State Stem Cell Agency Facilities Working Group Transcript 7/12/07
This is an uncertified HTML copy of the transcript. 
Click here for a certified PDF transcript.
California State Stem Cell Agency
REGULAR MEETING 7-12-07
|
||||||||
| LOCATION: |
|
|||||||
| DATE: |
|
|||||||
| REPORTER: |
|
|||||||
| BRS FILE NO.: |
|
|||||||
| BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JULY 12, 2007 | ||||||||
| 1 P.M. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. I'M DAVID LICHTENGER. I'M THE CHAIR OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP FOR THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF REGENERATIVE MEDICINE. COPIES OF THE AGENDA HAVE BEEN PASSED OUT AND ARE ALSO AT THE BACK OF THE ROOM. | ||||||||
| BOB KLEIN HAS A SHORT STATEMENT TO MAKE BEFORE WE CALL ROLL. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT SHERRY LANSING SPOKE WITH ME YESTERDAY FROM PORTUGAL AND WAS VERY INTERESTED IN THE PROCESS AND OUR PROGRESS, BUT SAID THAT SINCE SHE CAN'T MAKE THE MEETING, SHE WAS GOING TO RESIGN HER POSITION. IN PARTICULAR, SHE WAS CONCERNED TOO THAT SINCE SHE'S ON THE UC REGENTS, SHE HAS CONFLICTS IN A NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS, AND SHE FELT IT WOULD PROVIDE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE FORWARD QUICKLY HERE. SHE DIDN'T KNOW THAT WE ALREADY HAD A QUORUM ASSEMBLED, BUT SHE WANTED TO WISH US THE BEST AND INDICATE SHE WAS SORRY THAT SHE WAS OUT OF THE COUNTRY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, BOB. I'D LIKE TO ASK RICK KELLER TO CALL THE ROLL. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. | ||||||||
| MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DEBORAH HYSEN. ED KASHIAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JANET WRIGHT. JEFF SHEEHY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JOAN SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: MARCY FEIT. ROBERT KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: AND STUART LAFF. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: AND WITH THE CURRENT MAKEUP, SEVEN CONSTITUTES -- | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: A QUORUM. WE HAVE A QUORUM. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE CIRM STAFF PRESENT THAT WILL BE ASSISTING THE WORKING GROUP TODAY. FIRST OF ALL, LORI HOFFMAN, THE ACTING PRESIDENT; ARLENE CHIU, CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER; GIL SAMBRANO, SENIOR OFFICER FOR SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL RESEARCH FUNDING WORKING GROUP; TAMAR PACHTER, OUR GENERAL COUNSEL; RICK KELLER, WHO'S OUR SENIOR OFFICER FOR SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL RESEARCH FACILITIES; AND PAT BEAUPRE BECKER, THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT. | ||||||||
| AND NOW I'D LIKE TO ASK LORI HOFFMAN, ACTING PRESIDENT, TO MAKE A FEW INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS. LORI. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THANK YOU. I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT THE FOUR PUBLIC MEETINGS HELD IN MAY AND JUNE WERE A SUCCESS. THEY WERE WELL ATTENDED AND PROVIDED STAFF AND THE WORKING GROUP WITH ALL OF THE INFORMATION WE REQUESTED AND MORE. WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO CAPTURE ALL THE MAJOR POINTS IN TODAY'S PRESENTATION IN AN EFFORT TO ASSIST YOU IN MAKING MANY IMPORTANT POLICY DECISIONS REQUIRED FOR THIS NEXT FACILITIES GRANT. | ||||||||
| AS DEFINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC STRATEGIC PLAN, THE FACILITIES GRANTS ARE INTENDED TO MEET CURRENT RESEARCH NEEDS, AS WELL AS EXPAND STEM CELL RESEARCH CAPACITY WITHIN OUR STATE. | ||||||||
| THE PURPOSE OF TODAY'S MEETING WILL BE TO ESTABLISH THE CRITERIA, REQUIREMENTS, STANDARDS, AND A METHOD FOR SCORING THE LARGE FACILITY RFA THAT WILL BE THEN RECOMMENDED TO THE ICOC FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION. THIS SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS SHALL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE SHARED RESEARCH LAB REVIEWS THAT YOU RECENTLY UNDERTOOK AND THE INPUT FROM THE FOUR PUBLIC MEETINGS. | ||||||||
| SOME HIGHLIGHTS FROM THOSE PUBLIC MEETINGS INCLUDE: CIRM IS A FUNDER, NOT AN OWNER OF THE FACILITIES. TWO, MOST OF THE INSTITUTIONS APPLYING FOR THESE FUNDS HAVE A COMPLEX SET OF CHECKS AND BALANCES IN PLACE TO ENSURE SUCCESS OF THEIR CAPITAL PROJECT DELIVERY. WE DO NOT NEED TO REINVENT THAT WHEEL. THREE, WHILE THE ICOC REQUESTED A SINGLE RFA FOR THE ALLOCATION OF THESE FUNDS, WE LEARNED THAT THERE ARE A RANGE OF DIVERSE NEEDS, AND THE RFA SHOULD ALLOW FOR THESE NEEDS. FOUR, AND LAST, FUTURE FLEXIBILITY IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE WHATEVER PROGRAM SPACE NEEDS WE ADDRESS IN THIS NEXT RFA, THEY WILL NOT BE THE SAME SPACE NEEDS REQUIRED IN THE NEXT FIVE TO TEN YEARS. AND THIS IS REALLY A GOOD THING. IT MEANS THAT THE SCIENCE IS PROGRESSING AND MATURING. | ||||||||
| SO WITH THESE POINTS IN MIND, I TURN THE MEETING BACK OVER TO THE CHAIR. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, LORI. | ||||||||
| ALTHOUGH THE FOUR PUBLIC MEETINGS WERE WELL ATTENDED, WE'VE ALLOWED TIME ON THE AGENDA TODAY TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ANYONE WHO WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND ANY OF THOSE FOUR MEETINGS. AFTER THAT WE'LL DECIDE ON THE REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF THE LARGE FACILITY APPLICATIONS. THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED BY A DISCUSSION OF THE OPTIONS FOR THE REVIEW PROCESS. THESE OPTIONS HAVE A COMPLEXITY TO THEM THAT WILL REQUIRE SOME DISCUSSION AND OUR FULL CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE'LL MEET AGAIN TO MAKE OUR FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ICOC AT THE AUGUST 8TH MEETING ALONG WITH THE RECOMMENDED CRITERIA, EVALUATION STANDARDS, AND SCORING PROCEDURES. | ||||||||
| DOES ANYONE ON THE WORKING GROUP HAVE ANY PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS OR SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE AGENDA? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I HAVE ONE. I DON'T THINK WE'LL HAVE TIME TODAY, CHAIRMAN, BUT IF WE DO, TO TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS AND WHAT SOME OF THE SUGGESTIONS STAFF HAS PUT FORTH TO US IF WE HAVE TIME. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AT SOME POINT IN THE DAY, I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF HOW WE MAKE OUR PAYMENTS. I HAD THE BENEFIT OF TALKING WITH LORI HOFFMAN ON THIS ISSUE. AND IF WE MAKE OUR PAYMENTS AS THE LAST PAYMENTS IN ON A PROJECT, WE WILL HAVE OUR INTEREST OCCUR ON THIS APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS OUT SINCE IT TAKES TWO YEARS TO COMPLETE THE FACILITY, AND THAT WOULD PUT US EFFECTIVELY AT THE END OF THE PERIOD IN WHICH WE HAVE TO CAPITALIZE OUR INTEREST ON GRANTS THAT ARE MADE. | ||||||||
| YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THAT IN LOOKING AT THE USES ON THE 300 MILLION, THERE WAS A CONSERVATIVE NUMBER OF ABOUT 50 MILLION SET ASIDE FOR CAPITALIZED INTEREST. WE'VE WORKED OUT A PLAN TO GET THAT DOWN CONCEPTUALLY TO ABOUT 30 MILLION; BUT IF WE GO WITH THE LAST-PAYMENTS-IN POLICY ON THESE FACILITIES, THAT 30 MILLION COULD BE VIRTUALLY ELIMINATED AND WOULD GIVE US AN ABILITY TO TRANSFER UP TO 50 MILLION MORE INTO THE FACILITIES MONIES THAT WE HAVE TO DISTRIBUTE. AND 50 MILLION MORE IS A VALUABLE RESOURCE. IT WOULD TAKE US FROM ABOUT 220 MILLION TO 270 MILLION OR IN THAT RANGE. | ||||||||
| SO I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THAT BECAUSE IT'S MATERIAL IN THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES THAT THE ICOC WILL HAVE AVAILABLE TO THEM. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, BOB. RICK -- LORI. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: YES. SORRY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE COMMENT. AND THE MONEY THAT IS SAVED -- I'M SORRY, BOB. I PROBABLY DIDN'T ARTICULATE THIS THE LAST TIME WE SPOKE. THE MONEY THAT IS SAVED ON THE COST ISSUANCE AND CAPITALIZED INTEREST IS THEN DIVIDED BETWEEN THE RESEARCH AS WELL AS THE FACILITIES. SO NOT ALL THAT MONEY WOULD COME TO FACILITIES, BUT CERTAINLY WHATEVER SAVINGS IN CAP INTEREST COULD THEN BE ROLLED INTO THIS RFA. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, IF YOU COULD JUST MAKE A NOTE TO BRING THAT UP AT THE APPROPRIATE SLIDE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BECAUSE SO MUCH MONEY WOULD GO OUT IN THIS TIME PERIOD IN THE FACILITIES, IT IS A MAJORITY OF THAT MONEY, SO IT'S VERY VALUABLE AS A DISCUSSION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO PROCEED TO AGENDA ITEM 4, THE FORMAL PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE UPCOMING RFA. WE ASKED SPEAKERS TO SIGN UP AHEAD OF TIME AND KEEP THEIR COMMENTS TO FIVE MINUTES OR LESS. RICK, CAN YOU TELL US WHO WILL BE SPEAKING TODAY? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED UP FOR TODAY ON THIS PORTION OF THE AGENDA. IT IS MR. LOUIS COFFMAN FROM THE SAN DIEGO CONSORTIUM FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE. I HAVE SOME MATERIALS TO PASS OUT TO YOU. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DID WE SEE YOU IN SAN DIEGO? | ||||||||
| MR. COFFMAN: YOU DID. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME AND GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY. I AM THE INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SAN DIEGO CONSORTIUM, THE CONSORTIUM THAT COMPRISES THE BURNHAM INSTITUTE, THE SALK INSTITUTE, USCD, AND THE SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE. MY PURPOSE HERE TODAY IS SIMPLY TO RESTATE AND TO REAFFIRM THE COMMENTS THAT RUSTY GAGE, A PROFESSOR AT THE SALK INSTITUTE, MADE TO YOU ALL IN SAN DIEGO THAT ARE LARGELY FOLLOW-ON COMMENTS MADE BY ALL OTHER SCIENTISTS, DRS. WEISSMAN, BLUESTONE, PERA, WITTE, AND THE LIKE. | ||||||||
| BASICALLY THE PRINCIPAL MESSAGE IS THAT THE PRINCIPAL CRITERION THAT OUGHT TO BE USED TO DIFFERENTIATE APPLICATIONS THAT YOU WILL RECEIVE IS THE SCIENCE. | ||||||||
| IT'S WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE PROP 71 MONEY THAT'S EARMARKED FOR FACILITIES WILL INDEED BE WELL SPENT TO CREATE NEW LABORATORIES THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY SAFE HARBORS FREE FROM THE FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS ON STEM CELL RESEARCH, TO ALSO ENABLE MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCE THAT'S REQUIRED -- THAT ALL WHO HAVE TESTIFIED THAT ARE REQUIRED TO ADVANCE STEM CELL RESEARCH, TO CREATE SPACES TO FACILITATE AND ENCOURAGE THE COLLABORATION, AND TO PROVIDE THE MEANS TO HOUSE THE VERY EXPENSIVE, EXTRAORDINARY CORE FACILITIES THAT ARE NECESSARY AS WELL. | ||||||||
| WE ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE CRITERIA, THE CIRM OBJECTIVES, THAT ARE WELL ARTICULATED IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN WILL BE SERVED BEST BY SCIENCE AND SCIENCE ALONE. SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE QUALITY OF THE SCIENCE BE THE PRINCIPAL CRITERION, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT; HOWEVER, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ALSO IN OTHER MEETINGS, THERE ARE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE PLANNING AND THE DESIGN AND THE PERMITTING AND THE FINANCING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDINGS THAT ALSO WARRANTS SCRUTINY AS WELL. SO WE'LL ADDRESS THOSE IN OUR LITTLE BRIEF DISCUSSIONS TODAY. | ||||||||
| SO WHAT ABOUT THE SCIENCE? ALL HAVE SAID FIRST THE SCIENCE. WE LOOK BACKWARDS; AND THAT IS, YOU LOOK TO TRACK RECORD, PAST PERFORMANCE AS A MEANS -- AS AN INDICATOR OF THE FUTURE PERFORMANCE. AND SO WE LOOK BACKWARDS AT THE TRACK RECORD OF THE ORGANIZATIONS, AND THIS SHOULD BE A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT FOR SCRUTINY IN THE APPLICATIONS. | ||||||||
| AND HOW DO YOU MEASURE TRACK RECORD? THERE CLEARLY ARE SOME OBSERVABLE AND MEASURABLE ASPECTS. ALL RESEARCH INSTITUTES, WE BELIEVE, WHEN DISTILLED DOWN TO THEIR ESSENCE, THAT THERE ARE THREE CHARGES; THAT IS, TO INFLUENCE, TO EDUCATE, AND TO APPLY. AND INFLUENCE, CLEARLY THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMY OR PEOPLE IN INDUSTRY ARE LOOKING TO THE EXTENT THAT PEOPLE PUBLISH, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY'VE PATENTED INVENTIONS, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEIR WORK IS CITED BY OTHER WORK. THE INFLUENCE IS, IN FACT, A MEASURABLE CRITERION. | ||||||||
| EDUCATE, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY'VE EDUCATED NOT ONLY THE POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWS WHO HAVE GONE ON TO OTHER PRODUCTIVE CAREERS AND THE LIKE, THAT TOO CAN BE MEASURED. | ||||||||
| AND APPLY, IN THE END SCIENCE FOR SCIENCE SAKE IS WONDERFUL, BUT SCIENCE, UNLESS IT ULTIMATELY RESULTS IN SOMETHING THAT MAKES SOMEBODY BETTER. AND THAT IS, MOST RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS DON'T EXIST TO DO DEVELOPMENT WORK. THEY HAVE TO TRANSFER TECHNOLOGY TO THOSE WHO DO. SO THE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER MECHANISMS ARE VERY IMPORTANT AS WELL. | ||||||||
| THE TRACK RECORD IS A GOOD -- RELIES ON HISTORY AS AN INDICATOR OF FUTURE SUCCESS; BUT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, GIVEN THE FACT THAT CIRM IS GOING TO MAKE A CONSIDERABLE INVESTMENT IN FACILITIES, THAT THERE IS A PLAN TO POPULATE THOSE FACILITIES WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO DO PRODUCTIVE SCIENCE. SO WE THINK IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT THERE THAT WHAT OUGHT TO BE SCRUTINIZED IS THE VISION, AND THAT VISION OUGHT TO BE DIRECTED TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES THAT CIRM HAS WELL ARTICULATED IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN. SO THE COMPELLING VISION MUST BE SOMETHING THAT REALLY, REALLY WARRANTS CLOSE SCRUTINY. | ||||||||
| WE THINK THAT PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE SCIENTIFIC CRITERION THAT SHOULD BE EVALUATED IS THE MULTIDISCIPLINARY AND THE COLLABORATIVE NATURE OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE DOING THE RESEARCH. IT'S CLEAR THAT THE OVERWHELMING ABUNDANCE OF KNOWLEDGE IS REQUIRED OF ALL OF US, NOT JUST SCIENTISTS, BUT THOSE OF US IN THE LAY AND OTHER COMMUNITIES REQUIRE THAT PEOPLE COMPROMISE CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF BREADTH FOR DEPTH; AND, THEREFORE, FOCUS MORE ON SPECIFIC DISCIPLINES. HOWEVER, PROBLEMS ARE NOT SO KEENLY -- NOT SO NARROWLY DEFINED, AND THEY REQUIRE PEOPLE WHO SPAN MULTIPLE DISCIPLINES AND, THEREFORE, THIS NEED FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH. | ||||||||
| A MODEL THAT IS EVOLVING OVER TIME IS THAT ALL MEDICAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS ULTIMATELY START WITH THE BIOLOGY, BUT THE BIOLOGY RAISES A QUESTION THAT IMPOSES DEMANDS ON TECHNOLOGISTS TO PRODUCE TOOLS THAT CAN GENERATE DATA. EITHER IT'S PROTEOMICS DATA OR GENOMICS DATA AND THE LIKE. THE DATA THAT COMES OUT MAKES DEMANDS ON COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGISTS WHO THEN CAN CREATE THE SYSTEMS THAT CAN COLLECT THE DATA AND ENABLE YOU TO CURATE IT AND VISUALIZE IT, TO ANALYZE IT AS WELL. SO MULTIDISCPLINARY, THOSE THAT REQUIRE BIOLOGISTS, TECHNOLOGISTS, COMPUTATIONAL PEOPLE, AND REQUIRES COLLABORATIVE. | ||||||||
| THE NICE PITHY LITTLE QUOTE THERE, I THINK, CAPTURES IT ALL IS THAT NONE OF US IS AS SMART AS ALL OF US. AND I THINK THAT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT INSOFAR AS STEM CELL RESEARCH. | ||||||||
| CLEARLY CIRM IS GOING TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN FACILITIES; BUT EVEN SO, THE INVESTMENT THAT'S REQUIRED IS SUBSTANTIAL AS WELL. AND, THEREFORE, THE RESOURCES ARE FINITE. SO CIRM MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SATISFY ALL BONA FIDE NEEDS, SO WE THINK IT'S VITALLY IMPORTANT THAT APPLICANTS DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL PROGRAM TO REACH OUT TO OTHERS IN THE COMMUNITY, OTHER ACADEMICS OR OTHER REGIONAL AREAS OF THE STATE THAT CAN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE CORE FACILITIES AND THE LIKE. SO WE THINK IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT THAT AN OUTREACH BE A VITAL ASPECT OF THE APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| AND, FINALLY, JUST AS WE'VE SAID EARLIER ON, CIRM'S OBJECTIVES ARE VERY CLEAR AND NEED TO RESULT IN THERAPIES THAT CAN MAKE PEOPLE BETTER OR TOOLS TO DIAGNOSE DISEASES EARLIER IN THEIR LIFE SPAN. SO WE THINK IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT THAT APPLICANTS DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY ARE IN A COMMUNITY THAT IS RICH AND FERTILE FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, BUT ALSO THERE ARE MECHANISMS IN PLACE THAT CAN EFFECTIVELY TRANSFER THE TECHNOLOGY FROM ACADEMIA INTO INDUSTRY TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN WITH IT. | ||||||||
| SO, AGAIN, SCIENCE, WE THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE LOOK BACK AT THE TRACK RECORD, THE PAST PERFORMANCES, BEING INDICATIVE OF THE FUTURE SUCCESS. WE THINK, NONETHELESS, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE VISION BE CLEARLY ARTICULATED DIRECTLY TO THE CIRM OBJECTIVES. WE THINK THAT AN OUTREACH PROGRAM IS VITALLY IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NO ONE IS DISENFRANCHISED FROM THE PROCESS OF STEM CELL RESEARCH DESPITE THE PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE TOOLS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO DO IT, AND THAT THERE'S TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER TO TRANSFER THE TECHNOLOGY FROM THE ACADEMY INTO INDUSTRY WHERE SOMETHING GOOD CAN HAPPEN. | ||||||||
| AS I SAID EARLIER, ALSO THAT WE THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE BUILDINGS PROGRAMS BE SCRUTINIZED. ALL OF US ARE IN THE PROCESS OF PLANNING AND DESIGNING, PERMITTING, FINANCING, AND ULTIMATELY CONSTRUCTING THESE BUILDINGS. WE THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, THE GREAT TALK THAT WE HEARD IN SAN DIEGO FROM THE HHMI ARCHITECT, THAT THERE BE EVIDENCE OF A VERY COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS, THAT WE DESIGN BUILDINGS THAT ARE INDEED VERY FUNCTIONAL, BUT THEY'RE FUNCTIONAL FOR THE INTENDED PURPOSES INTENDED, BUT THEY'RE ALSO FLEXIBLE, THAT THEY CAN BE REPURPOSED AS NEEDS CHANGE. | ||||||||
| I THINK THAT THE APPLICATIONS OBVIOUSLY MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROJECT ITSELF IS FEASIBLE, AND IT'S FEASIBLE NOT ONLY AS BUILDABLE IN SOME PERIOD OF TIME, BUT IT'S ALSO BUILDABLE TIMELY, SPECIFICALLY IN THE 24 MONTHS. | ||||||||
| AND THE LAST POINT IS THE COSTS. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO COST. REASONABLE IS A SUBJECTIVE DETERMINANT. WE THINK REASONABLE AND NECESSARY IS SOMETHING THAT CAN HELP DISTINGUISH AMONG DIFFERENT COMPETING APPLICATIONS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANY MEMBERS? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: COULD YOU JUST SAY A LITTLE MORE ABOUT WHAT YOU MEAN ABOUT TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY WHEN YOU HAVE PLACES LIKE THE SALK AND BURNHAM AND SO ON? WHEREAS, I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY IT'S NOT -- THE PRECLINICAL TRANSLATIONAL WORK ISN'T AS OFTEN DONE. I'M WONDERING WHETHER YOUR WORK PRODUCT IS DEVELOPING A BODY OF SCIENCE, I GUESS, BUT NOT SO MUCH FOCUSED ON A DISEASE-SPECIFIC THERAPEUTIC OR A THERAPEUTIC OPTION THAT WOULD BE AIMED AT SOME NUMBER OF DISEASES, BUT IS SOMETHING BEFORE THAT. AND ARE YOU TRANSFERRING THAT OUT, OR IS THIS ONLY WHEN YOU DEVELOP SOMETHING TO THE POINT THAT IT'S REALLY AN AVAILABLE OPTION? | ||||||||
| MR. COFFMAN: YOUR CHARACTERIZATION OF BASIC RESEARCH THAT SALK AND BURNHAM AND THE LIKE AND TO A CERTAIN EXTENT SCRIPPS DO IS ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE. THE WORK OF THAT IS BASIC RESEARCH, AND IT MAY NOT INVOLVE PRECLINICAL WORK. BUT THE BEAUTY OF THE COLLABORATION, THE CONSORTIUM INVOLVING UCSD IS THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS IN THE HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER WHERE THERE IS A MEDICAL SCHOOL WHERE THEIR INTERESTS ARE INDEED FOCUSED ON CLINICAL, SO MARRYING ALL TOGETHER WILL SPAN THE ENTIRE GAMUT FROM BASIC RESEARCH, WHICH IS CALLED OUT IN THE CIRM STRATEGIC PLAN, ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO THE POTENTIAL TO DO CLINICAL TRIALS. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: ARE THERE COLLABORATIONS THAT ARE NEEDED IN BASIC SCIENCE REPERTOIRE, OR IS THAT JUST -- | ||||||||
| MR. COFFMAN: I THINK WE CHATTED AT LUNCH INDEED ABOUT BENCH TO BEDSIDE IS WHAT WE HEAR FREQUENTLY, BUT WE NOW ALSO HEAR ABOUT THE NOTION OF BEDSIDE BACK TO BENCH, MAKING SURE THAT THE CLINICIANS APPRECIATE THE SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPORTANCE OF WHAT GOES ON THERE. SO IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF THAT INTERACTION IN THE CYCLE, WE THINK, IS VITALLY IMPORTANT AND, THEREFORE, HAS TO INCLUDE ALL ASPECTS. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: WHICH MIGHT BE COLLABORATIONS OFFSITE AS MUCH AS JUST IN-HOUSE. | ||||||||
| MR. COFFMAN: PURE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OUT OF A BASIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE IS INDEED JUST THAT. IT'S LICENSES EITHER BEING NONEXCLUSIVE OR EXCLUSIVE WITH RESPECT TO A PATENTED TECHNOLOGY WHICH CIRCULATES AROUND CLAIMS IN A PATENT APPLICATION. AND THOSE -- MOST BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS, NONPROFITS, DON'T HAVE AS A PRINCIPAL FOCUS OF THEIR MISSION DEVELOPMENT WORK OR APPLIED RESEARCH. SO THOSE ARE TRANSFERRED VERY, VERY EARLY ON FROM JUST -- AND THE WORK PRODUCT THERE LARGELY IS BASIC RESEARCH AND BASIC THINGS THAT HAVE POTENTIAL TO BE APPLIED INTO SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGE JANET WRIGHT HAS ARRIVED HERE. BOB, YOU HAD A COMMENT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I DID. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CONSORTIUM. IS IT THE CONSORTIUM'S POSITION THAT ALL THE PARTICIPANTS WILL ONLY ONE MAKE AGGREGATED APPLICATION, OR IS IT THE CONSORTIUM'S POSITION THAT, WHILE THEY'LL MAKE ONE AGGREGATED APPLICATION REPRESENTING ALL THE INSTITUTIONS, THAT ONE OR MORE INSTITUTIONS WOULD ALSO WANT TO MAKE A SPECIALIZED -- A FUNCTIONALLY SPECIALIZED APPLICATION DEALING WITH SOME EXPERTISE THAT THEY HAVE? | ||||||||
| MR. COFFMAN: IN OUR CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT, IT'S THE FORMER. ALL THE PARTIES TO THE CONSORTIUM HAVE AGREED WITH RESPECT TO LARGE FACILITIES GRANTS THERE WILL BE ONE APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO THEY WON'T MAKE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS? | ||||||||
| MR. COFFMAN: NOT FOR THIS COMPONENT. OBVIOUSLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE NEW FACULTY RESEARCH INITIATIVES AND SO FORTH, ABSOLUTELY. BUT WITH RESPECT TO THIS, THERE'S AGREEMENT IN THE CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT THAT THERE'S ONE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK THAT WAS A WISE DECISION. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS TODAY. | ||||||||
| SO WE'LL NOW PROCEED TO ITEM 5 ON THE AGENDA AND DISCUSS THE CRITERIA, STANDARDS, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE UPCOMING RFA. RICK KELLER WILL LEAD US THROUGH THE MATERIALS DEVELOPED IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM. | ||||||||
| I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WE RECEIVED A LOT OF INFORMATION AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE PRESENTATION WILL INCLUDE RECOMMENDATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS OF WHAT WE HEARD AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. I WANT TO CAUTION THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP THAT THESE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE PRESENTATION ARE NOT CIRM STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT ONLY A RECORDING OF WHAT WAS HEARD AT THE MEETINGS. IS THAT CLEAR TO EVERYONE, THAT THESE ARE NOT RECOMMENDATIONS? THESE ARE, AGAIN, WHAT WE HEARD AT THE MEETINGS. GREAT. RICK, COULD YOU PLEASE BEGIN? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I'M GOING TO BE PRESENTING A SERIES OF SLIDES ON YOUR RIGHT, AND THEN LATER ON WE'RE GOING TO USE THE OTHER SCREEN BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO PUT YOU GUYS TO WORK DOING SOME WORDSMITHING HERE. BUT I THINK OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS HERE IS TO REALLY ESTABLISH THE PURPOSE TODAY. ACTUALLY THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP WOULD DO THIS OVER TWO MEETINGS, WHICH IS TO DEFINE THE RECOMMENDED CRITERIA, STANDARDS, AND REQUIREMENTS, AND ALSO UNDERSTAND THE PROCEDURE THAT'S GOING TO BE USED TO REVIEW THAT RFA. | ||||||||
| WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO DO THIS TODAY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON THOSE REQUIREMENTS, STANDARDS, AND CRITERIA, AND WE'RE GOING TO SIMPLY HAVE A DISCUSSION BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THOSE PROCESSES BEING VERY IMPORTANT, AND DECIDED THAT WE WOULD LOOK FOR SOME TIME FOR YOU TO CONTEMPLATE THOSE, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A CONFERENCE CALL LATER. | ||||||||
| IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL OBJECTIVES OF THE LARGE FACILITIES GRANT, I JUST WANT TO REMIND THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP THAT IT COMES FROM THE STANDPOINT OF WE NOW HAVE FOUR MAJOR AREAS OF INPUT FOR THE OBJECTIVES. OBVIOUSLY PROPOSITION 71 ESTABLISHES THE KEY OBJECTIVES. IN THE SCIENTIFIC STRATEGIC PLAN, SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS OF FUNDING WERE IDENTIFIED FOR LARGE AND SMALL FACILITY GRANT PROGRAMS. THE ICOC IN THEIR APRIL MEETING CONSIDERED THAT AND SUGGESTED OR DIRECTED, RATHER, THAT THE CIRM STAFF DEVELOP A SINGLE RFA FOR FACILITIES THAT WOULD COMBINE BOTH THOSE SMALL AND LARGE FACILITIES GRANTS. AND THEN WE HAD THE BENEFIT OF A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC AND APPLICANTS ABOUT THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS LARGE FACILITY RFA. | ||||||||
| ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT OVERBRIDGING CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE HEARD IS THAT SCIENCE NEEDS TO LEAD. AND SO IT'S GREAT THAT WE HAVE THE SCIENCE OFFICE REPRESENTED HERE BECAUSE SO MUCH OF WHAT WAS HEARD IN THESE MEETINGS REALLY DEALS WITH THE SCIENCE. AND WE THINK OUR PLAN HERE IS TO PROVIDE YOU WITH WHAT WE THINK IS THE RIGHT CONTEXT, THE RIGHT KIND OF KERNEL OF OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE IN THE DIRECTION THAT WE THINK CIRM SHOULD MOVE. WE'RE LOOKING FOR YOU TO THAT TAKE KERNEL OF INFORMATION THAT'S COMING FROM YOUR STAFF AND DEVELOP IT, DISCUSS IT, MOLD IT INTO WHAT WOULD BE YOUR POLICY. | ||||||||
| THAT'S GOING TO INVOLVE FOR THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP NORMALLY WHAT WE CALL THE PART 2 OF THE RFA, WHICH WOULD HAVE THE FACILITIES ELEMENTS, AND WE WILL ESTABLISH THOSE REQUIREMENTS, CRITERIA, AND STANDARDS, AS WE MENTIONED. | ||||||||
| WHEN WE SPEAK TO THE PART 2 APPLICATION, WHEN WE REVIEW OR THINK ABOUT REVIEW CRITERIA, WE'RE THINKING OF A PROGRESSION THAT BUILDS FROM WHAT PROPOSITION 71 STATES IN TERMS OF WHAT APPLICANTS NEED TO DO, THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED ANY OTHER BECAUSE THE PROPOSITION ALLOWS THE WORKING GROUP TO IDENTIFY OTHER STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS, AND THAT YOU HAVE THEN CONSIDERED HOW YOU ARE GOING TO BRING THOSE STANDARDS AND ESTABLISH EVALUATION CRITERIA, AND THEN DEVELOP A SCORING. AND THAT IMPLIES A MEASURE OF VARIABILITY. THERE'S ALSO THE NOTION OF WHAT WE'RE GOING -- I'M GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF -- BUT THE REVIEW PROCESS IS ALSO GOING TO BE DISCUSSED, AND IT'S GOING TO BE PRESENTED IN TERMS OF THE OPTIONS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED AND HOW THOSE OPTIONS DEAL WITH BOTH PART 1 AND PART 2 OF THE APPLICATION, THE SCIENTIFIC AND THE FACILITIES. | ||||||||
| SO ON THE REQUIREMENTS SIDE, TO FOLLOW UP ON ISSUES OF POLICIES, DEFINITIONS, AND CRITERIA, WHAT WE ARE SAYING HERE FOR THE REQUIREMENTS IS THOSE ARE THE ASPECTS THAT WE BELIEVE WE NEED TO INCLUDE IN THE RFA, THAT IT'S REALLY AN UP-OR-DOWN ISSUE. WE WANT TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD, AND WE WANT TO TELL THE APPLICANTS YOU NEED TO MEET THIS STANDARD. THE EVALUATION CRITERIA IS THE VARIABLE COMPONENT, AND WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO MORE OF THE DETAIL OF HOW YOU WANT TO DO THAT. AND TO THE EXTENT WE HAD SOME EXPERIENCE IN LEARNING FROM THE SHARED RESEARCH LABS, WE THINK WE CAN COME UP WITH A GREAT PROCESS FOR YOU. | ||||||||
| SO ON THE REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT OUT OF THE PROPOSITION YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S SIX REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICANTS THAT DEAL WITH SCHEDULE AND NOT-FOR-PROFIT STATUS, MATCHING FUNDS, PREVAILING WAGE, AMONG OTHERS, AND THEN THERE ARE TWO REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CIRM ORGANIZATION, WHICH IS TO DEAL WITH THE AWARDS ON A COMPETITIVE BASIS. AND IT STATES THAT WE SHALL GIVE A PRIORITY FOR COMPLETION IN TWO YEARS. | ||||||||
| SO TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN DEFINE SOME OF THESE RIGHT NOW AND KIND OF GET THEM OUT OF THE WAY FOR YOU, THAT'S WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WOULD DO BECAUSE THESE ARE THE ONES THAT I THINK WE WOULD WANT TO DO, WE HAVE TO DO TO MEET THE LETTER OF THE LAW. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, YOU WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AS I UNDERSTAND IT, RICK, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS. SO THEY MUST PROVIDE AT LEAST THE 20-PERCENT MATCH? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: RIGHT. WE WANT TO HAVE A MORE ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT MATCHING AND HOW IT RELATES TO SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD IN THE PUBLIC MEETING ABOUT LEVERAGE BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S DIFFERENCES IN TERMS OF HOW PEOPLE HAVE INTERPRETED THE MEANING OF THOSE TWO WORDS. AND WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS BRING CLARITY TODAY TO HOW WE'RE GOING TO APPLY THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, I HAD A COMMENT. SO OBVIOUSLY THEY NEED TO HAVE MILESTONES AND TIMETABLES, BUT I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME IN OUR SHARED LABS RFA WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOMEBODY SUBMITTING A MILESTONE AND A TIMETABLE AND THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN PREPARED -- HOW SHALL I SAY -- BY AN INDEPENDENT COMPANY AND DONE PROFESSIONALLY. SO I THINK THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT WE WILL NEED TO ADDRESS LATER ON IN OUR DISCUSSION, THAT, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF WEIGHTING OUR CRITERIA. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: RIGHT. I THINK THAT IS A SUBSET OF URGENCY. IN ORDER FOR THEM TO -- ANYONE CAN GIVE YOU A SCHEDULE THAT SAYS THEY'LL GET DONE. IT'S ANOTHER THING TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY BEEN TO IMPLEMENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: EXACTLY. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE'RE GOING TO HAVE BOTH AS PART OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING PEOPLE TO BRING FORWARD. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE'VE ALSO ADOPTED IN OUR ADMINISTRATIVE CODE THE GRANTS ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY THAT ACTUALLY DEALS WITH SOME OF THE MORE PERFUNCTORY REQUIREMENTS, SUCH AS BEING LOCATED IN CALIFORNIA, NOT FOR PROFIT, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PREVAILING WAGE, AND A PREFERENCE OR GOAL FOR CALIFORNIA SUPPLIERS. WE THINK THAT THESE ARE HANDLED IN THE PROPOSITION SUFFICIENTLY AND WITHIN OUR GRANTS ADMINISTRATION POLICY. | ||||||||
| AS YOU APTLY POINTED OUT, WE THINK THAT WHERE WE HAVE TO GIVE SOME CLARITY TODAY, AND WE'D LIKE YOU TO HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS, IS THAT YOU NEED TO CLARIFY WHAT MATCHING FUNDS ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS RFA. AND OUR OBSERVATION IS THAT WE THINK WE NEED CLARITY, AND WE NEED IT TO BE VERY EASY TO ADMINISTER. AND SO WE THINK MATCHING FUNDS BEING A MINIMUM 20-PERCENT CASH CONTRIBUTION TO THE PROJECT MEETS THAT CRITERIA. AND WE WOULD CALL THAT, AS THE CHAIRMAN POINTED OUT, WE'RE CALLING THAT THE THRESHOLD NEEDED TO SATISFY THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT SO THAT WOULD BE IN THAT CATEGORY OF REQUIREMENTS. THEN YOU WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER A VARIABLE COMPONENT IN YOUR SCORING OF APPLICANTS THE ADDITIONAL MATCHING AMOUNT, AND WHAT WE'RE DEFINING THE ADDITIONAL MATCHING AMOUNTS TO BE IS THE AMOUNTS THAT COME IN OVER THAT MINIMUM. AND WE WANT TO FROM NOW ON REFER TO THAT ADDITIONAL MATCHING AMOUNT AS LEVERAGE. | ||||||||
| SO WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THE VARIABLE COMPONENT OF THE SCORING SYSTEM, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT LEVERAGE, SO WE WANT TO KIND OF PUT THAT OFF FOR A BIT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, RICK, ARE WE PROPOSING THAT IF THEY DON'T MEET THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD, THAT THE APPLICATION WILL BE DISQUALIFIED AND WE WILL NOT BE CONSIDERING IT? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. ALTHOUGH I THINK THERE WILL BE THE OPPORTUNITY -- BECAUSE THESE REQUIREMENTS SOMETIMES -- THERE MAY NOT BE A SERIOUS DEFICIENCY. IT MAY HAVE BEEN A CLERICAL DEFICIENCY OR SOMETHING. I THINK THIS IS AN EXAMPLE WHERE YOU WOULD WANT TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A CURATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE IF YOU HAD A TECHNICAL ERROR. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. VERY GOOD. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JUST ON THAT POINT, RICK. IN TERMS OF SOME APPLICANTS MAKE A, QUOTE, TYPO OR TECHNICAL ERROR, SCRIBNER'S ERROR, WHATEVER THE THRESHOLD -- I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD "THRESHOLD," | ||||||||
| BUT WHATEVER LEEWAY WE WANT TO PROVIDE THOSE APPLICATIONS, PLEASE RUN THAT BY LEGAL BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE -- THERE'S A LOT OF CASE LAW ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN ACCEPT AND NOT ACCEPT IF AN APPLICANT HAS MADE A MISTAKE IN THE COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS. THAT'S MY ONLY POINT ON THAT ISSUE BECAUSE SOME MUNICIPALITIES AND OTHER STATE AGENCIES ARE VERY STRICT. IF YOU DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS, WHICH NEED TO BE CLEARLY SPELLED OUT IN THE COMPETITIVE BID DOCUMENT, THEN YOU ARE DISQUALIFIED, PERIOD. TYPO OR NO TYPO. YOU FORGOT TO ADD THE EXHIBIT OR NOT. I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO BE THAT STRICT, BUT WE CAN IF WE WANT TO. I'M NOT PROPOSING IT. I'M JUST SAYING WHATEVER IT IS WE DECIDE, MAKE SURE IT'S RUN THROUGH LEGAL. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK WE CAN WORK THAT OUT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RICK, JUST AS AN ADDITIONAL POINT ON DEFINITIONS. IN THE DEFINITION CATEGORY, ON AN EARLIER SLIDE THERE WAS THE POINT ABOUT THE TWO YEARS, COMPLETION WITHIN TWO YEARS, PROVIDING A PRIORITY. AND IN ONE OF THE PRIOR HEARINGS, IT WAS DISCUSSED VERY SPECIFICALLY TO GIVE PEOPLE A FULL UNDERSTANDING THAT WE COULD DEFINE TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS COMPLETION BECAUSE OTHER DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS MIGHT HAVE VERY DIFFERENT FIXTURIZATION REQUIREMENTS, WHICH IS IN ORDER TO KEEP EVERYONE ON THE SAME BASIS, WE HAVE TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE SHELL BUILDING AND BASIC SYSTEMS OF THE BUILDING. THEN WE CAN HAVE A STANDARD VERSION THAT EVERYONE CAN DO THEIR CRITICAL PATH CHARTS TO SHOW COMPLETION AS OF THAT DATE AND THAT OBJECTIVE. | ||||||||
| THE OTHER POINT WAS THAT THE TIME DOESN'T START TO RUN UNTIL THERE'S ACTUALLY THIS NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD. AND HOPEFULLY WE'RE GOING TO GIVE EVERYONE A PROJECTED DATE TO ASSUME FOR THAT NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD SO THEY CAN ALL BEGIN THEIR CRITICAL PATH CHARTS ON THAT DAY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THE ISSUE DAVID AND YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE MATCH. I DON'T SEE HOW THAT CAN BE CURATIVE. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE NEW INFORMATION. IT'S IN THE PROPOSITION. ONCE WE'VE DEFINED EXACTLY WHAT IT IS, AND IF WE DO APPROVE WHAT'S WRITTEN HERE, THAT IT'S CASH, IT'S WRITTEN IN THE RFA. I CANNOT IMAGINE HOW WE CAN GO BACK AND SAY AND HOW CREDIBLE, BY THE WAY, THAT WOULD BE AS A -- IT DOESN'T EVEN SEEM FAIR. | ||||||||
| I DON'T KNOW THAT -- I HAVE TROUBLE WITH THAT. IT'S VERY PROBLEMATIC THAT THAT MIGHT BE A CURATIVE -- THAT MIGHT -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DOES THAT QUALIFY AS A TYPO? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK -- TAMAR, I HAVE A QUESTION. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: IT SEEMS TO BE VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. IF WE ASKED FOR 20-PERCENT CASH MATCHING AND IT'S NOT THERE, WE DON'T GO BACK AND SAY, WELL, YOU DIDN'T HAVE 20 PERCENT. CAN YOU FIND IT? THEN WE START ASKING ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE COMMITMENTS OF THAT 20 PERCENT, WHICH WE HAD IN THE PREVIOUS SESSION AND DEBATES ABOUT WHAT THEY REALLY MEANT AND EVERYTHING. IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE STANDARDS SUCH AS THIS, ESPECIALLY STATUTORY STANDARDS, I THINK THEY OUGHT TO BE VERY CLEAR; AND IF YOU DON'T MAKE IT, YOU'RE OUT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: TAMAR, BEFORE YOU ANSWER, I JUST WANT TO GIVE A CLARIFICATION TO JEFF'S STATEMENT. I WOULD THINK THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO HAVE ALMOST A DEFINITION OF WHAT A TECHNICAL ERROR MIGHT BE IN THE RFA AND MAKE IT VERY CLEAR AND CONCISE TO ADDRESS JEFF'S ISSUE. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: YES. I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS, IN FACT, WHAT STAFF HAS IN MIND. AND THIS IDEA OF HAVING A CURABLE DEFICIENCY PERIOD IS FAIRLY STANDARD IN THIS KIND OF WORK. IT'S SOMETHING, IF YOU RECALL WHEN WE WERE DEALING WITH THE SHARED LABS, WE HAD THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP DO BECAUSE WE HADN'T BUILT THAT INTO THE PROCESS AT THAT POINT. SO NOW WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS BUILD THAT INTO THE PROCESS SO WE CAN GET THAT ALL RESOLVED BEFORE IT COMES TO THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP FOR REVIEW. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I WOULD ONLY SAY THAT WE SHOULD, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT US TO DO TODAY, SO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WE NEED TO IDENTIFY WHICH DEFICIENCIES ARE CURABLE. I THINK WHAT'S EMBODIED IN PROPOSITION 71 IS NOT A CURABLE DEFICIENCY. EITHER YOU HAVE THE 20-PERCENT MATCH OR YOU DON'T. IF YOU DON'T, YOU CAN'T CURE IT. | ||||||||
| AND THE OTHER PROPOSITION 71 COMPONENTS AS WELL, THOSE ARE FAIRLY -- THEY NEED SOME FURTHER DEFINITION. WHEN DOES THE CLOCK START? WE NEED TO GIVE SOME CONTEXT TO IT; BUT ONCE WE DO THAT, IF YOU REFER TO THAT AS THE THRESHOLD, I CALL IT THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS, IF YOU DON'T MEET THE MQ'S, YOU DON'T QUALIFY AND YOUR APPLICATION IS OVER. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: I THINK WHAT THE CURABLE DEFICIENCY TAKES INTO ACCOUNT IS THAT THESE ARE GOING TO BE VERY COMPLEX APPLICATIONS. AND THERE'S GOING TO BE PART 1 AND THERE'S GOING TO BE PART 2, AND WE DON'T WANT TO DISQUALIFY ANYBODY BECAUSE THERE WAS A TYPO ESSENTIALLY IN THE APPLICATION. WE WANT TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESOLVE THAT COMPLETELY TO OUR SATISFACTION, TO THE SATISFACTION OF STAFF, BEFORE IT'S EVER REVIEWED. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WHAT WOULD BE A CURABLE -- I DON'T WANT TO SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON IT, BUT ARE WE GOING TO IDENTIFY CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE NOT A CURABLE DEFICIENCY? YES? OKAY. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO KNOW. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DAVID, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHILE AGREEING WITH YOUR POSITION, IF THEY CALCULATED THAT THE 20 PERCENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN 2,840,000 AND THEY HAVE 2,640,000, AND IT'S CLEAR THERE WAS AN INTENT TO TRY AND GET AN EXACT 20 PERCENT, BUT THEY HAVE THE WRONG NUMERAL IN ONE OF THE DIGITS, IT'S A TYPO. THAT'S THE KIND OF THING, I GUESS, THEY'RE GOING TO LAY OUT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IF THAT'S WHAT'S DEFINED AS A CURABLE DEFICIENCY, I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE SOMETHING ELSE, THAT WE'RE GIVING STAFF FURTHER LEEWAY TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS ON THE SPOT, WHICH I'M OKAY WITH. I JUST WANT THIS CURABLE DEFICIENCY CONCEPT WELL DEFINED AND NOT TOO LOOSE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT IT TO COME BACK SIX MONTHS FROM NOW AND WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT X, Y, AND Z CONTINGENCIES LIKE WE DID FOR THE FIRST ROUND. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: THERE HAS BEEN SOMETHING BOTHERING ME ABOUT THE TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. IN MY EXPERIENCE I'VE NEVER KNOWN THAT YOU CAN AIM FOR THAT, THAT YOU GO FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY; AND THEN WHEN YOU GET NEAR TO IT, YOU DEAL WITH THE REIGNING BODY TO SEE IF THEY'LL ALLOW TO YOU OCCUPY, BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN ONE WHERE YOU PLAN TO GO FOR A TCO BECAUSE USUALLY THE GOVERNING BODIES WON'T TELL YOU WHAT THAT IS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ACTUALLY MY EXPERIENCE IS ALWAYS TO RUN FOR A TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BECAUSE YOU CAN PREDICT THAT THERE WILL BE PROBLEMS. AND, IN FACT, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO OCCUPY PART OF THE BUILDING, BUT NOT ALL OF THE BUILDING. WHAT'S IMPORTANT HERE IS THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF A BUILDING THAT MIGHT REQUIRE EXTENSIVE ROBOTICS SETUPS, AND WE DON'T WANT TO PENALIZE THEM AND DISINCENTIVIZE PEOPLE FROM PUTTING IN THAT COMPLEX FIXTURIZATION, SO WE DON'T WANT TO DEFINE COMPLETION AS TAKING IT ALL THE WAY TO THAT POINT. | ||||||||
| TO GET TO THE SAME GOAL, I THINK WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING IS MAYBE IT'S TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR SOME WELL-DEFINED EQUIVALENT STANDARD OF COMPLETION OF SHELL AND BASIC BUILDING SYSTEMS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: STUART, I'M NOT SURE, BOB, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THE FIXTURING OF A BUILDING IS GOING TO AFFECT SOMEBODY GETTING A FINAL C OF O VERSUS A TCO. STUART, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: YES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY RELEVANT FROM A CONSTRUCTION PERSPECTIVE, AS FAR AS THE ACTUAL IMPROVEMENTS, WHETHER IT BE BASE BUILDING OR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS AS FAR AS WHETHER SOMETHING IS A TCO OR FINAL CERTIFICATE. RICK, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK WE CAN AIM FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. AND I THINK THE SCHEDULES THAT COME IN -- SOMETIMES THE EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION IS EITHER MOVABLE OR FIXED. THERE'S WHETHER OR NOT THE UTILITIES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT INSTALLATION. THERE'S A VARIETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES. | ||||||||
| I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH BACKGROUND FROM, I THINK, THE APPLICANTS, THAT WE'LL GET SCHEDULES THAT REFLECT THEIR INTENTION TO GET DONE. AND I THINK THAT WILL INCLUDE ISSUES OF FIXTURIZATION AND INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT. SO I THINK WE CAN WORK THIS TO A LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT'S MOST REASONABLE IN TERMS OF THE INTERPRETATION OF TIMEFRAME OF TWO YEARS. I THINK WE CAN WORK TOWARDS THAT. IT'S MORE OF A -- AND WE PLAN ON HAVING SOME CONSULTATIVE SESSIONS WITH APPLICANTS THAT THIS WILL HELP. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AS LONG AS OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE ONE CONSISTENT APPROACH, I THINK IT WILL BE FINE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT'S CERTAINLY OUR OBJECTIVE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. LET'S MOVE ON. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WITH THAT KIND OF CLARIFICATION OF THE MATCHING FUNDS, WE'LL GET TO THE ISSUE OF LEVERAGE LATER. I WANT TO COME BACK TO THIS EARLIER SLIDE THAT I SAID THAT THERE ARE THESE REQUIREMENTS AND THEY EMANATED FROM DIFFERENT PLACES, AND WE WENT OVER THE PROP 71. | ||||||||
| THERE'S ALSO, I THINK, REQUIREMENTS THAT WE SAW COME OUT OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. AND ONE THAT WE HEARD IN SEVERAL SETTINGS WAS THE FACT THAT BUILDINGS THAT ARE BUILT WITH CIRM FUNDING SHOULD ALSO BE ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIVE IN THEIR DESIGN. AND WE THINK THAT THERE'S A WAY OF DEALING WITH THIS IN KIND OF A VERY EASY WAY WITHOUT CREATING NEW STANDARDS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO ADMINISTER, WHICH IS TO SAY THAT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS ALREADY ADOPTED THROUGH THE BOARD OF REGENTS A GREEN BUILDING POLICY. I THINK THAT THAT HAVING BEEN THOUGHT THROUGH IS SOMETHING WE COULD ENDORSE AS BEING APPLICABLE TO THE CIRM-FUNDED BUILDINGS. AND THAT OTHERS -- AND THAT BASICALLY DEALS WITH THE U.S. GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM FOR THE PRIVATES WHO AREN'T SUBJECT TO UC. SO THERE'S AN EQUIVALENCY IN BOTH THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS THAT I THINK THAT WE COULD RELY UPON TO MEET THIS OBJECTIVE AND NOT CREATE OR REINVENT THE WHEEL, AS LORI MENTIONED EARLIER. | ||||||||
| SO I GUESS THAT'S KIND OF A MOTION FROM US IN TERMS OF SAYING DO YOU WANT TO ADD. SO HERE'S THE PROPOSITION 71 ISSUES, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT MILESTONES AND TIMETABLES A BIT LATER. AND WE CAN TALK ALSO ABOUT THIS ISSUE WHICH IS AWARDING ON A COMPETITIVE BASIS. | ||||||||
| I THINK HAVING JUST DISCUSSED THE CLARIFICATION ON THE 20-PERCENT MATCH AND ADDING A GREEN BUILDING STANDARD, IF THERE'S A CONSENSUS AMONG THIS GROUP THAT THOSE TWO SHOULD BE REQUIREMENTS, THEN WE'LL PROCEED UNDER THAT WAY, OR DO YOU WANT TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: LET'S OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. DAVID. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I'LL START WITH THE 20 PERCENT. I LOVE IT. EVERYBODY WANTS TO DO GREEN BUILDINGS STUFF, SO I'M ALL FOR IT. BUT THE 20 PERCENT, ISN'T THAT IN PROP 71? SO IT HAS TO BE A PART OF THE RFA, RIGHT, BOB? SO NOW WE WANT TO DISCUSS SHOULD IT BE CASH OR NOT OR SOMETHING ELSE. IS THAT RIGHT, RICK? WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO DO WITH CLARIFY AS 20 PERCENT MATCHING FUNDS? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WHAT I MEANT BY THAT IS THAT WE'RE DEFINING IT AS THE 20-PERCENT THRESHOLD. EVERYTHING ELSE IS LEVERAGE, AND LET'S MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: OKAY. 20-PERCENT CASH? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO UNLESS THERE'S ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS 20-PERCENT MATCHING ISSUE? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, I'D LIKE TO SEPARATE THEM. THE GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS, DEPENDING UPON YOUR SITE AND YOUR CONSTRAINTS, MAY BE DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE. YOU MANY GET CLOSE TO THEM, BUT NOT FULLY ACHIEVE THEM ON A PARTICULAR SITE. SO I'D RATHER HAVE IT BE IN A BONUS POINT CATEGORY RATHER THAN IN A THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT. WE HAVE A BIG STATE. WE'VE GOT LOTS OF COMPLICATED SITES. I THINK IT'S A VERY VALUABLE AREA TO PROVIDE BONUS POINTS, BUT NOT AS A THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT'S A VERY DEFINED TERM. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. I WONDERED IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER STANDARDS, ANY OTHER STATE STANDARDS? UC IS MENTIONED, BUT I WOULD THINK THERE IS A DISTINCT CHANCE OF SOME OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THERE'S A VARIETY OF CODES THAT APPLY OR RELATE TO GREEN BUILDINGS, SUCH AS TITLE 24, ENERGY CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS AND SO FORTH. THE POLICY ISSUE, I THINK, THAT'S ON THE TABLE IS THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER THESE MORE LIKE A REQUIREMENT JUST LIKE THE BUILDING CODE BECAUSE THEY'RE AN ELEMENT OF THE OBJECTIVE OF THE OVERALL PROJECT, OR YOU CAN CONSIDER THEM AS A DISCRETIONARY ELEMENT. AND IF THEY'RE INCLUDED, THAT THEY SOMEHOW THEN PRESENT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A HIGHER SCORE. SO THAT'S KIND OF A CHOICE. AND IF WE WANT TO MOVE IT INTO THE CATEGORY OF A VARIABLE COMPONENT, THAT'S CERTAINLY WHAT YOU NEED TO CONSIDER AS A GROUP. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT THE 20-PERCENT MATCHING FUNDS BE CASH ONLY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OBJECTIONS? SO THIS IS PASSED. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: JUST IN TERMS OF KEEPING US CONSISTENT WITH -- KEEPING THE PROCESS ROLLING, I WOULD HAVE AMENDED THAT. MAYBE DO WE NEED ANOTHER MOTION TO CLASSIFY THE OTHER AS LEVERAGE SINCE THE TWO ISSUES ARE RELATED? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE'LL GET TO LEVERAGE LATER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO -- I'M NOT MAKING A MOTION, BUT I'D LIKE TO KIND OF PUT THAT ON HOLD TILL LATER IN OUR DISCUSSION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE GREEN BUILDING STANDARD, I HAVE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. I DID READ THE TRANSCRIPTS. I'M FOR IT. BOB, YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT. I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT IT JUST YET TO OPINE WHETHER IT SHOULD BE BONUS POINTS OR NOT. MAYBE I KNOW THERE'S AN IDEA THAT WE'LL DO A CONFERENCE CALL LATER ON, OR MAYBE YOU CAN SEND US A WHITE PAPER, RICK, THAT GETS US UP TO SPEED ON WHAT IT IS AND WHAT THE ISSUES MIGHT BE AND WHY THEY COULD DO IT IN SAN FRANCISCO BUT NOT SAN DIEGO -- I'M JUST USING THAT AS AN EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF THING, WHAT THE PRESSURE POINTS ARE -- SO I CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION BECAUSE I'M JUST NOT PREPARED RIGHT NOW WHETHER TO INCLUDE OR NOT IN OUR REQUIREMENTS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, MR. VICE CHAIR. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: ME TOO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ANY OBJECTIONS? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: MR. CHAIRMAN, TO TRY TO ESTABLISH A GREEN STANDARD IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT. THERE ARE SEVERAL STANDARDS OF LEAD THINGS, PG&E AND THE REST OF IT, AND I THINK IT OUGHT TO BE LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE APPLICANT TO POINT OUT TO US HOW HE'S COMPLYING AS OPPOSED TO WE TRYING TO DEFINE THE STANDARD TO BEGIN WITH. IT'S JUST VERY, VERY DIFFICULT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: EXCELLENT POINT, ED. UNLESS THERE ARE FURTHER COMMENTS, I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON. RICK. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE'RE DONE WITH GREEN BUILDINGS THEN. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT LATER UNDER THE OTHER ONES. | ||||||||
| ONE OTHER ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN RAISED HAS TO DO WITH THE AWARDING ON A COMPETITIVE BASIS. IN OUR READING AND THE COMMENTS RECEIVED IS THAT, PARTICULARLY ON THE CONCEPT OF SCIENCE FIRST AND THAT SCIENCE SHOULD LEAD, WE BELIEVE THAT THE AWARDING ON A COMPETITIVE BASIS SPEAKS TO THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE PROGRAM. | ||||||||
| IT'S BEEN OFFERED THAT THERE MAY BE A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE COMPETITION WOULD ALSO INCLUDE FINANCIAL CAPABILITY, AND THAT THOSE WITH MORE FINANCIAL CAPABILITY WOULD EITHER HAVE TO COME UP WITH MORE MATCH ON THE BASIS THAT THAT'S STILL A COMPONENT OF COMPETITIVENESS. SO YOU MAY WANT TO DISCUSS THIS MORE FULLY, DAVID. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO THE QUESTION IS, AND THIS MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT MOMENT TO ADDRESS IT IN TERMS OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, BUT IT'S A GOOD POINT IN TERMS OF POTENTIALLY IN TERMS OF LEVERAGE IS THAT THERE MAY BE SOME INSTITUTIONS THAT POTENTIALLY COULD ASK FOR SOME AMOUNT OF MONEY, BUT THEY MAY HAVE SUBSTANTIAL OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDS. AND THE QUESTION IS HOW WILL WE -- HOW WILL WE VIEW THOSE INSTITUTIONS, AND DO WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THEIR FINANCIAL NEED INTO ACCOUNT IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS AND WHERE DO WE DO THAT? I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO COMMENTS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I UNDERSTOOD COMPETITIVE -- I JUST UNDERSTOOD AWARD ON A COMPETITIVE BASIS ON ITS MOST BASIC LEVEL. THAT IS, ARE WE AWARDING THESE RFA'S ON A COMPETITIVE BASIS? YES, WE ARE. WE'RE DOING IT THROUGH AN RFA OR RFP PROCESS. CHECK. GOT THAT DONE. THIS IS -- IS THIS SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S EMBODIED IN PROP 71? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK WHAT RICK MAY BE ASKING IS THAT WE EXPECT SCIENCE TO BE THE DRIVING FORCE ON MERIT, BUT WE HAVE OTHER CRITERIA LIKE VALUE AND VALUE RELATED TO COST. AND AS IN THE SHARED LABS, WE DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT IF AN INSTITUTION HAS GOT AN $800 PER SQUARE FOOT CONSTRUCTION COST OR A THOUSAND DOLLARS PER SQUARE FOOT CONSTRUCTION COST AND ANOTHER INSTITUTION HAS $500 AND THEY'RE IN THE SAME SCIENTIFIC RANGE, THERE'S CERTAINLY MORE VALUE WE'RE GETTING SO THAT THE INSTITUTION WITH THE HIGHER COST WOULD NEED, IN DELIVERING VALUE TO THE CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS AND TO PATIENT -- TO ADVANCING THE CAUSE AND THERAPIES IN PATIENTS, BE COMING UP WITH A VERY SIGNIFICANT LEVERAGE TO REDUCE THEIR EFFECTIVE COST AND PROVIDE THE VALUE IN THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THEIR APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE SHARED LAB ROUND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO MAYBE I'M NOT BEING CLEAR ABOUT WHAT MY QUESTION IS. SO IF WE GET A GRANT APPLICATION AND ASK FOR POTENTIALLY, LET'S PICK A NUMBER, $30 MILLION, AND LET'S ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY THAT THEIR LEVERAGE IS NOT GREAT, THE QUESTION IS WILL THERE BE THE ABILITY TO GRANT LESS THAN THE AMOUNT THEY'VE ASKED FOR BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT HIGHLY LEVERAGED? THAT'S THE QUESTION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH AWARDING ON A COMPETITIVE BASIS? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I DON'T THINK IT NECESSARILY HAS TO DO WITH THIS MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I PUT IT HERE BECAUSE I WAS INTERPRETING IT TO BE MORE ABOUT CONSIDERING NEED. AND THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT NEED AS A CRITERIA. AND I WAS MAKING A DISTINCTION WITHIN THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS TO SAY THOSE THAT HAVE GREATER NEED FINANCIALLY HAVE A DIFFERENT CATEGORY IN THE PROCESS THAN THOSE THAT HAVE LESS FINANCIAL NEED BY VIRTUE OF HAVING MORE RESOURCES. AND SO MAYBE IT'S A TENUOUS RELATIONSHIP. MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT DURING THE LEVERAGE DISCUSSION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, I PROBABLY AGREE WITH YOU. THIS PROBABLY IS A LEVERAGE DISCUSSION POINT, BUT LET'S TAKE COMMENTS FROM JEFF AND FROM JOAN. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE I WAS GOING. I AGREE. I THINK THIS A LEVERAGE DISCUSSION POINT. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE CIRCLING AROUND THE 20 PERCENT, BUT I THINK THAT'S GOT TO BE PRETTY FIRM. | ||||||||
| AND AS TO THE POINT ON NEED, IF OUR -- AS WE'VE HEARD AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, THE OVERWHELMING CRITERION SHOULD BE SCIENTIFIC EXCELLENCE. I DON'T KNOW -- IF THEY HAVE THE SCIENTIFIC EXCELLENCE, I THINK THE NEED BECOMES LESS. I DON'T SEE HOW THE NEED INTERFERES WITH THAT, HOW THE NEED WOULD INTERACT WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WHAT IF YOU HAD TWO INSTITUTIONS THAT HAD EQUALLY GOOD SCIENCE AND ONE WAS LESS WELL ENDOWED THAN THE OTHER? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THEY STILL WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE 20-PERCENT MATCH, AND THAT WOULD BE A DISCUSSION THAT WE WOULD TAKE UP IN THE CONTEXT OF HOW WE EVALUATE LEVERAGE. DEPENDING ON WHETHER WE EVALUATE LEVERAGE AS CASH, AS FUTURE COMMITMENTS OF FACULTY, THAT TO ME IS A LEVERAGE THING AND HOW WE WEIGHT LEVERAGE. AND WHEN WE GET TO THAT, I THINK LEVERAGE IS GOING TO WORK ON A LOT OF DIFFERENT LEVELS. PARTIALLY IT'S GOING TO MITIGATE, AS BOB WAS SAYING, SOME OF THE UNEVEN COSTS OF PER SQUARE FOOT. I JUST THINK THAT WE PROBABLY HAVE A VERY LARGE DISCUSSION, BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO NOW, WHICH ARE THE BASIC MINIMUM STANDARDS -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH YOU, JEFF. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I GUESS I'M JUST WONDERING. IT SEEMS TO ME WE JUST WANT TO GET OUT OF THE WAY IF WE HAVE ANY RESTRICTION THAT APPLIES. COMPETITIVE BASIS IS A TERM OF ART, WHICH I UNDERSTOOD IT TO MEAN A BUNCH OF BIDDERS WHO WERE GOING TO BID ON A FACILITY THAT'S GENERIC, WHICH THIS ISN'T. THEN YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING AT COST, PRICE, OR SOMETHING. YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS MUCH MORE SO WHERE WE'VE GOT A COMPLICATED INTERPLAY OF A BUNCH OF THINGS. IF THE PROPOSITION WOULD BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT WE SOMEHOW HAVE TO USE THAT OTHER PARADIGM, THEN WE HAVE TO WORRY; BUT OTHERWISE, THIS IS A LATER DISCUSSION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH THAT. RICK, IF WE CAN MOVE ON. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I GUESS I'D OFFER THE FACT THAT IF THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES THAT COME UP THAT YOU BELIEVE FALL IN THIS CATEGORY OF A THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU OFFER THAT AS AN ELEMENT TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE GROUP. SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO LET ME JUST ASK THE GROUP. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY MINIMUM THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS THEY THINK SHOULD BE ADDED? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS GREEN BUILDING THING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE'VE DEFERRED THE GREEN BUILDING DISCUSSION TILL LATER ON. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I THINK I CAN SHORTCUT THE LATER-ON DISCUSSION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: LET'S -- THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: SO MOVING FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OR MINIMUM THRESHOLDS TO THE VARIABLE CRITERIA, WHEN WE DID THE SHARED LABS, THESE WERE THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT WERE USED IN THE EVALUATION OF APPLICATIONS, YOU MAY RECALL. AND SO WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IS SAY, AS WE THOUGHT ABOUT THE LARGE FACILITIES GRANTS, WHAT WOULD REALLY BE THE CORRESPONDING SET. AS YOU KNOW FROM THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, WE BEGAN WITH OUR VALUES THAT WERE EXPRESSED IN THE CIRM STATEMENT OF MISSION AND VALUES, AND WE LOOKED AT HOW THOSE APPLIED TO THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS RFA. AND WE IDENTIFIED AND DID A LITTLE BIT OF ADJUSTING OF THE WORDING TO BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACILITIES ARENA. | ||||||||
| AND WE CAME UP WITH THESE ISSUES AND ASKED PEOPLE TO COMMENT ON THEM. AND AS WE HEARD, WE THINK THAT THEY KIND OF BOIL DOWN TO WHAT WE HEARD IS THAT THEY ARE FOCUSED AROUND THESE FOUR AREAS: URGENCY, WHICH HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN TO GET GOING ON THIS AND GET IT DONE QUICKLY. | ||||||||
| USING THE WORD "VALUE" TO CONSIDER BASICALLY THE TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN COSTS AND QUALITY. THE EXCELLENCE OF THE FACILITY AND INNOVATION, I THINK, IS ONE AREA WHERE IF YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE THE GREEN BUILDING AS PART OF THE VALUE DISCUSSION AND PART OF THE SCORING, WE COULD DO IT THAT WAY. | ||||||||
| THIRDLY, LEVERAGE, AS WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED, THAT THAT IS A COMPONENT OF VARIABILITY THAT YOU NEED TO CONSIDER. | ||||||||
| AND FUNCTIONALITY IS TRYING TO CAPTURE ALL OF THE CONTENT THAT DEALT WITH HOW WELL BUILDINGS NEED TO RESPOND TO PROGRAM, HOW WELL THE INVESTMENT RESPONDS TO SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES THAT ARE EXPRESSED BY THE SCIENTISTS. | ||||||||
| SO THOSE ARE THE FOUR THAT WE HEARD FROM THE MEETINGS. AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS REVIEW SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS IN THE SLIDES OF WHAT WE HEARD ACROSS THE FOUR MEETINGS SO THAT YOU CAN GET A SENSE ABOUT HOW VARIABLE EACH OF THESE WOULD BE. | ||||||||
| AND THEN AT THE END OF THAT, WE'D LIKE TO BEGIN THE KIND OF INTERACTIVE COMPONENT WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO START DEFINING THESE AND GIVING RISE TO GIVING US WHAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE THE CRITERIA OR THE STANDARD AND SCORING. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: RICK, ON THE VALUE BULLET, I THINK THAT COLLABORATION FELL OUT OF THE PARENTHESES THERE, BUT YOU INTENDED TO BECAUSE YOU ADDRESS IT IN THE SUBSEQUENT SLIDES. SO VALUE CONTAINS THE COST, EXCELLENCE, WHATEVER. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WHAT WE WANTED, AND I THINK I LOST THE TRANSITION HERE SOMEWHERE, WAS THAT A NUMBER OF THE TOPICS THAT WERE DISCUSSED AT THESE MEETINGS REALLY DO GET FUNDAMENTALLY TO THE SCIENCE. AND SO WHEN YOU DISTILL OUT SOME OF THOSE, THE ISSUE OF COLLABORATION AND THE OBJECTIVE OF COLLABORATION BEING ADVANCEMENT IN A COOPERATIVE WAY, WE THINK THAT THERE'S AN ELEMENT THAT APPLIES TO FACILITIES, WHICH WE'RE CALLING MORE CONCISELY CONSORTIUM BECAUSE IT IS A LEGAL CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE YOU AGREE TO SHARE RISK AND SHARE INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES. FROM THAT REGARD, I MISSED THAT TRANSITION, AND I APPRECIATE YOU POINTING IT OUT BECAUSE WE SHOULD GO THROUGH HERE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT WE HEARD. MY INTENT WAS THAT YOU COULD LOOK AT THOSE AND SEE DO THEY REALLY ALIGN, OR DO WE NEED TO ADD SOME, OR DO YOU WANT TO SUBTRACT SOME? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I ACTUALLY THINK THAT JANET'S RIGHT ON FOCUSING ON THIS COLLABORATION BECAUSE THERE ARE FORMS OF COLLABORATION THAT ARE HIGHLY VALUABLE SHORT OF AN LLC OR A LEGAL ENTITY BEING FORMED. THERE ARE CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS, WRITTEN AGREEMENTS BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS FOR COLLABORATION THAT MAY BRING TOGETHER EXCELLENCE FROM A NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS THAT WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF AND I THINK EVALUATE BECAUSE THEY CONTRIBUTE TO THE ABILITY TO HAVE THESE INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMS AND BRINGING TOGETHER EXCELLENCE FROM A NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS TOGETHER. | ||||||||
| SO I THINK WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER COLLABORATION AS AN INDEPENDENT ITEM HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK THAT'S ALL CORRECT. THE QUESTION BECOMES WHO EVALUATES THE MERIT OF THAT? AND I THINK IT'S THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE DIRECTED AT OUTCOMES, NOT ABOUT INVESTMENT IN FACILITIES. THAT'S THE DISTINCTION I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE BETWEEN COLLABORATION AND CONSORTIA. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT BECAUSE I THINK I HEARD THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE THREE TYPES OF COLLABORATION. ONE IS A LEGAL ONE, THE OTHER IS A SCIENTIFIC, AND THE OTHER IS FACILITIES. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THIS GROUP, THIS FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, REALLY CAN ONLY COMMENT FROM THE FACILITIES PERSPECTIVE IF THE PROPOSED FACILITY APPEARS TO BE COLLABORATIVE IN HOW IT'S BEING SET UP. DOES EVERYONE SEE WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I WOULD SAY THAT IF INSTITUTIONS ARE COMMITTING FACULTY TO WORK TOGETHER IN A JOINT PROJECT BASIS, THAT'S AN INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT THAT'S VISIBLE. IF INSTITUTIONS ARE JOINTLY PUTTING MONEY IN, IT SHOWS A COMMITMENT, INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, BY ANOTHER INSTITUTION TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO ENHANCE THE OUTCOME. SO I REALLY DO THINK THAT THERE'S SOME CROSSOVER HERE THAT'S CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF REAL, SUSTAINED COMMITMENT TO COLLABORATION THAT'S VALUABLE TO OUR MISSION. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I GUESS COLLABORATION DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING, FRANKLY, OUTSIDE OF CONTEXT. AND THAT'S WHY I THINK I WOULD PROBABLY LEAN, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, TO HAVE THAT EVALUATED WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC -- AS A SCIENTIFIC ISSUE AND NOT AS A FACILITIES ISSUE. JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE WORKING TOGETHER DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY'RE GOING TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING, AND TO HAVE IT MORE DIRECTLY LINKED TO A SCIENTIFIC OUTCOME BY EVALUATING IT SCIENTIFICALLY. AND ALSO I DON'T KNOW IF ONCE WE OPEN THE DOOR ON THIS END, HOW DO WE -- DO WE START TO EVALUATE NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, COLLABORATIONS BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS, BUT COLLABORATIONS PREEXISTING OR FUTURE COLLABORATIONS BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS AND FOR-PROFIT ENTITIES, WHICH WILL BE CRITICAL, WHICH I ALSO THINK BELONG'S PROBABLY WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC REALM. | ||||||||
| AND SO I TEND TO AGREE WITH RICK, THAT MAYBE THIS MAY NOT BE AN ISSUE FOR THIS PARTICULAR -- BECAUSE PART OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS DIVIDE UP THE PIE AND DECIDE WHO GETS TO EVALUATE WHICH PIECE OF THIS PROPOSAL, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. AND I THINK SCIENCE SEEMS TO BE A BETTER WAY TO GET TO THE QUALITATIVE ASPECTS OF THIS ISSUE, WHICH I THINK ARE FUNDAMENTALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF IT. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I WAS GOING TO MAKE THE SAME POINT JEFF MADE, AND HE DID IT MUCH MORE ELOQUENTLY THAN I COULD. I TEND TO AGREE WITH HIS POINT OF VIEW. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND IN RESOURCE ALLOCATION, IF THERE'S MULTIPLE INSTITUTIONS WORKING TOGETHER, DO WE SET -- IF WE SET A RANGE OF RECOMMENDED ALLOCATIONS FOR DIFFERENT KINDS OF MAJOR FACILITIES, IF THERE'S MULTIPLE ENTITIES WORKING TOGETHER, DO WE SAY FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW THAT THERE SHOULD BE A HIGHER MAXIMUM CAP IN TERMS OF THE ALLOCATION? THIS IS AN OVERALL RESOURCE ALLOCATION OF FACILITIES ISSUE. OR DO WE SAY THAT IF IT'S FOUR INSTITUTIONS MAKING AN APPLICATION OR ONE, THAT THEY'RE UNDER THE SAME CAP. THERE'S RESOURCE ALLOCATION ISSUES THAT ARE FINANCIAL IN TERMS OF COLLABORATION. AND MAYBE IT'S A NARROWER RANGE OF DISCUSSION, BUT I STILL THINK COLLABORATION HAS SOME RELEVANCE TO OUR RESOURCE ALLOCATION ISSUES. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I ALSO THINK THAT OUR SCOPE SHOULD BE SOMEWHAT BROADER THAN JUST THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS BECAUSE IF WE LEAVE EVERYTHING ELSE UNDER THE RUBRIC OF SO-CALLED SCIENCE AND TURN IT OVER TO THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, I THINK WE WOULD LOSE SOMETHING THAT SPECIAL'S ABOUT THIS WORKING GROUP'S FUNCTION. AND SO I'VE BEEN WONDERING IF WE MIGHT WANT TO ADOPT, AND THIS IS JUST FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION, ONE WAY OF GOING ABOUT IT. I KEEP WANTING TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE AND MORE GOAL ORIENTED AND ALWAYS THINKING ABOUT THAT IN WHATEVER CRITERIA WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND. | ||||||||
| AND SO I WAS THINKING WE MIGHT RECOMMEND TO THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP A SET OF PRINCIPLES THAT WE WANT THEM TO APPLY IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE FACILITIES ARE REGARDED AS REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE RESOURCES. SO THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE WANT SOMEWHERE THERE TO BE RESOURCES IN THE AREA OF IMAGING OR PRIMATES, OR THAT THOSE KINDS OF RESOURCES BE AVAILABLE SOMEWHERE, BUT THAT WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY SEEKING THAT FROM LOTS OF THEM SO THAT WE MAKE GOOD USE OF THE DOLLAR. | ||||||||
| AND THAT MAYBE WE, OURSELVES AND THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, HAVE A VERY FLEXIBLE PROCESS IN THAT THEY GIVE US AN APPLICATION, BUT THEN WE THINK ABOUT WHAT WE WANT AT THAT POINT AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS BACK TO THEM RATHER THAN HAVING JUST -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JOAN, THIS IS ABOUT THE PROCESS, AND WE'RE GOING TO HOPEFULLY TALK ABOUT THIS LATER TODAY. WHAT I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE IS THAT WE DO ADDRESS YOUR -- I THINK YOU'VE GOT SOME VERY GOOD POINTS, BUT RICK'S GOT A LOT OF MATERIAL JUST TO PRESENT, AND THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I PREFER THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF, CAN WE MOVE ON? ARE YOU OKAY IF WE MOVE ON? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I WANTED TO RESPOND TO BOB BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PART, AND I DO THINK WE NEED TO CAPTURE COLLABORATION IN SOME WAY. I WONDER AS WE LOOK AT THESE FOUR CATEGORIES THAT ARE DEFINED, I DO THINK WE DO HAVE AT LEAST, AND THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION TODAY, WE DO HAVE A COLLABORATION THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE MITIGATED MAYBE ON THE ISSUE OF URGENCY. FOR INSTANCE, IT MAY TAKE LONGER FOR THEM, SO THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET -- IN OTHER WORDS, AND THIS MAY BE A -- WE MAY HAVE TO START THIS PROCESS AND MAYBE COME BACK. MAYBE WE CONSIDER IT AS AN ISSUE OF VALUE, AS AN ISSUE OF LEVERAGE, BUT LOOK AT IT AS SOMETHING THAT FITS WITHIN THESE FOUR CATEGORIES IN WHICH THEY CAN GAIN AGAINST WHERE THEY MIGHT HAVE LOST BECAUSE THEY TOOK THAT STEP TO COLLABORATE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. WE'VE TRIED TO EMPHASIZE COLLABORATION AS A VALUE. IT'S A POLICY VALUE. AND SO IF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TRY AND MEET OUR POLICY VALUES, BUT IT TAKES THEM MORE THAN TWO YEARS BECAUSE THERE ARE FOUR INSTITUTIONS TRYING TO BUILD A BUILDING TOGETHER, MAYBE WE HAVE TO HAVE A BONUS PROVISION OR POINTS FOR COLLABORATION AND A DIFFERENT CAP FOR COLLABORATION BECAUSE THEY'RE GIVING UP MAKING INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS, AND THEY'RE MAKING THEM AS A GROUP. SO ALLOWING A COLLABORATION CATEGORY ALLOWS US TO MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS SO WE ACHIEVE OVERALL POLICY VALUES WHILE LOOKING TO SCIENCE FOR REALLY EVALUATING THE SCIENCE IN THE INSTITUTION, WHICH IS THE DRIVING FORCE OF THE DECISION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DAVID, I WANT TO KEEP IN MIND TOO, AND THIS IS FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD IN THE PROCESS, WE PROBABLY WON'T GET TO THIS PIECE OF IT TODAY, BUT WHEN THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP DOES ITS REVIEW OF THE APPLICATIONS, AND WE'RE GOING TO DECIDE HOW WE WANT TO DO THAT PROCESS, BUT WE COULD, LIKE LAST TIME, AND I THINK THERE'S SOME VALUE TO IT, HAVE THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW WHERE WE CAN CAPTURE SOME OF THESE ISSUES. THAT MIGHT BE ONE AREA WHERE WE CAN CAPTURE SOME OF THESE ISSUES IN TERMS OF WHEN WE DO THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW AND READJUSTING AND THE SCORING WHAT WE WANT TO LOOK AT GLOBALLY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: MAYBE WE COULD SAY THAT WE COULD CONSIDER THAT UNDER THE PROGRAMMATIC. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO LET'S -- I'D LIKE TO LET RICK AT LEAST KIND OF WORK THROUGH HIS SLIDES ABOUT THE INFORMATION HE GOT AT THE FOUR MEETINGS. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JUST TO WRAP UP THAT DISCUSSION IS THAT THIS IS LITERALLY FROM THE CUTTING ROOM FLOOR BECAUSE THIS WAS THE DEFINITION OF COLLABORATION THAT LOOKED AT THE CLASSIC WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY JOINT INTELLECTUAL EFFORT, AND CONSORTIUM BEING MORE OF A SINGLE LEGAL ENTITY THAT'S SHARING RESOURCES. WE CAN WORK THROUGH THIS AND GET TO WHERE WE NEED TO GO. | ||||||||
| SO I WANT TO GO THROUGH THESE PRETTY QUICKLY, IF YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM, SOME OF THE COMMENTS WHAT WE HEARD ABOUT THESE FOUR AREAS OR SEVEN AREAS THAT WERE THE TOPICS AT THE PUBLIC MEETINGS. | ||||||||
| UNDER URGENCY, JUST TO GO THROUGH THIS PRETTY QUICKLY, AND THEN WE CAN GO INTO MORE OF A FORMATION OF CONSENSUS PROCESS, THAT THERE IS OBVIOUSLY URGENCY BY VIRTUE OF COST AND THE NECESSITY OF THE SCIENCE, BUT ALSO IT'S DIFFICULT BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT WE CONTINUE TO HAVE DIFFICULTY IN THE PLANNING PROCESSES THAT COULD MAKE IT MORE THAN TWO YEARS. SO, AGAIN, A CONTINUUM OF COMMENT ON THAT ISSUE. | ||||||||
| BUT I THINK THE KEY POINT ON THIS SLIDE, THOUGH, IS THAT LACK OF SPACE IS A LIMITING FACTOR. AND I THINK WE HEARD THAT MORE OFTEN THAN SOME OF THESE OTHER ISSUES, THAT WITH INVESTMENT IN NEW FACILITIES, THAT THAT WOULD ELIMINATE A BOTTLENECK IN THE OVERALL OBJECTIVES OF THESE INSTITUTIONS DOING THE SCIENCE. | ||||||||
| HERE'S THE POINT THAT BOB MADE EARLIER ABOUT LOOKING AT HOW WE WOULD MEASURE URGENCY, AND IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT WE START FROM THE NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD, WHICH IS SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. AND THEN WE CAN WORK TOWARDS THE RIGHT CONSISTENT END POINT, I THINK, IS WHAT WE HEARD YOU WANT. | ||||||||
| ON THE POINT ON EXCELLENCE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RICK, JUST AS A FOOTNOTE THERE TOO, IF WE HAVE APPLICATIONS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET TWO FLOORS OUT OF A FIVE-STORY BUILDING, THEY CAN ONLY GET -- IF THEY'RE GOING TO ACCELERATE THE TWO-FLOOR DELIVERY FOR US, THEY CAN ONLY GET A TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE ON THOSE TWO FLOORS IF THE OTHER THREE FLOORS ARE NOT DONE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: AGAIN, ON EXCELLENCE, I THINK THE STRONG BIAS HERE WAS THAT EXCELLENCE IS ABOUT PROGRAM AND THAT'S WHAT'S IMPORTANT. AND THAT IN ORDER TO BE EXCELLENT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PROVEN TRACK RECORD TO BRING TO THE TABLE. SO THOSE, AGAIN, ARE ISSUES THAT I THINK WILL BE IMPORTANT IN THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| WE'VE KIND OF TALKED A LOT ABOUT COLLABORATION ALREADY. JUST TO -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RICK, ON YOUR LAST SLIDE, THE LAST ITEM SAYS THAT THE APPLICANT MUST SHOW EVIDENCE OF PRECLINICAL AND CLINICAL TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: TO BE CONSIDERED EXCELLENT. THAT'S THE CONTEXT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RIGHT. THE ISSUE IS IF THEY MAY HAVE A COLLABORATION WITH AN INSTITUTION THAT HAS -- EVEN THIS CONSORTIUM IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, IT IT'S A NEW LEGAL ENTITY, IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT, SO IT HAS TO SHOW THAT IT'S COLLABORATING WITH UC SAN DIEGO. AND THAT'S WHERE ITS PRECLINICAL HISTORY IS, AND/OR IT COULD BE A PHENOMENAL INSTITUTION IN BASIC AND APPLIED RESEARCH AND NOT HAVE CLINICAL. AND HOPEFULLY THE SCIENTIFIC SCORE CAN SCORE IT EXCELLENT ON THESE CRITERIA, BUT JUST NOT SCORE IT EXCELLENT IN THE PRECLINICAL OR CLINICAL. | ||||||||
| SO WE DON'T WANT JUST ONE OVERALL CATEGORY, AND I THINK YOU HAVE A LATER CHART THAT BREAKS THOSE OUT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DR. CHIU IS GOING TO GO OVER THAT CHART, AND I THINK IT WILL BE VERY ENLIGHTENING. | ||||||||
| AND I THINK COLLABORATION, THE OTHER POINT TO MAKE, IS THAT WE HEARD COMMENTS THAT ALSO WHILE THERE WAS COLLABORATION AMONG INSTITUTIONS, THERE IS ALSO A STRONG STATEMENT ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF HAVING INDUSTRY COLLABORATIONS AS A COMPONENT OF EVALUATION. AND, AGAIN, I THINK THAT'S MORE OF A PROGRAM SCIENCE-BASED ISSUE. | ||||||||
| AGAIN, CIRM HAS AN ENCOURAGEMENT TO FORMAL COLLABORATIONS WAS SUGGESTED. | ||||||||
| ON INNOVATION, HERE AGAIN, GREEN BUILDING DESIGN WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES. THERE WAS A STATEMENT MADE ABOUT THE CREATIVE, INNOVATIVE SMALL PLACES THAT SHOULD HAVE SOME SEEDABILITY. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: COULD YOU DEFINE THAT? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT WAS THE SPEAKER'S WORD. AND MY INTERPRETATION IS THAT IT'S ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO GROW AND TO BRING OUT A NASCENT PROGRAM TO A MORE ROBUST CIRCUMSTANCE, AND THAT THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE FACILITIES GRANT -- PART OF THE FACILITIES GRANT COMPONENT IS MOVEMENT FROM, SAY, EMERGING TO MORE SUBSTANTIAL IN TERMS OF STANDING WITHIN THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: IN THE SENSE OF NURTURING INNOVATION, RIGHT, IN A SMALL PLACE THAT HAS NOT YET PROVEN ITSELF? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK SO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THESE ARE THE COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD AT THE FOUR PUBLIC INFORMATION, SO I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: SO BECAUSE WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT LEVERAGE, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO MIX IN WITH WHAT WE HEARD SLIDES, KIND OF A QUICK OBSERVATION OF WHAT WE THINK THE DEFINITION OF LEVERAGE IS. NOW WE'VE KIND OF GOT THE MATCHING OUT OF WAY IN TERMS OF THE 20-PERCENT CASH. SO THE CLASSIC DEFINITION OUT OF THE DICTIONARY IS THAT IT'S A SMALL INITIAL INVESTMENT IN THIS CASE TO GAIN A VERY HIGH RETURN IN RELATION TO ONE'S INVESTMENT TO CONTROL A MUCH LARGER INVESTMENT. | ||||||||
| SO THAT NOTION IS BASICALLY IMPLYING A MULTIPLICATION CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE YOUR FUNDS AND YOUR DECISION TO INVEST WILL GIVE RISE TO OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES. SO WE'VE KIND OF APPLIED THAT TO FERRET OUT WHAT WE HEARD IN THE GROUPS FROM THE PUBLIC SESSIONS. WE DIVIDED THEM INTO TWO CATEGORIES WHICH WE THINK WOULD WORK WELL FOR YOU IN YOUR ASSESSMENT OF LEVERAGE. | ||||||||
| FIRST IS PROJECT LEVERAGE, WHICH WE'RE SAYING WOULD BE DEFINED AS THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT THAT'S IN SUPPORT OF THAT PARTICULAR CAPITAL PROJECT THAT'S BEING FUNDED BY CIRM AND THE MATCHING FUNDS. SO IT'S BASICALLY SWEETENING THE POT, IF YOU WILL, EXPANDING THE RESOURCE BASE FOR THE PROJECT AT HAND. | ||||||||
| THEN THERE'S ANOTHER -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CAN WE TALK ABOUT THIS PROJECT LEVERAGE? YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT BE A WAY THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY EVEN MAKE IT A TERM THAT INCORPORATES THE COST AND COMES UP WITH SOME KIND OF RATIO OF COST TO LEVERAGE. SO AS MANY MEMBERS HAVE BROUGHT UP, SO I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF OPEN THAT UP TO THE FLOOR FOR A MINUTE, OR MAYBE WE COULD KEEP JUST THE COST EVALUATION SEPARATE, BUT IT'S JUST AN INTERESTING POINT, THAT IF YOU HAD, LET'S SAY, TWO APPLICATIONS AND ONE HAD A COST, PICK A NUMBER, OF $1200 A SQUARE FOOT, BUT THEN ON A LEVERAGE BASIS ON CIRM DOLLARS, IT WAS A SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER NUMBER BECAUSE IT HAD A VERY HIGH LEVERAGE VERSUS, ANOTHER APPLICATION WHICH MIGHT HAVE AN $800 SQUARE FOOT COST, BUT A LOT LESS LEVERAGE. SO I JUST WANTED TO OPEN UP THAT DISCUSSION. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: JUST A QUICK. THAT WOULD BE CASH? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES, WE'RE TALKING CASH. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT, FOLLOWING ON JEFF'S POINT, I THINK, THE DIRECTION JEFF'S GOING, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THAT FOR REAL CASH LEVERAGE, I THINK WE SHOULD DEFINITELY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE EFFECTIVE COST TO US IN DELIVERING VALUE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YEAH. I THINK WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE THERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAD PUT IN THE SLIDES WAS THIS CONCEPT OF ESTABLISHING A NET MATCHING FUND AND NET COST THAT WOULD THEN FOCUS ON THE CIRM GOALS. AND THAT WOULD BE LIKE COST PER SQUARE FOOT OR WHATEVER AND NOT NECESSARILY INSTITUTIONAL GOALS. I THINK THAT CAPTURES IT. | ||||||||
| I WANT TO GO BACK HERE TO IF WE'RE DONE WITH KIND OF PROJECT LEVERAGE BEING THAT AMOUNT THAT GETS INTO THE PROJECTS. THE PROGRAM LEVERAGE IS THAT ADDITIONAL COMPONENT OF RESOURCES COMING FROM THE APPLICANTS THAT'S DEVOTED TO STEM CELL RESEARCH, BUT IT INCLUDES ALL TYPES OF RESOURCES. WE EARLIER MENTIONED THE FACT THAT COMMITMENTS OF FACULTY APPOINTMENTS TO STEM CELL PROGRAMS, THE ABILITY OR AVAILABILITY OF CORE LABS OR OTHER ASSETS THAT EXIST, AND THE COMMITMENT OF THOSE RESOURCES ARE ACTUALLY PART OF THE LEVERAGE. AND IT WOULD BE MUCH HARDER TO DEFINE AND IT MAY BE A LESSER COMPONENT OF YOUR OVERALL EVALUATION, AND WE'LL GET TO YOUR CHOICES ON THAT LATER. BUT WE THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT THAT YOU HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE BECAUSE I THINK IT HAS PARTICULAR APPLICABILITY TO THE SMALLER PROJECTS WHERE IF YOU'RE FILLING A VOID, IF YOU ARE INVESTING IN A COMPONENT THAT WILL BASICALLY GIVE THEM STANDING, AND THEY'VE ALREADY GOT THE COMPLEMENTARY RESOURCES AVAILABLE, THEN YOU ARE TRULY GETTING A LOT OF PROGRAM LEVERAGE. AND IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT, I THINK, TO CONSIDER THAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YEAH. THIS CONCEPT OF PROGRAM, I'M INTRIGUED BY THE CONCEPT OF PROGRAM LEVERAGE. WE DID HEAR FROM A COUPLE OF FOLKS THAT TALKED ABOUT IT. THEY POINTED -- I THINK HANS KEIRSTEAD POINTED TO WAYS IN WHICH WE COULD -- YOU SAY IT'S DIFFICULT TO VERIFY, BUT WE COULD GET REPRESENTATIONS FROM THE CHANCELLORS AND THE ADMINISTRATORS, WHOEVER THEY MAY BE, THAT THEY ARE MAKING THESE COMMITMENTS. YOU'RE RIGHT. THEY CAN CHANGE IT, BUT WE COULD GET COMMITMENTS. AND WE WOULD HOPE THAT THEY WOULD MAKE THOSE COMMITMENTS IN THEIR APPLICATIONS IN GOOD FAITH. NOW, THERE COULD BE INTERVENING FACTS THAT CHANGE THAT. | ||||||||
| NOW, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A TOUCHY -- DIFFICULT ISSUE FOR THE ICOC TO DEAL WITH, CURABLE, BECAUSE THERE ARE INSTITUTIONS, LARGER INSTITUTIONS, THE UCS'S, THEY'RE GOING TO MEET THIS ADDITIONAL FUNDING COMPONENT QUITE EASILY. THEY'VE ALREADY ISSUED GAZILLIONS OF PRESS RELEASES TELLING US THEY HAVE, AND THEY SHOULD BE APPLAUDED FOR THAT. AND IN NO WAY DO I WANT TO DISCOURAGE THAT'S, BUT THAT'S SO IMPORTANT. | ||||||||
| NOW, IN THE LEVERAGE COMPONENT, AND WE'LL DECIDE THIS LATER IN THE WEIGHTING, BUT I JUST WANT TO NOTE IT. YOU KNOW, DO WE WANT TO GIVE EQUAL WEIGHT TO PROJECT AND PROGRAM LEVERAGE? I THINK WE OUGHT TO OR NOT. OR SHOULD WE GIVE MORE WEIGHT TO PROJECT OR PROGRAM OR VICE VERSA? IT GOES TO THE CENTRAL ISSUE OF LEVERAGE AND WHAT WE MEAN THIS LEVERAGE TO BE IN THIS PROCESS. WE HAVE TO CLEARLY DEFINE IT SO THE INSTITUTIONS UNDERSTAND WHEN THEY START PREPARING THEIR APPLICATIONS BECAUSE EVERYONE IS INTRIGUED BY THIS LEVERAGE CONCEPT, AND WE DO WANT TO REWARD IT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW WE -- WE'D HAVE TO HAVE A VERY GOOD DEFINITION FOR PROGRAM LEVERAGE, WHICH I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF HAS ANY IDEAS ON THIS. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHERE I THINK INTERACTION WITH THE APPLICANTS IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING OUR OBJECTIVE, WHICH IS TO RECOGNIZE OPPORTUNITIES, WHERE THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENTS THAT GO BEYOND SIMPLY DOLLARS INTO THE CAPITAL PROJECT GIVE RISE TO OUTCOMES THAT THEY CAN CLEARLY POINT TO AS BEING CONSISTENT AND SUPPORTIVE OF CIRM'S OBJECTIVES. SO I THINK IN CRAFTING THE APPLICATION, I THINK THE KEY HERE IS DO WE WANT TO HAVE CRITERIA THAT WE BASICALLY APPLY TO SETS OF FACTS, OR DO WE WANT SOMEONE TO MAKE A CONVINCING ARGUMENT? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I THINK SETS OF FACTS. ANYONE CAN MAKE A CONVINCING ARGUMENT, BUT WE WANT THIS -- IT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE THAT THE RFA IS DESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT'S OBJECTIVE, NOT SUBJECTIVE. SO THE PLAYING FIELD IS VERY CLEAR. AND IF YOU ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO MAKE THEIR -- THIS IS MY OPINION -- TO MAKE THE BEST ARGUMENT, IT BECOMES VERY SUBJECTIVE AT THAT POINT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I WAS JUST REACTING TO THE -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IT'S HARD TO SCORE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: -- THE CHAIR'S OBSERVATION. I THINK IT'S HARD TO SCORE IN ANY EVENT. AND WHILE I THINK YOU CAN DEAL WITH FACTS ON PROJECT, HOW MUCH MONEY PEOPLE ARE PUTTING INTO PROJECTS, IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF THEY'VE GOT A CORE LAB AND THEY THINK IT'S GOING TO BE USED 20 PERCENT OF THE TIME, THE IMAGING LAB FOR STEM CELL, OR 10 PERCENT, AND SO IT BECOMES VERY COMPLEX, I THINK, TO FERRET OUT. AND SO JUST END THERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, TWO POINTS. ONE, IN TERMS OF DAVID'S COMMENT, I'M PERSONALLY AS WELL VERY INTRIGUED IN PROGRAM LEVERAGE, BUT WE CAN GET HARD FACTS FOR CASH LEVERAGE. FROM A PRAGMATIC BASIS, UNLESS WE REALLY SEND OUT A CLEAR MESSAGE AND INCENTIVIZE CASH LEVERAGE, WE WON'T GET ENOUGH LEVERAGE TO REALLY COVER THE OPPORTUNITIES IN THIS STATE WITH FACILITIES. WE HAVE TO GET SUBSTANTIAL CASH LEVERAGE. | ||||||||
| BUT THE PROGRAM LEVERAGE MIGHT, UNDER THE PROGRAM REVIEW, BE HIGHLIGHTED AS AN IMPORTANT POINT. IT COULD -- I'M TOTALLY OPEN TO BEING A DIFFERENT POINT CATEGORY. BUT I'M JUST THINKING WE DO NEED IN THE FINANCIAL LEVERAGE TO HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT POINTS THERE BECAUSE WE CAN HAVE THREE INSTITUTIONS WITH 97-PERCENT SCORES, AND WE DON'T WANT TO PUT ALL OF OUR MONEY INTO THREE INSTITUTIONS WITH 97-PERCENT SCORES BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR GREAT SCIENCE IN THE STATE. SO WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO GET SOME MAJOR FINANCIAL LEVERAGE AND HAVE SOME KIND OF GUIDELINES POTENTIALLY ON MAXIMUM CAPS OR RANGES OF ALLOCATIONS TO INSTITUTIONS, EVEN IF THEY HAVE A VERY HIGH SCIENTIFIC SCORE, IF WE'RE GOING TO COVER ALL OF OUR REAL OPPORTUNITIES WHERE THERE'S SCIENTIFIC MERIT COMING OUT OF THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WELL, I HOPE I DON'T GET SHOT FOR SUGGESTING THIS. I WONDER IF THIS PROGRAM LEVERAGE MIGHT BLEED OVER TO A SCIENTIFIC REVIEW ISSUE BECAUSE THAT MIGHT BE A BETTER PLACE TO EVALUATE THAT. IF THAT'S OFF BASE, I'M WILLING TO END IT HERE. IT MAY BE A DEGREE OF COMPLICATION. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: ACTUALLY MAY I COMMENT FOR A MINUTE, AND I THINK YOU WILL SEE THIS, I'M SORRY IT'S LATER IN THE PRESENTATION, BUT DR. CHIU WILL SPEAK TO THAT BECAUSE SHE WILL TALK ABOUT FUTURE RECRUITMENTS FOR FACULTY, THE SYNERGIES ON THE CAMPUS OR THE INSTITUTION, AND WHAT THEY'RE USING AROUND THIS BUILDING OR THIS FLOOR. SO, IN FACT, THIS WOULD JUST BE THE FINANCIAL PORTION OF THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I JUST WANT TO COMMENT TO JEFF'S COMMENT. JEFF, I ACTUALLY DON'T WANT TO SHOOT YOU. I AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS ONE. ON THE COLLABORATION ONE I'M ACTUALLY NOT SO SURE, BUT ON THIS ONE I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH YOU. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I WOULD AGREE. I WANT TO AGREE WITH WHAT JEFF SAYS BECAUSE I THINK THE SCIENTIFIC IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, AND THE SCIENTISTS CAN READ THROUGH THE LINES IF THE PROGRAMS ARE REAL OR NOT. IT'S MORE OF A SCIENTIFIC ISSUE THAN IT IS A FACILITIES QUESTION. | ||||||||
| BUT I WANT TO ENDORSE THAT CONCEPT, BUT I WANT CLARITY ON ONE POINT. THIS IS JUMPING AHEAD, BUT IT WILL IMPACT SORT OF MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW WE PROCEED. AND THAT IS IF WE GO WITH THE TWO-STEP PROCESS, IF WE GO WITH THE TWO-STEP PROCESS, SCIENTIFIC REVIEW, THEY DO THEIR THING, THEY GO TO THE ICOC, ICOC BLESSES, THEN IT GOES TO THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. I'VE GOT IT RIGHT THUS FAR. WHEN IT GOES TO THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, ARE ALL OF THOSE APPLICATIONS ON AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD? MEANING WILL SOME OF THE APPLICATIONS BE HIGHER THAN OTHERS? NO. THEY'RE ALL ON AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD. THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTAND THE TWO-STEP PROCESS TO BE. OKAY. | ||||||||
| THEN I GUESS I HADN'T THOUGHT IT ALL OUT. THEN I WOULD SAY THAT, YEAH, I GUESS DOING THE PROGRAM THING IS FINE, BUT IF THEY COME TO US ALL ON AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD AND WE'RE GIVING MORE POINTS TO PEOPLE -- TO INSTITUTIONS AND APPLICANTS THAT HAVE MORE CASH, I THINK THAT PENALIZES, MAY PENALIZE OTHER PEOPLE, BUT PERHAPS NOT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: LET'S LET RICK FINISH HIS PRESENTATION. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: CAN I JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT ON THE PROJECT LEVERAGE? IT SEEMS TO ME WE WOULD NOT WANT TO DISCOURAGE A PLACE THAT, LET'S SAY, HAS A MEGA DONOR OR CHEVY WHO WANTS TO PUT A BIG CHUNK OF MONEY INTO THIS, IF IT COULD BE CALLED THE CHEVY STEM CELL CENTER. AND SO WOULDN'T WE WANT A PROCESS THAT REWARDS -- THAT CREATES THE INCENTIVES FOR THAT KIND OF GIVING -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: -- TO OUR NET BUDGET? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK WE WOULD WANT TO HIGHLY ENCOURAGE ANY POTENTIAL APPLICANTS THAT MIGHT HEAR THIS THAT THEY SHOULD GO OUT AND GET AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE TO LEVERAGE IT ON A CASH BASIS. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: SOME CRITERIA THAT ARE GOING TO PROVIDE THAT INCENTIVE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: BRIEFLY, AGAIN, ON WHAT YOU HEARD ABOUT LEVERAGE, THERE WAS THIS POINT MADE, I DON'T KNOW IF WE TALKED ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGH MATCHING FUNDS AND HIGH PROJECT COST. IT KIND OF GETS TO THE ISSUE OF THE NET MATCHING FUNDS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT ON THIS SLIDE. | ||||||||
| CIRM FACILITIES SHOULD BE BUILT WHERE CIRM MONEY HAS GONE. AGAIN, I THINK THAT'S MORE OF A FACTOR IN THE SCIENCE SIDE IN TERMS OF THE TRACK RECORD BEING ON THE SCIENCE. | ||||||||
| OTHER ISSUES THAT WERE DEALT WITH. BUILD TO SERVE POPULATED AREAS. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE HEARD ABOUT LEVERAGE. I THINK I GOT ONE MORE LEFT HERE IN TERMS OF FUNCTIONALITY. THEN WE CAN KIND OF TALK ABOUT WHERE WE GO FROM HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RICK, THAT SAYS BUILD WITH LEVERAGE INCLUDING FACULTY COMMITMENTS. I THINK WE MIGHT NEED TO BREAK THOSE APART BECAUSE WE MAY BE ABLE TO EVALUATE FINANCIAL LEVERAGE, BUT WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO EVALUATE FACULTY LEVERAGE. SO WE MAY NEED TO SEPARATE THOSE. | ||||||||
| IF THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW, BY THE WAY, IS BEFORE OURS, THEN IN OUR PROGRAM REVIEW, WE CAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION POTENTIALLY THEIR PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW IN OUR PROGRAM REVIEW. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: FUNCTIONALITY, I THINK, IN TERMS OF THE BROAD DEFINITION, THE WAY THAT I CATEGORIZED THE COMMENTS WAS THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF -- THERE WAS A LOT OF THINGS TALKED ABOUT BY PEOPLE WHO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW WELL THE FACILITY RESPONDED TO THE KEY OBJECTIVES OF THE SCIENCE. AND SO SUCH THINGS THAT ALL OF THESE FACILITIES NEED TO HAVE A FULL COMPLEMENT OF CORE LABS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, I JUST WANT TO OPEN UP A QUESTION ABOUT THIS FIREWALL FROM FEDERAL FUNDING. DO WE WANT TO MAKE THAT A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, THAT THAT'S ADDRESSED BECAUSE WHAT IF IT ISN'T? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I THINK RATHER THAN -- I THINK THAT'S -- FIRST OF ALL, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE'RE JUST REPEATING COMMENTS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF OUR GOAL HERE IS TO ACTUALLY GO THROUGH EACH COMMENT AND GO UP OR DOWN, BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS THIS. I THINK WE NEED TO BE CLEAR THAT THE FACILITIES NEED TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR CIRM FUNDING -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK JEFF'S -- | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: -- WHICH IS A DIFFERENT POINT THAN FIREWALL. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK JEFF'S POINT IS A VERY GOOD ONE. WE NEED TO BE CLEAR THAT WE'RE FREE OF FEDERAL FUNDS SO WE'RE QUALIFIED FOR CIRM FUNDING IN THIS PORTION OF THE FACILITIES THAT'S DEDICATED TO US, BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE NOT PROHIBITING THAT AREA OF THE FACILITY FROM GETTING FEDERAL FUNDS. SO WE WANT TO ORIENT IT, I THINK, TO ACHIEVE DAVID LICHTENGER'S OBJECTIVE, BUT WORD IT SO THAT WE HAVE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I'M NOT CERTAIN OF THE INTENT OF THE SPEAKER IN TERMS OF WHAT -- I UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION. IT'S EITHER PERMEABLE ONE WAY, OR IF IT'S IMPERMEABLE BOTH WAYS IS, I THINK, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND IT'S NOT TO OUR ADVANTAGE TO NOT HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY FOR FEDERAL FUNDING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH THAT. I GUESS I'M JUST RESPONDING TO THAT PARTICULAR PUBLIC COMMENT, THAT OBVIOUSLY IF WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT A PARTICULAR APPLICATION, THEN OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD HAVE DIFFICULTY POTENTIALLY FUNDING IT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK THIS IS IN CONFLICT WITH -- THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS COIN IS FLEXIBILITY TO MOVE INTO AREAS WHERE GRANT FUNDING, IF IT BECOMES AVAILABLE, THAT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK, RICK, JEFF AND THE OTHER COMMENTS REALLY JUST CAPTURED THE INTENT HERE SO THAT MAYBE WE COULD REVISE THAT TO REFLECT THE INTENT TO ASSURE THAT WE HAVE FEDERAL FUNDS FREE SPACE IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO DO CIRM FUNDING ON NON-PRESIDENTIAL LINES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THEN, AGAIN, ON FUNCTIONALITY, A FEW HIGHLIGHTS WERE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE CLOSE ATTENTION PAID TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, FLEXIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE TYPES OF STEM CELL RESEARCH, FACILITIES THAT ARE EXPANDABLE, ADDRESSING SPECIALTY AREAS, AND FUNDS ADDRESSING CAPACITY NEEDS. | ||||||||
| AGAIN, INTERDISCIPLINARY MEANING THAT THE SPACE HAS PROBABLY A VARIETY OF CAPABILITIES. IN THIS CASE THE SPEAKER WAS MENTIONING BIOENGINEERING. AGAIN, MORE NARROW IN THE FUNCTIONALITY, DEMONSTRATED FDA COMPLIANT PRECLINICAL. ANIMAL MODELS. MULTIDISCIPLINARY. A MORE, I THINK -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RICK, HOW DO WE ADDRESS JOAN'S POINT, THAT IN OUR CRITERIA AND HOPEFULLY IN THE SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA IN THE SCIENTIFIC AREA, IF WE NEED EXTREMELY HIGH QUALITY IMAGING AS AN AREA OF SPECIALIZATION, SO IT WOULD NOT BE A GREAT THING IF THE BEST IMAGING PROPOSAL OF ALL OF THEM DIDN'T GET FUNDED. SO THAT MAYBE ONE OF THE CRITERIA WE NEED TO CALL OUT IS MAKING SURE THAT WE'VE GOT SOME COVERAGE ON THINGS LIKE IMAGING OR LARGE ANIMAL FACILITIES OR UNIQUE RESOURCES THAT ARE HIGHLY VALUABLE THAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE EXCLUDED BECAUSE WHILE IT MIGHT BE IN A FACILITY THAT WOULD BE AT THE EDGE OF FUNDING, IT HAS A SUPERLATIVE IMAGING CAPACITY THAT MIGHT BE THE BEST IN THE STATE. SO MAYBE WE TRY AND CALL OUT SPECIAL ATTENTION TO WHERE THERE'S A SPECIAL RESOURCE CAPACITY ON A REGIONAL BASIS OR STATEWIDE BASIS. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK THE LAST SLIDE ON FUNCTIONALITY, MORE KIND OF DISTANT FROM THE CAMPUS OR PROGRAM REGIONAL ISSUES, CONSIDERING ISSUES OF INFRASTRUCTURE AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT STEM CELL RESEARCH, AND, AGAIN, FOCUSING ON WHERE THE RESEARCHERS ARE. | ||||||||
| SO ALL OF WHAT WE HEARD IS BASICALLY FODDER FOR YOU IN TERMS OF HOW YOU WANT TO GO ABOUT DEVELOPING THE SECOND PART OF THIS, WHICH IS THE EVALUATION CRITERIA. WE'VE DONE THE REQUIREMENTS, I THINK, AND WE MOVED THE GREEN BUILDING TO BE CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THIS CRITERIA IN THE VARIABLE SIDE, AT LEAST FOR NOW.SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST, AND THE WAY THAT THE PROCEDURES ARE IS THAT THE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED POINTS BASED ON A TOTAL OF A HUNDRED POINTS. SO IN ORDER TO GET TO THAT, I THINK YOU HAVE TWO THINGS TO DO HERE. YOU HAVE TO EITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE, MODIFY THESE SPECIFIC CATEGORIES OF CRITERIA BEING URGENCY, VALUE, LEVERAGE, AND FUNCTIONALITY, AND EITHER CONSTRICT THOSE OR AUGMENT THEM. AND THEN WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS HAVE YOU DEFINE EACH, AND I HAVE POSSIBLE DEFINITIONS OF URGENCY. SO WE CAN BEGIN TO BASICALLY PROMPT YOU IN TERMS OF WHAT WE SEE THAT MEANING, AND THEN WE'LL WORK ON THE OTHER SCREEN TO BASICALLY RECORD YOUR CONSENSUS ABOUT HOW THESE SHOULD BE DEFINED. | ||||||||
| AND THEN ONCE YOU HAVE THEM DEFINED, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO START UNDERSTANDING HOW YOU WOULD GO ABOUT ASSIGNING POINTS BECAUSE YOU NOW KNOW WHAT URGENCY IS, AND YOU CAN MAKE A JUDGMENT ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD JUDGE A HIGHLY RESPONSIVE OR A LESS RESPONSIVE PROPOSAL. SO -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE WE TAKE A TEN-MINUTE RECESS. OKAY. SO LET'S MAKE IT A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS. | ||||||||
| (A RECESS WAS TAKEN.) | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT EVERYBODY HERE, SO WE'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER NOW. RICK, COULD YOU PLEASE PROCEED WHERE YOU LEFT OFF? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WHERE WE WERE WHEN WE TOOK THE BREAK WAS THAT WE HAD GONE OVER THOSE CATEGORIES, AND I HAD OFFERED THE FACT THAT YOU COULD EITHER AUGMENT THE CRITERIA OR CONDENSE IT FURTHER. AND WHEREVER YOU WANTED TO PLACE IT, THEN WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO IS TO DEFINE EACH OF THOSE TERMS IN A WAY THAT WILL BE BASICALLY FOR THE RECORD FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE RFA. AND THEN YOU WOULD THEN ASSIGN STANDARDS AND CRITERIA -- AND THEN ASSIGN POINTS FOR EACH OF THOSE CATEGORIES. | ||||||||
| SO WE'VE STARTED -- I GUESS FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS WOULD BE HOW DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED WITH CRITERIA? RELATIVE TO THE FOUR THAT WE'VE COME UP WITH, WOULD YOU WANT TO MAKE ANY CHANGES OR AUGMENT THOSE OR REASSIGN THOSE? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WANT TO OPEN THIS UP TO THE FLOOR, BUT I WANT TO GIVE MY INITIAL KIND OF COMMENTS. WHEN I SAW THE VALUE BULLET POINT, I THOUGHT THAT BY HAVING EXCELLENCE, INNOVATION, AND COSTS IN VALUE, IT WAS KIND OF CONFUSING AND WAS GOING TO KIND OF MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT. SO I WAS THINKING THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME FURTHER BREAKOUT OF VALUE TO LOOK AT EXCELLENCE. SO THAT WAS ONE GENERAL POINT THAT I WANT TO BRING UP. | ||||||||
| AND THEN THE OTHER GENERAL POINT IS THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR THIS FACILITIES WORKING GROUP TO LOOK AT TERMS LIKE EXCELLENCE FROM A FACILITIES PERSPECTIVE. OKAY. EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE AN INVOLVEMENT WITH CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS ON THIS FACILITIES WORKING GROUP WITH THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP OF THE ICOC, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE LOOK AT IT FROM A FACILITIES PERSPECTIVE HERE SO THAT WE CAN HAVE CLEARER DEFINITIONS FOR OUR PURPOSES. SO I JUST WANT TO OPEN UP THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YEAH. I ACTUALLY WOULD FAVOR TAKING EXCELLENCE, INNOVATION, AND COSTS AND BREAKING THEM OUT AS INDIVIDUAL ITEMS RATHER THAN JUST TRYING TO AGGREGATE THEM TO GET MORE DEFINITION INTO VALUE, BUT ALSO BREAK OUT COLLABORATION. AND I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH COLLABORATION AS A POINT CATEGORY. THE EXAMPLES WE DISCUSSED BEFORE WERE AWARDING POINTS SO THAT, WHILE WE'RE TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE COLLABORATION, IF THEY CAN'T BUILD IN THE SAME TIME PERIOD, THAT THERE ARE SOME POINTS THAT THEY USE TO OFFSET THE LACK OF BEING ABLE TO BUILD WITHIN TWO YEARS BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO GET THIS COLLABORATIVE SYNERGY AS ONE OF OUR GOALS. I THINK THAT WAS JEFF'S POINT. | ||||||||
| AND I ALSO THINK ON A COLLABORATIVE POINT OF VIEW, IF SOMEONE HAS A VIVARIUM AND THE OTHER INSTITUTION DOESN'T, AND SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUILD THAT EXPENSIVE VIVARIUM SPACE -- | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: WHAT IS THAT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE ANIMAL FACILITY. -- THAT'S A PHYSICAL ASSET THAT HAS A VALUE THROUGH THAT COLLABORATION AGREEMENT THAT HELPS US REDUCE COST, GET MORE VALUE. SO I THINK COLLABORATION SHOULD BE A SEPARATE CATEGORY THAT HAS SEVERAL POSSIBILITIES IN IT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I DON'T -- I THINK HAVING COLLABORATION AS A SEPARATE CRITERIA WOULD BE OKAY, BUT I'D LIKE TO GET STUART'S PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD HAVE A COLLABORATIVE FACILITY, BUT DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE INSTITUTION IS COLLABORATIVE WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS? SO THERE'S DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF COLLABORATIVE, AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT WE MEAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JUST TO PROVIDE SOME CLARITY, YOU DON'T GET ANY POINTS IF YOU JUST HAVE A PAPER COLLABORATION. BUT IF YOU HAVE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT INSTITUTION TO USE YOUR VIVARIUM, THAT HAS A REAL VALUE THAT'S CONCRETE. SO YOU NEED A DOCUMENTED UTILITY TO THE COLLABORATION IN TERMS OF PHYSICAL FACILITIES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, STUART, JUST ONE -- I THINK WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A COLLABORATIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT. I THINK I WANTED TO CLARIFY. I'M NOT HEARING ANYONE SAY A COLLABORATIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: WELL, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY VIVARIUMS ARE VERY EXPENSIVE. SO IF YOU DO HAVE THIS COLLABORATION, THEN DO YOU LOWER THE COST OR YOU SHARE THE COST BETWEEN THE COLLABORATIVE GROUPS AND SAY, OKAY, INSTEAD OF $500 A FOOT FOR THE VIVARIUM TO GROUP A, NOW THAT THEY'RE COLLABORATIVE WITH B AND C, DOES THAT SOMEHOW GET MITIGATED? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK THAT WOULD BE TOO CONFUSING. I THINK WE'VE GOT TO HAVE -- I THINK WE'VE GOT TO HAVE A SEPARATE CRITERIA FOR COLLABORATION; AND ANY INSTITUTION, IF THERE'S A HIGH COLLABORATIVE SCORE, THAT WE CAN DECIDE WHAT PERCENTAGE OUT OF THE HUNDRED THAT SHOULD TAKE, BUT I THINK WE'VE GOT TO KEEP LEVERAGE AND COST SEPARATE. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: THE THING I WORRY ABOUT THE MOST IN THIS IS THAT I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO SEPARATE THE REAL ESTATE FROM THE GRANTS. I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN MEDICAL RESEARCH. I BARELY STAY AFLOAT HERE, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND FACILITIES. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S OUR JOB TO TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT THE MEDICAL GROUP SHOULD BE GIVING US. I THINK WE HAVE TO JUDGE IT IN REAL ESTATE TERMS AS OPPOSED TO OVERALL. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: PART OF WHAT THE EXERCISE IS IS TO IDENTIFY, ON STUART'S POINT THOUGH, SO HE UNDERSTANDS, PART OF OUR TASK TODAY IS TO IDENTIFY TO THE SCIENTIFIC GRANTS WORKING GROUP OR SOME OTHER ENTITY WHAT VALUE POINTS WE WANT THEM TO CONSIDER. THAT'S ALL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IS THAT PART OF OUR ROLE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ARGUABLY, YES. IT'S NOT OUR ROLE TO DO A SCIENCE REVIEW, NO, BUT IT'S PART OF OUR ROLE TO IDENTIFY WHAT VALUE CRITERIA WE WANT. IF WE COLLECTIVELY DECIDE COLLABORATION IS SOMETHING WE WANT TO CONSIDER, THEN I GUESS THE NEXT QUESTION IS IS IT BETTER SUITED FOR THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I UNDERSTAND. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WELL, AGAIN, TO TRY TO MAYBE BRING A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY, I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, AND MAYBE WE WANT TO SCORE THEM SIMILARLY. BUT ONE IS A CONSORTIUM, AND I THINK THAT THAT SHOULD -- WE SHOULD CONSIDER HOW WE WANT TO WEIGHT AND EVALUATE THAT. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT -- I DON'TTHINK THAT MAYBE A CONSORTIUM DOESN'T NECESSARILY -- MIGHT GET COLLABORATION, SO-CALLED COLLABORATION, POINTS, BUT I ALSO THINK, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF A CONSORTIUM, THAT THERE SHOULD BE MITIGATING -- THERE SHOULD BE A WAY TO MITIGATE IN OTHER AREAS SUCH AS URGENCY WHERE THEY WOULD BE PENALIZED BECAUSE THE PROCESS OF CREATING THE CONSORTIUM WILL NECESSARILY SLOW DOWN THEIR WORK. | ||||||||
| THE OTHER THING -- AND I'D LIKE TO GET AWAY FROM THE WORD "COLLABORATION" BECAUSE I THINK REALLY THE COLLABORATION IS A SCIENTIFIC TERM. LET'S USE THE WORD "SHARED RESOURCE." AND THAT IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO HAVE A RESOURCE THAT'S GOING TO BE AVAILABLE, AND I THINK WE NEED TO DEFINE THE PARAMETERS OF THE SHARED RESOURCE, AND THEN SCORE FOR A SHARED RESOURCE. SOMEONE IS GOING TO MAKE A RESOURCE WIDELY AVAILABLE TO A WHOLE RANGE OF RESEARCHERS. MAYBE WE WANT TO GIVE MORE POINTS. I THINK THAT THAT IS KIND OF WHAT JOAN WAS ALLUDING TO IN SOME OF HER EARLIER COMMENTS ABOUT REGIONAL CENTERS, PLACES THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO EVERYBODY IN CALIFORNIA, BUT SOMEHOW GET -- WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS A SHARED RESOURCE. | ||||||||
| WE HAVE A CONSORTIUM, WHICH IS A VERY FORMAL, VERY CONCRETE ENTITY. WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE THAT WHEN THAT CAN HAPPEN, BUT I DON'T THINK SIMPLY GIVING THE MAXIMUM SCORE UNDER A SO-CALLED COLLABORATION HEADING WILL REALLY CAPTURE ALL THE PLACES THEY MAY BE HURT IN THE OTHER CATEGORIES, AND SOMEHOW CAPTURING HOW THEY MAY BE HURT IN THOSE CATEGORIES AND ALLOWING THAT CONSORTIUM TO BE MITIGATED. THEN AGAIN, FIGURING OUT THE OTHER ISSUE, WHICH IS A SHARED RESOURCE, A RESOURCE THAT PEOPLE ARE SPECIFICALLY BUILDING TO BE USED BY MULTIPLE INSTITUTIONS EVEN GOING TO THE POINT OF ANYBODY IN CALIFORNIA, WE ALSO NEED TO CAPTURE SOME VALUE FOR THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MIXING SOME APPLES AND ORANGES BECAUSE -- I LIKE, BY THE WAY, YOUR SHARED RESOURCE DEFINITION. CAN WE JUST ADDRESS THIS KIND OF CONCEPT? DOES THAT SOUND GOOD, THAT TERM OF ART, SO TO SPEAK, FOR EVERYONE ON THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP? REALLY ISN'T THIS REALLY JUST A HIGHER FORM OF SHARED RESOURCES? WE CAN ALSO WEIGHT THIS PARTICULAR SHARED RESOURCES ITEM HIGHER TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I'M JUST PUTTING IT OUT THERE. I'M JUST TRYING TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF FRAMEWORK IN WHICH TO HAVE -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB INTRODUCED THE TOPIC. YOU'VE SEEN SORT OF WHERE THIS CONVERSATION IS GOING. I THINK IF WE DO A SHARED RESOURCES COMPONENT, THAT IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP BECAUSE -- WHETHER YOU'RE SHARING THE SPACE OR NOT, YES OR NO? IF WE WANT TO GIVE SOME POINTS FOR IT, WE SHOULD RECOMMEND THAT TO THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| I JUST WANT TO REMIND OUR COLLEAGUES AT THE APRIL ICOC MEETING IN SACRAMENTO WHEN MS. LANSING INTRODUCED THE TOPIC OF COLLABORATION AND THAT BEING A VALUE POINT, THERE WAS A BIG PUSHBACK ON THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE TO CAREFULLY DEFINE THAT BECAUSE SOME INSTITUTIONS FELT VERY STRONGLY THAT THEY'RE SELF-CONTAINED, STAND-ALONE, AND THAT'S HOW THEY BEST DO THE SCIENCE. AND IF FORCED TO COLLABORATE, IT WON'T WORK, AND WE WON'T HAVE THE DESIRED EFFECT THAT WE WANT. I WANT TO BE SENSITIVE. IF WE RECOMMEND SOMETHING THAT THE ICOC IS NOT -- WE KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A HUGE PUSHBACK ON IT, WE JUST OUGHT NOT TO RECOMMEND IT. | ||||||||
| ON THE SHARED RESOURCES, THIS CONCEPT OF SHARED RESOURCES, I THINK WE CAN AND IT COULD VERY WELL MEET WITH SOME SUCCESS AT THE ICOC. I DON'T KNOW. BOB, YOU SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I DO THINK THAT THERE'S SOME CATEGORIES HERE. FIRST OF ALL, IN TERMS OF BONUS POINTS TO OFFSET THE FACT THAT THEY WON'T GET PRIORITY POINTS POTENTIALLY FOR COMPLETING IN TWO YEARS, IF YOU CALL IT THIS IS A SPECIFIC TYPE OF HIGH LEVEL OF COLLABORATION, A HIGH LEVEL OF COLLABORATION, WE GET MORE POINTS THAN A LOWER LEVEL OF COLLABORATION. ANOTHER FORM OF COLLABORATION IS NOT NECESSARILY THEY BUILD A VIVARIUM IN THIS AND SHARE IT; BUT INSTEAD OF PAYING FOR THE VIVARIUM, THEY COLLABORATE WITH ANOTHER INSTITUTION THAT HAS A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT TO LET THEM USE THE VIVARIUM, SO THEY GET POINTS FOR UTILIZING A SHARED RESOURCE RATHER THAN US PAYING FOR IT. | ||||||||
| SAME THING WITH GMP FACILITIES. RATHER THAN TRYING TO CHARGE US TO PUT A GMP FACILITY IN EACH OF THESE MAJOR CENTERS, THAT IF SOMEBODY HAS ALREADY GOT A GMP FACILITY AND THEY SIGN AN AGREEMENT THAT'S CONTRACTUAL, SO WE KNOW THEY REALLY HAVE ACCESS TO IT, THERE SHOULD BE SOME POINTS TO ENCOURAGE THAT KIND OF COLLABORATION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WHAT WOULD YOU CALL THAT CRITERIA? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHAT I WOULD DO IS -- MY PROBLEM IS THAT IT DOESN'T FIT WELL UNDER THOSE, AND SO THAT'S WHY -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I DON'T THINK IT HAS TO. AS WE TALKED ABOUT, WE CAN HAVE EIGHT CRITERIA. WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE FOUR. WE CAN GO BACK TO -- RICK, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT PRIOR SLIDE, THE ONE THAT HAD SEVEN OR EIGHT CRITERIA THAT WE HEARD? SO IF WE START WITH THIS, WE COULD CHANGE COLLABORATION TO SHARED RESOURCES, RIGHT? | ||||||||
| I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT INNOVATION. I MEAN ARE WE REALLY PREPARED TO REWARD INNOVATIVE FACILITIES? DO WE MEAN INNOVATIVE SCIENTIFIC? I DON'T THINK THAT'S WITHIN OUR ROLE HERE OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: CHAIRMAN, CAN I SUGGEST WE FINISH THE CONVERSATION ONE TOPIC AT A TIME? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK, DAVID, THAT YOUR SENSITIVITY TO THE WORD "COLLABORATION" IS CORRECT; BUT IF WE EXERCISE THE DISCIPLINE TO NARROWLY DEFINE IT IN TERMS OF OUR ROLE, I THINK IT WOULD BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE THESE SITUATIONS WE'RE DISCUSSING IN TERMS OF CONSORTIUM, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S BEEN WELL DISCUSSED AS A POLICY ISSUE. AND TO GIVE THEM SOME POINTS TO OFFSET THE FACT THAT THEY WON'T GET THE BONUS POINTS FOR GETTING DONE WITHIN TWO YEARS IS A VERY LEGITIMATE POLICY COUNTERBALANCE. | ||||||||
| AND FOR SHARED -- SO UNDER COLLABORATION YOU HAVE VERY SPECIFIC SUBSETS UNDER WHICH POINTS CAN BE GAINED. ONE IS A CONSORTIUM LEVEL OF COLLABORATION. ONE IS SHARED RESOURCES, AVOIDING COST BY UTILIZING FORMAL AGREEMENTS TO UTILIZE FACILITIES AT OTHER LOCATIONS INSTEAD OF INCORPORATING THEM IN YOUR OWN FACILITY, FOR EXAMPLE, IS A VERY SPECIFIC FACILITIES THING THAT WE CAN EVALUATE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I HATE TO WORDSMITH. I JUST THINK, ESPECIALLY FOR THE GRANTEES, IF WE CAN MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN COLLABORATION WHICH IS MOST COMMONLY USED AS A SCIENTIFIC TERM AND CAN BE EVALUATED IN THAT WORKING GROUP AS A MEASURE OF SCIENTIFIC INTERRELATIONSHIPS. AND IF SHARED RESOURCES IS NOT THE RIGHT WORD BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE CONCERNED WITH THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE SCIENTISTS AT THE INSTITUTIONS. WE'RE GOING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ACCESS TO THE RESOURCE, AND THAT GIVES US A MORE MEASURABLE CRITERION AND IS A LOT CLEARER ABOUT WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. MAYBE WE NEED TO USE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE, BUT I GET CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING COLLABORATION HERE AND COLLABORATION IN THE SCIENTIFIC GROUP AND ACTUALLY MEASURING TWO DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT THINGS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO DO WE WANT TO HAVE A MOTION ABOUT USING THE TERM "SHARED RESOURCES" AS ONE OF THE CRITERION? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I'D SUGGEST YOU DO SHARED RESOURCES AND CONSORTIUM BECAUSE CONSORTIUM IS JUST A LARGER EMPHASIS ON SHARED RESOURCES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS AND A QUESTION FOR THE MEMBERS. SO IF WE HAVE A SEPARATE -- IF WE SAY A SEPARATE CONSORTIUM IN THERE, BUT THERE MAY BE COLLABORATION BETWEEN TWO INSTITUTIONS THAT MIGHT BE EQUALLY EFFECTIVE AS HAVING A SEPARATE CONSORTIUM IN THEORY -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS AND A QUESTION FOR THE MEMBERS. SO IF WE HAVE A SEPARATE -- IF WE SAY A SEPARATE CONSORTIUM IN THERE, BUT THERE MAY BE COLLABORATION BETWEEN TWO INSTITUTIONS THAT MIGHT BE EQUALLY EFFECTIVE AS HAVING A SEPARATE CONSORTIUM IN THEORY -- | ||||||||
| I DON'T WANT JUST ONE APPLICANT TO DRIVE HOW WE DESIGN THIS RFA. I'M CONCERNED THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE DOING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENTS, MR. VICE CHAIR. BUT IF WE USED THE TERM "SHARED RESOURCES" AND "CONSORTIUM," IF WE ELIMINATE CONSORTIUM, WOULD THAT BE MORE AMENABLE, BOB? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, YOU KNOW HOW I HATE COMPLEXITY. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: ARE WE SUPPOSED TO CRY OR LAUGH OR WHAT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IT'S AN EXISTENTIAL CHOICE. I UNDERSTAND LINGUISTICS ARE IMPORTANT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FOCUS EVERYONE ON THE FACILITIES SIDE OF THIS. AND IF YOU WANT TO WORK INTO SHARED RESOURCES THIS CONCEPT, ON THE ONE HAND, BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS SHARED RESOURCES AND WE HAVE CERTAIN COST AVOIDANCE, WHILE I WANT TO GIVE THEM POINTS FOR THAT BECAUSE THEY COULD SAVE US A LOT OF MONEY, I DON'T WANT TO, BECAUSE THEIR SHARED RESOURCES GIVE THEM AN OFFSETTING POINTS THAT WOULD COUNTERBALANCE THE TWO YEARS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT PEOPLE JUST TO FORM COLLABORATIONS BECAUSE WE WANT THESE FACILITIES DELIVERED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, SO IT TAKES A VERY HIGH LEVEL OF SHARED RESOURCES TO GET THE POINTS THAT WOULD OFFSET THE PRIORITY OF URGENCY OF DELIVERING WITHIN TWO YEARS. | ||||||||
| AND I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT REGARDLESS OF THE SHARED RESOURCES, EVEN IF YOU'RE AT THE CONSORTIUM LEVEL, YOU STILL DON'T GET MORE THAN ANOTHER YEAR. DOES IT TAKE MORE TIME? IT DOES, BUT WE WANT TO PUT REAL TIME PRESSURE BEHIND THIS, AND THAT SHOULD BE ADEQUATE TO ADJUST FOR THAT DIFFERENT LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE OTHER MEMBERS. SO SHOULD WE TRY TO COME UP WITH THE CRITERIA FIRST AND THEN THE DEFINITIONS AFTERWARDS BECAUSE I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET STUCK IN THE DEFINITION PHASE, AND MAYBE WE SHOULD COME UP WITH THE CRITERIA FIRST. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED. WE WERE LOOKING AT THE FOUR CRITERIA PROPOSED THAT WAS ON THE SLIDE 36 OR SOMETHING: URGENCY, VALUE, AND THEN WE WERE HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT VALUE, LEVERAGE, AND FUNCTIONALITY. THEN BOB INTRODUCED THE CONCEPT OF COLLABORATION. AND SO WHAT I UNDERSTOOD THIS CONVERSATION TO BE IS WHETHER WE SHOULD INCLUDE IT AS AN ADDITIONAL CRITERION OR NOT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IT'S SORT OF A YES-OR-NO THING. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO I'M SUGGESTING WE NOW USE SHARED RESOURCES AS ADDITIONAL CRITERIA. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE INCLUDE SHARED RESOURCES AND USE THAT TERM ONLY AS ONE OF OUR CRITERIA. DO I HAVE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'LL HAVE A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I THINK WE NEED TO BE SURE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GO AHEAD, JOAN. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT ON EACH OF THESE TO UNDERSTAND AS CLOSE AS WE CAN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. I SEE THAT AS WHAT THE FACILITY IS BRINGING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF STEM CELL SCIENCE AND THE APPLICATION OF IT FOR CURES. AND THAT WE, IN EXCHANGE FOR HIGHLY RATING THAT RESOURCE, REQUIRE THAT IT BE SHARED. THAT ON SOME LEVEL EVERY ONE OF THESE FACILITIES IS AVAILABLE ON A STATEWIDE OR REGIONAL BASIS TO THE OTHER SCIENTIFIC TEAMS WHO ARE IN THE AREA OR WHO MAY ARRIVE IN FIVE YEARS BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE -- THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IS GOING TO DEVELOP, AND I THINK -- BUT THESE ARE THE ONLY FACILITIES WE'RE GOING TO FUND ESSENTIALLY, RIGHT? THIS IS OUR ONE-SHOT DEAL. | ||||||||
| SO I WOULD HOPE THERE'S A LEGAL WAY THAT WE CAN, THROUGH SOME GRANTS MANAGEMENT PROCESS, REQUIRE THAT THESE ARE OPEN TO SCIENTISTS EMERGING PRESENT NOW, WHATEVER, WHO WANT TO GET INTO THE FIELD, BUT AREN'T GOING TO HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE HAVE AS TERRIFIC A FACILITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IT'S DIFFICULT, JOAN, FOR SOMEONE TO MAKE AN OPEN-ENDED COMMITMENT. BUT CONTRACTUALLY THEY COULD WITHIN IDENTIFY COLLABORATORS TODAY, CREATE AN IDENTIFIED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR COMMON USE OF A VIVARIUM, FOR EXAMPLE, OR A GMP FACILITY. SO THEY COULD CONTRACTUALLY LAY THAT OUT TODAY. SO I VERY MUCH WANT THEM, IF WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM ANY POINTS, TO LAY OUT AND INCENTIVIZE THEM LAYING OUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THESE SHARED FACILITIES AND AVOID SOME MAJOR COST. | ||||||||
| BUT SECONDLY, WHILE I WOULD LOVE TO GO TO THE POINT THAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S A BURDEN WE CAN PUT ON THEM BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SAY THIS LAB WILL ONLY SERVICE SO MANY PEOPLE. AND IF THERE'S FIVE NEW SCIENTISTS THAT SHOW UP AT ANOTHER INSTITUTION, YOU CAN'T SAY THAT YOU ARE GOING TO SERVICE THOSE BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY COMMITTED ITS CAPACITY TO THE PEOPLE IN THE COLLABORATIVE AGREEMENT. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: BUT ASIDE FROM ACTUALLY HAVING A FULL-TIME LAB THERE, COULDN'T WE REQUIRE WITH THE CIRM, SAY, AS A PARTY TO THAT AGREEMENT, THAT OTHER SCIENTISTS WHO WANT GET INTO THE FIELD, BECOME EDUCATED IN IT OR ACTUALLY BE ON-SITE TO SEE WHAT THE CURRENT STATE OF THE SCIENCE IS TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON, WOULD BE ABLE TO USE THE FACILITIES TO -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK WE'VE DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OF THAT IN THESE COLLABORATIVE COURSES AND THE SHARING BETWEEN THESE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COURSE MATERIALS AND THEIR LECTURES AND TECHNIQUES. SO IN OUR SHARED LAB PROGRAM, WE BUILT A LOT OF THAT IN, BUT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE, AND WE FUND A SECOND ROUND IN COURSES AS WE GO AS MORE ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE COMES ALONG, FOR EXAMPLE, IN SCNT, THERE MIGHT BE A VERY SPECIFIC SHARED COURSE IN SCNT TO GET TO YOUR OBJECTIVE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE MIGHT NOT REQUIRE THAT. IF THEY'RE GOING TO GET SOME HUGE CHUNK OF MONEY TO BUILD THE BUILDING, THEN OVER SOME EIGHT, TEN-YEAR PERIOD, THEY WILL BE AVAILABLE TO SCIENTISTS, POST DOCS, FOLKS COMING INTO THE FIELD THAT THE CIRM IDENTIFIES, THAT THEY WILL MAKE AVAILABLE TRAINING OR ACCESS TO CONSORTIA PERIODICALLY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT SOME PERCENTAGE OF THE TIME BE MADE AVAILABLE TO, AS DAVID'S POINTING OUT, OUTSIDE INSTITUTIONS? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YEAH. THAT THESE ARE REALLY REGIONAL OR STATEWIDE RESOURCES FOR THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THAT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPING STEM CELL CURES. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I HAVE A QUESTION. DOES ANYBODY ELSE SEE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHARED RESOURCES AND RESOURCE SHARING? I KEEP THINKING WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO ENCOURAGE IS THAT WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE ALL THE PROGRAMS IN THE STATE TO SHARE THE RESOURCES. IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE BUILDING -- I'M THINKING IN TERMS LESS OF A PHYSICAL PLANT AND MORE TRYING TO INCENT THEM TO ALWAYS BUILD IN SOME WAY TO -- TRYING TO GET TO YOUR POINT, JOAN. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT THING ACTUALLY. WHAT COULD BE, THERE'S SOME OF THESE PLACES THAT REALLY ARE GOING TO BE BASIC SCIENCE SORT OF HOTHOUSES WHERE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO MUCH APPLICATION TO A SPECIFIC DISEASE. AND ALTHOUGH I THINK WE WANT TO KEEP THE FOCUS ON WHO THE DISEASE POPULATION AND WHAT THE URGENT NEEDS ARE AT ALL TIMES EVERY DAY, THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE THEIR FUNCTION. BUT WHAT WE ARE GOING TO WANT THEM TO DO IS, LET'S SAY, MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING THEY PUBLISH OR THEY'RE WORKING ON, I MEAN THERE'S SOME INCREDIBLY HIGH LEVEL OF INFORMATION SHARING, AS FAR AS THAT POSSIBLY CAN BE PUSHED SO THAT THINGS DON'T HAPPEN LIKE HAPPENED IN THE PARKINSON'S COMMUNITY WHERE THERE WAS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT IN THE BASIC SCIENCE THAT HAS HAD HUGE IMPLICATIONS, AND THAT THING SAT IN A VERY OBSCURE JOURNAL FOR 20 YEARS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JOAN, WE CAN ONLY -- | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I THINK THAT'S A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF COLLABORATION WHICH IS IN THE MIX. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SO THE QUESTION I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS HOW DOES A FACILITY FACILITATE THE CROSS-POLLINATION? HOW DO WE AS A FACILITIES GROUP ENCOURAGE THAT CROSSTALK THAT HAS TO HAPPEN? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I HAVE A -- I GUESS I HAVE SEVERAL PROCESS ISSUES IF I COULD RUN THROUGH THEM. I THINK THE EXISTENTIAL QUESTION THAT JOAN IS ASKING SHOULD BE MAYBE WE SHOULD TAKE A MOMENT AFTER WE GET THROUGH THE MOTION THAT WE HAVE ON THE FLOOR AND BRING THAT TO CONCLUSION. WE CAN ADDRESS THE EXISTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATION THAT SHOULD GO UP TO THE ICOC BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THEY WILL DECIDE WHETHER WE CAN FORCE -- WHETHER THEY WANT TO FORCE INSTITUTIONS TO DO SOMETHING OR NOT, AND THEN COME BACK TO WHAT I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO DO RIGHT NOW IS IDENTIFY THE CRITERIA THAT WE WANT TO WORK WITH. | ||||||||
| AND THEN TO GO BACK TO THAT, I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO SPEAK TO CHAIRMAN KLEIN'S ISSUE AND TRY TO REALLY DRILL DOWN AND GET SOME SCOPE ON THE SHARED FACILITY BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT WE CAN -- YOU KNOW, ARE WE SAYING SHARED FACILITY WITH OUR RANGE BEING CONSORTIUM BEING TEN AND NO SHARING BEING ZERO? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THEN ALSO THE MITIGATING BECAUSE ORIGINALLY I WAS APPROACHING IT, AND I COULD BE SWAYED EITHER WAY. I'LL TAKE THE CONSENSUS OF THE GROUP. I CAN EITHER SEE THIS AS A MITIGATING FACTOR THROUGH SOME OF THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE UP HERE, OR I CAN SEE IT AS A SEPARATE FACTOR. | ||||||||
| BUT THEN I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IT AS A SEPARATE FACTOR, WE NEED TO GET THE RANGE, THE SCOPE. WE MAY COME BACK AND DEFINE THAT IN THE SECOND ROUND, BUT I'M TRYING TO GET A SENSE ABOUT THAT BEFORE I VOTE ON THIS MOTION, WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GO WITH THAT, IF THAT SEEMS OKAY TO PROCEED. | ||||||||
| THIS MOTION, WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GO WITH THAT, IF THAT SEEMS OKAY TO PROCEED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU HAVE TO KEEP AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT WE'RE DOING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IF IT'S OKAY WITH EVERYONE, I'D LIKE TO KIND OF PROCEED WITH THIS PARTICULAR MOTION AND LEAVE DEFINITIONS. TAMAR, DID YOU WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT? | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: I JUST WANTED TO KNOW. I DIDN'T HEAR A SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BEFORE WE MOVE ON WITH THIS MOTION, IF EVERYONE IS COMFORTABLE WITH THIS PROCESS, WE COME UP WITH THE CRITERIA FIRST THAT WE AGREE ARE IMPORTANT, AND THEN WE LEAVE THE MORE DIFFICULT PROCESS OF DEFINING THOSE CRITERIA TILL AFTER WE COME UP THEM. IS EVERYONE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: AS LONG AS WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WELL, WE CAN ALSO -- I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR POINT IS, OR ELSE I THINK WE'RE JUST GOING TO BE CAUGHT IN DEFINITION HELL. SO ANYWAY, SO NOW I GUESS WE HAVE A MOTION. WE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: MR. CHAIRMAN, AM I ALLOWED TO MAKE A COMMENT OCCASIONALLY? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ABSOLUTELY. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION, NOT BECAUSE I DON'T AGREE THAT COLLABORATION AND SHARED RESOURCES ARE NOT AN IMPORTANT CRITERIA. I FEEL IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA TO PUT THE APPLICANTS AND US AND THE STAFF IN A STRAIGHTJACKET PRIOR TO THIS TIME. ARE THOSE TWO ISSUES BEST FIT IN THE INNOVATION CATEGORY? AND WHY IS IT THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO COLLABORATE OR NOT HAVE TO COLLABORATE OR SHARE OR NOT SHARE? WHY ISN'T THAT AN INDIVIDUAL DECISION? | ||||||||
| SO I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS MOTION, NOT BECAUSE I'M OPPOSING THE INDIVIDUAL IDEAS, BUT THE WAY THAT WE'RE PUT ON A STRAIGHTJACKET. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THIS IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. THESE ARE BONUS POINTS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF BONUS POINTS, SO EXPLAIN IT TO ME. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IN THE TOTAL POINTS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET POINTS IN THIS CATEGORY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET POINTS IN LEVERAGE OR FUNCTIONALITY, VALUE, OR URGENCY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: FOR EXAMPLE, THERE ARE -- YOU HAVE TO HAVE A 20-PERCENT CASH MATCH. THAT'S A THRESHOLD ISSUE, SO THAT'S MANDATORY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IT'S PART OF THE QUALIFICATIONS. YOU DON'T GET ANY POINTS FOR THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RIGHT. THE POINT IS IN THESE CATEGORIES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUILD WITHIN TWO YEARS, BUT YOU WILL GET POINTS FOR -- THE ISSUE IS THAT YOU GET POINTS AS A PRIORITY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I WOULDN'T CHARACTERIZE THAT AS BONUS POINTS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: POINTS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BONUS POINTS IMPLIES SOMETHING ELSE, THIS OTHER POT OF POINTS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WHAT I THINK BOB IS SAYING IS THAT AN APPLICATION MAY PASS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND CONCEIVABLY COULD GET ZERO POINTS IN SEVERAL CATEGORIES. I AGREE WITH DAVID'S POINT THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE BONUS CONCEPT. | ||||||||
| ANYWAY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED MOTION? I'D LIKE -- IF THAT'S OKAY WITH THE MEMBERS, I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR A PUBLIC COMMENTS NOW. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION. WHOEVER WANTS TO STEP UP FIRST. | ||||||||
| MR. REED: DON REED, PUBLIC. I KNOW WE USED THE POINT SYSTEM VERY EFFECTIVELY FOR THE SITE SELECTION, BUT THAT WAS ON SOMETHING THAT WAS SEEABLE, CONCRETE, ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. NOW WE'RE TRYING TO SAY WHICH IS GOING TO BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO BUILD A NEW SCIENCE. I'M NOT SURE THAT WE CAN QUANTIFY A SCIENCE WHICH IS SO NEW. WE CAN'T SAY IS IT GOING TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL EFFORT ON THE SCIENTIST OR A CONSORTIUM. | ||||||||
| I THINK THAT WE NEED TO LEAVE IT BE A FIGHTING SITUATION. LET THE VARIOUS PROPOSALS FIGHT AND BE AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITIES. I'M NOT SURE WE CAN QUANTIFY IT TO A SERIES OF THIS MANY POINTS FOR THIS. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO PUT FORM ON SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT YET FORMABLE. THE STEM CELL RESEARCH IS SO NEW. I'M NOT SURE WE CAN QUANTIFY THE PROCEDURES AND THE FUNCTIONS TO A POINT SYSTEM. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, DON. JOHN. | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: JOHN SIMPSON FROM THE FOUNDATION FOR TAXPAYER AND CONSUMER RIGHTS. DO YOU WANT IT JUST ON THIS SPECIFIC MOTION OR TO THE BROAD CRITERIA? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THE SPECIFIC MOTION. | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: THE SPECIFIC MOTION, YOU DEFINITELY, I WOULD SUBMIT, SHOULD, SINCE YOU VALUE SHARED RESOURCES, PUT THAT IN THE MIX SOMEHOW. IT ADMITTEDLY IS DIFFICULT, AS DON WAS JUST SUGGESTING, TO FIGURE OUT HOW YOU'RE GOING TO DO ALL THE POINTS AND ALL THAT STRUCTURE. BUT AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME, IT SEEMS CLEAR TO ME THAT THAT'S A VALUE THAT YOU THINK IS IMPORTANT, SO YOU SHOULD PUT IT IN. I MEAN YOU MIGHT ULTIMATELY END UP GIVING SOMEONE ZERO FOR IT OR NOT, BUT IT DOES SEEM TO MATTER TO THE BOARD. IT DOES MATTER TO ME, AND I WOULD URGE YOU TO PUT IT IN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, JOHN. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC? | ||||||||
| SO I GUESS NOW WE CAN GO TO A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. DO A ROLL CALL. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: COULD YOU RESTATE THE MOTION? CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THE MOTION IS TO HAVE SHARED RESOURCES AS ONE OF THE CRITERIA FOR THE LARGE GRANT RFA. AND WE HAVE A SECOND. RICK, YOU CAN CALL THE ROLL. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ED KASHIAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: NO. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JANET WRIGHT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JEFF SHEEHY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JOAN SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ROBERT KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: STUART LAFF. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. THE MOTION CARRIES. SO IF WE WANT TO KEEP WITH THIS PARTICULAR FORMAT, WHICH SEEMS TO BE AN EXPEDITIOUS WAY OF DOING THIS, MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE A CONTINUANCE ABOUT URGENCY. WE CAN TAKE EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY AND TRY AND GET THINGS APPROVED. SO I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP THE FLOOR TO DISCUSSION. DOES EVERYONE FEEL THAT URGENCY SHOULD BE A CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING THE LARGE FACILITIES GRANTS? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE TERM AS IT'S APPLIED HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I WAS GOING TO TRY TO PUT OUR -- REVEAL OUR NEXT ELEMENT HERE OF HELPING YOU, TRYING TO GIVE YOU A TOOL TO GET THROUGH THIS. SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS FOR THOSE CRITERIA THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING TODAY, THOSE FOUR, AND WE'LL ADD ONE MORE, AS YOU JUST PASSED IN YOUR MOTION. WE'VE PUT IN A DEFINITION THAT BEGINS TO BASICALLY GET TO THE QUESTION YOU JUST POSED, WHICH IS WHAT DO YOU REALLY MEAN BY URGENCY? AND THEN WE PUT KIND OF A FIRST PASS AT WHAT THE EVALUATION STANDARD MIGHT BE. | ||||||||
| SO IN THE CASE OF URGENCY, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THE DEFINITION IS THE APPLICANT PLACES A HIGH VAGUE ON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT ON A TIMELY BASIS, THAT THE INSTITUTION HAS A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF DELIVERING CAPITAL PROJECTS ON AN EXPEDITED SCHEDULE. | ||||||||
| NOW, BASED ON THE DISCUSSION TODAY, I THINK YOU WANT TO ESTABLISH IN THE DEFINITION THAT THE START DATE IS THE NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD, AND THE END DATE COULD EITHER BE THE TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY IF THAT'S YOU WANT TO ESTABLISH. THAT WOULD DEFINE URGENCY. AND THEN THE EVALUATION CRITERIA IS WHETHER THE PROJECT COMPLETES WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR TIMEFRAME. AND JUST FOR EASE OF BREVITY, NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD PERIOD, MEANING THAT SPAN OF TIME. OR IS THE PROJECT LONGER THAN TWO YEARS? YOU COULD ALSO ESTABLISH LEVELS HERE. IF YOU WANTED TO SAY LONGER THAN TWO, BUT LESS THAN TWO AND A HALF OR LONGER THAN TWO AND A HALF, SO YOU COULD THEN DECIDE WHAT THE EVALUATION STANDARD IS IN TERMS OF THE GRADATIONS. | ||||||||
| THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO SET UP AS A STARTING POINT FOR YOU. THESE ARE CERTAINLY MALLEABLE ENOUGH FOR YOU TO DECIDE HOW YOU WANT THEM TO BE. SO THE POINT YOU HAVE TO BE THINKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW IS WHEN WE COME INTO A ROOM JUST LIKE THIS IN A FEW MONTHS, AND WE'VE GOT 12 OR 15 APPLICATIONS AND WE'RE EVALUATING THOSE APPLICATIONS ON BEHALF OF CIRM, DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT THINGS ON THE PAGE? HAVE WE THOUGHT THROUGH THE RIGHT EVALUATION OF THOSE CRITERIA? AND HAVE WE DONE THE RIGHT WEIGHTING? IT'S A BIT OF STARTING WITH THE END IN MIND HERE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT ONE THOUGHT I HAD ABOUT THE DEFINITION ON THIS TWO-YEAR. YOU KNOW, IN A CERTAIN WAY A PARTICULAR GRANT APPLICATION THAT MIGHT BE FOR A SMALLER AMOUNT IS GOING TO HAVE A REAL ADVANTAGE IF THEY'RE BUILDING A SMALLER FACILITY. SO THEY MIGHT GET A PRIORITY, BUT THEY MAY BE TAKING A -- BE DOING A SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER PROJECT. SO IT'S JUST INTERESTING HOW EXACTLY WE DEFINE THE IDEA OF URGENCY. WHILE YOU MIGHT HAVE A PARTICULAR FACILITY THAT MIGHT BE A 100,000 SQUARE FEET AND THEY MIGHT NOT MEET THE TWO YEARS, BUT YOU COULD HAVE A 50,000 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY THAT WOULD EASILY MEET IT. SO I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A SLIPPERY SLOPE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WHEN WE GET TO THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW IN A MINUTE, I THINK IT WILL BECOME APPARENT THAT THAT'S A GOOD REASON WHY WE WANT TO HAVE STRATIFICATIONS TO THESE APPLICATIONS UNDER A SINGLE RFA. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK WHAT RICK IS SAYING IS THEY'RE GOING TO BE COMPETING IN A SMALL CATEGORY OR A MEDIUM SIZE CATEGORY OR A LARGE CATEGORY, SO WITHIN THEIR CATEGORY, THEY'LL BE JUDGED AGAINST -- AWARDED POINTS AGAINST OTHERS. | ||||||||
| BUT JUST TO ADVANCE THIS, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CAN THEN HAVE DISCUSSION ON THAT THERE BE SPECIFIC POINTS AWARDED FOR PROJECTS COMPLETED WITHIN TWO YEARS OF GRANT AWARD THAT ARE JUDGED WITH AN ENDING DATE THAT IS SHELL SPACE AND BUILDING SYSTEMS COMPLETED, | ||||||||
| WHETHER THAT IS TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY OR SOME OTHER EQUIVALENT STANDARD, BECAUSE THE INITIATIVE REQUIRES IT AS A PRIORITY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: SECOND. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, IS IT POSSIBLE TO ANTICIPATE WHETHER THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN OR NOT? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: EXCUSE ME, JOAN. TAMAR WANTS TO MAKE A COMMENT. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: I JUST THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO READ TO YOU THE PROVISION OF THE ACT THAT GOVERNS IN THIS SITUATION. IT SAYS, "PRIORITY FOR APPLICATIONS THAT PROVIDE FOR FACILITIES THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH NO MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE GRANT AWARD." SO THAT GIVES YOU SOME BOUNDARIES IN WHICH YOU HAVE TO OPERATE WITH RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, JOAN, BEFORE I LET YOU COMMENT, AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH, TO ME, BOB, WOULD NOT BE TCO. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SURE. IT COULD BE. WE HAVE THE OPTION. TWO YEARS IS A TOUGH STANDARD. SO IF YOU'VE GOT A TWO-YEAR STANDARD, I WANT TO GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF ASSUMING THAT THEY'VE GOT THE SYSTEMS IN PLACE AND THE SHELL SPACE IN IS PLACE, THAT THEY CAN DO MOVABLE EQUIPMENT AND MOVE IT IN AND HAVE IT, IN QUOTES, AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. I'M TRYING TO REALIZE THAT I'M STARTING WITH A TOUGH STANDARD. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DO YOU MEAN SHELL, OR DO YOU MEAN THE TENANT IMPROVEMENTS AS WELL? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, WHAT'S IMPORTANT HERE IS FINISHED SHELL WITH SYSTEMS BECAUSE, AS YOU KNOW, YOU CAN HAVE A FREEZER THAT YOU DO AS A BUILD-IN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT'S A TENANT IMPROVEMENT THAT'S NOT A -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: POINT HERE. LET'S NOT GET HUNG UP BECAUSE EACH JURISDICTION HAS THEIR OWN WAY OF ISSUING PERMITS. WHAT THEY DO IN SAN FRANCISCO IS NOT THE SAME THING THAT THEY DO IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY. EACH BUILDING DIRECTOR HAS THEIR OWN DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO SORT OF WIGGLE THINGS AND MAKE IT HAPPEN. | ||||||||
| THANK YOU, TAMAR, FOR READING IT BECAUSE I THINK THE END DATE IS WHEN IT'S OPEN AND AVAILABLE. WHETHER IT'S TCO, WHETHER IT'S AN EQUIVALENT, I DON'T CARE. THE STATUTE LAYS IT OUT VERY CLEARLY THAT IT HAS TO BE AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH WITHIN TWO YEARS. TO ME THAT MEANS THE DOORS ARE OPEN. WHETHER THEY'RE OPERATING UNDER WHAT KIND OF PERMIT IS -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB IS NOT SAYING THAT. BOB IS SAYING THE SHELL SPACE IS COMPLETE. THERE'S THE TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH ARE THE NONMOVABLE ITEMS WOULD HAVE TO BE COMPLETE FOR IT TO BE AVAILABLE TO DO RESEARCH. THAT WAS THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I APOLOGIZE, BUT I CANNOT FOLLOW THIS DISCUSSION. WE STARTED OFF TRYING TO IDENTIFY THE CRITERIA. NOW WE'RE IN DEFINITIONS, AND I THINK WE'RE PERILOUSLY CLOSE TO POINTS. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANYTHING DONE TODAY IF WE DON'T PROCEED WITH SOME SORT OF ORDER. I THINK WE WERE GOING ONE BY ONE THROUGH THE CRITERIA TO SEE IF WE ACCEPTED THEM, AND THEN PERHAPS THE NEXT -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YOU'RE RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR REELING US BACK. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: CAN I JUST KIND OF GET SOME CLARITY ON WHAT OUR PROCESS IS GOING TO BE? THEN I THINK THE NEXT STAGE IS TO SEE IF WE NEED TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL CRITERIA. AM I RIGHT? AND THEN COME BACK AND DEFINE THEM, AND THEN COME BACK AND ASSIGN POINTS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AND ELIMINATE POTENTIALLY AS WELL. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YEAH, AND ELIMINATE. SO WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN THIS LIST. WE'VE ADDED ONE. WHEN WE GET THROUGH GOING DOWN THIS LIST, WE MAY ADD ANOTHER OR NOT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT POINT. AND LET'S STAY ON TARGET. THANK YOU FOR HELPING ME ON THIS ONE. | ||||||||
| SO ARE THERE ANY -- GOING BACK, BOB, WHAT WAS YOUR MOTION AGAIN? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB, FOR NOW I THINK YOU NEED TO WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION. YOUR MOTION WAS TO INCLUDE URGENCY, BUT I THINK PART OF YOUR MOTION WAS PART OF THE DEFINITION. THAT'S WHY IT GOT US INTO DEFINITION CONVERSATION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I WAS RESPONDING TO JOAN'S WHAT DOES URGENCY MEAN. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YOUR MOTION INCLUDED A DEFINITION. SO I THINK THE MORE APPROPRIATE MOTION RIGHT NOW IS SHOULD WE INCLUDE URGENCY? YES OR NO? MOVING ON TO VALUE, AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK AND DO THE DEFINITIONS, RIGHT? THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S FINE. THE COMMUNICATION IS IT'S FROM THE INITIATIVE, COMPLETED WITHIN TWO YEARS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S STATUTORY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S THE ANSWER, AND WE'LL COME BACK AND ADD THAT DEFINITION LATER. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I HAVE A QUESTION, AND IT'S RELEVANT TO URGENCY. IS URGENCY THE CRITERION THAT WE WANT? IS IT TIMELINESS? I UNDERSTAND WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE THIS FORWARD, BUT I'M TRYING TO PUT MYSELF AHEAD TO THE REVIEW SESSION THAT RICK REFERS TO. AND IF I HAVE TWO GRANTS AND ONE'S GOING TO BE COMPLETED, I WANT THEM TO COMPLETE IT IN A TIMELY FASHION FOR THEIR PROJECT, EACH INDIVIDUAL PROJECT. AND SO -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO WE COULD JUST HAVE MILESTONES AND SCHEDULE AND USE THOSE TERMS INSTEAD. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: OR MAYBE THE CRITERION IS TIMELINESS, NOT URGENCY. I DON'T WANT TO REMOVE THE ACCELERATOR FROM THE MESSAGE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: MAYBE TIMELINESS COULD HAVE SOME OF THE SAME ISSUES AS URGENCY. SO IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MILESTONES AND SCHEDULE, THAT'S MORE OBJECTIVE. STUART, YOU HAVE ANY POINTS, MILESTONES AND SCHEDULE? | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: ONE OF THE ISSUES I WAS SITTING HERE THINKING ABOUT IS WE HAVE ALL SEEN SCHEDULES AND MILESTONES. AND THE REALITY IS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EVALUATE HOW REAL WE THINK THOSE SCHEDULES REALLY ARE AND HOW WELL EACH OF THESE EITHER INSTITUTIONS OR COLLABORATIONS HAVE REALLY DONE IN MEETING THEIR ORIGINAL SCHEDULES AND BUDGETS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT COULD BE PART OF THE DEFINITION PROCESS. BOB, WILL YOU WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION, PLEASE? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I DON'T KNOW. I WITHDRAW THE MOTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO HAVE SCHEDULE AND MILESTONES AS ONE OF THE CRITERIA FOR THE RFA. LORI, YOU WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT MILESTONES AND TIMELINES ARE ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS, THE THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS, SO IT MIGHT BE MORE PRUDENT TO CHOOSE A DIFFERENT TITLE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: URGENCY. TIMELINESS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'D ACTUALLY SAY THE REAL GOAL FOR THE VOTERS IS URGENCY. WE HAVE TO GET THESE DONE QUICKLY. WE ALREADY HAVE, AS LORI HAS HELPFULLY POINTED OUT, THE MILESTONES AND TO JUDGE TIMELINESS. SO I WOULD LIKE TO JUST STICK WITH ADOPTING URGENCY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WHAT ABOUT EXPEDITED SCHEDULE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO GET A SECOND, STUART. IF YOUR MOTION IS ON THE TABLE, YOU WANT TO INCLUDE SOMETHING ELSE, I THINK THE RIGHT MOTION, URGENCY ENCAPSULATES ALL OF THOSE CONCEPTS. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I CAN LIVE WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YOU ARE SO GRACIOUS. I WILL PROPOSE THAT WE ADOPT URGENCY AS PROPOSED. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO DO WE HAVE ANY MORE MEMBER COMMENTS JUST ON MAKING URGENCY A CRITERIA, NOT ON THE DEFINITION OR ITS WEIGHTING? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: BASED ON WHAT STUART SAID, IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT THIS JUST BEING A SILLY SHELL GAME? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES, IT IS. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: YES, IT IS, BUT YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON ADOPTING URGENCY AS ONE OF THE CRITERIA. ANY PUBLIC? | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: JOHN SIMPSON, FOUNDATION FOR TAXPAYER AND CONSUMER RIGHTS. I'LL BE QUICK AND TO THE POINT. IT'S IN THE PROPOSITION. YOU NEED TO REAFFIRM THAT. IT SEEMS TO ME CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THIS IS THE WAY TO GO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, JOHN. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? SO I'D LIKE TO CALL A VOTE NOW. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF PUTTING URGENCY AS ONE OF THE CRITERIA FOR THE RFA SAY AYE. ANY OBJECTIONS? OKAY. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. | ||||||||
| OKAY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, AND I'M SORRY FOR SKIPPING DOWN, BUT I WANT TO GO TO ONES I THINK THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY CONTROVERSY ON. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH YOU. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: MY MOTION WOULD BE TO INCLUDE LEVERAGE AS ONE OF THE CRITERIA FOR THIS LARGE -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I SECOND THAT MOTION. SO I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: CAN YOU DEFINE THAT AS YOU MEAN IT? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: NO. WE AGREED COLLECTIVELY THAT WE WOULD FIRST IDENTIFY THE CRITERIA AND THEN GO TO DEFINITIONS. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF IT IF IT'S ABOUT MONEY, AND I WON'T IF IT'S ABOUT THE WIDER PROGRAMMATIC VALUE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I SEE YOUR POINT. THAT'S THE PROCESS WE LAID OUT, JOAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IN COMMENTS ON THE MOTION, I THINK THAT THE GENERAL CONSENSUS, JOAN, AS I HEARD THE OTHER MEMBERS, THAT WE'RE GOING TO FOCUS LEVERAGE ON FINANCIAL. | ||||||||
| AND THE DISCUSSION WAS PROVIDING LEVERAGE POINTS FOR ACTUAL MONEY ABOVE THE 20-PERCENT MINIMUM CASH MATCH, BUT WE NEED TO GO BACK FOR DEFINITIONS TO REFINE THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS. THIS IS JUST TO ESTABLISH THE CONCEPT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH THAT. AND, JOAN, I THINK IT REALLY SHOULD BE IN THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP ANY OTHER TYPE OF LEVERAGE. I DON'T THINK THIS PARTICULAR GROUP CAN LOOK AT IT ANY OTHER WAY. | ||||||||
| SO ANY OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT ADDING LEVERAGE TO ONE -- AS ONE OF THE CRITERIA FOR THE LARGE GRANTS RFA? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: WHICH IS BASICALLY WHAT THE PROJECT IS AS OPPOSED TO PROGRAM? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S RIGHT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. SO NO OTHER COMMENTS BY MEMBERS. I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC NOW FOR COMMENTS ABOUT INCLUDING LEVERAGE AS ONE OF THE CRITERIA FOR THE LARGE GRANT RFA. | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: I SINCERELY WISH SOMEONE ELSE WOULD OCCASIONALLY SPEAK. ANYTHING YOU CAN DO TO GET MORE PEOPLE TO PUT MORE MONEY IN AND BRING IT TO THE TABLE IS GOOD FOR THE PROGRAM, GOOD FOR THE TAXPAYERS, GOOD FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. YOU SHOULD GIVE DOUBLE BONUS POINTS FOR INCREASED CASH LEVERAGE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, JOHN. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? OKAY. WE WILL NOW TAKE A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF PASSING LEVERAGE AS A CRITERIA FOR THE LARGE GRANT RFA SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. | ||||||||
| SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO HAVE COSTS BE A SEPARATE CRITERIA FOR THE LARGE GRANT RFA. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IT WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR ME TO VOTE ON IT UNTIL I HAVE SOME SENSE OF HOW THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM LEVERAGE, HOW IT'S NOT SUBSUMED WITHIN LEVERAGE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DAVID, JOAN MAKES A GOOD POINT. HERE'S WHAT'S HELPFUL. WE JUST HAD A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF WHERE THEY GAVE US A SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD AT THE HEARINGS, AND THEY IDENTIFIED FROM THOSE HEARINGS FOUR CONCEPTS THAT WOULD BE OF BENEFIT TO INCLUDE IN THIS RFA: URGENCY, VALUE, LEVERAGE, FUNCTIONALITY. WE DECIDED EARLY ON THAT SHARED RESOURCES IS SOMETHING THAT HAD TO BE INCLUDED, SO WE DID THAT. | ||||||||
| I THINK A MORE PRUDENT COURSE WOULD BE LET'S JUST FOCUS ON WHAT WE HAD A PRESENTATION ON. SO THAT WOULD LEAVE VALUE AND FUNCTIONALITY. WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON THAT YET. I'D LIKE TO DO THAT BEFORE WE INTRODUCE NEW CONCEPTS. THAT'S JUST HOW MY BRAIN WORKS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO THEN LET'S GO TO FUNCTIONALITY BECAUSE THAT WILL PROBABLY BE A LESS -- AN EASIER ONE. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I MOVE WE ADOPT FUNCTIONALITY. CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I SECOND THAT. SO FUNCTIONALITY AS A CRITERIA FOR THE LARGE GRANT RFA. I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION AS FAR AS FUNCTIONALITY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WELL, I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE COMMENTS WE HAVE, AND A LOT OF THESE SEEM TO BE SCIENTIFIC ISSUES. AND SO I THINK WE DO HAVE -- CAN WE MAYBE FLIP BACK TO THAT? I THINK IT'S -- THERE'S FOUR PRETTY BIG SLIDES ON FUNCTIONALITY. CAN YOU SPLIT SCREEN, RICK? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YOU'RE CHALLENGING MY TECHNICAL ABILITIES. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: IT'S NOT FAIR. MAYBE WE CAN JUST WALK THROUGH IT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WELL, THERE'S THE PROPOSED DEFINITION TOO. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WE HAVE A PROPOSED DEFINITION? SHALL WE LOOK AT A PROPOSED DEFINITION? I'M JUST -- I DO THINK THAT THERE'S SOME AMBIGUITY THERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IS DISTILL OUT OF ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS THE FUNDAMENTAL NOTION THAT --AND IT GOES BACK TO SOME COMMENTS, JEFF, THAT WERE MADE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE CORE LABS, THERE NEEDS TO BE A COMPLEMENT, THAT FUNCTIONALITY IS REALLY SPEAKING TO KIND OF THE PARTS OF THE PROJECT AND HOW THEY ALL -- HOW MERITORIOUS THEIR PROPOSAL, THAT APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL IS, RELATIVE TO THE BROADEST SET OF REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY THEMSELVES WILL BE EXPRESSING IN THEIR PROGRAM PLANS. | ||||||||
| SO IT DOESN'T -- AGAIN, I AGREE WITH YOU, THAT MOST OF WHAT WE HEARD IN FUNCTIONALITY IS REALLY ABOUT SOME THINGS THAT THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP NEEDS TO DEAL WITH. WE KIND OF JUST PLUCKED FROM THAT THIS VERY SPECIFIC NARROW NOTION OF PROGRAM SPACE NEEDS AND RESPONSIVENESS TO PROGRAM. SO THEY'RE BUILDING THE THINGS THAT WE SEE ARE THE RIGHT THINGS TO SUPPORT PROGRAM OBJECTIVES. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I THINK I GET IT. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I'D BE INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM THE REAL ESTATE MEMBERS IF THAT RESONATES WITH YOU IN YOUR BACKGROUND OF TAKING PROJECTS THROUGH TO COMPLETION, THAT SOME ARE GOING TO GET BETTER, WHAT THE MISSION OF THIS -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, FUNCTIONALITY REALLY MEANS AN EXCELLENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE INTERIOR, THE TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, QUICKLY AND INEXPENSIVELY. IN TODAY'S WORLD, THE TENANT IMPROVEMENTS ARE COSTING MORE THAN THE SHELLS. FUNCTIONALITY TO ME IS VERY IMPORTANT AS DEFINED IN THE ABILITY TO HAVE A FLEXIBLE INTERIOR TO MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE SCIENTISTS AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: OVER TIME? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: IN OTHER WORDS, THE RESEARCH HAS ONE MEANING TODAY. A YEAR OR TWO FROM NOW, THEY MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF LAB OR A DIFFERENT TYPE OF FACILITY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: RICK, IS THIS MAYBE ANOTHER RECAPITULATION OF OUR FEASIBILITY? I'M TRYING TO -- WE HAD FEASIBILITY IN THE SHARED LAB. FUNCTIONALITY, FEASIBILITY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IF IT'S NOT FEASIBLE -- | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WHICH SEEMED TO LOOK AT IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE SPACE THAT YOU ARE BUILDING WILL WORK FOR THE WORK THAT YOU WANT TO DO THERE. I'M TRYING TO GET WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE EVALUATING HERE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK PART OF THE PROBLEM, JEFF, AND I WANT TO LET STUART TALK, IS WHEN I THINK ABOUT FUNCTIONALITY, I THINK ABOUT INNOVATION AND EXCELLENCE TOO WITHIN THE FUNCTIONALITY. ANYWAY, STUART, YOU WERE -- | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: I HAD TWO COMMENTS. GENERALLY FUNCTIONALITY IS MORE EXPENSIVE. SECOND OF ALL, I DON'T LIMIT IT JUST TO TENANT IMPROVEMENTS. IT CAN BE IN THE HVAC SYSTEMS. IT CAN BE IN A LOT OF THE BASIC BUILDING COMPONENTS. AND SO I THINK IT'S A TERRIBLY IMPORTANT AREA THAT WE REALLY SHOULD FOCUS ON. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HOW WE DEFINE IT. I AGREE WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: STUART, WHAT I JUST HEARD FROM STUART AND ED I AGREE WITH. THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. THAT'S NOT THE DEFINITION UP HERE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AGREED. I AGREE WITH THAT. THAT IS NOT THE DEFINITION.VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S OKAY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BY THE WAY, I SEE SOME OF THE ITEMS UNDER VALUE, AS I SAID, SHOULD BE UNDER FUNCTIONALITY. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IF ED COULD RESTATE WHAT HE SAID, YOU HAD A VERY PITHY DESCRIPTION. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: FUNCTIONALITY MEANS TO ME IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD A BUILDING, THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE BE EXCELLENT AND BE ABLE TO BE CHANGED WITHOUT TEARING DOWN THE WHOLE BUILDING. AND THEN INTERIOR'S ABLE TO BE FLEXED. THAT'S FUNCTIONAL TO ME LONG TERM. NOT BUILDING A SINGLE-PURPOSE BUILDING FOR ONE PURPOSE, FOR ONE LAB, FOR THIS SCIENTIST TODAY. SCIENTISTS MAY CHANGE. THE FUNCTION MAY CHANGE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT'S ONE DEFINITION OF FUNCTIONALITY. THERE ARE MANY I THINK WE CAN COME UP WITH. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THIS WAS PROBABLY AN INSTANCE WHERE, BEFORE WE VOTE, WE SHOULD HAVE TALKED ABOUT DEFINITION BECAUSE I WOULD VOTE NO ON FUNCTIONALITY IF IT WAS THE DEFINITION UP HERE. I WOULD VOTE YES ON FUNCTIONALITY IF IT'S SORT OF WHAT STUART AND ED DISCUSSED, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DEFINITION DISCUSSION ASSUMING THE MOTION PASSES. LET'S TAKE A VOTE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: WHAT DEFINITION ARE WE VOTING ON? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE'RE NOT VOTING ON THE DEFINITION. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: THE VALUE THAT ED DESCRIBED SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD THING FOR US TO WANT TO BE INTEGRATED. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CONSENSUS -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CRITERIA AND NOT THE DEFINITION. YOU CAN REACH THAT POINT LATER. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE CONSENSUS OF THE MEMBERS WHO HAVE SPOKEN SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ALL GUIDED TOWARDS WHERE STUART AND ED ARE GOING IN TERMS OF THE DEFINITION. SO THAT'S THE BASIS ON WHICH WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH BOB ON THAT, JOAN, BUT THERE IS A MORE BASIC DEFINITION OF FUNCTIONALITY I JUST WANT TO MENTION IS THAT CONCEIVABLY WE COULD HAVE SOME PLANS OF A BUILDING PRESENTED TO US, AND WE JUST LOOK AT IT AND SAY WHERE ARE THEY GOING WITH THIS? THIS DOESN'T SEEM TO BE FUNCTIONAL FROM A LAYOUT PERSPECTIVE, CORRECT? STUART, THERE COULD BE BUILDINGS THAT -- | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: WE COULD SAY THAT, BUT THEN WE'RE ENTERING INTO THE REALM, I THINK, OF THE MEDICAL SIDE, AND THEY'RE EXPERTS IN PLANNING BUILDINGS. SO I NEED TO THINK ABOUT IT MORE, BUT THAT'S MY INITIAL REACTION TO THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: USING LEVERAGE AND COST AND FUNCTIONALITY TO THE EXTREME AND A TWO-YEAR CRITERIA, THEN THE BEST INVESTMENT WE HAVE IS IN THE TRAILERS. THEY CAN DO IT QUICK AND THEY CAN DO IT CHEAP. WHAT DOES THAT PROVE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I WANT TO VOTE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: COULD I JUST OFFER ONE OBSERVATION THAT MIGHT HELP JUST A BIT IS THAT I DON'T THINK THERE'S AS MUCH DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE STATEMENT AND WHAT WAS EXPRESSED BY MEMBER KASHIAN. IF YOU LOOK AT IT FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT IF YOUR BUSINESS IS TO HAVE FACILITIES THAT ARE RENTED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, AND AS NEEDS CHANGE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE ABILITY AND NIMBLENESS TO GO IN AND CHANGE THE INTERIOR OF THOSE SPACES TO MEET NEW TENANT NEEDS, THAT WOULD ARGUE THAT FUNCTIONALITY IN THAT SETTING IS THE RIGHT THING. | ||||||||
| IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU'RE BUILDING A SCIENCE BUILDING, THE FUNCTIONALITY WOULD BE RELATED TO ITS FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF, AS WERE MENTIONED, MAJOR BUILDING SYSTEMS AND THE PIPED GASES AND THE SUPPORT. WE HAD IT IN BOB MCGHEE'S PRESENTATION IN SAN DIEGO MENTIONED THE FACT THAT SUPPORT SPACE HAS BECOME A MUCH GREATER PORTION OF THE OVERALL SPACE. | ||||||||
| SO FROM THE FUNCTIONALITY, IF I SAW A PROPOSAL THAT ONLY HAD 20 PERCENT SUPPORT SPACE COMPARED TO 80 PERCENT ASSIGNED LAB SPACE, I WOULD BE ARGUING THAT THIS PROPOSAL HAD SOME ISSUES WITH FUNCTIONALITY BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT SUPPORT SPACE AND THE RATIOS ARE MUCH DIFFERENT. SO I WOULD THINK THAT THE STATEMENTS ARE MUCH CLOSER THAN WAS ASSERTED A MOMENT AGO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, RICK. SO I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP THE MOTION TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT HAVING FUNCTIONALITY BE A CRITERIA FOR THE LARGE GRANT RFA. ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. JOHN, WANT TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS? WE HAVE ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. | ||||||||
| MR. COFFMAN: WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN SAN DIEGO IN RESPONSE TO THE HHMI PRESENTATION. THAT WAS THE FORM OVER FUNCTION. ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO AS OPERATORS, ESPECIALLY WHEN SCIENTISTS WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN TERMS OF THE DESIGN, IT COULD RUN THE COST UP EXTRAORDINARILY BECAUSE THEY WANT SPECIFIC -- I THINK THE HHMI FELLOW REFERRED TO IT AS IDIOSYNCRATIC-TYPE DESIGN. OUR FOCUS IS WHAT IS REQUIRED IN THE BUILDING TO ACHIEVE THE SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES? THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO. AND YOU MAY WANT IT PAINTED A DIFFERENT COLOR. YOU MAY WANT AN OFFICE. WHAT IS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES? AND THAT'S THE CORE ESSENCE OF FUNCTION TO US. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ANYONE ELSE? | ||||||||
| SO I'D LIKE TO CALL A VOTE FOR MAKING FUNCTIONALITY ONE OF THE CRITERIA FOR LARGE GRANT RFA'S. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. | ||||||||
| I WANT TO GO TO VALUE. SO I JUST WANT TO, BEFORE I MAKE A MOTION ON VALUE, MY CONCERN ABOUT VALUE IS THAT IT INCORPORATES A LOT OF THE OTHER CRITERIA IN IT. AND I WOULD -- MY MOTION WILL BE TO STRIKE THAT VALUE AS A SEPARATE CRITERIA OUT OF ONE OF OUR CRITERIA BECAUSE I THINK IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT URGENCY, LEVERAGE, FUNCTIONALITY, AND SHARED RESOURCES. AND I JUST THINK IT POTENTIALLY COULD CONFUSE THE ISSUE. I THINK IT'S NOT A NARROWLY DEFINED CRITERIA OR EASILY DEFINED CRITERIA. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JUST TO GIVE SOME BACKGROUND IN TERMS OF WHY I INCLUDED THOSE THREE WORDS UNDER THE WORD IN VALUE. I GUESS WE COULD HAVE USED THE WORD "QUALITY"; BUT SINCE WE HAD ALREADY USED EXCELLENCE, BUT I THINK IN MOST ECONOMIC TERMS, VALUE IS AN EQUATION. AND VALUE IS EQUAL TO THE RETURN OR QUALITY THAT YOU RECEIVE DIVIDED BY THE COST. AND THE HIGHER THAT NUMBER, THE BETTER THE VALUE. SO IT WAS AN ATTEMPT -- I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND. IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO AGGREGATE AT A LEVEL THAT WOULD GIVE RISE TO SOME MORE PRINCIPAL OR OBJECTIVE CRITERIA BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY IDENTIFY COSTS. DOES THAT MEAN COST PER SQUARE FOOT, OVERALL COSTS, COSTS OF CIRM FUNDING? AND THEN WE CAN ALSO SAY QUALITY, BUT THEN -- SO I WAS TRYING TO GET TO A MORE CONCISE ISSUE. SO JUST THAT BACKGROUND. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU, RICK. I NEEDED SOME FURTHER BACKGROUND. I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO INCLUDE VALUE AS IT IS. I THINK WHAT WAS CONFUSING ME, THOUGH, IS THE FIRST BULLET POINT UNDER VALUE BEING EXCELLENCE. I DON'T SEE HOW EXCELLENCE REALLY FIT INTO THE VALUE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK IT WAS THE VAGARY OF HAVING EXCELLENCE AS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL WORDS, AND IT REALLY -- IT IS MORE ABOUT QUALITY WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PROPER. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THIS IS A GOOD VALUE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IN FACT, I INCLUDED QUALITY IN THIS SLIDE AND NOT IN THE OTHER. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S WHAT WAS THROWING ME OFF IN THAT CRITERIA. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO JUST FOR A DISCUSSION PERSPECTIVE, WE COULD HAVE QUALITY OR EXCELLENCE AS A SEPARATE CRITERIA. I'M JUST OPENING THIS UP AS A QUESTION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'M WONDERING WHETHER WE REALLY, INSTEAD OF EXCELLENCE -- INSTEAD OF QUALITY, WE'RE NOT CONCERNED -- WE REALLY DON'T WANT THEM TO PUT MARBLE IN THE OFFICES, BUT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY IF THERE ARE -- I THINK, IF THERE ARE SPECIAL COST CONSIDERATIONS THAT ADDRESS SCIENTIFIC GOALS. IN BUILDING A BUILDING, IF IT'S LIKE WITH A HOSPITAL, IF YOU'VE GOT AN ICU UNIT, IT'S GOING TO COST A LOT MORE TO BUILD THAT SPACE BECAUSE OF ALL THE PIPING AND SPECIAL FACILITIES THAT YOU'RE DELIVERING TO THAT SPACE. SO IN GETTING TO VALUE, YOU NEED TO KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER INNOVATION, THE REASON I LIKE THAT THERE IS IF YOU DESIGNED A GREEN BUILDING, YOU MAY HAVE LONG-TERM OPERATING COST SAVINGS THAT WILL REFLECT LOWER GRANT COST OVER TIME AND MORE VALUE IN OPERATING THE BUILDING, SO IT'S JUSTIFIED TO HAVE MORE COST. IT'S A COUNTERBALANCING ITEM. | ||||||||
| IF YOU PUT, INSTEAD OF EXCELLENCE, SPECIAL COST CONSIDERATIONS, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION SPECIFIC COSTS THAT ARE IN THIS FACILITY THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS WHY IT'S SO EXPENSIVE. WELL, BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT THESE SPECIAL FEATURES. THEY HAVE A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF VIVARIUM SPACE IN WHAT THEY'RE DELIVERING, FOR EXAMPLE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: UCSF. IT'S JUST EXPENSIVE. IT'S A COST CONSIDERATION. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: WHAT ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE HIGH LEVEL OF DELIVERY ON THE MISSION? MISSION DELIVERY, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THIS IS REALLY GOING TO DEVELOP -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SPECIAL FEATURES RELEVANT TO THE MISSION IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? SPECIAL FEATURES -- | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: THIS IS GOING TO BRING TO THE TABLE FOR THIS STATEWIDE EFFORT A REALLY IMPORTANT ASSET. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'D BE FINE WITH SPECIAL FEATURES SIGNIFICANT TO THE MISSION INSTEAD OF EXCELLENCE. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: AS YOU KNOW, AS WE ALL KNOW, THE COSTS VARY FROM REGION TO REGION WITHIN CALIFORNIA AND FROM BUILDING TYPE TO BUILDING TYPE. SO AREN'T WE REALLY TALKING ABOUT AN INNOVATIVE, SUSTAINABLE BUILDING LONG TERM? AND COST IS ONLY A FUNCTION OF THAT THAT THEY HAVE TO PROVE TO US. SO INNOVATIVE AND SUSTAINABILITY TO ME ARE THE KEYWORDS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO UNDER INNOVATION, HAVING IT INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABILITY? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE'RE GETTING INTO THE DEFINITION PIECE. I THINK I WASN'T SURE IF I WANTED TO SUPPORT VALUE BEING INCLUDED OR NOT. I DO. I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. I'LL SUPPORT IT. NOT PARCEL IT OUT, JUST VA. BUT WITH THESE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED NOW, WHICH WE CAN DISCUSS LATER, ARE RELEVANT AND PERTINENT TO HOW WE WANT TO DEFINE VALUE BECAUSE WHAT ED HAS TO SAY AND WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. IT'S ABSOLUTELY A HUNDRED PERCENT RIGHT. IT GOES TO VALUE AND IT WOULD GIVE US THE FLEXIBILITY TO LOOK AT EACH APPLICATION INDIVIDUALLY. YOU'RE RIGHT. REGION BY REGION, BUILDING BY BUILDING IT'S DIFFERENT. WE SHOULDN'T COMPARE THE BUILDING COST IN SAN FRANCISCO VERSUS THE BUILDING COST ELSEWHERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: IT'S NOT FAIR. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE STILL CAN DETERMINE THE VALUE. WE CAN STILL MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: IT HAS VALUE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: COST HAS VALUE TO THE MISSION FROM THE AREA THAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO IN MY MIND. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BEFORE WORKING DOWN TO THAT LEVEL, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT -- IT'S NOT -- WE'RE NOT GOING TO DEFINITIONS, BUT SUBSTITUTING OUT THE WORD "EXCELLENCE" BECAUSE THE SUBCATEGORY IS SPECIAL FEATURES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I JUST WANT TO COMMENT ON THE VALUE, WHETHER IT SHOULD BE A SEPARATE CATEGORY. I STILL THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY DIFFICULT CRITERIA TO DEFINE BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THESE OTHER CATEGORIES SO MUCH. I MEAN IF WE -- YEAH, WE'LL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT COST AND LEVERAGE AND FUNCTIONALITY AND SHARED RESOURCES. SO I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT IT WILL MAKE IT VERY, VERY HARD FOR US TO COME UP WITH A DEFINITION THAT WILL REFLECT FAIRLY. THAT'S MY CONCERN, NOT THAT I DON'T AGREE THAT VALUE SHOULDN'T BE AN IMPORTANT CRITERIA. I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO DEFINE IT CLEARLY. THAT'S MY CONCERN. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IS YOUR CONCERN SUCH THAT YOU WANT TO NOT VOTE ON VALUE, OR YOU THINK WE SHOULD PARCEL IT OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE? HOW DO WE ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: DON'T WE WANT TO INTEGRATE SOMEWHERE THE SCIENTIFIC MERIT ASPECT? MAYBE THAT'S WHERE IT'S DONE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THAT'S THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I KNOW. WE TAKE THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP ASSESSMENT AND THEN INTEGRATE IT INTO -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: THAT'S THE SECOND PART OF THE FACILITIES REVIEW. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AGAIN, DAVID, I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER ABOUT HOW WE ADDRESS IT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT HERE IS THAT VALUE IS ALMOST A PLACEHOLDER BETWEEN A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THREE SEPARATE THINGS, THAT EACH WOULD BE WEIGHTED WITHIN THAT CATEGORY. AND YOU ALMOST DON'T WANT THEM SEPARATELY BECAUSE THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH EACH OTHER CAN MEAN IF YOU HAVE, LIKE THE SPECIALIZED WHATEVER, I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH THE WORD, SPECIAL FEATURES, THEN THE COST MIGHT GO UP. SO IT'S A MATRIX WORD. PERHAPS MAYBE WE CAN PULL OUT A THESAURUS AND FIND A WORD PEOPLE WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: JEFF, YOU'RE GETTING TO THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I MEANT THAT THE WORD "VALUE" REPRESENTS A MATRIX BETWEEN THESE THREE SUBCATEGORIES. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: IN FACT, HEALTHCARE, ITS VALUE IS THE OUTCOME YOU WANT OVER THE COST YOU HAVE TO PAY TO GET THAT OUTCOME. THAT'S VALUE. BUT FOR A FACILITY, VALUE IS GOING TO FACTOR IN INNOVATION, SUSTAINABILITY, EXCELLENCE. I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT COST IS GOING TO BE THE DENOMINATOR IN ORDER TO GET THE VALUE EQUATION, RIGHT? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH JANET'S -- THAT'S EXACTLY -- THANKS FOR SAYING THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE I'VE BEEN STRUGGLING. IT'S ALMOST LIKE I THINK WE'RE SAYING WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT COSTS. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: BUT IT'S COST PER PRODUCT DELIVERED OR PER OUTCOME. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: EXACTLY. EXACTLY. EXACTLY. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: AS I SIT HERE AND I LOOK AT THESE -- ACTUALLY I FORGOT WHAT WE'VE CHANGED EXCELLENCE TO -- SPECIAL FEATURES AND INNOVATION AND COSTS ARE REALLY PART OF ALL OF THOSE. YOU'RE GOING TO GET TO URGENCY, AND THEY'RE GOING TO SAY THEY'RE GOING TO DO THIS BUILDING IN TWO YEARS. AND WHAT ARE WE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT? ARE THEY USING ANY INNOVATIVE BUILDING TECHNIQUES? WHAT'S THE COST THAT THEY'RE ALLOCATING TO DO THIS BUILDING IN THAT TIMEFRAME? IT GETS RATHER CONFUSING TO ME. I THINK I'M FOR THE VALUE TERM. THE SAME THING WITH FUNCTIONALITY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IT IS A COMPLEX MATRIX, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE AS MUCH CLARITY ON HOW WE'RE EVALUATING IT. UNDER THE PROGRAM REVIEW PORTION, WE'RE GOING TO BE MAKING SOME JUDGMENTS THAT DO A LOT OF BALANCING, BUT HERE AT LEAST WE CAN DISCRETELY IDENTIFY WHERE PROJECTS EXCEL OR WHERE THEY HAVE CONCERNS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IT SHOULD BE -- I GUESS WE'RE TRYING TO DO THE DEFINITION. I GUESS, DAVID, IF WE FEEL WE CAN COME UP WITH A CLEAR ENOUGH DEFINITION WITH VALUE, I CAN SUPPORT IT. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT IT IS GOING TO BE A COMPLEX MATRIX. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT I WANTED TO HEAR FROM ED FIRST. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I CONSIDER VALUE THE VALUE THAT THAT APPLICATION HAS TO THE MISSION OF THIS INSTITUTE LONG TERM. SO I DON'T CARE IF IT COSTS 20 BILLION OR FIVE MILLION. HOW IS THIS SUSTAINABLE TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF THE TAXPAYERS IN THIS RESEARCH? THAT TO ME IS VALUE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I THINK THAT CONCEPT IS INCLUDED IN WHAT WILL BE MY MOTION. SO I MOVE THAT WE INCLUDE VALUE, AND THE SUBCATEGORIES INCLUDE SPECIAL FEATURES, INNOVATION/SUSTAINABILITY, AND COST AS A PART OF THE -- AS A CRITERIA FOR THIS GRANT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ANY OTHER COMMENTS BY ANY OTHER MEMBERS? I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THAT I'M GOING TO OPPOSE THIS ONE, NOT THAT I DON'T AGREE, BUT I'M CONCERNED THAT WHEN WE GET TO THE DEFINITION ON THIS ONE, WE'RE GOING TO REALLY STRUGGLE. I'M JUST AFRAID WE'RE GOING TO BE HAVING A VERY DIFFICULT TIME ON THIS. | ||||||||
| ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP? OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC. VALUE. | ||||||||
| MR. COFFMAN: I THINK THAT ALL THE COMMENTS THAT YOU MADE, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT VALUE IS VITALLY IMPORTANT, BUT I THINK ALL OF THEM CAN BE ADDRESSED, AND I TAKE GREAT PERSONAL RISK AT BRINGING UP A DEFINITIONAL ISSUE RIGHT NOW; BUT, NONETHELESS, IF YOU THINK OF IT IN TERMS OF COST AS BEING REASONABLE AND NECESSARY, THE NOTION OF NECESSARY GETS TO THE HEART OF WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, MEMBER KASHIAN, OF IS IT NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE ORGANIZATION? IS IT REASONABLE? THAT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION REGIONAL SENSITIVITIES IN TERMS OF VARIANCES, IN TERMS OF COST. | ||||||||
| DAVID, TO YOUR POINT ABOUT CAN YOU DEFINE IT, IF YOU DEFINE IT IN TERMS OF COST, IS IT REASONABLE AND NECESSARY, A STANDARD THAT'S USUALLY INVOKED BY THE NIH IN THEIR PROGRAMS, I THINK YOU ADDRESS ALL THE QUESTIONS YOU'VE RAISED AND, THEREFORE, IT HANDLES VALUE, AND I THINK IT BELONGS AS A CRITERIA. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. THAT'S A VERY GOOD COMMENT AND PERSPECTIVE. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? | ||||||||
| ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN, SO I WON'T OPPOSE. I'M GOING TO GO NEUTRAL ON YOU. SO IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY WITH ONE ABSTENTION. | ||||||||
| SO DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE -- ANY OTHER MEMBERS WANT TO ADD ANY CRITERIA? SO -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I WOULD SAY THAT THE FIVE CRITERIA REALLY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CHALLENGE DEFINING THEM CERTAINLY, BUT WE WILL. THEY REALLY CAPTURE THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF THIS RFA, AND THAT IS TO EXPAND THE CAPACITIES FOR RESEARCH IN CALIFORNIA. AND SO I WOULD PROPOSE THAT -- I'M NOT MAKING A MOTION, BUT I WOULD PROPOSE FOR CONSIDERATION THAT WE LEAVE IT AT THESE SIX. IT REALLY -- I'M SORRY. FIVE. WE LEAVE IT AT THIS FIVE BECAUSE IT REALLY DOES CAPTURE WHAT WE WANT TO DO. SURE, WE COULD TWEAK IT A LITTLE BIT, BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS? WHAT ABOUT THAT? LOOK, IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN ONE OF THESE FIVE POINTS. I JUST WANTED -- THAT'S MY PREFERENCE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, CAN YOU HOLD UP THE SHARED LAB RFA CRITERIA SO WE CAN SEE IT SIDE BY SIDE? SO ELIMINATE FEASIBILITY. COST IS NOW PART OF OR POTENTIALLY PART OF VALUE. TIMELINES AND MILESTONES. INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT. LEVERAGE. HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE. THAT'S ACTUALLY ONE THAT -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK THAT'S REALLY PART OF TIMELINES AND MILESTONES BECAUSE WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT URGENCY, WE TALKED ABOUT A PROVEN TRACK RECORD. AT LEAST I HOPE THAT IN YOUR DELIBERATION ON URGENCY, YOU CONSIDER TRACK RECORD BECAUSE WE STRUGGLED WITH THAT ON THE SHARED LABS, AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY PRECISE ABOUT PEOPLE PROVING AND GIVING EVIDENCE OF THEIR ABILITY TO DELIVER BECAUSE ANYONE CAN GIVE YOU A SCHEDULE. ANYONE CAN GIVE YOU A MICROSOFT PROJECT CHART. THEY GOT TO BE ABLE TO KIND OF PROVE THEIR POINT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: AND THE RESPONSIVENESS, THAT REALLY GETS AT THE REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT, BECAUSE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YEAH, I THINK SO. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SO IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF RESPONSIVENESS -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: RIGHT. ALL THOSE UP, DOWNS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO CAN WE JUST TALK ABOUT HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE FOR A SECOND? SO I GUESS TO ME THAT IS AN IMPORTANT CRITERIA IN MY MIND. BUT IF WE INCLUDE IT UNDER THE URGENCY, I GUESS, I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT THERE ARE -- WE SAW A SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION IN THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE WHEN WE EVALUATED THE SHARED LAB RFA. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: ISN'T THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD LOOK AT IN DETERMINING WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THE TIMELINE AND MILESTONES? ISN'T IT JUST PART OF THAT? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: NO. I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T KNOW. STUART, WHAT DO YOU THINK ON THIS ONE? | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: WELL, HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE I'M NOT SURE IS A GREAT MEASURE BECAUSE IT'S DONE UNDER DIFFERENT CONDITIONS WITH DIFFERENT PEOPLE AT DIFFERENT TIMES. SO IT'S HARD. BUT YOU CAN GET TRENDS. AND FROM THOSE TRENDS, I BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN THEN GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE MILESTONES AND TIMELINES AND SAY IT'S A REASONABLENESS TEST. AND ALSO YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE, IF THEY'RE BUILDING A VIVARIUM, I MEAN WE'RE PICKING ON THE POOR VIVARIUMS, IT'S A MORE COMPLEX BUILDING THAT THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE. AND, THEREFORE, IT IS PROBABLY GOING TO AFFECT THEIR TIMELINE IN SOME WAY. IF THERE'S NO EFFECT ON THEIR TIMELINE, YOU BEGIN TO WONDER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO HERE'S A QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU. CAN WE GO BACK TO THE OTHER SLIDE, RICK? SO LET'S ASSUME THAT UNDER URGENCY WE'VE GOT SOME TIMELINES AND MILESTONES THAT LOOK REALLY GOOD, BUT THAT THIS PARTICULAR INSTITUTION OR GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS DOESN'T REALLY HAVE THE HISTORICAL TRACK RECORD OR THE TRACK RECORD IS ONLY SO-SO. I GUESS -- YET THEY SHOW -- THEY DO SHOW A LOT OF URGENCY IN THEIR APPLICATION. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOSE THIS HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE ISSUE. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: I JUST THINK THAT YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE INNOVATIVE WAYS THEY MAY BE BUILDING THESE THINGS, WHICH MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN THEY HAVE TYPICALLY DONE IT HISTORICALLY. SO I'M NOT -- I DON'T REMEMBER WHETHER THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SYSTEM CAN DO DESIGN-BUILD. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THEY'RE VERY PROUD OF IT. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: THAT IS A FASTER WAY OF BUILDING. AND SO IF THEY SAID TO ME WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS, AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS DESIGN-BUILD AND THAT IS GOING TO SAVE US SOME TIME, I COULD BUY INTO THAT. AND I THINK THAT IT BEHOOVES US CERTAINLY ON THE REAL ESTATE COMMITTEE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT TAKES TO DO THESE PROJECTS AND WEIGH IN ON IT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I WAS JUST SAYING IT SEEMS LOGICAL TO INTRODUCE THEM AS SUBCATEGORIES TO URGENCY, TIMELINES AND MILESTONES AND HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE. AGAIN, JUST LIKE WE DID WITH VALUE, WE CAN LOOK AT THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THESE, AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE SET ASIDE WHERE THEY GET A SPECIFIC WEIGHT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I WOULD SAY, THOUGH, THAT WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HERE, IT'S NOT JUST THE INSTITUTION THAT WE'RE EVALUATING ON PERFORMANCE UNDER URGENCY. IT'S THE INSTITUTION, THE TEAM THEY'VE ASSEMBLED, AND THE APPROACH. IN OTHER WORDS, ARE THEY USING DESIGN-BUILD? DOES THAT HAVE A CREDIBLE TRACK RECORD? DOES THIS TEAM HAVE A CREDIBLE TRACK RECORD WITH THAT APPROACH? AND WHAT IS THE INSTITUTION? SO THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS WE'RE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF JUDGING THIS. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE TIMING OF THE PROJECT HOWEVER, BUT YOU MAY BE MAKING A DECISION BEFORE THEY EVER HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPOINT A CONTRACTOR, FOR INSTANCE, BUT IT'S LIKELY TO BE THE TEAM HAS GOT DESIGNERS -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF IT'S DESIGN-BUILD, YOU KNOW WHO THE TEAM IS. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: DESIGN-BUILD, YOU KNOW IT ON THE GO-IN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF THEY'RE GOING TO GET DONE IN TWO YEARS -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: MR. CHAIRMAN, BASICALLY ON ANY CREDIT APPLICATION THAT YOU FILE FOR ANY REASON AT ALL, THEY ASK YOU TO PUT REFERENCES AND YOUR PAST HISTORY ON IT. SO IF SOMEBODY IS APPLYING FOR A GRANT FOR A MAJOR FACILITY AND THEY SAY THEY CAN DO IT, THEY SHOULD PROVIDE IN THAT APPLICATION THE INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR STAFF AND THIS COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE IT. TO DECIDE EXACTLY WHAT THAT'S GOING TO BE IN ADVANCE, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IT'S PUTTING PEOPLE IN A STRAIGHTJACKET. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I AGREE WITH ED. I THINK WHEN WE'RE DESIGNING THE RFA, WE SHOULD INCLUDE A REFERENCE CHECK COMPONENT TO IT. I DON'T THINK YOU ASSIGN POINTS TO IT, BUT YOU DO LET THEM KNOW WE WILL BE DOING REFERENCE CHECKS ON YOUR TEAMS. PROVIDE REFERENCES. AND IF STAFF COMES BACK AND TELLS US WE DID THE REFERENCE CHECKS AND THEY'RE TERRIBLE, WELL, THEN THAT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ULTIMATELY. SO I'M PREPARED -- CHAIRMAN, IF YOU'RE PREPARED TO ACCEPT MOTIONS AT THIS TIME. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'LL ACCEPT MOTIONS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I MOVE THAT THE MAJOR FACILITIES GRANT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: URGENCY, VALUE AND THEN THE SUBPOINTS, LEVERAGE, FUNCTIONALITY, AND SHARED RESOURCES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CAN WE AMEND THAT, THAT WE HAVEN'T REALLY DECIDED THE SUBPOINTS YET ON VALUE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YES, WE HAVE. WE VOTED EARLIER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE DID. BUT THOSE ARE THE ONLY SUBPOINTS? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: AS OF -- YES, AS OF THIS MOMENT, YES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. FINE. I'LL SECOND. | ||||||||
| SO ANY DISCUSSION FROM ANY MEMBERS? OKAY. ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ADOPTING THIS LIST OF FIVE CRITERIA? ANY COMMENTS, JOHN? | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: YOU MAY NOT FEEL IT, BUT YOU ARE MAKING GREAT PROGRESS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH THAT, JOHN, ON BOTH COUNTS. SO ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? | ||||||||
| SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NONE. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. | ||||||||
| OKAY. SO DO WE START DOING THE DEFINITIONS FIRST BEFORE WE START DOING THE WEIGHTING? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IS THERE ANY WAY TO GET ANY CHOCOLATE? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK. | ||||||||
| (A RECESS WAS TAKEN.) | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. SO THE MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER. WE'VE DETERMINED THERE'S NO LEGAL LIMIT ON HOW LONG THIS MEETING CAN GO TONIGHT, SO THIS IS AN ENDURANCE TEST. OKAY. | ||||||||
| NOW WE'VE GOT TO -- DO WE WANT TO DO DEFINITIONS, OR DO WE WANT TO DO WEIGHTING FIRST? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK YOU'VE GOT TO DO DEFINITION TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE WEIGHTING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. SO CAN WE PICK AN EASY ONE TO START? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: START WITH URGENCY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IT'S IN THE INITIATIVE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: URGENCY. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: MAYBE I CAN BEGIN, AND THEN YOU CAN SEE HOW YOU WANT TO MODIFY OR ELIMINATE ENTIRELY. BUT, AGAIN, URGENCY, PLACING A HIGH PRIORITY ON THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND THE INSTITUTION HAS A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF DELIVERY. AND THEN WE WOULD -- I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE VERY PRECISE INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS IN THE RFA. SO I THINK THE LEVEL OF DETAIL YOU WANT TO WORK WITH TODAY IS AT A POLICY LEVEL. WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WANT TO SEE COME OUT, AND WE WILL WORK ON THE DETAIL IN TERMS OF HOW THE RFA GETS WORDSMITHED AND HOW IT COMES OUT. | ||||||||
| TO MAKE THIS AS TOLERABLE AND EASY FOR YOU TO GET TO THE END, I THINK YOU SHOULD THINK ABOUT DOES IT REFLECT THE OUTCOME THAT YOU WANT, AND WE'LL WORK ON THE DETAILS THAT I THINK GET US THERE. | ||||||||
| AND SO WE ARE GOING TO GO ALL THE WAY DOWN THE DEFINITIONS FIRST BEFORE WE GO TO EVALUATIONS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I LIKE THE DEFINITION. IT'S GOOD. AND IT'S, I THINK, THE BEST WE CAN DO. | ||||||||
| MY ONLY -- IS NOW THE TIME TO DISCUSS. WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THE MAXIMUM POINTS PROBABLY TO INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE UP AND RUNNING WITHIN TWO YEARS, OCCUPANCY. WHAT ABOUT INSTITUTIONS, BECAUSE OF WHATEVER UNIQUE NEED THEY HAVE, THEY CAN'T DO IT WITHIN TWO YEARS, WOULD THEY THEN GET 15 POINTS IF WE DID IT OUT OF 20? OR INSTITUTIONS THAT CAN BE BUILT IN FOUR YEARS, THEY GET TEN POINTS, ETC., ETC., ETC. SO IS THAT -- RICK, WERE YOU HOPING TO ELICIT FROM US THAT SORT OF FEEDBACK? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE WERE HOPING TO GO -- WE WERE GOING TO DO THIS KIND OF VERTICALLY, WHICH IS TAKING EACH OF THE CATEGORIES, DOING THE DEFINITIONS FIRST. AND MAYBE THIS SLIDE WILL HELP. THE SLIDE ON YOUR RIGHT IS DEVELOPING THE CRITERIA, UNDERSTANDING AND DEVELOPING THE CONSENSUS DEFINITIONS, AND THEN SAYING WHAT ARE THE EVALUATION STANDARDS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO APPLY. SO OVER TWO YEARS GETS A BUMP; BELOW TWO YEARS GETS A MINUS; AND THEN FROM THAT INFORMATION, YOU DEVELOP THE SCORING. THAT WAS MY -- SO YOU WOULD SAY -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YES, I LIKE THE DEFINITION; NO, I DON'T. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT TO GET FROM US RIGHT NOW? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK THAT I WOULD SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO THE DEFINITION. IT PLACES A HIGH PRIORITY ON COMPLETION WITHIN TWO YEARS AND A GENERAL EMPHASIS ON AN EXPEDITED DELIVERY OF THE PROJECT ON A TIMELY BASIS SO THAT THAT GIVES US TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES EFFECTIVELY FOR AWARDING POINTS. | ||||||||
| I DON'T SEE THE -- I'VE GOT TO SEE THE REST OF THE DEFINITION YOU HAVE THAT UP THERE PREVIOUSLY. IT SAID THE INSTITUTION -- IT WILL BE THE INSTITUTION, THE TEAM, AND THE APPROACH HAS A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF DELIVERING -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I LIKE THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: -- ON THE PROPOSED TIME SCHEDULE. AND IF I CAN SEE. ON THE PROPOSED TIME SCHEDULE OR ON AN EXPEDITED SCHEDULE. THAT'S FINE. SO IT'S THE INSTITUTION, THE TEAM, AND THE APPROACH HAS A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF DELIVERING CAPITAL PROJECTS ON EXPEDITED SCHEDULE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, I LIKE YOUR SECOND CHANGE. I'M NOT SURE I LIKE THE FIRST CHANGE BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S GOING TO CONFUSE OUR EVALUATION AND THE SCORING IF YOU HAVE BOTH THE PRIORITY FOR THE -- YOU MENTION THE PRIORITY FOR THE TWO YEARS AND THE TIMELY BASIS. BECAUSE, AGAIN, REMEMBER WE TALKED ABOUT COMPARING, YOU KNOW, SMALL GRANTS, LARGE GRANTS, AND MEDIUM SIZE GRANTS. I MEAN, SO WHAT IF YOU HAVE SMALL GRANTS AND THEY'RE ALL WITHIN TWO YEARS AND YOU'RE COMPARING THEM? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, THEY'RE GETTING COMPARED WITHIN THEIR CATEGORY. SO THAT'S FINE. IF THEY CAN ALL GET THOSE POINTS, THAT'S FINE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BUT THEY'RE ALL GOING TO GET -- IF WE PUT THE DEFINITION ABOUT THE 24 MONTHS, THEN ALL THE SMALL GRANTS WOULD MEET THAT CRITERIA. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S FINE, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO BE JUDGED -- TO GET THE MAXIMUM GRANTS, THE INSTITUTION, THE TEAM, AND THE APPROACH ALL HAVE TO GET THE MAXIMUM POINTS TOO. SO IF YOU HAVE 25 POINTS IN THE CATEGORY AND 15 POINTS ARE THE TWO YEARS, AND TEN POINTS ARE THE TEAM, THE INSTITUTION, AND THE APPROACH, IF THEY GET 25, THEY GET ALL 25. IT'S CLEAR THAT URGENCY IS GOING TO BE A REAL DISCRIMINATING FACTOR IN THE LARGEST CATEGORY OF GRANTS. THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOING TO HAVE THE MOST WEIGHT. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: I JUST, BOB, WANTED TO GET YOU TO RESTATE THE LANGUAGE ON THE FIRST CHANGE THAT YOU RECOMMENDED. LORI IS TRYING TO CAPTURE THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: A HIGH PRIORITY ON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT WITHIN TWO YEARS AND -- ON THE PROJECT WITHIN TWO YEARS. TAKE OUT ON A TIMELY BASIS. AND THE DELIVERY OF PROJECTS ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS BASED UPON HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IS IT REAL UNLIKELY THAT ANY OF 3 THEM WILL FINISH BEFORE TWO YEARS? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JANET SAYS YOU CAN MAKE THAT AND THE HISTORY OF THE DELIVERY OF PROJECTS ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS. ON EXPEDITED SCHEDULE IS THE PERIOD, AND JUST SAY AND A HISTORY OF THE DELIVERY OF PROJECTS ON AN EXPEDITED SCHEDULE. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. I THINK A LOT OF THESE INSTITUTIONS, BOB, HAVE NEVER DONE A PROJECT IN TWO YEARS. NOW, THE TEAMS HAVE. SO I THINK YOUR STATEMENT IS CLOSE TO BEING ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE FIRST PART OF IT IS THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT WITHIN TWO YEARS, AND THE SECOND SENTENCE IS MEANT TO ADDRESS HOW WE'RE GOING TO EVALUATE THAT, WHICH IS YOU'RE GOING TO EVALUATE THE INSTITUTION, THE TEAM, AND THE APPROACH, AND YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT ALL THREE AND SAY IS IT CREDIBLE THEY CAN REALLY DELIVER IN TWO YEARS. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: IT COULD BE THAT THE TEAM HAS A LOT OF CREDIBILITY IN DOING THAT, AND THE INSTITUTION HAS NEVER DONE IT ALL, AND THEY CAN STILL GET HIGH MARKS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THEY CAN STILL GET THE TWO-YEAR POINTS BECAUSE THE TEAM IS SUCH A PHENOMENAL TEAM THAT'S PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN IT CAN DO THIS. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: BOB, I WAS GOING TO MAKE SOMEWHAT THE SAME POINT THAT HE MADE. ARE WE TRYING TO SAY THAT HAS A PROVABLE RECORD OF BEING ABLE TO EXECUTE THIS DOCUMENT BECAUSE INSTITUTIONS DON'T REALLY DO IT. WHAT DOES IT IS THE CONSTRUCTION TEAM, THE ARCHITECT, AND THE REST OF THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S WHY I EXPANDED THE DEFINITION. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: PROVABLE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT. IT SAYS THE INSTITUTION, THE TEAM, AND APPROACH HAS A HISTORICAL TRACK RECORD THAT PROVES THE ABILITY TO DELIVER. HAS A HISTORICAL TRACK RECORD THAT PROVES THE ABILITY TO DELIVER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WANT TO ADDRESS ED, BOB, AND STUART'S POINT. SO YOU COULD HAVE A REALLY, REALLY GOOD TEAM ASSEMBLED, I'VE SEEN THIS, I'VE BEEN PART OF THIS, WHERE YOU HAVE A CLIENT THAT HAS AN INCAPABILITY TO MAKE DECISIONS. SO THERE COULD BE AN INSTITUTION THAT TAKES -- I'M JUST -- TAKES FOUR YEARS TO DO A TYPICAL PROJECT. THEY PUT A GREAT TEAM TOGETHER, BUT OBVIOUSLY IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO IN THIS CASE. SO I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT AGAIN EXACTLY HOW THE SCORING WOULD WORK ON THIS. THAT'S ALL. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK -- BY THE WAY, THE FIRST SENTENCE IS A COMPOUND SENTENCE, SEMICOLON AND COMMA, BUT THE THEORY HERE IS THAT YOU LOOK AT THE INSTITUTION'S HISTORY. THE TEAM HAS A PROVEN ABILITY TO DELIVER THIS DESIGN-BUILD IN TWO YEARS. BUT ON ALL FIVE OF THE LAST BUILDING PROJECTS THE INSTITUTION HAS FAILED TO DELIVER IN TIME. WELL, IT'S NOT CREDIBLE YOUR CLIENT IS REALLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH A TEAM. SO YOU DON'T REALLY ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT. SO YOU'VE GOT TO TAKE THE INSTITUTION'S RECORD WITH THE TEAM'S RECORD, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EVALUATE IT. THERE'S GOING TO BE DISCUSSION, AND WE'RE GOING TO DECIDE WHETHER THIS IS A CREDIBLE ARGUMENT. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE THE INSTITUTION'S -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RECORD OF MAKING DECISIONS. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: -- RECORD OF BRINGING PROJECTS IN ON SCHEDULE. SO THAT SCHEDULE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TWO YEARS. IT COULD BE FIVE PROJECTS OF FOUR YEARS OR WHATEVER, BUT NONETHELESS THEY BROUGHT IT IN EXACTLY WHEN THEY SAID AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT. OKAY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HOW ARE WE GOING TO LOOK AT NEW LEGAL ENTITIES' TRACK RECORD? ARE WE GOING TO EVALUATE FOUR SEPARATE TRACK RECORDS? SO HOW ARE WE -- WHAT IF YOU'VE GOT THIS CONSORTIUM WHICH HAS FOUR GROUPS, RIGHT, AND LET'S SAY TWO OUT OF THE FOUR HAVE VERY GOOD TRACK RECORDS AND TWO DON'T, I HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THEIR TRACK RECORDS. I'M NOT IMPLYING ANYTHING. I'M JUST SAYING HOW ARE WE GOING TO EVALUATE THAT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSION. | ||||||||
| I DIDN'T MEAN TO ADD A SECOND SENTENCE IN THERE. I WAS TRYING TO MODIFY THE SENTENCE THAT SAYS THE INSTITUTION, THE TEAM, AND THE APPROACH BASED ON ED'S COMMENT TO SAY THE INSTITUTION, THE TEAM, AND APPROACH HAS A HISTORICAL TRACK RECORD WITH A PROVEN ABILITY TO DELIVER CAPITAL PROJECTS ON AN EXPEDITED SCHEDULE. I DIDN'T MEAN TO HAVE OVERLAPPING SENTENCES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HOW ABOUT SIMILAR SIZE CAPITAL PROJECTS? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: ISN'T THAT REDUNDANT? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: BOB, WOULD YOU CONSIDER THINKING ABOUT THIS WAY A LITTLE BIT, THAT THE INSTITUTION, THE TEAM HAS AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE IN THE APPLICATION A PROVABLE PLAN OF EXECUTION? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK WHEN WE GET DOWN TO EVALUATION, WHICH IS WHERE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT, BUT ALSO I EXPECT -- I RESPECT RICK KELLER'S COMMENT THAT FROM OUR COMMENTS, THEY CAN BE EXPECTED TO INCORPORATE PART OF THIS. DEBORAH HYSEN SUGGESTED THAT THERE WAS A, FOR EXAMPLE, SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE CHART SYSTEM THAT WE MIGHT ADOPT IN THE APPLICATION FOR EVERYONE, BUT THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL, I THINK, WE HAVE TO DELEGATE TO THE STAFF TO TRY AND ADVANCE THIS. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: OKAY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WHAT DOES EVERYONE SAY ABOUT THE SIMILAR CAPITAL PROJECTS? | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE TOO HARD TO FIND SIMILAR CAPITAL PROJECTS. THAT'S MY OWN TAKE ON IT. | ||||||||
| BUT I WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE CONSORTIUM. I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR WHO HEADS THE FACILITIES GROUP FOR THAT CONSORTIUM, AND WHAT DO THEY HAVE THAT'S GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO MAKE DECISIONS QUICKLY? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S GOING TO GO INTO YOUR EVALUATION. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I ASKED THAT QUESTION AT THE HEARING. THE POINT IS IF THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT, THAT'S FINE; BUT WHAT IS THE GOVERNANCE? HOW IS THE GOVERNANCE BEING EXECUTED, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE. I THINK WHAT BOB'S TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, WHICH I TOTALLY AGREE WITH, IS TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO KNOW THAT THAT INSTITUTION HAS A RECORD OF DELIVERANCE AND THAT THEY HAVE TO PROVE IT. THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND THE START DATE, WHICH IS THE NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD. AND THE REASON I SUGGEST THAT IS THAT ON THE DATE THE BOARD ACTS AND THE APPROVAL, THERE'S THREE TO FOUR MONTHS THAT WILL FOLLOW BEFORE THE GRANT AWARD GOES OUT. IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT, RICK AND LORI? SO THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET MOBILIZED IN THAT TIME PERIOD. IF THEY CAN MOBILIZE FASTER, GREAT. THEY'VE GOT SOME TIME THAT THEY'LL BEAT THEIR SCHEDULE BY, BUT THEY HAVE SOME ABILITY TO MOBILIZE. | ||||||||
| AND THE END DATE IS -- WELL, THE ISSUE OF OCCUPANCY IS -- I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT IT TO BE A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. AS I SAY, IF YOU DELIVER -- IF WE'RE GETTING ONE FLOOR OUT OF FOUR AND THEY ACCELERATE OUR FLOOR, WE WANT THEM -- | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: DEPENDS ON WHERE OUR FLOOR IS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE COULD TALK ABOUT INSTEAD OF OCCUPANCY, SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF THE TENANT IMPROVEMENTS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THIS IS MY COMMENT I MADE EARLIER. WE'RE GOING TO GET BOGGED DOWN IN WHAT THIS PERMIT, THAT PERMIT, WHATEVER PERMITS; WHEREAS, THE STATUTE PROVIDES A VERY CLEAR DEFINITION IN MY MIND OF THE END DATE. AND THAT IS, I'M PROBABLY PARAPHRASING IT, BUT THE RESEARCH FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE. THAT'S THE END DATE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, THE RESEARCH FACILITIES ARE -- HERE'S THE ISSUE, DAVID. THE RESEARCH FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE, WE CAN SAY -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S PROP 71. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M JUST TRYING TO FINISH THIS THOUGHT. THE RESEARCH FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE. THE POINT HERE, AND MAYBE WE PUT IT IN THE EXPLANATORY TEXT, IS YOU DO NOT WANT TO DISINCENTIVIZE PEOPLE FROM HAVING HIGHLY SPECIALIZED TENANT IMPROVEMENTS THAT MIGHT BE BUILT IN. SO YOU COULD GO IN AND YOU CAN MOVE -- THERE ARE MOVABLE LAB BENCHES THAT YOU CAN MOVE INTO THAT SPACE AND FUNCTIONALLY START YOUR RESEARCH. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB, I THINK WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS GIVE AS MUCH LEEWAY AS POSSIBLE TO THE APPLICANT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: OKAY. I UNDERSTAND THAT. IF WE LEAVE IT UP TO THE APPLICANT, WHICH I THINK WE OUGHT TO, TO SAY IT'S AVAILABLE WHEN IT'S AVAILABLE, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT'S GOING TO HAVE TO -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHAT IF WE SAID ARE AVAILABLE FOR GENERAL RESEARCH OR SOMETHING? THE POINT IS THAT IF THEY HAVE TO BRING A FREEZER SYSTEM IN THAT'S A SPECIAL TI THAT THEY BUILD IN, WE DON'T WANT TO PENALIZE THEM NOT TO BUILD THOSE SYSTEMS. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IT COULD BE AS SIMPLE AS AVAILABLE FOR OCCUPANCY OR INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: AVAILABLE FOR OCCUPANCY OR INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. BOB, I WAS JUST GETTING -- I JUST WANT TO HAVE A CLEAR DEFINITION, AND I THINK RICK'S GOT IT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE'RE ALL FOR RICK. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT SOUNDS GOOD. LET'S JUST PUT THAT AS THE END DAY FOR NOW. | ||||||||
| RICK, I THINK WE'VE SUFFICIENTLY PROVIDED AN URGENCY DEFINITION. DO YOU WANT A MOTION, OR SHALL WE NOW MOVE ON TO VALUE? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I'D LIKE TO RUN THIS, IF IT WOULD PLEASE THE CHAIR, RUN LIKE A WORKSHOP. YOU DO THE WORK. WHEN YOU'RE HAPPY WITH IT -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. LET'S HAVE EVERYBODY TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE HAVE. WE CAN MOVE TO VALUE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: THERE'S SOME PROOFREADING THAT'S NEEDED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CAN YOU PUT THE -- I JUST WANT TO READ IT A FINAL TIME AND LET EVERYBODY ELSE READ IT. OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IN ORDER TO PLACE A HIGH PRIORITY OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT WITHIN TWO YEARS AND IT PLACES A DELIVERY -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VALUE NOW. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: FINE. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT VALUE NOW? THERE'S A FRAGMENT IN THERE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE'VE GOT TO MOVE ON. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO VALUE. LET'S OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: MR. CHAIRMAN, THE DEFINITION IS FINE WITH ME. WHEN YOU START WITH A FACILITY THAT HAS INNOVATIVE ELEMENTS, YOU PUT GREEN BUILDING AS IS REASONABLE AND NECESSARY. ARE YOU ASKING THAT QUESTION OF US? IS IT REASONABLE OR NECESSARY? | ||||||||
| SO FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, THE FACILITY IS SENSITIVE TO CONSERVATION AND USE OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES. WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THE USE OF CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IS THAT, ED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER INNOVATION? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: INNOVATIONS INCLUDING IS GOOD, YEAH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DO WE WANT, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VALUE AND COSTS, I MEAN, AS WE POINTED OUT, THE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF THE FACILITY IS REALLY GOING TO COME INTO PLAY UNDER THIS HEADING BECAUSE YOU CONCEIVABLY COULD HAVE A FACILITY THAT HAS MUCH LOWER COST BECAUSE OF WHERE IT'S LOCATED, BUT DOES IT PROVIDE GOOD VALUE? I DON'T KNOW. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ON THAT POINT, DAVID, LET ME THROW SOMETHING OUT. THE INVESTMENT REPRESENTS A GOOD RETURN TO THE TAXPAYER CONSIDERING COST, QUALITY, GEOGRAPHICAL SETTINGS, AND BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT. I THINK THAT'S THE PLACE TO PUT THAT. LOCATION, WHATEVER, GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION. WHATEVER STAFF -- WHATEVER STAFF THINKS, LOCATION, SETTING, I DON'T CARE. MY POINT IS THAT'S THE PLACE TO PUT IT. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I THINK THAT'S TERRIFIC. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I DO. I'M TRYING TO GET TO THE POINT WITHIN THE PARENS WE SAY INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ENCOURAGING CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER INNOVATION ELEMENTS. WHERE IT SAYS IS IT REASONABLE, I THINK WE SHOULD BUILD THE SENTENCE OUT TO SAY ARE THE COSTS REASONABLE AND NECESSARY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. I AGREE WITH THAT. THAT ADDRESSES ONE OF MY EARLIER CONCERNS. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: YOU CAN DO AWAY WITH THE PARENTHESES, CAN'T YOU? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ARE THE COSTS REASONABLE OR NECESSARY? | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO DO A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS ON ALL OF THIS STUFF, AND THAT'S WHAT SHOWS -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: IF YOU CAN FIGURE THAT OUT, I'VE GOT A WAR YOU MIGHT WANT TO SETTLE. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: I'M SORRY? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: IF YOU CAN FIGURE THAT ONE, I'VE GOT A WAR YOU MIGHT WANT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SETTLE. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: THAT'S AN ECONOMIC FORMULA. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I LIKE THE DEFINITION FOR VALUE. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I DO TOO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE DEFINITION FOR VALUE? | ||||||||
| LEVERAGE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK WHERE WE SHOULD START IS IN THE EARLIER SLIDES THAT WE REVIEWED SOME HOURS AGO, WE IDENTIFIED TWO ELEMENTS OF LEVERAGE, PROJECT LEVERAGE AND PROGRAM LEVERAGE. AND I THINK WE WOULD BEGIN AT A POLICY LEVEL TO SUGGEST THAT YOU WOULD DEFINE LEVERAGE WITHIN THESE TWO CATEGORIES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE OUT PROGRAM LEVERAGE BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S REALLY IN THE SCIENTIFIC GRANTS WORKING GROUP, NOT IN OUR WORKING GROUP. DOES EVERYONE AGREE WITH THAT? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JEFF, YOU SORT OF PROPOSED THAT. IS THAT A CONCEPT YOU ENDORSE? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR. IF THERE WAS A PROJECT THAT CIRM PARTICIPATED IN THAT BROUGHT A LAB BUILDING AND -- | ||||||||
| DR. HALME: IT'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE CAN BE PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT EACH DEFINITION BEFORE OR WHETHER THERE'S A MOTION AT THE END TO ACCEPT THE DEFINITION? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE HAVEN'T DONE ANY MOTIONS YET, SO I'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS BEFORE WE -- | ||||||||
| DR. HALME: I WILL WAIT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THIS IS A FAIRLY IMPORTANT POINT TO ME. I GUESS I'M CURIOUS TO ASK DR. CHIU. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT -- DO WE THINK COULD BE -- BECAUSE -- AND I BASE THIS I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE AT -- WHERE WAS THAT? -- SACRAMENTO WHERE DR. KEIRSTEAD WAS FAIRLY EXPLICIT ABOUT OBTAINING VCR'S, VICE CHANCELLORS FOR RESEARCH, AT INSTITUTIONS FAIRLY EXPLICIT COMMITMENTS ON FACULTY RECRUITMENT AND FACULTY RETENTION AS BEING A KEY COMPONENT OF MAXIMIZING THE HUMAN CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT ASPECT OF THIS. AND I'M HAPPY IF WE CAN CAPTURE THIS PROCESS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOES GET CAPTURED SOMEWHERE. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: YES, IT DOES. THE SHORT ANSWER IS, YES, IT DOES IN BUILDING CAPACITY AS WELL AS LOOKING AT CURRENT PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES. IT'S SEVERAL PLACES WITHIN THE SCIENCE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. I'M DELIGHTED TO MOVE AHEAD. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO LET'S CARVE OUT PROGRAM COMPONENT AND THEN LOOK AT THE DEFINITION. | ||||||||
| DO WE WANT TO HAVE ACTUALLY MORE OF A KIND OF SPECIFIC, ALMOST MATHEMATICAL DEFINITION ON LEVERAGE, THE DOLLARS? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YOU'RE KIND OF JUMPING AHEAD BECAUSE WHAT WE HAD THOUGHT IS THAT THAT WOULD BE THE COMPONENT. THAT WOULD BE IN THE EVALUATION STANDARD. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BEFORE YOU GET TO THAT LEVEL OF MATH, WE DISCUSSED EARLIER THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS IS CASH LEVERAGE BEYOND THE 20-PERCENT MINIMUM LEVERAGE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IT WOULD INCLUDE THE EXPENDITURES PRIOR TO. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND WOULD INCLUDE CASH EXPENDITURES FOR ESSENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS FOR THE PROJECT. SO I THINK WE NEED THAT LEVEL OF DEFINITION SO PEOPLE KNOW WHAT GETS COUNTED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DO WE WANT TO -- ARE WE TALKING ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AS WELL? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROJECT COSTS ASSOCIATED THAT MIGHT -- FOR INSTANCE, IT WOULD INCLUDE INSPECTION AND ARCHITECTS AND SO FORTH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL COSTS OF THOSE INSTITUTIONS, ARE WE, FOR THE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THERE MIGHT BE SOME, BUT WE INCLUDED THAT IN THE RFA FOR THE SHARED LAB. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I KNOW. THAT'S WHY I'M BRINGING IT UP. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: SO THERE'S A COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT COST THAT PAYS PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THE APPLICANT'S PAYROLL THAT NEED TO MANAGE, SO, FOR INSTANCE, PROJECT MANAGERS THAT ARE ON THEIR PAYROLL THAT GET PAID FROM THE PROJECT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BUT THAT MIGHT BE ON STAFF ANYWAY. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THEY ARE ON STAFF, BUT THEY'RE ON A RECHARGE BASIS. THERE IS NO -- THERE'S NO POT OF MONEY TO PAY THEM OTHER THAN THE PROJECTS THEY WORK ON. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: BESIDES CASH, MIGHT THERE BE IN-KIND INVESTMENTS OF SOME KIND, LIKE LAND OR SOMETHING? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK WE WANT TO ELIMINATE THAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S THE NEXT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I GUESS LAND, THAT IS A GOOD POINT, IF SOMEBODY DONATES A SHELL BUILDING OR A -- | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I THINK WE MIGHT RUN INTO A PROBLEM BECAUSE THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA WILL BE DONATING, OF COURSE, LAND, BUT IT'S ALREADY A STATE ASSET BECAUSE THERE ARE LAND GRANT INSTITUTIONS. SO WHAT WE MIGHT WANT TO DO, RATHER THAN GO THROUGH A SERIES OF APPRAISED VALUES FOR ALL THE LAND, WHAT WE MIGHT WANT TO DO IS JUST SAY THE CASH EXPENDITURES, AS BOB SAID, FOR THE PROJECT, AND THEN WE COULD SAY INCLUDING AN ACRE OF LAND, INCLUDING 40,000 SQUARE FEET OF LAND, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT SO THERE'S NO ACTUAL VALUE ON IT, BUT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE PROJECTS IS GOING TO BRING SOME LAND WITH IT. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: THOSE DONATIONS WOULD BE INCLUDED, OF COURSE, AND ENCOURAGED. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: MEMBER SAMUELSON, I THINK THE ONE PLACE WHERE YOU MIGHT SEE A CASH EXPENDITURE FOR LAND IS IF AN INSTITUTION HAD TO PURCHASE THE LAND FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. AND THEN I BELIEVE AT THAT POINT YOU WOULD WANT TO COUNT IT AS A LEVERAGE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WHAT ABOUT IF A BUILDING WAS DONATED? CONCEIVABLY THERE COULD BE A BUILDING, A SHELL BUILDING, DONATED. HOW WOULD WE ADDRESS THAT? WOULDN'T WE WANT THAT TO COUNT AS LEVERAGE? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: CERTAINLY. THE WAY THAT THAT WOULD COUNT, OF COURSE, IS THAT EACH OF THE INSTITUTIONS WOULD ASSIGN A VALUE TO IT, AND THEN THEY WOULD SUBMIT THAT. BUT, IN FACT, IF THEY ALREADY OWN THE BUILDING AND THEY'RE JUST REDOING THE TENANT IMPROVEMENTS INSIDE, THEN I DON'T THINK THAT -- IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO GET TO. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: LORI, EXCUSE ME. I THINK WHAT HE'S GETTING TO IS THIS IS NOT CREATING VALUE. IF YOU BUY A BUILDING, A SHELL, IT IS A CASH EXPENDITURE, AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY YOU SPEND, IF IT HAS VALUE IS THAT MONEY, BUT TO SAY THAT I BOUGHT IT AT $5 AND IT'S NOW WORTH 50 AND, THEREFORE, THAT'S MY IN-KIND THING IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. SO WE COUNT THE $5, NOT THE 50. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: THE CASH, THE COST. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO CASH EXPENDITURES SPENT PRIOR TO THE NJ FOR THE PROJECT, INCLUDING LAND AND BUILDING ACQUISITION AT COST. RIGHT? INCLUDING LAND AND BUILDING ACQUISITION -- INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION LAND AND BUILDING ACQUISITION AT COST, ARCHITECTURAL EXPENDITURES, AND OTHER NECESSARY PROJECT COSTS. | ||||||||
| BUT IN THIS ISSUE THAT WAS BEING RAISED BEFORE, IN THE SHARED LABS THERE WAS A LIMITATION ON HOW MUCH IN THE PROJECT COSTS YOU COULD EXPEND ON OVERHEAD. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. AND IS THERE ADVICE ON THAT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY SOME INSTITUTION CAN SAY I'M GOING TO SPEND 35 PERCENT ON OVERHEAD; THEREFORE, NOW I HAVE LEVERAGE OF X BECAUSE I'M GOING TO PAY FOR THIS 35 PERCENT WHEN IT'S NOT REASONABLE AND NECESSARY. SO IT WOULD -- WHAT PERCENTAGE DID HE HAVE AS A CAP BEFORE? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: 15. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IS THAT -- THESE ARE LARGER PROJECTS THAN THE ONES BEFORE. IS 15 STILL THE RIGHT GAUGE, OR WOULD TEN BE THE RIGHT GAUGE? WHAT'S THE APPROPRIATE? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK THE APPROACH THAT I HAD THOUGHT WE WOULD TAKE WOULD BE TO LOOK AT THE AGGREGATE BECAUSE BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THE LEVERAGE IS COMING FROM THE INSTITUTION, AND THIS NOTION OF NETTING OUT THE LEVERAGE AND THE COST WOULD BE YOU WOULD DECIDE IF THE COSTS ARE REASONABLE. AND IF THE COSTS -- JUST LIKE WE HAD UNALLOWED COSTS. IF THEY'RE SPENDING TOO MUCH MONEY ON ARCHITECTURE FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE IS UNNECESSARY, THEN WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT OUT OF THE FORMULA AND SUGGEST THAT'S NOT NECESSARY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE CREATED A GUIDELINE BEFORE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK I AGREE WITH WHERE BOB IS GOING ON THIS, RICK, THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY HYPOTHETICALLY WE RECEIVED AN APPLICATION WHERE IT WAS A $30 MILLION GRANT APPLICATION. TO ME IF THEY'RE ASKING FOR 10 OR 15 PERCENT, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IF THE PROJECT IS $50 MILLION -- THE PROBLEM I'M HAVING IS TRYING TO FERRET OUT WHAT 15 PERCENT OF WHAT BECAUSE IF IT'S A $50 MILLION PROJECT AND CIRM IS PUTTING IN 30 MILLION, THEN WHAT ARE YOU -- I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE 15 PERCENT APPLIES TO. IS IT APPLYING TO THEIR -- WE'RE SAYING THEY CAN'T SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY ON THE ARCHITECTS, OR ARE WE SAYING -- THAT'S THE PART I'M NOT -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK THERE'S AN UNALLOWABLE AMOUNT ABOVE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK, RICK, GOING TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SET A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL COST THAT CAN GO TOWARDS THESE INTERNAL OVERHEAD THAT COUNTS TOWARDS LEVERAGE. SO EVEN IF YOU SAY -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: OKAY. THAT'S A DIFFERENT PROPOSITION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: EXACTLY. SO THE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT'S MORE ALIGNED WITH -- THESE WOULD BE UNALLOWED LEVERAGE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S RIGHT BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE LEVERAGE CATEGORY. AND SO AS TO -- LORI, WOULD YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO THIS ITEM? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: CERTAINLY. WHAT WE CAN DO IS EXACTLY WHAT WE DID WITH THE SHARED LABS, WHICH IS SAY THAT, IN FACT, CIRM -- THERE'S TWO WAYS TO GO ABOUT IT. CIRM WOULD EITHER LIMIT THIS PARTICULAR PORTION OF THE CAPITAL PROJECT TO 15 PERCENT. OR WHAT WE COULD SAY IS ALL THE CIRM MONEY, SINCE IT'S LAST IN, GOES FOR CONSTRUCTION ONLY. AND THEN YOU GET TO RICK'S POINT, WHICH IS, IN FACT, IF AN INSTITUTION WANTS TO SPEND 20 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL PROJECT COST ON THE PLANNING AND WORKING DRAWINGS PORTION, THEY CAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THEY CERTAINLY CAN. THEY CAN SPEND PERCENT, BUT WE'RE DISCUSSING WHAT WILL COUNT FOR LEVERAGE ONLY. SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CATEGORY, WE'RE SAYING 15 PERCENT OF $50 MILLION IS TOO MUCH OVERHEAD. AND SO IF WE'RE CAPPING THE OVERHEAD THAT WE'LL COUNT TOWARDS LEVERAGE, IS THAT FIGURE 10 PERCENT BECAUSE -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: OF WHAT AGAIN? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: OF THE TOTAL COSTS. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: TELL ME WHAT THE 10 PERCENT. I'M CONFUSED ON THE 10 PERCENT -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION HERE, BOB? AS A BASIS, I DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO PAY ANYBODY TO PROVIDE THE STAFF TO GIVE US AN APPLICATION. NOW, IF THEY HAVE A PROJECT, THAT PROJECT INCLUDES -- THE PROJECT INCLUDES, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, SOFT COSTS AS WELL AS HARD COSTS. THE SOFT COSTS, YOUR INTERNAL COSTS, SHOULD BE RELATED TO THAT PROJECT. AND I DON'T THINK IT OUGHT TO EXCEED MORE THAN 5 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL ON LARGE PROJECTS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WANT TO ANSWER STUART'S QUESTION. STUART, IN THE SHARED LAB RFA, MAYBE RICK SHOULD BE THE PERSON, ALL THE APPLICANTS HAD SOME INTERNAL COST FOR THEIR OWN STAFF, AND IT WAS LIMITED TO NOT TO EXCEED 15 PERCENT OF THE -- | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: INCLUDING DESIGN. THAT INCLUDED DESIGN. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: AND THE EXTERNAL ARCHITECT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IT WAS INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL SOFT COSTS. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. 15 PERCENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT WE WOULD FUND. ANYTHING BEYOND THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO FUND DIRECTLY. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: I WOULD TELL YOU COMMERCIALLY THE ANSWER IS PROBABLY AROUND 10 PERCENT FOR ARCHITECTS, | ||||||||
| ENGINEERS. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: AND FOR MIDSIZE PROJECTS, WHEN YOU GET INTO 50 MILLION, IT'S A LOT LESS THAN THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO DO WE WANT TO SAY ONLY 5 PERCENT FOR LEVERAGE? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, THE POINT IS HERE NOT WHAT WE'LL PAY ON. THE POINT IS WHAT WILL COUNT FOR LEVERAGE. AND WHAT I THINK WOULD BE SIMPLEST TO SAY IS WE'RE ONLY GOING TO COUNT TOWARDS LEVERAGE 10 PERCENT FOR ARCHITECTURE AND INTERNAL COSTS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT SEEMS HIGH. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: THAT'S INTERNAL AND -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING. ARCHITECTURE, ENGINEERING, INTERNAL COST IS 10 PERCENT. FOR LEVERAGE, THAT'S NOT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF WHAT IS REASONABLE IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'LL EXPEND FUNDS ON. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: THEY'VE GOT CIVIL ENGINEERS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF ENGINEERS, AND THEY MAY HAVE -- IN SOME JURISDICTIONS, THEY MAY HAVE A LOT OF ENTITLEMENT COSTS WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ALL THE UC'S HAVE THEIR OWN ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY. SO THERE WOULD BE EQUIVALENT COSTS THAT WOULD BE INTERNAL, LIKE FIRE MARSHAL AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET APPLES AND APPLES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IS EVERYONE OKAY WITH THE DEFINITION? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I HAVE ANOTHER ISSUE THAT I THINK BELONGS HERE, BUT I'M NOT CERTAIN. WE HAVE TO ASSIGN SOME VALUE TO THOSE BUILDINGS THAT WILL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA AFTER THEY'RE BUILT. SOME OF THESE WILL BELONG TO PRIVATE NONPROFIT ENTITIES AND SOME WILL BELONG TO THE CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE TO ASCRIBE SOME VALUE TO THAT IN THIS PROCESS. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: WHAT DO YOU MEAN THEY'RE GOING -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: MAYBE THAT'S IN PROGRAM REVIEW -- | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: BUT IF STANFORD BUILDS A BUILDING, IT BELONGS TO STANFORD. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWALL: WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH LEVERAGE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWALL: WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH LEVERAGE? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH VALUE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: MAYBE IT BELONGS IN VALUE, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT -- I THINK WE'D BE REMISS AS STEWARDS OF THE TAXPAYERS' MONEY NOT TO CAPTURE THIS IN SOME PROCESS -- SOMEWHERE IN THIS PROCESS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS WILL BELONG TO PRIVATE ENTITIES AND SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS WILL BELONG TO THE CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: I'M NOT SURE I AGREE, BUT I THINK WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS THE RESIDUAL VALUE OF THE BUILDING AT THE END OF ITS LIFE. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: ACTUALLY MIGHT I MAKE A SUGGESTION, THAT WHAT YOU WOULD WANT TO DO IS, IN FACT, IMPOSE A COVENANT ON THE BUILDINGS EVEN THAT BELONG TO UC, THAT, IN FACT, FOR THE LIFE OF CIRM, THAT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SPACE ACTUALLY DOES BELONG TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DEDICATED TO THE USE. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: DEDICATED TO THE USE OF STEM CELL RESEARCH. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DEDICATED TO THE USE OF STEM CELL RESEARCH. THE POINT IS WHETHER IT'S AT A PRIVATE INSTITUTION OR A PUBLIC, IF IT ENDS UP FOR 25 YEARS BEING DEDICATED TO REGENERATIVE MEDICINE, IT'S A LITTLE BROADER CATEGORY. WE'RE GETTING THE VALUE OUT OF THAT AS CITIZENS OF THE STATE FOR THAT WHOLE TERM. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE CAN IMPOSE THAT COVENANT. WE CAN IMPOSE THE USE COVENANT. WE CAN'T IMPOSE AN UNDERLYING FEE COVENANT IF IT'S AT A PRIVATE, NONPROFIT INSTITUTION. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK JEFF IF HIS POINT WAS TO BRING THIS UP UNDER LEVERAGE BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GIVE -- YOU WANT TO INCENT INSTITUTIONS TO DO THAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I THINK THIS IS A VALUE ISSUE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GO AHEAD, LORI. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: WELL, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU IMPOSE IT, IF IT IS A COVENANT THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND FOR USE, THEN WE CAN JUST MAKE IT A THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT. THEY JUST HAVE TO MEET IT. THEY KNOW WHEN THEY'RE APPLYING FOR THESE FUNDS, THAT, IN FACT, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: TO SOME EXTENT WE GOT TO REALIZE THAT SCIENCE IS ORGANIC, AND OVER A PERIOD OF 30 OR 40 YEARS, THE SCIENCE IS GOING TO CHANGE. AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A GOAL. AND WE NEED -- WHILE THIS AGENCY, IF IT PERFORMS, HOPEFULLY, THE STATE WILL EXTEND ITS LICENSE. AND IF STEM CELL RESEARCH AND REGENERATIVE MEDICINE ARE IMPORTANT, HOPEFULLY IT WILL EXTEND ITS TERM. AND TO TIE IT UP FOR 30 OR 40 YEARS, I THINK THAT THESE INSTITUTIONS HAVE A PROVEN HISTORY. THEY'RE ALL NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS. THEY HAVE A PROVEN HISTORY OF PERFORMING AND DELIVERING FOR THE STATE, AND THE STATE GETS THE BENEFIT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THEY'RE GOING TO FREAK OUT IF WE DO THIS COVENANT, BUT I DON'T REALLY CARE. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A TIME LIMIT ON IT. MAYBE IT'S NOT THE LIFE OF CIRM BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT. WE KNOW IT'S TEN YEARS, BUT IT COULD BE LONGER, AND WE HOPE IT IS, BUT IT SHOULD BE SOME MINIMUM AMOUNT OF YEARS. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I'D MENTION, JUST TO HELP YOU, DAVID, IS THAT THE INSTITUTIONS MAY NOT HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM WITH IT BECAUSE THE NIH ON THEIR WHAT'S CALLED FACILITIES GRANTS THAT THEY HAVEN'T DONE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, C0- GRANTS, THEY REQUIRE A LETTER FROM THE INSTITUTION THAT YOU WILL USE THAT SPACE FOR 20 YEARS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: LET'S DO NIH. THEY'RE THE GOLD STANDARD. WE'VE BEEN SAYING THAT FROM DAY ONE ON ALL OF OUR OTHER STUFF. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ARE WE TALKING ABOUT LEVERAGE, OR ARE WE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF LEVERAGE? IS THAT -- IF WE WANT TO PUT IT IN LEVERAGE, I'M OKAY WITH IT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK IT'S VALUE. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. I ACTUALLY THINK IF YOU'RE GOING TO IMPOSE IT, YOU NEED TO SAY UP FRONT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO IMPOSE IT, AND IT BECOMES A REQUIREMENT AND A CONDITION OF THE GRANT APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE, LORI. I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I THINK THAT THE BENEFIT OF IT WOULD BE IN THE CIRM/US BEING ABLE TO REQUIRE THEM -- IT'S ESSENTIALLY A PARTNERSHIP IN OUR ENTERPRISE, WHICH COULD BE DIFFERENT THAN THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE DOING REGENERATIVE MEDICINE IN SHARING THAT RESOURCE, FOR EXAMPLE, WAYS THAT WE SEE AS PART OF OUR MISSION RATHER THAN JUST SAYING THAT THEY'RE DOING REGENERATIVE MEDICINE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MAKE THIS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT, BACK TO THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, THE SAME AS NIH FOR 20 YEARS AND MODEL IT AFTER THAT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: MAY I JUST SUGGEST AT THIS POINT, GIVEN THAT WE KNOW THAT CIRM WILL BE IN EXISTENCE FOR TEN, BUT WE'RE NOT SURE ABOUT 20, YOU MIGHT JUST WANT TO LIMIT IT TO TEN. AND ASSUME THAT, IN FACT, CHAIRMAN KLEIN, YOU ARE CORRECT, THAT IN MANY CASES THE INSTITUTIONS WILL CONTINUE TO USE THIS SPACE FOR THIS USE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: OR NOT. WE DON'T KNOW THAT. I DON'T KNOW THAT. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IF WE CAN POSSIBLY LEGALLY REQUIRE IT, WE SHOULD. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: LET'S OPEN IT FOR DISCUSSION. I THINK IF NIH IS DOING IT FOR 20 YEARS, WHY WOULDN'T WE WANT TO DO IT FOR 20 YEARS? WHY WOULDN'T WE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THIS IS AN ISSUE TO PUNT. IT'S A VALUE POINT THAT WE WANT TO BE PART OF THIS RFA AS A MINIMUM QUALIFICATION, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING WE PUNT TO THE ICOC, WHETHER IT BE 10 OR 20. I THINK THE MINIMUM IS TEN YEARS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE DON'T HAVE THE LEVEL OF EXPERTISE JUST YET TO SAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I THINK THE BEST ARGUMENT WE CAN MAKE, THAT I'M GOING TO TRY TO MAKE, IS, LOOK, THE NIH DOES IT. WE'VE SAID FROM DAY ONE IN ADOPTING OTHER POLICIES AND GUIDELINES WE'LL FOLLOW THE NIH. LET'S FOLLOW IT NOW. I'LL WAIT FOR MY COLLEAGUES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH THE PUNT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: OR MAKE A RECOMMENDATION IN THE ALTERNATIVE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, ED, YOU WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT FIRST? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I AGREE TOTALLY WITH JEFF'S POINT OF VIEW, THAT IF IT'S PAID FOR BY THE CITIZENS, IT SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE CITIZENS IF IT'S NOT USED FOR THIS PURPOSE. HOWEVER, THAT BEING SAID, IF WE'RE TRYING TO LEVERAGE IT, AND WE HAVE SOME PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS PUTTING UP 50 PERCENT OF THE MONEY, WHY ARE THEY GOING TO GIVE IT BACK TO YOU? YOU WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT RESEARCHING THAT A LITTLE BIT. I'M ON YOUR SIDE, PAL. IF IT'S PAID FOR BY THE CITIZENS, THE RESIDUAL VALUE, IF IT'S NOT USED FOR THIS PURPOSE SOMEHOW -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ED, ISN'T THAT THE EXPECTATION OF THE DONOR? IF THEY GIVE A DONATION TO A PUBLIC INSTITUTION, THAT IT'S FOR THE PUBLIC, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO RETURN TO THE DONOR? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: YEAH. BUT LET'S TAKE THE BUILDING, FOR INSTANCE. IF THE BUILDING LIES ON THEIR PROPERTY AND THEY'RE NOT GETTING ANY VALUE FOR THAT PROPERTY, ARE THEY GOING TO GIVE YOU THE PROPERTY, OR ARE THEY GOING TO MOVE THE BUILDING? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GO AHEAD, BOB. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THOUGHT THAT WHAT I HEARD DAVID SAYING IS THAT HE WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE ICOC A USE RESTRICTION OF REGENERATIVE MEDICINE FOR TEN TO 20 YEARS. AND I AM PREPARED TO SECOND THAT MOTION IF THAT'S A MOTION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IT IS. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I'M PREPARED TO VOTE FOR IT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S THE MOTION AND THE SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WHAT I UNDERSTOOD LORI TO SAY IS THAT WOULD BE PART OF, LIKE, THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS, IF YOU WILL. | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: WAS IT FOR 10 OR FOR 20? VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE'RE GOING TO LET THE ICOC DECIDE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM ANY WORKING GROUP MEMBERS? PUBLIC COMMENTS? | ||||||||
| DR. HALME: DINA HALME FROM UCSF. TWO QUICK COMMENTS. ONE WAS IN VALUE YOU USE THE WORD "COST," BUT IT WASN'T CLEAR WHETHER THAT WAS PROJECT COSTS OR CIRM COSTS. | ||||||||
| AND THE SECOND ONE IS I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS 10-PERCENT CAP BECAUSE FOR THE SHARED LABS. A LOT OF INSTITUTIONS HAD TROUBLE MAKING THE 15 PERCENT CAP. AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S A BIGGER PROJECT, BUT NONETHELESS IF THEY'RE GOING TO PUT MORE MONEY IN, IT'D BE NICE TO HAVE 10 PERCENT, YOU GET FULL CREDIT, AND THEN SLIDING SCALE AFTER THAT, OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S NOT A COMMENT ON THIS MOTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT'S CORRECT. I'M AWARE OF THAT. SO ANY COMMENTS ON THIS MOTION? | ||||||||
| SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NONE. OKAY. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF I COULD, ON LEVERAGE, THOUGH, WHAT I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS IS THE LAST SENTENCE IS NOT EXACTLY WHAT WE SAID. COUNT UP TO 10 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL PROJECT COST FOR INTERNAL -- IT'S INTERNAL OVERHEAD PLUS ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING COSTS BECAUSE THEY COULD HAVE OTHER SOFT COSTS, LIKE FEES TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT IF THEY'RE NOT A STATE INSTITUTION. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CAPTURE ALL SOFT COSTS IN THIS CAP. THIS IS JUST INTERNAL OVERHEAD PLUS ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: IF JUSTIFIED. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, IT'S GOT TO ALSO MEET OTHER COSTS REASONABLE AND NECESSARY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO DO WE WANT TO ADDRESS HER OTHER COMMENT ABOUT COST UNDER VALUE ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS CIRM COST? IT WAS A GOOD POINT SHE MADE, WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT -- CAN WE GO TO VALUE? ARE THE COSTS REASONABLE AND NECESSARY? I GUESS WE HAVEN'T GONE TO THE NEXT LEVEL. WE'LL DEAL WITH IT LATER. HOW'S THAT? | ||||||||
| DR. HALME: GREAT. I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THE ISSUE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ARE WE OKAY -- IS EVERYBODY ELSE -- LET'S GO BACK TO LEVERAGE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ON LEVERAGE WE'RE MISSING THE WORD "OVERHEAD" AFTER INTERNAL, INTERNAL OVERHEAD AND... | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: HOW ABOUT INTERNAL PROJECT OVERHEAD? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YEAH. INTERNAL PROJECT OVERHEAD. THAT'S VERY GOOD. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WITH THAT, WE READY TO GO TO FUNCTIONALITY? | ||||||||
| MR. CLEARY: ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT ON LEVERAGE. I'M JOHN CLEARY WITH USC. I WANTED TO CLARIFY ON LEVERAGE, I'M LOOKING AT THE SENTENCE CASH EXPENDITURES SPENT PRIOR TO THE NOGA FOR THE PROJECT, INCLUDING LAND AND BUILDING AT COST, ETC. I'M WONDERING IF IT WAS A CASH EXPENDITURE FOR NOT SPECIFICALLY THIS PROJECT, BUT A PRIOR PROJECT, WHETHER WE CAN ASSIGN A VALUE TO THAT FOR LEVERAGE. | ||||||||
| WHAT I'M SPECIFICALLY GETTING AT WE'RE AT USC LOOKING FOR EVERY POSSIBLE WAY TO DO LEVERAGE IN MATCHING. WE'RE BUILDING OUR BUILDING IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO ANOTHER. BOTH WILL HAVE A VIVARIUM. IN OURS WE ARE NOT BUILDING A CAGE WASH AND OTHER FACILITIES BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE AN UNDERGROUND ACCESS TO THE ORIGINAL AND INTEND TO USE THOSE. SO IS THERE -- IS THAT ENCAPSULATED WITHIN CASH EXPENDITURES SPENT PRIOR TO THE NGA FOR THE PROJECT? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: NO. | ||||||||
| MR. CLEARY: MIGHT IT BE? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BUT HE GETS CREDIT UNDER SHARED. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROJECT COSTS AND -- PROJECT LEVERAGE AND PROGRAM LEVERAGE EVEN IF IT'S A SHARED FACILITY BECAUSE THE OTHER FACILITY WAS ALREADY BUILT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? | ||||||||
| MR. CLEARY: CORRECT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: STILL, IF WE DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR THE OTHER VIVARIUM, WE GET THE SHARED FACILITY POINTS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT HAVING TO PAY FOR THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT. YEAH. THAT WAS EXACTLY -- YOUR SCENARIO WAS REALLY WHAT I WAS THINKING IN MY MIND OTHER THAN THIS CONSORTIUM ISSUE WHERE THERE IS SOME SIGNIFICANT -- I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD "LEVERAGE," BUT THERE'S SHARED RESOURCES AVAILABLE. SO IT WOULD COUNT VERY HEAVILY IN MY MIND IN THAT CATEGORY, BUT NOT UNDER THE CASH OUT OF POCKET. | ||||||||
| MR. CLEARY: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I'M SORRY. WE NEED SOME CLARIFICATION THEN BECAUSE THE PROJECT LEVERAGE IS EASY FOR US TO COUNT. IT'S THE TOTAL PROJECT COST OF THE PROJECT THAT EACH ONE OF THESE APPLICANTS WOULD BE SUBMITTING. PRIOR EXPENDITURES FOR ANOTHER FACILITY, THAT'S PROGRAM LEVERAGE. AND IF YOU WANT TO DEFINE PROGRAM LEVERAGE FOR SHARED FACILITIES, THEN WE CAN DO THAT. BUT, AGAIN, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO ASSIGN A VALUE FOR A PROJECT THAT WAS BUILT FIVE YEARS AGO. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO DEPRECIATE THE VALUE, HOW WE WOULD COME UP WITH IT, HOW WE WOULD VALIDATE IT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE'RE NOT TRYING TO COUNT THE DOLLARS SPENT PREVIOUSLY. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS BECAUSE IT'S A SHARED RESOURCE, WE'RE NOT HAVING TO PAY FOR A COST. SO IN THAT SHARED RESOURCE CATEGORY, GIVING THEM POINTS BECAUSE THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO GET THE BENEFIT OF A SHARED RESOURCE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IN ALL FAIRNESS TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM USC, HE ASKED A VERY GOOD QUESTION AND THE ANSWER IS NO, PERIOD. RIGHT? IT CAN'T BE A NO WITH A COMMA. IT'S A NO, PERIOD. BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE A VERY CLEAR WAY FOR STAFF AND FOR US TO ANALYZE THESE APPLICATIONS, WHAT COUNTS AND WHAT DOESN'T. IT'S CLEAR TO ME. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH YOU, DAVID. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IT'S CLEAR TO ME, SO LET'S MOVE ON. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I'D JUST LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JOAN, ONE SECOND. I DON'T WANT TO LOSE THIS THOUGHT. BOB, WHEN WE PUT IN UNDER LEVERAGE FOR THE PROJECT, INCLUDING LAND AND BUILDING AT COST, DON'T WE NEED FURTHER DEFINITION AT WHOSE COST AND WHEN? SO THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT COULD BE A SLIPPERY -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AT A CERTAIN POINT WE HAVE TO HAVE THE STAFF BUILD OUT THESE DEFINITIONS, AND WE NEED TO MOVE ON AND TRY AND GET THE PRINCIPAL THOUGHTS DOWN IN THESE DEFINITIONS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JOAN, GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IF WE WANT A CAGE WASH AS FAR AS A VIVARIUM IN CENTRAL L.A. AND ONE PLACE WILL BUILD ONE FROM SCRATCH, WHICH COSTS X PLUS, ANOTHER PLACE WILL THROW IN ONE THAT'S ALREADY BUILT AND SO WILL BE DONE ALREADY, SO ADDRESSES URGENCY AND IS CHEAPER, WHY DON'T WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE THAT? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE DO IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IF WE HAVE A SYSTEM THAT'S ENCOURAGING THAT AND I DON'T GET IT, GREAT. OKAY. | ||||||||
| GREAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE DO. GREAT. FUNCTIONALITY. | ||||||||
| (INAUDIBLE DISCUSSION.) | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: FUNCTIONALITY. WE HAD ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS SOMEWHAT, AND I THINK WE PROVIDED SOME CLARIFICATION, GETTING LONG-TERM FLEXIBILITY WHILE MEETING SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: STUART, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. SO YOU DON'T THINK WE SHOULD EXPAND UPON THIS, THAT THE PLANS AND THE DESIGN APPEARS TO MEET THE PROPOSED PROGRAM? YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT WOULDN'T BE THE FIRST TIME I'VE LOOKED AT A SET OF PLANS AND SAID, "OH, MY GOD. WHAT ARE THEY SMOKING?" | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: EXCUSE ME, CHAIR LICHTENGER. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MENTION THAT IT IS VERY POSSIBLE YOU WILL RECEIVE APPLICATIONS AND THEY MAY ONLY BE IN A SCHEMATIC OR AT A 50-PERCENT SCHEMATIC LEVEL. IN FACT, YOU WILL NOT NECESSARILY HAVE DETAILED WORKING DRAWINGS IN ORDER TO MAKE THESE DETERMINATIONS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD SEE SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS THAT DON'T REALLY RELATE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN THE WAY THAT MAKES SENSE. SO THAT WOULD TO ME MEAN THEY ARE NOT REALLY FUNCTIONALITY. | ||||||||
| I THINK THAT WHAT YOU HAVE THERE IS A REALLY GOOD DEFINITION. I JUST THINK I'D WANT TO SEE SOMETHING ADDED. RICK, IF YOU HAVE ANY PROPOSED LANGUAGE, I'D BE INTERESTED IN HEARING ABOUT THAT THE PROPOSED PLANS SEEM TO, YOU KNOW -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I GUESS WE WERE TRYING TO CAPTURE THAT WITH CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANNED SPACE DESIGN IS CONSISTENT WITH CIRM OBJECTIVES OF MEETING CURRENT SPACE NEEDS. I THINK THAT THERE'S CLARITY, I THINK, OF MEETING NEEDS. I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: I HAVE A BIGGER PROBLEM WITH AND IN SOME CASES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: EXACTLY. IN ALL CASES EXPANDING STEM CELL RESEARCH. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IT COULD BE TO ALLEVIATE CURRENT OVERCROWDING. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, IT BETTER BE MORE THAN JUST THAT. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT IS A SMALL EMERGING PROGRAM AND THEY HAVE ONLY A FEW CURRENT PI'S THAT DO STEM CELL RESEARCH AND THEY DON'T HAVE A COMMITMENT FROM THEIR CHANCELLOR OR THEIR PRESIDENT TO EXPAND THAT PROGRAM, PERHAPS THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WANT TO ADD ADDITIONAL SPACE AT THIS TIME. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, THEN I'M NOT SURE THEY SHOULD BE COMING TO US. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE CAN TAKE IT OUT. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: YEAH. I THINK THAT THE ISSUE ISN'T SO MUCH WHETHER THEY WANT TO ADD IT AT THIS TIME OR NOT, BUT THE SPACE THAT THEY DO DESIGN SHOULD HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO EXPAND. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: INSTEAD OF STEM CELL RESEARCH, I'D SAY REGENERATIVE MEDICINE AS A BROADER TERM. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: IF WE DO LEAVE WITH THE CIRM OBJECTIVES OF MEETING, I WOULD SAY CURRENT PROJECT NEEDS BECAUSE WE HAD -- WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE SPACE IN THE BEGINNING. THE SPACE HAS TO MATCH THE PROJECT, RIGHT? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DO WE WANT TO MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT REQUIRING SOME MINIMUM LEVEL OF DOCUMENTATION IN THIS SECTION? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THAT IN THE WHOLE -- THROUGHOUT THIS APPLICATION REQUEST, THEY'RE GOING TO REQUIRE ALL KINDS OF DOCUMENTATION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'M JUST MENTIONING TO STAFF, FOR EXAMPLE, WE KNOW THAT ON THE SHARED GRANT RFA'S, WE GOT SOME THINGS THAT WERE NOT SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THERE WAS THAT PROJECT MANAGER CHART THAT WE LIKED FROM ONE INSTITUTION A LOT. I THINK JANET WANTED TO INSIST -- YOU SORT OF SAID THIS WOULD BE GREAT IF WE HAD IT FROM ALL THE APPLICANTS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK IT'S A VERY GOOD IDEA. I'M SURE THE STAFF HAS CAPTURED JANET'S COMMENT, BUT WE'RE IN DEFINITIONS RIGHT NOW. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT, BOTH ED AND I TALKED ABOUT BASE BUILDING AND TI'S, YET WE DON'T REFER TO IT IN HERE. AND I THINK THAT MAYBE THERE'S A PLACE WHERE WE COULD PUT IT. MEETING CURRENT PROGRAMMATIC NEEDS IN BASE BUILDING AND TI'S SO THAT WE CAN EXPAND IT. I'M NOT GREAT AT WORDSMITHING, BUT THAT'S MY GENERAL FEELING. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I GUESS I'M NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING THE DISTINCTION YOU ARE MAKING BECAUSE THESE -- A LOT OF TIMES THESE SCIENTIFIC BUILDINGS, THEY'RE NOT BUILT UNDER SEPARATE CONTRACTS FOR SHELLS AND TI'S. THEY'RE MAINLY DONE UNDER LUMP SUM ALL ONE CONTRACT. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT RELATES TO THAT SENTENCE. | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT THE ONE PROJECT, BOTH THE BASE BUILDING AND THE TI OF THAT PROJECT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: HE'S SAYING THE PLANNED SPACE DESIGN OF THE BASE BUILDING AND THE TENANT IMPROVEMENTS IS CONSISTENT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE PLANNED SPACE FOR THE BUILDING AND THE INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S RIGHT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: PLANNED SPACE DESIGN FOR THE BUILDING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK IT LOOKS GOOD. IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH FUNCTIONALITY? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: SO YOU ADDED SHARED RESOURCES, SO WE NEED TO GO DOWN ONE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND, A-N-D, TI. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BASE IN FRONT OF BUILDING AND PUT AN APOSTROPHE S AFTER TI. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THIS IS YOUR CATEGORY. DEFINITION OF SHARED RESOURCES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY, BOB. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE PROJECT BENEFITS FROM FACILITIES ASSETS AT THE APPLICANT'S SITE OR COLLABORATING INSTITUTIONS THAT REDUCE THE COSTS AND INCREASE THE VALUE FOR THE MISSION. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: SUGGESTED ADDITION, BOB. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE VALUE FOR THE MISSION. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: BOB, WHAT ABOUT SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF THE FACILITY WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR SHARED RESEARCH -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE SHARED -- | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: -- FOR SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION AND PUBLIC EDUCATION OR SOMETHING. SCIENTIFIC TRAINING AND PUBLIC EDUCATION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S A SEPARATE ITEM. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A SEPARATE MOTION TO THE BOARD ON THAT ITEM. I THINK JEFF'S SUGGESTION WAS AS A MORE GENERAL ISSUE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: SURE. WE WOULD WANT IT INCORPORATED SOMEWHERE IF IT IS. I THINK WE SHOULD REQUIRE IT WHETHER IT'S THERE OR NOT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: FIRST, LET'S TRY AND SEE WHAT THIS IS. PROJECT BENEFITS FROM THE FACILITIES ASSETS AT THE APPLICANT'S SITE OR COLLABORATING INSTITUTIONS THAT REDUCE THE COST AND INCREASE THE VALUE FOR THE MISSION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ONE THOUGHT I HAVE IS WHERE YOU HAVE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IT'S FROM FACILITY ASSETS, NOT FACILITIES. IT'S FROM FACILITY ASSETS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ALSO, WOULDN'T WE WANT TO JUST PUT A LITTLE NOTATION UNDER THIS WHERE WE SAY OR COLLABORATING INSTITUTIONS AND PUT IN PARENTHESES TAKING INTO ACCOUNT GEOGRAPHY BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IF THERE'S A COLLABORATING INSTITUTION THAT'S A TWO-HOUR DRIVE, THAT'S NOT REALLY GOING TO ADD THE SAME VALUE AS ONE THAT'S RIGHT NEXT DOOR, AS THE GENTLEMAN FROM USC POINTED OUT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK WE CAN DO THAT IN OUR GENERAL DISCUSSION BECAUSE IF IT'S A LARGE ANIMAL LAB, IT MAY BE A TWO-HOUR DRIVE, BUT, BOY, IT'S -- | ||||||||
| MR. LAFF: IT'S CLOSE. THERE AREN'T THAT MANY OF THEM. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: THAT MAY BE THE ONLY IMAGING CENTER IN THE STATE WITH THIS KIND OF EQUIPMENT, BUT THAT'S ALL YOU NEED. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE'LL LOOK AT IT AS PART OF A UTILITY WHEN WE EVALUATE IT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I THINK UTILITY IS THE ISSUE. AT DAVIS THIS KIND OF CAME UP. AND THE GEOGRAPHY INVOLVED WAS MUCH LESS DAUNTING THAN PERHAPS GOING FROM UCLA TO USC, YOU KNOW. I THINK ONCE YOU START DOWN THAT ROAD, AND THAT INCLUDED BUCK ALL THE WAY OVER TO DAVIS. IT'S A MAJOR TERRITORY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. I LIKE THE DEFINITION. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON IT? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: CAN I JUST MAKE ONE SUGGESTION OF CLARIFICATION, THAT SHARED RESOURCES IN THIS CRITERIA THAT WILL ULTIMATELY HAVE A METHOD FOR SCORING, IT DOES DIFFER FROM CONSORTIUM; IS THAT CORRECT? MEANING THERE COULD BE AN INSTITUTION THAT IS COLLABORATING WITH SEVERAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BUT EACH ONE OF THOSE INSTITUTIONS WILL BE APPLYING FOR A SEPARATE FACILITIES GRANT; WHEREAS, THE CONSORTIUM IS APPLYING FOR ONE FACILITIES GRANT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IT'S DIFFERENT THAN CONSORTIUM. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IT'S DIFFERENT THAN CONSORTIUM. | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: DO CONSORTIUMS FALL UNDER THAT? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: CONSORTIUMS OR ANY OF THEM, CONSORTIA, THAT ARE APPLYING WOULD CERTAINLY THEN BENEFIT FROM THIS SCORE AS WELL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO DO WE WANT TO HAVE SOME KIND OF MOTION AND VOTE ON THIS BECAUSE I SEE STUART PACKING? SO -- | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I'LL NEED TO LEAVE TOO. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: COULD I MAKE A -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE NEED TO ASK IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENT, AND SOMEONE NEEDS TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT ALL OF THESE DEFINITIONS. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: SO MOVED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'LL SECOND. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ADOPTING THE DEFINITIONS FOR THE CRITERIA FOR THE LARGE GRANT RFA FOR THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP? STEP UP, STATE YOUR NAME, AND AFFILIATION. | ||||||||
| MS. MOSCA: WE'RE ON THIS DEFINITION, RIGHT? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ALL THE DEFINITIONS. | ||||||||
| MS. MOSCA: JUST ON THE SHARED RESOURCES, I JUST WANT ONE CLARIFICATION. DEBBIE MOSCA FROM THE SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND PART OF THE SAN DIEGO CONSORTIUM. | ||||||||
| JUST WANT ONE CLARIFICATION. DEBBIE MOSCA FROM THE SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND PART OF THE SAN DIEGO CONSORTIUM. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CORRECT. | ||||||||
| MS. MOSCA: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? JOHN. | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: FROM THE POINT OF THESE SEEM TO BE VERY APPROPRIATE, BROAD PRINCIPLES, AND VERY GOOD STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THE DEVIL IS GOING TO BE IN THE DETAILS AS IMPLEMENTED BY STAFF, AND I ASSUME WILL BECOME A DRAFT THAT WILL BE FURTHER DISCUSSED AND REFINED. SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO THAT EMERGING AND EMERGING IN A TIME THAT WILL GIVE EVERYONE AMPLE TIME TO CONTINUE TO REVIEW IT. THIS IS A VERY GOOD FIRST STEP, I THINK, AND SO I THINK YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR THE MOTION, BUT I WOULD ALSO STRESS THE IMPORTANCE AND CONTRIBUTION THAT STAFF HAS MADE TO ALL OF THIS PROCESS AND COMMEND THEM FOR THEIR CONTINUED FINE WORK. | ||||||||
| (APPLAUSE.) | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS OTHER THAN I CONCUR? SO WE HAVE A MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. SO -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE HAVE AN IMPORTANT POINT HERE OF AT LEAST GETTING A WEIGHTING, AND WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO THAT QUICKLY, BUT WE NEED TO WALK THROUGH THESE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: CAN WE GO TO THE TOP. I THINK WHAT WE MIGHT WANT TO DO IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE THIS, WE COULD MOVE OVER ONE MORE COLUMN WHERE WE HAVE -- OR WE CAN USE THE -- YOU HAVE TO ALLOCATE THE 100 POINTS ACROSS THESE FIVE CATEGORIES. AND I THINK BEFORE YOU LEAVE TODAY, IT WOULD BE GREAT IF YOU COULD SIT AND HAVE A BRIEF DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT. AND IF YOU CAN REACH A CONSENSUS EASILY, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. | ||||||||
| WE CAN WORK ON THE ISSUES THAT JUMP FROM DEFINITIONS TO STANDARDS AND DISTRIBUTE SOME INFORMATION THAT HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE ABLE TO DISCUSS EITHER AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING OR ON A CONFERENCE CALL. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THERE'S FIVE, DIVIDE IT, 20 EACH. THAT'S AN OPTION. I'M NOT SAYING WE DO THAT, BUT WE COULD. BY DOING SO, WE ARE STATING THAT WE VALUE EACH OF THESE EQUALLY. WE THINK URGENCY IS EQUALLY AS IMPORTANT AS FUNCTIONALITY, AND ETC., ETC. THAT WOULD BE MY ARGUMENT FOR LET'S JUST DO 20 EACH. I'M NOT SUGGESTING IT SO WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION AND BE DONE AND GO. I'M REALLY SAYING THERE'S SOME VALUE TO IT. THERE'S SOME POLICIES TO SUPPORT IT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO. WE DON'T HAVE TO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I DEFINITELY THINK THAT VALUE AND LEVERAGE SHOULD BE THE SAME BECAUSE I SEE THEM RELATED TO EACH OTHER. FOR EXAMPLE, I'M JUST GOING TO -- I'M NOT SAYING IT SHOULDN'T BE 20 ACROSS THE BOARD, BUT IF VALUE HYPOTHETICALLY WAS A HIGHER NUMBER, 25, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE EQUAL. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF WE DON'T GET LEVERAGE, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO REALLY MEET ALL OF OUR OPPORTUNITIES. AND IF WE DON'T GET VALUE, WE HAVE MISSED THE MISSION. SO IF WE HAD 25 FOR EACH OF THOSE, AND THEN THAT'S OBVIOUSLY 50 POINTS. AND THEN IF WE LOOK AT URGENCY IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT'S CRITICAL DOWNSTREAM. IF WE PUT 20 POINTS THERE, WE HAVE 70 POINTS. AND IF WE PUT 15 FOR FUNCTIONALITY AND 15 FOR SHARED RESOURCES, THAT'S THE THEORETICAL DISTRIBUTION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF WE DON'T GET LEVERAGE, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO REALLY MEET ALL OF OUR OPPORTUNITIES. AND IF WE DON'T GET VALUE, WE HAVE MISSED THE MISSION. SO IF WE HAD 25 FOR EACH OF THOSE, AND THEN THAT'S OBVIOUSLY 50 POINTS. AND THEN IF WE LOOK AT URGENCY IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT'S CRITICAL DOWNSTREAM. IF WE PUT 20 POINTS THERE, WE HAVE 70 POINTS. AND IF WE PUT 15 FOR FUNCTIONALITY AND 15 FOR SHARED RESOURCES, THAT'S THE THEORETICAL DISTRIBUTION. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: 15 URGENCY, 15 SHARED RESOURCES, AND 20 ON FUNCTIONALITY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I'D GIVE 20 BECAUSE WE GOT TO MAKE SURE THE BUILDING IS APPROPRIATE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IN FUNCTIONALITY WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ONLY MAKE SOME BROAD JUDGMENTS BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH UNIQUENESS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IN URGENCY THE VOTERS ARE GOING TO BE HIGHLY DISTRESSED IF WE GET A BUNCH OF BUILDINGS DELIVERED IN FOUR YEARS. AND THEY -- REALLY THERE'S BEEN EVIDENCE AROUND THE STATE OF TREMENDOUS EFFORT ON FIGURING HOW THEY'RE GOING TO GET TO TWO YEARS. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I TAKE YOUR ARGUMENT. I THINK THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS SO MINOR, I'D BE HAPPY WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WOULD GO EITHER WITH DAVID OR BOB'S SOLUTION. I DON'T FEEL -- | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I'LL MAKE A MOTION. URGENCY 20, VALUE 25, FUNCTIONALITY 15, LEVERAGE 25, AND SHARED RESOURCES 15. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'LL SECOND IT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO ANY DISCUSSION AMONG THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP? I LIKE IT. PUBLIC COMMENT? | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: SOUNDS GREAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO PUBLIC HAS SPOKEN. NOW WE'LL TAKE A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NONE. OKAY. MOTION CARRIES. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: CAN I JUST MAKE ONE -- NOT A MOTION. I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO LEAVE, BUT I WOULD LIKE -- I THINK WE'VE ESTABLISHED THE RATIOS, BUT I WOULD LIKE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE TO LOOK AT IF STAFF FEELS LIKE THAT WE CAN GET A BETTER DEGREE OF GRANULARITY BY HAVING A LARGER SCALE BECAUSE 15 POINTS, WE HAD THREE ELEMENTS EVEN WITH 25 POINTS THAT ALL NEEDED TO BE RATED IN, WHAT, EIGHT, SEVEN, NINE, THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO GET MORE ACCOMPLISHED WITH THOSE SAME RATIOS BUT WITH A LARGER SCALE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: 200-POINT SCALE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I'D LEAVE IT TO STAFF. WE'VE ESTABLISHED THE RATIOS, AND WHAT CAB BE INFORMATIVE ABOUT THE APPLICANT AND TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE EVALUATING THE APPLICATIONS, US AND WHOEVER, BUT JUST TO DESIGN SOMETHING THAT REALLY IS IN SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH DETAIL TO PROVIDE THE GRANULARITY SO THERE'S CLARITY. THAT'S MY ONLY POINT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: STICK WITH A HUNDRED POINTS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH THAT. SO, JEFF, THAT WAS JUST A COMMENT, RIGHT? YOU'RE NOT MAKING A MOTION, RIGHT? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: NO. IF STAFF FELT THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING WE SHOULD EXPLORE, WE SHOULD CONSIDER EXPLORING IT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: SO LET'S TALK ABOUT NEXT STEPS, DAVID. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I GUESS THERE'S A QUESTION FOR EVERYONE. ARLENE WAS GOING TO SPEAK NEXT ABOUT THE GRANT WORKING GROUP. ARE WE HAVING THAT HAPPEN? NO? YES, WE ARE HAVING THAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: CAN WE HAVE A ONE-MINUTE RECESS? THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| (A BRIEF RECESS WAS TAKEN.) | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE'RE GOING TO RECONVENE THE MEETING. SO WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE TO HAVE -- COULD EVERYONE STOP THE PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS, MR. VICE CHAIR? THAT MEANS YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR. | ||||||||
| SO WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE TO HAVE A FACILITIES WORKING GROUP CONFERENCE CALL ON THE 30TH, TIME TO BE DETERMINED. THAT WOULD BE A MONDAY, A.M. KIDDING. JOHN WILL BE ON THE CALL. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: BEGINNING WITH PUBLIC COMMENTS. | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: I WAS THERE THIS MORNING AT QUARTER TO SEVEN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO THE 30TH, AND THE TIME WILL BE DETERMINED. PAT WILL COORDINATE THAT WITH EVERYONE. I SAY WE DO IT, SERIOUSLY, FIRST THING, GET IT DONE, 9 A.M. OR SO. | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: WILL THE PUBLIC HAVE ACCESS TO THAT CALL AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. YES. THE USUAL. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND ON THAT CALL COULD WE AGENDIZE LOOKING AT WHAT THE INTEREST MIGHT BE THAT WE WOULD NEED TO RESERVE IF, IN FACT, WE USE THE LAST PAY-IN APPROACH? SO IF OUR DOLLARS ARE LAST PAY-IN, BECAUSE NOW THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THE 50 MILLION WAS THE FIGURE FOR ALL INTEREST, MAYBE IT'S 35 MILLION OR 30 MILLION THAT'S RELATED TO FACILITIES, BUT THAT WILL BE VERY VALUABLE TO SEE IN OUR RECOMMENDATION. IF WE CAN RECOMMEND INCREASING THE MONEY AVAILABLE, OBVIOUSLY A LAST PAY-IN APPROACH ALSO INCREASES THE STATE CONTROL ON PERFORMANCE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE'D LIKE TO CONTINUE. WE HAVE TWO REALLY IMPORTANT COMPONENTS THAT WE WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND. ARLENE CHIU IS GOING TO GO OVER THE APPROACH THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED FOR THE PART 1 EVALUATION, THE SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION, OF THE LARGE FACILITIES GRANTS. AND AFTER THAT, WE WANT TO GIVE YOU AN EXPOSURE TO THE OPTIONS FOR DOING THE ACTUAL REVIEW PROCESS IN TERMS OF SEQUENTIAL ONE STEP OR TWO STEPS. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: SO WE TOO HEARD VERY CLEARLY BOTH TODAY AND AT EACH ONE OF THOSE FOUR MEETINGS THAT THE SCIENCE SHOULD LEAD AND DETERMINE WHAT KINDS OF FACILITIES SHOULD BE AVAILABLE. AND SO WE PAID VERY MUCH ATTENTION TO THE COMMENTS OF THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS TO THE SCIENTIFIC STRATEGIC PLAN IN TERMS OF USING THE CRITERIA OF EXCELLENCE AND INNOVATION, COLLABORATION, FUNCTIONALITY, AND GROWTH OF PROGRAMS, BUT PERHAPS WORDED SOMEWHAT DIFFERENTLY. | ||||||||
| BEFORE I GO INTO THE CRITERIA, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT WE THOUGHT THE SCIENCE COULD BE LOOKED AT ALONG TWO AXES. ONE IS THE BREADTH OF A PROGRAM; THAT IS, HOW BROAD IS THE PROGRAM FROM BASIC ALL THE WAY TO CLINICAL ELEMENTS OF IT. I'LL COME BACK TO THIS. | ||||||||
| THE OTHER IS ACROSS THE BREADTH OF IT, HOW DEEP, HOW THE QUALITY AND STRENGTH OF EACH OF THESE ELEMENTS WOULD BE AND WAYS TO MEASURE THEM. SO WE LOOKED AT FOUR AREAS OF DEPTH, AND I WILL COME BACK TO IT, BUT ESSENTIALLY THEY ARE SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM, WHICH WOULD REALLY COVER EXCELLENCE AND INNOVATION; FORMAL PARTNERSHIPS, WHICH YOU ALL HAVE ALREADY CALLED COLLABORATION AND CONSORTIA; CORE SERVICES, OR AS YOU NAMED THEM SHARED RESOURCES; AND, FINALLY, CAPACITY FOR GROWTH. | ||||||||
| ALL OF THOSE ELEMENTS ARE VERY FAMILIAR TO YOU NOW SINCE YOU JUST HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THEM FOR QUITE A FEW HOURS. | ||||||||
| LET'S LOOK AT THE BREADTH OF PROGRAM. THE BREADTH OF PROGRAM, WE VERY SIMPLY, WITHOUT GIVING IT ANY VALUE JUDGMENTS, THOUGHT OF IT IN THREE CATEGORIES. FIRST WOULD BE ELEMENT -- WHAT I CALL ELEMENT X, WHICH IS BASIC AND DISCOVERY RESEARCH, WHICH WILL BE FOCUSED ON UNDERSTANDING THE FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGY OF STEM CELLS, PLURIPOTENCY. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BASIC QUESTION. BREADTH OF PROGRAM, WHAT PROGRAM, THE APPLICANT'S PROGRAM? | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: THE APPLICANT'S PROGRAM, THE APPLICATION. I SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLEARER OF THE WHOLE APPLICATION. SO ELEMENT X IS BASIC AND DISCOVERY RESEARCH, AND WE KNOW THAT THAT'S QUITE WIDESPREAD IN THE STATE. | ||||||||
| ELEMENT Y WE CALL PRECLINICAL RESEARCH, WHICH MEANS HOW DO THEY APPLY BASIC DISCOVERIES AND TECHNOLOGIES IN MODEL SYSTEMS TOWARD THE DEVELOPMENT OF TREATMENTS? THIS INCLUDES PRECLINICAL RESEARCH SUCH AS IN VITRO MODELS AND IN VIVO MODELS, DRUG DISCOVERY, ETC. | ||||||||
| THE THIRD ELEMENT, ELEMENT Z, WOULD BE PRECLINICAL DEVELOPMENT AND CLINICAL RESEARCH. PRECLINICAL DEVELOPMENT, NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, GMP, ETC., AND/OR ABILITIES TO TEST OUTCOMES OF THE USE OF THERAPEUTICS OR PROCEDURES. SO THIS IS IN THE INSTITUTION, WHAT HISTORY DO THEY HAVE, WHAT VISION DO THEY HAVE FOR DOING EACH OF THESE THREE ELEMENTS? | ||||||||
| THE THIRD ELEMENT, ELEMENT Z, WOULD BE PRECLINICAL DEVELOPMENT AND CLINICAL RESEARCH. PRECLINICAL DEVELOPMENT, NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, GMP, ETC., AND/OR ABILITIES TO TEST OUTCOMES OF THE USE OF THERAPEUTICS OR PROCEDURES. SO THIS IS IN THE INSTITUTION, WHAT HISTORY DO THEY HAVE, WHAT VISION DO THEY HAVE FOR DOING EACH OF THESE THREE ELEMENTS? | ||||||||
| SO IN THIS SENSE, WE ALLOW THEM TO SELF-SELECT INSTEAD OF US SAYING YOU GOT TO HAVE THIS, THAT, OR THE OTHER. THEN EACH OF THESE ELEMENTS GETS EVALUATED. AND HOW DO WE EVALUATE THEM? | ||||||||
| INSTEAD OF US SAYING YOU GOT TO HAVE THIS, THAT, OR THE OTHER. THEN EACH OF THESE ELEMENTS GETS EVALUATED. AND HOW DO WE EVALUATE THEM? | ||||||||
| WE NOW LOOK AT THE DEPTH OF EACH ONE OF THESE ELEMENTS IN FOUR CRITERIA, FOUR GENERAL CRITERIA. ONE WOULD BE SCIENTIFIC AND/OR MEDICAL PROGRAM, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO THINK OF AS QUALITY, EXCELLENCE, AND INNOVATION. SO HERE WE WANT TO LOOK AT THE SCIENTIFIC EXCELLENCE, THEIR TRACK RECORD, WHICH, AS WE HEARD TODAY, WOULD BE AN INDICATOR OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE. WE'LL LOOK AT INTERDISCIPLINARY SYNERGY, WHETHER WITHIN THE HOME INSTITUTION THEY HAVE INTERDEPARTMENTAL, MULTIDISCIPLINARY PROGRAMS, ETC. WE'LL LOOK AT THE TRACK RECORD OF THE PI'S. WE'LL SEE THE STRENGTH OF THE PI'S, HOW MANY GRANTS THEY GET FROM CIRM, HOW MANY GRANTS THEY GET FROM NIH, WHAT ARE THEIR PUBLICATION STRENGTHS, WHAT ARE THEIR SCIENTIFIC STRENGTHS, ETC. YOU CAN JUST WELL IMAGINE HOW ONE WOULD MEASURE THE FIRST CRITERION FOR EITHER X, Y, OR Z. | ||||||||
| THE NEXT CRITERION WOULD BE FORMAL PARTNERSHIPS AND RESEARCH CONSORTIA. AND THAT IS, HOW HAVE THEY ESTABLISHED PARTNERSHIPS IN ORDER TO DO COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH WITH INDUSTRY, WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS, WITH MEDICAL CENTERS. AND NOT ONLY ARE WE LOOKING AT PLANS TO DO IT, FORMALIZED OR NOT SO FORMALIZED, BUT TRACK RECORD. | ||||||||
| HAVE THEY PRODUCED PRODUCTS? HAVE THEY WRITTEN MOU'S? HAVE THEY MTA'S? DO THEY HAVE RESOURCES TO DO TECH TRANSFER? HOW WELL SET UP ARE THEY TO DO THESE THINGS? AND I THINK THIS HARKENS BACK TO WHAT HANS KEIRSTEAD MENTIONED AT ONE OF THE MEETINGS. | ||||||||
| A THIRD ONE IS CORE SERVICES, SHARED RESOURCES. DO THEY HAVE EXISTING CORE SERVICES THAT ARE IMPORTANT -- THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THE PROGRAM? I MEAN HAVING A VERY SOPHISTICATED SERVICE, BUT IN THEIR PROGRAMS THEY DON'T PLAN TO USE IT DOESN'T QUITE COUNT. THESE ARE CORE SERVICES INTEGRAL TO THEIR PROGRAM, AND/OR ARE THEY PLANNING TO REQUEST AND BUILD IN CORE SERVICES IN THE PROPOSED FACILITIES THAT WILL BE KEY TO MOVING THESE PROGRAMS FORWARD? AND SO THOSE ARE CORE SERVICES. | ||||||||
| AND I NOTED DURING YOUR DISCUSSION THAT CORE SERVICES ARE VERY IMPORTANT, PARTICULARLY TO MEMBER SAMUELSON, TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE, AND WE WOULD INCLUDE IN HERE OUTREACH. SO CORE SERVICES, HOW MUCH OUTREACH IS THERE? IS IT THAT THIS HOME INSTITUTION WILL NEED TO USE ALL THE CORE SERVICES, OR WILL THEY MAKE A PORTION OF IT AVAILABLE TO NEIGHBORING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.? THAT WOULD BE IN CORE SERVICES. | ||||||||
| AND THE LAST ONE IS CAPACITY FOR GROWTH. AND CLEARLY ONE OF THE CRITERIA IS WE'RE EXPANDING PROGRAMS, WE'RE EXPANDING STEM CELL RESEARCH AND REGENERATIVE MEDICINE CAPABILITY IN THE STATE. SO WE NEED TO KNOW FROM THEM WHAT IS THE INSTITUTION'S COMMITMENT TO THESE PROGRAMS DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION, TO FACULTY RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION, TO USE OF SPACE, AND TO THE EXPANSION OF THESE PROGRAMS? AND, THEREFORE, WHAT IS THEIR PLANNED USE OF SPACE TOWARD THIS EXPANSION? | ||||||||
| SO THOSE ARE THE FOUR THAT WE THOUGHT OF FOR REVIEW. AND LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF HOW PERHAPS THE REVIEW MIGHT TAKE PLACE. I'M SORRY. I JUST WENT OVER. HERE ARE SOME SLIDES AND IN YOUR SLIDES YOU CAN SEE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TRACK FOR THE FIRST CRITERION. I WON'T REPEAT IT. | ||||||||
| SO THOSE ARE THE FOUR THAT WE THOUGHT OF FOR REVIEW. AND LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF HOW PERHAPS THE REVIEW MIGHT TAKE PLACE. I'M SORRY. I JUST WENT OVER. HERE ARE SOME SLIDES AND IN YOUR SLIDES YOU CAN SEE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TRACK FOR THE FIRST CRITERION. I WON'T REPEAT IT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: CAN WE ASK A QUESTION AS WE GO HERE? CAN WE GO BACK TO THE FIRST REFERENCE TO THE JOINT PUBLICATIONS? IN THE FORMAL PUBLICATION, HOPEFULLY ONE WOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT IF THERE'S A NEW CONSORTIA OR A NEW COLLABORATION THAT WE'VE INCENTIVIZED AND HELPED CREATE, THAT THEY WON'T BE PENALIZED FOR THE FACT THAT IT'S A NEW COLLABORATION, THAT THIS IS A BENEFIT IF THEY HAVE A HISTORY, BUT THEY WON'T BE KNOCKED OUT OF COMPETITION IF THEY DON'T HAVE A PUBLICATION HISTORY BECAUSE IT'S A NEW RELATIONSHIP. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: ABSOLUTELY. HERE WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE BENEFIT TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE SHOWN THEIR COLLABORATIONS BEAR FRUIT. THAT'S ALL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YOU COULD ALSO SOMEHOW LOOK AT THE RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION OF THE INSTITUTIONS AND THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED WITH THE NEW ORGANIZATION. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: ABSOLUTELY. THAT WOULD GO TO HERE. SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM, WE'LL HAVE NUMBER OF RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS AND PATENT APPLICATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS OF EACH OF THE MEMBERS OR THE PROGRAMS THAT WOULD BE ENCOMPASSED. SO THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE THINKING OF AS WELL. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: ABSOLUTELY. THAT WOULD GO TO HERE. SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM, WE'LL HAVE NUMBER OF RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS AND PATENT APPLICATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS OF EACH OF THE MEMBERS OR THE PROGRAMS THAT WOULD BE ENCOMPASSED. SO THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE THINKING OF AS WELL.INSTITUTIONAL RESOURCES TO HANDLE THESE AND OTHER ACTIVITIES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ONE THING THAT CAME UP IN THE SHARED LAB RFA THAT I KNOW WAS A LITTLE FRUSTRATING FOR ME AND SOME OTHER MEMBERS IS IS THERE ANY WAY THAT YOU ARE GOING TO TRY TO ON THE SCIENTIFIC SIDE JUDGE THE INSTITUTIONS OF HOW EFFECTIVELY THEY'RE GOING TO USE THE FACILITIES? I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD "LEVERAGE" BECAUSE IT MEANS SOMETHING ELSE, BUT HOW -- FOR EXAMPLE, I MEAN IF THEY'VE GOT, NOT NECESSARILY THE NUMBER OF PI'S, BUT IN SOME WAY I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS BECAUSE LORI AND RICK AND I DISCUSSED THIS, BUT EXACTLY HOW EFFECTIVELY THEY'RE GOING TO USE THEIR FACILITIES IN GETTING, NOT ONLY THE NUMBER OF PI'S, BUT HOW MUCH ACTUAL USE AS A PERCENTAGE OF A 24/ FACILITY. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SCIENCE PER SQUARE INCH PER SECOND. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: THAT IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION, BUT IT REALLY VARIES ON THE KIND OF SCIENCE, WHICH MAKES IT DIFFICULT. TO LET'S SAY YOU CAN CRAM FIVE POST DOCS INTO A SMALL LAB, AND YOU DO SOMETHING THAT'S NOT VERY SPACE DEPENDENT. SCIENCE PER SQUARE INCH WILL LOOK VERY GOOD. AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING, LET'S JUST MAKE IT UP, YOU HAVE TO TEST ANIMAL BEHAVIOR. SCIENCE PER SQUARE INCH NOW DOESN'T QUITE HOLD UP. IT DEPENDS ON THE DISCIPLINE. SO I FIND THAT A LITTLE BIT HARDER TO GRAPPLE WITH, RATHER THE PUBLICATIONS AS WELL AS THE NUMBER OF GRANTS THEY GET, THAT IS A REFLECTION OF THEIR SUCCESS IN THE FIELD, AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING BACK TO. | ||||||||
| BUT PER SQUARE INCH REALLY DEPENDS ON THE SCOPE AND THE TYPE OF PROGRAM. SO BIOINFORMATICS MIGHT BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM BIOENGINEERING, AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER APPLICATION A WILL DEAL WITH SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES LESS SPACE AND IS MORE DENSE IN TERMS OF SPACE, BUT THE VALUE OF THE SCIENCE MAY BE EQUIVALENT, EVEN THOUGH ONE DOES REQUIRE MORE SPACE BY THE NATURE OF THEIR INVESTIGATION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ARLENE, ON THIS CATEGORY AREN'T YOU REALLY MEASURING INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT TO GROWTH -- | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: -- RATHER THAN CAPACITY? AS I LOOK DOWN THIS LIST, IT'S REALLY THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: YES. WELL, THE APPLICATION'S CAPACITY FOR GROWTH AS EXPRESSED BY THE INSTITUTION'S COMMITMENT. THAT'S RIGHT. EXACTLY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: SO THOSE ARE THE FOUR CRITERIA THAT WE FELT CAPTURED ALL THE COMMENTS, BUT THEY SORT OF FIT INTO THESE GROUPS. THIS GIVES YOU AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE THINK THE SCORING MIGHT TAKE PLACE IN DECIDING BETWEEN DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'M SORRY, ARLENE. JEFF WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: ACTUALLY I WAS JUST GOING TO REEMPHASIZE. YOUR INTENSITY QUESTION, AGAIN, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, IT AGAIN COMES BACK TO THE FACULTY RECRUITMENTS AND FACULTY RETENTION. I MEAN THE REALLY RATE LIMITING FACTOR WE FACE AS A PROGRAM ARE HAVING ENOUGH PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA TO ACTUALLY DO THE WORK THAT WE HAVE THE MONEY FOR. WHILE I KNOW YOU WANT US TO LOOK AT THE SPACE AND GETTING AT THE INTENSITY OF WORK, IT'S ACTUALLY FILLING THAT SPACE WITH ENOUGH SCIENTISTS TO DO THE WORK THAT WE NEED TO FUND, WHICH, I THINK, IS A REAL CRITICAL METRIC IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SO IT'S SCIENTISTS PER SQUARE INCH. NO. KIDDING. IT'S THE PEOPLE TO DO THE WORK. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: I THINK SO BECAUSE I WAS ALSO THINKING BETWEEN LARGE ESTABLISHED PLACES AND SMALL PLACES WITH A REAL COMMITMENT FOR GROWTH AND IN AREAS THAT WE DON'T HAVE REPRESENTATION RIGHT NOW PERHAPS. | ||||||||
| SO THESE ARE POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT MAY COME OUT OF THE REVIEW. SO IF WE LOOK AT EACH ELEMENT, WE'RE GOING TO COMPARE EACH APPLICATION ELEMENT BY ELEMENT. AND WE'RE ENVISIONING, IT'S NOT ABSOLUTE YET, THAT EACH ELEMENT MIGHT CARRY A HUNDRED POINTS, FOR EXAMPLE. SO EACH ELEMENT WILL BE A WHOLE GRANT IN ITSELF IN THE REVIEW. LET'S SAY THAT APPLICATION A APPLIED FOR THREE ELEMENTS AND GOT THE GREEN LIGHT IN ALL THREE. THAT'S VERY GOOD. YOU GOT RECOMMENDED FOR THREE MODULES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO IT'S A YES OR NO; IT'S NOT A SCORE? | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: IT WILL BE A SCORE, BUT I'M JUST THINKING THAT IF THE SCORE IS DRAWN AT 70 POINTS AND ABOVE, I JUST SIMPLIFIED IT BY SAYING YES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I JUST THOUGHT WE - | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: THERE WOULD BE A SCORE, BUT I WAS JUST SIMPLIFYING IT TO THE TIER. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND TO CLARIFY THAT, TO GET A SCORE ON X AND Y AND Z, SO IT'S A SEPARATE SCORE, NOT JUST AN AGGREGATION. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: THAT'S RIGHT. WE WERE ENVISIONING A SEPARATE SCORE. SO IN APPLICATION B, THEY TOO APPLIED FOR X, Y, Z AND THEY GOT GOOD SCORES IN X AND Y, BUT NOT SO IN Z. IN C IT'S SELF-EXPLANATORY. D, THEY ONLY APPLIED FOR X, AND THEY GOT A TERRIFIC SCORE FOR X, AND Y AND Z ARE NOT APPLICABLE. AND POOR E APPLIED FOR X AND Y AND REALLY DIDN'T SCORE VERY WELL. THESE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE SCORES. | ||||||||
| WE WILL THEN PRESENT THIS TO THE ICOC TO MAKE A DETERMINATION. SO THIS IS WHERE WE SEE OURSELVES GOING IF WE LOOKED AT IT IN TERMS OF BREADTH AND DEPTH. SO I WILL STOP RIGHT HERE THEN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'M SORRY. COULD YOU GO BACK TO THAT FUNDING SLIDE? | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: I TURN THIS BACK OVER TO RICK. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT THAT WAS PART OF YOUR PRESENTATION. ARLENE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL, ESPECIALLY TO ME BECAUSE I'M NOT INVOLVED WITH ANY OF THE OTHER GROUPS. | ||||||||
| RICK, WILL YOU NOW CONTINUE WITH THE DISCUSSION FOR THE REVIEW PROCESS? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: SURE. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHEN THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP COMPLETES THEIR WORK, THEY'LL HAVE SOME PROPOSALS WHERE THEY'VE SAID YES TO ALL ELEMENTS OF A PROPOSAL, SUCH AS A. THERE MIGHT BE SOME PROPOSALS WHERE THEY HAVE SAID YES TO A PORTION OF THE REQUEST AND SAID NO TO OTHER PORTIONS, SUCH AS IN B OR C, OR THEY MAY HAVE SAID NO TO THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL, SUCH AS IN E. | ||||||||
| SO I THINK THE PROCESS FOR THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP NEEDS TO, BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT WE'VE SAID SCIENCE IS GOING TO LEAD, I THINK THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP REVIEW NEEDS TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND BE SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT THOSE DECISIONS NEED TO BE KNOWN. SO IN ORDER FOR YOU TO BE EFFECTIVE IN TERMS OF HOW YOU GO ABOUT IT, SO PART OF FUNCTIONALITY IS WE'RE GOING TO REVIEW PROPOSALS THAT ALIGN WITH THE PROGRAMS THAT THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP SAID MAKE SENSE FOR B. AND IF THEIR FACILITIES PROPOSAL THAT WAS SUBMITTED ASSUMED X, Y, AND Z AND THE GRANTS GROUPS SAID NO TO Z, THEN WE WANT TO BRING INTO ALIGNMENT THE FACILITIES PROPOSAL TO THIS ASSUMING THE ICOC HAS ENDORSED ALL OF THAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I HAVE A QUESTION, AND THAT QUESTION IS -- I'M STANDING UP BECAUSE I NEED TO STRETCH -- IF AN INSTITUTION APPLIES FOR ALL THREE BOXES, ELEMENT X, Y, AND Z, AND DO THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW, WE SAY NO, YOU ONLY GET TWO OF THE THREE OR ONE OF THE THREE, WHATEVER, IS THAT A CURABLE DEFECT, THAT THEY CAN COME BACK AND CHANGE? I JUST WANTED TO ASK. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: (SHAKES HEAD.) | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IF THEY APPLY FOR ALL THREE AND WE'RE ONLY GIVING THEM TWO THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, THAT'S ALL. I'M OKAY WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I HAVE A QUESTION AND PROBABLY A RECOMMENDATION AT ICOC. CAN YOU GO TO THE FUNDING SLIDE? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: TO DAVID'S COMMENT. WE COULD THEORETICALLY SAY WE'RE ONLY GOING TO FUND TWO OF THE THREE. IF YOU WANT TO PAY FOR THE THIRD, YOU CAN PAY FOR IT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. YEAH, OF COURSE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO THIS IS -- I HAD A QUESTION. SO I MENTIONED THIS TO BOB, BUT IT ALMOST -- ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS SET IN STONE AND WHAT THE ICOC'S POSITION IS, BUT IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE YOU WANT TO HAVE SMALL GRANTS, MEDIUM GRANTS, AND THEN VERY, VERY LARGE GRANTS BECAUSE MY CONCERN IS THAT YOU MAY HAVE SEVERAL WHAT I'LL CALL MEGA GRANT APPLICATIONS, AND THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME THAT MIGHT SAY, WELL, WE NEED 20 OR 25 MILLION, AND YOU'LL HAVE OTHERS THAT WILL SAY THEY WANT 50, AND I DON'T THINK YOU WANT TO BE COMPARING A $25-MILLION GRANT APPLICATION VERSUS A $50-MILLION GRANT APPLICATION. SO I JUST WANT TO OPEN THAT UP FOR DISCUSSION. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE PURPOSE OF THE SLIDE WAS TO EXPLAIN THAT WHEN WE STARTED WITH THE STRATEGIC PLAN, WE HAD THOUGHT OR THE PLAN INCLUDED THOSE TWO ELEMENTS. AS WE MOVED FORWARD IN THE PROCESS CHRONOLOGICALLY, WE HAD A DISCUSSION IN APRIL, AND THE ICOC SAID, NO, A SINGLE RFA THAT ADDRESSES ALL THE NEEDS UNIFORMLY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: ACTUALLY A MOTION WAS NEVER ADOPTED BY THE ICOC TO THAT EFFECT. IT WAS JUST A SENSE OF THE COMMITTEE. AND THE STRATEGIC PLAN WAS ACTUALLY VOTED ON AND ADOPTED BY THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: LET'S JUST TAKE THIS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. JEFF'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THERE WAS NO FORMAL VOTE TAKEN, BUT THE SENSE -- I WAS AT THAT MEETING. THE SENSE -- AND I DISAGREED. I THOUGHT WE SHOULD DO MAYBE TWO OR THREE. WE WERE IN THE MINORITY. JANET, WE WERE IN THAT VOTE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, WHAT THEY WERE -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THE SENSE OF THE COMMITTEE WAS VERY STRONG. THEY WANTED ONE RFA. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ONE RFA, AND NO ONE IS DISAGREEING WITH THAT; BUT WITHIN THE ONE RFA, YOU CAN STILL BREAK IT DOWN WITHIN THREE CATEGORIES AND NOT BE INCONSISTENT. SO YOU CAN HAVE LARGE, MEDIUM, AND SMALL. | ||||||||
| DO YOU HAVE EVEN IN DRAFT A MORE COMPLICATED CHART OF THEORETICALLY HOW YOU COULD BREAK THIS DOWN? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YOU MEAN THIS ONE? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YEAH. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: SO HERE'S A THEORETICAL WAY TO BREAK IT DOWN. THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP WOULD DEVELOP AND RECOMMEND THESE THREE CATEGORIES. AND FOR PURPOSES OF A GIVING THEM BASICALLY DISTINCTION, WE'RE SAYING THAT THERE WOULD BE CIRM INSTITUTES WHICH WOULD BE HIGHEST, WHICH WOULD BE THE X, Y'S, AND Z'S; CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE WHERE THERE MIGHT BE TWO ELEMENTS; AND THEN CIRM SPECIAL PROGRAMS WHERE THERE WOULD BE ONE ELEMENT. AND, OF COURSE, THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, UNDER THOSE AREAS WHERE THERE WOULD NOT BE SUPPORT FOR ANY OF THOSE LEVELS, THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE COMPETITIVE AND NOT BE RECOMMENDED. SO THOSE WOULD GO TO THE ICOC, THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, IN THOSE KIND OF CATEGORIES AS LEVELS OR STRATA WITHIN THE RFA. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: MONEY WOULD BE ASSIGNED TO EACH OF THESE BOXES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THEN WE'RE GOING TO SAY AT THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP YOU COULD IN EACH LEVEL EVALUATE THE APPLICATION AND ESTABLISH A HIGH OR LOW OR BASED ON TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL REVIEW. IN THIS CASE TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF CONSORTIA WAS IMPORTANT, SO WHAT WE THOUGHT IS WE SHOULD START WHERE THERE'S PROBABLY THE MOST POSSIBILITIES IN TERMS OF HOW THINGS WOULD HAPPEN. AND SO WE ESTABLISHED A CONSORTIUM AWARD AMOUNT. AND THEN NOT KNOWING -- AND THE ICOC CAN DECIDE ON THE RANK. WE'VE JUST HERE IDENTIFIED THE LEVEL OF FUNDING RELATIVE TO THE OTHER LEVELS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BUT NOW BASED UPON OUR CRITERIA, THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE ADJUSTED. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: IN FACT, YOUR CRITERIA WORKS IN THIS SCENARIO PERFECTLY BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS IS EACH LEVEL IS JUDGED AGAINST THOSE OTHER INSTITUTIONS IN THAT LEVEL. SO AN EMERGING PROGRAM IS NOT COMPETING AGAINST AN INSTITUTE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'M TALKING MORE ABOUT THIS CONSORTIUM AWARD AMOUNT CATEGORY. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I THINK THE CRITERIA STILL, IN FACT, MUCH LIKE WHAT DEBBIE SAID EARLIER, SHE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, IN FACT, THE CONSORTIUM WAS GOING TO BE ABLE TO COMPETE IN THEIR OWN LEVEL AS WELL AS SEEK POINTS UNDER THIS NEW SHARED RESOURCE SCORING. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO SHE HAS CONSORTIA WITHIN THE UPPER LEVEL. AND, FOR EXAMPLE, THE UPPER LEVEL COULD GO FROM 20 MILLION TO 60 MILLION BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT FOUR INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE AGGREGATING ANY THEORETICAL CAP. THE CENTERS COULD GO FROM 10 MILLION TO 20 MILLION, AND THE LOW CATEGORY COULD GO FROM FIVE TO TEN SOMETHING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO MAYBE I'M BEING A WORDSMITH HERE, BUT I GUESS HERE'S MY QUESTION. SO THE WAY -- BY HAVING THE WORD "CONSORTIUM AWARD AMOUNT" AT THE TOP, BUT THEORETICALLY COULDN'T YOU HAVE AN INSTITUTION THAT SCORES HIGH IN ALL THREE CATEGORIES AND COULD BE, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT A CONSORTIUM, THEY COULD GET THE HIGHEST AMOUNT? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT WOULD BE THE HIGH AWARD AMOUNT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RIGHT. BUT -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WHY IS CONSORTIA AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: IN FACT, YOU'RE RIGHT. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, IF THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP WERE TO ONLY FIND THAT THE CONSORTIUM COULD, INDEED, COMPETE ON AN XY AND NOT AN XYZ, THEN THEY WOULD BE AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF THE CENTER OF EXCELLENCE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BUT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT HERE, WHICH IS THAT THIS THEORETICALLY, INSTEAD OF LABELED CONSORTIUM, WOULD BE LABELED AGGREGATED AWARD CAP. IN OTHER WORDS, AGGREGATED AWARD CAP IS WHERE TWO INSTITUTIONS HAVE GONE TOGETHER. THE POINT IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT IF YOU HAVE A CENTER -- IF YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS THAT GO TOGETHER, THEY COULD THEORETICALLY QUALIFY IF THEY HAD A HIGH SCIENTIFIC SCORE IN ALL THREE CATEGORIES FOR A HIGHER CAP THAN AN INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTION THAT HAD A VERY HIGH SCORE. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT'S CORRECT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO THIS IS EXACTLY MY QUESTION. WHY? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: BECAUSE THE MEMBERS OF THE CONSORTIA ARE GIVING UP THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR OWN PROJECT BY ENTERING THE CONSORTIA. AND, THEREFORE, YOU DON'T WANT TO PENALIZE THEM. IF YOU WANT TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO SHARE RESOURCES, SMALL ALIGNS WITH LARGE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: LET ME GIVE YOU A HYPOTHETICAL. LET'S SAY THERE'S ONE PARTICULAR INSTITUTION AND THEY SCORE REALLY HIGH IN ALL THE SCIENTIFIC CATEGORIES, RIGHT, AND THEY WANT A LOT OF MONEY, AND THEY HAVE A GREAT FACILITIES SCORE, THEY HAVE GREAT SCIENCE SCORES, AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE SAME AMOUNT AS THE CONSORTIUM. I THINK THAT TO PENALIZE THEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE OTHER INSTITUTIONS, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO HAVE DONE THIS. WE CAN GO BACK. WHAT WOULD END UP HAPPENING IS THE SAME THING. SO WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE IS FOUR SEPARATE INSTITUTIONS APPLYING FOR THIS STRATA OF MONEY. AND, IN FACT, IN THE CONSORTIUM TWO TO THREE OF THOSE INSTITUTIONS PERHAPS WOULD ONLY RECEIVE THE FIVE TO $10 MILLION AS A NICHE PROGRAM. AND THEN ONE OF THOSE INSTITUTIONS WOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE TO COMPETE IN THE INSTITUTE -- ON THE INSTITUTE LEVEL. THE OUTCOME IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME. | ||||||||
| AND AS RICK SAID EARLIER, WHEN YOU ASK THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CONSORTIUM TO GIVE UP THEIR RIGHT TO APPLY FOR THIS MONEY -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: NO. NO. NO. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: -- IT'S AN ECONOMY OF SCALE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE DIDN'T ASK THEM TO GIVE UP ANYTHING. THEY ELECTED THROUGH THEIR OWN FREE WILL. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE ENCOURAGED THEM. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I DON'T RECALL. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE ENCOURAGED CONSORTIUMS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE BOARD HAS MANY, MANY TIMES -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE'VE STATED ON THE RECORD THAT WE VALUE -- I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE THIS POINT. WE STATED ON THE RECORD AS A VALUE THAT WE LIKE COLLABORATION AND WE THINK IT'S GOOD, BUT I DON'T EVER RECALL ASKING SAN DIEGO THROUGH A FORMAL ACTION TO DO A CONSORTIUM. AT WHAT MEETING DID THAT HAPPEN? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THERE'S NO FORMAL MOTION, BUT WHAT THERE IS IS A LOT OF POLICY DIRECTION AND DISCUSSION OF COLLABORATION TO CREATE CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE AND MORE SYNERGY IN THE SCIENCE AND MORE SHARED RESOURCES. AND ON A MATHEMATICAL MODEL, IT DOES BENEFIT US IN DISTRIBUTING FUNDS AND GETTING MORE MILEAGE OUT OF OUR FUNDS TO HAVE FOUR INSTITUTIONS GOING TOGETHER. AND YOU DO HAVE TO HAVE SOME INCENTIVE FOR THEM NOT TO APPLY SEPARATELY BECAUSE THEY COULD GET THEORETICALLY FUNDS APPLYING SEPARATELY IF THEY WERE ALL SUCCESSFUL. THEY'VE REDUCED THEIR RISK BY APPLYING TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO GET A HIGHER SCIENTIFIC SCORE, BUT WE'RE BALANCING THE FACT WE'RE CREATING ANOTHER KIND OF MONUMENTAL PLAYER IN THE STATE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I DON'T RECALL -- THAT'S MY POINT IS WE DIDN'T ASK SAN DIEGO TO DO A CONSORTIUM.MS. HOFFMAN: I STAND CORRECTED BECAUSE, VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL, YOU ARE CORRECT. WE NEVER ASKED THEM. SO WE COULD GO BACK AND PROVIDE ANOTHER OPTION. SINCE WE'RE NOT VOTING TODAY OR RECOMMENDING, WE COULD GO BACK AND PROVIDE ANOTHER OPTION. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH DAVID LICHTENGER'S POINT, BUT I THINK BOTH DAVIDS, I BELIEVE THE REALITY WILL REFLECT THIS AFTER THE FACT ASSUMING THAT BASED ON THE WAY THAT THE VARIOUS PIECES OF THE CONSORTIUM HAVE BEEN SCORING IN GENERAL ON SCIENTIFIC MERIT UP TO THIS POINT. HOWEVER, I DO HAVE A PROCESS ISSUE WITH THIS IMPLICATION THAT THEY HAVE AN ADVANTAGE IN COMPETING WHEN THE MAIN CRITERION FOR MERIT IS SCIENTIFIC QUALITY. AND WE'RE PROSPECTIVELY AWARDING POINTS BEFORE WE'VE EVEN FINALIZED OUR CRITERIA FOR THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, AND WE HAVE IMPLIED THAT THEY HAVE -- THEY START OFF WITH A LEG AHEAD. | ||||||||
| WE HAVE BUILT INTO THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP CRITERIA TO BENEFIT CONSORTIUM BECAUSE THIS IS A VALUE. IN FACT, WE ADDED A NEW CATEGORY TODAY. THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW BASED ON THE SCORES THAT HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED BY THE INSTITUTIONS, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THERE'S MORE STRENGTH FOR MANY OF THE INSTITUTIONS IN COLLABORATING THAN THERE IS GOING ALONE AGAINST SOME OF THE OTHER INSTITUTIONS. SO I AM EXTREMELY TROUBLED BY THIS SPECIAL CATEGORY THAT'S NOW EMERGED, AND I WOULD HOPE IN FUTURE ITERATIONS THAT PERHAPS WE PUT EVERYBODY ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. | ||||||||
| I THINK THE CREAM WILL RISE TO THE TOP, BUT THAT WOULD BE MY STRONG POLICY RECOMMENDATION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JEFF, LET ME ASK A QUESTION. I HAD SUGGESTED THAT THE LABEL SHOULD BE AGGREGATED CAP BECAUSE THEN ANY INSTITUTIONS WORKING TOGETHER COULD QUALIFY FOR A HIGHER AMOUNT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: NO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WHY WOULDN'T IT BE AGGREGATED IF YOU HAVE AN INSTITUTION THAT SCORES SCIENTIFICALLY HIGH IN ALL THREE CATEGORIES AND IS ASKING FOR THE SAME AMOUNT AS A CONSORTIUM? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE REASON IS IS THAT IF YOU HAVE A GOAL OF DEVELOPING A WHOLE PORTFOLIO OF OUTSTANDING RESEARCH FACILITIES, AND YOU HAD THREE INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE WITH 97S, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT ALL YOUR MONEY IN THOSE EVEN IF THEY GOT A 97. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: ACTUALLY I WOULD SAY YES. I THINK THAT ONE CAN MAKE, FROM A SCIENTIFIC AND FROM -- YOU COULD EASILY -- IF WE -- AND I'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION. I THINK ACTUALLY IF YOU WERE REALLY TRYING TO GET CURES TO PEOPLE THE FASTEST, YOU WOULD GIVE MONEY TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE CRITICAL MASS AND NOW AND AS MUCH AS MONEY AS YOU CAN GIVE THEM. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THEY MAY NOT HAVE THE SAME -- | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WE HAVE A FURTHER OBLIGATION TO THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA TO NOT -- TO NOT CONCENTRATE THIS IN A HANDFUL OF INSTITUTIONS AND TO DEVELOP THE OVERALL CAPACITY IN THE STATE. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, THE MAIN CRITERION THAT WE HAVE HEARD AGAIN AND AGAIN IS SCIENTIFIC MERIT. AND THIS SCHEME TURNS SCIENTIFIC MERIT ON ITS HEAD AND PREJUDICES THE PROCESS FROM THE BEGINNING AND CREATES THE OBLIGATION TO FUND PEOPLE SIMPLY FOR THE FACT THAT THEY DECIDED TO WORK TOGETHER. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB, LET ME ADD TO THAT. IF, AS YOU SAY, AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU, THAT WE HAVE STATED INDIRECTLY THAT WE VALUE COLLABORATION, THEN FINE. IT OUGHT TO BE HIGHER POINTS IN THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW, AND IT OUGHT TO HAVE HIGHER POINT IN OUR FACILITIES REVIEW. RIGHT NOW IT'S AT 15. IT SHOULD BE 50, BUT IT'S NOT. AGAIN, I GO BACK TO THE POINT I MADE PREVIOUSLY. WE CAN'T DESIGN THIS REALLY AROUND ONE APPLICANT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I AGREE WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE CAN'T DO THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I SUGGESTED A DIFFERENT TITLE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I DON'T THINK THAT SOLVES THE PROBLEM. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF TITLE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: LET ME ADDRESS JEFF'S POINT IF I CAN AND THEN YOUR POINT IS THAT IF WE ON A MEDICAL MERIT BASIS, JEFF, LET'S SAY THAT WE HAVE THREE INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE ALL 97S AND THEY HAPPEN TO BE VERY OVERLAPPING IN THEIR EXPERTISE, AND THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF DISEASES THAT HAVE ABSOLUTE EXCELLENCE, BUT THEY'RE 90 SCORES IN OTHER INSTITUTIONS. SO THE POINT IS THAT ON A PORTFOLIO BASIS HISTORICALLY YOU HAVE A VERY HIGH PREDICTABILITY OF SUCCESS. AND THE MORE YOU NARROW IT, THE LESS YOUR POSSIBILITIES OF SUCCESS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: RICK, HOW MANY APPLICATIONS DO YOU THINK THERE WILL BE THE CONSORTIUM CATEGORY? I KNOW WE ANTICIPATE ONE. THEY DID A PRESENTATION. IS IT GOING TO BE TWO? IS IT GOING TO BE THREE? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I DON'T AGREE WITH THE CONSORTIUM TITLE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I WOULD ANTICIPATE -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HOW MANY DO WE EXPECT TO APPLY? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: LEGAL ENTITY. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF A -- | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THE DEFINITION OF A CONSORTIUM WOULD BE THAT IT IS A LEGAL ENTITY. IT MAY NOT BE, AS THE CHAIRMAN SAID -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: TWO OR MORE INSTITUTIONS OR FIVE OR MORE? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: YES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HOW MANY APPLICATIONS DO WE EXPECT AT THIS HIGHEST CIRM INSTITUTE LEVEL, RICK? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: NO. NO. NO. NO. I WANT MY QUESTION ANSWERED FIRST. I ASKED ABOUT THE CONSORTIUM. HOW MANY CONSORTIUM APPLICATIONS DO YOU THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET? IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, FINE. I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO GET ONE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: RIGHT. THAT'S THE ONLY ONE I KNOW ABOUT. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I KNOW OF ANOTHER. IF THE DEFINITION IS ONE OR MORE, I KNOW THAT THE UNIVERSITY OF MERCED AND UC SACRAMENTO HAVE DECIDED TO GO TOGETHER. IS THAT A CONSORTIUM? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: MIGHT VERY WELL BE. I DON'T KNOW. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S WHY I SAID ANY TWO OR MORE SHOULD QUALIFY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I DISAGREE. THIS IS A WHOLE ADDITIONAL ELEMENT THAT HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE WITHOUT ANY PROCESS, AND IT PENALIZES PREESTABLISHED CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT'S FINE. THIS IS THE STRAWMAN AGAIN, SO WE'RE HAPPY TO TAKE IT OUT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CAN WE GO BACK TO THAT OTHER SLIDE? CAN'T WE JUST HAVE A HIGH AMOUNT -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: -- AND A LOW AMOUNT AND LEAVE IT AT THAT, AND I THINK WE SOLVED OUR PROBLEM? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK THAT'S A GOOD APPROACH. BUT SECONDLY, ON OUR CALL, I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF CAPS. THE REASON FOR THAT IS I THINK THAT THERE IS A LEGITIMATE POLICY DISCUSSION, THAT WE DIVERSIFY OUR RISK AND INCREASE OUR PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS IF WE HAVE, AS LONG AS THEY'RE VERY HIGHLY RATED ON SCIENCE, A BROADER DISTRIBUTION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: LET'S FLAG IT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO THE ISSUE IS TO REALLY NOT MISLEAD PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE $90 MILLION TO ONE INSTITUTION REGARDLESS OF THEIR SCIENTIFIC SCORE, THAT THERE IS SOME VALUE IN DISTRIBUTING THIS MONEY TO VERY HIGH SCIENCE IN DIFFERENT AREAS. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: BOB, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, A CONSORTIUM HAS A LOT OF THE ADVANTAGES WITH MORE INSTITUTIONS WORKING ON THESE THINGS THAN WHEN IT'S NOT. SO BY DEFINITION, BY PROVIDING THAT RESOURCE SCIENTIFICALLY, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A LEG UP, BUT IT ALSO BRINGS WITH IT A LOT OF BAGGAGE. WHAT'S THE OLD ADAGE ABOUT A HORSE -- A CAMEL BEING BUILT BY COMMITTEE OR A HORSE OR SOMETHING? ANYWAY, THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS THE GOVERNANCE OF IT IS GOING TO BE AS ESSENTIAL TO EVALUATE AS THE SCIENTIFIC END, AND IT IS ESSENTIAL BECAUSE YOU CANNOT DEAL WITH THE COMMITTEE AS PEOPLE COME AND GO. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THIS. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS ONE POINT OR PUSH BACK. I WOULD RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE THAT THIS PARADIGM UP-ENDS THE SCIENTIFIC PREDOMINANCE, THE FACT THAT SCIENCE COMES FIRST, JEFF, BECAUSE TO GET TO THIS SLIDE, WE HAD TO GET SCIENTIFIC SCORES, RIGHT? WHATEVER CONSORTIUM WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN ON THAT LIST HAD THE SCIENCE SCORE NOT BEEN HIGH. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THE ONLY POINT I'M MAKING IS THAT, ACCORDING TO THIS SCHEME, THEY GET MORE MONEY SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE'S MORE THAN ONE INSTITUTION WHICH IS NOT BASED ON ANY SCIENTIFIC MERIT. YOU COULD HAVE AN INSTITUTION THAT HAS HIGHER SCORES SCIENTIFICALLY AND HAS A BETTER PLAN THAT GOT LESS MONEY SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PART OF A CONSORTIUM. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: NO, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT SCIENTIFIC SCORE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JANET'S RIGHT. WHAT IT DOES IS IT ASSUMES THAT THE CONSORTIUMS WILL BE IN THE CIRM INSTITUTES. THEY MAY NOT. THAT'S WHAT IT DOES. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: IT ALSO ASSUMES THEY WERE THE HIGHEST SCORES WITH THE DOLLAR SIGNS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK WE'VE SOLVED IT BY TAKING IT OUT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK WE'RE PUNTING BY JUST GETTING RID OF THAT TOP CATEGORY AND JUST CALLING IT HIGH AWARD AND LOWER. IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THAT? I THINK THAT SOLVES MY INTELLECTUAL ISSUE WITH THIS. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I JUST -- I STILL THINK THERE'S VALUE IN COLLABORATING, BRINGING PROGRAMS TOGETHER. SO I DON'T WANT TO LOSE THAT INCENTIVE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CAN'T IT BE PART OF THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW AND TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IF THEY HAVE THE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE QUESTION THAT I'M JUST ASKING THAT BE CONSIDERED, AND MAYBE JANET IS IN THE SAME CATEGORY, IS WHEN WE HAVE OUR LATER CALL, DISCUSSING IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE CAPS, IF INSTITUTIONS -- TWO OR MORE INSTITUTIONS COME TOGETHER, ASSUMING THEY BOTH GET HIGH SCIENTIFIC OR THE COMBINED TOTAL HAS A HIGH SCIENTIFIC SCORE, CAN THEY GET MORE -- COULD THEY QUALIFY POTENTIALLY FOR A GREATER AMOUNT THAN THE CAP ON ANY INDIVIDUAL GRANT? | ||||||||
| THAT BE CONSIDERED, AND MAYBE JANET IS IN THE SAME CATEGORY, IS WHEN WE HAVE OUR LATER CALL, DISCUSSING IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE CAPS, IF INSTITUTIONS -- TWO OR MORE INSTITUTIONS COME TOGETHER, ASSUMING THEY BOTH GET HIGH SCIENTIFIC OR THE COMBINED TOTAL HAS A HIGH SCIENTIFIC SCORE, CAN THEY GET MORE -- COULD THEY QUALIFY POTENTIALLY FOR A GREATER AMOUNT THAN THE CAP ON ANY INDIVIDUAL GRANT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YOU HAVE THE POSSIBILITY. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: IT'S THE OPPORTUNITY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I THINK WHAT I HEAR BOB SAYING IS IF THEY -- | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SCIENTIFIC MERIT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WHAT I UNDERSTOOD BOB TO SAY, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BOB, IS IF AFTER THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW IS DONE, THAT IS FIRST, AND THEY'RE IN THE HIGHEST TIER, THEN THERE'S -- AND THEY ARE A CONSORTIUM, THEN THERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY, NOT THE RIGHT, THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE THEM MORE MONEY. I STILL KIND OF HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: ON WHAT OBJECTIVE BASIS ARE WE DECIDING TO DO THAT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BECAUSE WE HAVE A POLICY -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BECAUSE WE LIKE CONSORTIUMS. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: OUR POLICY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH POINTS THAT ARE AWARDED ON A BASIS THAT IN SOME WAY CAPTURES WHAT THAT MULTIPLE INSTITUTION, ENTITY, AND THE VITALITY AND THE REALITY OF THAT. WE DON'T PROACTIVELY SAY BECAUSE TWO INSTITUTIONS DO SOMETHING, THAT THEY DESERVE MORE THAN ONE INSTITUTION THAT MAY BE DOING THE SAME THING MUCH BETTER. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I AGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSION. I AGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSION. I JUST WOULD HOPE THAT THE POINT SYSTEM WILL RECOGNIZE THE COLLABORATIVE VALUE THAT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT SO MANY TIMES ON OUR BOARD. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I'VE BEEN TRYING TO TALK ABOUT THIS, HAVING THE POINT SYSTEM BOTH CREATING A NEW CATEGORY, BOTH MITIGATING AGAINST POTENTIAL LOSS OF POINTS THAT A CONSORTIUM MIGHT EXPERIENCE, BUT BECAUSE OF, SAY, FALLING BEHIND ON URGENCY, I'VE LOOKED FOR WAYS IN ORDER TO REWARD THAT THROUGH POINTS. I DO NOT -- I FEEL VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH PROSPECTIVELY AWARDING SPECIAL STATUS TO MULTI-INSTITUTION ENTITIES OVER SINGLE INSTITUTION ENTITIES WHEN THERE'S NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR DOING SO. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S NOT THE INTENT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YOU SAID THAT YOU WANT TO RAISE THE CAP FOR MULTI-INSTITUTION COLLABORATIONS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IF THEY MEET THE SCIENTIFIC THRESHOLDS. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: BUT WHY? WHY WOULD YOU GIVE MORE MONEY TO TWO INSTITUTIONS THAN YOU WOULD TO ONE INSTITUTION UNLESS THE SCIENTIFIC SCORE WAS HIGHER? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JEFF, LET ME JUST MAKE THE ARGUMENT. I'M NOT SAYING I AGREE WITH THAT. WHAT I HEAR BOB SAYING IS, AGAIN, I'M JUST MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT WE VALUE COLLABORATION, AND WE VALUE THE CONSORTIUM SUCH THAT, SUCH THAT WE ARE WILLING TO GIVE SPECIAL STATUS AND CONSIDERATION TO THOSE UNIQUE APPLICATIONS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF THE SCIENTIFIC SCORE MERITS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S WHAT I SAID. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: KIND OF LIKE MOST FAVORED NATION STATUS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: SO THAT'S THE RATIONALE AND POLICY JUSTIFICATION FOR IT. JEFF AND I HAVE MADE, I THINK, SOME COUNTER AND EQUALLY AS PERSUASIVE POLICY ARGUMENTS THAT WE OUGHT NOT TO DO THAT, AND WE'LL HAVE THIS CONVERSATION LATER. IT'S HELPFUL TO GET THESE ISSUES FLESHED OUT NOW. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I AGREE WITH HIS OUTCOME, THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE MISSION AND THE SCIENTIFIC SCORE AND SCIENTIFIC VALUE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I THINK THAT WE CAN REWARD THIS THROUGH THE USE OF POINTS WITHIN A VERY CLEAR PROCESS, BUT I DON'T THINK WE START OFF BEFORE SAYING YOU GET MORE MONEY IF THERE'S TWO OF YOU THAN IF YOU'RE ONE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO LET RICK WRAP UP THIS PROCESS REVIEW QUICKLY SO WE CAN TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE CONSIDERED AND HAD ADVICE THAT THERE WERE POSSIBLY FIVE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR ACTUALLY DOING THE REVIEWS FOR THE LARGE FACILITIES GRANTS THROUGH THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP AND THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. I WANT TO GO OVER THOSE REAL QUICKLY. | ||||||||
| THE FIRST ONE IS WHAT WE CLASSIFIED AS THE ONE-STEP, WHICH BASICALLY SAID THAT WE WOULD DO IT LIKE WE DID THE SHARED LABS WHERE WE HAVE A CONCURRENT GRANTS WORKING GROUP AND FACILITIES WORKING GROUP REVIEW. | ||||||||
| SECOND ONE REALLY RESPONDS, AND THE PROBLEM WITH THE ONE-STEP IS THAT CHART I MENTIONED WHERE IF THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP MAKES A DECISION ABOUT THE XYZ, WE DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO ADJUST. SO WENT TO A SEQUENTIAL TWO-STEP REVIEW WHERE THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP WOULD MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE ICOC. THEY WOULD DECIDE WHO'S IN WHAT CATEGORY. AND THEN FACILITIES -- AND THEY WOULD ALSO OPINE ON WHAT SORT OF FINANCIAL STRATEGY WOULD BE EMPLOYED, KNOWING HOW MANY WERE IN EACH CATEGORY. | ||||||||
| SO THE ICOC MAKES THOSE DECISIONS AND THEN SAYS GIVE US, FACILITIES, YOUR BEST EVALUATION OF THOSE THREE LEVELS OF THE ONES THAT WE HAVE APPROVED. | ||||||||
| AND THIRD IS A VARIATION WHERE THERE'S JUST A SINGLE RFA WITH NO SPECIFIC FUNDING LEVELS AT ALL. | ||||||||
| FOURTH IS A COMBINED REVIEW WHERE THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP AND FACILITIES WORKING GROUP WOULD GET TOGETHER IN A LARGER ROOM AND IN ONE MEETING WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW PROPOSALS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SOUNDS LIKE A FUN MEETING. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: AND THE LAST ONE WAS THAT -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: SOFTBALL TEAMS. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ANOTHER OPTION WAS THAT WE COULD HAVE THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP BE THE EXCLUSIVE REVIEWER, BUT HAVE IT AUGMENTED WITH SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS OR A PANEL OF EXPERTS TO ADVISE ON THE SCIENTIFIC SIDE. SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS ONE-STEP AND TWO-STEP IN TERMS OF -- I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THOSE TWO AT THIS POINT. | ||||||||
| ON THE ONE-STEP, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE WOULD HAVE AN APPLICATION PREPARED BY THE APPLICANTS. WE JUST DO A REVIEW. CONCURRENT FACILITIES AND GRANTS WORKING GROUP AND THEN TO THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| UNDER THE TWO-STEP, PREPARATION, GRANTS WORKING GROUP REVIEW, TO ICOC, AND THEN BASED ON THOSE SCIENTIFIC DETERMINATIONS OF LEVEL, THEN THE PART 2 APPLICATION 0 WOULD BE PREPARED, AND THEN WE WOULD GO TO THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP AND HAVE THAT RECOMMENDATION. | ||||||||
| AND THE LAST BULLET IS MISSING, WHICH WOULD BE ICOC SECOND TIME RIGHT HERE. APPROVAL AT THAT TIME. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO WE'RE GOING TO PLAN ON A TELECONFERENCE ON THE 30TH. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: RIGHT. WE'RE GOING ASK PEOPLE TO COMMENT ON WHAT YOU DEVELOP TODAY IN TERMS OF THE CRITERIA, STANDARDS, AND SCORING. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT MEETING ON JULY 25TH. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I JUST WANTED TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND IN THE FIRST STEP PROCESS. NOW, IT SEEMS TO ME THE WAY THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED BEFORE, THAT THERE WAS A WAY TO ALLOCATE GRANTEES BETWEEN DIFFERENT SIZES OF GRANTS. HOW WOULD THAT TAKE PLACE IN THE ONE-STEP PROCESS? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: HOW WOULD THE STRATIFICATION OCCUR? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YEAH. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SO -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YOU'D HAVE TO BASICALLY -- I THINK IF THE DECISION WERE MADE, I GUESS I WOULD GO TO THIS. AND IF THERE WOULD ONLY BE GREEN AND RED, YOU EITHER WENT THROUGH OR YOU ARE OUT. SO YOU COULDN'T HAVE A PARTIAL APPROVAL BY THE SCIENCE WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: IN TERMS OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, HOW WOULD -- THEY WOULD ACTUALLY BE APPROVING EVERY GRANT FOR EVERY CATEGORY IN WHICH THEY APPROVED OR NOT APPROVING THEM. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: UNDER THIS PROPOSAL, THE ICOC WOULD HAVE TO -- BACK ON THE ONE-STEP, ARE YOU SAYING? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WELL, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME IN THE ONE-STEP -- SEE, IN THE TWO-STEP, IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAD THE STRATIFICATION AND THEN THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. IT GETS CLEAR TO ME WHAT THE ROLE IS IN THAT SCHEME OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. IN THE FIRST ONE, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP IS DOING A LOT OF WORK ON STUFF THAT HAS BEEN JUDGED, BUT THE INTERFACE HASN'T BEEN MADE. AND SO REALLY THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP DOESN'T EVEN REALLY MAKE SENSE IN THE LARGER SCHEME BECAUSE THEY'VE APPROVED -- THEY'LL BE LOOKING AT, SAY, A TIER 1 XYZ WHEN THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW WILL CLEARLY INDICATE THAT IT MAY BE ONLY AN X, BUT WE'VE JUST APPROVED. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: AND WE NOT RECOMMEND THE ONE-STEP PROCESS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: SO THE RECOMMENDATION, AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM STAFF, IS THE TWO-STEP PROCESS. IS THAT RIGHT, RICK AND LORI? I THINK I LIKE THE TWO-STEP PROCESS AS WELL. EVERYBODY LIKES THE TWO-STEP PROCESS. | ||||||||
| I HAVE A QUESTION THOUGH. BOB, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON THIS TWO-STEP PROCESS? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YEAH. IN TERMS OF THE TWO-STEP PROCESS, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SHORTEN UP THE TIMEFRAME IN TERMS OF ICOC REVIEW, ETC. BECAUSE THE -- FOR EXAMPLE, WE MIGHT NOT NEED A TEN-DAY NOTICE TO THE ICOC BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO THE ICOC LATER AGAIN. THIS IS AN INTERIM STEP. AND THE KEY IS THAT IN TERMS OF THE DATES AND MOVING THE DATES OUT INTO THE FUTURE, WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO THE ICOC FOR A FINAL DECISION. THE PEOPLE ON THE FACILITIES GROUP ARE MANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT WILL BE ABLE TO VOTE AT THE ICOC BECAUSE A LOT OF THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WILL HAVE CONFLICTS. | ||||||||
| AND IN OUR PHONE CALL, WE SHOULD GET INFORMATION FROM COUNSEL ON HOW THE CONFLICTS WILL BE PLAYED OUT BECAUSE IT MAY BE -- BUT IT MAY BE VERY IMPORTANT TO GIVE THESE INSTITUTIONS, AFTER THEY GET THEIR SCIENTIFIC SCORES, ENOUGH TIME TO EVALUATE IF THEY WANT TO ADJUST THEIR APPLICATION SO THAT WHEN THEY COME TO US, IF IT'S BEEN SAID THEY'RE NOT GOING TO RATE SCIENTIFICALLY IN THREE CATEGORIES, THEY TRY AND GIVE US A PROPOSAL THAT REALLY ADDRESSES TWO CATEGORIES SO THAT WE'RE REALLY JUDGING SOMETHING THAT IS APPROPRIATE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. I WANT TO ASK A RELATED QUESTION TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE TIMING, BOB. PERHAPS YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF THIS BASED ON THE CONVERSATIONS OR SOMEBODY HAS AN IDEA OF THIS. IF WE GO WITH THE TWO-STOP PROCESS, WHICH I ENDORSE, WHEN WOULD THE ICOC BE TAKING ACTION? THAT IS MY QUESTION. FINAL ACTION, WHEN WOULD THEY BE APPROVING THE GRANTS? WHEN IS THE ESTIMATED DATE WHEN THAT WOULD HAPPEN? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THERE ARE SEVERAL DATES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: CAN YOU GIVE ME THE EARLIEST AND THE LATEST? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: IT COULD BE AS EARLY AS MARCH. IT COULD BE AS LATE AS MAY. I WOULD SAY THAT THE TWO-STEP PROCESS, GIVEN AFTER PART 1 THE ICOC WOULD MEET, THERE WOULD BE MANY INSTITUTIONS THAT AT THAT POINT WOULD KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE COMPETING STILL FOR THIS MONEY, WHICH I THINK WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL AND WOULD GIVE THEM CERTAINLY AN ADDITIONAL THREE MONTHS UNTIL THAT NEXT ICOC MEETING SO THAT THEY FELT MORE COMFORTABLE SPENDING ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ON DEVELOPING THESE PLANS. | ||||||||
| SO I DO THINK THAT THE TWO-STOP PROCESS CERTAINLY DOES HELP THE INSTITUTIONS AND THAT THAT EARLIER DATE IS INDEED VALUABLE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I HAVE A QUESTION. SO WHAT IS THE FIRST ICOC MEETING ACTION ABOUT? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: ON THE TWO-STEP, IT COULD BE AS EARLY AS DECEMBER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: NO. NO. WHAT IS THE ACTUAL ACTION? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THEY'RE RATIFYING THE SCIENTIFIC GRANTS WORKING GROUP'S RECOMMENDATION. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IT WOULD BE ACTION ON THIS SLIDE, WHICH WOULD BE THEY RECEIVE THE APPLICATIONS AND HAVE SCORED THEM ALONG THESE LINES, YES, NO, AND THEN THEY WOULD GO FORWARD, AND THEY WOULD RECOMMEND APPLICANTS AS INSTITUTES, CENTERS, OR WHATEVER NAMES WE ASSIGN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THEY MIGHT PRIORITIZE THEM ON SCIENTIFIC SCORES. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE I DO THINK IT'S VERY USEFUL, ESPECIALLY WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF STAFF INTERACTION WITH THIS WORKING GROUP, TO REALLY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CURATIVE ABILITIES THAT WE TOOK SUCH GREAT ADVANTAGE WITH THE FIRST TIME AROUND. AND I WONDER IF THIS TWO-STEP PROCESS, IT MAY BE PUSHING THINGS OUT A BIT, IF THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE UNDERSTOOD, THAT THAT WOULD ALLOW INSTITUTIONS THAT DEMONSTRATED SIGNIFICANT SCIENTIFIC MERIT TO BE REALLY VERY, VERY COMPETITIVE ESPECIALLY ON ISSUES SUCH AS LEVERAGE. YOU KNOW, THEY COULD REALLY COME UP, WORKING WITH STAFF AND WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THIS WORKING GROUP -- THE SCIENTIFIC WORKING GROUP IS PRETTY BLACK AND WHITE. YOU EITHER SCORED WELL OR YOU DIDN'T SCORE WELL, AND WE HAVEN'T HAD A LOT OF GRAY. | ||||||||
| THIS WORKING GROUP SEEMS TO ME TO HAVE A LOT MORE FOR GRAY BECAUSE SCIENTIFIC MERIT -- THIS ISN'T -- ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS HERE CAN BE CURED FAIRLY EASILY. IF YOU'RE NOT A GOOD SCIENTIST AND YOU DON'T HAVE A GOOD IDEA, IT'S REALLY HARD TO FIX THAT. BUT IF YOU HAVE A BAD PLAN OR IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH LEVERAGE OR THERE'S SOME FLAW, AND YOU'VE GOT GOOD SCIENCE GOING ON, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE HAVE A REAL OPPORTUNITY IN THIS PROCESS TO REALLY GET PEOPLE UP AND RUNNING EVEN IF IT TAKES US ANOTHER MONTH IN REALLY WELL-DESIGNED FACILITIES THAT CAN ACCOMPLISH OUR MISSIONS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BUT THEN -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: LET ME SUGGEST THAT THIS IS A VERY -- THAT THIS IS AN ICOC DISCUSSION. I'M NOT TRYING TO TAKE JURISDICTION AWAY FROM THIS COMMITTEE OR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. BUT I THINK THERE'S SOME SENSITIVITY AROUND A COUPLE OF ISSUES. ONE, GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR APPLICANTS TO CURE, THAT COULD DRAW OUT THE TIMELINE. AND ALSO LETTING THE ICOC SORT OF DECIDE WHAT IT VALUES MORE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: LET ME SUGGEST THAT THIS IS A VERY -- THAT THIS IS AN ICOC DISCUSSION. I'M NOT TRYING TO TAKE JURISDICTION AWAY FROM THIS COMMITTEE OR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. BUT I THINK THERE'S SOME SENSITIVITY AROUND A COUPLE OF ISSUES. ONE, GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR APPLICANTS TO CURE, THAT COULD DRAW OUT THE TIMELINE. AND ALSO LETTING THE ICOC SORT OF DECIDE WHAT IT VALUES MORE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO LET TAMAR HAVE A FINAL COMMENT. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY BECAUSE IT'S NOT A CURE. WHAT IT IS IS A REAL TWO-STEP PROCESS. SO IN THE ONE-STEP YOU HAVE TO WRITE YOUR PART 1 AND PART 2 AT THE SAME TIME. IN THE TWO-STEP, YOU WRITE YOUR PART 1 AND YOU DON'T WRITE YOUR PART 2. YOU GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO THE ICOC, AND THE ICOC TELLS YOU YOU'RE XYZ, YOU'RE AN XY, YOU'RE AN X, AND THEN YOU WRITE YOUR PART 2 APPLICATION. SO YOU KNOW WHAT BUCKET YOU'RE IN WHEN YOU'RE WRITING YOUR PART 2 APPLICATION. SO IT'S NOT A MATTER OF CURE, I DON'T THINK, IN THE SENSE THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT IT, BUT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAILOR YOUR APPLICATION TO THE BUCKET THAT YOU'RE IN. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: MY ONLY -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF, EXCUSE ME. ARLENE CHIU HAD A COMMENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF, EXCUSE ME. ARLENE CHIU HAD A COMMENT. | ||||||||
| SCIENTIFICALLY CREDIBLE. AND EVEN THOUGH CURES MAY BE NOT THE RIGHT WORD, BUT WE CAN HAVE A DIFFERENT QUALITY DISCUSSION WITH THE INSTITUTIONS THAN WHEN WE DON'T KNOW THE SCIENTIFIC SCORES, AND WE CAN'T REALLY BE IN A ROLE WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO FACILITATE A GOOD PROJECT. WE'LL BE IN A ROLE WHERE WE'RE THUMBS UP OR THUMBS DOWN, AND THEN WE'LL SIT THERE AND WE'LL MIX AND MATCH LIKE WE DID WITH THE SHARED FACILITIES. AND I DO THINK THE QUALITY OF THAT DISCUSSION WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THIS WORKING GROUP WOULD BE MUCH BETTER. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: SO I COULDN'T AGREE MORE, AND I THINK I HEAR IT THAT THE SCIENCE WILL ACTUALLY BE THE DETERMINANT FACTOR IN MANY INSTANCES, THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ICOC, OF WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE A THREE-UNIT, TWO-UNIT, OR ONE-UNIT. AND, THEREFORE, BECAUSE THIS IS A REALLY NEW PROCESS, THE NIH DOESN'T REALLY FUND VERY MANY FACILITIES, THE WRITING OF THE SCIENCE, AND I WENT THROUGH IT RATHER QUICKLY, BUT THIS IS A VERY NEW ENTERPRISE IN TERMS OF BREADTH AND DEPTH. AND EACH APPLICATION ACTUALLY WILL BE REVIEWED THREE TIMES, DEPENDING ON ITS X, Y, OR Z. | ||||||||
| SO I THINK THE WRITING OF THE FIRST PART HAS TO BE DONE RATHER WELL, OR THEY'RE DOOMED. AS YOU SAY, IT WILL BE CLEAR AFTER THE SCIENCE. THERE'S NO CURATIVE PROCESS. AFTER THE SCIENCE, YOU WILL KNOW WHETHER YOU'RE XYZ OR XY. WHETHER YOU'RE A CONSORTIUM OR NOT DOESN'T MATTER. IT'S THE EXCELLENCE OF THE SCIENCE. THEY NEED TO EXPRESS IT VERY WELL. | ||||||||
| BY THE SAME TOKEN, THE REVIEW OF THE SCIENCE HAS TO BE DONE VERY CAREFULLY BECAUSE WE'RE NOW BEING STEWARDS OF THE PUBLIC'S MONEY, AND THE SCIENCE HAS TO DO IT CORRECTLY AND FAIRLY FOR LARGE, MEDIUM, OR SMALL ENTERPRISES. AND THAT'S WHY I THINK, FIRST OF ALL, THAT WRITING OF THE APPLICATION, THEY NEED SUFFICIENT TIME. | ||||||||
| NOW THAT WE'VE DECIDED WHAT IT IS, THE APPLICATION NEEDS TO BE CRAFTED WELL, AND THE APPLICATION NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED AS WELL. AND AS YOU KNOW, THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP IS MADE UP OF THE SCIENTIFIC MEMBERS, 15 PEOPLE ALL FROM OUTSIDE OF THE STATE. WE NEED TO GET THE RIGHT QUALITY OF PEOPLE WITH BROAD VISION TO GET THEM TO COME HERE TO REVIEW THEM. WE NEED TO EDUCATE THEM HOW TO REVIEW THESE GRANTS. THEY'RE NOT LIKE YOUR REGULAR SCIENTIFIC GRANTS. WE'RE LOOKING AT CRITERIA THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| NOW THAT WE'VE DECIDED WHAT IT IS, THE APPLICATION NEEDS TO BE CRAFTED WELL, AND THE APPLICATION NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED AS WELL. AND AS YOU KNOW, THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP IS MADE UP OF THE SCIENTIFIC MEMBERS, 15 PEOPLE ALL FROM OUTSIDE OF THE STATE. WE NEED TO GET THE RIGHT QUALITY OF PEOPLE WITH BROAD VISION TO GET THEM TO COME HERE TO REVIEW THEM. WE NEED TO EDUCATE THEM HOW TO REVIEW THESE GRANTS. THEY'RE NOT LIKE YOUR REGULAR SCIENTIFIC GRANTS. WE'RE LOOKING AT CRITERIA THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| SO I THINK AIMING FOR A DECEMBER 8TH MEETING IS GOING TO BE REALLY DIFFICULT THINKING ABOUT TIMELINES. THAT'S MY POINT. IF WE CALL AN ECTOPIC MEETING LIKE EARLY JANUARY FOR THE ICOC, WE COULD WRITE, HOPEFULLY, VERY CLEAR REVIEWS OF EACH ONE OF THEM SO THAT THESE REVIEWS ARE MEANINGFUL AND HELPFUL.EARLY JANUARY FOR THE ICOC, WE COULD WRITE, HOPEFULLY, VERY CLEAR REVIEWS OF EACH ONE OF THEM SO THAT THESE REVIEWS ARE MEANINGFUL AND HELPFUL. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THEY COULD ALSO SAY DECEMBER 20TH, NOT DECEMBER 8TH BECAUSE THERE COULD BE SOME INTERMEDIATE POSITION. BUT I WANT TO GO BACK TO JEFF'S POINT BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT REALLY IS CURATIVE BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE REALLY GOING TO WRITE THEIR APPLICATION FOR PART 2 AFTER PART 1. THEY'VE ALREADY WRITTEN THEIR PART 2 APPLICATION. IT'S EMBODIED IN WHAT -- THEY'VE GOT ARCHITECTURAL PLANS UNDERWAY BASED UPON A SCALE. WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS THAT AFTER THEY GET THE SCIENTIFIC SCORE, IF THEY'VE GOT HIGH SCORES IN X, Y, AND NOT Z, THEY'RE GOING TO SCALE BACK THEIR BUILDING. AND THEY NEED TIME TO REFORM THEIR SCHEMATICS, THEIR CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES, AND THEIR SUBMISSION TO BE ABLE TO SUBMIT PART 2 BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING REFORM BASED UPON THE GUIDANCE THEY'RE GETTING OUT OF THE SCIENTIFIC SCORE. | ||||||||
| SO THIS TWO-STEP PROCESS, IN FACT, THEY'VE BUILT IN SOME TIME FOR THE APPLICANTS TO DO THAT. AND THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT INTERNAL FEEDBACK PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS THEM TO COME IN WITH A PART 2 THAT'S REALISTIC BASED UPON THE SCIENTIFIC SCORE. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: WE COULD EVEN SEND THEM THE SCORES IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT THE WRITE-UPS SO THAT WE CAN GIVE THEM A THREE-WEEK BLOCK AHEAD OF TIME BECAUSE THE WRITE-UPS HAVE TO BE DONE CORRECTLY. WE COULD GIVE THEM THE SCORES EARLY TO GIVE THEM MORE TIME FOR SUBMISSION, BUT I THINK THE ICOC NEEDS TO SEE THAT THESE ARE WELL JUSTIFIED, THE SCORES, BECAUSE THESE ARE BIG DECISIONS WHETHER YOU'RE AN XYZ OR AN X. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YOU CAN DO BOTH. SEND THEM THE SCORES AND HAVE THE ICOC REVIEW THEM SO THAT THEY GET THE HEADS UP AND THE LEAD-TIME, AND THEY CAN BE THINKING ABOUT IT WHILE THE ICOC COMES TO TERMS WITH IT. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: ALL I'M SAYING IS I'VE LOOKED AT THE CALENDARS VERY, VERY CAREFULLY, AND IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE A REVIEW BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF DECEMBER TO GIVE ADEQUATE TIME BOTH FOR THE REVIEW AND GETTING THE RIGHT PEOPLE AND FOR WRITING A GOOD PART 1 APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT SOUNDS RIGHT. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: IF WE THEN HAVE THE ICOC MEET THE END OF DECEMBER. IF THE REVIEW IS, SAY, DECEMBER 1 AND 2, GETTING THOSE WRITE-UPS DONE BY THE 20TH TO POST, WE HAVE TO POST THEM, AND THEN THE MEETING WILL BE THE 30TH OF DECEMBER, THAT'S A POSSIBILITY; BUT DECEMBER 8TH, WHEN THE REVIEW IS DECEMBER 1ST, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT CAN BE DONE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ARLENE, I HATE TO CUT YOU OFF. SO WE'RE GOING TO SCHEDULE THIS FOR A TELECONFERENCE ON AUGUST 30TH, TIME TO BE DETERMINED. RICK, IS THERE ANYTHING -- YOU WANT TO JUST FINISH THIS UP, AND THEN WE'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS, OR ARE YOU DONE? | ||||||||
| SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO THE FINAL PART OF THE MEETING. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS, I'D ASK YOU TO LIMIT YOURSELF TO THREE MINUTES OR LESS, PREFERABLY LESS. ANYONE WISH TO COME UP AND MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS? GREAT. THANK YOU. MEETING IS ADJOURNED. | ||||||||
| (THE MEETING WAS THEN ADJOURNED AT 1.30 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. | ||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
BETH C. DRAIN, CSR 7152 |
||||||||
Facebook Updates 
YouTube Videos 
Twitter 
Flickr Images
LinkedIn
Research Blog
RSS Feeds
