FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. AND THEN IT SAYS THE ICOC APPROVED AMOUNT. I GUESS THAT ASSUMES WHAT YOU HAD STATED EARLIER, THAT THE ICOC WILL SET AN APPROVED AMOUNT FOR EACH CATEGORY.

MR. KELLER: YES.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WE DON'T KNOW THAT TO BE THE CASE.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OR THEY COULD GIVE A RANGE, CORRECT?

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THEY COULD GIVE A RANGE. I MEAN I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT IT AS AN EITHER/OR, FOR ONE I HOPE THE ICOC DOES GIVE SOME GUIDANCE TO US AND TO ITSELF ULTIMATELY AS TO FOR EACH CATEGORY, AND I THINK IT WILL HAVE TO ADJUST AS A REALISTIC THING TO DO. BUT COULD WE JUST SAY FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS BELOW, AT, OR ABOVE THE ICOC APPROVED AMOUNT, SORT OF THAT'S WHAT THE EXPECTATION IS OF THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW RECOMMENDATION.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IT SORT OF INCORPORATES BOTH THE OR AND IT STICKS IT TOGETHER AND PUTS THE ONUS, THEREFORE, ON THE ICOC TO GIVE US SOME SET AMOUNT FOR EACH CATEGORY.

MR. KELLER: MY ONLY CAVEAT ABOUT THAT, DAVID, IS THAT IN THE PROPOSITION, THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE FUNCTIONS TO THIS FACILITIES WORKING GROUP IS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A COMPETITIVE PROCESS. AND WE WOULDN'T WANT TO BE IN A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE ALL THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO ADD MORE MONEY TO FUND EVERYTHING BECAUSE THAT WOULD NOT BE COMPETITIVE. IN ORDER TO BE COMPETITIVE, SOMEONE HAS TO LOSE SOMETHING, MAYBE 5 PERCENT OF THE MONEY OR WHATEVER. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT COMPETITION IMPLIES THAT YOU WIN IF YOU'RE BETTER THAN SOMEONE AND SOMEBODY ELSE DOESN'T GET AS MUCH.

SO I WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IN OUR PROCESS THAT IT'S A COMPETITIVE BID, RESPONDS TO THAT REQUIREMENT.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: LET ME THEN SAY, RECOMMEND TO MY COLLEAGUES, GIVEN THAT I THINK THIS IS A STICKY, COMPLEX ISSUE AND IT SORT OF STARTS TO BEG OTHER QUESTIONS IN MY MIND ABOUT THIS PROCESS, THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE ICOC WILL NEED TO OPINE ON AND GIVE US DIRECTION ON. WE CERTAINLY CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, AND MAYBE WE SHOULD DO THAT RIGHT NOW, AND I DON'T WANT TO PUNT EVERY ISSUE TO THE ICOC, BUT THIS IS ONE IN WHICH I THINK WE NEED SOME GUIDANCE IN TERMS OF DO THEY WANT TO SET LIMITS. NOT SO MUCH TO US. IT WILL BE SETTING LIMITS FOR THEMSELVES ULTIMATELY WHEN THEY MAKE THIS DECISION IN LATE APRIL, RIGHT? WILL THEY SET CAPS FOR EACH CATEGORY? AND SO IT'S A QUESTION THE ICOC WILL HAVE TO GRAPPLE WITH. MIGHT AS WELL GRAPPLE WITH IT NOW. I DON'T SEE ANY DOWNSIDE, AND LET'S DO IT THAT WAY.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE. I THINK WE SHOULD LET THE ICOC GIVE US THEIR OPINION ON THIS. AND THEN IF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP FEELS DIFFERENTLY, THEN WE WILL DEAL WITH IT.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: GET BACK TO THEM.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE'LL GET BACK TO THEM IN APRIL.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: CERTIFY THE QUESTION.

MR. KELLER: SO THAT'S THE LAST I HAD ON THE PROGRAMMATIC. TO SUMMARIZE --

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ON THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, ONE THING, RICK, AND THIS IS -- YOU KNOW, I SPENT A LOT OF MY TIME AND EFFORT IN LOOKING ON THE TECHNICAL REVIEW, BUT I THINK THAT I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SPEND SOME TIME. WE NEED TO -- I THINK WE SHOULD FLESH OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW.

MR. KELLER: OKAY.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE GOT A LOT OF DETAIL ABOUT EXACTLY HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW. I THINK AT LEAST FOR ME AND, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I HAVE NOT SPENT MUCH TIME WITH YOU ON THAT, SO YOU AND I CAN SPEND SOME TIME AND THEN WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOP THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP INTO THAT PROCESS AND GIVE A LITTLE BIT GREATER GRANULARITY AND DETAIL ON THAT.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU WILL, DAVID, CHAIR THE TECHNICAL REVIEW. AS VICE CHAIR, I WILL CHAIR THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. SO IF THERE'S ANY GRANULARITY THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, YOU AND I CAN WORK TOGETHER, BUT I THINK IT'S WELL -- I THINK THE BEST PRECEDENT FOR THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW IS WHAT WE DID LAST TIME, BUT ALSO THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW THAT HAPPENS AT THE SCIENTIFIC GRANTS WORKING GROUP. AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THE RFA ITSELF, RFP, SETS FORTH THAT THERE WILL BE A PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, AND THESE WILL BE THE CONSIDERATIONS AND FACTORS THAT THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW WILL DISCUSS. IT'S A YES-OR-NO QUESTION, I THINK, ADDRESSED SOMEWHERE IN THE RFA.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ANYWAY, DAVID, I'M FINE. I KNOW YOU'RE HEADING UP THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. I JUST FEEL, AT LEAST AS A FACILITIES WORKING GROUP MEMBER, THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH GRANULARITY. I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND ENOUGH DETAIL ON THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, AND I THINK OTHER MEMBERS MAY WANT THAT AS WELL.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WE HAD A -- OKAY. OKAY. WE'LL DO THAT. ONE OF THE COMPONENTS, THOUGH, IN THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW THAT I DO WANT TO JUST SPEND A COUPLE OF MINUTES ON, AND THAT IS, AS WE IDENTIFIED EARLIER, THE SCIENTIFIC SCORES WILL BE PUBLIC AT THAT POINT. WE'LL KNOW THE PUBLIC. WE'LL KNOW THE SCIENTIFIC SCORES. AND AGAIN, JUST THINKING FROM A PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, FOR US AS A WORKING GROUP TO SAY, "YOU KNOW WHAT, I'M GOING TO IGNORE THE SCIENTIFIC SCORES. I'M JUST GOING TO IGNORE IT. IT'S JUST UNREALISTIC," IT WILL SEEP IN AND FACTOR IN. AND I THINK IT MIGHT EVEN BE APPROPRIATE THAT IT DOES ON SOME LEVEL.

I DON'T THINK IT'S -- AND IF WE WANT TO, THE RIGHT PLACE TO TALK ABOUT IT IS IN THE TECHNICAL REVIEW BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED WHAT THE TECHNICAL REVIEW WILL LOOK LIKE, BUT IF THERE IS ANY SORT OF FACTORING IN OR DISCUSSION OR RECOGNITION OF THE SCIENTIFIC SCORES, WHICH WILL BE PUBLIC AT THAT POINT, IT'S BEST TO HAVE IT AT THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW --

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AGREED.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: -- PORTION OF THE DISCUSSION. AND I JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE AS SOMETHING.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK THAT MAKES GOOD SENSE. OKAY. RICK, I'M SORRY. PLEASE PROCEED.

MR. KELLER: WE WERE JUST CHECKING TO MAKE SURE. I DON'T SEE WHERE WE ACTUALLY SPELL OUT --

MS. PACHTER: WE ACTUALLY ONLY TALKED ABOUT THE TECHNICAL REVIEW IN THE RFA. WE DID NOT TALK ABOUT THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW AND WHAT THOSE DISCUSSION POINTS WOULD BE THOUGH. THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION.

MS. PACHTER: ALTHOUGH THERE WAS IN THE MEETINGS, YES.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YES, IN THE MEETINGS. AND WE SORT OF PUT IT UP THERE, AND YOU EVEN RECOMMENDED SOME THINGS THAT WE MIGHT CONSIDER; IS THAT RIGHT, RICK? AM I GETTING CONFUSED WITH SOMETHING ELSE, WHICH IS POSSIBLE? I MIGHT BE GETTING CONFUSED WITH THE SHARED LABS.

MR. KELLER: I THINK FOR EFFICIENCY PURPOSES, I THINK IF WE HAVE THE JANUARY MEETING AND WE UNDERSTAND THE ACTION THAT THE ICOC WILL TAKE IN JANUARY, THEY WILL APPROVE THE PART 1 APPLICATIONS, THEY WILL ESTABLISH THE TENTATIVE AMOUNTS BY CATEGORY, AND THEN GIVE ANY OTHER DIRECTION TO THIS GROUP IN TERMS OF THE PART 2. I MEAN WE CAN GET THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR, WE CAN GET TOGETHER WITH THE PRESIDENT AND BASICALLY MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE IN TERMS --

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT WORKS FOR ME. THAT'S FINE. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT BASED ON WHAT I WAS SEEING HERE, I WAS -- I HADN'T FELT THAT WE SUFFICIENTLY FLESHED OUT WHAT THAT PROCESS WOULD BE. SO THAT'S FINE. WE HAVE A PUBLIC.

DR. HALME: AFTER YOU HAD THAT --

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION.

DR. HALME: DINA HALME, UCSF. AFTER THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT, IT WOULD BE VERY USEFUL IF THAT COULD OCCUR PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF PART 2 BECAUSE AS AN APPLICANT --

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IT WILL.

DR. HALME: -- I WANT TO KNOW ARE YOU INTERESTED IN GEOGRAPHY? ARE YOU INTERESTED IN PARTICULAR AREAS OF DISEASE? YOU KNOW, I MEAN THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED, AND IT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

MR. SHEEHY: DISEASE ISSUES ARE HANDLED AT THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP.

DR. HALME: WELL, BUT YOU CAN DECIDE PROGRAMMATIC -- WHAT YOU WANT IN THE PROGRAMMATIC.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: MAYBE THAT'S A BETTER PROGRAMMATIC DISCUSSION --

DR. HALME: I MEAN JUST HAVING THAT INFORMATION. IT PROBABLY WON'T BE POINTS THE WAY IT HAD BEEN POINTS IN THE PAST, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WILL BE DONE. HAVING INFORMATION ABOUT HOW IT WILL BE DONE WOULD BE HELPFUL.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ONCE THAT'S DECIDED, RICK, I THINK WE CAN DISSEMINATE THAT INFORMATION, CORRECT?

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ABSOLUTELY.

MR. KELLER: I THINK WE CAN MAKE IT PART OF THE JANUARY ACTION IN TERMS OF THE ICOC SO THAT THERE'S KNOWLEDGE ABOUT IT. WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT. IN TERMS OF THE ICOC UNDERSTANDING WHAT PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW WOULD BE LIKE FOR THIS RFA. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE, DAVID?

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I MEAN WHETHER WE DISCUSS IT INTERNALLY AND ISSUE A BULLETIN TO THE INTERESTED PARTIES, WHETHER WE TALK ABOUT IT IN JANUARY AND THEY'RE THERE, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER TO ME.

MR. KELLER: OKAY.

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: JUST SO LONG AS IT'S SENT OUT TO THE INTERESTED PARTIES FOR THIS ONE. THE OTHER ONE I WANT THE ICOC FOR SURE TO OPINE ON.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. RICK.

MR. KELLER: THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I THINK THAT CONCLUDES THE ACTION ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. SO NOW WE'LL GO TO ITEM 5 ON THE AGENDA AND TAKE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS. AS NOTED ON THE AGENDA, COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. AND SINCE WE HAVE PEOPLE PARTICIPATING BY PHONE, PLEASE STATE YOUR AFFILIATION AND YOUR NAME. WOULD ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS? ANYONE ON THE PHONE WANT TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?

MR. SIMPSON: YES, I WOULD. THIS IS JOHN SIMPSON WITH THE FOUNDATION FOR TAXPAYER AND CONSUMER RIGHTS. AT THE WORKING GROUP MEETING FOR THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, I SUGGESTED IN A WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT WAS DELIVERED ON MY BEHALF BY DAVID JENSON THAT THE IDENTITIES OF ALL OF THE APPLICANTS SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC AT THE BEGINNING OF THE WHOLE PROCESS. AND I WOULD SIMPLY LIKE TO GO ON RECORD AGAIN AS MAKING THAT POINT.

IT'S INCONCEIVABLE TO ME THAT THE INSTITUTIONS THEMSELVES DON'T WANT TO MAKE THE FACT KNOWN THAT THEY'RE APPLYING. SO FAR ALL WE KNOW IS THAT 17 INSTITUTIONS HAVE APPLIED. I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR ALL OF THEM TO BE NAMED. I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S NECESSARY OBVIOUSLY TO DO THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW IN PUBLIC, BUT AT LEAST KNOWING WHO THE INSTITUTIONS ARE IS TERRIBLY IMPORTANT. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JOHN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY BECAUSE THAT'S NOT KIND OF WITHIN THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP'S KIND OF JURISDICTION.

WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS, ANY FACILITIES WORKING GROUP MEMBERS, STAFF, PUBLIC?

VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I KNOW WE ALL WANT -- I THOUGHT THIS WAS -- THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE, AND THIS WAS A GOOD DOCUMENT. SO RICK, LORI, OR ANYBODY ELSE WHO HAD A HAND IN THIS, THANK YOU. THIS WAS VERY HELPFUL, AND I THINK THIS DISCUSSION MASSAGED IT IN A WAY THAT, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ICOC IS BRIEFED ON IT, THEY'LL BE PLEASED WITH THE WORK PRODUCT AS WELL.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SO I'D LIKE TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR COMING AND THE MEMBERS FOR PARTICIPATING AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, AND THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.

(THE MEETING WAS THEN ADJOURNED AT 3:15 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

210 KING STREET

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2007

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.

State Stem Cell Agency Facilities Working Group Transcript 11/15/07

California State Stem Cell Agency

Newsletter Sign-Up

Follow Us