State Stem Cell Agency Facilities Working Group Transcript 7/30/07
This is an uncertified HTML copy of the transcript. 
Click here for a certified PDF transcript.
California State Stem Cell Agency
REGULAR MEETING 07-30-07
|
||||||||
| LOCATION: |
|
|||||||
| DATE: |
|
|||||||
| REPORTER: |
|
|||||||
| BRS FILE NO.: |
|
|||||||
| SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JULY 30, 2007 | ||||||||
| 9 A.M. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: SINCE WE HAVE ON THE TELEPHONE AND PRESENT HERE A QUORUM, I'D LIKE TO ASK THE CHAIRMAN TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO CALL THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP OF THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVE, WE'RE HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING YOU. PLEASE SPEAK UP A BIT MORE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO CALL THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP OF THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE TO ORDER. RICK, COULD YOU CALL THE ROLL. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. MARCY FEIT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ED KASHIAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ROBERT KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: STUART LAFF. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JOAN SAMUELSON. DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JEFF SHEEHY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JANET WRIGHT. | ||||||||
| WE HAVE SEVEN. WE HAVE SEVEN PRESENT, WHICH IS A QUORUM. JANET WRIGHT ADVISED ME THAT SHE DID HAVE SOME CLINICAL RESPONSIBILITIES THIS MORNING AND WOULD TRY TO JOIN US BY 9:30. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WILL ANYONE ELSE BE JOINING US, RICK? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: MAYBE JOAN. WITH THAT, DAVID, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, I'D LIKE TO BEGIN THE AGENDA. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: PLEASE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: TODAY THE MEETING IS TO CONSIDER ITEMS THAT WERE CARRIED OVER FROM THE LAST MEETING OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP RELATIVE TO TWO ISSUES ON THE LARGE FACILITIES GRANT RFA 07-03. THOSE TWO SPECIFIC ISSUES DEAL WITH THE CRITERIA, DEFINITIONS, EVALUATION CRITERIA, AND SCORING TO BE USED BY THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP THAT NEEDS TO BE ADOPTED BY THIS GROUP AND RECOMMENDED TO THE ICOC FOR ACTION AT THEIR AUGUST 8TH MEETING. | ||||||||
| SECONDLY IS THE ACTION BY THIS COMMITTEE ON THE SAME RFA TO APPROVE THE PROCESS FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMEND IT TO THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| I'VE PROVIDED A SET OF SLIDES, WHICH IS AN EXTRACT WITH SOME MINOR ADJUSTMENTS FROM OUR MEETING EARLIER THIS MONTH. I WANT TO KIND OF REVIEW HOW I'VE SET THESE UP. WE HAVE THE FIVE CATEGORIES THAT WERE ADOPTED AT THE LAST MEETING AND THE POINTS THAT WERE ASSIGNED TO EACH CATEGORY. | ||||||||
| FOR EACH OF THOSE CATEGORIES OR CRITERIA, WE ADOPTED -- OR THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP WORKED OUT A DEFINITION. AND AFTER THE MEETING AND WITH INPUT FROM THE APPLICANTS WHO ATTENDED AN INTERESTED PARTY AND INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC ON JULY 25TH, WE PREPARED -- | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: JOAN HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: HELLO, JOAN. THANK YOU. WE'RE JUST BEGINNING, AND I'M BEGINNING ON SLIDE |
||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: OKAY. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: GETTING TO SCORING. AND SO FOR EACH OF THESE CRITERIA, I'VE PREPARED A SLIDE THAT SHOWS FOR EACH CRITERIA THE DEFINITION, EVALUATION STANDARD THAT WOULD BE USED BASED ON THE INPUT THAT WE'VE RECEIVED. SO IF I COULD -- MY INTENTION WOULD BE TO STEP THROUGH THESE FAIRLY QUICKLY BECAUSE YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP THESE AND UNDERSTAND THE CRITERIA AND WORKED ON THE DEFINITION. AND WE HAVE SOME MINOR --IF THERE'S ANY SORT OF MODIFICATIONS, THE MEMBERS SHOULD ADVISE ME THAT YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THAT. SO WE'LL GO THROUGH EACH CATEGORY IN THAT FASHION. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? | ||||||||
| ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, I'LL BEGIN FIRST GOING TO SLIDE 5 ON THE DEFINITION OF VALUE. THIS WAS WORKED OUT AT THE LAST MEETING. THE INTERESTED PARTY MEETING BROUGHT UP SOME INTERESTING -- COUPLE ISSUES RELATIVE TO VALUE. THEY MAINLY DEAL WITH THE NATURE OF THE DETAIL FOR THE COST ESTIMATE, AND WE BELIEVE THAT WE CAN HANDLE THAT THROUGH LANGUAGE WITHIN THE RFA THAT WILL CLARIFY THAT POINT. AND THE OTHER ISSUE THAT I THINK BEARS SOME DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME BY THE WORKING GROUP WOULD BE THAT AT YOUR LAST MEETING YOU ADOPTED THE NOTION THAT THE VALUE CATEGORY WOULD ALSO ADDRESS SPECIAL FEATURES. AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AT THAT INTERESTED PARTIES MEETING THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THOSE SPECIAL FEATURES MIGHT BE AND HOW THE SCORING WOULD DEAL WITH THOSE SPECIAL FEATURES. | ||||||||
| SO WITH THAT -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION THAT IF ALL MEMBERS -- | ||||||||
| (TELEPHONE INTERFERENCE.) | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WHAT I SUGGESTED IS THAT SOMEONE ON THE CALL VIA PHONE, THEY SHOULD MUTE THEIR PHONE UNLESS THEY'RE SPEAKING. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: DID THAT TAKE CARE OF IT? MINE WAS ON THE SPEAKER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IF YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY SPEAKING AND YOU'RE ON VIA PHONE, IF YOU COULD MUTE YOUR PHONE. THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE ANY BACKGROUND NOISE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: SO I GUESS THE QUESTION ON THE TABLE IS A BIT OF CLARIFICATION ON SPECIAL FEATURES AND FOLLOW-UP TO THE LAST MEETING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DO ANY MEMBERS HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT SORT OF SPECIAL FEATURES WE WOULD CONSIDER ALLOWING UP TO FIVE POINTS UNDER VALUE? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DAVID, THIS IS BOB KLEIN. AND THE QUESTION IS WHY ARE WE NECESSARILY STARTING WITH THAT POINT? UNDER INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABILITY, WHICH IS THE POINT ABOVE THAT, CAN WE MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT CATEGORY AS WELL? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SURE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, I THINK THAT GIVEN A STATE THIS SIZE, THE CAPACITY FOR INNOVATION IS BROADER THAN JUST BEING CERTIFIED UNDER THE U.S. GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS. AND SO WE SHOULD PROVIDE THAT THEY CAN GET FULL POINTS FOR MEETING THE EQUIVALENT OF CERTIFIED UNDER U.S. GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS OR THE EQUIVALENT VALUE IN COMPARABLE INNOVATIONS/SUSTAINABILITY OR VALUE CREATION BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER THE U.S. GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS, IF YOU PUT ENOUGH SOLAR PANELS IN, THAT YOU ARE CARBON NEUTRAL AND SELF-SUSTAINING IN TERMS OF ELECTRICITY, IF YOU GET FULL POINTS. LORI'S NODDING AND TELLING ME THAT YOU WOULD, BUT THERE'S JUST SUCH A BROAD RANGE OF INNOVATION, WE DON'T WANT TO BOX OURSELVES IN. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE DISCRETION THAT IF THERE'S EQUIVALENT VALUE OF COMPARABLE INNOVATION OF SUSTAINABILITY OR VALUE CREATION, THAT WE CAN GIVE FULL POINTS FOR SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE NOT INDIVIDUALLY IMAGINED AT THIS POINT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: STUART, WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK THE ISSUE WOULD BE HOW WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MEASURE THAT IF WE'RE CREATING A NEW STANDARD OR EQUIVALENT STANDARD TO ONE THAT IS PUBLISHED AND UNDERSTOOD BY THE INDUSTRY. WE COULD CERTAINLY USE THE WORDS "OR EQUIVALENT" IN THIS, BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO MAKE A JUDGMENT THAT WOULD BE FAIR TO ALL THE PARTICIPANTS IF WE HAVE THOSE THAT MEET A SPECIFIC CRITERIA RELATIVE TO THE GREEN BUILDING STANDARD AND OTHERS POSE WHAT WOULD BE AN EQUIVALENT INNOVATION. | ||||||||
| I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF KEEPING IT WIDE, AS BROAD AS POSSIBLE. MY ONLY CONCERN IS I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JEFF, IF YOU COULD MUTE YOUR PHONE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF, CAN YOU HEAR US? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: HELLO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CAN YOU MUTE THE PHONE WHEN YOU'RE -- WE'RE HEARING YOUR BACKGROUND CONVERSATION. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: OKAY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ON THIS ISSUE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE GIVE SERIOUS THOUGHT TO BOB'S SUGGESTION AND ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE SOME EQUIVALENCY. I KNOW THAT THE LOCAL BUILDING CODE ALLOWS FOR THAT HERE IN SAN FRANCISCO BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE BUILDING ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'RE IN. SO IT'S INCUMBENT ON THE APPLICANT TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT'S EQUIVALENT. | ||||||||
| BUT IT DOES PUT A GREATER BURDEN ON STAFF BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO MAKE THE JUDGMENT, WELL, IF IT'S NOT MEETING THE CERTIFIED STANDARD HERE, THEN IS IT, INDEED, EQUIVALENT. AND THAT WILL REQUIRE MORE WORK ON STAFF'S PART. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK IT ALSO MEANS THAT A JUDGMENT IS COMING DOWN FROM THE COMMITTEE AS WELL, AND THAT'S CERTAINLY WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW TO DECIDE THAT YOU ALL CAN DECIDE WHAT IS EQUIVALENT. BUT I WOULD BE HARD-PRESSED TO BE -- I DON'T HAVE TO CREATE AN ENGINEERING OR A YARDSTICK THAT WOULD HELP ON THAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IF IT'S AN EQUIVALENCY, THEN IT WOULD BE INCUMBENT ON THE APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE TO STAFF THAT THIS IS INDEED EQUIVALENT. THEY JUST CAN'T MAKE THAT STATEMENT ON THE APPLICATION. THEY HAVE TO REALLY DEMONSTRATE IT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ON FUNCTIONALITY AND SHARED RESOURCES AND IN URGENCY, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A LOT OF SUBJECTIVE DECISIONS. SO THIS IS NOT ATYPICAL. THE COMMITTEE HAS A BROAD COMPOSITION IN TERMS OF THE MEMBERSHIP IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS AND MAKE SUBJECTIVE DECISIONS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I AGREE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO ADD "OR EQUIVALENCY" TO EVERYTHING. ONLY IN AREAS WHERE IT'S NECESSARY. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT. IN THE NOTES FROM THE MEETINGS THAT WERE HELD WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES, I NOTICED THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION REGARDING NICHE PLAYERS AND SMALLER INSTITUTIONS THAT WOULD BE SMALL CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE AND THEIR ABILITY TO COMPETE WITH THE LARGER ORGANIZATIONS, SUCH AS UCSF, WHO HAS A POLICY ABOUT GREEN FACILITIES. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT MAKING IT DOUBLY DIFFICULT FOR THOSE NICHE PLAYERS TO PARTICIPATE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THEY'RE GOING TO BE COMPETING IN A SEPARATE CATEGORY, SO THEY WOULDN'T BE COMPETING AGAINST UC SAN FRANCISCO. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I'M SORRY. I MISSED THE LAST MEETING, SO I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IS STUART LAFF ON THE PHONE? | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: YES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: STUART, WHAT'S YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THIS GREEN BUILDING STANDARD? | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: WELL, AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S PRETTY COMPLICATED. BUT THEY DO HAVE PRETTY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR GREEN BUILDINGS THAT ARE GOING TO GET EITHER THE GOLD OR -- I GUESS, PLATINUM, GOLD, AND SILVER. BUT THEY ALSO HAVE BELOW THAT A CATEGORY FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING A LOT OF THINGS TOWARDS A GREEN BUILDING THAT DOES NOT QUALIFY THEM FOR THOSE THREE LEVELS. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU? AND SO THAT'S WHERE SOME SUBJECTIVITY IS GOING TO COME IN ON THE COMMITTEE'S PART, I THINK, IN SAYING IS THAT ENOUGH. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: AND, STUART, WHAT WE'VE USED IN THE LANGUAGE IS THAT IT'S CERTIFIED. IT JUST MEETS THE THRESHOLD OF THE GREEN BUILDING STANDARD WITHOUT REGARD TO THE LEVEL BEING IT PLATINUM OR SILVER OR THE THIRD ECHELON BEING CERTIFIABLE. SO WE'VE JUST SAID THAT THE BAR IS A SINGLE BAR OF MEETING CERTIFIED; AND IF YOU WANT TO GO BEYOND THAT, THAT'S CERTAINLY UP TO THE APPLICANT TO DO THAT AT THE DISCRETION OF THE APPLICANT, BUT FOR PURPOSES OF CIRM, THE POINTS WOULD BE BASICALLY ESTABLISHED ON CERTIFIED. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: OKAY. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU IS A GROUP COULD DO THREE THINGS WHICH ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT TOWARDS A GREEN BUILDING, BUT AREN'T GOING TO QUALIFY YOU FOR THAT. AND THOSE ARE THE GROUPS THAT I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SOME SUBJECTIVITY TO. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RIGHT. AND WE HAVE THE OPTION BOTH WAYS OF MEETING THIS IF WE SAY OR THE EQUIVALENT VALUE AND COMPARABLE INNOVATION/SUSTAINABILITY. | ||||||||
| MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK WE'VE HAD A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION ON THIS. COULD WE JUST REACH A CONCLUSION ON THIS ITEM AND MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'M COMFORTABLE IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION THAT HAS THE LANGUAGE RICK HAS PROPOSED. I'LL PROPOSE IT. DO I HAVE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'LL SECOND IT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, DO YOU WANT TO CALL -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T HEAR THE MOTION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE MOTION IS TO ADD AFTER U.S. GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS OR THE EQUIVALENT VALUE AND COMPARABLE INNOVATION/SUSTAINABILITY. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER, THIS IS TAMAR PACHTER. I MIGHT SUGGEST, GIVEN THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE AVAILABLE TO YOU TODAY, THAT YOU COULD DISCUSS ALL THE ITEMS AND THEN ENTERTAIN A SINGLE MOTION TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THEM. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK THAT WOULD BE GREAT. RICK, CAN WE JUST KEEP -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JUST, TAMAR, I WOULD SUGGEST, BECAUSE THESE ARE ADDITIVE AND WE WON'T KNOW WHAT POSITIONS WE'VE TAKEN, I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER TO HAVE DISCRETE COMPONENTS TO THIS IF WE CAN. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: IF YOU WISH YOU CAN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT'S FINE. SO WE HAVE -- THE MOTION IS, RICK, AS STATED. I PROPOSE THAT WE HAVE A SECOND. YOU WANT TO CALL THE ROLL ON THIS, RICK. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. MARCY FEIT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ED KASHIAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ROBERT KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: STUART LAFF. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JEFF SHEEHY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: JOAN SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JOAN, I'M SORRY. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE MOTION CARRIES AND YOU CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, BOB, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SPECIAL FEATURES. SO WERE YOU PROPOSING -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THEY ADDRESSED MY QUESTION ON THE LAST ITEM. I DON'T HAVE A PARTICULAR POSITION ON SPECIAL FEATURES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I GUESS IF WE CAN'T COME UP WITH A BETTER DEFINITION ON THIS ITEM, I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE ESSENTIALLY ROLL THESE POINTS UP INTO COST, INNOVATION, SUSTAINABILITY, BUT I'M TOTALLY OPEN ON THIS. CAN I GET SOME COMMENTS? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: WE MIGHT JUST LEAVE THIS IN ABEYANCE UNTIL WE'VE MOVED FURTHER INTO THE AGENDA OR TO THE END OF IT. IT SEEMS TO ME THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER ITEMS LIKE THIS WHERE WE DON'T WANT TO ROB PETER TO PAY PAUL IN TERMS OF WHAT WE CONSIDER MOST IMPORTANT AMONG THE CRITERIA. AND THERE MIGHT BE SOME LANGUAGE TO THAT EFFECT SAYING, ASIDE FROM HOW WE RATE IT, TELLING THEM THAT WE DON'T INTEND THESE BUILDINGS TO BE, FOR EXAMPLE, GREEN ABOVE AND BEYOND ALL OTHER CRITERIA. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JOAN, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHAT SPECIAL FEATURES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IF WE'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED THE GREEN BUILDING ISSUE? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU'RE ABLE WITHIN THIS SPACE TO CUT DOWN ON YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE LOAD IN YOUR SPACE, OR WHAT HAPPENS IF YOUR COMMON AREA LOAD IS MUCH LOWER, SO YOU HAVE MORE SPACE EFFECTIVELY IN THE RESEARCH AREA? WHAT HAPPENS IF, IN FACT, THE WAY THAT YOU'VE LAID OUT THE FACILITY, YOU GET MORE PI'S THAT CAN SHARE A PARTICULAR LAB SPACE MORE EFFECTIVELY BECAUSE OF BETTER DESIGN? HOW DO YOU TAKE THOSE ITEMS INTO CONSIDERATION? | ||||||||
| PERHAPS YOU CAN SAY THERE'S UP TO FIVE POINTS IN THIS, BUT YOU'RE NOT COMMITTING YOURSELF TO AWARDING THESE POINTS. YOU'RE TRYING TO CHALLENGE PEOPLE TO SHOW HOW THEY CAN IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF WHAT WE'RE DOING WITHOUT PENALIZING ANYONE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THIS IS DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL SPEAKING. I'LL ASK RICK. DO YOU THINK THIS IS SOMETHING QUANTIFIABLE IN THE SCORING PROCESS THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THESE ENHANCED CAPABILITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT, OR WILL THAT TURN INTO SOMETHING THAT WILL BE A HEADACHE FOR US DOWN THE ROAD? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK WE ACTUALLY HAVE IN THE FUNCTIONALITY CATEGORY THE ABILITY TO ASSESS THE APPLICANT'S PROWESS IN ADDRESSING THOSE ISSUES THAT BOB JUST MENTIONED IN TERMS OF BUILDING EFFICIENCIES AND OTHER ISSUES. SO AT LEAST IN MY THINKING ABOUT HOW WE ARE GOING TO ADDRESS THOSE THINGS, FUNCTIONALITY CARRIES THE POINTS WHERE THAT WILL BE DONE. WE THOUGHT THAT SPECIAL FEATURES WAS SOMETHING MUCH MORE DIFFERENT THAT WAS PROGRAMMATICALLY BASED WHERE THERE MIGHT BE AN ENHANCED CAPABILITY THAT WE'RE UNAWARE OF. MY SENSE IS THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE, AND THAT WE HAVE SUFFICIENT FLEXIBILITY IN THE FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY TO ADDRESS ISSUES. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: MR. CHAIRMAN, IN THE PRIOR PARAGRAPH, IT WAS TWO ITEMS, WAS IT NOT, INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABILITY? THE SPECIAL FEATURES FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY INNOVATION AND IS A GOOD IDEA TO DIVIDE THESE POINTS UP BETWEEN THOSE TWO ITEMS, OR ADD -- IN OTHER WORDS, MAKE INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABILITY BOTH OF THEM UP TO TEN POINTS. SPECIAL FEATURES IS NOTHING MORE THAN INNOVATION FROM MY POINT OF VIEW. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CAN WE GET COMMENT FROM OTHER MEMBERS? | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: IS THIS THE AREA THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER IF THE FACILITY IS BEING BUILT WITH A HIGHLY COLLABORATIVE ENVIRONMENT SO THAT THERE'S A BIG COLLABORATION OR CONSORTIUM? IS THIS THE AREA THAT WE WOULD ADDRESS THAT? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: NO, NOT NECESSARILY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE HAVE A SHARED RESOURCES CATEGORY, MARCY, THAT WOULD LOOK TO THAT ISSUE. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I WOULD ASK. MEMBER KASHIAN, WAS THIS A MOTION TO MOVE THE FIVE POINTS OUT OF SPECIAL -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I WAS JUST TOSSING IT OUT FOR DISCUSSION AMONG THE MEMBERS. IF THERE'S SOME CONCURRENCE AMONG OTHERS, I WOULD MAKE THAT MOTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT MAKES SOME SENSE TO, YOU KNOW, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, TO PUT THE SPECIAL FEATURES IN POINTS AND DIVIDE IT UP BECAUSE I DO -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: COULD YOU SPEAK UP, DAVID? WE DIDN'T HEAR. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WOULD SUPPORT MEMBER KASHIAN'S MOTION. I JUST WANT TO GET FEEDBACK FROM OTHER MEMBERS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK IT MAKES SOME SENSE TO DO THAT BECAUSE IN TERMS OF CREATING VALUE IN CALIFORNIA, IF WE WANT TO CHALLENGE PEOPLE, IT'S AN INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABILITY. WE WANT AS MANY GREAT IDEAS AS WE CAN GARNER OUT THERE. SO WE CAN SPLIT THAT CATEGORY INTO TWO SUBCATEGORIES, INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABILITY, EACH HAVING FIVE POINTS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO COMMENTS ON BOB'S SUGGESTION? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I'M WONDERING IF THOSE AREN'T SPECIAL FEATURES THEMSELVES THAT ARE SEPARATE FROM AN OVERALL VALUE ASSESSMENT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: PART OF THE CHALLENGE I'M HAVING, CHAIRMAN, MAYBE JUST IT'S BECAUSE OF THE HOUR OF THE MORNING, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT LUMPING TWO DISTINCT CONCEPTS INTO ONE. IF IT MAKES SENSE TO DO THAT, AND I HEAR THE CONSENSUS FROM THE COMMITTEE, DAVID, IS I THINK TILTING IN THAT DIRECTION FROM ED KASHIAN'S SUGGESTION. AND SO, DAVID, WE HAVE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE. IT MAY BE OF SOME BENEFIT ON THIS ISSUE TO GET ANY COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON THIS DISCRETE QUESTION. PERHAPS NOBODY WANTS TO COMMENT; BUT IF YOU DO, THIS MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY IF YOU THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA, DAVID, JUST ON THIS QUESTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: NO. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO SEE IF THE PUBLIC HAS ANY IDEAS OF SPECIAL FEATURES THAT WE MAY HAVE MISSED. SO IF THE VICE CHAIR COULD SPEARHEAD THIS FOR ME. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE'RE AT THE CIRM OFFICES. IS THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WANTED TO SAY ANYTHING ON THIS TOPIC, THAT OF SPECIAL FEATURES BEING FOLDED INTO INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABILITY? IT WOULD THEN BE A TEN-POINT CATEGORY WITHIN VALUE. | ||||||||
| MS. SANTA CRUZ: MY NAME IS DANA. I'M WITH THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, UC BERKELEY. I GUESS IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPECIAL FEATURES VERSUS INNOVATION? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SPEAK UP, PLEASE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THIS WAS DANA FROM OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AT BERKELEY, AND SHE WAS SAYING WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPECIAL FEATURES AND INNOVATION. AND WHAT I HEARD ED KASHIAN SAYING IS WE SPLIT THAT CATEGORY, SO INNOVATION GET FIVE POINTS, SUSTAINABILITY GETS FIVE POINTS. | ||||||||
| SO SUSTAINABILITY COULD BE YOU'VE GOT MORE COST BECAUSE YOU'VE USED MATERIALS THAT HAVE VERY LOW MAINTENANCE COST AND, THEREFORE, THIS HELPS BALANCE OFF USING VERY HIGH QUALITY MATERIALS THAT HAVE VERY LOW LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE COST, FOR EXAMPLE. THAT'S A SUSTAINABILITY ISSUE THAT YOU'VE GOT POINTS THAT CAN HELP BALANCE THE COST OF INVESTING. OR YOU COULD HAVE GOTTEN EQUIPMENT THEORETICALLY WITH TEN-YEAR WARRANTIES UNDER SOME INNOVATIVE PROGRAM THAT WOULD REDUCE YOUR LONG-TERM COST, BUT IT WOULD INCREASE YOUR UP-FRONT COST, AND YOU NEED THOSE POINTS TO OFFSET THAT KIND OF INVESTMENT APPROACH. | ||||||||
| MR. O'REAR: RALPH O'REAR, BUCK INSTITUTE. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO ROLL THE SPECIAL FEATURES UP INTO THE INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABILITY AND CREATE THE TEN POINTS. IN SOME WAYS IT CLARIFIES SOME OF THE ASPECTS WE WOULD NEED TO DEAL WITH AS AN APPLICANT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OTHERS, MR. VICE CHAIR, DO YOU NEED TO SUMMARIZE WHAT HE JUST SAID? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THE GENTLEMAN FROM THE BUCK INSTITUTE WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE NOTION TO ROLL SPECIAL FEATURES INTO INNOVATION/SUSTAINABILITY. | ||||||||
| MR. COFFMAN: LOUIS COFFMAN FROM THE SAN DIEGO CONSORTIUM. MY QUESTION IS THE INNOVATION/SUSTAINABILITY AS IT'S CURRENTLY DEFINED, YOU GET FULL POINTS FOR MEETING GREEN. IF WE MOVE THE FIVE POINTS UP HERE, DOES THAT MEAN TEN POINTS FOR GREEN, OR WILL WE HAVE TO DEFINE INNOVATION? I THINK THAT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT DANA WAS ASKING BEFORE. I THINK SUSTAINABILITY ADDRESSES GREEN BECAUSE YOU GET FULL POINTS FOR THAT. IF WE'RE GOING TO MOVE IT UP, AND I WHOLLY SUPPORT MOVING IT UP TO SPECIAL FEATURES BECAUSE IT'S AMBIGUOUS AND VAGUE, I THINK WE NEED TO FIND, TO THE POINT YOU MADE EARLIER ON, MR. KLEIN, THOSE ARE EXCELLENT EXAMPLES OF INNOVATION. I THINK THEY HAVE TO CLEARLY BE DEFINED. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT WAS AN ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT, BUT WITH A CLEAR DEFINITION FOR SPECIAL FEATURES. | ||||||||
| MR. COFFMAN: OF INNOVATION. | ||||||||
| MR. VENTRESCO: I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, BUT I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST PERHAPS AGGREGATING -- JOHN VENTRESCO FROM UC BERKELEY. I WOULD SUGGEST AGGREGATING THE SPECIAL FEATURES AND INNOVATION INTO ONE CATEGORY AND SUSTAINABILITY WHICH IS MORE CLEARLY DEFINED. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT WAS WHAT YOU SAID, BOB, ISN'T IT, SORT OF? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: MY INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE IS THAT I THINK ED KASHIAN'S VIEW WAS MOVE SPECIAL FEATURES UP, COMBINE IT WITH INNOVATION, AND SPLIT SUSTAINABILITY INTO A SEPARATE CATEGORY, SO YOU HAVE INNOVATION, SPECIAL FEATURES, AND SUSTAINABILITY AS A SEPARATE CATEGORY. EACH HAVE FIVE POINTS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: RIGHT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: AND THEN THE GREEN BUILDING STANDARD, YOU WOULD GET THE TOTAL FIVE POINTS FOR SUSTAINABILITY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: FOR SUSTAINABILITY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: OR EQUIVALENT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND I WOULD ALSO SAY, THOUGH, UNDER INNOVATION/SPECIAL FEATURES, IT IS WITH THE STATE WITH AS MUCH CREATIVITY AS CALIFORNIA, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DEFINE SPECIAL FEATURES/INNOVATION. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME SUBJECTIVITY THERE FOR COMMITTEE DISCUSSION BECAUSE IT COULD BE A BROAD RANGE OF THINGS THAT WE JUST FLAT HAVEN'T ANTICIPATED. AND WE'RE TRYING TO SOLICIT INNOVATION AND IDEAS FROM THE STATE AND THE INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE IN THE STATE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO MAKE A SEPARATE CATEGORY FOR INNOVATION/SPECIAL FEATURES UP TO FIVE POINTS? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE SPECIAL FEATURES UP AND JOIN IT WITH INNOVATION, AND IT HAVE FIVE POINTS, AND SUSTAINABILITY HAVE FIVE POINTS WITH, AS JEFF SAID, THE SUSTAINABILITY CATEGORY WILL RELATE TO THE GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS OR THE EQUIVALENT AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED. SO WE'RE SPLITTING IT INTO TWO CATEGORIES UNDER THIS MOTION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I SECOND THE MOTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CALL ROLL, RICK, PLEASE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: PUBLIC DISCUSSION MIGHT BE IN ORDER, MR. CHAIRMAN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO COMMENT ON THIS CHANGE? | ||||||||
| MS. NOLTA: JAN NOLTA, UC DAVIS. I AGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE IT WILL MAKE IT MUCH EASIER FOR US TO PREPARE THE APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SEEING NONE, I THINK IT'S TIME FOR ROLL CALL. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. MARCY FEIT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ED KASHIAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ROBERT KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: STUART LAFF. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JOAN SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JEFF SHEEHY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: MOTION CARRIES. | ||||||||
| WITH THAT, I THINK WE'VE EXHAUSTED THE ISSUES ON VALUE. | ||||||||
| WE HAVE FOUR MORE CATEGORIES. I'M SENSITIVE TO THE AMOUNT OF TIME YOU HAVE AVAILABLE TO GET ALL THE WAY THROUGH THESE AND TO THE PROCESS ISSUES. SO WE'LL JUST MENTION THAT WE'LL TRY TO GO AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. | ||||||||
| THE NEXT ITEM IS LEVERAGE. AND THE DEFINITION THAT WAS WORKED OUT AT THE LAST MEETING DEALT WITH HOW THE COSTS THAT ARE IN -- TO SUMMARIZE, WE HAD AGREED THAT MATCHING FUNDS WOULD BE 20 PERCENT OF THE CIRM GRANT AND THAT THE AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED LEVERAGE, AND THAT COULD ALSO INCLUDE CAPITALIZED PROJECT COST AND PURCHASE OF LAND AND/OR BUILDINGS WITH A 10-PERCENT LIMIT ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. | ||||||||
| FOR PURPOSES OF THE EVALUATION STANDARD, THE EXAMPLE THAT I GAVE ON SLIDE 9 IS THAT WE WOULD SIMPLY TAKE THE APPLICANT'S CALCULATION OF WHAT THEY WOULD TERM LEVERAGE AND DIVIDE THAT BY THE CIRM FUNDING TO COME UP WITH A RATIO. WE WOULD INCLUDE IN THE RFA EXAMPLES OR A TEMPLATE THAT COULD BE FILLED OUT BY THE APPLICANT THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BASICALLY PREPARE THIS ANALYSIS ON A UNIFORM BASIS. SO THAT'S HOW WE PERCEIVE IT. | ||||||||
| SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP AT THE INTERESTED PARTIES MEETING WERE THAT WE NEEDED TO CLEARLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE 10-PERCENT LIMIT ON OVERHEAD, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERING, AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IS, AND WE CAN DO THAT IN THE RFA. THERE WAS A QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS WOULD BE CONSIDERED LEVERAGE, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD NOT -- WE ARE OF THE MIND THAT IT IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED. | ||||||||
| AND AN ISSUE THAT HAS COME UP RELATIVE TO LEVERAGE, AND THE DEFINITION OF LEVERAGE IS THAT WE HAVE STATED AND THE REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT THE MATCHING FUNDS CAN ONLY BE SPENT AFTER THE NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD. THEREFORE, EVERYTHING THAT'S SPENT ON THE PROJECT BY THE APPLICANT PRIOR TO NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD COULD BE LEVERAGE, BUT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE MATCHING FUNDS. | ||||||||
| NOW, THERE MAY BE AS MUCH AS A SEVEN-MONTH LAG BETWEEN ICOC APPROVAL OF THE LARGE FACILITIES GRANT PROGRAM AND THE ACTUAL ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD. THEREFORE, IT MAY BEHOOVE US TO PROMPT MORE ACCELERATED PLANNING OF THESE PROJECTS AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICANTS THE ABILITY TO COUNT THEIR EXPENDITURES ON PLANNING ACTIVITIES FROM THE TIME OF THE ICOC APPROVAL, WHICH WOULD BE SEVEN MONTHS SOONER THAN SAY -- POSSIBLY SEVEN MONTHS SOONER THAN, SAY, COUNTING MATCHING FUNDS FROM THE NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD. SO THAT ACHIEVES AN OBJECTIVE THAT WE HAVE HERE, WHICH IS TO ACCELERATE THE BEST WE CAN. IS THAT CLEAR, OR ARE THERE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT ISSUE? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: COULD I, JUST TO CLARIFY, AND I'M SURE WE'VE SAID THIS MANY TIMES, BUT I JUST WANT TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR. AND I HOPE AS PART OF YOUR TEMPLATE MAYBE OR YOUR EXAMPLES THAT YOU MAY BE PROVIDING WITH THE RFA, THAT THE FUNDS THAT ARE USED TO OFFSET THE COST, TO LEAVE A NET COST, WILL BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF LEVERAGE OR MATCHING, RIGHT? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: FUNDS USED TO OFFSET -- | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YEAH. WE'VE ALWAYS HAD THIS IDEA THAT IF, FOR INSTANCE, YOU WANT TO HAVE I. M. PEI OR FRANK GEARY DESIGN YOUR BUILDING AND YOUR NET COST -- YOUR COSTS LOOKED VERY HIGH, THAT YOU CAN GET DONATIONS TO DRIVE DOWN THAT NET COST. AND YOUR NET COST IS, THEREFORE, LOWER, BUT THEN YOU CAN'T REAPPLY THOSE FUNDS AS LEVERAGE OR MATCHING FUNDS. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT'S WHERE THE 10-PERCENT LIMIT COMES INTO PLAY, JEFF, BECAUSE WE WOULD ONLY COUNT THE ACTUAL HARD COSTS OF THE PROJECT PLUS A 10-PERCENT CAP ON ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERING, AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. SO THAT KIND OF LEVELS THE PLAYING FIELD RELATIVE TO HOW MUCH EFFORT GOES INTO THAT CATEGORY AND HOW MUCH COST. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I JUST USE THAT AS AN EXAMPLE. WE DID PUT FORTH THE NOTION THAT INSTITUTIONS WANTED TO KEEP, FOR WHATEVER REASON, THAT THERE WAS -- I BELIEVE WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, THAT THERE WAS A BALANCE HERE. AND THAT IF YOU WANTED TO BE MORE COMPETITIVE ON COST, YOU COULD DRIVE DOWN YOUR NET COST BY ASSUMING MORE OF THOSE COSTS YOURSELF, BUT YOU COULDN'T THEN COME BACK AND SAY WE HAVE A MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE BUILDING AND WE ALSO ARE HIGHLY -- YOU COULDN'T COUNT BOTH PLACES, I GUESS. YOU CAN EITHER USE IT TO GET A LOWER NET COST, OR YOU CAN USE IT AS HIGHER LEVERAGE, BUT YOU COULDN'T USE IT AS HIGHER LEVERAGE AND LOWER NET COST. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JEFF, I THINK THAT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ON THAT IN TERMS OF IF YOU HAVE INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE IN HIGHLY URBAN SITES THAT ARE EXPENSIVE, THAT WE'RE FUNDAMENTALLY, BY NECESSITY, NEEDING TO GIVE THEM A MAXIMUM INCENTIVE TO CREATE LEVERAGE. OTHERWISE, WE WON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO REACH ALL OF OUR GOALS. AND THAT WE WANT TO LOOK AT THIS AND TEST THIS IN TERMS OF NET COST, BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF LEVERAGE. SO IN SOME SENSES LEVERAGE IS BEING CONSIDERED IN TWO CATEGORIES, BUT WE PUT A BUNCH OF LIMITATIONS ON THINGS THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE DRIVE UP COST, AS RICK SAYS, LIMITING ARCHITECTURE. | ||||||||
| SO I THINK WE GOT TO THE POINT OF SAYING UNLESS WE'RE ABLE TO LOOK AT THAT LEVERAGE IN BOTH CATEGORIES, WE'RE GOING TO KNOCK OUT ALL OF OUR HIGHLY URBAN SITES IN OUR OWN POINT SYSTEM BECAUSE WE'D OTHERWISE BE PENALIZING THEM IN TWO CATEGORIES. EVEN THOUGH THEY GOT LEVERAGE, THEY'D BE SO PENALIZED IN OTHER CATEGORIES, THEY'D BE KNOCKED OUT OF COMPETITION. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: MR. CHAIRMAN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GO AHEAD, ED. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I'D LIKE TO ASK BOB KLEIN A QUESTION. IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE OUR GOAL IS TO GET THESE PEOPLE UP AND RUNNING AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF PENALIZING THEM BY USING SOME OF THEIR MATCHING FUNDS AHEAD OF GETTING THE GRANT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT POINT. THAT'S A SEPARATE POINT THAT I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY'RE SAYING THAT YOU COULDN'T USE -- IF YOU SPENT FUNDS EARLIER, WHICH WE'RE TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE, YOU JUST CAN'T USE THEM ON THE 20-PERCENT MATCH, BUT YOU CAN USE THEM FOR LEVERAGE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THE 20-PERCENT MATCH HAS TO BE CASH. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: CASH, REGARDLESS OF WHAT PERCENTAGE IT IS, BECAUSE THE GREATER MATCH THEY HAVE AND THE FASTER THEY GET GOING, THE MORE THAT WE CAN, I INDIVIDUALLY, TEND TO GRADE THEM. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK THAT WHAT THEY WERE SAYING -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: WE'RE PENALIZING FOR EITHER. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I UNDERSTAND THE POINT. JUST TO CLARIFY, THOUGH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY'RE SAYING THEY JUST CAN'T HAVE SPENT THE LAST 20 PERCENT OF THE PROJECT COST. SO THE PROJECT CAN'T BE TOTALLY COMPLETE SO THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ALLOW THEM TO MOVE AHEAD AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. THEY'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE 20 PERCENT CASH THAT'S AVAILABLE AFTER THE GRANT IS AWARDED TOWARDS THE TOTAL PROJECT COST. SO YOU COULD ACCELERATE IT AND BE WAY DOWN THE STREAM IN CONSTRUCTION, AND I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE ON THE HISTORY OF THE 20 PERCENT, BUT IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME BECAUSE THEY WON'T BE COMPLETE WITH THE PROJECT. SO I THINK THEY'RE ALLOWED TO ACCELERATE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: LET ME JUST MAKE ONE THING CLEAR IN MY HEAD. THE 20-PERCENT MATCHING GRANT AS DEFINED IN PROP 71, WE DECIDED THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE CASH. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RIGHT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE DEFINITION AS PROVIDED. I THINK IT GIVES GUIDANCE TO THE APPLICANTS. IT'S ACROSS THE BOARD. IT'S FAIR. IT'S OBJECTIVE. AND I DON'T THINK IT PENALIZES THE APPLICANTS OR INSTITUTIONS IN AN UNFAIR WAY. THAT'S MY OPINION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AS I UNDERSTAND, YOU CAN COUNT IT TOWARDS LEVERAGE AT ANY TIME. | ||||||||
| BUT THE OTHER POINT, THOUGH, ED, THAT I THINK IN THE PRIOR MEETING THAT YOU AND I HAD DISCUSSED, IN THIS 10-PERCENT CAP ON ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING COST, THE ENGINEERING COST UNDER THAT CAP, I'D ONLY INTENDED TO BE STRUCTURAL AND CIVIL, NOT SYSTEMS. THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION IS THAT YOU MIGHT PUT A LOT OF MONEY INTO DESIGNING YOUR ELECTRICAL SYSTEM TO INCORPORATE SOLAR POWER, FOR EXAMPLE. YOU DON'T WANT TO PENALIZE THAT KIND OF INNOVATION BY DISINCENTIVIZING THE ENGINEERING. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I AGREE. BOB, THE POINT I'M MAKING IS I THOUGHT YOUR ORIGINAL CONCEPT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT INTERNAL COSTS OR INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS WERE NOT USED AS PART OF MATCHING FUNDS OR THE LEVERAGE, EITHER ONE. BUT TO HIRE OUTSIDE ARCHITECTS AND THOSE PEOPLE TO START THE PLANNING PROCESS, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IT ACCELERATES THE WHOLE PROCESS. WHY SHOULDN'T IT BE USED FOR BOTH? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE ISSUE IS THAT IN THAT DISCUSSION, ED, IF I REMEMBER HISTORICALLY, A NUMBER OF PEOPLE CAME UP WITH THIS ISSUE OF IF YOU WANT TO SPEND MONEY ON A WORLD-CLASS ARCHITECT, YOU CAN SPEND IT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO PUT INTERNAL OVERHEAD ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING, MEANING STRUCTURAL AND CIVIL, UNDER A 10-PERCENT AGGREGATE CAP. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: THAT'S FINE. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YOU CAN USE THOSE COSTS FOR YOUR TOTAL PROJECT COST WITHIN THAT CAP. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: AND YOUR MATCHING FUNDS, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE AHEAD OF THE GRANT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THEIR POSITION WAS THAT YOU CAN USE THEM FOR LEVERAGE, BUT NOT FOR THE MATCHING BECAUSE MATCHING THEY WANTED TO HAVE BE CASH. AS I SAID, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CASH REQUIREMENT ON THE MATCHING BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO ALWAYS HAVE -- YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE DOWN TO YOUR LAST 20 PERCENT OF CASH IN THE PROJECT AT THE TIME THAT THIS AWARD GETS GRANTED. SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE DISINCENTIVIZED TO MOVE AHEAD AGGRESSIVELY BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO NEED TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY UNDER LEVERAGE ANYWAY. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC ON THAT ISSUE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO COMMENT? | ||||||||
| MR. REED: DON REED. THIS IS VERY COMPLICATED STUFF, BUT I HEARD LAST TIME, DAVIS WAS TALKING ABOUT IT. I HAVE NO HORSE IN THIS RACE. I WANT EVERYBODY TO WIN. BUT I HEARD DAVIS SAYING BASICALLY THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON THEIR PROJECT FOR A LONG TIME AND THEY'RE FURTHER AHEAD ON SOME OF THEIRS. SO THEY WANT TO PUT IN MONEY NOW AND THEN GET PAID BACK BECAUSE -- AND THAT WAS -- AS A PART OF THEIR GRANT. SO IF THEY GET THE GRANT, THEN THEY WOULD BE PAID BACK. I DON'T SEE THE PROBLEM WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| MS. NOLTA: I WANT TO CLARIFY. JAN NOLTA FROM UC DAVIS. NOT PAY BACK, BUT CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE MATCH BECAUSE WE'RE READY TO GO INTO CONSTRUCTION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: CONSIDERED PART OF THE MATCH OR PART OF LEVERAGE? | ||||||||
| MS. NOLTA: PART OF THE MATCH WOULD BE GREAT IF WE CAN DO THAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: NO, WE'RE NOT. IT'S GOING TO BE CASH. THAT WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION FROM THE WORKING GROUP. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT THAT WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION OF THE WORKING GROUP. IN MY MIND IT'S GOING TO WITH THE ACCEPTANCE AT THE ICOC. OF COURSE, WHAT WE DO ARE JUST RECOMMENDATIONS. | ||||||||
| MS. NOLTA: OKAY. IT JUST SEEMS THAT THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE FARTHER AHEAD. | ||||||||
| MR. VENTRESCO: TOM VENTRESCO FROM UC BERKELEY. I AGREE WITH MEMBER KASHIAN ABOUT THE TIMING ISSUE IS CRITICAL HERE BECAUSE -- WHETHER IT'S, AS YOU SUGGEST, IT MAY BE AT THE TIME OF THE GRANT APPROVAL RATHER THAN THE ACTUAL AWARD. THOSE ARE FINER POINTS. BUT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT MONEY THAT THE INSTITUTION INVESTS IN THE PROJECT FOR PLANNING IN ADVANCE BE COUNTED AS A MATCH FOR THE OVERALL GRANT AMOUNT BECAUSE IT REACHES THAT GOAL OF ACCELERATING THE PROJECT AND BEING ABLE TO DELIVER THE END PRODUCT IN A TIMELY WAY YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO BE. | ||||||||
| MR. ROMNEY: MARK ROMNEY WITH UC DAVIS. ONE OF THE ISSUES FOR CLARIFICATION IS THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND IT'S EITHER MATCH OR LEVERAGE; BUT IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO GO OUT TO BID, LET'S SAY, UNDER CONSTRUCTION, TAKING THE RISK THAT WE DO NOT GET THE GRANT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE WITH THE PROJECT, AT LEAST HAVING THAT PROJECT, THE CONSTRUCTION COST, BE ELIGIBLE ON THE PROJECT. I UNDERSTOOD AT THE LAST MEETING -- AT LEAST I MISUNDERSTOOD THAT YOU COULD NOT GO OUT TO BID. YOU COULDN'T DO ANYTHING UNTIL THE NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD. WE STILL HAVE THE CASH BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE DONE WITH 80 PERCENT OF CONSTRUCTION AT NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO IF I COULD ASK A QUESTION TO STAFF TO UNDERSTAND THIS. LORI, MAYBE YOU COULD HELP US HERE. I THINK THAT THE STAFF IS SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUE OF REIMBURSEMENT BECAUSE WE CERTAINLY WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO GO OUT AND ENTER INTO CONSTRUCTION BIDS AT THE TIME EVEN BEFORE WE DO APPROVAL AS LONG AS IT'S AT THEIR RISK. SO IS THE REAL QUESTION JUST THE QUESTION OF HOW MUCH WE WOULD ACTUALLY REIMBURSE THEM? IS THAT THE QUESTION? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I THINK THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE 20-PERCENT CASH MATCH ON APPROVAL OF THE ICOC MEETING FOR PART 2, THAT AT THAT POINT THEN THE INSTITUTIONS CAN BEGIN TO EXPEND EVEN THAT CASH MATCH BECAUSE ONCE YOU'VE CERTIFIED, ONCE IT'S APPROVED, THEN WE NO LONGER CARE IF IT'S EXPENDED. THE REAL ISSUE IS IF THEY -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BEFORE WE GO FURTHER, JUST SO THAT PEOPLE ON THE PHONE MAKE SURE WE HEAR IT, WHAT LORI JUST SAID IS THAT YOU'RE NOT HELD UP ON THE 20 PERCENT AT THE TIME OF GRANT AWARD. IT'S AT THE TIME OF THE PART 2 ICOC APPROVAL. THEN YOU CAN SPEND YOUR 20 PERCENT CASH. SO YOU CAN HAVE SPENT IT BY THE TIME OF THE GRANT AWARD AND STILL HAVE IT BE ELIGIBLE. THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: AND ANYTHING SPENT PRIOR TO THAT IS LEVERAGE. UNTIL THE ICOC APPROVES THESE GRANTS, WE WOULD NOT THEN BE ABLE TO GO BACK AND REIMBURSE YOU FOR COSTS EXPENDED PRIOR TO THAT DATE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: LORI HAD A SECOND PART TO WHAT SHE WAS SAYING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CAN YOU RESTATE AFTER LORI IS DONE BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO FOLLOW WHAT'S GOING ON THERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR ABILITY TO HEAR IT. LORI, WERE YOU ABLE TO FINISH WHAT YOU WERE STATING? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I WAS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE SECOND PART OF WHAT SHE WAS STATING WAS THAT THE KEY IS, BEFORE THE SECOND ICOC APPROVAL, THERE CANNOT BE FUNDS EXPENDED BY THESE JURISDICTIONS THAT THEY EXPECT TO BE REIMBURSED OUT OF OUR GRANT FUNDS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IT? WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL HERE? I WANT FROM THE INSTITUTIONS WHY THEY'RE HAVING A HEADACHE ABOUT WHETHER IT'S -- EXCUSE ME FOR INTERRUPTING, BUT WHY IS WHEN THE ICOC VOTES OR THE NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD? DIDN'T YOU TALK ABOUT THIS ALREADY AT THE INTERESTED MEETINGS? WHAT DID STAFF RECOMMEND, NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE HAVE RECOMMENDED HERE TO DO IT THAT BASICALLY ALLOWS AFTER THE APPROVAL OF THE PART 2 BY THE ICOC, ALL COSTS INCURRED BY THE APPLICANT AFTER THAT TIME ARE ESSENTIALLY AVAILABLE AS MATCHING FUNDS BECAUSE WE THINK -- AND THE EXAMPLE, THE GOOD EXAMPLE IS THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM UC DAVIS, IS THAT THIS ALLOWS THEM TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF GETTING CONTRACTS UNDER -- IF THEY HAVE ALREADY COMPLETED THE PLANNING AND THAT'S THEIR LEVERAGE, BUT THEIR MATCH IS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION, THEY CAN GET UNDERWAY UNDER THE CONSTRUCTION, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT REIMBURSEMENT LIMITATION ON PROP 71 BECAUSE THEY'RE ACTUALLY SPENDING THEIR MONEY, BUT IT'S COUNTING TOWARDS THE 20 PERCENT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHY CAN'T THEY GO INTO CONSTRUCTION AS LONG AS THEY DON'T COUNT ON ANY REIMBURSEMENT? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT'S FINE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: LORI IS SAYING THAT IS FINE AS WELL. AS LONG AS IT'S AT THEIR RISK, THEY COULD GO INTO CONSTRUCTION BEFORE THE ICOC APPROVAL. YOU COULD LET YOUR CONTRACTS. THE KEY QUESTION LORI IS STATING IS YOU JUST CAN'T GET REIMBURSEMENT FROM US FOR COSTS INCURRED PRIOR TO THE ICOC MEETING THAT DOES THE APPROVAL. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: BUT YOU COULD COUNT THOSE COSTS AS LEVERAGE. YOU JUST CAN'T COUNT IT AS YOUR MATCH, AND WE'RE TRYING TO SAY -- AND IT SEEMS REASONABLE. I MEAN WE'RE ONLY TRYING TO SET ASIDE 20 PERCENT SO THAT WE CAN CLEARLY FULFILL OUR STATUTORY PER PROP 71, THAT THERE WAS A TRUE VALIDATABLE 20-PERCENT MATCH, BUT WE'RE ALLOWING YOU TO COUNT ALL THIS TOWARDS YOUR LEVERAGE AND GET POTENTIAL -- YOU KNOW, WE'RE GIVING 25 POINTS TO THAT. IF YOU HAVE IT ALL COMPLETED BUT THE LAST 20 PERCENT AT THE ICOC MEETING, AND YOU HAVE THAT 20 PERCENT IN CASH, YOU HAVE, WHAT, 80 PERCENT IN LEVERAGE PLUS THE 20 PERCENT MATCH. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DAVID, WE HAVE A FEW MORE COMMENTS HERE, AND TO THE PUBLIC -- | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: AND YOU CAN REIMBURSE -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THE COMMITTEE NEEDS TO VOTE ON THIS BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER MATTERS TO DEAL WITH, BUT WE DO WANT TO HEAR BRIEFLY FROM EACH ONE OF YOU THAT HAD YOUR HAND RAISED. | ||||||||
| MR. ROMNEY: MARK ROMNEY AGAIN. IT WAS JUST THE CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. MY UNDERSTANDING BEFORE WAS THAT IF YOU DID ANYTHING BEFORE, IT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE. AND SO THAT'S WHAT THE WHOLE REIMBURSEMENT QUESTION WAS BECAUSE YOU BASICALLY WERE EXPENDING 10 MILLION, 15, 20 MILLION. | ||||||||
| MR. AULL: LARRY AULL, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, UC. WITH THE DEADLINE OF TWO YEARS, I THINK THAT EVERY CAMPUS, EVERY APPLICANT IS GOING TO BE MOVING VERY FAST TO IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT AS SOON AS THERE IS AN APPROVAL ON PART 2. I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT FOR THAT EXPENDITURE AFTER THAT DATE TO QUALIFY FOR THE MATCH. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. FINAL COMMENT FROM BERKELEY. | ||||||||
| MR. VENTRESCO: YES, JUST BRIEFLY. NOT TO PUT TOO FINE A POINT ON IT, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ACTUAL CASH FLOW OR EXPENDITURES BECAUSE OUR BUDGETARY PROCESS REQUIRES TO IDENTIFY FULL FUNDING AT THE OUTSET OF PROJECT AWARD. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: TOM, CIRM WILL NOT BE ASKING FOR PROJECT APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT. SO IF THE CAMPUS GOES FORWARD AND EXPENDS THOSE, IDENTIFIES THE FUNDS AND EXPENDS THE FUNDS, WE DON'T CARE. SO IT'S NOT OUR ISSUE. | ||||||||
| MR. VENTRESCO: AFTER WE'RE UNDERWAY WITH CONSTRUCTION, YOU DON'T CARE WHAT COLOR THE MONEY IS AS WE'RE SPENDING IT? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: NO. WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO REIMBURSE YOU FOR IT UNLESS THERE'S BEEN ICOC APPROVAL ON PART 2. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO GO FORWARD ONLY BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY CERTAIN FUNDS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ONE FINAL COMMENT. | ||||||||
| MS. SANTA CRUZ: DANA, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT MILESTONES. ONE IS THE MILESTONE WHERE LEVERAGE BEGINS, WHICH IS APPLICATION PART 2 ACCEPTANCE, AND THAT'S THE CASH MILESTONE; IS THAT NOT TRUE? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: NO, THAT'S NOT TRUE. LEVERAGE BEGINS NOW. SO WHATEVER YOU'RE EXPENDING IN THIS PROJECT FOR THIS PROJECT WILL COUNT AS LEVERAGE. CASH MATCH IS AFTER PART 2. | ||||||||
| MS. SANTA CRUZ: AND YOU'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT THE CIRM CASH COMING IN AT THE END. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: AGAIN, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHEN CIRM MONEY COMES IN. ALL WE'RE SAYING IS WE WILL NOT REIMBURSE ANY EXPENDITURES PRIOR TO ICOC APPROVAL OF PART 2. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DAVID, DO YOU WANT TO ENTERTAIN ANY MOTIONS AT THIS TIME? | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: I HAVE ONE QUESTION. DID WE SAY WE'RE EXCLUDING MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING FROM THE 10 PERCENT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I RAISED THE POINT OF EXCLUDING MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL FROM THE 10 PERCENT BECAUSE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE IN SOME AREAS VERY HIGH SEISMIC ISSUES, ETC. AND SOME CHALLENGING SITE CONDITIONS, I'M SURE, THROUGH THE STATE, HAVING INDIRECT OVERHEAD PLUS ARCHITECTURAL PLUS STRUCTURAL AND CIVIL WITHIN THE 10 PERCENT I THINK IS ABOUT ALL YOU CAN CREATE A STRONG LINE ON. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: I WOULD RATHER THINK ABOUT MAKING THAT NUMBER 11 OR 12 PERCENT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GIVE ANYBODY THE ABILITY TO SPEND UNLIMITED FUNDS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IN ANY ONE SPECIAL CATEGORY. I AGREE, BOB. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: THEY DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: IF THE ENGINEERING IS NOT PART OF IT, THEY CAN SPEND AS MUCH AS THEY WANT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHAT INCENTIVE WOULD THEY HAVE TO SPEND EXTRA MONEY ON PLUMBING, ENGINEERING, OR ELECTRICAL? | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: THE INCENTIVE THEY HAVE IS TO TRY A LOT OF RESEARCH ON, SAY, ISSUES OF SUSTAINABILITY OR OF FINDING SOME GOOD WAY OF FINDING AN INNOVATIVE SOLUTION. THEY COULD SPEND TONS OF MONEY ON THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: COULD I OFFER JUST A CLARIFICATION. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: THEY WOULDN'T BE REWARDED IN MY SCORING. DAVID, THIS IS ED KASHIAN. I'M LOSING THE THREAD OF THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE OF THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. BUT AS FAR AS OUR SCORING IS CONCERNED ON THESE ISSUES, IT IS IMPORTANT TO ME TO, OF COURSE, TO LIVE WITHIN THE PROP 71 ISSUES AND PROPRIETARY WITH WHAT BOB KLEIN IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. BUT IT ALSO IS JUST IMPORTANT TO ME TO INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO USE THEIR OWN MONEY TO START THE PROCESS PRIOR TO FILING AN APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| WITHIN THE LIMITS OF -- I THINK WE CAN GO TO GREAT EXTREMES TO FIGURE OUT WHO'S GOING TO ABUSE THAT ISSUE, BUT I THINK WE CAN ENCUMBER THOSE THINGS IN THE PROCESS, AND I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR POINT OF VIEW ON THE SUBJECT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: OKAY. I GUESS IT'S TWO THINGS. ONE IS JUST A CLOSURE TO THIS, WHICH -- WE HAVE TWO ITEMS FOR CLOSURE. ONE ITEM FOR CLOSURE IS I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE 10-PERCENT CAP ON ARCHITECTURAL, STRUCTURAL, AND CIVIL ENGINEERING, AND INDIRECT OVERHEAD BECAUSE IF WE DRILL DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF HOW MUCH PLUMBING OR ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, I THINK WE'RE GETTING TO A LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT WE CAN'T MAKE THE RIGHT JUDGMENTS. AND WE WILL HAVE PUT THE DISCIPLINE IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS WON'T HAVE BEEN SPENT ON ARCHITECTURE, FOR EXAMPLE. SO I'D LIKE TO LEAVE IT AT THAT LEVEL AND AVOID THE RISK OF DISINCENTIVIZING SOME SUSTAINABILITY ENGINEERING INVESTMENTS THAT MAY BE EXPENSIVE, BUT HAVE GREAT LONG-TERM YIELD. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: DAVID, WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE ME YOUR POINT OF VIEW? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK -- ON WHICH SPECIFIC POINT, ED? INCLUDING ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: NO. NO. I'D LIKE TO HEAR HOW WE CAN CLARIFY THIS ISSUE AND STAY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF WHAT BOB'S TRYING TO DO AND THE PROPOSITION 71 AND NOT DISINCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY PRIOR TO GETTING AN AWARD.MR. KLEIN: ED, THAT'S THE SECOND ISSUE, WHICH I DIDN'T YET ADDRESS. AND THE SECOND ISSUE IS I HAVE COMPLETE ALIGNMENT WITH YOU, AS I THINK THE OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS DO, ON THE ISSUE OF GIVING EVERY INCENTIVE TO INSTITUTIONS TO START AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE. WE CLARIFIED HERE THEY CAN GO INTO CONTRACT. THEY CAN BID AND ENTER INTO BIDS RIGHT NOW IF THEY WANTED TO. THAT WILL ALL BE COUNTED TOWARDS LEVERAGE. | ||||||||
| ON A REALISTIC BASIS, TO BE EFFECTIVE IN THESE COMPETITIONS, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SOME LEVERAGE. SO THE KEY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ON WHAT DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL HAS REFERENCED AS A PRIOR UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THIS COMMITTEE, WAS THAT IN ORDER TO LEGALLY AND TECHNICALLY CONFORM WITH PROPOSITION 71, THAT THE 20-PERCENT MATCH WOULDN'T BE COUNTED AS BEING CREDITED UNLESS IT WAS EXPENDED AFTER THE ICOC'S SECOND APPROVAL, BUT ALL OTHER EXPENDITURES COULD BE COUNTED STARTING TODAY. THEY CAN ENTER INTO CONTRACT. THEY CAN PROCEED IMMEDIATELY, WHICH WE ALL WANT THEM TO DO. | ||||||||
| SO I THINK THAT FROM THE AUDIENCE VIEWPOINT, REPRESENTING A NUMBER OF JURISDICTIONS, WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT APPROACH. AND I THINK THE INSTITUTIONS WHO WANT TO ACCELERATE HAVE CONSISTENT UNDERSTANDING WITH US, THAT THIS WILL NOT CREATE A PROBLEM FOR THEM. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE, I THINK, THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ED, I JUST WANT TOCLARIFY BOB'S POINT. THEY CAN SPEND AS MUCH OF THEIR MONEY AS THEY WANT PRIOR TO THE ICOC APPROVAL. IT JUST WON'T COUNT TOWARDS -- WE WON'T REIMBURSE THEM FOR THOSE DOLLARS; IS THAT CORRECT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S CORRECT. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I'M TOTALLY HAPPY WITH THE ISSUE. NOW I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF DAVID OR BOB OR SOMEONE WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO CLARIFY THE ISSUE IN FRONT OF US AS TO HOW OUR DISCUSSION TODAY MEETS THOSE GOALS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DO YOU HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE, BOB? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF WE'D LIKE TO HAVE A MOTION TO CAPTURE THE ESSENCE OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING, THE MOTION WOULD BE THAT THE INSTITUTIONS -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I WOULD JUST SAY WE CAN ADOPT THE MOTION AS IT'S DRAFTED AND REQUEST STAFF TO PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE IN THE RFA SO IT'S CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD. I THINK THAT WOULD BRING CLARITY TO ALL THE APPLICANTS. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO FIDDLE WITH THE LEVERAGE DEFINITION. JUST GIVE AN EXAMPLE IN THE RFA, AND THEN EVERYBODY WOULD UNDERSTAND IT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I DO THINK WE NEED A MOTION, THOUGH, TO CLEARLY STATE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FROM ICOC APPROVAL OF PART 2 AS OPPOSED TO THE NOTION OF NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD. SO WE DO NEED A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT. | ||||||||
| I THINK THE APPROPRIATE MOTION WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD CLARIFY THAT EXPENSES THAT WOULD BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE MATCH CAN START -- EXPENDITURES THAT WOULD BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE MATCH CAN BEGIN WITH APPROVAL BY THE ICOC OF THE APPLICATION PART 2, AND THAT WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST STAFF TO PROVIDE EXAMPLES IN THE RFA OF OUR DISCUSSION TODAY TO CLARIFY WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN MATCH AND LEVERAGE AND WHICH COSTS CAN BE APPROPRIATELY ASSIGNED TO EITHER. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I SECOND THE MOTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, CAN YOU CALL ROLL. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IS THERE ANY FINAL PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS MOTION JUST HERE AT CIRM OFFICES? I'M JUST ASKING, DAVID. | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: JOHN SIMPSON. YES, THIS MAKES GREAT SENSE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. THERE'S NO OTHER FURTHER COMMENT HERE, DAVID. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, CAN YOU CALL ROLL. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. MARCY FEIT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ED KASHIAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ROBERT KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: STUART LAFF. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JOAN SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JEFF SHEEHY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY | ||||||||
| WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SET OF SLIDES ON URGENCY. THE DEFINITION ADOPTED AT YOUR PREVIOUS MEETING DEALT WITH TWO ISSUES UNDER URGENCY. ONE WAS THE NOTION OF PLACING A HIGH PRIORITY ON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT WITHIN TWO YEARS. AND THE SECOND ISSUE DEALT WITH THE INSTITUTION HAVING A HISTORIC AND PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF DELIVERING CAPITAL PROJECTS. | ||||||||
| WE ESTABLISHED THAT THE START DATE WOULD BE THE NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD, AND THE END DATE WOULD BE THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THE BUILDING IS AVAILABLE FOR OCCUPANCY OR INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT. | ||||||||
| FOR PURPOSES OF THE EVALUATION STANDARD, WE'RE SUGGESTING THAT THE TWO-YEAR COMPLETION STANDARD BE AWARDED UP TO TEN POINTS. YOU HAD IDENTIFIED A TOTAL OF 20 POINTS FOR THIS CATEGORY, AND THAT THE PROVEN TRACK RECORD COMPONENT WOULD ALSO RECEIVE UP TO TEN POINTS. THAT WOULD PROVIDE THE 20 POINTS FOR THIS ISSUE. | ||||||||
| ON THE POINT OF ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED AT THE JULY 25TH MEETING, IN TERMS OF THE JULY 25TH INPUT, WE JUST NEED TO CLARIFY IN TERMS OF HOW THE TWO YEAR OR LESS POINT SCORING WILL BE HANDLED RELATIVE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE. AND WE CAN HANDLE THAT WITHIN THE FACILITIES GRANT ADMINISTRATION POLICY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: COULD YOU STATE THAT AGAIN? WHAT DO YOU NEED TO KNOW? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE ISSUE IS THAT IF APPLICANTS PROVIDE A SCHEDULE OF TWO YEARS, AND THE COMMITTEE JUDGES THE TWO YEARS AS FAVORABLE AND AWARDS POINTS, WHAT IS THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THAT ENTITY DOES NOT ACTUALLY DELIVER THE PROJECT WITHIN TWO YEARS? AND BASICALLY WE NEED TO HAVE SOME, SHALL I SAY, INCENTIVES WITHIN THE FACILITIES GRANT ADMINISTRATION POLICY THAT WOULD LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE. AND THAT MIGHT MEAN THAT THERE WOULD BE EITHER CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONSEQUENCES FOR EXTENDING THE SCHEDULE BEYOND THE TWO YEARS, EITHER FINANCIAL -- | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: YOU'RE POSTPONING DEALING WITH THAT UNTIL WE DEAL WITH THE GRANTS ADMINISTRATION POLICY. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE'LL DO IT WITH THE GRANTS ADMINISTRATION POLICY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: TWO THINGS. ONE IS WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED DEBORAH HYSEN'S PROPOSAL THAT WE USE A PARTICULAR CRITICAL PATH EXHIBIT AS A STANDARDIZED EXHIBIT, WHICH MY UNDERSTANDING FROM LORI AND RICK IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. BUT ON THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE A GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION THAT STOPS THEM FROM COMPLETING, WE NEED TO HAVE AN EXCUSE, AN ABILITY TO EXCUSE THAT BASED UPON REASONABLE EXAMINATION THAT THEY TOOK EVERY EFFORT TO AVOID THAT PROBLEM OR TO RESOLVE THAT PROBLEM IN A TIMELY MANNER. | ||||||||
| IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS STARTS ON GRANT AWARD, THAT IF SOMEONE DRAGS OUT THE GRANT AWARD FOR EXTRA MONTHS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT BEING COOPERATIVE, I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS WELL, WHICH CAN BE ADDRESSED IN THE GRANT ADMINISTRATION POLICY. | ||||||||
| BUT ESSENTIALLY IN THEORY THE FACILITIES COMMITTEE SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY, I THINK, TO MEET, BASED UPON RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF OF NONPERFORMANCE, AND BE ABLE TO NOT PAY THE LAST 10 OR 15 PERCENT OF OUR GRANT IF SOMEONE SAYS THEY'RE GOING TO PERFORM IN TWO YEARS, THEY GOT POINTS ON THAT, AND THEY MATERIALLY HAVE NOT PERFORMED. SO THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT'S GOING TO REALLY DRIVE DISCIPLINE INTO THIS PROCESS. | ||||||||
| BUT I'D CERTAINLY LIKE TO HEAR WHAT OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS BELIEVE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I THINK ANYONE CAN SUBMIT A SCHEDULE THAT SHOWS THE COMPLETION WITHIN TWO YEARS. ANYONE CAN DO THAT. I DON'T FEEL IT REALLY -- IT DOESN'T REALLY TO ME HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS COMPLETING IT WITHIN TWO YEARS. I THINK THERE HAS TO BE STRONG, STRONG INCENTIVE OR DISINCENTIVE TO SUBMIT A SCHEDULE AND NOT LIVE UP TO IT BECAUSE THE REALITY IS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO KNOW IF THEY HAVE BEEN REALISTIC IN THEIR SCHEDULE ON ANY PARTICULAR ITEM, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO PERMIT APPROVALS. AND THEN TO CLAIM, OH, WELL, IT TOOK US LONGER TO GET A PERMIT AND THEY DIDN'T HIT THE TWO YEARS. I THINK THIS IS A REAL ISSUE FOR US. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID, THIS IS RICK. I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO POINT OUT HERE IS THAT I THINK EVERYBODY IS IN AGREEMENT THAT THIS IS AN AREA THAT NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH. JUST AS YOU SAY, YOU'RE NOT CLAIRVOYANT. AND FOR PURPOSES OF REVIEWING THE RFA, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL. AND IN THE FACILITIES GAP THAT WE ULTIMATELY BRING BACK FOR FORMULATION AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE ICOC, WE WILL ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OF PERFORMANCE AS A SEPARATE ISSUE, AS AN IMPLEMENTATION ISSUE, NOT A SCORING ISSUE. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: AS WE DISBURSE THE GRANTS, THEN AM I TO BELIEVE THERE WILL BE A WITHHOLD FOR THE COMPLETION AT THE END OF THE PROJECT SO THAT WE CAN HAVE SOME KIND OF RECOURSE FOR NONPERFORMANCE? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. THAT'S OUR INTENTION. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: OKAY. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WHAT WE NEED IS A PROPOSAL. AND JUST TO PUT SOMETHING OUT THERE, I PROPOSE THAT IF SOMEONE IS GIVEN POINTS ON A TWO-YEAR SCHEDULE AND DOES NOT PERFORM WITHIN THE TWO YEARS, THAT THAT EVALUATION BY STAFF COME BACK TO THIS COMMITTEE, AND THIS COMMITTEE BE AUTHORIZED TO WITHHOLD UP TO 15 PERCENT OF THE GRANT IF, IN FACT, THAT PERFORMANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED. SO THAT IS AN AUTHORIZATION ONLY, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT OTHER MEMBERS THINK. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT. MY ONLY -- I AGREE WITH IT IN CONCEPT, BOB, BUT MY ONLY TWEAK WOULD BE IS THAT WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY, WHEN I SAY WE, THE ICOC, CIRM, HAS THE AUTHORITY TO WITHHOLD THE 15 PERCENT, AS YOU STATED, IF THEY DON'T COMPLETE WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR TIMEFRAME, BUT THAT WE DELEGATE THE STAFF THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION. AND IF THE APPLICANT IS UNHAPPY, THEY CAN THEN PETITION THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. I WOULD JUST FOR EXPEDIENCY -- NOT EXPEDIENCY, MORE EFFICIENCY, I'D LIKE TO SEE STAFF THAT WOULD HAVE THE EXPERTISE AND READILY AVAILABLE RESPONSE WITHOUT HAVING TO GET THIS WORKING GROUP TOGETHER. IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, I WOULD ACCEPT THAT SO THAT IF THE APPLICANT IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO APPEAL TO THE FACILITIES GROUP. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YES, ABSOLUTELY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I WOULD ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK WE NEED MORE DISCUSSION ON EXACTLY WHEN YOU SAY WITHHOLD THE 15 PERCENT OF THE CIRM, SO ARE YOU PROPOSING AS A PENALTY THAT ESSENTIALLY THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT GET 15 PERCENT OF THE GRANT AWARD IF THEY DIDN'T HIT THEIR DATE? | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: CAN I INTERRUPT FOR A SECOND? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JUST A SECOND, TAMAR. JUST LET ME CLARIFY AND THEN I'M GOING TO CALL ON TAMAR. THE POINT HERE IS THAT IF SOMEONE HAS PROPOSED THAT THEY GET POINTS FOR PERFORMANCE AND THEY DON'T, THAT THE STAFF AND/OR ON APPEAL THE COMMITTEE COULD DECIDE THAT UP TO 15 PERCENT. IT'S NOT AUTOMATIC. IF, IN FACT, THEY HAVE A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTAL EXCUSE, IT MAY BE ZERO. BUT UP TO 15 PERCENT OF THE GRANT MAY BE WITHHELD FOR NONPERFORMANCE ON THE TIME PERIOD ON WHICH THEY GOT THEIR POINTS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: MEMBERS, TAMAR, GENERAL COUNSEL, WANTED TO COMMENT. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT AGAIN THAT THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO REACH FOR THE RFA, AND IT CLEARLY IS A COMPLICATED ONE THAT MAY BE MORE PROPERLY ADDRESSED IN THE CONTEXT OF YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE FACILITIES GAP, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF WORK YOU NEED TO GET THROUGH THIS MORNING. | ||||||||
| SO MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO NOT CONSIDER ANY MOTION RIGHT NOW UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY HAVE THE FACILITIES GAP BEFORE YOU BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S GOING TO GOVERN HOW THE INSTITUTE IS GOING TO RESPOND TO THE ACTUAL PERFORMANCE OF THE GRANT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I DO THINK THE DISCUSSION IS HELPFUL SO THAT APPLICANTS KNOW THAT WE INTEND TO TAKE -- THAT WITHIN THE GRANTS ADMINISTRATION POLICY, WE DO INTEND TO TAKE THIS TWO-YEAR URGENCY SERIOUSLY, SO PLEASE SUBMIT REALISTIC SCHEDULES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'M PERFECTLY HAPPY TO WAIT UNTIL THE GAP TO SEE HOW THE STAFF RECOMMENDS IMPLEMENTING THIS PROVISION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IT'S FLAGGED. DAVID, I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HERE AT CIRM. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK THAT MAKES GOOD SENSE. BY THE WAY, I THINK THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WE'LL HAVE TO FLESH OUT IN A LOT OF DETAIL. SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT APPLICANTS NEED TO KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THIS. | ||||||||
| I HAVE TWO ISSUES REGARDING URGENCY THAT I WANT TO BRING UP. IS THAT OKAY, DAVID? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YES, PLEASE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO ONE IS -- ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAD, AND I JUST DISCUSSED THIS WITH RICK, WAS IF WE GIVE TEN POINTS ON THIS TWO-YEAR COMPLETION, BUT LET'S SAY HYPOTHETICALLY FOR THE LARGEST GRANT APPLICATION, NONE OF THE APPLICANTS ACTUALLY PROPOSE MEETING IT, EVERYONE WOULD GET ZERO IN THAT. SO IF WE GIVE TEN POINTS -- LET'S SAY HYPOTHETICALLY YOU COULD HAVE -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH THAT, DAVID? THE SCORES -- WERE THAT TO HAPPEN IN THE HYPOTHETICAL, THEN THE SCORES WOULD JUST BE TEN POINTS LOWER ACROSS THE BOARD. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: NO. NO. NO. YOU'RE NOT LETTING ME FINISH MY POINT. IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT HERE. HYPOTHETICALLY YOU COULD HAVE TWO APPLICANTS, ONE WITH A 25-MONTH SCHEDULE AND ONE WITH A 35-MONTH SCHEDULE, BOTH GETTING ZERO POINTS IN THIS CATEGORY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: NO. TEN POINTS OF THE 20 POINTS FOR URGENCY ARE BASED UPON THEIR ABILITY TO DELIVER ON AN EXPEDITED SCHEDULE, AND YOU WOULD HAVE GRADIENTS IN THAT TEN POINTS SO THAT SOMEONE COULD HAVE A PHENOMENAL ABILITY TO DELIVER; BUT IF THEY SAID THEY'RE GOING TO DELIVER IN 36 MONTHS AND SOMEBODY HAD A PHENOMENAL ABILITY TO DELIVER, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO DELIVER IN 25 MONTHS, SOMEONE'S GOING TO GET TEN POINTS AND SOMEONE'S GOING TO GET TWO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. I JUST THINK WE NEED TO HAVE CLARIFICATION UNDER PROOF BECAUSE IT SAYS PROVEN TRACK RECORD. YOU COULD CONCEIVABLY HAVE A TEAM WITH A VERY GOOD PROVEN TRACK RECORD, BUT THEY SHOW A LESS AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULE. I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY THAT WE NEED TO FLESH OUT THE CONCEPT OF PROVEN TRACK RECORD AND SCHEDULE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO YOU'RE ASKING THE STAFF JUST TO PUT SOMETHING IN THE TEXT TO INDICATE THAT GRADIENT METHOD OF EVALUATING PEOPLE WITH A PROVEN TRACK RECORD SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT AN AUTOMATIC TEN POINTS JUST TO HAVE A PROVEN TRACK RECORD. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY, BOB, IS THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO ITEMS. YOU CAN CONCEIVABLY HAVE AN EXTREMELY STRONG TEAM, RIGHT, BUT THEY HAVE A BAD SCHEDULE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RIGHT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. THEN YOU CAN HAVE A WEAK TEAM WITH A GREAT SCHEDULE. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT YOU COULD -- WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THIS -- REMEMBER, WE'RE SAYING PROVEN TRACK RECORD UP TO TEN POINTS. I THINK IT HAS TO SAY PROVEN TRACK RECORD AND EXPEDITED SCHEDULE. WE SHOULD CHANGE HOW THIS IS -- THE CLARIFICATION ON THIS POINT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IT SAYS PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF DELIVERY. I SEE. SO THE PROBLEM IS THE MODIFIER IS IN THE WRONG PLACE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE. SO YOU WANT IT TO SAY HAS AN HISTORIC AND PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF DELIVERING CAPITAL PROJECTS ON AN EXPEDITED SCHEDULE AND HAS SUBMITTED AN EXPEDITED SCHEDULE ON THIS PROJECT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RIGHT. RIGHT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT MAKES SENSE. EVERYONE HERE IS SAYING THAT MAKES SENSE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW BECAUSE THE WAY IT READS NOW, YOU COULD HAVE A GREAT TRACK RECORD, BUT A BAD SCHEDULE AND YOU HAVE TO GET THE TEN POINTS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DAVID, YOU MADE A REALLY GOOD POINT. AND WE'LL TAKE THAT AS MOTION, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SECOND. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: SINCE YOU'RE THE CHAIR AND MADE THE MOTION, I'LL MANAGE THE ROLL CALL. IS THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NO PUBLIC COMMENTS, RICK, CAN YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. MARCY FEIT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ED KASHIAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: NO. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ROBERT KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: STUART LAFF. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: I THINK I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JOAN SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I -- I -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JOAN, DO YOU WANT TO HOLD AND SEE HOW EVERYBODY ELSE VOTES? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: WHY NOT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE'LL PAUSE. WE'LL PASS. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JEFF SHEEHY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: MY CONCERN IS THAT I THOUGHT WE WERE REACHING CONSENSUS ON THE LANGUAGE. AND I'M RELUCTANT TO APPROVE IT IF TWO OF OUR REAL ESTATE EXPERTS ARE RELUCTANT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ONE IS ABSTAINING AND ONE IS VOTING NO. SO HOW DO YOU WISH TO VOTE, JOAN? THE MOTION IS GOING TO CARRY. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: ALL RIGHT. YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: MOTION CARRIES. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: DAVID, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT TO RICK KELLER. I THINK EVERY ONE OF OUR CONTRACTS, WHOEVER YOU AWARD THEM TO, SHOULD INCLUDE A COMPLETE FORCE MAJEURE CLAUSE, ANY ISSUES THAT ARE BEYOND THEIR CONTROL, INCLUDING CIVIL COMMOTION, BESIDE GOVERNMENT STRIKES AND THAT KIND OF THING. | ||||||||
| I ALSO BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN ENSURE, IF YOU'RE IN DOUBT ABOUT THE CAPABILITY OF THE EXECUTION OTHER THAN GOVERNMENTAL ISSUES, YOU CAN REQUIRE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IN THE INSTITUTION TO GET A COMPLETION BOND. THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE WAYS TO DEAL WITH THIS, AND I BELIEVE THAT THE STAFF IS OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE TO THE COMMITTEE AND TO THE ICOC THE PROS AND CONS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION. AND REMEMBER SOMETHING. WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH JUST PEOPLE OFF THE STREET OR UNKNOWN QUANTITIES. THESE ARE WELL-ESTABLISHED, LONG-TERM INSTITUTIONS. AND THAT'S THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE WILL TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT, AND I'LL WORK WITH GENERAL COUNSEL ON APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE IN THE RFA. | ||||||||
| WITH THAT, I'D MOVE US TO THE SHARED RESOURCES CATEGORY. THIS CATEGORY, THE DEFINITION WAS ADOPTED AT THE LAST MEETING ADDED BY THE COMMITTEE. I WANT TO POINT OUT THE FACT THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASKING FOR COMMENTS ON THE DEFINITION, MEMBER JANET WRIGHT SUGGESTED A REVISION, A MINOR ONE, BUT WITH IMPLICATIONS THAT WARRANT YOUR ENDORSEMENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, THIS IS DAVID. I JUST WANT TO MENTION ONE OTHER ITEM ON URGENCY, I'M SORRY, BEFORE WE GO ON. YOU SAY -- I JUST THINK YOU NEED TO CLARIFY SOME LANGUAGE UNDER THE END DATE. YOU SAY THE BASE BUILDING IS AVAILABLE FOR OCCUPANCY AND/OR INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT. BECAUSE, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THE BASE BUILDING, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AD NAUSEUM AT OUR LAST MEETING. I JUST THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO CLARIFY THAT THE SPACE IS REALLY READY FOR OCCUPANCY BECAUSE WHEN YOU START USING THE WORD "BASE BUILDING," IT BECOMES SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT TO CLARIFY THIS ISSUE. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: JEFF, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT, BUT WOULD YOU CONSIDER SAYING IS OCCUPIED INSTEAD OF READY FOR OCCUPANCY? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: POINT OF ORDER, CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER. THIS IS DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. I WOULD, JUST BEFORE WE GO INTO A TANGENT CONVERSATION ABOUT END DATE, I JUST WANT TO REMIND OUR COLLEAGUES THAT DAVID IS RIGHT. WE DID HAVE A FULL, HEALTHY DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS ISSUE AT OUR LAST FACILITIES WORKING GROUP MEETING. I THINK THE DEFINITION WE CAME UP WITH IS A GOOD ONE. I RECALL THAT BOB HAD SOME POINTS ABOUT ONE FLOOR BEING READY AND THE OTHER NOT, AND IT ALL SEEMED VERY REASONABLE. I DON'T SEE IN OUR NOTES ANY PUSHBACK FROM THE INSTITUTIONS THAT WILL APPLY FOR GRANTS. IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER, WE REALLY DO NEED TO MOVE ON TO SHARED RESOURCES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'M OKAY WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. LET'S HAVE THAT -- CAN WE START THAT CONVERSATION? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DAVID, I DO UNDERSTAND. I JUST, IN COMMENTING ON WHAT DAVID JUST SAID, I WOULD UNDERLINE WHAT HE JUST SAID ABOUT THE FLOOR BEING AVAILABLE. WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BASE BUILDING, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BASE BUILDING DESIGNATED FOR CIRM SPACE. SO IF IT'S ONE FLOOR DESIGNATED FOR OUR FLOOR, THAT'S THE FLOOR THAT HAS TO BE READY FOR OCCUPANCY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE CONVERSATION. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IF I CAN MOVE ON TO THE SHARED RESOURCES THEN, WE DID HAVE THE ONE REVISION TO THE DEFINITION THAT YOU HAD AT YOUR LAST MEETING. I'D RECOMMEND THAT WHATEVER MOTION, IF YOU AGREE WITH THAT, THIS WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE BENEFITS OF SHARED RESOURCES REDUCE THE COST TO CIRM RATHER THAN REDUCE THE COST OF THE OVERALL PROJECT. | ||||||||
| THE EVALUATION STANDARD THAT WAS IDENTIFIED WAS THAT THE SHARED RESOURCES SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED AS FACILITIES CAPITAL ASSETS RATHER THAN OPERATIONAL OR COLLABORATIVE ELEMENTS. SO IT MAY BE CONFUSING ON THE SLIDE. LET ME MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND, THAT WHEN WE WENT INTO THE INTERESTED PARTIES MEETING, WE HAD IDENTIFIED UP TO TEN POINTS THAT WOULD SAY SHOW US HOW YOU'RE USING SHARED RESOURCES RELATIVE TO CAPITAL ASSETS TO DRIVE DOWN COSTS AND BE MORE EFFICIENT AND PROMOTE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE MISSION, THE VALUE OF CIRM'S MISSION. | ||||||||
| AS WE HAD THE DISCUSSION, IT WAS CLEAR -- AND THE SECOND ISSUE WAS THAT WE ASSIGN FIVE POINTS THAT SAID, WELL, IN THE CASE WHERE YOU HAVE COLLABORATIONS OR THE OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE OPERATING COSTS OR PROMOTE COLLABORATIONS, THERE COULD BE FIVE POINTS ASSIGNED, AND THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE SHARED RESOURCES SCORING FOR THE PART 2. | ||||||||
| AFTER CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION, WE SETTLED ON THE FACT THAT THE OPERATION AND COLLABORATIVE COMPONENT IS REALLY AN ELEMENT OF PART 1. AND THAT THE RECOMMENDED EVALUATION STANDARD WOULD BE 15 POINTS SOLELY BASED ON THE SHARED RESOURCES THAT ARE RELATED TO FACILITIES CAPITAL ASSETS. AND SO THAT'S THE PROPOSAL AS IT HAS BEEN DRAFTED. | ||||||||
| AND IF YOU WANT TO UNDER THE OTHER ISSUE OF SAYING IF THESE SHARED RESOURCES ARE UNDER A FORMAL CONSORTIUM VERSUS A MORE, SHALL I SAY, INFORMAL SHARED FACILITY, YOU MAY WANT TO GIVE SOME GUIDANCE ABOUT HOW THOSE 15 POINTS WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED UNDER THOSE TWO SCENARIOS. SO YOU HAVE SOME GRADATION THERE AS POSSIBILITY AS WELL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS. MR. SHEEHY: DO WE NEED A MOTION TO ADOPT MEMBER WRIGHT'S REVISION AND ALSO JUST TO START A DISCUSSION TO MAKE THAT SHIFT THAT CAME OUT OF THAT MEETING TO SAY CAPITAL ASSETS, THE WHOLE 15 POINTS APPLY THERE? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: CAN WE SPLIT THOSE CONCEPTS AND DEAL WITH MEMBER WRIGHT FIRST? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YEAH. I THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD. IF WE NEED TO ADOPT THAT, LET'S GO AHEAD. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF JEFF IS MAKING A MOTION TO ADOPT MEMBER WRIGHT'S PROPOSAL, I'D SECOND THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CAN WE RESTATE IT SO IT'S CLEAR? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE MOTION IS TO ADOPT THE REVISED WORDING OF INSERTING "TO CIRM" IN THE DEFINITION OF SHARED RESOURCES AS IT APPLIES TO SLIDE 14 AS WAS ADOPTED BY THIS COMMITTEE AT THE JULY 12TH MEETING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: FAIR ENOUGH. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. MARCY FEIT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ED KASHIAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ROBERT KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JOAN SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JEFF SHEEHY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DID I GET YOU, STUART? | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: NO, BUT MY ANSWER IS YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: MOTION CARRIES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE VICE CHAIR WAS OUT OF THE ROOM. HE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO ASK IF THERE WAS ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IS THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO COMMENT AFTER THE FACT? NEVER TOO LATE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT HANDLES THE FIRST PART OF MEMBER SHEEHY'S ISSUES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE, I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY, SO WHEN CAPITAL ASSETS, IF SOMEONE HAS A VERY EXPENSIVE CORE SETUP OF EQUIPMENT, THAT WOULD BE A CAPITAL ASSET. IT'S NOT JUST BUILDINGS. IT WOULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: MAYBE WE CAN GET SOME PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS TOO BECAUSE I'M NOT CLEAR ON -- I AGREE IT'S A LITTLE MORE -- IT SEEMED A LITTLE BIT SIMPLER, THOUGH I UNDERSTAND WHY. WE HAVE THE COLLABORATIONS ISSUE, WHICH I DO THINK IS THE OTHER REVIEW PROCESS, BUT WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS THAT WE WANT TO DEFINE FOR COLLABORATION WITHIN THIS CONTEXT -- OR SHARED FACILITY WITHIN THIS CONTEXT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE REASON I ASK THE QUESTION IS THAT THERE ARE INSTITUTIONS LIKE THE STOWERS INSTITUTE THAT HAS A CENTRALIZED CORE, AND THEY BELIEVE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT HAVING A CENTRALIZED CORE WITH A DEDICATED STAFF LEADS TO MORE PRODUCTIVITY OF VERY EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT, IT LEADS TO BETTER QUALITY AND CONSISTENT RESULTS. AND SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT TWO ORGANIZATIONS ARE WORKING TOGETHER, AND ONE HAS AN EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE CORE EQUIPMENT. INSTEAD OF US DUPLICATING THAT CORE, THEY PLEDGED ACCESS TO THIS OTHER GROUP TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT CORE, AND THAT THAT PROVIDES COST SAVINGS TO US, AND THAT'S CAPITAL EQUIPMENT. | ||||||||
| SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT IT'S CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AS WELL AS CAPITAL BUILDING. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I WONDER IF THIS HAS SOME VALUE IN TERMS OF THE CONTEXT OF WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE MORE GLOBAL ISSUE HERE, WHICH IS ARE WE REALLY TALKING ABOUT CONTINUUM FROM ZERO POINTS FROM BEING A SINGLE INSTITUTION COMPLETELY BY YOURSELF TO SETTING UP AS OUR PARADIGM A FORMAL CONSORTIUM WHERE EVERYTHING VIRTUALLY ALMOST SOUP TO NUTS IS IN ONE BUILDING THAT'S BEEN COLLABORATED. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IS OUR SPECTRUM BECAUSE THAT MAY HELP US DEFINE WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE THE CAPITAL ASSETS AND WHERE THEY FALL IN THAT KIND OF CONTINUUM? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I DO SEE THAT WE HAVE THE LARGER GLOBAL ISSUE. WE HAVE X POINTS FOR SHARED FACILITY AND Y POINTS FOR A FORMAL CONSORTIUM, WHICH SEEMS TO LEAD INTO THE DISCUSSION IS WHAT IS OUR CONTINUUM HERE. | ||||||||
| SO SHARED CORE FACILITIES MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, SOMEWHERE ON THAT SPECTRUM FOR THOSE 15 POINTS WITH THE OVERALL HIGHEST POINT TOTAL GOING TO A FORMAL CONSORTIUM WHERE INSTITUTIONS COLLABORATIVELY BUILD ONE SINGLE FACILITY THAT THEY SHARE COMPLETELY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IN OTHER WORDS, YOU GET MORE EFFICIENCY IF THAT SHARED CORE IS IN THE SAME BUILDING THAN IF IT'S IN ANOTHER INSTITUTION'S BUILDING, BUT YOU GET POINTS FOR BOTH. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: ALSO, I THINK IT WAS IN THE DISCUSSIONS WITH INTERESTED PARTIES THAT A VERY EXPENSIVE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT MIGHT, A CT TOMOGRAPHY PIECE OF EQUIPMENT, COULD BE IN THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. SO THAT COULD BE A SHARED RESOURCE OF SIGNIFICANCE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YEAH. THAT WAS THE SAME POINT I WAS MAKING, MARCY, BUT I THANK YOU FOR THE BRILLIANT ILLUSTRATION. | ||||||||
| JEFF IS RAISING THE POINT THAT POTENTIALLY WE NEED TO INDICATE THAT IN THE SCALE, THAT IF THE -- BECAUSE OF A CONSORTIUM, THE EQUIPMENT IS IN THE SAME BUILDING BECAUSE ALL INSTITUTIONS HAVE COME TOGETHER TO BUILD A COMMON BUILDING, THEY WOULD PRODUCE HIGHER EFFICIENCY; AND, THEREFORE, THEY SHOULD GET POINTS FOR THAT THAT ARE TOWARDS THE UPPER END OF THE SCALE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I'M JUST TRYING TO PUT THIS DISCUSSION IN SOME SORT OF CONTEXT BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE LARGER ISSUE IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT COUNTS AND THEN HOW MUCH IT COUNTS. AND IT SEEMS LIKE THIS DISCUSSION STARTED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A CONSORTIUM, OF A FORMAL CONSORTIUM, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE REWARD. AND THAT IT DOES SAVE CIRM MONEY TO HAVE MORE INSTITUTIONS COLLABORATE AND SHARE RESOURCES, AND THAT HAS BEEN A LONG HELD VALUE THAT THE ICOC HAS EXPRESSED. | ||||||||
| I GUESS IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE SHOULD FIGURE OUT -- WE ACTUALLY HAVE A NUMERICAL WEIGHTING HERE THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO SET UP A CONTINUUM OR SCALE OR WHAT HAVE YOU AND SAY CERTAIN THINGS WILL COUNT ON THAT SCALE. BUT, FOR INSTANCE, IF SOMEONE DID HAVE THE TYPE OF THING THAT MARCY JUST EXPLAINED THAT WAS AVAILABLE REGIONALLY TO MULTIPLE INSTITUTIONS, WOULD THAT COUNT FOR THE FULL 15 POINTS? I GUESS IT'S THE KIND OF QUESTION THAT STARTS DEBATE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON JEFF'S COMMENT. THIS IS DAVID. YOU KNOW, ONE OF MY CONCERNS THAT I'VE HAD IS THAT YOU MAY HAVE AN INSTITUTION, AN APPLICANT, THAT IS NOT A CONSORTIUM, BUT HAS MADE TREMENDOUS EFFORT, AS MARCY IS POINTING OUT, AS JEFF'S POINTING OUT, ON THE COLLABORATION FRONT. MY CONCERN IS THAT I DON'T WANT TO IN ADVANCE OF SEEING WHAT THOSE EFFORTS MIGHT BE NOT BE WILLING TO GIVE SOME OTHER POTENTIAL APPLICANT FULL POINTS UNDER THE SHARED RESOURCES VERSUS JUST GRANTING A CONSORTIUM, BECAUSE WE ONLY KNOW OF ONE, THOSE POINTS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IN TERMS OF GETTING TO JEFF'S POINT, THOUGH, JEFF, WHAT ABOUT IF THE WAY WE AWARDED THE CONSORTIUM A BENEFIT WAS THAT IN TERMS OF THE TOTAL CAP WE WOULD AWARD, SINCE IT'S IN THE SAME BUILDING, INCREASING THEIR CAP FOR THESE COSTS THAT CAN BE IDENTIFIED THAT ARE GOING TO BE SHARED BY MULTIPLE INSTITUTIONS IN THE SAME BUILDING? SO IF WE HAVE A $40 MILLION TOTAL CAP, AND THERE'S $5 MILLION OF CRITICAL EQUIPMENT IN HERE THAT IS NOW GOING TO BE SHARED BY THREE OR FOUR INSTITUTIONS UNDER A CONSORTIUM, THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO GET THEIR CAP INCREASE FOR THE MAXIMUM GRANT BECAUSE OF THE ADDED EFFICIENCY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE. IT'S HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND HOW -- I THINK THAT'S ALMOST AN ICOC ISSUE. I WASN'T ARGUING FOR ANY PARTICULAR POINT. I WAS JUST TRYING TO PUT OUT THERE THAT THE DISCUSSION REALLY OUGHT TO FOCUS ON THIS CONTEXT. I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ON WHAT SHOULD GET THE MOST POINTS AND HOW IT SHOULD FIT. I WAS JUST TRYING TO LEAD US TOWARDS -- IF WE'RE GOING TO START TALKING ABOUT, I THINK THAT WHEN WE DO AN RFA, WE ASK PEOPLE TO COMPETE ON AN EQUAL BASIS AND WE DON'T ASSUME THAT SOMEONE IS GOING TO GET MORE MONEY BECAUSE IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE THAT WE'RE A PRIORI DECIDING THAT THE CONSORTIUM GETS MORE MONEY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: NO. YOU'D HAVE TO SAY ON A SCIENTIFIC BASIS THERE WAS A VALUE TO IT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: BUT YOU MAY HAVE A VALUE AT AN INSTITUTION, AS DAVID JUST DESCRIBED, THAT HAS SOME VERY UNIQUE FACILITIES THAT THEY MAKE WIDELY AVAILABLE ON A REGIONAL BASIS, AND WHY WOULD THEY NEED TO BE -- WHY WOULDN'T THEY BE ABLE TO COMPETE FOR MORE MONEY ON THAT BASIS AS WELL? YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY YOU'RE GOING TO LET A LOT OF PEOPLE USE YOUR STUFF -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHY DON'T WE DO BOTH? WHY DIDN'T WE ADOPT IT FOR WHEN YOU CAN SHOW A SCIENTIFIC VALUE? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: BECAUSE THEN OUR CAPS START TO BECOME MEANINGLESS, AND THEN IT GETS VERY DIFFICULT TO DEFINE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A FUNDING ISSUE AS OPPOSED TO A POINT ISSUE. SO IF YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT WHATEVER CAPS WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN PLACE FOR THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT AN INSTITUTION CAN BE, IF WE MAKE THOSE VARIABLE, I THINK WE NEED TO BE MORE -- IF IT IS, INDEED, THE DESIRE OF THE ICOC TO CAP AT A MAXIMUM VALUE WHAT A GRANT AWARD WOULD BE, THEN I THINK -- I MEAN I THINK THAT'S AN ICOC QUESTION. I JUST DON'T KNOW IF I'M READY AT THIS POINT. WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SCORE. | ||||||||
| THE ICOC DECIDES THAT HAVING FACILITIES WITHIN FACILITIES BE WIDELY AVAILABLE, THEY WANT TO GIVE PEOPLE MORE MONEY, THAT'S FOR THE ICOC, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW THAT RELATES TO OUR SCORING. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER, I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL HAS NOW DIALED INTO THE CALL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. BOB, I THINK JEFF'S GOT A VERY GOOD POINT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SCORING NOW. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE DOLLARS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ALL RIGHT. I WAS JUST TRYING TO PICK UP ON JEFF'S POINT AND FIND A DIFFERENT WAY BECAUSE I HEARD THE EMPHASIS ON MAKING SURE THAT WE PROVIDED ADEQUATE INCENTIVE FOR OTHER INSTITUTIONS TO COLLABORATE, WHICH I AGREE WITH. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SCORE IT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I DON'T KNOW IF I'M READY TO, QUOTE, PUT IN A PROPOSAL, BUT I WANTED TO KIND OF BRING UP THIS POINT AGAIN, THAT MAYBE WE DON'T NECESSARILY DIFFERENTIATE IN OUR DEFINITION BETWEEN A CONSORTIUM AND A COLLABORATION AND ALLOW THE KIND OF APPLICANT TO STAND ON THEIR OWN MERIT IN COMPARING, LET'S SAY, A CONSORTIUM VERSUS OTHER APPLICANTS. THERE WILL HAVE TO BE SOME JUDGMENTS MADE RELATIVE TO COMPARING THEM. IF YOU'VE GOT AN INSTITUTION THAT IS NOT A CONSORTIUM, BUT HAS DONE EVERYTHING ELSE RIGHT AND IS LEVERAGING THEIR CORE EQUIPMENT AND EVERYTHING ELSE, THEN PERHAPS THEY WOULD GET THE SAME SCORE AS THE CONSORTIUM. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER, I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT. IN FACT, WE DO HAVE A DEFINITION FOR COLLABORATION AND CONSORTIUM, AND THERE IS QUITE A DIFFERENCE. I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS PRESENTED AT YOUR LAST WORKING GROUP MEETING, AND THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING UNDER CONSORTIUM FOR SOMETHING THAT DENOTED A LEGAL ENTITY, SOMETHING MORE THAN AN MOU ALL THE WAY UP TO LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION PERHAPS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHILE WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS, JUST TO HAVE ALL THE ITEMS ON THE TABLE, OPERATIONS AND COLLABORATIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED BECAUSE SUPPOSEDLY IT'S PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION; BUT IN THE SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION, IF THE COLLABORATION IS JUDGED TO HAVE SCIENTIFIC VALUE ON AN OPERATIONAL BASIS, THERE'S CLEARLY COST SAVINGS IF THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC VALIDATION. | ||||||||
| SO IF WE GET BACK FROM PART 1 THAT THERE'S A SCIENTIFIC VALUE TO THAT COLLABORATION, FOR EXAMPLE, HAVING A SHARED CORE STAFF THAT'S DEDICATED STAFF THAT IS AVAILABLE TO MULTIPLE INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE A WRITTEN FORMAL AGREEMENT, THEN IN TERMS OF THE GRANTS THAT CAN BE CARRIED OUT AND WHAT THEIR COST IS AND THE ABILITY TO ADVANCE OUR SCIENTIFIC MISSION, WHY CAN'T WE THEN, SUBJECT TO THERE BEING SCIENTIFIC MERIT TO IT, ASSIGN POINTS UNDER OPERATIONAL VALUE TO COLLABORATIONS? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: MAYBE WE JUST CALL THAT CORES, AND MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF OPERATIONAL -- AND, PUBLIC, PLEASE. WE'RE STRUGGLING WITH THIS. WE'RE TRYING TO DO WHAT'S FAIR. THERE IS OBVIOUSLY A VALUE TO CORES BEING SET UP BOTH INTERNALLY AND ONES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO OTHER INSTITUTIONS. I MEAN CORES WILL ACCELERATE THE WAY THE SCIENCE MOVES FORWARD. A GMP CORE, FOR INSTANCE, IS A TREMENDOUS VALUE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO YOU'RE ASKING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: ANY INPUT. I'M KIND OF IN THE WOODS ON THIS. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: IF YOU GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SLIDE, RICK, IN FACT, STAFF HAD RECOMMENDED THAT THERE WOULD BE FIVE POINTS ALLOCATED TO OPERATIONS AND COLLABORATIVES. AND WHEN WE WENT INTO THE INTERESTED PARTIES MEETING, IN FACT, IT BECAME VERY DIFFICULT TO FERRET OUT WHAT WOULD BE OPERATIONS AT AN INSTITUTION AND HOW WOULD WE MEASURE THE SHARED ASPECTS. | ||||||||
| SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE WAS A SITUATION WHERE FACULTY WERE GOING TO BE HIRED OR THERE WOULD BE SOME KIND OF A SHARED MANAGEMENT SITUATION, THOSE WOULD BE TWO DIFFERENT SITUATIONS WHERE THE SHARED MANAGEMENT SITUATION MAY BE, IF YOU SAID SPECIFICALLY UNDER OPERATIONS THAT THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR, MAYBE YOU COULD ASSIGN POINTS. | ||||||||
| I THINK THE OTHER ISSUE IN TERMS OF FACULTY AND COLLABORATIONS AND SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION WOULD ALL BE CAPTURED IN PART 1. THAT'S WHY ULTIMATELY WE TOOK IT OUT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF THE PART 1 SCORE, THOUGH, VALIDATES THAT THERE'S A VALUE TO THIS. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THEY WON'T BE VALIDATING THAT THERE'S A VALUE TO IT OTHER THAN A SCIENTIFIC VALUE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BUT IF THERE'S A SCIENTIFIC VALUE, WHICH IS OUR MISSION, THEN -- | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THEN THEY SCORE HIGH IN THAT AREA. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE CAN CONSIDER WHETHER THERE'S A COST BENEFIT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE THAT SHOULD BE GIVEN POINTS. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I THINK WE NEED TO DEFINE WHAT IT IS THAT WE WOULD BE ASKING FOR IN ORDER TO MAKE A VALUE ON WHATEVER AVOIDANCE COST SAVINGS. THAT'S WHAT WE COULDN'T DO. WE COULDN'T FIGURE OUT HOW WE WOULD COME UP WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I'M JUST TRYING TO VISUALIZE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE SCIENCE IS AT THIS POINT, BUT WE HAVE DAVIS HERE, SO I HOPE YOU'LL FORGIVE ME FOR MAKING STUFF UP ABOUT YOUR PROGRAM. THAT'S A NEUTRAL. BUT YOU HAVE THE PRIMATE FACILITY THAT SERVES AS A SHARED FACILITY, I THINK, UP AND DOWN THE STATE, MAYBE THE WESTERN U.S. AND IF THAT BECOMES A MAJOR SHARED FACILITY, IF YOUR VISION HAS THAT AS A SHARED FACILITY FOR THE STEM CELL, AT LEAST WITHIN THE GROUP OF WORKING WITHIN CALIFORNIA, HOW WILL WE CAPTURE THAT VALUE IF IT THERE WAS A DEDICATED STEM CELL PORTION? | ||||||||
| BY THE SAME TOKEN, YOU CAN SEE ON A FACULTY BASIS, IF THERE WAS AN INSTITUTION THAT DIDN'T HAVE TENURE TRACK ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS AND YOU DECIDED IN COLLABORATION WITH SOMEONE GETTING HIRED AT A COLLABORATING INSTITUTION TO OFFER A TENURE TRACK POSITION AND THAT BROUGHT IN, SAY, A SUPERSTAR SCIENTIST, SAY JAMIE THOMPSON OR SOME OF THE OTHER SUPERSTARS WANDERING AROUND THE WORLD, WELL, HE'S FROM WISCONSIN. WE BROUGHT IN SOMEBODY FROM AUSTRALIA OR FROM THE UK. HOW DO WE MEASURE THAT? THAT DEFINITELY HELPS US WITH OUR MISSION AND SHOULD HAVE SOME WEIGHT AT SOME POINT IN THIS PROCESS AND THAT IS COLLABORATION. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO EXPRESS THAT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I THINK THAT WE SHOULD RELY ON THE INSTITUTIONS APPLYING FOR A COLLABORATIVE GRANT, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE MOU'S OR LETTERS OF UNDERSTANDING OR CONTRACTS IN PLACE THAT WOULD SPELL OUT THE RELATIONSHIP AND, IN FACT, WHY THEY'RE DOING IT. SO THAT WOULD HELP US IN TERMS OF PUTTING SOME KIND OF FACTOR TO IT. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: MEMBER FEIT, THAT WILL BE IN PART 1. THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW WILL GO OVER THAT AND CERTAINLY GIVE POINTS TO ALL THOSE PARTICULAR COLLABORATIONS. I THINK MORE TO THE POINT, ON MEMBER SHEEHY'S COMMENT, ON A PRIMATE CENTER THAT WAS ALREADY BUILT BY THE CAMPUS, BY THE UNIVERSITY. IN FACT, WE THINK IT'S GREAT THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO SHARE IT, BUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN I THINK ALMOST EVERY CASE IS THERE WILL BE A RECHARGE COST ASSOCIATED. SO IF THERE ARE OTHER INSTITUTIONS WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT CHOOSE TO USE THE PRIMATE CENTER, THEY'LL PAY FOR IT. | ||||||||
| AND SO THE QUESTION HERE TODAY IS WOULD YOU WANT TO THEN ASSOCIATE ANY KIND OF ADDITIONAL POINTS WITH -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: FOR EXAMPLE, MEMBER SHEEHY POINTED OUT IT WOULD BE A GREAT BENEFIT NOT TO HAVE EACH OF THESE FACILITIES TRY AND BUILD THEIR OWN GMP FACILITIES. CLEARLY, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A CHARGE FOR THE COST OF USING THE GMP FACILITY, IF WE DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR THE CAPITAL COST, THAT'S A HUGE BENEFIT TO THE TAXPAYERS OF CALIFORNIA, AND IT'S A HUGE BENEFIT TO OUR MISSION AND TO OUR ABILITY TO SPREAD THE FUNDS. I ABSOLUTELY WANT TO AWARD POINTS WHEN WE'VE AVOIDED MAJOR CAPITAL COST EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A USE CHARGE ASSOCIATED WITH ACCESSING IT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: IT BENEFITS US BOTH. I THINK IT HAS A DUAL PURPOSE BECAUSE NOT ONLY DOES IT SAVE US MONEY FOR HAVING TO BUILD OTHER FACILITIES, IT HELPS US SCIENTIFICALLY BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS USING THE SAME CELLS, SO DISCOVERIES ARE EASILY REPLICABLE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RIGHT. SO THE SCIENTIFIC PART WILL CAPTURE THE USE OF THE SAME CELLS AND THE CONSISTENCY. WE WANT TO ADDRESS THE COST SIDE OF THIS BENEFIT OF NOT HAVING TO REPLICATE ALL THESE FACILITIES EACH TIME. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH YOU TOTALLY. THIS IS THE POINT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT LET'S SAY HYPOTHETICALLY YOU HAVE AN INSTITUTION WHOSE GMP FACILITY IS A VIVARIUM, AND THEY CHOOSE TO BUILD THE NEW FACILITY NEXT TO THAT BUILDING OR ATTACH IT TO THAT BUILDING. THAT COULD -- YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SAVING $20 MILLION DOLLARS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, EXACTLY. AND AS TO THE CORE ISSUE THAT JEFF MENTIONED, INSTEAD OF HAVING A SEPARATE CATEGORY FOR FIVE POINTS, I THINK THAT, SUBJECT TO THERE BEING SCIENTIFIC VALIDATION TO A CORE THAT IS SHARED, THAT WE BE ABLE TO ANALYZE, WE'D BE ABLE TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IN THESE 15 POINTS ON A COST BASIS IN TERMS OF ADVANCING THE MISSION, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SHARED CORES, WHICH WE WANT TO INCENTIVIZE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I JUST CAN IMAGINE THAT SOMEBODY GETS A HIGH SCORE AND HAS ALL THE PAPERWORK FOR A WIDELY AVAILABLE CORE, AND THEN THEY COME HERE AND DON'T GET ANYTHING BECAUSE THERE'S NO SHARED CAPITAL. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S RIGHT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SO THEY END UP WITH ZERO ON THIS BASIS, BUT THEY'VE GOTTEN THIS INCREDIBLE RECOGNITION FROM THE SCIENTIFIC SIDE. AGAIN, THIS IS ALL ABOUT -- THIS IS A TECHNICAL -- I WANT TO TRY TO FOCUS ON THE TECHNICAL EXERCISE OF HOW DO WE AWARD POINTS. WE HAVE 15 POINTS HERE THAT WE HAVE TO SPREAD AROUND, AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO WOULD YOU BE RECEPTIVE TO A MOTION THAT SAID THAT WE INCORPORATE IN HERE, NOT FOR A SPECIAL SET ASIDE OF POINTS, BUT THE EVALUATION OF THE SAVINGS FROM CORES AS PART OF OUR POINTS? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: ADD THAT UNDER CAPITAL ASSET, AND WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: CORE'S GOT EQUIPMENT. BUT THE VALUE OF THE -- THE FINANCIAL VALUE OF BOTH THE EQUIPMENT AND THE EXPERT STAFF THAT'S DEDICATED. SO THAT HAS A FINANCIAL VALUE SEPARATE FROM THE SCIENTIFIC SCORE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, WOULDN'T THE STAFF BE SEPARATE UNDER THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW JUST GIVES YOU POINTS FOR THE SCIENCE, BUT THEN YOU COME HERE, YOU GET NO POINTS FOR THE FINANCIAL SAVINGS. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I THINK, DAVID, WHAT THE SCIENCE SIDE WILL DO WILL VALIDATE THE REALITY OF THE COLLABORATION. WHAT WE HAVE TO DECIDE IN OUR CONTEXT IS DOES THAT PROVIDE COST SAVINGS BENEFIT TO CIRM THAT WE CAN THEN USE TO AWARD POINTS WITHIN THE SHARED RESOURCES 15-POINT SCALE. THAT'S HOW I KIND OF WOULD VISUALIZE THAT. SO THE VALIDATION THAT THIS IS, INDEED, SAY, A GMP CORE THAT WILL BE WIDELY AVAILABLE AND SAVE CIRM FROM HAVING TO BUILD A GMP CORE AT X FACILITY AND Y FACILITY AND Z FACILITY. WE END UP WITH ONLY BUILDING ONE, AND THE ROBUSTNESS AND THE SHAREDNESS OF THAT IS VALIDATED BY THE SCIENTISTS WHO ARE REALLY THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN VALIDATE THAT. AND THEN YOU COME BACK TO US WITH HAVING HAD THIS VALIDATED, THEN WE HAVE THE ABILITY WITHIN THIS 15-POINT SCALE TO GIVE THEM SOME POINTS KNOWING THAT THERE IS A REAL SHARED CORE THAT WILL BE SET UP WITH CIRM FUNDS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO SERVE TEN INSTITUTIONS BECAUSE IT MAY NOT BE LARGE ENOUGH, BUT VALIDLY, SCIENTIFICALLY SERVES TWO OR THREE, THAT'S A REAL VALUE IF THOSE TWO OR THREE DON'T HAVE TO PRODUCE THAT FACILITY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, DO YOU HAVE ANY PROPOSED CLARIFICATIONS OF LANGUAGE TO INCORPORATE THIS ISSUE? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I'D LIKE TO ASK THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU GET DOWN TO LANGUAGE. SHOULDN'T THIS INCLUDE, AND MAYBE IT ALREADY WILL, FUTURE COLLABORATIONS BEYOND EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS? SO THAT IF THERE'S A BENEFIT FROM A SHARED RESOURCE THAT A FUTURE SCIENTIFIC TEAM THAT ISN'T YET EVEN COMPETING FOR FUNDING, BUT COMES INTO THE STATE OR IS CREATED IN THE STATE IN THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS, AND THAT'S MADE AVAILABLE BY THE BUILDING OF THE THIS FACILITY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JOAN, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT IN PLACE SO WE COULD EVALUATE IT BECAUSE WE CAN'T SPECULATE ON THE POSSIBILITY. IT'D HAVE TO BE AN ACUTELY FOCUSED AND HIGHLY ARTICULATED CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT SO THAT WE COULD OBJECTIVELY EVALUATE IT. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: THIS MAY NOT BE THE CASE, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME IT COULD BE, THAT THE WAY A BUILDING IS BUILT, THAT IT INCORPORATES COMPONENTS THAT ARE ASSETS THAT WOULD BE ASSETS FOR OTHERS COMING IN AND USING THEM, LIKE A PRIMATE FACILITY OR A MICROARRAY OR SOME KIND OF STATE-OF-THE-ART EDUCATIONAL AND TRAINING SITE THAT COULD BE WIDELY USED SO THAT OTHER PLACES COMING INTO THIS FIELD COULD BENEFIT FROM IT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ISN'T THAT UNDER FUNCTIONALITY, JOAN? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK THAT WOULD BE COVERED UNDER OTHER CATEGORIES, JOAN. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: AS LONG AS IT IS. IT SEEMS TO ME IT IS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF SHARED RESOURCES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IT ISN'T A SHARED RESOURCE YET. IT'S A POTENTIAL SHARED RESOURCE. I THINK THAT WE COULD -- I THINK THERE ARE TWO OTHER CATEGORIES THAT WE'D BE ABLE TO GIVE FOLKS SOME CREDIT IN TERMS OF CREATING A FACILITY THAT HAS INNOVATIVE SPECIAL FEATURES AND THAT WOULD ALSO CREATE FUNCTIONALITY. I THINK WE CAN GET IT TWO WAYS, BUT WE CAN'T GET IT THIS WAY. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: ALL RIGHT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: UNDER THIS ONE ON LANGUAGE, WHAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION IS THAT IF THE SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION HAS VERIFIED A SCIENTIFIC VALUE TO THE COLLABORATION, THEN WE BE ABLE TO INCLUDE IN OUR 15 POINTS WITH NO SPECIFIC SET ASIDE, BUT AWARD POINTS FOR SHARED CORES WITH DEDICATED SCIENTIFIC STAFF OF HIGH COMPETENCE BASED UPON THE POTENTIAL FINANCIAL SAVINGS TO OUR MISSION AND THE STATE. SO IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: BOB, CAN YOU RESTATE, PLEASE? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SUBJECT TO RESTATING, JEFF IS SECONDING THIS. SO THAT SUBJECT TO THE SCIENTIFIC VALIDATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC VALUE TO THE COLLABORATION, THAT WE BE ABLE WITHIN THE 15 POINTS WITH NO SPECIFIC SET ASIDE TO BE ABLE TO AWARD POINTS FOR SHARED CORES, FOR THE CORE ITSELF, THE VALUE OF THE EQUIPMENT IN THE CORE THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR SHARING, AS WELL AS THE VALUE OF THE DEDICATED SCIENTIFIC STAFF OF HIGH EXPERTISE FOR THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO THE STATE AND OUR MISSION OF THAT SHARED CORE AND THE DEDICATED STAFF. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I HAVE A QUESTION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JUST TO CLARIFY, JEFF, IS THAT -- | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I'VE SECONDED. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JEFF HAS SECONDED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: NOW LET'S OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. SO THE ONLY PART THAT I HAVE A QUESTION ON, I LIKE WHERE YOU'RE GOING. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE STAFF COMPONENT, IS THAT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW IN THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP THAT WE SHOULD ADDRESS THIS STAFF ISSUE? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THIS IS THE FINANCIAL SIDE OF THE BENEFIT TO THE MISSION. ONLY IF THE SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW HAS VALIDATED THE SCIENTIFIC VALUE OF THE COLLABORATION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WOULD SUPPORT THAT AS LONG AS WE CLARIFY THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT INCLUDE THAT CLARIFICATION. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SECOND AGREES. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I'M NOT SO SURE THAT WE CAN MAKE JUDGMENTS AS A WORKING GROUP TO MAKE A JUDGMENT ABOUT THE COLLABORATIVE BENEFIT OVER TIME BECAUSE THERE MAY BE VERY DIFFERENT ONES AND VERY DIFFERENT SPACE NEEDS IN BASIC SCIENCE OPERATIONS FROM ONE THAT'S BASIC OR CLINICAL. IT'S A BUILDING FOR ALL PURPOSES, RIGHT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JOAN -- | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THIS WHOLE INITIATIVE IS DIFFICULT. BUT WE ARE CHALLENGED THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO GO THROUGH A SYSTEM WHERE HOPEFULLY WE CREATE SOME VALIDATION OF SOME MODELS THAT WORK, AND IT'S A TEST OF OUR ABILITY TO BE CREATIVE AND OBJECTIVE. AND IT'S HOW THOUGHTFULLY WE COMMIT OURSELVES TO THE EXERCISE WILL BE A RECORD THAT WILL PROVE OUR EFFECTIVENESS OR NOT, BUT WE HAVE MANY, MANY VERY COMPLICATED JUDGMENTS WITH SUBJECTIVITY IN THIS WHOLE PROCESS. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: MR. CHAIRMAN, I CALL FOR THE QUESTION. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: COULD WE GET PUBLIC COMMENT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: PUBLIC COMMENT. DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL, WOULD YOU LIKE JEFF SHEEHY OR I TO ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT GIVEN YOU'RE NOW ON THE PHONE, BUT NOT HERE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB, IF YOU DON'T MIND, THAT WOULD BE OKAY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE HAVE A GENTLEMAN IN THE FRONT ROW. | ||||||||
| MR. ROMNEY: MARK ROMNEY WITH UC DAVIS AGAIN. CLARIFICATION ON THE CONSORTIUM. IS IT THE SINGLE APPLICANT WITHIN THE CONSORTIUM THAT REQUESTS THE SHARED FACILITY POINTS? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S NOT THE MOTION. WE CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BUT THAT'S NOT THE MOTION THAT'S BEFORE US. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AS TO THE MOTION? | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: JOHN SIMPSON FROM FOUNDATION FOR TAXPAYER AND CONSUMER RIGHTS. WE'VE BEEN BIG ADVOCATES OF RECOGNIZING COLLABORATION. WHAT I UNDERSTAND THIS TO DO ESSENTIALLY IS VALIDATE IT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE SCIENCE, AND THEN PUT A REAL COST VALUE ON THAT IN YOUR WORKING GROUP, WHICH IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE PERFECTLY AND IMMINENTLY SENSIBLE, AND YOU SHOULD PASS IT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THERE ARE NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS. AND I BELIEVE SOMEONE HAS CALLED THE QUESTION. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. MARCY FEIT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ED KASHIAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ROBERT KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: STUART LAFF. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JOAN SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JEFF SHEEHY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: MOTION CARRIES. | ||||||||
| IF I MAY NOW, I'LL MOVE ON TO THE LAST CATEGORY, WHICH IS FUNCTIONALITY AND REMIND YOU OF SOME SENSITIVITY HERE TO YOUR TIME. I'M GOING TO TRY TO GO -- THERE WAS NO CONTROVERSY ON FUNCTIONALITY, BUT WE STILL NEED TO GET TO THE PROCESS DISCUSSION. AND I'M SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT YOU HAD TWO HOURS SCHEDULED FOR THIS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RICK, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS GENTLEMAN IN THE FRONT ROW. | ||||||||
| MR. ROMNEY: I'M FINE. I CAN WITHDRAW. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF STAFF AFTER THIS COULD PLEASE ADDRESS THIS GENTLEMAN'S CONCERN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR ON WHERE WE ENDED UP ON THIS. ESSENTIALLY WE HAVE NOT CLARIFIED EXACTLY HOW WE'RE GOING TO DETERMINE A COMPARISON BETWEEN A FORMAL CONSORTIUM AND POTENTIAL -- ANOTHER APPLICANT THAT HAS SHARED FACILITIES AND IS COLLABORATING AND HAS ALSO GOT AN ISSUE IN TERMS OF THE CORE, CORRECT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE HAVEN'T INDICATED WHETHER WE'LL DIFFERENTIATE IN POINTS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RIGHT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BUT WE HAVE INDICATED -- JEFF HAS INDICATED THAT IF THERE'S A DEMONSTRATION THAT THERE'S A HIGHER EFFICIENCY TO IT ALL BEING IN ONE BUILDING, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED, BUT THERE'S NO SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE WAY AT THIS POINT GIVEN THE LACK OF INFORMATION TO DIFFERENTIATE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I WAS CLEARLY UNDERSTANDING WHERE WE WERE. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD, RICK. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ON FUNCTIONALITY, THE DEFINITION ADOPTED BY THE GROUP AT THE LAST MEETING DEALT WITH THE FACT THAT WE ARE EVALUATING THE APPLICANTS ON HOW THE FACILITIES PROPOSAL MEETS THE PROGRAMMATIC NEEDS WITH AN EMPHASIS ON HOW THAT PROPOSAL IMPROVES THE CAPACITY AND CAPABILITY OF REGENERATIVE MEDICINE RESEARCH. | ||||||||
| WE HAD THE DISCUSSION WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES. THE ONLY ISSUE OF CONCERN WAS THAT WE SHOULD CLARIFY AT WHAT POINT IN TIME ARE WE TALKING ABOUT INCREASING CAPACITY. AND WE FIND THAT THE CAPACITY OF THE PROJECT, BASICALLY THAT THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT WOULD BE THE MILESTONE WE'RE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF HOW DOES PROPOSAL FROM THE APPLICANT INCREASE THE CAPACITY FOR RESEARCH. | ||||||||
| SO WE DON'T SEE ANY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES BEYOND THAT THAT WE CAN CLARIFY WITHIN THE RFA. WE THINK THAT THE DEFINITION ADOPTED BY THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP SHOULD STAND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: MAKES SENSE TO ME. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I MOVE THAT MOTION OR I MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I DON'T THINK WE NEED A MOTION, DO WE, RICK? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: COULD WE HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SURE. ANY MEMBERS WANT TO MAKE COMMENTS? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JUST FOR PURPOSE OF UNDERSTANDING, IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WERE MORE PI'S ACCOMMODATED IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON A PER SQUARE FOOTAGE BASIS BECAUSE OF THE EFFICIENCY OF THE DESIGN, THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN CONSIDER UNDER THIS CATEGORY. BUT IT'S ALSO HOW WELL WE CAN CONSIDER THIS IS GOING TO BE DEPENDENT ON THE LEVEL OF INFORMATION THAT WE GET FROM THE APPLICANTS. AND I WOULD HOPE THAT IF WE PUT LIMITATIONS ON PAGES, WE HAVE PROVISIONS WHERE PEOPLE CAN PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION THAT WE CAN CONSIDER EVEN THOUGH WE MAY NOT CONSIDER BECAUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, IT MAY BE THAT THERE ARE PRIVATE OFFICES INCORPORATED FOR RESEARCHERS, AND THERE'S A CASE TO BE MADE THAT'S REALLY RESEARCH EFFECTIVE SPACE. THAT'S NOT ADMINISTRATIVE SPACE IN THE BUILDING. THOSE KINDS OF EXPLANATIONS MIGHT BE VERY HELPFUL IN ALLOWING US TO UNDERSTAND THE FUNCTIONAL VALUE OF THE SPACE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE, MR. CHAIRMAN? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES, I THINK IT DOES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK AT LEAST FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA APPLICANTS, THE STANDARD DOCUMENTATION THAT'S USED FOR APPLICATION FOR STATE FUNDS IS THE PROJECT PLANNING GUIDE, AND THE FUNCTIONALITY ISSUE IS BASICALLY RELYING UPON THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT'S TYPICALLY INCLUDED IN THOSE KINDS OF DOCUMENTS.SO WE FEEL THAT WE'LL HAVE CONSIDERABLE INFORMATION ON THE FUNCTIONALITY. | ||||||||
| I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT IN THE LAST SLIDE ON THIS TOPIC OF EVALUATION CRITERIA WAS ALSO WE WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THERE'S ONE APPLICANT PERMITTED PER INSTITUTION OR ONE APPLICATION PER INSTITUTION OR CONSORTIA, AND FUNDING IS FOR A SINGLE PROJECT ON A SINGLE SITE. AND THIS IS TO MAINTAIN KIND OF THE UNIFORMITY OF THE CIRM'S INVESTMENT AND UNDERSTANDING THAT WE DON'T WANT TO BE DIFFUSE. WE WANT IT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT CIRM'S INVESTMENT IS IN. WE WANT TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION IN THE RFA. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POINT HERE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO DISINCENTIVIZE COLLABORATION. HOPEFULLY LORI WILL COME BACK DURING THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT TO HER. | ||||||||
| BUT THE KEY HERE IS IF THERE'S A SHARED RESOURCE THAT WILL BE HELPFUL TO THE SCIENTIFIC MISSION AND VALIDATED IN THE SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION, WE DON'T WANT THAT SHARED RESOURCE TO STOP SOMEONE FROM CREATING A NICHE PROPOSAL FOR SPECIAL EXPERTISE FOR FUNDING. SO I WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE THIS PROVISION INTERPRETED TO SAY THAT IF YOU SHARE RESOURCES WITH ANYONE, THEN YOU'RE KNOCKED OUT OF COMPETING ON A SITUATION WHERE YOU COME IN WITH A SPECIALIZED RESEARCH CAPACITY AND YOU WANT A TARGETED GRANT. OTHERWISE THAT WOULD BE HIGHLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO WHAT WE'VE SAID IS OUR GOAL. BUT HOW DO OTHER MEMBERS FEEL? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DO WE REALLY NEED TO CLARIFY THIS? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, ACCORDING TO WHAT I HEARD PREVIOUSLY FROM LORI IS THAT WHAT I JUST SAID WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED. SOMEONE WENT TO GET HER AND HOPEFULLY SHE IS COMING BACK, AND WE CAN HAVE THIS AS A FULLY INFORMED DISCUSSION WITH HER PRESENT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: LET'S TRY TO VISUALIZE THIS. LET'S SAY YOU HAVE ENTITY X THAT IN SOME WAY IS CONTRIBUTING TO A SHARED GMP FACILITY. AND THEIR PARTICULAR EXPERTISE IS IN BASIC SCIENCE. AND THEY WANT TO SET UP THEIR OWN -- APPLY FOR THEIR OWN FACILITY FOR BASIC SCIENCE. AND BASIC SCIENCE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY NEED A GMP FACILITY FOR A LOT OF THE WORK THEY DO. SO WHILE THEY WOULD WANT TO BE ABLE TO, SO TO SPEAK, BUY INTO THAT CAPACITY WITHIN THE SHARED RESOURCE AT INSTITUTION Y, THEY STILL WOULD WANT THEIR OWN LABS TO DO BASIC RESEARCH. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RIGHT. LET ME RESTATE IT FOR LORI'S BENEFIT BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET HER INPUT ON THIS. LORI, THE POINT ON ONE INSTITUTION, ONE APPLICATION, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE THINK THAT THIS IS PERMITTED. I'M AFRAID THAT YOU THINK IT'S NOT PERMITTED, SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED IF PERHAPS THEY COULD FIND YOU, WHICH IS THAT IF YOU HAVE A SHARED FACILITY, AND WHETHER IT'S A VIVARIUM OR A GMP FACILITY OR SOME OTHER SHARED FACILITY, WHICH WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE, THEN AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS SAYS IS THAT YOU CANNOT THEN APPLY SEPARATELY. IF YOU HAVE A SPECIALTY IN HIGH THROUGHPUT PROCESSING OR YOU HAVE A CLINICAL EXPERTISE OR YOU HAVE A BASIC SCIENCE EXPERTISE, YOU COULDN'T DO A NICHE APPLICATION ON YOUR OWN FOR THAT. | ||||||||
| SO THE INTENT WAS CAN WE HAVE THIS RULE WORK SO YOU CAN'T DO TWO SEPARATE APPLICATIONS FOR FUNDS FOR YOURSELF, BUT IT DOESN'T DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM COLLABORATING ON SHARED FACILITIES. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: LET ME SAY THIS PERHAPS A DIFFERENT WAY. SO UNDER THE LEGAL CONSORTIUM, WE WON'T USE A REAL -- WE'LL JUST USE A HYPOTHETICAL THREE-INSTITUTION CONSORTIUM AND THEY APPLY, ONE APPLICATION FOR ONE PROJECT ON ONE SITE. WE ASSUME THAT NONE OF THOSE THREE APPLICATIONS -- NONE OF THOSE THREE INSTITUTIONS WOULD COME IN FOR A SEPARATE APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| NOW, HERE'S ANOTHER SCENARIO. IF THERE IS AN INSTITUTION THAT WITHIN A 90-MILE RADIUS HAS SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATIONS WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND IT MAKES THEIR SCIENCE PERHAPS STRONGER, THEY'RE DOING SOME PUBLICATIONS TOGETHER, BUT THEY ALL APPLY SEPARATELY. ONE WOULD APPLY FOR A NICHE PROGRAM, ONE WOULD APPLY FOR BASIC SCIENCE AND PRECLINICAL. THAT'S FINE. SO THEY HAVE SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION, BUT IT DOESN'T THEN AFFECT THE BUILDING OR THE APPLICATION FOR THEIR ON-SITE SPACE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BUT THEN TO BE CLEAR, THEY SHOULD ALSO GET -- THERE SHOULD BE POINTS FOR SHARED FACILITIES, SHARED RESOURCES. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: YOU GAVE POINTS FOR SHARED FACILITIES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO THEY CAN HAVE THEIR SEPARATE APPLICATION FOR THEIR OWN GRANT, BUT THE COLLABORATORS WILL GET POINTS FOR SHARED FACILITIES UNDER THE OTHER APPLICATION BECAUSE IT'S SAVING US MONEY. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: EVERYBODY WOULD. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S SAVING US MONEY. I THINK THIS IS THE ISSUE WITH ONE APPLICATION, ONE PROJECT, ONE SITE, THAT, IN FACT, IF YOU ALLOW AN INSTITUTION TO COLLABORATE WITH SEVERAL OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND THEN STILL ALLOW THEM TO ALSO GO THROUGH PART 1 AND PART 2 OF THE APPLICATION AND RECEIVE THEIR OWN FUNDS, I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S SAVING MONEY. | ||||||||
| I THINK THAT THERE IS BENEFIT IN SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION AND THROUGH RECHARGE FOR A GMP FACILITY OR A PRIMATE CENTER THAT WE COULD GET -- THE WHOLE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WOULD RECEIVE THOSE PARTICULAR SYNERGIES. BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT WE WOULD REALLY WANT TO ENCOURAGE ONE INSTITUTION TO BE A PART OF A COLLABORATIVE THAT WOULD GIVE MORE MONEY TO THAT INSTITUTION AND THEN STILL ALLOW THAT SAME COLLABORATIVE INSTITUTION TO APPLY FOR SEPARATE FUNDS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THEY'RE NOT GETTING THE MONEY FOR AN ENLARGED PRIMATE CENTER. SO THE ENLARGED PRIMATE CENTER IS SAVING US MONEY BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE IS USING THE PRIMATE CENTER, OR THEY'RE NOT GETTING MONEY BECAUSE IT'S A GMP APPLICATION THEY'RE MAKING AS A NICHE. SO WE ARE SAVING MONEY BECAUSE THE EXISTING GMP FACILITY IS BEING USED IN A COLLABORATION. | ||||||||
| SO THE POINT IS THAT THE SEPARATE APPLICATION CANNOT BE FOR THE VERY SAME THING FOR WHICH THEY ARE GETTING POINTS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: CALL ME WHEN YOU GUYS NEED MY VOTE. I HAVE TO GO INTO A MEETING. IF YOU DON'T NEED MY VOTE FOR QUORUM PURPOSES, THEN DON'T CALL ME BACK. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: MR. CHAIRMAN, I ALSO HAVE TO LEAVE. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ED, CAN WE CALL YOU FOR A VOTE IF WE NEED TO? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: YES. YOU NEED TO USE MY CELL PHONE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHICH IS WHAT NUMBER? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: (559) 301-3219. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE WHOLE WORLD SHOULD NOT WRITE DOWN HIS CELL PHONE NUMBER. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: TO GO BACK TO THE DISCUSSION, YOU CAN IMAGINE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I WOULD BE VERY PLEASED IF ANY OF YOU WOULD USE IT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: TO GO BACK TO THE DISCUSSION, AND TO USE LORI'S EXAMPLE, SO LET'S SAY YOU'RE A BASIC SCIENCE FACILITY, AND YOU MAY ACTUALLY WORK WITH INSTITUTION X ON THE GMP FACILITY, YOU MIGHT KICK INTO INSTITUTION Y FOR A VIVARIUM. IF YOUR APPLICATION DOESN'T INCLUDE EITHER ONE OF THOSE, WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT TO ALLOW THOSE PEOPLE? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T INCLUDE IT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: BUT I CAN DEFINITELY SEE IT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC IF THEY SAY, OH, WE WANT MONEY FOR A GMP FACILITY AND A VIVARIUM AND WE WANT TO BE PART OF THIS GMP FACILITY AND WE WANT TO BE PART OF THIS VIVARIA, THEN THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF, I AGREE WITH YOU. THAT WAS MY CONCERN AS WELL. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEING SAID IS THAT YOU CAN BE PART OF A COLLABORATION THAT IS SCIENTIFICALLY VALIDATED AND GET POINTS FOR SHARED FACILITIES AS LONG AS YOUR NICHE APPLICATION IS NOT FOR THE VERY FACILITY FOR WHICH SHARED FACILITY POINTS WERE GIVEN. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: AS LONG AS -- WE NEED TO, I THINK, ALSO CLARIFY THAT IF YOU'RE A LEGAL CONSORTIUM AND THEN, IN FACT, RECEIVING ADDITIONAL FUNDS IN YOUR APPLICATION BECAUSE OF THE SYNERGIES OF THE CONSORTIUM, THE CONSORTIUM MEMBERS CAN'T APPLY SEPARATELY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: CONSORTIUM MEMBERS SHOULD NOT APPLY SEPARATELY. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT'S THE DISTINCTION. IN FACT, IF YOU'RE COLLABORATING, THE ONE COLLABORATOR ISN'T RECEIVING ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION WITH THE CLARIFICATION, INCORPORATING LORI'S COMMENTS. VERY SPECIFICALLY, THAT YOU BE PERMITTED AS A SINGLE INSTITUTION TO, A, COLLABORATE AND POINTS WOULD BE AWARDED FOR SHARED FACILITIES IN THE COLLABORATION AND SEPARATELY PROVIDE A NICHE APPLICATION AS LONG AS, A, YOU'RE NOT A MEMBER OF A CONSORTIUM WHERE, IN FACT, THE CONSORTIUM MEMBERS ARE ALL GETTING FUNDS TOGETHER FOR THEIR COLLABORATIVE SHARED FACILITY. DOES THAT CAPTURE THE INTENT? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THE COLLABORATIVE DOESN'T RECEIVE ANY ADDITIONAL MONIES FOR THEIR ONE FACILITY IF SOMEBODY ELSE IS -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND THE COLLABORATION DOES NOT RECEIVE ADDITIONAL MONIES -- THE COLLABORATOR WITH THE SHARED FACILITY IS NOT APPLYING SEPARATELY FOR ADDITIONAL MONIES FOR THAT SHARED FACILITY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: EXACTLY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: OKAY. SO THAT IS THE MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SECOND. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SECOND BY JEFF. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, LORI, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. DO YOU THINK THAT BOB'S MOTION -- BY THE WAY, I SUPPORT THE MOTION, BOB. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE COVERING EXPLICITLY AND CLEARLY ENOUGH THOSE SITUATIONS OUTSIDE OF CONSORTIUM. DO YOU FEEL THAT THIS COVERS IT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK SO. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. RICK, CAN YOU CALL THE ROLL. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IS THERE PUBLIC COMMENT HERE? THERE IS A MEMBER IN THE BACK WITH PUBLIC COMMENT. | ||||||||
| MR. COFFMAN: LOUIS COFFMAN FROM THE SAN DIEGO | ||||||||
| CONSORTIUM. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT FUNCTIONAL OVERLAP? EFFECTIVELY THERE'S NO FUNCTIONAL OVERLAP IN MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS. THIS IS UNDER THE FUNCTIONAL THING THAT SAID IF YOU'RE GOING TO ACHIEVE X IN YOUR APPLICATION, WE CAN'T SEE YOU APPLYING FOR X IN ANOTHER APPLICATION. SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO ELIMINATE FUNCTIONAL OVERLAP. IS THAT SIMPLY STATED? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE THAT AND PROVIDE SOME EXPLICIT RULES IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT OBJECTIVE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IN OTHER WORDS, JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE TWO SEPARATE APPLICANTS BOTH BUILDING A VIVARIUM ON THEIR OWN AND THEN TALKING ABOUT HOW THEY WOULD BE COLLABORATING ON THEIR VIVARIUM. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE. SO ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? CALL THE ROLL. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. MARCY FEIT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ED KASHIAN. ROBERT KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: STUART LAFF. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JOAN SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JEFF SHEEHY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: SIX AFFIRMATIVE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DO WE HAVE A QUORUM? | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: WE DO NOT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE NEED TO CALL A MEMBER FOR A QUORUM. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: SHOULD WE PROCEED WITH THE REST OF THE MEETING? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE'LL HOLD THE VOTE OPEN, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO YOU, WHILE WE CALL ONE OF TWO MEMBERS WHO HAVE INDICATED THEY CAN BE CALLED FOR VOTES. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: YOU MAY WANT TO WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE A SERIES OF VOTES TO CALL THEM IN INSTEAD OF CALLING THEM INDIVIDUALLY ON EACH VOTE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE'LL HOLD THE VOTE OPEN, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE NEXT ITEM DEALS WITH THE OTHER AGENDA ITEM THAT I MENTIONED THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE PROCESS FOR REVIEW THAT WE DISCUSSED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING. I'M GOING TO JUST BRIEFLY RUN THROUGH THE FIRST FOUR OR FIVE SLIDES THAT DEAL WITH KIND OF THE OVERVIEW OF HOW THE REVIEW WOULD TAKE PLACE. | ||||||||
| WE WOULD EXPECT THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE WITH THE PART 1 SCIENTIFIC REVIEW THROUGH THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP AND A TECHNICAL REVIEW BY THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW HAS BEEN ORGANIZED TO DEAL WITH THE DEPTH AND BREADTH OF THE SCIENCE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS IN STEM CELL RESEARCH PROGRAMS. WE'VE FURTHER DEVELOPED THE GRANULARITY OF IDENTIFYING ELEMENTS OF THE PROGRAM THAT DEAL WITH BASIC AND DISCOVERY RESEARCH, WE'RE CALLING ELEMENT X; PRECLINICAL RESEARCH, ELEMENT Y; AND PRECLINICAL DEVELOPMENT AND CLINICAL RESEARCH AS ELEMENT Z. | ||||||||
| THESE ELEMENTS CAN BE -- EACH APPLICANT WOULD THEN SELF-SELECT RELATIVE TO THE SPECIFIC ELEMENTS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO APPLY FOR. AND THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP HAS ADOPTED OR WOULD DEVELOP -- THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP WOULD APPLY SPECIFIC CRITERIA TO DEVELOP THE QUALITY AND STRENGTHS OF THE PROGRAM THAT ARE DISPLAYED ON SLIDE 24. | ||||||||
| I THINK THE RESULTING POSSIBLE GRANTS WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION OUTCOME WOULD BE THAT APPLICANTS MIGHT HAVE APPLIED FOR X, Y, AND Z AND RECEIVED A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, OR THEY MAY HAVE APPLIED FOR ALL THREE AND HAD ONLY ONE OR TWO OF THE ELEMENTS APPROVED, OR THEY MAY HAVE APPLIED FOR ONLY ONE AND HAD ONE APPROVED, OR MAY HAVE HAD NONE OF THE ELEMENTS APPROVED. SO THAT'S WHAT THAT SLIDE IS TRYING TO EXPLAIN. | ||||||||
| THE PURPOSE OF EXPLAINING THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE IS TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THERE REALLY NEEDS TO BE A DETERMINATION BY THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP BEFORE THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP CAN DO THEIR WORK. THAT'S OUR CONCLUSION. | ||||||||
| AND SO THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME ADJUSTMENTS IN THE CAPITAL PROPOSAL WHERE THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP MADE A RECOMMENDATION AND THE ICOC ADOPTS THAT RECOMMENDATION THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT. | ||||||||
| SO UNDER THE OPTIONS FOR PROCESS REVIEW, WE HAD A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THIS AGAIN AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT THE SEQUENTIAL TWO-STEP REVIEW WOULD PROVIDE FOR THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS TO GO TO THE ICOC. AND UPON APPROVAL BY THE ICOC, WE WOULD ISSUE THE DIRECTIONS FOR THE COMPLETION OF PART 2 OF THE APPLICATION. WE WOULD DO THAT REVIEW, AND THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP WOULD UNDERTAKE ITS PROCESS, AND THE ICOC WOULD THEN HAVE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PART 2. | ||||||||
| ON SLIDE 26 THERE'S ALSO A SEQUENTIAL TWO-STEP REVIEW THAT MIGHT ALSO INCLUDE OPTIONS THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED WHERE THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP MIGHT RECOMMEND EITHER A PANEL, OR THE ICOC OR THIS GROUP COULD RECOMMEND A PANEL OF PEOPLE TO DO THAT INITIAL REVIEW. | ||||||||
| I THINK, DAVID, YOU WANTED TO DISCUSS THAT FURTHER. NOT ON THE PHONE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I GUESS, RICK, MY QUESTION IS IS THERE A WAY TO HAVE A SEQUENTIAL TWO-STEP REVIEW, BUT FACILITATE THAT WE MAKE IT AS EXPEDIENT AND QUICK AS POSSIBLE SO THAT THERE AREN'T KIND OF LARGE GAPS IN TERMS OF THE REVIEW BY THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THIS IS BOB KLEIN. IF I COULD COMMENT, DAVID. ONE OF THE KEYS HERE IS THAT AFTER THE SCIENTIFIC SCORE, WE HAVE TO HAVE ADEQUATE TIME FOR THESE INSTITUTIONS TO ADJUST. SO THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, IF AN INSTITUTION APPLIED FOR X, Y, AND Z AND HAD A HIGH SCIENTIFIC SCORE FOR X AND Y, BUT NOT Z, THEY WOULD HAVE ADEQUATE TIME TO PULL THEMSELVES TOGETHER AND HAVE A GOOD QUALITY APPLICATION FOR X AND Y BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO KNOCK THEM OUT TOTALLY. THEY HAVE HIGH VALIDITY FOR X AND Y AS THE SCIENTIFIC SCORE CAME BACK TO US. WE WANT TO AWARD THAT. WE WANT TO REWARD THAT BY RECOGNIZING THEIR AREA OF HIGH COMPETENCY, BUT THEY NEED TIME TO RESTRUCTURE THEIR APPLICATION. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN QUICKLY. THEY NEED PROBABLY TEN WEEKS TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST AN ARCHITECTURAL ISSUE AND A BUDGETING ISSUE. THEIR FACULTY HAS BEEN INVOLVED. THEIR ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN INVOLVED. THEIR DONORS MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED. | ||||||||
| SO WE NEED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE TIME FOR THEM TO COMPREHENSIVELY RESUBMIT A CREDIBLE GRANT SO THAT WE CAN REALLY BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY FOR EVERYONE WHO HAD A HIGH SCORE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I GUESS, BOB, MY ONLY CONCERN ABOUT THAT TWO-STEP PROCESS WHERE THERE IS THAT APPROXIMATE THREE-MONTH PERIOD FOR THE RESUBMISSION IS WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM EVERYONE ABOUT HOW CONSTRUCTION COSTS ARE GOING UP. AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE IS SOME KIND OF DIFFERENT WAY WE CAN STRUCTURE IT WHERE WE DON'T HAVE -- WHERE WE HAVE A TWO-STEP SEQUENTIAL REVIEW, YET WE DON'T HAVE TO -- WE DON'T LOSE THAT TIMEFRAME. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT NECESSITY THAT THEY LOSE TIME BECAUSE IF THEY SEE THEY HAVE A HIGH X AND Y SCORE, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY CAN HYPOTHETICALLY FIT THEIR POINTS INTO THE SYSTEM BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT THEIR LEVERAGE IS, THEY KNOW WHAT THEIR SCIENTIFIC SCORE IS. THEY DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW WE'RE GOING TO VIEW SHARED FACILITIES; BUT IF THEY READ THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS, THEY'VE GOT A FAIRLY GOOD IDEA. | ||||||||
| SO THEY COULD ACTUALLY GO INTO CONSTRUCTION BEFORE THE FINAL MEETING AND HAVE THOSE COSTS COUNT TOWARDS LEVERAGE BECAUSE THEY'VE DECIDED THAT NOW THAT THEY'RE APPLYING ON X AND Y, THEY KNOW THEY GOT VERY HIGH SCIENTIFIC SCORES, THEY KNOW HOW HIGH THEIR LEVERAGE IS, AND THEY KNOW WHO THEY'RE GOING TO BE COMPETING AGAINST. SO THEY'VE GOT A PRETTY GOOD IDEA OF WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE. | ||||||||
| DIFFERENT RISK TOLERANCES EXIST AT VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS THAT MAY LIMIT THOSE OPTIONS. SO I AGREE WE NEED TO MAKE IT EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE, BUT THERE'S YEARS OF EXPERTISE THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT UP IN THESE INSTITUTIONS. AND WE WANT TO PROVIDE THEM ADEQUATE TIME TO REGROUP, IF NECESSARY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: AND, DAVID, IF I COULD ADD TO THAT. THE FACT THAT THE ICOC WILL HAVE VALIDATED THOSE SCIENTIFIC SCORES IS A REALLY STRONG SIGNAL. IN MANY WAYS THIS PROCESS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO MOVE FASTER. YOUR TWO-STEP PROCESS, I'M NOT CONVINCED, COULD BE COMPLETED. IN OTHER WORDS, PEOPLE MAY BE AWARE OF A STRONG SCIENTIFIC SCORE, BUT WITHOUT THE VALIDATION BY THE DECISION MAKER, THE ICOC, OF THOSE SCORES, THEN THERE STILL IS UNCERTAINTY IN THE WAY IN WHICH THE VALIDATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC SCORES BY THE ICOC AT THAT EARLY DATE WOULD REMOVE. | ||||||||
| THE SECOND POINT IS THAT THAT CHANGES FUNDAMENTALLY THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP AND THE APPLICANT AND CIRM AND THE APPLICANT IN THAT, BY HAVING CREATED THAT SCIENTIFIC FLOOR AND APPROVE THAT BY THE ICOC, WHAT WE'RE REALLY DOING IS TRYING TO FACILITATE THE BUILDING OF THESE BUILDINGS THROUGH THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. WE'RE LOOKING AT TECHNICAL ASPECTS. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO KNOCK THEM OUT IN THE SAME WAY THAT THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW WILL BE ELIMINATING PEOPLE. WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO HELP PEOPLE GET THEIR BUILDINGS AND GET THEM FUNDED IN THE BEST POSSIBLE WAY. | ||||||||
| THAT'S WHY I THINK THE SEQUENTIAL MAY HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACTUALLY HELP GET THEM UP AND RUNNING FASTER BECAUSE WE WON'T HAVE THIS MORE COMPLICATED THING AT A LATER DATE BEING PRESENTED ALL AT ONCE AND THEN THEM TRYING TO PULL THREADS OUT, AND US HAVING CURES AND ALL THIS STUFF WE HAD THE LAST TIME. THIS WILL ALL BE WORKED OUR IN THAT INTERIM PERIOD, AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO FORWARD WITH SOME REALLY STRONG PROPOSALS THAT WE CAN FUND EARLY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO LET ME JUST -- LET ME ASK A QUESTION OF THE COMMITTEE. SO YOU COULD HAVE TWO SCENARIOS, AND YOU COULD CONCEIVABLY HAVE -- LET'S ASSUME THAT WE'VE GOT A SITUATION WHERE THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP HAS KNOCKED OUT SO MANY APPLICANTS ON SCIENCE CONCEIVABLY, THAT THERE'S ENOUGH DOLLARS TO FUND ALL THE LEFT-OVER GRANT APPLICATIONS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: REALIZE, THEY WON'T HAVE KNOCKED THEM OUT BECAUSE THESE ARE ADVISORY GROUPS. ICOC HAS TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION. AND THE ICOC MIGHT FIND THAT THE SCORE IS BELOW RECOMMENDED, BUT AT THE MARGIN, AND THAT IF THEY GET A HIGH FACILITIES SCORE BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF VALUE, THE ICOC MAY APPROVE SOME THAT ARE RIGHT AT THE MARGIN. SO NOT NECESSARILY FINAL DECISIONS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT'S WHAT I'M NOT CLEAR ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO BE IN THIS FIRST STEP AT THE ICOC. WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY GET APPROVED BY THE ICOC? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THE ICOC WOULD APPROVE THE SCIENTIFIC SCORES. TO GIVE YOU A SENSE, REMEMBER WITH THE SHARED FACILITIES, THAT THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP DID NOT PUT FORWARD FOR FUNDING AS MANY APPLICATIONS AS WERE EVENTUALLY FUNDED BY THE ICOC. SO AN APPLICANT INSTITUTION WITH A SCORE ON THAT MARGIN WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD UNTIL THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP AND THEN THE ICOC IN PHASE II OF THE PROCESS HAD GONE FORWARD IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A COMPRESSED PROCESS. WHEREAS, IN THIS NONCOMPRESSED PROCESS, THE SEQUENTIAL PROCESS, SOMEONE CAN BE RIGHT AT THE MARGIN OR A LITTLE BELOW, AND THE ICOC WILL SAY THAT WE DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD. THOSE FOLKS WOULD HAVE A HIGH PROBABILITY OF SUCCEEDING. THEY'D HAVE TO REALLY MESS UP THEIR FACILITIES PART 2 NOT TO GET FUNDED SO THAT THEY COULD MOVE FORWARD. WHEREAS, BEFORE IN THE PAST, THOSE PEOPLE WHO SAW THEY SCORED ABOVE 90 OR WHATEVER THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP FELT LIKE THEY COULD PROBABLY MOVE AHEAD, BUT THOSE WHO DIDN'T GET APPROVED BY THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP WERE ON PINS AND NEEDLES FOR THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP AND THEN ON PINS AND NEEDLES FOR THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE, DAVID? THE ICOC AS THE FINAL DECISION MAKER INTERVENING AT THIS EARLY STAGE SENDS A CLEAR SIGNAL TO THE PEOPLE WHO ON THE BASIS OF SCIENCE, WHICH ICOC HAS ALWAYS PUT AS THE PREMIUM VALIDATOR, THAT THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD IN SOME FASHION ON THEIR PLANS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DAVID, THE SCIENTIFIC GROUP MAY GIVE A VERY HIGH SCORE TO BASIC DISCOVERY, FOR EXAMPLE, AND NOT A SCORE IN THE FUNDING RANGE, IN QUOTES, AS RECOMMENDED FOR PRECLINICAL, BUT THE ICOC COULD SAY, LOOK, WE NEED MORE PRECLINICAL CAPACITY, AND WE REALLY ARE GOING TO EVALUATE DIFFERENTLY THE COMMITMENT BY THIS INSTITUTION TO DEVELOP ITS PRECLINICAL CAPACITY AND ITS COMMITMENT TO HIRE FACULTY, ETC., TO EXPAND THIS. SO WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE THIS ENTITY ON A SCIENTIFIC SCORE TO BE INCLUDED FOR COMPETITION ON AN X AND Y BASIS AS WELL. | ||||||||
| BUT DR. CHIU HAS A COMMENT, AND I THINK WE SHOULD HEAR. HER COMMENT SHOULD BE VERY ILLUMINATING. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT THE ICOC MAKES ALL FINAL DECISIONS, AND THAT THE SCORE IS JUST A NUMBER. BUT IN THE WRITE-UP, THAT WILL EXPLAIN THE JUSTIFICATION AND THE SCIENTIFIC -- THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP'S REASON FOR COMING UP WITH A CERTAIN SCORE. THE ICOC HAS IN THE PAST LOOKED VERY CAREFULLY AT THE LANGUAGE USED TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHETHER TO GO WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OR NOT GO WITH THE RECOMMENDATION. SO IT'S NOT JUST A NUMBER, BUT THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE NUMBER. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POINT. LET ME ASK DR. CHIU. SO THE FACILITIES GROUP WILL SEE AND THE ICOC WILL SEE A SCIENTIFIC SCORE, SEPARATE ONE FOR X VERSUS Y VERSUS Z? | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: THAT IS OUR CURRENT MODEL. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHICH IS VERY HELPFUL BECAUSE THEN WE CAN MAKE MUCH MORE DISCRETE DECISIONS ON AN INFORMED BASIS RATHER THAN HAVING APPROVED OR NOT APPROVED. SO GETTING THE SCORE ITSELF WILL BE VERY HELPFUL. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: DAVID, IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE TIMELINE, THE SEQUENTIAL PROCESS ACTUALLY GIVES MORE ADVICE TO THE APPLICANT EARLIER THAN THE ONE-STEP PROCESS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF, I'M NOT OPPOSING. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I THINK IT'S GOOD WE EXPLAIN THIS THOUGH. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK YOUR QUESTIONS ARE VERY HELPFUL BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO HELP EVERYONE UNDERSTAND THIS. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: IT SEEMS TO ACCELERATE BY ABOUT A MONTH WHEN SOMEONE MIGHT REASONABLY BEGIN, IF THEY HAD UNCERTAINTY, WHEN THEY MIGHT REASONABLY BEGIN MOVING FORWARD. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ADDRESSED THE CORE QUESTION THAT I'M ASKING. MAYBE I'M NOT EXPLAINING MYSELF CLEARLY. IF THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP HAS GONE THROUGH THE APPLICATION AND MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ICOC AT WHAT POINT TO HAVE THE CUTOFF, IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FIRST STEP? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THEY'RE GOING TO EVALUATE EACH APPLICATION FOR ITS SCIENTIFIC MERIT, SCORE IT, PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION EXPLAINING WHY IT RECEIVED THE SCORE THAT IT RECEIVED. THE ICOC THEN WILL DECIDE WHICH PARTS OF WHICH APPLICATIONS THEY WANT TO PROCEED FORWARD WITH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I SEE. SO LET'S ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY WE HAVE TWO SCENARIOS. THIS IS WHERE I'M GOING. SCENARIO ONE IS WHERE THE ICOC HAS MADE A | ||||||||
| DECISION AT LEAST ON WHAT APPLICATION THEY WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, RIGHT? BUT LET'S ASSUME THAT ALL THOSE APPLICATIONS ARE WITHIN OUR FUNDING LIMIT. THEN I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHY ARE WE GOING THAT NEXT STEP, FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, IF ALL THOSE APPLICATIONS ARE DEEMED SCIENTIFIC -- HAVE SCIENTIFIC MERIT AND THAT THE ICOC HAS VOTED TO HAVE THEM PROCEED TO THE NEXT STEP? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: THIS IS JOAN. THAT'S RELATED TO MY QUESTION BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE SCIENTIFIC SCORE ON ITS OWN AND THEN ANY CONCLUSIONS MADE FROM IT, IT'S ENTIRELY THEORETICAL WITHOUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP AS PART OF THAT SAME ANALYSIS. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WELL, I THINK, FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S -- I GUESS NOW YOU'VE GOT ME CONFUSED, WHICH IS HARD TO DO. BECAUSE I THINK WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY, ON ONE HAND DAVID'S SAYING IF THE SCIENCE IS OKAY, WHY ARE WE DOING FACILITIES? JOAN IS SAYING, WELL, IF THE SCIENCE IS OKAY, WHY CAN'T WE DO FACILITIES AT THE SAME TIME. IF WE DO FACILITIES AT THE SAME TIME, IT WILL SLOW DOWN THE WHOLE PROCESS. IF THE SCIENCE IS OKAY, WE STILL NEED TO FIND THE VALUE FOR THE TAXPAYERS THROUGH THE FACILITIES PROCESS, AND THAT IS OUR ROLE HERE AT THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| WE SAW THIS ON SOME OF THE SHARED FACILITIES GRANTS. WE HAD SHARED FACILITIES GRANTS THAT SCORED VERY HIGH, THAT WE GOT VALUE FROM THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP PROCESS TO REFINE, TO CHANGE, TO REALLY MOLD THOSE APPLICATIONS THAT PROVIDED A BETTER FACILITY FOR THAT INSTITUTION, BETTER VALUE FOR CIRM AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO THIS FACILITIES PLAYS A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE IN BRINGING PARTICULAR EXPERTISE THAT IS CONTAINED IN THOSE APPLICATIONS TO BEAR ON THAT INFORMATION AND TO SHAPE THAT AND REFINE IT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JUST TO AUGMENT WHAT JEFF HAS SAID, YOU ARE GOING TO GET A 99 SCIENTIFIC SCORE, BUT YOU BRING US IN SOMETHING THAT'S $1800 A FOOT AND YOU DON'T HAVE LEVERAGE AND YOU DON'T HAVE JUSTIFICATIONS, WE MAY SAY, LOOK, WE'LL GIVE YOU 15 MILLION AND YOU CAN FIGURE OUT HOW YOU'RE GOING TO COVER THE REST OF THESE COSTS BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T JUSTIFIED TO THE TAXPAYERS IN CALIFORNIA AND TO THE OTHER APPLICANTS IN OUR MISSION HOW YOU ARE GOING TO JUSTIFY THIS. AND WE MAY GIVE MORE MONEY TO A LOWER SCORE THAT HAS BETTER LEVERAGE AND BETTER VALUE FOR THE SCIENTIFIC MISSION. | ||||||||
| SO IT IS NOT OR EVEN CLOSE TO OVER WHEN YOU GET A HIGH SCIENTIFIC SCORE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, I GUESS MAYBE -- HERE'S THE THING. IF THE ICOC APPROVES APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED TO THE NEXT STEP WHERE ALL OF THOSE APPLICATIONS CONCEIVABLY COULD BE FUNDED FOR THE AMOUNT THEY'VE ASKED, THEN WHAT ROLE DOES THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP PLAY IN THAT? THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: TO DECIDE HOW MUCH MONEY THEY GET. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, I GUESS PEOPLE ARE GOING TO ASK FOR MORE MONEY THAN WE HAVE. SECONDLY, THE IMPORTANT POINT HERE IS THAT, AGAIN, SOMEBODY ASKED FOR A VERY HIGH PER SQUARE FOOT COST AND DOESN'T PROPERLY JUSTIFY IT, AND WE'RE NOT GETTING THE VALUE OUT OF IT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE TO SPEND ALL OF OUR MONEY. IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WE CAN PUT MORE MONEY AROUND SEVERAL GMP FACILITIES IN THE STATE. THERE ARE OTHER SCIENTIFIC VALUES THAT WILL COME UP THAT WE CAN SERVE. | ||||||||
| SO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THIS MONEY TO ALLOCATE, IF WE COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE FACILITIES GROUP TO THE ICOC IN THE SECOND ROUND THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVEN'T DEMONSTRATED VALUE, THERE'S EXCESSIVE COST, THERE'S NOT SUFFICIENT LEVERAGE, I WOULD DOUBT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO GET THE FULL ALLOCATION FOR THAT APPLICANT THAT THEY MIGHT OTHERWISE QUALIFY FOR BASED ON THEIR SCIENTIFIC SCORE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND THIS IS GOOD THAT THIS IS COMING ON THE PUBLIC RECORD, IS ESSENTIALLY THAT, EVEN HYPOTHETICALLY, IF WE HAVE SUFFICIENT DOLLARS TO FUND ALL THOSE APPLICATIONS AFTER THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP AND THE ICOC HAVE APPROVED FOR THOSE APPLICATIONS MOVING FORWARD, CONCEIVABLY IF AN APPLICATION HAS A LOW SCORE ON THE FACILITIES SIDE, THAT THE ICOC MAY CHOOSE TO CUT BACK THE FUNDING OR REALLOCATE FUNDING TO ANOTHER APPLICANT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THEY COULD HAVE THE TOP SCORE AND WE COULD CUT IT BACK AND REALLOCATE IT BECAUSE IT'S EXCESSIVE COST, IT'S NOT JUSTIFIED, THERE'S INADEQUATE LEVERAGE. SO SOMEONE WHO HAS THE TOP SCORE IS NOT HOME. THEY HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THEY'VE DONE EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO GET VALUE FOR THIS MISSION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. THAT CLARIFIES MY QUESTION, BOB. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I WANT TO KNOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: JOAN HAD A QUESTION. I'M NOT SURE WE ANSWERED HERS. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I'M NOT -- IT DOESN'T INHERENTLY MAKE SENSE TO ME TO HAVE THE ICOC REVIEWING AND VOTING ON A BUILDING PROJECT WITHOUT THE ANALYSIS OF THE FACILITY, THE PLAN FOR THAT FACILITY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THEY'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE ON THE BUILDING PROCESS AT ALL WITHOUT THE EVALUATION FROM THIS COMMITTEE. THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO VOTE ON THE SCIENTIFIC SCORE. THEN IT COMES -- | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IT'S NOT A SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM PER SE. IT'S THE SCIENTIFIC VALUE OF A BUILDING THAT IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED. I DON'T SEE HOW YOU SEPARATE THE TWO. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE BUILDING PART OF IT AND THE COST AND HOW MUCH THEY'RE GOING TO GET IN FUNDING IS NOT VOTED ON UNTIL THEY HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THIS COMMITTEE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I KNOW. I KNOW. BUT I DON'T SEE HOW THE ICOC CAN MAKE AN INTELLIGENT ASSESSMENT OF THE MERITS OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING INDEPENDENT OF ANY OF THE FACILITIES ANALYSIS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JOAN, I UNDERSTAND YOUR PERSPECTIVE. TAMAR, ARE THERE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE ONE-STEP FROM A LEGAL AND FROM A PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE? | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: THERE ARE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS. WELL, THERE ARE CONFLICT ISSUES FOR THE ICOC, SOME OF WHICH ARE AMELIORATED BY A TWO-STEP PROCESS THAT ARE NOT ADDRESSED BY A ONE-STEP PROCESS, YES. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THE IMPORTANCE OF WHAT THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP WILL DO IN LOOKING AT THE FACILITIES PIECE, THAT IT CAN'T JUST BE A ROLLOVER FROM THE ICOC BECAUSE THERE ARE DEFINITELY CONFLICTS ON THAT BOARD. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT IS A MATERIAL POINT AS WELL IN THIS PROCESS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT'S WHY I WAS BRINGING IT UP, BOB, BECAUSE, QUITE CANDIDLY, I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH JOAN'S POINT, THAT IF THERE WASN'T THIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUE, THAT I WOULD ACTUALLY SUPPORT A ONE-STEP REVIEW BECAUSE I THINK JOAN IS A HUNDRED PERCENT ON ON THIS. FROM A CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE, IF WE HAVE TO DO A TWO-STEP PROCESS, THEN I GUESS WE HAVE TO. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO DO A TWO-STEP PROCESS, BUT IT DOES -- REMEMBER, THE TWO-STEP PROCESS ALLOWS THE APPLICANT, IF THEY DON'T GET A GOOD SCIENTIFIC SCORE, TO ADJUST THEIR PROPOSAL SO THAT WE HAVEN'T LOST THEM AS A TALENTED, IMPORTANT ASSET OF THE STATE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I AGREE WE WANT TO DO THAT SOMEWHERE IN THE PROCESS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT ON THAT. WHY -- IF THERE WAS A CONCURRENT REVIEW THAT OCCURRED, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY THERE COULDN'T BE A LATER CHANGE -- A RESUBMISSION IN TERMS OF THE APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, WE WOULD HAVE TO HOLD UP EVERYONE'S ALLOCATIONS POTENTIALLY BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T KNOW BASED ON THE RESUBMISSION HOW WE WOULD ALLOCATE FUNDING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: AND THE OTHER THING, DAVID, IS THAT THAT WOULD STOP OUR WHOLE PROGRAM BECAUSE WE'D HAVE TO RECONVENE A REVIEW PANEL, BOTH THE SCIENTIFIC AND FACILITIES REVIEW PANEL. AND THOSE WOULD BE REVIEWS THAT WE COULDN'T USE FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEWS OR OTHER FACILITIES. SO IT'S NOT -- IT'S A ZERO-SUM GAME. EVERY TIME WE CONVENE THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP OR THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO CONVENE IT, FOR THIS GRANT CYCLE, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO DO OTHER GRANTS THAT COULD CONCEIVABLY BE DONE IN THAT TIMEFRAME. | ||||||||
| SO BY DOING THIS MAJOR FACILITIES, WE'RE NOT DOING TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH, WE'RE NOT DOING THE BIOLOGY OF STEM CELLS, WE'RE NOT STARTING THE PROCESS OF A STEM CELL BANK FACILITY OR A GMP FACILITY OR THE OTHER TYPES OF THINGS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ENVISIONED IN THE SCIENTIFIC STRATEGIC PLAN. SO IT'S NOT LIKE THAT WE CAN SIT AND PLAY WITH THIS OVER THE TIME. | ||||||||
| I ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT THE TWO-STEP PROCESS MAKES THE MOST SENSE. I'VE NEVER BEEN COMFORTABLE WITH THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP ACTING BLINDLY TO EVALUATE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC MERIT. IT'S A WASTE OF OUR TIME. IT'S REALLY A WASTE OF THE ICOC'S TIME. I THINK THIS PROCESS I WOULD PREFER GOING FORWARD WHERE WE GET THE SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA OUT IN FRONT. | ||||||||
| AND WHAT WE END UP DOING TOO WITH THIS ONE-STEP PROCESS, AS WE SAW IN THE SHARED FACILITIES GRANTS, IS THAT THE ICOC BASICALLY IGNORES THE WORK OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP AND MAKES ALL OF ITS DECISIONS BASED SOLELY ON THE SCIENCE. WHEREAS, I DO THINK THAT PER PROPOSITION 71 AND PER VALUE FOR THE TAXPAYERS, THAT THERE IS INCREDIBLE VALUE ADDED IN THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP BY LOOKING AT THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF HOW THESE BUILDINGS ARE CONSTRUCTED AND HOW THEY'RE USED. | ||||||||
| SO I THINK IT'S A REAL MISTAKE. WELL, I'M BUILDING UP TO A MOTION. I ALSO THINK THAT WE WILL END UP BUILDING MORE FACILITIES WITH THIS TWO-STEP PROCESS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO GET THE SCIENTIFIC SCORES WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO SHAPE AND TAILOR IT TO MEET THE FACILITIES -- TO MAKE IT WITHIN THE FACILITIES CONTEXT. AND I THINK A SINGLE UP AND DOWN IS MORE LIKELY TO END UP WITH LESS FACILITIES BUILT. WE WILL GET STARTED EARLIER BECAUSE THE ICOC WILL HAVE AN EARLIER DECISION POINT, SO WE WILL SEND A SIGNAL TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE GOOD, STRONG SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMS THAT THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD AT AN EARLIER DATE BY AT LEAST A MONTH. | ||||||||
| BASED ON THAT, I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE GO WITH THE SEQUENTIAL TWO-STEP PROCESS WITH THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ICOC, FOLLOWED UP WITH THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP REVIEW, WITH THAT THEN FORWARDED TO THE ICOC FOR FINAL APPROVAL. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, CAN YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE NEED TO ASK IF THERE'S PUBLIC COMMENT IF WE CAN, PLEASE. AND I THINK WE HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. REED: YEAH. THIS IS DON REED. I WOULD SUPPORT A TWO-STEP FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST OF ALL, BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH INFORMATION TO BE GATHERED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE. I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE FIRST THE SCIENCE AND THEN THE BANG FOR THE BUCK FOR CALIFORNIA. | ||||||||
| ALSO, I THINK THAT THE REST OF THE NATION, WHICH MANY STATES ARE CONSIDERING SIMILAR FUNDING MEASURES, NEEDS TO BE -- WE ARE AN EXAMPLE TO THEM. AND WE WILL BE STUDIED AS A PATTERN, AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER AS WELL. | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: JOHN SIMPSON, FOUNDATION FOR TAXPAYER AND CONSUMER RIGHTS. I WANT TO BACK THIS BECAUSE DON DID, BUT ALSO BECAUSE IT CORRECTLY PUTS THE SCIENCE FIRST, LET'S THAT BE EVALUATED, AND THEN PUTS THE FOCUS ON THE VALUE FOR THE TAXPAYER, WHICH IS ESSENTIAL. AND I CAN SEE SOME PEOPLE GETTING KNOCKED OUT IN EITHER PLACE, WHICH ULTIMATELY MAKES FOR BETTER SCIENCE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. I BELIEVE THERE'S A CALL OF THE QUESTION. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: COULD YOU RESTATE WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. TO DO A SEQUENTIAL TWO-STEP REVIEW WITH THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP CONVENING, EVALUATING THE APPLICATIONS, AND SENDING THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE ICOC. THE ICOC THEN WILL TAKE ACTION ON THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. THEN THERE WILL BE SCHEDULED A FACILITIES WORKING GROUP REVIEW, WHICH WILL THEN REVIEW PART 2 OF THE APPLICATIONS, AND THEN THOSE -- THEN THE WHOLE THING WILL MOVE FORWARD TO THE ICOC FOR A FINAL FUNDING DECISION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JOAN, THE FIRST EVALUATION IS THE SCIENCE, NOT THE BUILDING. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE'VE ASKED TO GET ED KASHIAN ON THE PHONE SO HE'D HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THIS -- TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS VOTE ON THIS MOTION AND THEN ALSO TO ASK HIM TO VOTE ON THE ROLL THAT IS OPEN. SO WE CAN JUST INDULGE YOUR PATIENCE FOR ONE MINUTE, WE SHOULD KNOW WITHIN A FEW SECONDS IF HE'S AVAILABLE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK YOU COULD BEGIN THE ROLL CALL. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IS ED GOING TO HAVE AN INFORMED BASIS TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: HE'S HAD THE MATERIALS, AND WE'LL RESTATE THE MOTION FOR HIM. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: OKAY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IS ED ON NOW? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: NOT YET. YOU WANT ME TO BEGIN? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: NO. NO. ONE OTHER QUICK THING. ANY THERE OTHER ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO COVER IN TODAY'S SESSION? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: NO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GO AHEAD, RICK. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. MARCY FEIT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ED KASHIAN. ROBERT KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: STUART LAFF. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JOAN SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: NO. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JEFF SHEEHY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| THE REPORTER: I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T HEAR THAT. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL IS JOINING THE CALL AND WOULD LOVE A SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION AND THE VOTES THAT ARE ON THE DECK. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: A VERY BRIEF ONE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DAVID, JEFF SHEEHY MADE A MOTION THAT WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF VOTING ON. COULD YOU, JEFF, SUMMARIZE THE MOTION? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: DAVID, WE'RE SUPPORTING THE SEQUENTIAL TWO-STEP REVIEW WITH THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP MAKING THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE ICOC, WHICH WILL THEN VOTE ON THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, THEN A LATER FACILITIES WORKING GROUP REVIEW OF PART 2, WITH THAT THEN GOING -- WITH THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS THEN GOING TO THE ICOC FOR FINAL DECISION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IS THAT THE MOTION ON THE TABLE? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT IS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU FOR THE SUMMARY AND HOLDING OFF A VOTE TILL I COULD JOIN BACK IN IN. I APPRECIATE IT. HOPE IT DIDN'T DELAY THE MEETING ANY LONGER THAN NECESSARY. | ||||||||
| I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. THE ONE ISSUE I'M GOING TO BRING UP AT THE FULL ICOC, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TIME FOR DISCUSSION NOW, IS WHETHER -- THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE TIME TABLE AND WHEN THE FACILITIES GRANTS CAN BE AWARDED. IF IT WOULD HELP -- IN TERMS OF THE TIMELINE, IF WE COULD CONSIDER, AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE DISCUSSION. I'M JUST GIVING A PREVIEW OF WHAT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT AT THE ICOC MEETING. IF WE COULD DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY TO SOME OTHER GROUP OTHER THAN THE SCIENTIFIC WORKING GROUP. I AGREE WITH THE TWO-STEP PROCESS. IT'S THE WAY TO GO. MY ONLY TWEAK TO IT IS, INSTEAD OF THE SCIENTIFIC WORKING GROUP MAKING THAT INITIAL SCIENTIFIC REVIEW, THAT IT IS SOME OTHER YET TO BE APPOINTED BODY FILLED WITH THE -- POPULATED BY THE RIGHT TYPE OF EXPERTS THAT COULD BASICALLY SERVE THAT SAME FUNCTION. | ||||||||
| AND I MAKE THIS SUGGESTION IF AND ONLY IF IT WOULD BE SHORTENING THE PROCESS SO WE COULD AWARD THE FACILITIES GRANTS SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. I NOTED ON ONE OF THE FINAL SLIDES THAT THERE WASN'T A TIMELINE FOR THE TWO-STEP PROCESS. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES, THERE IS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT WAS MY ONLY COMMENT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I DO THINK YOU'D HAVE LITIGATION RISKS FROM BOARD MEMBERS WHO WEREN'T ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN A STATUTORILY OBLIGATED GRANTS WORKING GROUP REVIEW. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JEFF, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. WE WOULD NEED LEGAL COUNSEL TO DO A MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I WOULD HAVE DIFFICULTY CEDING MY AUTHORITY TO AN OUTSIDE PANEL WITH WHAT I'VE OBTAINED FROM THE VOTERS IN PROP 71. SO I CAN TELL YOU YOU'D HAVE LITIGATION RISK. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AT THIS POINT, AS I UNDERSTAND, DAVID IS ASKING FOR JUST A REVIEW AND DISCUSSION, AND LEGAL COUNSEL CAN PREPARE A REVIEW WHICH I THINK WILL ADDRESS, JEFF, YOUR ISSUE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THIS IS DONE -- I DO THIS IN THE SPIRIT OF WANTING TO GET THESE FACILITIES GRANTS TO THE INSTITUTION SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. THAT'S WHAT'S MOTIVATING ME, NOT TO CIRCUMVENT OR WORK OUTSIDE OF PROP 71. ANYBODY WHO KNOWS ME, JEFF, KNOWS THAT I'M ALL ABOUT FOLLOWING PROP 71. I HAVE BEEN FROM DAY ONE I'VE SERVED ON THIS BOARD. IN FACT, I'VE WORKED CLOSELY WITH BOB KLEIN ON LEGAL ISSUES. I'VE ALWAYS BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT EXPOSURE. I'VE ALWAYS KEPT THAT IN MIND. | ||||||||
| QUITE FRANKLY, JEFF, IT'S BEEN THE PATIENT ADVOCATES THAT HAVE CONSISTENTLY FROM DAY ONE FOUGHT TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVEN'T EXPOSED OURSELVES TO ANY KIND OF LIABILITY. NOT ONLY AS A PATIENT ADVOCATE, BUT AS AN ATTORNEY, I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO THOSE ISSUES. AND I WOULDN'T MAKE A PROPOSAL WITHOUT HAVING DONE BY OWN INTERNAL THOUGHT PROCESSES AND DUE DILIGENCE, NOR IS THIS THE FIRST TIME I'VE RAISED THE ISSUE CERTAINLY WITH RICK. AND SO IT'S, AS BOB SAID, IT'S AN ITEM OF DISCUSSION ONLY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JEFF, CERTAINLY YOU'VE PROVEN WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID IN SPADES MANY TIMES OVER. SO WE ALL TAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN THAT CONTEXT. | ||||||||
| WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A VOTE, ED. BASICALLY THIS IS A VOTE ON WHETHER TO HAVE A TWO-STEP PROCESS IN EVALUATION OR A ONE-STEP PROCESS. AND MAYBE, JEFF SHEEHY, YOU COULD REPEAT IT FOR THE BASIS OF ED. BUT, DAVID, YOU WANT TO CAST YOUR VOTE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ON JEFF'S MOTION? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YEAH. I ALREADY SAID I WAS GOING TO VOTE YES, BUT I INTEND ON BRINGING UP THIS OTHER ISSUE AT THE BOARD. I NEED TO BE BRIEFED ON THE TIMELINE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY. AND IF YOU COULD BOTH STAY ON, WE HAVE ONE OTHER MOTION WITH AN OPEN VOTE. BUT, JEFF, FOR ED KASHIAN COULD YOU SUMMARIZE? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. SO THE MOTION IS TO DO A SEQUENTIAL TWO-STEP REVIEW WITH THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION TO THE ICOC, THE ICOC MEETING, AND THEN TAKING ACTION ON THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. AND THEN FACILITIES WORKING GROUP MEETING ON PART 2 OF THE APPLICATION AND FORWARDING THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ON TO THE ICOC FOR APPROVAL. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE PURPOSE OF THIS, ED, IS THAT BY A TWO-STEP PROCESS, IF SOMEONE APPLIES ON AN XYZ BASIS, AND THEY HAVE A HIGH SCORE ON X AND Y, WE DON'T WANT TO COMPLETELY KNOCK THEM OUT. THEY'RE AN ASSET TO THE STATE. WE WANT THEM TO HAVE TIME TO THEN REVISE THEIR APPLICATION AND SUBMIT ON THE AREAS THEY'VE RATED HIGHLY ON SO THAT WE CAN CONSIDER IT. | ||||||||
| NOW, THE ICOC HAS THE ABILITY TO APPROVE THEM ON X, Y, AND Z IN ANY CASE, BUT THIS GIVES THEM AN ABILITY, IF THEY WANT TO CHANGE THEIR APPLICATION, TO BETTER POSITION IT FOR AWARD TO DO SO. SO THE TWO-STEP PROCESS IS WHAT'S BEEN RECOMMENDED IN THIS MOTION BY JEFF SHEEHY AND SECONDED BY ME. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHO ELSE HAS NOT VOTED? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT'S ALL. THE MOTION CARRIES SEVEN AYES, ONE NO. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE SECOND MOTION WITH AN OPEN VOTE IS -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YOUR MOTION ON SHARED FACILITIES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: LET ME SUMMARIZE THIS ITEM. IT'S IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY THAT IF YOU ARE A COLLABORATOR AND HAVE PUT FORWARD AN ASSET LIKE A VIVARIUM AS A SHARED FACILITY, THAT DOES NOT STOP YOU FROM MAKING A SEPARATE APPLICATION FOR A NICHE SUCH AS HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING OR IMAGING OR SOME OTHER CRITICAL ASSET THAT YOU MAY HAVE SPECIAL EXPERTISE IN, THAT, HOWEVER, YOU CANNOT GET POINTS OVER HERE TO YOUR COLLABORATIVE GROUP FOR A SHARED FACILITY AND THEN SAY, BUT I'M APPLYING SEPARATELY FOR THE VIVARIUM. YOU CAN'T APPLY SEPARATELY FOR THE SAME THING THAT YOU'VE OFFERED AS A SHARED FACILITY. | ||||||||
| THE IMPORTANT POINT HERE IS TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT WE DON'T DISINCENTIVIZE COLLABORATION BUT, IN FACT, REQUIRE THAT SOMEONE, IF THEY'RE APPLYING FOR A SPECIAL AWARD FOR A SPECIAL AREA OF KNOWLEDGE, NOT HAVE IT COUNTED TWICE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE SCIENTIFIC VALUE OF THE COLLABORATION HAS BEEN EVALUATED BY THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE SCIENTIFIC VALUE BEING VALIDATED BY THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: JUST TO CLARIFY -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: WHO MADE THE MOTION? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I MADE THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY JEFF SHEEHY. AND THE MOTION AT THIS POINT HAS FIVE YES VOTES ON IT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I VOTE YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I'LL VOTE YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: MOTION CARRIES.MR. KLEIN: ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BY THE MEMBERS? MR. CHAIRMAN, THOSE TWO ITEMS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. IS THERE ANY -- MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU MAY WANT AN ENDING SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BEFORE I ASK FOR THAT, RICK, THERE ARE NO OTHER AGENDA ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: CORRECT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I JUST WANT TO -- I WANT TO REGISTER A CONCERN. I ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE ON THE TWO-STEP VERSUS ONE-STEP. I JUST WANT TO VOICE A CONCERN TO THE ICOC TO CONSIDER THAT IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT IN THIS TWO-STEP PROCESS THAT THERE -- IT'S CLEARLY COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANTS THAT THEIR EVENTUAL FUNDING LEVELS AND WHETHER THEY GET FUNDED WILL ALSO BE DETERMINED BY THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP'S EVENTUAL SCORES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WILL INCORPORATE THAT INTO MY CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS IN THIS SESSION OR IN THE PORTION OF THE ICOC MEETING WHERE WE CONSIDER THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB, I HAVE A FINAL COMMENT. THANK YOU. AND THAT IS TO LORI HOFFMAN, AND THAT IS A REQUEST. AND, LORI, YOU CAN TELL ME IF YOU CAN DO IT OR NOT. BASED ON THE MOTION THAT PASSED FOR THE TWO-STEP PROCESS, IS IT POSSIBLE AT THE ICOC MEETING ON AUGUST 8TH TO FILL IN SOME DATES WITH THAT SLIDE THAT HAS THE TWO-STEP PROCESS TIMELINE? IT'S A QUESTION THAT THE ICOC WILL ASK, IN MY OPINION, AND IT'S BEST TO PROVIDE SOME DATES. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN DO? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: DAVID, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT, AND WE THINK THAT THAT'S AN ICOC ISSUE. AND SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE ICOC WOULD BE VOTING ON THOSE DATES AS WELL. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DAVID, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, I CAN TELL YOU THAT PRIOR TO THAT MEETING, IF THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE COULD GIVE ME THEIR SUGGESTIONS, AT THE BOARD LEVEL I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND THE BOARD SCHEDULE ADDITIONAL MEETINGS TO ACCOMMODATE THIS PROCESS, INCLUDING POTENTIALLY A JANUARY 7TH MEETING OR APPROXIMATELY JANUARY 7TH, FOR THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW SO THAT WE COULD HAVE THAT EARLIER, AND POSSIBLY MOVING THE MEETING IN APRIL BACK A COUPLE OF WEEKS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE TIME NECESSARY FOR APPLICANTS TO DO A MAJOR ADJUSTMENT, IF THEY NEED A MAJOR ADJUSTMENT BASED UPON THEIR SCIENTIFIC SCORE, TO COME IN WITH A FULLY COMPREHENSIVE PROPOSAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE SCORE THEY GOT SCIENTIFICALLY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: GREAT. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, IF YOU COULD ASK IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? | ||||||||
| MR. COFFMAN: LOUIS COFFMAN FROM THE SAN DIEGO CONSORTIUM. MEMBER KLEIN, YOU ALLUDED TO CAPS, AND THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION OF RANGES BASED UPON XYZ, XY, AND X. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION -- WILL THE APPLICANTS GET SOME GUIDANCE AS TO WHAT THOSE RANGES WILL BE IF THERE ARE TO BE ANY? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AT THE ICOC MEETING THERE WILL BE A DISCUSSION OF THE RANGES. THERE'S BEEN A PREVIOUS DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC MEETINGS OF RANGES THAT WE HAVE HAD AS A FACILITIES GROUP, AND THAT INFORMATION WILL BE PASSED ON TO THE ICOC IN A DISCUSSION AT THE ICOC MEETING OF THOSE RANGES. | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: JOHN SIMPSON, FOUNDATION FOR TAXPAYER AND CONSUMER RIGHTS. I JUST VERY QUICKLY WANTED TO COMMEND THE WORKING GROUP. I KNOW THAT SEVERAL MONTHS AGO MANY PEOPLE WERE SHOCKED THAT THIS PROCESS WAS GOING TO TAKE PLACE. I THINK THERE WAS AN EXPECTATION THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE RAMMED THROUGH THE ICOC. MAYBE NOT | ||||||||
| RAMMED THROUGH, BUT DEALT WITH VERY QUICKLY THERE. AND I THINK THE HEARINGS, THE INTERESTED PARTIES MEETING, AND THIS PROCESS HAVE REALLY DEMONSTRATED AND HAVE BENEFITED THE POTENTIAL APPLICANTS AND DRAWN THEM IN IN A WAY THAT I HAVEN'T SEEN HAPPEN BEFORE. SO IT WAS TIME-CONSUMING, BUT VALUABLE TIME SPENT BY ALL OF YOU, AND YOU SHOULD BE COMMENDED FOR THAT. AND I THINK THAT WHENEVER THIS KIND OF PROCESS CAN BE DONE, IT ENHANCES THE OUTPUT AND THE WORK. SO THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THANK YOU. WE DEEPLY APPRECIATE THE COMMENT. AND I THINK SPEAKING FROM THE BOARD PERSPECTIVE, I'D LIKE TO SAY I THINK THAT WE SHOULD GIVE A HAND OF APPLAUSE TO THE STAFF AND TO THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE FOR THEIR DEDICATED EFFORT IN BRINGING US THROUGH THERE PROCESS. | ||||||||
| (APPLAUSE.) | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, IF THERE'S NO OTHER ISSUES TO COVER, I'D LIKE TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IT'S ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: MR. CHAIRMAN, I VOTE YES. | ||||||||
| (THE MEETING WAS THEN CONCLUDED AT 12:02 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 | ||||||||
|
||||||||
| 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. | ||||||||
 |
||||||||
Facebook Updates 
YouTube Videos 
Twitter 
Flickr Images
LinkedIn
Research Blog
RSS Feeds
