State Stem Cell Agency Facilities Working Group Transcript 5/3/07
This is an uncertified HTML copy of the transcript. 
Click here for a certified PDF transcript.
California State Stem Cell Agency
REGULAR MEETING 05-03-07
|
||||||||
| LOCATION: |
|
|||||||
| DATE: |
|
|||||||
| REPORTER: |
|
|||||||
| BRS FILE NO.: |
|
|||||||
| BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JULY 12, 2007 | ||||||||
| 1 P.M. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: MAY I ASK THE MEMBERS TO TAKE THEIR SEATS AND OTHERS COME TO ORDER. MELISSA, IF YOU CAN ANNOUNCE THE ROLL. | ||||||||
| MS. BECKER: MARCY FEIT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: HERE. | ||||||||
| MS. BECKER: BOB KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: HERE. | ||||||||
| MS. BECKER: SHERRY LANSING. JOAN SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| JEFF SHEEHY. DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. JANET WRIGHT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: HERE. | ||||||||
| MS. BECKER: DEBORAH HYSEN. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: HERE. | ||||||||
| MS. BECKER: DAVID KASHIAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: HERE. | ||||||||
| MS. BECKER: DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HERE. SO I'D LIKE TO WELCOME ALL OF THOSE WHO ARE PRESENT FOR THE MEETING OF THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF REGENERATIVE MEDICINE'S FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. IN ADDITION TO THE MEMBERS PRESENT, WE HAVE STAFF PRESENT. THAT WOULD BE LORI HOFFMAN, THE INTERIM PRESIDENT OF THE CIRM; RICK KELLER, SENIOR OFFICER OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL FACILITIES WORKING GROUP; AND TAMAR PACHTER, OUR COUNSEL. | ||||||||
| RICK, CAN YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THE OTHER MEMBERS HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: PAT BECKER IS HERE AND MAYBEL CORTEZ. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AND DR. ARLENE CHIU. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: OBSERVER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YOU ARE THE CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER OF CIRM. SO I'D LIKE TO INVITE THE PUBLIC TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT NOW AT THIS TIME. I'D ASK YOU TO LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MS. HADDAD: THANK YOU. MY NAME IS DEBORAH HADDAD. I'M WITH THE J. DAVID GLADSTONE INSTITUTES HERE IN SAN FRANCISCO. I JUST WANT TO SAY THREE MINUTES ISN'T ADEQUATE TO COMMEND THE WORKING GROUP, THE CIRM STAFF. YOU'VE JUST DONE AN INCREDIBLE JOB. WHAT A DIFFICULT PROCESS. AND I'M GOING TO MAKE A COUPLE OF SUGGESTIONS HERE OF THINGS, BUT MY FOCUS IS GOING TO BE WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN AS OPPOSED TO EVERYTHING THAT DID, WHICH IS TRULY INCREDIBLE. SO THANK YOU. I THINK I HEARD THE WORKING GROUP RECOGNIZE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH THE PI COUNTS AND THE WAY THOSE ARE HANDLED. I KNOW MY SCIENTISTS WERE A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED THAT THEY DIDN'T GET FULL CREDIT FOR WHAT THEY FELT OUR PROPOSAL WOULD DO. SO IF THE RFI COULD MAKE A MORE SPECIFIC, A MORE CLEARER GUIDELINE FOR EXACTLY WHO YOU WILL COUNT, WHO YOU WON'T COUNT AND WHY, THAT WOULD BE VERY, VERY HELPFUL TO US. | ||||||||
| SQUARE FOOT COST, YOU SEE IT'S ALL OVER THE MAP. AND I'M APPRECIATIVE THAT THE COMMITTEE DIDN'T MAKE THAT A BIGGER ISSUE THAN YOU DID. YOU SEEM TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE DO HAVE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES IN ALL OUR ORGANIZATIONS, AND WE DO. FOR EXAMPLE, I'M ACROSS THE STREET FROM UCSF, WHO DOES SPEND $1500 A SQUARE FOOT. IN MY BUILDING I'VE SPENT ANYWHERE FROM 50 TO A THOUSAND A SQUARE FOOT, DEPENDING ON WHAT TYPE OF REMODEL I'M DOING. AND I'M IN AN AREA WHERE THERE'S TWO DEVELOPERS AND FOUR BUILDINGS GOING UP, AND THAT CAN HUGELY AFFECT THE MARKET IN MY AREA. EDWARD KASHIAN NOTED THAT WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO REMODEL WITHIN A STATE-OF-THE-ART BUILDING, YOU WANT TO KEEP THE INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING. WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT WILL ATTRACT SCIENTISTS, AND SOMETIMES THAT COSTS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN $600 A SQUARE FOOT. SO THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING THAT. THE TYPES OF SPACE MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE. IF YOU ARE DOING OFFICE SPACE, IT'S MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE THAN LAB, WHICH IS MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE THAN VIVARIUM, | ||||||||
| SO THAT CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. AND THE SIZE OF A PROJECT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE. IF YOU'RE REMODELING 600 SQUARE FEET VERSUS 4,000 SQUARE FEET, IN AGGREGATE YOU'RE GOING TO PAY MORE PER SQUARE FOOT BECAUSE THERE'S JUST CERTAIN COSTS YOU CAN'T SPREAD OUT. SO I WON'T EVEN GET INTO WARM SHELL AND COLD SHELL. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT TEPID SHELL, AND I'VE HAD MORE TROUBLE WITH SOME WARM SHELLS THAN I'VE HAD WITH COLD SHELLS JUST BECAUSE THINGS WERE SO DISCOMBOBULATED, I'VE HAD TO GO IN AND REDO THEM, AND SOMETIMES THAT CAN COST MORE. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE ANSWER IS. MAYBE IF THE COST PER SQUARE FOOT COULD HAVE SOME KIND OF CONTEXT AROUND IT. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ONE, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE A DIFFICULT ISSUE FOR EVERYBODY. JUST SOME KIND OF BENCHMARK AND SOME KIND OF CONTEXT FOR DEALING WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| THE OTHER THING I HEARD WAS THAT THE WORKING GROUP, AFTER READING PROPOSALS, THERE WERE SEVERAL THINGS YOU LIKED. YOU LIKED GREEN BUILDINGS, YOU LIKED BUILDINGS THAT WERE NEAR PUBLIC TRANSIT, YOU LIKED CALIFORNIA SUPPLIER VERIFICATION, YOU LIKED MORE COST DETAIL. WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT. AND IF WE HAD KNOWN THAT, WE WOULD HAVE ADDRESSED IT MORE FULLY. WHEN YOU ARE APPLYING FOR GRANTS FROM NIH, WHICH MOST OF US DO ALL THE TIME, SOMETIMES GIVING TOO MUCH INFORMATION OR INFORMATION THAT'S NOT REQUESTED CAN GET YOU DINGED, SO WE FOLLOW DIRECTIONS. THAT'S OUR MIND-SET. YOU ASK FOR IT, WE'LL GIVE IT TO YOU. SO IF YOU MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT YOU WANT, WE WILL FOLLOW YOUR GUIDELINES. | ||||||||
| THE OTHER ISSUE I WANTED TO BRING FORWARD IS I KNOW THAT THE CIRM FACILITIES GROUP DID A GREAT JOB ON THE ANALYSIS, AND I'VE BEEN READING MEETING MINUTES OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS AND WONDERING HOW THIS WAS GOING TO WORK OUT. AND WHEN I SAW THE ANALYSIS ONLINE, I THOUGHT WHOA. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE BEEN ABLE TO SEE WHAT ALL MY COMPETITORS HAVE DONE, AND I ENJOYED IT. I LEARNED A LOT. IT'S AN INTERESTING PROCESS. | ||||||||
| I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE MY ANALYSIS BEFORE IT WENT TO THE WORKING GROUP JUST TO ASK A FEW QUESTIONS. I KNOW YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT. IF THERE'S ONE THING THAT'S OVERLOOKED, IF THERE'S ONE TYPO, IF EVEN OUT OF 20, IF THERE'S ONLY ONE AND YOU'RE THE PERSON IT HAPPENED TO, THAT'S ALL YOU THINK ABOUT. SO YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT JUST SOME CHANCE TO SAY, HEY, DID YOU NOTICE THAT I DID THIS OR DID YOU CATCH THIS? SOME THINGS WERE IN THE NARRATIVE. SOME OF US DID THEM ON THE DRAWING. IT WAS A LITTLE INCONSISTENT. | ||||||||
| SO IF THAT COULD BE DONE, THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATED. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE CHANGES ONCE A GRANT IS SUBMITTED. YOU CAN'T ADD ADDITIONAL INFLUENCE, BUT JUST AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A CORRECTION, IF IT'S POSSIBLE. | ||||||||
| FOR THE FACILITIES, THE LARGER FACILITIES GRANT, FOR THE MEETING ON FRIDAY, THE 13TH, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A DISCUSSION ABOUT PROJECT DELIVERY METHOD. IT'S A HUGE ISSUE FOR US. WHENEVER YOU GET PUBLIC FUNDS, HAVING TO GO WITH A LOW BID CONTRACTOR IS A NIGHTMARE. IT DELETES QUALITY, IT DELETES EFFICIENCY, IT INCREASES CHANGE ORDERS, AND THERE ARE OTHER METHODS FOR DOING THIS THAT CAN ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF MAKING SURE YOU ARE GETTING BEST COST. AND I HOPE THAT THERE'S A DISCUSSION TO EXPLORE THOSE ISSUES BECAUSE IF WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH A LOW BID PROCESS, IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY, REALLY DIFFICULT TO DO THAT. | ||||||||
| THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO BRING FORTH IS ANOTHER ASPECT TO THIS PROCESS. AND THAT'S FACILITIES OPERATIONS MANAGERS. WE'RE THE ONES THAT DO THESE PROJECTS FOR OUR COMPANIES. AND WE HAVE A DIFFERENT TAKE ON THESE PROJECTS, AND I DON'T SEE A LOT OF REPRESENTATION IN THE DECISION-MAKING PART OF THIS FROM THAT VOICE. AFTER THE ARCHITECTS DESIGN THE BUILDING AND WALK OUT, WE'VE GOT TO MAKE IT WORK. WE'VE GOT TO KEEP IT RUNNING. WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT ONGOING COSTS, AND A LOT OF TIMES WE WILL IMPLEMENT THINGS OR TRY TO IMPLEMENT THINGS IN THE DESIGN PROCESS THAT WE KNOW WILL SAVE OUR COMPANIES HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A YEAR IN MAINTENANCE, IN OPERATION, IN PARTS REPLACEMENT THAT MAY ADD ADDITIONAL COST TO THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. BUT THE MONEY THAT WE SAVE GOES DIRECTLY TO SCIENCE. IT GOES TO SUPPLIES, IT GOES TO EQUIPMENT. | ||||||||
| AND IF THE COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN THE IDEA OF HAVING SOME PEOPLE OF THAT BACKGROUND ALONG WITH A LITTLE MORE SCIENCE REPRESENTATION, I KNOW YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF SCIENTISTS ON YOUR COMMITTEE, BUT WE CAN TELL YOU WHY WE DO THINGS THE WAY WE DO BECAUSE IT'S A MYSTERY ON SOME LEVELS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE COMING FROM A REAL ESTATE MARKET. IS THAT ME? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IT ISN'T, BUT I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. THEY WERE VERY INTERESTING AND PRODUCTIVE. AND THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING. I WILL JUST HAVE ONE COMMENT, THAT THERE WILL BE SOME TYPE OF PUBLIC FORUM AVAILABLE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING AFTER PUBLIC COMMENTS WHERE YOU WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE AND OTHERS WILL HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE INPUT INTO THE FUTURE RFA PROCESS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. | ||||||||
| MS. HADDAD: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD ASK TODAY DURING OUR MEETINGS, THIS TYPE OF INPUT IS, I THINK, VERY HELPFUL. ARE WE GOING TO HAVE SOME INTERIM TIME DURING THAT PROCESS WHERE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OF THIS TYPE COULD BE MADE? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK IN TERMS OF OUR DISCUSSION TODAY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. SO WE WILL HAVE -- DURING OUR DISCUSSION OF FUTURE RFA'S, WE WILL ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK AGAIN WITH IDEAS AS WE COME TO CERTAIN BREAK POINTS. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| ANY OTHER PUBLIC SPEAKERS?MR. SIMPSON: JOHN SIMPSON, FOUNDATION FOR TAXPAYER AND CONSUMER RIGHTS. IT'S NOW AFTER 9 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, AND I CAN GET THAT OUT OF MY MOUTH, UNLIKE YESTERDAY AT SEVEN. | ||||||||
| I JUST WANTED TO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUICK REFLECTIONS ON WHAT MORE YOU CAN DO TO ENHANCE THE TRANSPARENCY OF THE PROCESS. AND I HEARD IN THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER'S WORDS THE NOTION THAT WE'RE COMMITTED TO, THAT AS MANY OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE ACTUALLY SERVES EVERYONE AND EVERYONE'S INTEREST. | ||||||||
| AND I THINK, AS I RECALL, I COULD BE IN ERROR ON THIS, BUT THE ACTUAL DOCUMENTS THAT WERE DISCUSSED HERE, I THINK, DIDN'T GET POSTED UNTIL, I BELIEVE IT WAS, FRIDAY NIGHT ON THE WEB. THAT'S AHEAD OF THE MEETING, AND THOSE OF US WHO ARE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING INTERESTING AND EXCITING TO DO ON WEEKENDS PERHAPS SPENT SOME OF THE TIME REVIEWING THEM; BUT IF IT COULD HAVE BEEN -- I WOULD THINK THAT IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE, THEY SHOULD GO UP ONLINE JUST AS RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE. AND YOU'VE PROBABLY HEARD ME SAY THIS BEFORE, SO I'LL STOP WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| THE OTHER THING, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU FOR YOUR OWN EASE IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS TO ACTUALLY, SINCE THE SCORES ARE ULTIMATELY POSTED, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH CLEARER AND PROBABLY WOULD HAVE GONE FASTER IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS YESTERDAY IF, INSTEAD OF SAYING THE VAGUE, WELL, I SCORED THIS IN THE UPPER, HIGHER, MAYBE MIDDLE, WHATEVER, JUST SAY, WELL, GEE, IT WAS A 92 OR WHATEVER. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ANY TERRIBLE PROBLEM WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| I MEAN I HAVE HEARD FROM SCIENTISTS WHEN YOU'RE DOING PEER REVIEW AND SCIENTIFIC SCORES, THAT IF YOU GET DINGED, THIS PERHAPS RUINS YOUR CAREER FOREVER. I AM SKEPTICAL OF THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT MODEL IS APPLICABLE AT ALL WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INSTITUTIONS AND TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND SOME OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. SO, AGAIN, AT THE FEAR OF BEATING A DEAD HORSE, ANYTHING YOU CAN DO TO BRING OUT INTO THE PUBLIC THE MECHANISM OF THE SCORING WOULD BE JUST TREMENDOUSLY USEFUL AND HELPFUL AND PROBABLY WOULD ENHANCE MORE PUBLIC INPUT AND MORE AND FULLER DISCUSSION, WHICH SOMETIMES TAKES A LITTLE BIT LONGER, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU HAVE THE GRASS ROOTS SUPPORT FOR WHAT IT IS THAT YOU ARE DOING THAT'S ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, JOHN. ANY OTHER PUBLIC SPEAKERS? OKAY. THEN WE WILL GO TO THE DISCUSSION OF FUTURE RFA'S. SO I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: MR. CHAIRMAN, I KNOW WE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE THE MEETING, BUT I THINK IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY JUST TO INTRODUCE -- WE HAD DISCUSSED YESTERDAY. MAYBE WOULD COULD DO THIS ONE FIRST. WE DID SAY TIME PERMITTING, BUT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO IT NOW. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, RICK. SO HOPEFULLY EVERYONE, MEMBERS, HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THE CIRM INTERIM GRANT ADMINISTRATION POLICY FOR FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT GRANTS. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN YOUR PACKET. WHAT I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE TO THE MEMBERS, AND SEE IF WE CAN GET CONSENSUS ON THIS, IS THAT WE CAN TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME WITH THIS DOCUMENT NOW FOR A FEW DAYS AND ASK STAFF TO POST THIS ONLINE SO THAT THE MEMBERS CAN PUT COMMENTS. IS THIS POSSIBLE SO THAT MEMBERS -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IT'S ALREADY BEEN POSTED ON OUR PUBLIC WEBSITE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BUT IS THERE A WAY TO HAVE IT AS A SHARED DOCUMENT? SOME MEMBERS HAVE EXPRESSED AN INTEREST -- | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: PART OF THAT, DEPENDING ON WHAT TECHNOLOGY YOU USE TO DO IT, A SHARED DOCUMENT INVOLVES A LITTLE BIT OF A TRAINING PIECE FOR THE END USER. AND I'M HOPING THAT THAT CAN COME WITH THAT DOCUMENT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: FOR DOCUMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO END UP GOING THROUGH TO THE BOARD, WE CAN CERTAINLY GET -- MELISSA KING, CAN'T WE GET THAT ON OUR WEBSITE? | ||||||||
| MS. KING: FIRST OF ALL, THIS DOCUMENT IS ACTUALLY ALREADY POSTED ON THE WEBSITE. I POSTED IT TWO NIGHTS AGO. SO THIS DOCUMENT IS POSTED FOR THE PUBLIC; BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A WAY FOR THIS GROUP TO WORK ON IT INTERACTIVELY, THERE MAY BE A WAY FOR US TO DO THAT THROUGH A SECURE PAGE ON OUR WEBSITE. THAT'S POSSIBLE, AND THERE MAY ALSO BE OTHER WAYS TO DO THAT. I CAN WORK ON THAT WITH ED. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS, THROUGH THE TECHNOLOGY OFFICE AT CIRM, WE'LL SET UP A SHARE POINT, AND WE'LL WALK THE MEMBERS THROUGH THIS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE THE FACILITIES STAFF THAT WORKS THROUGH THIS. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: WE'LL ABSOLUTELY PUT THAT TOGETHER. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: AND IT MAY NOT BE THAT THE CHANGES TO THIS DOCUMENT, GIVEN THAT IT'S AN INTERIM GUIDELINE, ARE GOING TO BE SUBSTANTIVE. BUT HAVING THAT TOOL FOR LATER DOCUMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE MUCH MORE DETAILED WOULD BE, I THINK, REALLY HELPFUL BECAUSE THAT WILL PROVIDE THE ABILITY FOR US WHEN WE GET TO PERMANENT STANDARDS AND A PERMANENT RFA. IT WILL REALLY FACILITATE A LOT OF WORK OFFLINE THAT WE CAN COME HERE AND REALLY START TO DIVE IN PRETTY QUICKLY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF I CAN UNDERSTAND, LORI HOFFMAN. SO THE FACILITIES GROUP IS GOING TO BE WORKING WITH THIS DOCUMENT IN SOME FASHION, AND THEN AT VARIOUS POINTS, WHEN YOU GET TO WHERE WHATEVER DRAFTS ARE THEN SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD IN THE PROCESS, IT WILL GET POSTED IN THE NORMAL BOARD SITE. AND IN THE INTERIM, AS YOU WORK ON IT, ALL OF THOSE ARE GOING TO BE THROUGH SOME FACILITIES SITE THAT'S SPECIALLY SET UP. IS THAT HOW IT WILL WORK? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT'S CORRECT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I WANT TO UNDERSTAND ONE THING, RICK, LORI. SO WE CAN POST THIS DOCUMENT IN SOME KIND OF SHARED SITUATION WHERE THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP CAN MAKE COMMENTS. AND THEN I WOULD ASSUME THAT WE WOULD WANT TO HAVE A CONFERENCE CALL WITH THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP TO GO OVER ANY OF THOSE COMMENTS AND FINALIZE THE DOCUMENT? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I CAN IMAGINE THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO DO THAT AND WE WILL HELP TO FACILITATE THIS. I WANT TO REMIND THE WORKING GROUP THAT THIS NEEDS TO GO TO THE ICOC IN JUNE, ON JUNE 5TH. SO WE'LL TRY TO THEN HAVE A FACE-TO-FACE MEETING BETWEEN NOW AND THEN OR A CONFERENCE CALL AS WELL, AND WE'LL MAKE THESE COMMENTS AVAILABLE TO EVERYBODY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT'S FINE. I'D LIKE TO KIND OF AT LEAST ESTABLISH SOME KIND OF, LET'S SAY, DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS FROM THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, BASICALLY GIVE THE WORKING GROUP A WEEK OR SO AFTER IT'S POSTED. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO EVERYONE? SO THAT WAY WE CAN TRY TO GET IT DONE. DOES THAT WORK? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: YES. BUT WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO ADD TO THIS IS ALONG THE WAY YESTERDAY WE SAID THIS WILL BE GOOD TO HAVE, THIS WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE, LET'S REMEMBER TO PUT THAT IN, I'M ASSUMING THE STAFF CAPTURED SOME OF THAT INFORMATION SO THAT WE CAN JUST MAKE SURE THAT THOSE THINGS WE MENTIONED YESTERDAY ARE IN THIS DOCUMENT TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY SHOULD BE OR AT LEAST IN A FINAL DOCUMENT AT SOME POINT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IN THAT CONTEXT, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE 20-PERCENT MATCH, IT SPECIFIES CASH HERE, BUT WE'LL CONFORM THAT, OF COURSE, TO WHAT WE JUST APPROVED. IS THAT CORRECT? BECAUSE WE APPROVED MATCHES THAT ARE NOT CASH AS WELL AS CASH. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT'S CORRECT. FOR THIS LAST RFA. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RIGHT. THEN YOU WILL SUGGEST AND THERE WILL BE DISCUSSION TODAY ON WHAT YOU WOULD SUGGEST ON POLICY GOING FORWARD AS TO HOW WE COUNT MATCHES AT 20 PERCENT AND ABOVE 20 PERCENT FOR THE MAJOR FACILITIES. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT'S CORRECT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. RICK. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT I THINK WHILE WE HAVE TAKEN A LOT OF INPUT IN THE LAST DAY AND FROM OTHER TESTIMONY AND SO FORTH ABOUT THE GRANTS ADMINISTRATION ISSUES, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS ADOPTED BY THE ICOC IN TIME FOR THE APPLICANTS TO UNDERSTAND THE ADMINISTRATION POLICY FOR THE SHARED LAB. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT AS WE GO ALONG AFTER THAT POINT -- WE'VE LEARNED A BIT FROM THE SHARED LAB; BUT AS WE GO FORWARD AND IF WE HAVE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC AND SO FORTH, WE MAY WANT TO FURTHER AMEND THESE. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE. I DON'T KNOW THAT THESE WILL BE COMPREHENSIVE. I DON'T WANT THE GROUP TO REVIEW THESE WITH THE IDEA THAT THEY ARE SO COMPREHENSIVE, THAT ALL OF THE FUTURE FACILITIES RFA'S ARE COVERED. I DON'T THINK THAT'S OUR INTENT HERE TODAY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AT LEAST I CAN SPEAK FOR MYSELF, THAT I THOUGHT IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THIS WAS FOR THE SHARED LABORATORY GRANTS, AND THAT THESE COMMENTS ARE GOING TO APPLY TO THIS. AND THEN THAT WILL BE KIND OF A BASELINE DOCUMENT THAT WE CAN WORK FROM FOR FUTURE GRANTS. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: IS THIS DOCUMENT HERE WHAT GUIDED OUR DECISIONS YESTERDAY? NO. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATION POLICY THAT DEALS WITH THE APPLICANTS AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY AGREE, WHEN THEY ACCEPT A CIRM GRANT, THE PROVISIONS. SO IT DOES NOT INVOLVE THE SCORING OR ANY OF THAT ASPECT OF IT. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: OKAY. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: THIS IS PROBABLY FOR STAFF TO ANSWER. IN THE PAST OTHER WORKING GROUPS, WHEN WE DEVELOPED STANDARDS AND POLICIES, WE WENT THROUGH QUITE A RIGOROUS PERFORMANCE BEHAVIOR AROUND INPUT AND REFINEMENT, AND THEN THERE WAS IN SOME CASES, IN CASE OF OUR STANDARDS AND SOME OF THOSE, WE WENT THROUGH PUBLIC NOTICE, AND THEN WE WERE TOLD SOME OF THIS BECOMES LAW. SO WHAT DOES THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENT TO THE INSTITUTE IN THAT PROCESS OF EVERYTHING ELSE WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST? | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: MARCY, RECALL THAT THE ICOC ADOPTED A GAP, AND THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THAT. SO THE GAP IS ONE OF CIRM'S REGULATIONS, AND THIS WILL BE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THOSE REGULATIONS. AND IT WILL GO THROUGH THE SAME OAL AND NOTICE PERIOD AND COMMENT PERIOD JUST LIKE THE GAP. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: THANK YOU. THAT'S JUST EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT IN THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION YESTERDAY THAT WE SHOULD SOMEHOW BRING FORWARD. AND I KNOW IN PAST SOME OF THE POLICIES THAT WE HAD WORKED ON IN OTHER WORKING GROUPS WE WOULD GET SORT OF LINED -- YOU KNOW, DRAFTS THAT SAID, OKAY, WE ADDED THIS WORDING, WE TOOK THIS OUT SO THAT THE WORKING GROUP COULD REALLY SEE THE CHANGES IN THE DOCUMENT. AN EXAMPLE WE TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY, THAT WE WOULD NOT PERFORM REIMBURSEMENTS PRIOR. YOU COULD NOT APPLY AND GET. I THINK THAT KIND OF INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE IN THIS DOCUMENT BECAUSE THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID YESTERDAY. | ||||||||
| I'M JUST SAYING THAT UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS WE'VE BEEN THROUGH BEFORE IN OTHER WORKING GROUPS AND KNOWING WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, SOMEHOW WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN GET SOME OF THOSE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT STARTED IN LANGUAGE HERE, NOT THAT IT WILL END UP BEING THE WORDING, BUT AT LEAST STARTED. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO THINGS. ONE IS BEING ABLE TO SEE CHANGES THAT DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP MAY PROPOSE TO THIS DRAFT. AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DO ON THE SHARED SPACE THAT WE'RE GOING TO CREATE ON THE INTERNET. AND ONCE STAFF COMPILES THOSE SUGGESTIONS AFTER A MEETING, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE STAFF'S ATTEMPT TO HARMONIZE ALL OF THAT ON A RED LINE OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT. | ||||||||
| THE OTHER THING IS THE GRANT ADMINISTRATION POLICY IS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE GRANT IS AWARDED. AND MANY OF THE THINGS THAT THIS PANEL WAS TALKING ABOUT YESTERDAY HAD TO DO WITH WHAT KIND OF NOTICE ARE WE GIVING APPLICANTS ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECEIVING THE GRANT. SO THERE'S A TIME DIFFERENCE IN WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT YESTERDAY AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY THAT I THINK YOU WANT TO KEEP IN MIND. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: MY FINAL REQUEST WOULD BE THAT MAYBE IT WOULD BE HELPFUL ALSO IF WE COULD PUT THIS ON THE WEBSITE FOR THE WORKING GROUP IS SORT OF A PROCESS TIMELINE, THAT IF IT GETS ADOPTED IN JUNE, THEN WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT AND WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT AND WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT SO THAT THE WORKING GROUP HAS A FAIR IDEA OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. AND THAT, I THINK, GIVES US A SENSE OF URGENCY ABOUT OUR TIMELINES IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, MARCY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE INTERIM GRANT ADMINISTRATION POLICY FOR FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT GRANTS? SO THEN I THINK WE HAVE OUR NEXT STEPS ON THAT, RICK, LORI. AND, AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT WE NEED TO GET THIS DONE IN A TIMELY WAY FOR THE MEMBERS AND GET OUR COMMENTS ON THIS. I KNOW I'LL MAKE THE TIME. | ||||||||
| SO I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, DISCUSSION OF FUTURE FACILITIES RFA'S. AND I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO MEMBERS TO MAKE COMMENTS AND START THE DISCUSSION. WELL, I CAN CERTAINLY OPEN UP THE DISCUSSION. | ||||||||
| SO ONE OF THE, I THINK, MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COMMUNICATE TO THE APPLICANTS ON THIS NEXT ROUND OF FUNDING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE EXPECT -- WE HAVE 220 MILLION FOR THE MAJOR FACILITIES GRANTS? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: 222. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT WE WERE HOPING TO HAVE BETWEEN FOUR AND $500 MILLION OF GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR THAT $222 MILLION. SO THAT'S BEEN BASED UPON -- BOB, YOU'VE BEEN SURVEYING SOME OF THE STATEWIDE INTEREST, AND THAT'S OUR ESTIMATE OF -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHAT IS YOUR NUMBER YOU'RE USING? CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WAS SAYING FOUR TO 500. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YEAH. I WOULD SAY THAT I WOULD HOPE IT WOULD EXCEED FOUR TO 500 MILLION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. SO I WANT TO COMMUNICATE TO POTENTIAL APPLICANTS THAT WE REALLY, THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, WANT TO SEE CERTAIN THINGS. AND THIS RFA IS GOING TO INCLUDE VERY CLEAR DIRECTION ON SOME OF THESE ITEMS THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AS CLEAR IN THIS LAST GO-ROUND, THAT LEVERAGE IS A HUGE ISSUE FOR THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, AND INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT. THAT'S GOING TO BE ONE ITEM THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO US. | ||||||||
| DO OTHER MEMBERS HAVE ANY THINGS THEY WANT TO START THE CONVERSATION BY BRINGING UP AS WELL? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I'D LIKE TO ADD A FEW THINGS. FIRST, I'D LIKE TO SAY I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS OF THE WOMAN FROM GLADSTONE. DEBORAH, IS IT? I LIKE YOU BECAUSE OF THAT. YOU KNOW, YOU MENTION A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT. IN MY MIND SOME OF THEM WERE QUALITATIVE THINGS THAT ENHANCED THE APPLICATIONS SUCH AS GREEN BUILDING DESIGN. GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IS A REALLY GOOD THING FOR EVERYONE. IN PARTICULAR THE PERFORMANCE ASPECTS OF THE BUILDING AS IT RELATES TO GREEN BUILDING DESIGN ARE IMPORTANT TO ME. | ||||||||
| SO I WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT I WANT TO BRING TO THE GROUP AS WE GO FORWARD. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR CONVERSATION ABOUT FIRST-TIME COSTS VERSUS WHAT I CALL LIFE-CYCLE COSTS. I'VE HAD A BATTLE WITH VARIOUS STATE ENTITIES OVER THE YEARS BECAUSE THEY ONLY RECOGNIZE FIRST-TIME COSTS. AND I CAME FROM A FACILITY BACKGROUND, SO I KNOW VERY WELL THAT SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE CHEAP IN THE BEGINNING COSTS TWO TO THREE TIMES AS MUCH AS YOU OPERATE IT. AND BECAUSE OUR FUNDING IS GOING TO PROVIDE FOR OPERATIONS, I BELIEVE, FOR THE LARGE FACILITIES? YES? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: UNFORTUNATELY NOT ONGOING, BUT, YES, CERTAINLY IN THE FIRST SEVERAL YEARS. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: IN THE FIRST ROUND. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE LOOK AT THOSE FACTORS. WE ALL REMEMBER OUR ENERGY CRISIS FROM YEARS AGO, AND WE DON'T WANT TO COMPOUND THAT BY BUILDING BUILDINGS THAT AREN'T THE BEST IN ENERGY CONSERVATION. THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE BUILD, NOT ONLY A BUILDING THAT MEETS THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SCIENTISTS, BUT IS A REALLY GOOD BUILDING AND WILL STAND THE TEST OF TIME. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY BUILDINGS THE STATE HAS BUILT THAT ARE NOT THAT OLD THAT THEY'VE HAD TO TAKE DOWN BECAUSE THEY WERE JUST OBSOLETE WITHIN A MATTER OF A FEW DECADES. THAT'S NOT GOOD INVESTMENT OF TAXPAYER'S MONEY. SO I WILL BE LOOKING AT THAT. | ||||||||
| COST PER SQUARE FOOT IS KIND OF ONE OF THOSE UNFORTUNATE THINGS BECAUSE IT IS PROBABLY THE TRUEST BENCHMARK FOR THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY. IT'S WHAT WE ALL LOOK AT. COST PER SQUARE FOOT FOR TI'S, THE COST PER SQUARE FOOT TO BUILD A BUILDING. IT'S A KNOWN NUMBER. AND WHEN I MENTIONED YESTERDAY THAT I WOULD BE VERY RELUCTANT TO APPROVE SOMETHING THAT COSTS $1600 A FOOT WHEN THE NEXT NEAREST COMPETITORS WERE ROUGHLY HALF THAT COST, UNDERSTANDING, THOUGH, THAT THERE IS A WIDE RANGE OF THINGS, BUT I THINK THE COST PER SQUARE FOOT IS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT TO SOME PEOPLE AS THEY LOOK OVER WHAT WE'RE DOING BECAUSE THERE IS EMBEDDED IN THE BODY OF LAW THE NOTION THAT THIS BE COST COMPETITIVE. AND SO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT. AND I THINK THE WAY YOU DO THAT IS NOT GO WITH THE LOWEST BIDDER BECAUSE THE LOWEST BIDDER CAN BE A BIG PROBLEM FOR YOU IN THE LONG RUN. | ||||||||
| I LIKE THIS NOTION THAT WE SHOULD EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY METHODS. THERE ARE SOME ALTERNATIVE -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: LORI. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I'M SORRY. THERE'S CERTAINLY AN ISSUE, AND WE WOULD ALWAYS WANT TO THEN HONOR THE INSTITUTIONS THAT WOULD BE APPLYING AND THEIR SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, A STATE PUBLIC RESEARCH INSTITUTION WOULD NEED TO FOLLOW THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING RULES THAT APPLY TO THEM. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I UNDERSTAND THAT. I THINK UC'S HAVE DESIGN BUILD AUTHORITY? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THEY DO. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: SO THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE, I THINK, STATE AGENCIES -- THAT'S ONE. UNFORTUNATELY THERE'S NOT MORE OPPORTUNITIES BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY METHODS THAT YOU CAN USE. ED AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT A COUPLE THAT HE'S FOUND SUCCESSFUL IN THE PAST, AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE WE CAN'T EXPLORE THAT FULL REALM OF OPPORTUNITIES. BUT I THINK THE UC'S WERE AHEAD OF THE GAME BY GETTING THAT DESIGN BUILD AUTHORITY. SO I THINK PERSONALLY THAT'S THE WAY WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PROCEED IF WE WANT TO EXPEDITE THIS WORK. SO I'LL BE LOOKING AT THAT. | ||||||||
| IN FACT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I FOUND VERY SUCCESSFUL, THE DGS HAD INTERIM DESIGN BUILD AUTHORITY SPECIFIC TO PROJECTS. AND SO WE USED THE DESIGN BUILD PROCESS ON THE SAN FRANCISCO BUILDING, OUR OAKLAND BUILDING, AND OUR LOS ANGELES BUILDING. AND WE ACTUALLY HAD KIND OF A DESIGN BUILD COMPETITION. AND IT WAS REALLY INTERESTING BECAUSE WE WERE ABLE TO ATTRACT A WHOLE ARRAY OF BUILDINGS BECAUSE WE SIMPLY SAID WE JUST WANT TO HAVE -- THIS IS WHAT OUR OBJECTIVE IS IN THIS FACILITY. THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE WANT THIS FACILITY TO BE. | ||||||||
| AND IT WOULD BE INTERESTING IF WE COULD, YOU KNOW, DO SOME KIND OF COMPETITION IN THE LARGER FACILITIES FOR THE POT OF MONEY. WHO'S THE BEST BUILDING -- WHO'S THE BEST PROJECT OUT THERE TO MEET THE OVERALL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES? AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS KIND OF A WILD IDEA, BUT THE NOTION OF HAVING KIND OF A COMPETITION LIKE THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING, AND THAT INCLUDES SITE VISIT, INCLUDES MEETING THE TEAM MEMBERS, THE FACILITIES TEAM, THE BUILD TEAM, THE IN-HOUSE STAFF, AND THE OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS HIRED. | ||||||||
| I EVEN PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE SEED MONEY GO TOWARDS FORMING THAT IDEA A LITTLE BIT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. SO THAT THEY HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF GET A PROJECT FORMED AND PRESENTED IN A COHESIVE MANNER TO US. THOSE ARE JUST SOME INITIAL IDEAS I HAVE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, DEBORAH. I THINK I WANT TO NARROW OUR DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW ABOUT THE ICOC ASKED THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF PUBLIC FORUM/HEARINGS, AND I THINK I WANT TO FOCUS OUR EFFORTS ON THAT SUBJECT MATTER FIRST ABOUT THE RIGHT TYPE OF FORMAT FOR THAT KIND OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION AND OPEN UP THE FLOOR TO THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP FOR IDEAS. I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THREE TO FOUR MEETINGS, AND THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT TYPE OF FORMAT THAT SHOULD BE, WHETHER IT SHOULD BE AN OPEN DISCUSSION INVITING CERTAIN EXPERTS, POTENTIALLY FACILITIES OPERATIONS MANAGERS AND OTHER EXPERTS IN THE INDUSTRY, TO GIVE US PUBLIC COMMENT AS TO WHAT THEY THINK WOULD BE THE BEST RFA PROCESS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF WE WERE TO FOCUS ON THE AGENDA TOPICS WE TALKED ABOUT, DEFINITIONS, RULES, AND POLICY, MOST OF THE DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD THUS FAR TODAY FITS INTO THOSE CATEGORIES. FOR EXAMPLE, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE PERSPECTIVES OF THE MEMBERS ON THIS COMMITTEE AS WELL AS THE PERSPECTIVES OF INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE AND THE PUBLIC ON HOW WE BALANCE LEVERAGE AGAINST COST. SO THAT COULD BE UNDER POLICIES ONE OF THE AGENDA ITEMS. | ||||||||
| UNDER OUR STRATEGIC PLAN PRINCIPLES, CALLED STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES PROPERLY, ONE OF OUR STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES IS LEVERAGING RESOURCES. NOW, I THINK ACTUALLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT THAT THIS WAS BUILT OFF OF, THE ONE SENTENCE ANNOTATION OF THAT HEADNOTE DOESN'T CAPTURE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT NOT JUST LEVERAGING THROUGH CREATING PARTNERSHIPS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, BUT LEVERAGING FINANCIAL RESOURCES WAS DISCUSSED AT SOME DEPTH IN DEVELOPING THIS ITEM IN THAT HEARING. | ||||||||
| WE MIGHT LOOK BACK AT THAT HEARING IN TERMS OF THE DISCUSSION WHICH WAS IN MUCH MORE DEPTH ON EACH OF THESE STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES AND HOW THEY APPLY TO OUR POLICIES HERE. | ||||||||
| BUT IN TERMS OF THE DEFINITIONS AREA, WE'VE SEEN THAT, AND I'VE REFERENCED EARLIER, THAT THE 20-PERCENT MATCH IS PROPOSED TO BE MET ON AN ALL CASH BASIS IN THIS DOCUMENT MIGHT BE A VERY APPROPRIATE WAY TO PROCEED. WILL WE SAY THAT ABOVE 20 PERCENT ALL OF THE MONEY HAS TO BE CASH, OR CAN IT BE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT, PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT? AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT, HOW DID WE DEFINE THAT? WE NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR IF IN-KIND IS NOT A PURCHASE. | ||||||||
| SO WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING, I THINK, IN SOME CASES FOR A 200-PERCENT MATCH OR MORE BECAUSE OF HIGH COSTS IN PRODUCING IN SOME AREAS OF THE STATE SO WE BRING THE VALUES IN LINE BETWEEN THE LOWER COST AREAS OF THE STATE AND VERY HIGH COST AREAS OF THE STATE. IT'S ALSO TRUE THAT INSTITUTIONS IN THE HIGHER COST AREAS HAPPEN TO BE CLOSER TO THE CONCENTRATIONS OF CAPITAL AND HAVE GREATER ABILITY TO RAISE FUNDS, WHICH IS AN INTERESTING ALIGNMENT WITH THEIR ABILITY TO GET GREATER LEVERAGE. | ||||||||
| SO I THINK THAT WE DEFINITELY NEED TO DEVELOP THE WHOLE SET OF DEFINITIONS. I WOULD THINK THE STAFF COULD DRAW A LOT FROM THE SHARED LABS THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH IN TERMS OF DEFINITIONS WE NEED TO EXPLORE. AND IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO HEAR FROM THIS COMMITTEE WHAT OTHER DEFINITIONS. | ||||||||
| BUT IN TERMS OF DEBORAH'S RECENT REFERENCE TO DESIGN BUILD, ONE OF OUR VALUES IN OUR STRATEGIC PLAN IS INNOVATION. AND CERTAINLY THERE'S A BIG LEAD-TIME TO THESE MAJOR PROJECTS, AND WE CAN'T SLOW DOWN WHERE INSTITUTIONS HAVE BEEN, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT INSTITUTIONS ARE DOING DESIGN BUILD, WE SHOULD PERHAPS SEND OUT A MESSAGE TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY CAN SHOW THAT THAT MAY HELP WITH TIME OR COST, THAT IT MAY BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES AND VALUES. IN TERMS OF OUR POLICY DISCUSSION, THIS WOULD BE WORTHWHILE COMMUNICATING, AND THAT THEY MIGHT WANT TO MAKE AN ADVOCACY STATEMENT IN THEIR APPLICATION RELATED TO HOW THIS IS GOING TO SAVE TIME, WHICH IS, IN FACT, GOING TO HELP OUR MISSION AND OUR MISSION DELIVERY. | ||||||||
| SO I'D LIKE TO, IN TRYING TO FOLLOW YOUR DIRECTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, TO SEE WHAT OUR SUGGESTIONS WOULD BE IN ALL THREE CATEGORIES FOR THE AGENDA, DEFINITIONS, RULES, AND POLICIES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, BOB. LORI. MS. HOFFMAN: YES. THANK YOU. ALL THIS INITIAL DISCUSSION HAS BEEN REALLY QUITE HELPFUL, AND I THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE A SECTION ABOUT INNOVATION, AND IT COULD BE DESIGN BUILD, IT COULD BE THIRD PARTY. I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE PRESCRIBED ANY KIND OF DELIVERY METHOD IN THIS LAST RFA, NOR WOULD WE WANT TO IN THE FUTURE RFA. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: IS THERE A WAY, THOUGH, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO PRESCRIBE EITHER. INNOVATION MEANS YOU LEAVE IT TO THE INNOVATOR TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT. BUT IF WE SET, I DON'T WANT TO SAY AGGRESSIVE, BUT IF WE SET TIMEFRAMES SUCH THAT THE ONLY WAY TO ACHIEVE THE CIRM OBJECTIVE AND THE OBJECTIVE IN THE PROPOSITION IS TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY METHODS, ALTERNATIVE FINANCING METHODS, IT WOULD BASICALLY FORCE THEM TO BE INNOVATIVE. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I IMAGINE THAT MOST OF THESE INSTITUTIONS, HAVING PLANNED THESE PROJECTS OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, HAVE REALLY STRETCHED BEYOND JUST THE STANDARD LUMP-SUM DELIVERY METHOD. AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD TRY TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO CAPTURE THAT, AND THEN ESSENTIALLY HAVE A CATEGORY FOR SCORING. | ||||||||
| WHAT I'D LIKE TO ASK THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP RIGHT NOW IS TO HELP TO DIRECT STAFF TOWARDS LOGISTICS IN TERMS OF THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS. AND CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE SUGGESTIONS FOR WHAT THE AGENDA FOR THE PUBLIC MEETING WOULD BE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE FOR US TO HOLD. I ASSUME THAT THIS IS A FACILITIES WORKING GROUP MEETING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CORRECT. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: SO THAT THE CHAIR WOULD BE RUNNING THESE MEETINGS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THE CHAIR OR THE VICE CHAIR. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THE CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR. I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO SEEK COUNSEL ON THE ISSUE OF IF FOR WHATEVER REASON WE DIDN'T HAVE QUORUM, UNDER ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT WE COULDN'T HAVE -- WE COULDN'T PROCEED WITH THE MEETING, SO WE NEED TO DISCUSS IF THIS WOULD BE INFORMATIONAL. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'D LIKE TO ASK COUNSEL. I HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT AT THIS POINT. I THINK WHAT -- I THINK WE CAN WORK AROUND THE RESTRICTIONS IN OUR BYLAWS AND ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER, AND YOU CAN LEAVE THAT TO COUNSEL TO TAKE CARE OF. BUT I THINK WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT THE LOGISTICS AND WHEN WE CAN MEET. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: SO IF I COULD JUST PROCEED AND LOOKING FOR INPUT AS WELL. SO I ASSUME THAT WE WOULD THEN ADVERTISE A FACILITIES WORKING GROUP MEETING. THOSE OF YOU WHO COULD ATTEND WOULD. I'D LIKE SOME DIRECTION IN PERHAPS WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE THESE THREE MEETINGS TO TAKE PLACE. IF YOU'D LIKE THEM TO ALL TAKE PLACE IN SEQUENCE OR OVER THE COURSE OF A FEW WEEKS. IF WE SHOULD JUST PROPOSE SOMETHING TO YOU, THAT WOULD BE FINE AS WELL. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES DOES HAVE A LIST OF STATE FACILITIES THAT ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND HAVE VIDEOCONFERENCING CAPABILITIES, AND THAT'S A GOOD PLACE TO START. BECAUSE IT IS A PUBLIC BUILDING, IT NORMALLY WOULD MEET ALL THE PUBLIC REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS ADA AND PARKING, ETC., SO THAT IS ONE OPPORTUNITY. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: MORE I THINK I'M LOOKING FOR REGIONAL MEETING LOCATIONS. I KNOW THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT CENTRAL VALLEY, MAYBE SACRAMENTO, SAN DIEGO, SO THERE'S MANY OPTIONS, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'VE HAD SOME INPUT INTO THIS PROCESS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO THANK YOU, LORI. THANK YOU, DEBORAH. I THINK WE NEED TO FOCUS ON ESTABLISHING AN AGREEMENT AMONG THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP MEMBERS WHERE WE WANT THE LOCATIONS, THE NUMBER OF MEETINGS, AND THE FORMAT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON FIRST. | ||||||||
| SO IN TERMS OF THE FORMAT, I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THAT FIRST BECAUSE I THINK ACTUALLY THAT'S THE MORE, I THINK, MEANINGFUL QUESTION IS DO WE WANT TO MAKE THIS AN OPEN PUBLIC HEARING, OR ARE WE LOOKING FOR THIS TO BE MORE OF AN OPEN DISCUSSION WITH FOLKS IN THE INDUSTRY THAT HAVE KNOWLEDGE AND CAN HAVE A POSITIVE INPUT TO THE RFA PROCESS, BUT ADVERTISE IT TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS EXPERT TESTIMONY? SUGGESTIONS, PLEASE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I DEFER TO JANET. WELL, CERTAINLY THE PUBLIC HAS TO BE INVITED, BUT IN THESE MEETINGS, BY FORMAT, ONE OF THE GROUPS THAT'S BEEN REPEATEDLY MENTIONED ARE THE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PERSONNEL FROM POTENTIAL APPLICANTS. THE FACILITIES MANAGERS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY FOR THEIR INPUT. AND THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERS, FRANKLY, OF THESE VARIOUS APPLICANT INSTITUTIONS OR THEIR DEPUTIES SHOULD CERTAINLY BE INVITED BECAUSE THEY ALL ARE GOING TO HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF INPUT INTO THE APPLICATIONS, AND THEY'RE GOING WANT TO KNOW AS TO THEIR PORTION OF THE INPUT A LOT OF ANSWERS, ANSWERS OF QUESTIONS WE CANNOT ALWAYS ANTICIPATE. | ||||||||
| SO MAKING SURE THAT WE GET OUT TO ALL POTENTIAL APPLICANTS AND REQUEST SPECIFICALLY THAT THEY HAVE THEIR KEY PERSONNEL THERE, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY HAVE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS. IT'S ALL OBVIOUSLY TOTALLY OPTIONAL. | ||||||||
| IN TERMS OF EXPERT INPUT, I DON'T THINK WE CAN AFFORD TO REALLY SLOW THIS DOWN FOR THIRD-PARTY EXPERTISE. AND CERTAINLY THE APPLICANT INSTITUTIONS REPRESENT A LOT OF EXPERTISE ON THEIR OWN. BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE SOME SIGNAL INDIVIDUALS WHO COULD BE IDENTIFIED, WITHOUT SLOWING DOWN THE PROCESS, WHO COULD ADDRESS SOME MAJOR TOPICS, THAT WOULD BE AN ENRICHMENT OF THE PROCESS, BUT NOT SOMETHING TO DRAG THE PROCESS. THEORETICALLY, WHETHER YOU HAVE THREE MEETINGS OR FOUR, AND YOU COULD HAVE TWO A WEEK IN TWO SUCCEEDING WEEKS, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO COVER THIS AREA FAIRLY QUICKLY AND HAVE ENOUGH TIME FOR NOTICE SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO PREPARE IN ADVANCE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, BOB. JANET. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I THINK WHAT I HAD IN MIND WHEN THIS CAME UP IN OUR LAST MEETING IS SOMETHING BUILT ON THE MODEL THAT WE'VE SEEN WORK IN STANDARDS AND IN THE IP WHERE YOU HAVE A FORMAL PRESENTATION NOTICED IN ADVANCE SO THAT THOSE INSTITUTIONS WHO WANT TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THAT ISSUE CAN ATTEND THAT PRESENTATION. BUT AT THAT SAME MEETING, IN ADDITION TO SORT OF SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT, THEN WE GATHER THE EXPERTISE IN THE ROOM. LOTS OF TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. | ||||||||
| ONE COMMUNITY THAT YOU MENTIONED IS THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, TO HAVE SOMEONE MAKE A PRESENTATION ON THE SCIENTIST ANGLE. THERE ARE INNUMERABLE EXAMPLES IN CARDIOLOGY WHERE A FABULOUS CATHETER IS DESIGNED. IT DOESN'T ABRADE THE VESSEL WALL. IT'S VERY SMOOTH. IT'S SMALL. IT'S EASY TO USE. AND NO CARDIOLOGISTS EVER USED IT WHEN IT WAS IN ITS BETA TESTING, SO IT'S NEVER IMPLEMENTED. SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET THE SCIENCE STANDPOINT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, JANET. THAT'S AN EXCELLENT SUGGESTION. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: MAY I RESPOND TO THAT? I THINK IT'S HIGHLY IMPORTANT THAT THE SCIENTIFIC ASPECT AND WHAT THESE BUILDINGS, THE GOAL OF HAVING THESE BUILDINGS NOT BE IGNORED, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'RE NECESSARILY TIED IN WITH THE FUNCTION OF THIS WORKING GROUP. I THINK WE NEED TO DISSOCIATE THAT. TO EXPLORE THE SCIENTIFIC NEED, WE WILL GO TO THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, AND THEY WILL POSSIBLY BE CHIMING IN ON THESE NEEDS. | ||||||||
| WE WERE WAITING TO HEAR, BECAUSE THIS HAS MOVED SO FAR AFIELD, WHAT YOUR NEEDS ARE IN TERMS OF HOW YOU VALUATE THE BUILDINGS. WE HAVE THOUGHT OF SEVERAL POTENTIAL NEEDS FOR THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THAT COULD BE QUITE BROAD. THIS IS NOT LIKE A SHARED LAB WHERE IT'S VERY TARGETED AND YOU COUNT HOW MANY LABS ARE DOING WORK. THIS IS MUCH BROADER. I THINK THE VISION MIGHT BE TO BUILD NEW PROGRAMS, IF I MAY JUST SPEAK OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, TO BUILD NEW PROGRAMS, TO HAVE INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAMS, COLLABORATIONS. IN FACT, EVEN MORE NOVEL GATHERING BY THE WATER COOLER CONCEPT AS WELL AS IN AN AREA WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE INSTITUTIONS TO COME TOGETHER AND HAVE A JOINT PROGRAM. THOSE THINGS ALL COME TO MIND, AND THEY REQUIRE DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUILDINGS. I DON'T THINK WE CAN ANTICIPATE THE SCIENTIFIC NEEDS. | ||||||||
| SO I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THE SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION AWAY FROM THE FACILITIES DISCUSSION. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I AGREE WITH JANET ABOUT HAVING A FORMALIZED PRESENTATION, IF ANYTHING, JUST TO GIVE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT OUR GOALS ARE, WHAT WE EXPECT TO SEE IN AN RFA, IF POSSIBLE. AND I THINK WE SHOULD DISCUSS THAT TODAY, THE QUICK SUMMATION OF WHAT OUR RFA WOULD LOOK LIKE, AND THAT, I THINK, WOULD SOLICIT THE RIGHT KIND OF FEEDBACK AND INFORMATION THAT WILL BE VERY HELPFUL AS WE GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. AND I THINK THAT'S THE KIND OF OPEN FORUM THAT I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I'D JUST LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT. I CERTAINLY SEE THE DIRECTION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAD. I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT PERHAPS, BECAUSE THIS IS AN INTERESTING MIX OF BEING A GOVERNING BOARD AS WELL AS LOOKING TO DEFINE AND MAYBE MANAGE THE PROCESS AS WELL, I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE TRY TO STAY WITH THE CRITERIA AND THE PROCEDURES FOR THIS FUTURE RFA AND KEEP A BOX AROUND IT SO THAT WE DON'T GO TOO FAR AFIELD. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CAN YOU GIVE US SOME DEFINITION ON SPECIFICS ON THIS? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: WHAT I MEAN BY CRITERIA? SO I THINK SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT I HEARD BEFORE IN TERMS OF WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WOULD BE LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF INNOVATION, IN TERMS OF TECHNOLOGY, HOW TO ADDRESS THE SCIENCE AND NASCENT PROGRAMS, HOW TO ADDRESS THE SCIENCE AND VERY DEVELOPED PROGRAMS AND INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAMS, AND HOW THE BUILDING ITSELF WILL ANSWER THAT. SO IF YOU COULD -- SOME IT IS LEVERAGE, BUT, IN FACT, I THINK THAT WHAT I'VE HEARD OVER TODAY AND YESTERDAY, I THINK WE'RE GETTING VERY CLOSE TO WHAT THAT MEANS FOR YOU IN TERMS OF MATCH AND IN TERMS OF LEVERAGE. AND I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE AN EASY TOPIC PERHAPS TO MAYBE BRING UP AT ONE OF THE PUBLIC MEETINGS, STAY WITH THOSE DEFINITIONS, HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC MEETING AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL IN TERMS OF POLICY AND WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. AND THEN ALLOW STAFF TO TAKE THAT INFORMATION AND PROVIDE A PROCESS IN WHICH YOU CAN AND THE ICOC CAN REVIEW AND THEN APPROVE BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE'S SOME INTERESTING ISSUES ABOUT THESE PARALLEL TRACKS OF SCIENCE AND THE TECHNICAL PIECE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: TWO THINGS. ONE, ARLENE, WHILE THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE -- WORKING GROUP IS GOING TO REALLY CONTRIBUTE THE SCORING INFORMATION AND EVALUATION ON THE SCIENCE, IT IS, I THINK, EXTREMELY VALUABLE FOR THE PUBLIC AND, FRANKLY, FOR THE INSTITUTIONS IN RAISING FUNDS IF, JUST AS WE HAVE SPOTLIGHTS ON DISEASE TO BEGIN BOARD MEETINGS, WE HAVE SOME INDIVIDUALS WHO SPEAK TO THE SCIENCE, IF THEY'RE AVAILABLE AND DON'T SLOW DOWN THE PROCESS, SO THAT WITHIN EACH REGION OF THE STATE, THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS THE NEED FOR THESE AND THE RESOURCES AND THE POTENTIAL OF THIS SCIENTIFIC RESOURCE. AND IT ALSO HELPS EDUCATE THIS PANEL. IT'S NOT THE CORE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT DEAN PIZZO BROUGHT THIS UP ON OUR BOARD CALL THE OTHER DAY. SO IN THAT CONTEXT I THINK IT IS HELPFUL. | ||||||||
| IN TERMS OF THE ISSUE OF HAVING INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS FOCUSED ON INDIVIDUAL SUBJECTS, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE DEFINITIONS ON LEVERAGE, ON THE ISSUE OF MATCHING FUNDS, THE ISSUES ON WHETHER YOU CAN DO A SHARED FACILITY AND ALSO DO AN INDIVIDUAL GRANT FOR YOUR OWN FACILITY, THAT INPUT IS GOING TO VARY BY WHERE YOU ARE IN THE STATE AND WHO THE INSTITUTIONS ARE IN THE STATE. AND SO I THINK THAT A PART OF EVERY MEETING IS GOING TO NEED TO HAVE SOME COMMONALITY IN ALLOWING PEOPLE TO ADDRESS THOSE DEFINITIONS AND POLICIES IN EACH MEETING SO THAT THE PEOPLE IN SAN DIEGO WHO MAY BE VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE PEOPLE IN SAN FRANCISCO CAN PUT IN THEIR POSITION BECAUSE IN THE DEBATE BETWEEN COMPETING POINTS OF VIEW, THIS PANEL WILL HAVE TO DECIDE HOW TO BALANCE THOSE WITH THE BENEFIT OF STAFF'S EXPERT GUIDANCE AND EXPERIENCE THAT HAS BEEN IN FACILITIES FOR MUCH LONGER THAN MANY OF US HAVE. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: MAY I RESPOND TO THAT. I JUST WANT TO AGAIN SAY THAT I'M ALWAYS IMPRESSED BY THE INNOVATIONS THAT I HEAR FROM SCIENTISTS AS THEY COME IN AND PROVIDE PROJECTS. AND SO IN THINKING OUT LOUD, WHICH IS WHAT I WAS DOING, RATHER THAN HAVING DONE A SURVEY, I IDENTIFIED SEVERAL COMPONENTS THAT POSSIBLY THINKING -- HAPPENING OUT THERE IN THE FIELD. WHAT I WANT TO CAUTION IS THAT MY MIND IS LIMITED, MY KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT'S OUT THERE IS LIMITED. I WOULD HATE TO CONFINE THE RFA TO ONLY THOUGHTS THAT WE CAN PRESENT IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. I UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE ARE THINKING WIDELY. WE HAVE A NARROW WINDOW OF TIME. THESE HEARINGS ARE COMING RIGHT UP NOW. I THINK THERE ARE SCIENTISTS AND HIGHER LEVEL LEADERS WHO HAVE CONCEPTS OF DIFFERENT WAYS OF COLLABORATION. BUT I'D HATE FOR US TO THINK THOSE ARE THE ONLY THINGS AROUND WHEN WE'RE JUST SORT OF SPOT TESTING THEM. AND THEN WHEN THEY COME UP, THEY ARE ONLY THEN CONFINED, BASED ON THE WAY RFA IS STRUCTURED, CONFINED TO ONLY THOSE TYPES OF APPROACHES. THAT WAS THE INPUT THAT I WANTED TO PROVIDE, THAT WE WANT TO BE TRULY THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX, AND NOT BOX IN THE POTENTIAL OF ALL KINDS OF PROGRAMS THAT MIGHT COME IN BECAUSE THIS IS A ONCE-IN-A-LIFETIME POSSIBILITY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: ISN'T THAT WHY IT'S IMPERATIVE, THEN, TO HAVE THE SCIENTISTS AT THESE MEETINGS BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO BUILD THE BUILDING THAT LIMITS THEIR FLEXIBILITY AND HOW THEY FUNCTION? | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: I'M SURE THAT WHEN THEY'RE PLANNING FOR IT, THAT THEY WOULD GIVE MUCH MORE THOUGHT THAN WHEN THEY COME TO A HEARING AND GIVE A FEW EXAMPLES AT THE SPUR OF THE MOMENT. THAT IS MY ONLY CONCERN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. MARCY. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YEAH. I THINK THERE'S A REAL BALANCE THAT WE WANT TO STRIKE IF WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THIS UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT. I AGREE WITH BOB. I WOULDN'T WANT TO TAKE A DIFFERENT SUBJECT UP NORTH AND TAKE ANOTHER SET OF SUBJECTS DOWN SOUTH BECAUSE THEN WHAT YOU HAVE IS SOMEBODY SAYING, WELL, THEY DIDN'T DISCUSS THAT WITH US. WHY DIDN'T WE GET TO HEAR ABOUT THAT? I THINK WE NEED SOME CONSISTENCY IN WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IN THIS APPROACH BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO ELICIT FEEDBACK, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SORT IT OUT. SO I THINK WE WANT TO GET AS CLOSE TO SOME CONSISTENCY AS POSSIBLE, BUT NOT STIFLE THE CREATIVITY THAT MIGHT BE OUT THERE AND BE VERY OPEN TO LISTENING TO THE INPUT. | ||||||||
| AND I THINK EVERYONE WHO HAS ANY INTEREST AT ALL IN WHAT WE'RE DOING AND TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE INSTITUTE SHOULD BE INVITED TO COME IN. IF IT'S A SCIENTIST, GREAT. IF IT'S A FACILITIES MANAGER, WONDERFUL. IF IT'S A FINANCE OFFICER, I THINK THAT'S EVEN BETTER. BUT I REALLY THINK WE WANT TO STAY VERY OPEN TO THAT INPUT. THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS TRANSPARENCY ON THE PART OF THE INSTITUTE IS BEING VERY OPEN TO WHAT THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SEE US DO WITH THESE FUNDS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, MARCY. I'M GOING TO PROPOSE A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS TO CONSULT WITH STAFF. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| (A RECESS WAS TAKEN.) | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO RECONVENE THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. I'D LIKE TO ASK MEMBERS TO TAKE THEIR SEATS AND OTHERS TO COME TO ORDER. | ||||||||
| SO I BELIEVE THE ICOC APPROVED THREE PUBLIC MEETINGS; IS THAT CORRECT, LORI? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: JUST THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC MEETINGS. | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: IT COULD BE 300. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: EXCUSE ME. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE PUBLIC COMMENT MOMENTS. THANK YOU. WE MAY HAVE TO REVOKE THAT PRIVILEGE TO TALKING BETWEEN THE BEGINNING AND END OF THOSE MEETINGS. | ||||||||
| ALL KIDDING ASIDE, I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE HAVE THREE PUBLIC MEETINGS. I'D LIKE TO GET DISCUSSION FROM THE MEMBERS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT IN ONE WEEK WE HAVE A MEETING IN SAN FRANCISCO AND SACRAMENTO, ANOTHER WEEK WE HAVE A MEETING IN L.A. AND SAN DIEGO. WE HAVE FOUR, BUT WE HAVE THEM GROUPED TOGETHER LOGISTICALLY. WE CAN GET THEM QUICKLY. AND THE VALLEY IS ALWAYS GOING TO SAY THEY'RE TRYING TO REALLY CONTRIBUTE TO OUR MISSION, AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LOGISTICALLY FEASIBLE WAY TO DO THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, MY NEXT AGENDA ITEM WAS THAT I WANTED TO OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT LOCATIONS OF THESE THREE MEETINGS. SO I THINK IT DOES MATTER HOW MANY MEETINGS WE HAVE BECAUSE IF WE HAVE FOUR, WE CAN HAVE AN ADDITIONAL LOCATION. SOME OF MY INITIAL THOUGHTS WERE THAT, TRYING TO SPREAD THE GEOGRAPHY OUT, WAS POTENTIALLY TO, AND I WANT TO GET MEMBERS' INPUT, BUT TO HAVE ONE POTENTIALLY IN SAN DIEGO, WHICH WOULD BE GEOGRAPHICALLY CLOSE TO L.A., ONE IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY, AND ONE IN POTENTIALLY SAN FRANCISCO. IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THREE MEETINGS, THAT WAY WE'RE ABLE TO DIVIDE THE STATE INTO THREE PARTS AND TRY TO MAKE IT AS CONVENIENT AS POSSIBLE FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING TO GET TO THE MEETINGS. | ||||||||
| CAN I OPEN THIS UP TO DISCUSSION WITH THE MEMBERS, PLEASE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I THINK THREE WOULD BE FINE. I DO THINK THAT VIDEOCONFERENCING IS A REALLY GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW PEOPLE ON THE FRINGES OF THE STATE TO COME IN. YOU SAW KIND OF THE BIG BUBBLES ON THE GRAPHS YESTERDAY SHOWING THAT THE BIG PLAYERS WERE GETTING THE BIG ATTENTION, SAN DIEGO AND SAN FRANCISCO AND LOS ANGELES. AND IT LEFT SOME OF THOSE PLACES THAT AREN'T REALLY IN THOSE LOCATIONS KIND OF -- THEY CLEARLY LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE ALONE. AND I DON'T WANT THEM TO FEEL LIKE THAT. AND I THINK VIDEOCONFERENCING IS ONE GOOD OPPORTUNITY. I DON'T LIKE THE TELEPHONE CALL-INS BECAUSE INEVITABLY SOMEONE CAN'T HEAR AND IT'S DISTRACTING. AND IT'S NOT REALLY CONDUCIVE TO THINGS. SO IF THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES, I WOULD JUST SUGGEST, TO ENHANCE THE FULL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, VIDEOCONFERENCING WOULD AUGMENT WHATEVER LOCATIONS WE FIND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DEBORAH, THANK YOU. I THINK THAT WAS A GREAT IDEA. IF WE CAN MAKE IT -- PICK A LOCATION WHERE VIDEOCONFERENCING AND WE CAN TIE INTO OTHER LOCATIONS ACROSS THE STATE, I THINK THAT WOULD JUST ADD TO THE PROCESS IN A POSITIVE WAY. | ||||||||
| ANY COMMENTS? MARCY. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE HAD TIME TO HOLD MANY SO THAT WE COULD COVER OUR WONDERFUL STATE. I DO SHARE THE CONCERN ABOUT THE FRINGE PLAYERS. WE JUST SEEM TO WALK AWAY FROM THEM IN TERMS OF ATTENTION. NOT PURPOSELY, IT JUST WORKS OUT THAT WAY. SO, YOU KNOW, IT PROBABLY IS GOING TO TAKE FOUR MEETINGS TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH. BUT I DO LIKE THE IDEA THAT MAYBE INSTEAD OF L.A., WE MOVE ONE MORE CENTRALLY TO THE STATE. SO I ADVOCATE FOR TWO NORTH AND TWO SOUTH, BUT I WOULD ADVOCATE THAT ONE, EITHER ONE OF THE NORTH OR ONE OF THE SOUTH, BE MOVED MORE CENTRALLY TO THE STATE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, MARCY, CAN YOU BE SPECIFIC BECAUSE I WAS PROPOSING AS DISCUSSION POINTS ONE IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FRINGE? I DON'T CONSIDER THEM FRINGE, BUT -- | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO PICK A SITE WHERE WE'RE EXPECTING TO GET INPUT FROM, WE'RE EXPECTING TO GET AN RFA FROM, WE'RE EXPECTING TO HAVE IT. UC SANTA CRUZ, UC SANTA BARBARA. SANTA BARBARA WOULD BE WONDERFUL. DID HAWAII APPLY? SO I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVING THAT KIND OF EXPOSURE OF THE INSTITUTE TO SOME OF THOSE AREAS IS REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN TAKE THE SPREAD THAT WE HAD YESTERDAY AND YOU CAN JUST SEE WHERE IT SHOULD BE. AND THOSE CAMPUSES HAVE WONDERFUL FACILITIES. MAYBE THEY WOULD ACCOMMODATE A HEARING THERE. SO I SEE US HAVING AT LEAST FOUR, BUT I DEFINITELY THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY GREAT TO CENTRALIZE ONE OF THEM. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH THAT, MARCY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: VERY SPECIFICALLY, WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING IS IF YOU DO ONE IN SACRAMENTO, WHICH IS A PLACE WHERE WE EXPECT TO GET PROPOSALS, ONE IN THE BAY AREA, ONE IN L.A. OR ORANGE COUNTY, AND ONE IN SAN DIEGO, THAT GIVES YOU FOUR. AND I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE PART OF OUR MISSION IS TO INFORM THE PUBLIC AS WE GO, AND GETTING INTO THE MAJOR MEDIA MARKETS IN THE STATE WITH INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT, AND IT WILL HELP THESE INSTITUTIONS IN THOSE AREAS RAISE FUNDS BECAUSE THEY'LL REALIZE -- DONORS WILL REALIZE THE IMMEDIACY OF THEIR NEED FOR MATCHING FUNDS. AND IT WILL HELP INSTITUTIONS. SO WE HAVE A SECONDARY BENEFIT TO WHAT WE'RE DOING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, BOB, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ED, JUST ONE POINT. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT SO THAT IF PICK WE THREE LOCATIONS, THAT THEY'RE CENTRALLY LOCATED ENOUGH THAT THESE INSTITUTIONS AND POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS AND FOLKS THAT ARE INTERESTED ARE WITHIN NO MORE THAN A TWO-HOUR DRIVE TIME. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: CONTRARY TO PUBLIC OPINION, THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY IS A PART OF CALIFORNIA. WE DO HAVE FACILITIES FOR UCSF AND UC MERCED IN FRESNO. IT IS CENTRALLY LOCATED, AND IT HOUSES 10 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION OF CALIFORNIA, MOST OF WHICH ARE -- NOT MOST OF WHICH. IT IS A MICROCOSM OF THE RESIDENTS OF CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE ALMOST A 50-PERCENT HISPANIC POPULATION, WE HAVE ALMOST A 10-PERCENT ASIAN POPULATION, AND WE HAVE PARTICULAR DISEASES THAT ARE PERTINENT TO THE MISSION OF THE INSTITUTE. | ||||||||
| I WOULD STRONGLY REQUEST THAT WE HOUSE ONE OF THE MEETINGS IN FRESNO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, ED. DULY NOTED. MORNING, JEFF. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LOCATIONS OF HAVING PUBLIC MEETINGS AS PER THE ICOC AND TRYING TO LOCATE THREE LOCATIONS. SOME FOLKS HAVE SUGGESTED FOUR LOCATIONS, FOUR MEETINGS. I'M TRYING TO GAUGE THE MEMBERS' VIEW WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE THREE OR FOUR AND ALSO TRYING TO COME UP WITH THE MOST OR THE LEAST INCONVENIENT THREE LOCATIONS FOR ALL THOSE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DAVID, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, JUST SO WE CAN TRY AND RESOLVE SOMETHING, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR FOUR MEETINGS SEPARATE FROM THE LOCATION. WE CAN COME BACK AND DEAL WITH LOCATION. AND SEE IF THERE'S A SECOND FOR FOUR MEETINGS. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE HAVE A SECOND FROM JANET. SO I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A ROLL CALL. WE'LL HAVE A VOTE ON THIS. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: MARCY FEIT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: ROBERT KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: WE CAN CIRCLE BACK TO MEMBER SAMUELSON AND REPEAT THE MOTION FOR HER. JEFF SHEEHY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: JANET WRIGHT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DEBORAH HYSEN. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DAVID KASHIAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: COULD THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, MR. KLEIN, COUPLE YOU PLEASE REPEAT THE MOTION FOR MEMBER SAMUELSON? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. MEMBER SAMUELSON, THE MOTION IS TO HAVE FOUR PUBLIC MEETINGS AS VERSUS THREE. | ||||||||
| SO I MADE A MOTION TO HAVE FOUR PUBLIC MEETINGS, AND WE'LL COME BACK AND THEN DECIDE WHERE THEY WOULD BE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: MEMBER SAMUELSON'S VOTE IS YES. THANK YOU. THAT MOTION CARRIES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. VERY GOOD. YOU DIDN'T ASK FOR ME VOTE THOUGH. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN FROM THAT ONE. SO THE MOTION CARRIES. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FOUR PUBLIC MEETINGS. | ||||||||
| SO NOW DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MAP OF CALIFORNIA? PUBLIC COMMENT. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: FRESNO IS RIGHT IN THE CENTER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, I THINK -- GO AHEAD. STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION, PLEASE. | ||||||||
| MR. REED: DON REED, CALIFORNIANS FOR CURES. I LIKE THE IDEA OF FOUR, BUT I WONDER IT IT'S POSSIBLE FOR MEMBERS OF THE GROUP TO DO ANY SITE VISITS WHILE IN THE AREA SO THEY CAN BRING BACK THAT INFORMATION? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S A SEPARATE QUESTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU FOR YOUR APPROVAL, YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT. NOW YOU HAVE A QUESTION, AND THE QUESTION IS? | ||||||||
| MR. REED: THE QUESTION WAS WHEN WE CHOSE THE SITE, THERE WERE SITE VISITS. I THINK IT WOULD BE -- FOR THE LOCATION OF THE CIRM. AND I'M WONDERING IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO DO SITE VISITS FOR SOME OF THE CONTENDERS FOR THE FACILITIES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO THAT'S GOING TO BE PART OF A SUBSEQUENT PROCESS. WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING THAT ISSUE NOW. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE NUMBER OF LOCATIONS, WHICH WE JUST HAVE, THE LOCATIONS OF THOSE PUBLIC MEETINGS, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE GOALS OF THOSE PUBLIC MEETINGS. | ||||||||
| MR. REED: SO IT'S A SEPARATE TIME? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. THANK YOU. SO WE'VE DECIDED ON FOUR MEETINGS. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M OPENING THIS UP TO DISCUSSION AGAIN BY THE MEMBERS. I THINK WE WANT -- NOW THAT WE HAVE FOUR LOCATIONS, I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT A CENTRAL VALLEY LOCATION. SO DO MEMBERS HAVE A PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT IS THE MOST CENTRAL CENTRAL VALLEY LOCATION? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I WOULD BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE A DART BOARD. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT ONE OF THOSE LOCATIONS BE FRESNO, CALIFORNIA. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DO WE HAVE DISCUSSION -- DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THIS MOTION? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I'LL SECOND THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AS ED KASHIAN KNOWS, PART OF MY FAMILY HISTORY IS IN FRESNO. MY FATHER WAS THE FIRST CITY MANAGER IN FRESNO. AND WHILE I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF RESPECT FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE STATE, I THINK MARCY FEIT'S POINT IS IMPORTANT, THAT IF WE HAVE A HEARING IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY, IF WE GO SOMEPLACE WHERE WE CAN EXPECT AN APPLICATION OR A LOCUS OF ACTIVITY RELATED TO THE RESEARCH THAT WE'RE DOING, WE HAVE A GREATER PROBABILITY OF GETTING EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE AREA OR PARTICIPATING, WHETHER FROM PRIVATE SECTOR PEOPLE OR PUBLIC SECTOR. AND SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT GOING TO THE SACRAMENTO AREA PROVIDES A GREATER YIELD AND PARTICIPATION THAN GOING TO FRESNO. | ||||||||
| AND WE DID DURING THE HEADQUARTERS VISITS, AS YOU KNOW, ED, WE HAD, IN FACT, THE SEMINAL MEETING FOR THE HEADQUARTERS SELECTION IN FRESNO. SO THAT IS A SITE WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY HAD A MAJOR MEETING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I'D LIKE TO -- WE'RE ON DISCUSSION NOW. I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE POTENTIALLY MERCED AS A CENTRAL VALLEY LOCATION AND ASK MEMBERS WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT THAT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: DAVID, I WAS TALKING OR LISTENING WHILE YOU WERE SPEAKING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT FRESNO. EVEN THOUGH I SECONDED THAT MOTION, I WAS PART OF THE ICOC MEETING THAT OCCURRED IN FRESNO. THAT WAS CHALLENGING FROM A LOGISTICAL STANDPOINT TO GET THERE. I LIVE IN THE OTHER PART OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY, CHICO, SO I'M USED TO LOGISTICAL CHALLENGES IN TRAVEL. SO I AGREE THAT WE NEED TO BE SOMEWHERE IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY AND KEEP AN EYE ON THE IDEA OF ENCOURAGING AS MUCH PARTICIPATION AS POSSIBLE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, JANET. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: THIS IS JUST MY PERSPECTIVE AS A CALIFORNIAN. IT'S A BIG STATE, SO WHAT IT TYPICALLY GETS DOWN TO, I THINK, IS TRANSPORTATION, ACCESS TO THE CITY. AND ALL THOSE CENTRAL VALLEY CITIES ARE FAR FROM EACH OTHER. AND MY HUNCH, AND IT'S JUST SPECULATION, WOULD BE THAT MANY CENTRAL CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS, CENTRAL VALLEY RESIDENTS, WOULD GO TO L.A. OR SAN FRANCISCO OR SACRAMENTO BECAUSE THEY CAN GET THERE. MORE SIMPLY, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S USING TRANSPORTATION OTHER THAN A CAR. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. THANK YOU, MEMBER SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: AND I APPRECIATE THE URGE TO HAVE ONE IN FRESNO OR MERCED, BUT I DO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE WE ARE A STATE AGENCY AND BECAUSE THE GOVERNOR, THE LEGISLATURE ARE IN SACRAMENTO. YOU KNOW, ONCE WE'VE DECIDED ON FOUR SITES, YOU KIND OF HAVE TO DO THE BAY AREA, YOU CANNOT NOT DO L.A., AND YOU HAVE TO DO SAN DIEGO. AND I JUST THINK OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE POLITICAL PROCESS THAT WE'RE PART OF, THE POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT THAT WE EXIST WITHIN, THAT IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO BE IN SACRAMENTO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, JEFF. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE HAVE A MOTION. ARE YOU -- ED, YOU STILL WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT MOTION? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I DO. I'D LIKE TO COMMENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: PLEASE COMMENT AND THEN CALL A ROLL. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: FROM THE STANDPOINT OF A CENTRAL LOCATION INCLUDING APPLICATIONS, IT'S A VERY EASY COMMUTE FROM SACRAMENTO AND SANTA BARBARA TO FRESNO. UNIVERSITY OF MERCED -- CALIFORNIA MERCED AND THE INSTITUTIONS IN SACRAMENTO HAVE OFFICES AND FACILITIES IN FRESNO. SO IT IS THE CENTRAL POINT OF THE VALLEY AS OPPOSED TO GETTING SANTA BARBARA AND EVERYONE ELSE THERE. | ||||||||
| NOW, THAT BEING SAID, IN TERMS OF INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE WE OUGHT TO START DEALING WITH INCLUDING PEOPLE IN THE GROUP FOR FUTURES AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE DID ON THE SHARED LAB THING, WHICH IS DEALING WITH THE PRESENT. AND I BELIEVE THAT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA MERCED AND I BELIEVE THAT THE UNIVERSITY OF SACRAMENTO -- OR THE UNIVERSITY OF DAVIS IN SACRAMENTO ARE GOING TO BE MAJOR PLAYERS, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE FUTURE IS GOING TO INCLUDE FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, AND IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT BECAUSE THE FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO LOCATE IN FRESNO. IT HAS HOUSING AND THE AREA NECESSARY TO BE ALL ANCILLARY SERVICES THAT ARE IN FRESNO; WHEREAS, THE OTHER MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS DON'T HAVE THE LAND AND DO NOT HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THIS KIND OF INFRASTRUCTURE. | ||||||||
| ANYWAY, I DO. I MAY BE THE ONLY YES VOTE, BUT I'M GOING TO GET THAT VOTE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IS THIS REGARDING THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IT'S A PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, THAT WE CONSIDER MAKING THE FRESNO LOCATION A FIFTH LOCATION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'LL COMMENT ON THAT. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO FLY. SO -- | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IT'S JUST TOO MANY.CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IT'S GOING TO BE CHALLENGING. SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, I CAN TELL YOU THAT I WILL DEFINITELY NEED THE VICE CHAIR TO BE ASSISTING ME WITH THESE. I DOUBT I'LL BE ABLE TO DO ALL FOUR. I'D LIKE TO CALL A VOTE, ROLL CALL, NOW ON THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: MARCY FEIT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: NO. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: ROBERT KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: NO. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: JOAN SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: NO. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: JEFF SHEEHY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: JANET WRIGHT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: NO. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DEBORAH HYSEN. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: ABSTAIN. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: EDWARD KASHIAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: NO. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: THAT MOTION FAILS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THE MOTION FAILS. MARCY, YOU HAD ANOTHER MOTION YOU'D LIKE TO PROPOSE? | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YES. I MOVE THAT WE CHOOSE FOUR SITES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ONE OF THE SITES SHOULD BE SAN FRANCISCO, ONE SHOULD BE SACRAMENTO, ONE SHOULD BE UC IRVINE IN ORANGE COUNTY, AND ONE SHOULD BE SAN DIEGO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CAN YOU REPHRASE -- DO THAT A LITTLE MORE SLOWLY. SO YOU'RE PROPOSING SAN FRANCISCO. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: SAN FRANCISCO, SACRAMENTO, UC IRVINE, ORANGE COUNTY, AND SAN DIEGO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DO WE HAVE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: CAN WE REPHRASE THAT SO IT'S NOT INSTITUTION SPECIFIC, PLEASE? | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: ORANGE COUNTY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'LL SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB KLEIN IS SECOND. DISCUSSION? SO THE ONLY QUESTION I'D LIKE TO JUST ASK THE MEMBERS IS ORANGE COUNTY VERSUS L.A.? | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YES. LITTLE BIT IN THE CENTER. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I DIDN'T KNOW SHE WAS GOING TO PROPOSE THAT, BUT THE REASON I'M SUPPORTING IT AS WELL IS THAT, YOU KNOW, UNIVERSITY OF RIVERSIDE CAN GET TO ORANGE COUNTY PRETTY EFFECTIVELY. THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE FOR SANTA BARBARA BETWEEN L.A. AND ORANGE COUNTY. THERE'S A SHORT SHUTTLE TO EITHER ONE OF THEM. | ||||||||
| BUT IN ANY CASE, ORANGE COUNTY IS AN AREA WHERE WE HAVE NOT HAD MANY MEETINGS OF THIS AGENCY. IN THAT CASE, IT'S AN ABILITY TO HAVE OUTREACH IN AN EFFECTIVE WAY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. THANK YOU, BOB. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I JUST THINK IT'S HARD NOT TO BE IN L.A. I REALLY DO. GIVEN THAT TYPICALLY WHEN WE MEET IN SAN DIEGO, WE'RE REALLY ON THE VERY NORTHERN EDGE. I MEAN HAVING DRIVEN BETWEEN LA JOLLA AND LAGUNA BEACH BEFORE, THAT'S NOT A LONG DRIVE. AND HAVING DRIVEN BETWEEN L.A. AND THE SAME AREA, THAT THAT IS A BIT OF A STRETCH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IS THAT A FRIENDLY MOTION -- AMENDMENT? | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I WOULD BE GLAD TO AMEND MY MOTION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AS THE SECOND, I'D BE HAPPY TO AMEND AS WELL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: NOW THE MOTION READS SAN DIEGO, L.A., SAN FRANCISCO, AND SACRAMENTO? | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YES, CORRECT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE HAVE A SECOND FROM BOB KLEIN. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THIS REVISED AMENDMENT? OKAY. SO THEN I'D LIKE -- I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO DO A ROLL CALL. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. SO IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE FOUR PUBLIC MEETINGS IN SACRAMENTO, SAN FRANCISCO, L.A., AND SAN DIEGO. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: YES. AND THANK YOU FOR THAT GUIDANCE. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO PROPOSE, BEFORE YOU GO TO THE NEXT TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION, THAT WE JUST WORK BACKWARDS ON TIMING. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO IS THE AUGUST 5TH ICOC MEETING, EARLY AUGUST. IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE WILL HAVE THESE FOUR PUBLIC HEARINGS PRIOR TO MID-JUNE. I'D ALSO LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS WE SEEK A QUORUM IN AN EFFORT TO APPROVE THE FACILITIES GRANTS ADMINISTRATION POLICY AFTER YOU'VE HAD TIME TO REVIEW IT. I ALSO THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER FACILITIES WORKING GROUP AFTER THE FOUR PUBLIC HEARINGS, BUT PRIOR TO THE AUGUST MEETING SO THAT YOU CAN REVIEW THE FINDINGS, THE TRANSCRIPTS, DISCUSS THAT, AND FINALIZE THOSE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES AS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ICOC BOARD AT THEIR AUGUST MEETING. AND ARE WE OKAY WITH THE LOGISTICS ON THAT? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO LET'S TAKE ONE OF THOSE AT A TIME. SO WE'RE PROPOSING DOING THESE FOUR MEETINGS IN KIND OF MID-JUNE. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: PRIOR TO MID-JUNE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: PRIOR TO MID-JUNE. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: WE WILL SOLICIT INPUT FROM ALL THE MEMBERS AND TRY TO GET AS MANY OF YOU THERE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IS THERE A CONSENSUS? THAT WORKS FOR MY SCHEDULE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: SO JUST FOR LOGISTICS PURPOSES, ARE YOU EXPECTING -- HOW MANY ARE WE? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: ELEVEN. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: ARE YOU EXPECTING A COMPLEMENT OF US AT EACH OF THEM WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PROBABLY THE ONE LAST WHERE YOU WOULD EXPECT A QUORUM? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: ACTUALLY I THINK, GIVEN TIMING AND TRYING TO GET TO THE JUNE 5TH ICOC MEETING WITH THE FACILITIES GRANTS ADMINISTRATION POLICY, THE QUORUM, WE'D SEEK THE QUORUM AT ONE OF YOUR FIRST MEETINGS AS OPPOSED TO YOUR LAST. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: OTHERWISE THREE TO FOUR PEOPLE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I CERTAINLY -- WE WOULD LEAVE IT UP TO YOU. I KNOW THAT THIS WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION BY THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, AND I KNOW IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO YOU, SO I ASSUME THAT YOU WILL ALL MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO GET THERE. AND WE WILL -- I WILL LOOK TO MELISSA KING, WHO IS EXCELLENT AT THIS, TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE ACCOMMODATED ALL YOUR SCHEDULES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF I COULD ASK A QUESTION HERE. MAYBE WE SHOULD WORK AT THE SCHEDULE FROM BOTH ENDS. SO HOW LONG IN ADVANCE OF THE AUGUST 8TH MEETING WOULD THE MEETING NEED TO BE FOR YOU TO THEN TAKE THE RESULTS AND PRESENT THEM FOR THE AUGUST 8TH MEETING? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: WELL, THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP WOULD NEED TO VOTE ON THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES AND THE CONCEPT PLAN PRIOR TO THAT MEETING, AND I WOULD ASSUME AT LEAST FIVE DAYS PRIOR TO THAT MEETING SO THAT WE COULD POST FOR THE PUBLIC. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, TEN DAYS. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: JUST THE AGENDA ITEM. I ASSUME WE'RE GOING TO THE AUGUST 8TH AGENDA. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO IN WORKING BACKWARDS, IF WE WERE DONE BY AUGUST 10TH -- | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: IF YOU WERE DONE BY AUGUST 1ST. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: EXCUSE ME. IF WE'RE DONE BY JULY 10TH, I'M SORRY, IF WE WERE DONE BY JULY 10TH, THAT WOULD THEORETICALLY GIVE YOU ENOUGH TIME SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE 10TH AND THE 15TH OF JULY. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: TO COME BACK TO THE WORKING GROUP WITH A SUMMARY OF THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES IN WHICH TO VOTE ON TO RECOMMEND TO THE ICOC? I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY TIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO -- UNLESS THERE'S SOME REASON THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THESE FOUR PUBLIC MEETINGS IN THE NEXT SIX WEEKS, I WOULD SUGGEST, AND CERTAINLY IT'S DIFFICULT ON STAFF TO DO THIS IN THE NEXT SIX WEEKS, WE MIGHT WANT TO SEEK SOME OUTSIDE HELP AS WELL, TO COORDINATE THESE MEETINGS TO MID-JUNE SO THAT THERE'S TIME MOSTLY FOR THE WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW ALL OF THE INPUT, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT YOU PROBABLY ALL WON'T BE ABLE TO MAKE ALL FOUR MEETINGS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IT MIGHT BE ADVISABLE TO GET THE BEST ATTENDANCE IF WE HAD A COUPLE OF MEETINGS IN ONE TIME PERIOD AND A COUPLE OF MEETINGS THAT ARE AT LEAST TWO WEEKS OFF OF THAT SO THAT IF WE HAVE VACATIONS THAT PEOPLE PROBABLY CAN'T MOVE TOO FLEXIBLY RIGHT NOW, THAT THAT MEANS THAT EVERYONE WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO PROBABLY ATTEND TWO OF THE FOUR. SO IF YOU HAVE A SPREAD OF TIME BETWEEN THEM, IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I UNDERSTAND THAT. I THINK THERE'S A SENSE OF URGENCY HERE BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF THE WORK TO GET DONE. THE STAFF IS GOING TO NEED TIME, AND WE WANT TO GET THESE ITEMS APPROPRIATELY TO THE ICOC BOARD. SO WHY DON'T WE DO THIS? WHY DON'T WE TARGET JUNE 15TH AND SEE -- LET STAFF WORK ON A CALENDAR. THEY CAN POLL OUR CALENDARS. LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN DONE AND SCHEDULED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, SIX WEEKS. LET'S SAY SIX WEEKS, | ||||||||
| WHATEVER THAT TAKES US TO. I THINK THERE IS A SENSE OF URGENCY TO MOVE THIS ALONG. IF THE STAFF CAN HANDLE THE LOGISTICS, AND WE CALL POLL OUR CALENDARS, AND WE CAN GET A REASONABLE RESPONSE FROM THE WORKING GROUP TO THESE MEETINGS, THEN I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE AHEAD. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: MARCY, THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENTS. I CONCUR WITH MARCY'S ASSESSMENT. I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT I KNOW MY VACATION SCHEDULE KIND OF STARTS AT THE END OF JUNE, AND I THINK EVERYONE ELSE'S. I THINK JULY AND AS WE GET LATER IN THE MONTH, AND WE'RE GOING REALLY BE HITTING THE SUMMER SEASON, IT'S GOING TO BE, I THINK, DIFFICULT TO GET AS MANY MEMBERS AS WE MIGHT LIKE. ED, YOU WANT TO COMMENT? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I'M UNCLEAR ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE, THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR FUTURE APPLICANTS, THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ATTRACT FOR THESE MEETINGS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YOU KNOW, WE WILL BE POSTING PUBLIC NOTICE. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: YOU'RE WANTING PUBLIC MEETINGS, AND I KNOW JEFF WAS ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT IT, AND I TOTALLY SUPPORT IT, BUT WHO IS IT YOU ARE TRYING TO ATTRACT TO THESE MEETINGS? FUTURE APPLICANTS OR INSTITUTIONS OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY? WHAT IS IT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT,BUT IF YOU'RE TRYING DIRECT THAT CONVERSATION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ED, CAN WE SHELF -- PUT THAT ON THE SHELF FOR TWO MINUTES? I JUST WANT TO FINISH THIS ONE POINT. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO AS WELL BECAUSE THE SCHEDULING, IN MY MIND, SHOULD DEPEND ON THE URGENCY OF THE ICOC. AND IF THERE'S SOME PEOPLE THAT CAN'T BE THERE OR BE THERE, THEN THEY HAVE TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. THE POINT I'M MAKING IS THIS. IF YOU'RE GOING TO TRY TO ATTRACT THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS WELL AS MEDICAL PEOPLE OR SCIENTISTS OR FUTURE SCIENTISTS OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR ADVOCATES, YOU MIGHT WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S MAJOR ADVERTISING GOING ON PRIOR TO THE MEETING. AND SO THAT YOU CAN'T ADJUST THE SCHEDULE OF THE MEETING ONCE YOU'VE STARTED AND BE ABLE TO GET PEOPLE TO THE MEETING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ED, I AGREE 100 PERCENT WITH YOU. AND WE WILL ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. WE'LL HAVE STAFF ADDRESS THAT ISSUE IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE WE HAVE ENOUGH NOTICE. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I ACTUALLY THINK YOU MAKE AN EXCELLENT POINT. WE TALKED ABOUT OUTREACH AS WELL AND HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE A VERY BROAD BASE OF INPUT. GIVEN THE URGENCY, CERTAINLY, AND THE FACT THAT THE ICOC HAS ALREADY NOW DELAYED THE CONCEPT PLAN COMING FROM THEM FROM THEIR JUNE MEETING TO THE AUGUST MEETING, WE WILL CERTAINLY ADVERTISE ON OUR WEBSITE TEN DAYS BEFORE YOUR FACILITIES WORKING GROUP MEETING. IF YOU WOULD LIKE FOR US TO TRY TO DO A BROADER PUBLIC OUTREACH, THE STAFF CERTAINLY DOES NOT HAVE THAT EXPERTISE OR NECESSARILY THE TIME, SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEEK YOUR INPUT, THAT IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO LOOK TO HAVE SOMEBODY DO THAT FOR US OR FOR YOU | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I DEFINITELY THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE -- AT LEAST I CAN SPEAK FOR MYSELF -- AN OUTREACH. HOW WE ACHIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I'M OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS. IF STAFF IS UNABLE TO -- HAS THE TIME OR EXPERTISE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IT SEEMS TO ME IT'S IMPORTANT ENOUGH THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE -- I'M AGREEING WITH ED COMPLETELY -- THAT THE WORLD THAT IS INTERESTED IN THIS, I THINK THE STEM CELL STAKEHOLDERS, IF YOU WILL, AND BEYOND CALIFORNIA KNOW ABOUT THESE MEETINGS AND HAVE THE ABILITY TO PLAN AHEAD ENOUGH. I THINK IT'S GOT TO BE A TIGHT TIMEFRAME, BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE ENOUGH TIME THAT IT'S REALISTIC. AND MY HUNCH IS THAT WE WOULD BE BEST SERVED AND THE STAFF WOULD BE ASSISTED WITH SOME SORT OF AN EVENT PLANNER. I'M NOT SURE THAT'S NECESSARILY THE TITLE, BUT SOMEONE WHO KNOWS HOW TO PUT THESE EVENTS TOGETHER AND GET THE WORD OUT TO HELP YOU SHARE THE LOAD, AND THAT THERE'S A BUDGET FOR THIS THAT IS SUFFICIENT; THAT IF THERE'S SOME PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE STATE WHO ARE EXPERT ON THIS SUBJECT OR HAVE VERY USEFUL INFORMATION TO BRING TO US, THAT WE CAN PAY TO GET THEM HERE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT WE CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT FROM THE CHAIRMAN'S OFFICE. FROM THE HEADQUARTERS SEARCH, WE WERE ABLE TO MARSHAL SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS OF THE PUBLIC WITH VERY LITTLE MONEY AND, IN FACT, GOT GREAT MEDIA PENETRATION SO THAT THE PUBLIC KNEW ABOUT IT AND FOLLOWED IT THROUGH THE PROCESS. WE THINK IT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED PRETTY READILY. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THANK YOU. I PERHAPS MISSPOKE. THERE IS EXTRAORDINARY EXPERTISE ON STAFF TO PUT THESE MEETINGS TOGETHER. WHAT I WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE IS THAT, FOR WHATEVER REASON, ANY OUTREACH EFFORTS THAT WE DID NOT MEET WITH YOUR STANDARDS AND SOMEHOW WE WERE HELD TO UNREASONABLE EXPECTATIONS GIVEN THE TIMEFRAME. SO RATHER THAN -- LET US FIGURE THIS OUT, AND I CERTAINLY AGREE THAT THE OFFICE OF THE CHAIR HAS THE EXPERTISE TO PULL ALL OF THIS TOGETHER, AND THEN WE JUST WON'T DO ANY MORE ADVERTISING THAN WE NORMALLY DO BECAUSE I THINK THAT MEMBER SAMUELSON IS INDEED CORRECT, THAT FOLKS ARE WATCHING THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT MEMBER KASHIAN'S COMMENT ON THE OUTREACH. THOSE THAT AREN'T WATCHING US, HOW FAR DO YOU WANT TO PURSUE THIS? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I WOULD SUGGEST, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WE DELEGATE THE CHAIR, MR. KLEIN, AND THE DIRECTOR TO ESTABLISH DATES AND LOCATIONS AND TIMES AND GETTING THEM PUBLIC AS OPPOSED TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT A SPECIFIC DATE FOR A SPECIFIC POINT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE ACTING PRESIDENT AND THE FACILITIES DIRECTOR WILL NEED TO REALLY BE IN CONTROL OF THE DATES AND TIMES, BUT WE WOULD SUPPORT THEM IN ANY WAY WE COULD. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: UNLESS THERE'S CONTROVERSY ON THIS ISSUE, I'D LIKE TO ASK THE ACTING PRESIDENT TO KIND OF GATHER THE INFORMATION ABOUT, GIVEN YOUR INTERNAL RESOURCES AND THE RESOURCES THAT ARE MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU AND THE MEMBERS' SCHEDULES, TO COME UP WITH A PROPOSED SCHEDULE AND GET BACK TO US ON THIS. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: THAT FROM MY VIEWPOINT, THAT YOU AND THE ACTING PRESIDENT AND MR. KLEIN BE ABLE TO CONSULT WITH HER, AND YOU HAVE MY SUPPORT AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO PICK A DATE OR A TIME RIGHT NOW. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, ED. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: CERTAINLY -- I'M SORRY, CHAIR LICHTENGER. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR. SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO DO FOUR MEETINGS PRIOR TO MID-JUNE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER FACILITIES WORKING GROUP MEETING IN JULY TO DISCUSS AT THAT POINT THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES AND WHAT YOU'VE ALL LEARNED FROM THOSE FOUR MEETINGS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I JUST WANT TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION. I WASN'T -- I GUESS POTENTIALLY IN A PERFECT WORLD WE GET ALL FOUR IN MID TO LATE JUNE, BUT IF FOR SOME REASON SOME OF THOSE MEETINGS HAVE TO DRAG INTO LATER JUNE OR EARLY JULY, I GUESS -- WHY DON'T YOU CHECK MEMBERS' SCHEDULES, AND WE'LL TRY TO FIGURE THAT OUT. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I WANT TO GO BACK TO ED'S COMMENTS REGARDING WHO IS THE PUBLIC. WHAT IS OUR DEFINITION OF THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THAT REALLY FORMS THE PURPOSE OF WHY WE'RE DOING THE MEETING. I THINK THE PUBLIC IS REALLY ALL OF THE ABOVE THAT ED MENTIONED. THERE ARE SO MANY CONSTITUENCIES THAT CARE ABOUT THIS FROM THE PATIENT ADVOCACY GROUPS TO THE BUILDING INDUSTRY TO THE CITIES IN WHICH THESE FACILITIES WILL BE LOCATED, AS WE SAW WITH THE INTEREST FROM SAN FRANCISCO FOR OUR HEADQUARTERS. THIS IS A BIG DEAL BECAUSE IT REALLY -- FOR SOME CITIES TO HOUSE A VERY INNOVATIVE FACILITY THAT IS CONDUCTING GROUNDBREAKING SCIENCE IS SOMETHING THEY'RE GOING TO TOUT WHEN THEY ATTRACT OTHER BUSINESSES. SO THAT'S A GROUP THAT I THINK WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED. | ||||||||
| AND SO OUR OUTREACH REALLY HAS TO FOCUS ON WHAT DO WE HOPE TO IMPART TO THE PUBLIC, AND WHAT DO WE HOPE TO GAIN FROM THE PUBLIC? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, DEBORAH, THANK YOU. SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE NOW IS THAT WE TALK ABOUT THE GOALS AND FRAME OUR DISCUSSION NOW WITH THE GOALS OF WHAT WE'D LIKE TO ACHIEVE AT THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS. I THINK YOUR COMMENTS ARE WITHIN THAT CONTEXT. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE MEMBERS ARE CLEAR WHAT WE'RE ASKING STAFF TO DO. | ||||||||
| WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FOUR PUBLIC MEETINGS, AND WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO HAVE THEM IN MID-JUNE, AS MANY OF THEM AS POSSIBLE, MID TO LATE JUNE, AND WE'LL ALLOW THE ACTING PRESIDENT TO TRY TO SPEARHEAD THAT AND REPORT BACK TO US BASED ON EVERYONE'S SCHEDULES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IN TERMS OF THE GOALS, THERE'S A MAJOR TOPIC THAT DID NOT GET DISCUSSED YESTERDAY AND HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS THAT WE UTILIZED EFFECTIVELY IN THE HEADQUARTERS PROGRAM, WHICH IS READINESS. THE INITIATIVE SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE THE FACILITY BUILT WITHIN TWO YEARS OF GRANT AWARD IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR A PREFERENCE. NOW, IN ORDER TO DO THAT, YOU NEED COOPERATION FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, UNLESS YOU'RE THE UC SYSTEM AND HAVE AN EXEMPTION, AND EVEN THEN IT'S NOT SOMETIMES A COMPLETE EXEMPTION. | ||||||||
| SO THE ISSUE OF READINESS IS IMPORTANT. AND IN THE TRACKING CHART THAT DEBORAH REFERENCED YESTERDAY, IF ONE OF OUR GOALS WAS PROVING YOUR READINESS ON A COMPETITIVE BASIS TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO PERFORM, WE DON'T WANT TO APPROVE MONEY AND FIND OUT TWO YEARS LATER THEY STILL HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO PULL A BUILDING PERMIT. SO ON A COMPETITIVE BASIS, THESE COMMUNITIES, KNOWING THAT READINESS IS AN ISSUE, COME FORWARD AND FORM A PARTNERSHIP AND PROVIDE SUPPORTING LETTERS TO THE INSTITUTION SAYING WE'RE GOING TO FAST-TRACK THIS, AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS CAN REALLY COMPETE ON READINESS. THAT'S A HUGE BENEFIT TO THE INSTITUTIONS. IT'S A HUGE BENEFIT TO OUR MISSION. AND THE EARLIER WE GET THAT OUT THERE, THE EARLIER THE COMMUNITIES CAN HELP. | ||||||||
| IN SAN FRANCISCO WE GOT A BUILDING PERMIT IN 45 DAYS. NOW, AS MANY PEOPLE KNOW IN SAN FRANCISCO, THAT'S NOT ALWAYS COMMON WITHOUT AN EXPEDITER. THE ISSUE OF READINESS IN PERFORMING OUR MISSION SHOULD BE ON THE TABLE AS ONE OF OUR OBJECTIVES TO COMMUNICATE HERE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO BASICALLY YOU'RE SAYING THAT -- SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S A GOAL IS TO COMMUNICATE READINESS AS ONE OF THE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: URGENCY IS ONE OF OUR VALUES. OKAY. AND SO IN OUR RANKINGS, IN ORDER TO HIT THE TWO-YEAR REQUIREMENT OF THE INITIATIVE FOR PREFERENCE, THE ABILITY TO PERFORM AND WHETHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS SUPPORTING YOUR EFFORT SHOULD BE ONE OF OUR CRITERIA. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: AND I THINK, AS YOU IDENTIFIED, IT IS IN PROPOSITION 71. SO WE CERTAINLY WILL FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS CAPTURED IN THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES AND, IN FACT, IN YOUR ULTIMATE SCORING. I THINK WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR HERE IN TERMS OF GOALS ARE THOSE ISSUES THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY ADDRESSED. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ISSUE OF HOW -- AND NOT TO HAVE YOU OPINE ABOUT THE SCIENCE, BUT HOW DO YOU SEE YOUR ROLE OR WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF AUGMENTING THE SCIENCE AND MOVING THAT FORWARD, AND HOW DOES THIS FACILITIES WORKING GROUP SCORE THOSE APPLICATIONS THAT BEST SUIT THE SCIENCE? AND HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO GET THAT INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC, OR IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE SEEKING THAT FROM THE PUBLIC. IF THAT'S NOT ONE OF THE GOALS OF THE PUBLIC MEETING,THAT'S FINE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I THINK THAT'S A GREAT LEAD-IN. THAT KIND OF CAPTURES ONE OF THE ISSUES WE NEED TO HAVE DEVELOPED IN AT LEAST ONE OF THESE MEETINGS. WHAT I WANTED TO REFERENCE WAS HISTORY, AND HOW WE'VE DONE THE IP TASK FORCE, HOW WE'VE DONE THE STRATEGIC PLAN. AND TYPICALLY THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS HAVE HAD A THEME, AND THERE HAVE BEEN PRESENTATIONS BY EXPERTS. SO, FOR INSTANCE, THE SCIENTIFIC RATIONALE, THE SCIENTIFIC JUDGMENTS THAT SHOULD BE DRIVING WHAT WE APPROVE, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY THE NECESSITY, RIGHT, SHOULD BE -- IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT SHOULD BE ONE THEME, THAT WE SHOULD HEAR FROM SCIENTISTS AND FROM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR, WHAT WE SHOULD WANT TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THE MAJOR FACILITIES. I JUST SUGGEST THAT AS ONE. AND I HOPE THAT STAFF, BECAUSE STAFF WAS VERY INSTRUMENTAL IN DETERMINING AND SHAPING THE INPUT OF THESE MEETINGS, BOTH FOR IP AND FOR THE STRATEGIC PLAN. | ||||||||
| AND TO GET BACK TO ONE OF ED'S EARLIER POINTS, PART OF THIS IS TO GET INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC, BUT THE OTHER PART OF IT IS ACTUALLY TO SHOW OUR CARDS, TO HAVE TRANSPARENCY, TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC. WHEN YOU SPEND THIS KIND OF MONEY, THE PUBLIC SHOULD UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE SPENDING IT, WHAT WE HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH. SO IT'S TO REALLY HAVE THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO BE THERE AND TO HEAR OUR THOUGHT PROCESS IS A BIG PIECE OF THIS. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I HOPE WE DON'T PUT TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON WHAT THE SCIENTISTS MIGHT SAY IN TERMS OF THE SCIENCE, BUT IN TERMS OF THEIR POSITION AS USERS OF THE FACILITY. I THINK WHAT THE SCIENTISTS WILL PROBABLY SAY, BECAUSE SOME OF THEM HAVE SAID IT TO ME, I JUST NEED TO GET MY PI'S IN A BUILDING. I NEED TO -- I WANT TO PROVIDE A COURSE, SO I NEED THIS KIND OF -- I NEED MORE BENCHES. I NEED AN ANIMAL LAB. I NEED TO REFURBISH MY ANIMAL LAB BECAUSE WE WANT TO EXPAND WHAT WE'RE DOING. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET REAL SCIENTIFIC INPUT IN TERMS; BUT IT'S LIKE ANYTHING ELSE, THEY'RE USERS OF THE FACILITIES, SO THEY'LL DEFINITELY HAVE INPUT INTO WHAT THEY'D LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN. | ||||||||
| AND PARTICULARLY, I'M INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM THOSE WHO WANT TO ESTABLISH TRUE COLLABORATIONS BECAUSE CERTAINLY THEIR IDEAS OF FACILITIES MIGHT BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THEY TRADITIONALLY ARE USED TO PARTICIPATING IN, AND THIS IS OUR FACILITY, THIS IS MY INSTITUTION, AND SO LIFE IS GOOD. BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING NOW GOING FORWARD CONSORTIUMS AND SHARED, THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT. SO I THINK WE SHOULD BE LOOKING TO HEAR FROM THAT. | ||||||||
| BUT I THINK THAT ONE OF THE MAJOR GOALS THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY TALK ABOUT IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT DO WE WANT TO FUND? WE TALKED ABOUT CAN WE AFFORD TO FUND EVERYTHING, AND WHAT KINDS OF FACILITIES ARE WE TARGETING IN TERMS OF DO WE WANT SMALLER INSTITUTIONS WHO HAVE YOUNG, VERY PASSIONATE SCIENTISTS STARTING UP TO COMPETE WITH VERY LARGE SEASONED INSTITUTIONS WHO ARE USED TO BEING IN THAT ARENA BECAUSE WE MAY BE DOING A DISSERVICE TO THEM BY SAYING, WELL, YOU WERE COMPETING WITH THIS HUGE INSTITUTION THAT'S WORLD RENOWN AND THEY RECEIVED FIVE AND YOU DIDN'T GET ANY. | ||||||||
| SO I THINK WE HAVE SORT OF AN OVERALL GOAL AND POLICY ABOUT MAYBE WE WANT TO RETHINK HOW INSTITUTIONS CAN APPLY FOR AN RFA, THAT SOMEHOW WE ARE ABLE TO MATCH THEM UP MORE LOGISTICALLY IN SIZE OR SOMETHING. I'M JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE AS A THOUGHT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, MARCY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT, AND THEN WANT JANET TO SPEAK. SO, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE'S TALKING ABOUT THE SCIENTISTS. I THINK IT'S FINE THAT WE WANT TO INVITE SCIENTISTS TO MAKE COMMENTS TO THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP; BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I WANT TO HEAR THE SCIENTISTS TELLING ME WHAT'S GOING TO HELP FACILITATE THEIR SCIENCE BETTER, WHAT TYPES OF FACILITIES, NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT THEIR SPECIFIC SCIENCE, BUT DO THEY NEED MORE VIVARIUMS, DO THEY NEED MORE LABS, EXACTLY WHAT TYPE OF SPACE AND WHAT TYPE OF FACILITIES ARE REALLY GOING TO HELP BRING ALONG OUR STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I COMPLETELY AGREE, DAVID. IN FACT, I WAS JUST TOYING WITH THE IDEA THAT JEFF BROUGHT UP OF ASSIGNING A THEME TO THIS AS WE TRAVEL AROUND THE STATE. THE CONCEPT OF BUILDING FOR SCIENCE. WHAT WE REALLY WANT IS TO GATHER ALL THE EXPERTS WHO CAN CONTRIBUTE TO A DIALOGUE ABOUT BUILDING THE BEST FACILITIES FOR SCIENCE. AND I THINK BOB BROUGHT UP WE NEED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, WE NEED TO ENGAGE THEM, GET THEM GEARED UP. THE SCIENTISTS, I AGREE THAT PARTICULAR PERSPECTIVE, WHAT ENVIRONMENT DO YOU NEED IN GENERAL TO PRODUCE THE MOST SCIENCE? WE'VE UNDERSTOOD LATELY THAT CURRENT HOSPITAL PRACTICE IS NOT HELPING TREAT PEOPLE. HOSPITALS ARE GETTING IN THE WAY FOR THE MOST PART OF GETTING PEOPLE HEALTHY. SO THERE ARE LOTS OF INNOVATIVE MODELS OF HOW TO CARE FOR SICK PEOPLE, AND I THINK THERE ARE PROBABLY SOME PARALLELS. ALTHOUGH WE DON'T HAVE TO BE COMPREHENSIVE IN THAT, WE COULD PERHAPS TAP INTO SOME NEWER IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO BUILD FOR SCIENCE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, AND THEN I'M GOING TO TAKE DR. CHIU. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, A COUPLE OF POINTS HERE. ONE IS, JEFF, I THINK RIGHT BEFORE YOU CAME IN, DR. CHIU MADE SOME GREAT COMMENTS ABOUT GENERAL SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND IDEAS ABOUT INNOVATIVE WAYS TO ADDRESS THEIR NEEDS. I MADE A COMMENT THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT IN EACH JURISDICTION WE CAN HAVE SOMEONE ADDRESSING YOUR SUBJECT OF THE NECESSITY OF SCIENCE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. IT SETS IT IN CONTEXT FOR THE PUBLIC IN THE AREA, UNDERSTANDING WHY WE'RE DOING THIS. AND CERTAINLY THE MARKETING APPROACH THAT JANET HAS SUGGESTED OF CALLING THIS THE THEME OF ALL THESE HEARINGS, BUILDING FOR SCIENCE, IS A GREAT THEME. | ||||||||
| BUT IN TERMS OF OUR GOALS, IF AT THE POLICY LEVEL WE TAKE OUR VALUE, FOR EXAMPLE, OF COLLABORATION THAT MARCY REFERENCED, WE NEED TO TAKE THAT VALUE AND DEVELOP IT INTO POLICIES THAT WOULD SUPPORT COLLABORATIVE MODELS LIKE CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE, FOR EXAMPLE. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT CONVERTS INTO RULES AT THE RULE LEVEL OF POSSIBLY CAN YOU DO THE SHARED FACILITY SUBMISSION AND A SUBMISSION OF AN INDIVIDUAL LAB AS WELL IF YOU HAVE A SPECIALIZATION THAT'S OF PARTICULAR VALUE. | ||||||||
| SO IN EACH OF THESE HEARINGS, I THINK WE NEED TO COME OUT WITH A PRODUCT, AND THAT PRODUCT HAS TO TAKE POLICY TO RULES AND DEFINITIONS AND BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR VALUES AND OUR STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, BOB. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I THINK THAT'S A LOVELY TITLE ACTUALLY FROM JANET. BUILDING THE SCIENCE, BUILDINGS FOR SCIENCE. I THINK IT'S A GREAT MOTTO FOR WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO EMBARK UPON. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT TALKING WITH INDIVIDUAL SCIENTISTS CAN PRODUCE A DIFFERENT IMAGE FROM TALKING ABOUT THESE BIGGER FACILITIES. SO THE SHARED LABS, IT'S VERY CLEAR THE NEEDS OF THE SPECIFIC LABS. BUT WHEREAS INDIVIDUAL SCIENTISTS WILL TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT I NEED TODAY, WHAT MY LAB IS LACKING TODAY TO MOVE FORWARD, THESE BIGGER FACILITIES HAVE A BROADER UMBRELLA TO EMBRACE MANY CONCEPTS, WHICH IS WHY I WAS MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE TO HEAR BOTH FROM SMALL INSTITUTIONS FROM EACH LOCATION THAT HAD A VERY DIFFERENT VISION OF WHAT WOULD HELP THEIR PROGRAMS, CREATE NEW PROGRAMS, BRING TOGETHER EXISTING PROGRAMS IN A NEW MODEL, ETC. THAN LARGER FACILITIES. | ||||||||
| I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT YOU HAVE FOUR LOCATIONS. I WAS GOING TO, JUST PENCILING ON THE BACK OF A MATCHBOOK, SUGGEST THAT AT EACH HEARING THAT YOU MIGHT, WHERE POSSIBLE, INVITE ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM A LARGE ACADEMIC, WHATEVER, MODEL AND ONE FROM A SMALLER ONE TO GIVE DIFFERENT VISIONS OF IT AND TO RESTRICT IT TO NOT A LENGTHY PRESENTATION OF MY DREAM OF WHAT THE NEXT FLOOR OR NEXT BUILDING WOULD LOOK LIKE, WHAT THE GOALS OF THIS FACILITY, WHATEVER IT IS, WOULD PRODUCE. IT COULD HAVE A VIVARIA, IT COULD HAVE GMP FACILITIES, OR IT COULD BE VERY DISCRETE TO BRING TOGETHER NEW DISCIPLINES. I JUST CANNOT IMAGINE THE NOVEL IDEAS THAT ARE OUT THERE. I'D RATHER THE COMMUNITY BRING IT FORWARD. | ||||||||
| BUT ONCE YOU HAVE THE DATE SET, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE GIVE THEM AMPLE TIME TO REALLY COME AND GIVE A GOOD PRESENTATION. AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT SINCE WE ACCOMMODATE, SAY, TWO 10-MINUTE PRESENTATIONS, THAT WE OPEN THE PODIUM FOR ANY OTHER NOT INVITED, BUT LOCAL SCIENTISTS OR WHATEVER TO COME UP AND SAY THEIR THREE MINUTES OF WHAT THEY NEED. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A FAIR, BUT QUICK WAY OF PRESENTING THEIR NEEDS. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: ARLENE, CAN THE IOM HELP US HERE? IS THERE ANY -- | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: I THINK THEY TAKE TOO MUCH TIME. IF YOU'RE MOVING AT SUCH A FAST SCALE, THEY HAVEN'T EVEN ARRANGED THE FIRST MEETING WOULD BE MY IMPRESSION. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I MEANT IN TERMS OF -- I'M LOOKING FOR AN OUT-OF-THE-STATE, BUT A NATIONAL BODY THAT MIGHT TELL US WHERE SCIENCE MODELS ARE HEADING, SCIENCE ENVIRONMENTS ARE HEADING. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. IT'S THE TIME ELEMENT. AROUND THIS TIME OF YEAR, MY EXPERIENCE WITH SCIENTISTS ARE THEY'RE ABOUT TO DO SABBATICALS, MAKE ARRANGEMENTS WITH THEIR KIDS, SO WE'RE RUNNING A TIGHT SHIP HERE. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: ONE OTHER THING THAT JUST I HAD MADE A NOTE I WANTED TO COMMENT ON IS I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF WE'RE SETTING SOME STANDARDS THAT SAY TWO YEARS IS SORT OF OUR MAXIMUM TIME TO SEE A FACILITY GET UP. I WANT TO KNOW IS THAT REASONABLE BECAUSE OSHPD, FOR THOSE FACILITIES WHO HAVE TO GET AN OSHPD APPROVAL, I CAN TELL YOU MY EXPERIENCE RIGHT NOW IN THE HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY IS WE ARE NOT GETTING IT ON A TIMELY BASIS. AND THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE A YEAR, A YEAR AND A HALF CAN GO BY, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE THE RENOVATION, IF IT'S A SMALL OVER-THE-COUNTER PROJECT. I KIND OF WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT KIND OF THING. WHAT ARE THEY EXPERIENCING OUT THERE? IS OUR TWO-YEAR TIMEFRAME A REASONABLE THING TO EXPECT IN TERMS OF GETTING ALL THAT WORK DONE? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO ASK RICK KELLER TO COMMENT ON THAT. RICK, MY ONLY PERSPECTIVE IS I DON'T THINK THESE PROJECTS NEED OSHPD APPROVAL. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THE HOSPITALS WILL. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IT DEPENDS ON THE LOCATION OF THE LABORATORY, WHETHER IT'S AN ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL. IF IT'S ATTACHED TO AN ACUTE HOSPITAL SITE RATHER THAN A STAND-ALONE BUILDING, IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE OSHPD. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IS THAT AN IPOD FROM WISCONSIN? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I'M SORRY. OFFICE OF STATEWIDE HEALTH PLANNING HAS JURISDICTION OVER ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS; AND, THEREFORE, THEY REVIEW PLANS FOR ALL ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS. AND THAT PROCESS OF REVIEWING PLANS AND INSPECTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF ALL HOSPITALS IN CALIFORNIA ADDS AN ELEMENT TO THE TIMING OF BOTH THE PLAN, PREPARATION REVIEW, AND THE CONSTRUCTION SINCE THEY HAVE THEIR OWN INSPECTORS WHO COME TO THE SITES AND ALSO DEAL WITH THEM. AS MEMBER FEIT WAS NOTING, THERE'S NOW A SUBSTANTIAL BACKLOG AS PEOPLE WHO WANT TO EXPAND OR DEAL WITH ALTERATIONS WITHIN HOSPITALS, THEY OFTEN INCUR A YEAR OR YEAR AND A HALF DELAY. TO THE EXTENT THAT RESEARCH FACILITIES THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THESE FACILITIES, THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME OBLIGATIONS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS ISSUE. AND FROM THE MAJOR FACILITIES IN THE STATE WITH MAYBE ONE EXCEPTION THEY'RE BUILDING OUTSIDE OF HOSPITALS. SO EVEN WHERE CITY OF HOPE, FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK THEY HAVE THE BECKMAN CENTER, WHICH IS NOT ATTACHED AND INTENTIONALLY SO SO THAT THEY CAN BUILD IN A REASONABLE TIMEFRAME. AND I KNOW THE ACTING PRESIDENT HAS DONE SOME STRATEGIC THINKING ABOUT HOW TO EXPEDITE THESE FACILITIES THAT ARE PART OF THE UC SYSTEM AND STREAMLINE IT. AND SOMEWHERE IN THIS TIMEFRAME THERE WILL NEED TO BE SOME FOREIGN DIPLOMACY WITH THE UC SYSTEM TO HOPEFULLY GET A SPECIAL CHANNEL FOR EXPEDITING WITHIN THE UC SYSTEM. | ||||||||
| THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENED, AND MAYBE LORI CAN COMMENT, THAT THE UC SYSTEM HAS ALLOWED $1 MILLION EARLY PLANNING GRANTS IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE THE UC SYSTEM'S COMPETITIVE ABILITY TO MEET THESE SCHEDULES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CAN YOU TELL THE MEMBERS YOUR EXPERIENCE ON A MAJOR FACILITY, A TYPICAL TIMEFRAME, JUST SO THE MEMBERS HAVE YOUR EXPERIENCE IN TERMS OF THE PLANNING? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THERE'S AS MANY SCENARIOS AS THERE ARE PROJECTS, LET'S SAY. BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, ON A CAPITAL PROJECT ON A UC CAMPUS, YOU'RE GENERALLY LOOKING AT FOUR YEARS BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THERE'S A YEAR FOR PRELIMINARY PLANNING, THERE'S A YEAR FOR WORKING DRAWINGS OR DEVELOPMENT OF DETAILED DRAWINGS LEADING TO A LUMP SUM DESIGN, BID, BUILD CIRCUMSTANCE, AND MAYBE TWO YEARS OR MORE OF CONSTRUCTION DURATION. | ||||||||
| NOW, THE VARIATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED HERE WHERE INNOVATION IS OCCURRING TO LOOK AT THINGS SUCH AS DESIGN BUILD WILL OBVIOUSLY SHAVE THINGS DOWN, BUT THE GOAL -- I THINK, THE OPERABLE ISSUE HERE IS THE GOAL OF TWO YEARS IS GOING TO BE A STRETCH FOR A LOT OF FOLKS IN TERMS OF MEETING SOME OF THE -- WHETHER OR NOT -- DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH THEY'VE STARTED EARLY ON TO GET UP TO SPEED. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK THE INSTITUTIONS KNOW THE TWO-YEAR GOAL. SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR TWO YEARS. AND, IN FACT, SOME OF THEM ARE GOING TO EVEN MODULAR MIDRISE CONSTRUCTION. WE SHOULD GET EVERYONE THE SLIDES THAT UC IRVINE PRESENTED AT OUR HEADQUARTERS ABOUT A YEAR AGO. AND THEIR TRACK RECORD, I THINK THEY WERE BUILDING IN 21 MONTHS. IN FACT, THEY HAD THEIR WORKING DRAWINGS PROCESSED AND THEIR CONSTRUCTION ON A VERY FAST-TRACK SYSTEM. NOT EVERYBODY CAN DO THAT, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT GREAT THINGS CAN HAPPEN WHEN PEOPLE KNOW THERE'S A DEADLINE, THINGS THAT HAVEN'T HAPPENED BEFORE. | ||||||||
| AND THE MESSAGE OF THAT INITIATIVE IS WHATEVER YOUR OBSTACLES ARE, FIGURE A WAY AROUND THEM BECAUSE IF YOU WANT A PREFERENCE, IT SAYS TWO YEARS.AND I THINK THEY HAVE TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. AND IF THEY TAKE IT SERIOUSLY, THEY CAN GO TO THEIR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND SAY, I HAVE TO FAST-TRACK IT. THEY CAN GO TO THE UC SYSTEM AND SAY I NEED A SEPARATE CHANNEL. AND THOSE THINGS HAVE TO HAPPEN BECAUSE WE NEED TO DELIVER SPACE FOR THE RESEARCHERS IN THE STATE. THAT'S OUR MISSION. THE STATUTE TELLS US THE TIMELINE. AND PEOPLE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THROUGH THESE OBSTACLES. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I JUST WANTED TO -- BOB HAD SUGGESTED THAT I OUTLINE THE PROCESS THAT UC HAS BEEN EMBARKING ON. SO IN JULY OF '06, THE UC REGENTS, IN FACT, DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT TO ALLOW CAMPUSES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PRELIMINARY PLANS UP TO $1.5 MILLION. THERE ARE MANY CAMPUSES THAT HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF IT. THERE IS CERTAINLY ONE CAMPUS THAT WENT FAR IN EXCESS OF THAT AND HAS ALREADY GONE BACK TO THE REGENTS FOR ADDITIONAL APPROVAL FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS IN ORDER TO MEET THIS READINESS CRITERIA. | ||||||||
| I'M SURE ALL THE PRIVATES ARE DOING THE SAME AS WELL. AND SO I WOULD CERTAINLY SAY THAT IT IS OUR OBLIGATION, IF WE'RE GOING TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THE CRITERIA, THAT WE DO SO AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE SO THAT THESE CAMPUSES AND INSTITUTIONS DON'T CONTINUE ALONG A PATH THAT HASN'T REALLY ADDRESSED SOME OF THESE ISSUES IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S A CHALLENGE OUT THERE FOR GREEN BUILDING OR BEATING TITLE 24 OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: CAN I JUST COMMENT ON THAT ONE EXAMPLE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE AS TO WHAT I THINK OUR CHARGE IS. I THINK OUR CHARGE IS TO FIND OPPORTUNITIES AND REMOVE IMPEDIMENTS TO GET THIS WORK DONE. THE NOTION THAT THEY ARE SEEDING PRELIMINARY PLANS AND WORKING DRAWINGS IN ANTICIPATION OF A PROJECT IS ABSOLUTELY PHENOMENAL, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE OUR CURRENT PROCESS WOULD ALLOW FOR US TO REIMBURSE SUCH AN ACTIVITY. AND SO THAT'S -- CORRECT? IT'S A MATCH. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IT'S NOT EXPECTED. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: SINCE IT WOULD BE THIS PROJECT, I THINK IT WAS THE UNDERSTANDING, AND I CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT MOST OF THE INSTITUTIONS BELIEVE THAT AT LEAST THE FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT FORWARD FOR THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT WOULD COUNT AS A MATCH. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: AS A MATCH. SOME OF THESE CAN BE FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT, AND DO WE WANT TO HAVE, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, DO WE WANT TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO REIMBURSE ACTUAL COSTS FOR DESIGN FEES VERSUS CONSIDERING IT AS A MATCH? THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD AT LEAST LOOK AT AND CONSIDER BECAUSE, AGAIN, COULD THAT BE AN | ||||||||
| IMPEDIMENT? SOME OF THESE INSTITUTIONS MAY NOT HAVE THAT KIND OF MONEY AND MAY BE CONCERNED ABOUT BEING ABLE TO HAVE THAT MATCH. SO THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS. | ||||||||
| LET ME SPEAK TO THE AGENCY -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DEBORAH, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO TRY TO FOCUS ON THE ISSUE OF GOALS. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO DO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BECAUSE AFTER WE GET THE GOALS, I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THESE OTHER ISSUES, BUT I WANT TO TRY TO MAKE IT SO THAT WE CAN MAKE PROGRESS IN TERMS OF THESE MEETINGS. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I LOVE THE IDEA OF A THEME, BUILDING FOR SCIENCE, BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO GET INPUT, WE NEED TO IMPART INPUT, AND WE NEED TO EXCITE PEOPLE. SO I LIKE JUST KIND OF HAVING A THEME, WHETHER IT'S BUILDING FOR SCIENCE OR SOMETHING, BUT SOMETHING THAT KIND OF WRAPS AROUND OUR EFFORTS. | ||||||||
| I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE -- IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FOUR MEETINGS, MAYBE WE HAVE FOUR DISTINCT GOALS THAT ARE COVERED IN-DEPTH AT EACH MEETING VERSUS COVERED IN A CURSORY MANNER EACH MEETING. MY IDEA IS THAT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE PROGRAM NEEDS. WE HAVE TO SORT OF UNDERSTAND HOW THE PROGRAM NEEDS TRANSLATE INTO THE BUILDING REQUIREMENTS. | ||||||||
| I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A GOAL OF UNDERSTANDING THE ALTERNATIVE BUILDING STRATEGIES THAT ARE OUT THERE. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE SOME BEST PRACTICE SCENARIOS PRESENTED TO US FROM LARGE INSTITUTIONS. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE IN CALIFORNIA, BUT ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE, WHICH IS BUILD A BUILDING FROM SCRATCH IN TWO YEARS. SO IN THAT THESE, THE ALTERNATIVE BUILDING STRATEGIES, I WANT TO HEAR FROM CONTRACTORS, FROM OWNERS, FROM DESIGNERS AND ARCHITECTS WHAT ARE SOME OF YOUR BEST PRACTICES AND HOW CAN WE USE SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT FACILITATED THOSE BEST PRACTICES AND PUT THAT INTO OUR RFA? | ||||||||
| I WANT TO HAVE A GOAL THAT'S DEALING WITH THE RFA ITSELF, THE TECHNICAL PIECES OF THE RFA. SO I REALLY WANT TO REALLY GET INTO THAT. | ||||||||
| FINALLY, I WANT TO HAVE A COLLABORATIVE, A GOAL OF LOOKING AT COLLABORATIVE MODELS BECAUSE I THINK THAT WAS A DISADVANTAGE IN THE SHARED LAB, THAT SOME SAID THEY'D COLLABORATE, BUT YOU COULDN'T SEE HOW THEY WOULD COLLABORATE. AND I THINK COLLABORATION AMONG INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE THEIR OWN VERY DETAILED EXPERTISE IN THEIR OWN INSTITUTIONS COULD BE DIFFICULT. I MAY BE WRONG, BUT I THINK IT COULD BE DIFFICULT. I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME JOINT VENTURE MODELS THAT HAVE EXISTED OUT THERE WHERE THESE DIFFERENT ENTITIES HAVE COME TOGETHER WITH A COMMON PURPOSE. AND THE ONE THAT COMES TO MIND FOR ME IS THE JOINT CRIME LABORATORY MODEL WHERE I THINK DOJ AND CITY OF L.A. AND SOME OTHERS KIND OF CAME TOGETHER, VERY DISTINCT ENTITIES, BUT THEY HAD A COMMON PURPOSE. THOSE ARE THE GOALS I'D LIKE TO SEE, HOW WE CAN COLLABORATE BECAUSE -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO YOU'RE SAYING COLLABORATION, TO EXPLORE COLLABORATION AT THESE MEETINGS AS A GOAL? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: BECAUSE IT ULTIMATELY LEADS TO DOES SIZE MATTER? DO WE BUILD BIG? DO WE BUILD A COUPLE BIG BUILDINGS? DO WE BUILD SEVERAL SMALLER BUILDINGS? AND HOW YOU DO THAT, DOES A CONSORTIUM WORK? DOES A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS WORK? OR DOES IT MAKE MORE SENSE FOR INSTITUTIONS? SO THAT'S KIND OF THAT GOAL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOARD, I HATE TO CUT YOU OFF, BUT I THINK THERE ARE SOME FOLKS THAT NEED ABOUT A FIVE-MINUTE COFFEE AND RESTROOM BREAK, SO WE'RE GOING TO ADJOURN FOR FIVE MINUTES. | ||||||||
| (A RECESS WAS TAKEN.) | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I'M OFFICIALLY CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER. SO I JUST WANT TO TRY, AT LEAST INITIALLY, TO KEEP US FOCUSED ON THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. WE DID FINISH -- WE DECIDED THE NUMBER OF PUBLIC MEETINGS. WE DECIDED THE APPROXIMATE SCHEDULE OF THOSE MEETINGS DEPENDING ON MEMBERS' SCHEDULES. AND WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT NOW AND TRY TO KEEP US -- IT'S HARD FOR ME TO TOO TO FOCUS ON, BUT I THINK THERE'S A NATURAL INCLINATION BY ALL THE MEMBERS, INCLUDING MYSELF, TO LEAP AHEAD TO THE KIND OF FINISH LINE, BUT WHAT I REALLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT NOW IS WHAT SHOULD THE GOALS BE FOR THE PUBLIC MEETING. VERY SPECIFICALLY, WHAT DO WE WANT TO ACHIEVE AT THOSE PUBLIC MEETINGS? | ||||||||
| DEBORAH, NOT WHAT DO WE WANT TO ACHIEVE FOR THE RFA. THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION, AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT NEXT. BUT I WANT TO KEEP US FOCUSED ON THE END ZONE HERE. WHAT ARE THE GOALS FOR THE PUBLIC MEETING? WHAT WOULD WE LIKE TO COME OUT OF -- | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: WASN'T THE GOAL OF THE PUBLIC HEARING TO FORM THE RFA? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES, YES. I WOULD AGREE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THAT'S THE GOAL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: LORI, CAN YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: SURE. AT YOUR OCTOBER '06 MEETING, THIS WORKING GROUP APPROVED THE INTERIM CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THE SHARED LABS. THAT COULD CERTAINLY BE THE BASIS IN WHICH TO BEGIN, BUT THAT THOSE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES WERE NEVER DEVELOPED WITH THE LARGER FACILITIES IN MIND. SO I DO BELIEVE THAT THE GOAL OF THE WORKING GROUP TO GET TO THE AUGUST ICOC MEETING IS TO DEVELOP THOSE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THIS FUTURE RFA TO CAPTURE WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE AS A BASIS OF INFORMATION TO THE APPLICANTS AND HOW YOU WILL BE SCORING AS WELL AS THE PROCEDURE WHERE THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP FITS IN THE MIX OF THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. HOW PROGRAM LEADS, WHERE THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS COME IN, AND THEN WHAT YOU WOULD ULTIMATELY SEE AS PRESENTING TO THE ICOC FOR THEIR CONCURRENCE AND APPROVAL.CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO DOES THAT MAKE SENSE, THAT WE WANT TO GET PUBLIC INPUT AND TESTIMONY FROM INSTITUTIONS, ANY INTERESTED PARTIES, EXPERTS IN THE FIELD ON OUR CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THE RFA? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THAT'S ONE OF OUR MOST IMPORTANT GOALS FOR THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I THINK THERE'S A BROADER QUESTION AS WELL, WHICH IS WHAT IS THE ROLE OF FUNDING OF FACILITIES IN THE MISSION TO GET THE FASTEST POSSIBLE CURES USING STEM CELL TECHNOLOGY. THERE'S FUNDING OF RESEARCH, BUT THEN THERE'S ANOTHER COMPONENT, WHICH IS FACILITIES AND HOW DOES THAT FIGURE | ||||||||
| INTO THIS. AND I THINK IT INVOLVES -- I SCRIBBLED DOWN A COUPLE QUESTIONS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GO AHEAD. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: WHICH ARE IS THE EXPENDITURE OF A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FUNDING, LIKE 200 PLUS MILLION DOLLARS, FOR FACILITIES NOW THE BEST STRATEGY TO ADVANCE THE SCIENCE ON THE MOST URGENT BASIS? OR IS THERE SOME OTHER USE OF THAT SAME MONEY NOW? OR SHOULD SOME OF THIS FACILITIES MONEY BE SPENT LATER? AND HOW DOES THAT FIGURE INTO THE MOST URGENT -- ON THE MOST URGENT BASIS THE DEVELOPMENT OF CURES USING STEM CELL TECHNOLOGY? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, JOAN, I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY A QUESTION FOR THIS GROUP. I MEAN IT MAY BE AN INTELLECTUAL QUESTION FOR THIS GROUP; BUT IF WE'RE SENDING OUT AN RFA FOR MAJOR FACILITIES AND WE'RE TASKED WITH HOW TO SPEND RESPONSIBLY $222 MILLION, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE FOCUS OF WHERE WE'RE AT ON THIS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'D SAY THAT OUR CORE MISSION IN THE BOARD APPROVAL TO IS SET THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES; HOWEVER, JOAN'S QUESTION DEALS DIRECTLY WITH A QUESTION THE LEGISLATURE AND THE PUBLIC NEED TO HAVE ANSWERED. AND WHILE IT IS ESSENTIALLY A BACKGROUND WHEN THEY ADDRESS JEFF'S POINT, WHAT'S THE SCIENTIFIC NECESSITY, THEY ARE ADDRESSING JOAN'S QUESTION OF HOW IMPORTANT IS THIS USE? HOW IMPORTANT IS THIS USE NOW? WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? AND HAVING A PART OF EACH MEETING THAT ADDRESSES THOSE THINGS IS A VERY VALUABLE COMMUNICATION MISSION. IT IS NOT THE -- IT IS NOT THE CORE MISSION OF THESE HEARINGS, BUT IT IS A VERY VALUABLE CORE MISSION BECAUSE, AS JEFF SAID, WE HAVE CONSTITUENCIES IN THE LEGISLATURE, CONSTITUENCIES IN THE ADVOCACY GROUPS, CONSTITUENCIES IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC. HAVING A SECTION OF EACH MEETING THAT DISCUSSES THE SCIENTIFIC NECESSITY IS A VERY VALUABLE WAY TO ADDRESS JOAN'S POINT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I MEAN JOAN JUST IN A MORE ELEGANT WAY EXPRESSED WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY WHEN I WAS TALKING ABOUT SCIENTIFIC NECESSITY. I THINK IT'S IRONIC THAT OUR FEARLESS, PEERLESS JOHN SIMPSON HAD JUST VIRTUALLY IN ANOTHER FASHION MADE THE SAME COMMENT TO DEBORAH AND I, THAT THIS KIND OF VERY BASIC RATIONALE NEEDS TO BE ESTABLISHED BEFORE WE GO FORWARD BECAUSE -- I DON'T NEED TO ELABORATE. I THINK JOAN SAID IT VERY WELL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ISN'T THAT THE ICOC'S ROLE, NOT THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP'S ROLE? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I DON'T THINK SO. IT'S NOT THE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OF THE ICOC. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A BUDGETED AMOUNT OF TIME. WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO BE DISCIPLINED. BUT WITHIN THAT DISCIPLINE, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, AND OVER FOUR MEETINGS, IF YOU HAD AN HOUR AT EVERY MEETING TO DEAL WITH THAT, WE'D HAVE FOUR HOURS EFFECTIVELY ADDRESSING THIS. SO WE'D HAVE A REAL SUBSTANTIVE CONTRIBUTION TO THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING THE ANSWER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, JEFF, ONE THING. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ONE QUESTION FOR JOAN. JOAN, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT ONE OF THE GOALS FOR THESE MEETINGS WOULD BE TO UNDERSTAND THE SCIENTIFIC NECESSITY FOR THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: SURE. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE MAY BE SOMEONE FROM THE VENTURE CAPITAL WORLD OR FROM BIG PHRMA, THE FOLKS WHO TAKE THE RESULTS OF ALL THIS RESEARCH AND THEN ACTUALLY DEVELOP THEM INTO THE PRODUCT THAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO HELP SOMEBODY. THEY MAY COME IN AND SAY, WELL, SOME OF THIS MONEY WILL BE SPENT -- WOULD BE BETTER SPENT LATER OR BETTER SPENT NOT ON A MAJOR INSTITUTION, BUT ON SOME CONSORTIUM OF RESEARCHERS AND BIOTECH OWNERS WHO ARE FOCUSED IN ON A PRODUCT AND TAKING IT FROM A PRECLINICAL STATUS WHERE IT COMES OUT OF THE ACADEMIC UNIVERSITY TO SOMETHING THAT'S READY FOR BIG PHRMA, FOR EXAMPLE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I THINK JUST BECAUSE WE CAN SPEND THIS MONEY DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD. SO THAT'S THE FIRST POINT. | ||||||||
| AND THEN THE SECOND, I THINK THE ICOC, BECAUSE OF ITS -- HOW SHOULD I SAY THIS -- BECAUSE OF THE WAY IN WHICH IT'S PUT TOGETHER IS PROBABLY PARTICULARLY CONSTRUCTED NOT TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION. WHAT YOU DO IS YOU PUT SOME MEMBERS OF THE ICOC, I THINK, IN A VERY AWKWARD POSITION WHEN THEY, FROM A VERY PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW, CAN SEE THE NEED AND THEY CAN'T REALLY ENTER INTO THAT DISCUSSION IN THE WAY IN WHICH WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION SEPARATE FROM THE ICOC, WHICH MAKES THIS GROUP, I THINK, UNIQUELY WELL-SUITED TO CONDUCT THAT DISCUSSION. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. THANK YOU, JEFF. SO JUST GOING BACK TO JOAN'S POINT, JOAN, I WANT TO RESTATE THIS BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO GET MY ARMS AROUND THIS. SO, IN ESSENCE, YOU'RE SUGGESTING A GOAL OF THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS SHOULD BE TO GET A DIVERSITY OF OPINION, DIVERSE UNIVERSE OF OPINION, ON THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES DEVELOPED FOR THE RFA; IS THAT CORRECT? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: SURE. AND THE STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLYING IT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'M SORRY. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: AND THE UNDERLYING STRATEGIC CONCERNS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO THE MISSION VALUE AND STRATEGIC SET OUT BY THE CIRM, CORRECT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE STATING? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I GUESS, YEAH. I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT FITS IN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IN OTHER WORDS, CAN WE FULFILL OUR STRATEGIC MISSION THROUGH THESE INSTITUTIONS IF THEY DON'T HAVE THESE FACILITIES, BUT WITHOUT -- THE NECESSITY OF THE SCIENCE NEEDS TO BE DOCUMENTED IN THE PROCESS. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YEAH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I WANT TO COME UP -- | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: THERE MAY BE MORE THAN ONE WAY THAT FACILITIES FUNDING CAN HELP SKIN THAT CAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: COMMENTS? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I ACTUALLY LIKE THAT IDEA. I WISH I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF IT MYSELF. BECAUSE I THINK WHENEVER YOU BEGIN A DISCUSSION, YOU BEGIN AT THE BEGINNING. AND THAT IS THE BEGINNING. WHY ARE WE HERE? AND EVEN IF IT MIGHT BE A MOOT POINT TO ALL OF US, BECAUSE WE ARE, LIKE, GOING FULL BORE AHEAD, IT MAY NOT BE A MOOT POINT TO THE PUBLIC WHO STILL NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND. ALTHOUGH THIS WAS VOTED BY THE PUBLIC, I DON'T THINK IT WAS A MAJORITY, SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY. I THINK IT WAS A CLOSE VOTE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: FIFTY-NINE PERCENT. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: BUT THAT MEANS 30 PERCENT THAT DIDN'T. THAT 30 PERCENT MAY BE VERY INTERESTED IN HEARING THE SCIENTIFIC NECESSITY. THEY MAY BE THE ONES. YOU ALWAYS GET IN THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS THE ONES THAT ARE FOR IT AND REALLY AGAINST IT. YOU NEVER GET THE MIDDLE. SO I THINK TO BEGIN A DISCUSSION FROM THE BEGINNING, WHICH IS WHY ARE WE ALL HERE AND DO WE NEED TO BE HERE, IS A NICE FRAME TO MOVE FORWARD. I LIKE THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: NOT SEQUENTIALLY -- WE DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO REALLY DO THIS SEQUENTIALLY IN THE SENSE THAT IN EACH REGION OF THE STATE, JEFF, I THINK BEFORE YOU WERE HERE, I SUGGESTED AS TO POLICIES, RULES, AND DEFINITIONS, WE NEED TO HAVE THAT CONSISTENT PORTION IN EACH MEETING SO THAT PEOPLE IN SAN FRANCISCO WHO MAY HAVE DIFFERENT NEEDS FOR RESEARCH FACILITIES THAN PEOPLE IN SAN DIEGO WHO ARE TRYING TO DO THE SHARED FACILITY CAN ALL CONTRIBUTE TO THAT DISCUSSION. BUT IN EACH MEETING WE GIVE EVERYONE IN EACH PORTION OF THE STATE THE ABILITY TO HEAR THE MESSAGE ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF SCIENCE AND TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT MESSAGING AND THEIR POSITION. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I ALSO THINK THAT SOME PORTION OF THIS SHOULD BE DEVOTED TO THE STATUTORY OBLIGATION IN PROP 71 AND THE FULFILLMENT OF THE STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO HAVE, ONCE WE MAKE THE INVESTMENT IN A FACILITY, FACILITY COSTS IN OUR GRANTS TO INSTITUTIONS ARE THEN DIMINISHED. SO I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD GET A CLEAR SET OF RULES AND PROCEDURES TO SHOW BECAUSE THAT PROVIDES A LOT OF THE FINANCIAL BASIS FOR MOVING FORWARD. | ||||||||
| SO, FOR INSTANCE, LIKE RIGHT NOW, AND PERHAPS ARLENE CAN SAY, I THINK IT VARIES, BUT THERE'S A PERCENTAGE OF EACH RESEARCH GRANT THAT THE INSTITUTION RECEIVES TO PAY FOR THE FACILITIES THAT THEY PROVIDED. ONCE WE MAKE THESE INVESTMENTS IN THESE FACILITIES AT THESE INSTITUTIONS, THEN THE RESEARCH GRANTS THAT WE GIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT SHOULD NOT CONTINUE TO HAVE THE SAME FACILITIES CHARGE BECAUSE WE ALREADY PAID FOR THE FACILITIES. THERE SHOULDN'T BE THIS DOUBLE-DIPPING OR DOUBLE BILLING. AND I THINK HOW THAT PROCEDURE IS GOING TO PLAY OUT, WE NEED TO BE UP FRONT WITH THE INSTITUTIONS THAT THIS IS A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT I THINK AS CHAIRMAN KLEIN -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IT'S IN THE STATUTE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: IT'S IN THE STATUTE. THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO FULFILL THIS. WHEN THEY COME IN AND APPLY FOR ONE OF THESE GRANTS AND THEN WE GIVE THEM THIS GRANT, WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO HAVE THAT GRANT REDUCED, THE AMOUNT OF THAT GRANT THAT GOES TO FACILITIES REDUCED. AND IN SOME WAYS THAT PROVIDES SOME OF THE JUSTIFICATION. BUT WHAT I THINK JOAN AND I BOTH FEAR IS THAT WE GO OUT AND WE BUILD FACILITIES AND WE GIVE OUT RESEARCH GRANTS AND WE PAID FOR THE FACILITIES TWICE, AND THAT MONEY COULD HAVE GONE TO PAY FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF, WHAT WOULD BE THE GOAL OF THE PUBLIC MEETINGS RELATED TO THIS TOPIC? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WELL, THE GOAL IS TO COME OUT WITH PROCEDURES THAT ARE UNIFORM, AND THE INSTITUTIONS CAN PROVIDE THIS, THE STAFF MAY HAVE SOME IDEAS ON THIS, BUT UNIFORM PROCEDURES THAT WILL RECOGNIZE THE REDUCTION IN SUBSEQUENT RESEARCH GRANTS FOR FACILITIES COSTS THAT OCCUR AFTER WE'VE MADE A MAJOR RESEARCH GRANT TO THESE INSTITUTIONS -- MAJOR FACILITIES GRANTS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AS A MATTER OF TIMING AND OF WORK MANAGEMENT, I THINK, LORI, THE KEY HERE IS THAT WHILE WE'RE FOCUSING ON THESE IN THE AGENDA OF THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON OUR CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES, WHAT JEFF IS REFERENCING WILL REALLY END UP IN THE GRANT ADMINISTRATION POLICY FOR THE MAJOR FACILITIES. AND SO WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE ON NOTICE THAT THAT IS GOING TO OCCUR UP FRONT BECAUSE IT IS A PART OF THE STATUTE. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: AND IT'S IN THE GRANT ADMINISTRATION POLICY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IT'S ALREADY IN THE ONE. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: IT SAYS COSTS ALREADY PROVIDED FOR A FACILITIES OR INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT FROM ANY SOURCE ARE NOT ALLOWABLE FOR FACILITIES COSTS IN A CIRM RESEARCH GRANT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHAT DOES THE WORD FROM ANY SOURCE MEAN? I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT'S NOT THE STATUTE. THE STATUTE PROVIDES -- | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: I THINK IT'S IN THE GAP. THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT WHEN CIRM HAS PROVIDED A FACILITIES GRANT OR LOAN, THAT THAT PORTION OF THE FUND -- THAT PORTION OF THE FACILITY THAT'S PAID FOR WITH CIRM FUNDING CANNOT BE THEN TAKEN AS A DIRECT COST. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S RIGHT. BECAUSE IT'S NOT INTENDED TO PENALIZE PEOPLE FOR GETTING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIVATE SECTOR SOURCES. THE LEVERAGE WE'RE TRYING TO SOLICIT IS NOT INTENDED TO PENALIZE THEM IN THEIR FUTURE FACILITIES COSTS. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THESE FACILITIES IS REALLY NOVEL, AND I DON'T THINK THE INSTITUTIONS ARE PREPARED WHEN THEY GET GRANTS, FOLLOWING GETTING A MAJOR FACILITIES GRANTS, TO HAVE A DIMINISHED GRANT AMOUNT BASED ON HAVING RECEIVED A FACILITIES GRANT. AND WE NEED TO BE VERY EXPLICIT ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THEY NEED TO FACTOR THIS INTO THEIR ECONOMIC CALCULATIONS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THIS IS LIKE THE UC SYSTEM WHERE THEY HAVE A LOWER EFFECTIVE OVERHEAD BECAUSE THEY HAVE BUILDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN ALREADY CONSTRUCTED. THIS IS NOT LIKE THAT ACTUALLY. IT'S A BAD ANALOGY. EFFECTIVELY IT WILL MEAN THAT LONG TERM THEY'LL BE ABLE TO WORK ON LOWER MARK-UPS IN TERMS OF RESEARCH FUNDING BECAUSE A PORTION OF IT WE WILL HAVE PAID FOR. BUT WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE A POLICY WHERE IF THEY GET PRIVATE DONOR MONEY, THAT WE PENALIZE THEIR FACILITIES LOAD RELATED TO THAT PRIVATE DONOR MONEY BECAUSE WE NEED THEM TO HAVE THE INCENTIVE TO GET THE PRIVATE DONOR MONEY TO GET THE LEVERAGE IN BUILDING THESE FACILITIES, WHICH IS ALSO CALLED OUT IN THE INITIATIVE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I CAN IMAGINE US RECOUPING A GOOD PIECE OF THE FACILITIES GRANTS OVER THE COURSE -- OVER THE LIFETIME OF GIVING OUT THE REMAINDER OF THE RESEARCH GRANTS IF WE STRUCTURE THIS CORRECTLY. THIS NEED NOT BE STRAIGHT OUT THE DOOR IF A GRANT -- IF THAT STRETCHES THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE HAVE FOR RESEARCH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, JEFF. I WANT TO JUST TALK ABOUT ONE THOUGHT I'VE BEEN HAVING ABOUT A GOAL OF THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS, AT LEAST ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE BEEN FOCUSED IN ON, AND WE HAD SOME PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS, IS TO GET REALLY A DIVERSITY OF OPINION AND INDUSTRY EXPERTS AND FOCUSED IN ON FACILITIES OPERATIONS MANAGERS, FACILITIES MANAGERS, CFO'S, AND GET SOME INPUT ON THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES, HOW WE CAN BEST PROMOTE THE CORE MISSION, VALUES, AND STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES OF THE CIRM. SO I'D LIKE TO GET COMMENT FROM THE MEMBERS ON THIS SPECIFIC POINT, AND I ACTUALLY WOULD TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THAT TIME AS WELL. MEMBERS? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I THINK ONE OF THE GOALS SHOULD BE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO GET, YOU KNOW, A DIVERSITY OF OPINION FROM INDUSTRY EXPERTS, INCLUDING CFO'S AND FACILITIES OPERATIONS MANAGERS, THAT ARE INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH THE FINANCES AS WELL AS THE OPERATIONS OF THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES AND GET THEIR INPUT IN A GENERAL WAY, NOT NECESSARILY SPECIFICALLY PITCHING THEIR PROJECTS TO US, BUT IN A GENERAL WAY OF SOME POSITIVE INPUT THEY CAN GIVE US ON THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES TO HELP PROMOTE THE STRATEGIC MISSION AND GOALS OF THE CIRM. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, I THINK, DAVID, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, ONE OF OUR STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES IS TARGETING CRITICAL GAPS. SO IT'S NOT IN THIS UPCOMING RFA, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S BEEN SUGGESTED IS A STEM CELL BANK. THAT'S A CRITICAL GAP THAT SOMEBODY NEEDS TO ADDRESS, AND THERE'S A SET ASIDE OF FUNDS TO TRY AND DEAL WITH THAT. ARLENE CHIU, AS OUR CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER, IS TRYING TO LEAD THAT EFFORT IN IDENTIFYING HOW WE APPROACH THAT MISSION. IT MAY BE A BUILDING, IT MAY NOT BE A BUILDING. HOW DO WE IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS THAT CRITICAL GAP? | ||||||||
| ANOTHER ISSUE IS GMP FACILITIES, GOOD MANUFACTURING PRODUCT FACILITIES, SO THEY MEET FDA STANDARDS. IS THAT A CRITICAL GAP? AND THEORETICALLY THERE'S MONEY THAT MAY ADDRESS THAT. SO EACH OF THESE STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES SHOULD BE THOUGHT OF IN TERMS OF THE POLICIES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO IMPLEMENT AS WELL AS THE INITIATIVE'S EMBEDDED POINTS SUCH AS LEVERAGE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT ARE CALLED OUT, SUCH AS THE URGENCY, THE TWO-YEAR TIMEFRAME THAT IS CALLED OUT. THEY NEED TO BE RELATED TO THE POLICIES AND THEN PULLED DOWN INTO THE RULES. | ||||||||
| THERE'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE THAT WAS RAISED AS TO THE -- JUST SO WE FOCUS ON THE CLARITY WE HAVE TO PROVIDE, IN THE INTERMISSION I WAS ASKED A QUESTION.THEY SAID, WELL, IS THIS AN ABSOLUTE RULE ABOUT TWO YEARS, OR IS THIS AN EXPECTED CASE? MY PERSONAL, AS ONE INDIVIDUAL, VIEW IS THIS IS THE EXPECTED CASE. YOU'VE GOT TO SHOW A CREDIBLE TIMELINE THAT YOU CAN DELIVER IN TWO YEARS. IF THERE'S A STRIKE, WE MIGHT NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR, WE'RE NOT HOLDING PEOPLE TO IMPOSSIBLE STANDARDS. WE ARE HOLDING PEOPLE TO REASONABLE BUT ACCOUNTABLE STANDARDS. WE NEED THAT KIND OF CLARITY. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: BOB, ARE YOU VIEWING THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS AS A FORUM FOR CREATING POLICY FOR THE FUTURE? OR ARE YOU VIEWING THEM AS THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO GET INFORMATION SO WHEN YOU DO MAKE THE POLICYMAKING DECISIONS, YOU HAVE THE PUBLIC INPUT OF THE VARIOUS PEOPLE? I'M NOT QUITE CLEAR ABOUT WHERE WE'RE GOING. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THERE'S A LOT OF GOALS THAT HAVE BEEN SET UP BETWEEN THE STATUTE AND THE STRATEGIC PLAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: FOR OUR FUTURE PERFORMANCE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: FOR OUR FUTURE PERFORMANCE.THOSE HAVE TO BE DISTILLED INTO INTELLIGIBLE, SUCCINCT POLICIES, RULES, AND DEFINITIONS THAT THE INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE TRYING TO DELIVER CAN UNDERSTAND. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I TOTALLY AGREE, AND I SUPPORT THAT. THE POINT IS ARE YOU GOING TO DO IT AT THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS, OR ARE YOU GOING TO DO IT AFTER YOU HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THERE'S GOING TO BE A DISCUSSION AT THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE BOARD MEMBERS WILL DISCUSS DIFFERENT IDEAS, AND THE RESULT IS IN THIS FINAL HEARING THAT LORI HOFFMAN HAS TALKED ABOUT, THIS FINAL PUBLIC MEETING THAT LORI HOFFMAN HAS TALKED ABOUT WHERE THIS IS ALL ROLLED UP INTO DECISIONS ON WHAT'S ACTUALLY THE CRITERIA FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, I THINK ONE OF THE GOALS AT THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS OUGHT TO BE TO EDUCATE ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDERS ABOUT WHAT OUR MISSION IS, THAT THIS OPPORTUNITY IS AVAILABLE TO THEM, AND BY COLLABORATING WITH MUNICIPALITIES AND GOVERNMENT AND EACH OTHER, THEY HAVE A GREATER OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT. AND I FEEL THAT THAT HASN'T BEEN PUT ACROSS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ED, THAT'S AN EXCELLENT GOAL. I THINK THAT'S REALLY RIGHT ON TARGET. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WISH I HAD THOUGHT OF THAT. SO I THINK THAT -- MARCY. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I'D LIKE TO GO BACK AND RESTATE ANOTHER COMMITMENT THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT. DR. CHIU MENTIONED THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE WOULD SEND A SPECIAL INVITATION TO A LARGE ORGANIZATION AND A SMALLER ONE AND HAVE THEM PRESENT THE ELEMENTS OF WHAT THEY NEED. AND THAT, I THINK, BALANCES THE FORUMS THAT WE WOULD BE HAVING, AND SO I SAY THAT I'D LIKE TO KEEP THAT IN FRONT OF US AS AN OPTION FOR A FORMAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO COULD WE INVITE MORE THAN ONE OF EACH BECAUSE SOME MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I THINK THAT IS CERTAINLY AN EXCELLENT IDEA. AND PERHAPS WHAT I'M HEARING HERE IS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS PLAN OR ALLOW STAFF TO TAKE ALL THESE COMMENTS FROM THIS MORNING AND FORMAT THEM IN A WAY THAT YOU CAN SEE HOW SOME OF THESE MEETINGS WILL LOOK, AND MAYBE WE WILL HAVE A MEETING THAT HAS A THEME. WE COULD BRING IN THE REVIEWER FROM THE UC DAVIS APPLICATION, WHO IS THE CHIEF ARCHITECT FOR HHMI, THE HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL INSTITUTE, ABOUT BUILDING FOR SCIENCE. CONTINUE TO KEEP IT ON THE LEVEL OF BUILDING AND THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THIS. AND I HOPE THAT YOU HAVE FAITH THAT WE CAN PUT THIS TOGETHER IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO INVITE LARGE AND SMALL INSTITUTIONS TO EVERY MEETING, BUT I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY DO IT FOR ONE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: LORI, I THINK ONE IMPORTANT GOAL FOR THIS MEETING IS THAT WE KEEP OUR EYE ON THE BALL, THAT THIS IS ALL TO CREATE BETTER RULES,CRITERIA, AND PROCEDURES FOR THE RFA. THAT SHOULD BE THE GOAL -- ONE OF THE GOALS FOR ALL THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE HAVING. SO I JUST IF WE COULD MAKE SURE THAT WE FORMAT EVERYTHING. AND WHEN WE DO ADVERTISE THIS ON THE WEBSITE AND TO THE PUBLIC AND WE INVITE FOLKS TO THESE MEETINGS, THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS -- WE WANT TO TRY TO KEEP IT FOCUSED HOW DO WE HAVE THE BEST RFA POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE THE STRATEGIC MISSION AND VALUES OF CIRM. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK THAT THIS CONCEPT DR. CHIU PUT FORWARD IS A VERY GOOD ONE, THAT MARCY FEIT JUST REFERRED TO. I DO THINK THAT IT WOULD BE OUR OBLIGATION IN FAIRNESS TO SAY ALL THE INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE, IN TEN MINUTES, IF YOU WANT TO COME ONE OF THESE MEETINGS, YOU NEED TO DO SO. I MEAN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE IS MAYBE 20. THAT'S 200 MINUTES. IT'S THREE AND A HALF HOURS OUT OF FOUR MEETINGS. IT'S NOT A LOT OF TIME AND WOULD GIVE ANYONE THE OPPORTUNITY IF THEY WANT. THEY WON'T ALL DO IT, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN A POSITION OF GIVING SOME OF THEM THE OPPORTUNITY WITHOUT THE GIVING THE OTHERS. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I'M WONDERING IF THE TITLE MIGHT BE ADJUSTED SOMEWHAT TO BUILDING FOR CURES. I THINK THAT'S MORE THE ACTUAL WORK PRODUCT OF PROP 71, AND I THINK IT ENCOMPASSES MORE, AND I THINK THAT IS --AND IT'S CLEAR. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO YOU MEAN -- | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: WE'RE NOT TRYING TO BUILD SCIENCE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BUILDING FOR CURES. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: MR. CHAIRMAN, BOB, MY SUGGESTION IS I THINK AS A PRELUDE TO THESE MEETINGS, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE ACTING PRESIDENT AND YOU AND OUR CHAIRMAN AND ONE OF THE PATIENT ADVOCATES HOLD A PRESS CONFERENCE ON A STATEWIDE BASIS AND EXPLAIN THE HEARINGS ARE COMING UP AND WHAT THE GENERAL PURPOSE IS. AND I BELIEVE THAT YOU INDIVIDUALLY CAN PROVIDE A LOT OF PREMEETING EXCITEMENT AND KNOW THAT IT'S COMING AND KNOW THAT FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, EVERYONE IN CALIFORNIA IS ELIGIBLE, AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND THESE ARE OUR SET OF RULES. AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, ED, MY PERSONAL VIEW IS THAT WHATEVER THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR AND THE ACTING PRESIDENT BELIEVE IS MOST HELPFUL, I WOULD SUPPORT COMPLETELY, BUT I WOULD LOOK TO THEM TO DEFINE THAT. BUT I WOULD CERTAINLY BE SUPPORTIVE OF ANYTHING THAT WAS HELPFUL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, ED, FOR YOUR COMMENT. I HAD MENTIONED THAT I WOULD ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING ONE OF MY GOALS THAT I HAD SET OUT, AND I WANTED TO ASK IF THERE WERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WANTED TO SPEAK TO THE ISSUE I RAISED. | ||||||||
| MS. HADDAD: DEBBIE HADDAD FROM GLADSTONE. ONE OF THE SUGGESTIONS THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED AMONGST OURSELVES WAS SETTING ASIDE SOME VOLUNTARY ADVISOR GROUP, AND I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THIS SERVES AT THE PLEASURE OF YOU AND OF THE CIRM STAFF OFFICE. THIS IS NOT A SEPARATE BODY. IT'S JUST IF YOU HAD QUESTIONS, IF THERE'S SOMEONE -- ANOTHER OPINION YOU WANTED, AND IT WOULD BE ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS. CFO'S, QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THIS FUNDING WOULD AFFECT YOU IF WE FUNDED IT THIS WAY? FACILITIES PEOPLE, DO YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR THE RFA? IT'S REALLY -- YOU GUYS HAVE A REALLY COMPLICATED PROCESS. NOBODY WANTS TO MAKE IT MORE COMPLICATED. NOBODY WANTS TO THROW ANY MORE OPINION. I MEAN YOU'RE GOING TO GET OPINIONS FROM THE PUBLIC, FROM US, FROM EVERYBODY, AND IT STILL HAS TO BE FILTERED THROUGH THE EXISTING PROCESS. AND IF THERE'S A WAY TO DO THAT TO FACILITATE THIS AND NOT GET YOU OFF TRACK, THAT WOULD BE OUR SUGGESTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION. | ||||||||
| MR. WOODS: JOHN WOODS, RECENTLY RETIRED VICE CHANCELLOR FOR UCSD, AND I'VE BEEN ASKED TO HELP WITH THE SAN DIEGO CONSORTIUM THAT'S COMING TOGETHER. I GUESS THE BRIEF COMMENT I'D MAKE IS I THINK WHAT YOU'RE PUTTING TOGETHER IS A VERY THOUGHTFUL PROCESS. YOU'VE THOUGHT THROUGH A LOT OF THE CONDITIONS YOU THINK YOU WANT TO USE. NOW YOU WANT TO GET OUT AND HAVE HEARINGS, AND YOU'RE GOING TO EXPLAIN THAT IN MORE DETAIL. THUS, YOU'LL BE GIVING US AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE OUR COMMENTS AS TO HOW IT MIGHT AFFECT EACH OF US INDIVIDUALLY. I THINK THE FINAL PROCESS WILL BE BETTER FOR IT. | ||||||||
| I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD EMPHASIZE IS YOU'RE NOT ONLY DEALING WITH LARGE INSTITUTIONS INTERESTED IN FACILITIES AND SMALL, BUT IN OUR CASE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOUR DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS COMING TOGETHER. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THAT SOME OF THE RULES, I WOULD HOPE, WOULD HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE YOU WILL BE SEEING DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES IN EACH OF OUR CASES. IT'S VERY LIKELY TO BE TALKING ABOUT A RATHER LARGE BUILDING, WHICH WE WOULD BE PUTTING A LOT OF MONEY UP FOR. LARGE TAKES LONGER THAN SMALL. IT MIGHT WELL BE THAT INTERIM SPACE AS A PART OF OUR PROPOSAL AS WE PHASE INTO IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT'S RELEVANT. | ||||||||
| I THINK THE EXCHANGE OF TALKING WITH US AND GIVING US A CHANCE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT OUR PLANS WILL BE VERY BENEFICIAL, NOT JUST FOR US, BUT FOR THE OTHERS AS WELL. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND PARTICIPATING TODAY. | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: JOHN SIMPSON, FOUNDATION FOR TAXPAYER AND CONSUMER RIGHTS. I'D LIKE TO JUST ENDORSE WHAT THE LAST SPEAKER SAID ABOUT THE NEED TO TALK TO EVERYONE THAT IS POSSIBLY INVOLVED IN THIS. IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT THESE -- I WON'T CALL THEM PUBLIC HEARINGS. I'LL CALL THEM INFORMATIONAL HEARINGS BECAUSE I THINK IF YOU RUN THEM AS INFORMATIONAL HEARINGS, IT GIVES YOU A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF STATE LAW. I THINK YOU NEED TO BE COMPLETELY OPEN AND TRANSPARENT, BUT I THINK THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THAT WITHOUT HAVING SOME OF THE MORE RIGOROUS ASPECTS OF FORMAL PUBLIC HEARINGS, WHICH MAY SOUND STRANGE COMING FROM SOMEONE LIKE ME. | ||||||||
| NONETHELESS, AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY, THAT'S FINE. YOU HAVE TWO THINGS TO DETERMINE, IT SEEMS TO ME. NUMBER ONE IS WHAT'S THE SHAPE OF YOUR NEXT RFA? BUT YOU ALSO HAVE THIS FUNDAMENTAL OVERARCHING METAPHYSICAL SORT OF QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THIS RFA SHOULD BE A NULL SET, AS A MATHEMATICIAN WOULD SAY. THAT IS TO SAY, THAT THERE'S NOTHING APPROPRIATE RIGHT NOW, PERHAPS. I'M COMPLETELY AGNOSTIC ON THIS. AND I THINK THAT'S WHY THIS PROCEDURE IS VERY IMPORTANT. WE HAD BEEN GOING HELL BENT ON THE NOTION THAT WE WERE GOING TO SPEND $220 MILLION BECAUSE WE HAD IT. NOW IS THE TIME TO JUST SORT OF SAY, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE BEST THING FOR SCIENCE IS TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ENCOURAGE CONSORTIA, I GUESS WOULD BE THE PLURAL, AND ALL OF THESE INSTITUTIONS THAT WANT TO BUILD THEIR OWN PARTICULAR EDIFICES CAN GO OUT AND GET A FELLOW TO DONATE IT IN HIS OR HER NAME, BUT THAT FOLKS IN SAN DIEGO WHO, FOR WHATEVER REASON, DECIDED TO PUT FOUR INSTITUTIONS TOGETHER, AS AN EXAMPLE, IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS BODY WANTS TO ENCOURAGE. AND SO THEY'RE GOING TO WRITE AN RFA THAT WAY, AND THAT'S THE ONLY KIND OF PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO GET MONEY, MAYBE, AGAIN. THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD BE EXPLORED IN AN ATMOSPHERE THAT PRODUCES FULL, FAIR, FRANK, AND CHEERFUL EXCHANGES, WHICH, I THINK, THIS ONE HAS BEEN AND THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN, INCLUDING YOUR LAST MEETING THAT WAS DESCRIBED BY SOME AS SOMEWHAT CONTENTIOUS. LITTLE BIT OF BRUISED EGO IS NOT A BAD THING, AND WE SEEM TO BE GETTING WHERE WE NEED TO GO, I THINK. | ||||||||
| ONE OTHER THING TO THROW INTO THE MIX THAT SHOULD COME OUT AT THE HEARINGS. BUILDINGS, BECAUSE THEY TAKE SOME TIME TO DO, ALL TOO OFTEN ARE PREDICATED ON THE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE TIME YOU START THE PLANS, NOT WHEN THEY'RE COMPLETED. WE SAW THAT IN EDUCATION WHERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS WERE BUILT ASSUMING A CERTAIN KIND OF TEACHING PHILOSOPHY. BY THE TIME SCHOOLS WERE OPEN, THAT PHILOSOPHY NO LONGER WORKED AND THE SCHOOL WOULD HAVE TO BE RETROFITTED. THE BUILDING HERE AND THE HASTE WAS ASSUMED ON THE SITUATION WHEN THE PROPOSITION 71 WAS PASSED, WHICH WAS THE OUTRAGEOUS FEDERAL POLICY AND THE ABSOLUTE NEED TO CONSTRUCT LABORATORY SPACE THAT GOT AROUND THE NIH GUIDELINES. THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE WITH US NO MATTER WHO WINS THE NEXT ELECTION. THAT COULD SERIOUSLY CHANGE THE TYPE OF BUILDINGS THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE. | ||||||||
| SO THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS, I THINK, THAT YOU NEED TO GET TO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION. | ||||||||
| MR. REED: DON REED, CALIFORNIANS FOR CURES. SOME SCIENTISTS WERE TALKING A FEW MINUTES AGO, AND I ASKED THEM ARE THERE CERTAIN THINGS EVERY FACILITY MUST HAVE IN COMMON? THEY SAID, WELL, THIS IS A TISSUE CULTURE SITUATION, AND SO THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS EVERYONE MUST HAVE IN COMMON. MY QUESTION IS THERE IS A GROUP CALLED THE INTERNATIONAL STEM CELL RESEARCHERS. I WONDER IF A LETTER TO THEM ASKING WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT MUST BE IN A FACILITY MIGHT BE USEFUL. |
||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, DON, FOR YOUR COMMENTS. | ||||||||
| MR. REED: IT WAS A QUESTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IT'S A QUESTION. I'M NOT SURE WE NECESSARILY NEED TO ADDRESS THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JUST A COMMENT IN RELATIONSHIP TO JOHN SIMPSON'S POINT, TWO POINTS. ONE IS THAT ON -- WE HAVE A VALUE FOR COLLABORATION WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY WE'LL CREATE A POLICY, AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE GOING TO DO IN THIS IS WEIGH POLICIES LIKE THE PREFERENCE FOR TWO YEARS AND THE PREFERENCE FOR COLLABORATION. POSSIBLY THE PREFERENCE FOR COLLABORATION MEANS THAT WE GIVE SOME PEOPLE SOME ROOM OR POINTS THAT COUNTERBALANCE ON THE TWO YEARS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T, IF THEY'RE COLLABORATING, GET IT BUILT IN EXACTLY THE SAME TIME PERIOD, BUT MAYBE CLOSE. | ||||||||
| THE OTHER POINT IS THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT EVERY TWO YEARS WITH A HOUSE ELECTION PRESIDENT CLINTON LEARNED THAT BEING PRESIDENT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN FUND EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH. AND VOLATILITY OF THE HOUSE ELECTIONS RUNNING EVERY TWO YEARS, IT MAY BE FOUR YEARS FROM NOW THAT WE'RE BACK WITH A HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT IS TRYING TO STOP THIS RESEARCH, AS THE HOUSE DID IN 1994 IN STOPPING CLINTON FUNDING RESEARCH. | ||||||||
| AND THE VALUE OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE INSULATED FROM THAT VOLATILITY PUTS INSTITUTIONS IN A POSITION THAT THEY CAN MAKE LONG-TERM PLANS. STANFORD RETURNED $80 MILLION FOR THEIR BUILDING X PROGRAM THAT WAS INTENDED FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE LONG-TERM STABILITY. WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE THE STABILITY THAT IS SO IMPORTANT AND CRITICAL TO SCIENTISTS CREATING A CAREER AND INSTITUTIONS BUILDING THE DEPARTMENTS TO KNOW THAT THEY CAN DEVELOP THOSE OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND ADAPT THOSE PROGRAMS AS THEY NEED TO WITHOUT POLITICAL REPERCUSSIONS AND VULNERABILITY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, BOB. SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO RECESS NOW FOR LUNCH AND RECONVENE AT 1 O'CLOCK. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: CAN I MAKE ONE BRIEF COMMENT? I THINK WE JUST SAW A MICROCOSM OF WHAT I THINK A HEARING SHOULD BE ON WHATEVER FLAVOR. AND I, FOR ONE, TOTALLY APPRECIATE THAT INPUT. OUR JOB, AS I BELIEVE IT, IS TO HELP THE PROCESS ALONG, NOT MANAGE IT OR MICROMANAGE IT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, ED. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I PROMISE I'LL BE QUICK, BUT I WANT TO SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE HEARING THE IMPORTANCE OF RIGHT SIZING THIS RFA OR ALLOWING THE RFA TO ADDRESS DIFFERENT SIZES OF INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR NEEDS AND TO NOT SERVE AS AN IMPEDIMENT. YOU SPOKE ABOUT DEFINING OPPORTUNITIES AND REDUCING IMPEDIMENTS. THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT TASK OF THIS GROUP. CLEARLY DIFFICULT TO DO, BUT THERE ARE SENSITIVITIES ALL ACROSS THIS BOARD ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE MEET THE NEEDS OF ALL THE INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE AND TRY TO RIGHT SIZE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, JANET. WE'LL RECESS NOW TILL ONE. | ||||||||
| (A RECESS WAS TAKEN.) | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER, ASK THE MEMBERS WHO ARE LEFT IN THE BUILDING TO TAKE THEIR SEATS AND ALL THOSE PUBLIC MEMBERS TO COME TO ORDER. | ||||||||
| I JUST WANT TO SUMMARIZE FOR THE MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC WHAT THE NEXT STEPS ARE AND WHAT WE'VE AGREED UPON HERE TODAY. FIRST OF ALL, WE'VE AGREED THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FOUR PUBLIC MEETINGS IN THE TIMEFRAME OF MID TO LATE JUNE IN CONSULTATION WITH THE MEMBERS, MID-JUNE, EARLY TO MID-JUNE, JUNE. WE HAVE A CONSENSUS ON JUNE. WE'RE GOING TO FOUR LOCATIONS. THOSE FOUR LOCATIONS ARE SAN DIEGO, L.A., SAN FRANCISCO, AND SACRAMENTO. | ||||||||
| STAFF, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CHAIR, THE VICE CHAIR, AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, ARE GOING TO TAKE THE GOALS THAT WE DISCUSSED THIS MORNING AND PUT THEM TOGETHER AS A DRAFT DOCUMENT THAT WE WILL EVENTUALLY REFINE AND SEND OUT AND USE FOR OUR AGENDA AT THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS. | ||||||||
| DID I MISS ANYTHING, LORI? OKAY. AND JUST ONE THING THAT I WANT EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND, THAT WE ARE REALLY GOING TO TRY AT THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS TO KEEP PUBLIC COMMENTS, TEN MINUTES, IF WE'RE ALLOWING FOLKS TO TALK FOR TEN MINUTES, TO KEEP THOSE COMMENTS DIRECTED FOR THE KIND OF RFA, THE RULES AND ALL THE THINGS RELATED TO THE RFA. | ||||||||
| SO ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS BY MEMBERS? THEN I WILL ASK FOR FINAL PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THE END OF THE DAY HERE TODAY. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: YES. I HAD JUST ONE OTHER REMINDER, THAT I BELIEVE THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP HAD COMMITTED TO HAVING ANOTHER MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE A FIFTH MEETING, IN JULY TO REVIEW THE FINDINGS FROM ALL FOUR HEARINGS AND TO DEFINE AND THEN APPROVE AND RECOMMEND TO THE ICOC THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CAN WE HAVE THAT MEETING IN PALO ALTO? I'M KIDDING. WE COULD. THERE YOU GO. THERE'S STEM CELL RESEARCH BEING DONE IN PALO ALTO THESE DAYS, ISN'T THERE? I'M KIDDING. | ||||||||
| YES, I THINK THAT WORKS OUT FINE. I'M FINE WITH HAVING ANOTHER MEETING, BUT WE'LL OBVIOUSLY ASK STAFF TO TAKE NOTE OF EVERYONE'S VACATION TIMES AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST TIME TO DO THAT. | ||||||||
| I'D LIKE TO ASK THOSE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO LIMIT THEIR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES OR LESS. AND FOR THE RECORD, AGAIN, STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION, JOHN. | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: JOHN SIMPSON, FOUNDATION FOR TAXPAYER AND CONSUMER RIGHTS. JUST ONE VERY BRIEF THING. I MENTIONED IT BRIEFLY TO THE CHAIRMAN AT A BREAK, BUT I THOUGHT I WANTED TO GET IT ON THE RECORD AS WELL. THERE HAS BEEN A WONDERFUL HISTORY IN VIRTUALLY ALL THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ICOC OF GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CALL OF TRANSPARENCY IN TERMS OF INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC. I THINK MOST PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE ICOC WOULD AGREE THAT OVER THE HISTORY THAT HAS BEEN A USEFUL PURPOSE. | ||||||||
| THIS COMMITTEE IN THESE SESSIONS DID NOT, AND YOU WEREN'T REQUIRED TO, BUT YOU DID NOT FOLLOW WHAT HAS BECOME SORT OF TRADITION AND I THINK SERVES THE MEETINGS WELL, OF WHEN YOU DO HAVE MOTIONS, BEFORE YOU VOTE FOR THEM, YOU GENERALLY ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. | ||||||||
| AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO THAT IN THE FUTURE. AND I THINK THE PUBLIC GENERALLY IS VERY COOPERATIVE AND KEEPS IT WELL UNDER THREE MINUTES, AND IT DOES NOT ADD THAT MUCH MORE TO THE TIME OF THE MEETING AND, DARE I SAY, OCCASIONALLY ADDS SOME VERY PRODUCTIVE THOUGHTS. NEVER FROM ME, BUT FROM SOME OF THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT DO SPEAK. I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, JOHN. AND WE WILL TAKE THAT UNDER CONSIDERATION. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? OKAY. WELL, MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HAVE A GREAT DAY. | ||||||||
| (THE MEETING WAS THEN ADJOURNED AT 1:10 P.M.) | ||||||||
| REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE | ||||||||
| I, BETH C. DRAIN, A CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER IN AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL FACILITIES WORKING GROUP TO THE INDEPENDENT CITIZEN'S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OF THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE IN THE MATTER OF ITS REGULAR MEETING HELD AT THE LOCATION INDICATED BELOW | ||||||||
|
||||||||
| WAS HELD AS HEREIN APPEARS AND THAT THIS IS THE ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT THEREOF AND THAT THE STATEMENTS THAT APPEAR IN THIS TRANSCRIPT WERE REPORTED STENOGRAPHICALLY BY ME AND TRANSCRIBED BY ME. I ALSO CERTIFY THAT THIS TRANSCRIPT IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
Facebook Updates 
YouTube Videos 
Twitter 
Flickr Images
LinkedIn
Research Blog
RSS Feeds
