State Stem Cell Agency Facilities Working Group Transcript 4/13/07
This is an uncertified HTML copy of the transcript. 
Click here for a certified PDF transcript.
California State Stem Cell Agency
REGULAR MEETING 04-13-07
|
||||||||
| LOCATION: |
|
|||||||
| DATE: |
|
|||||||
| REPORTER: |
|
|||||||
| BRS FILE NO.: |
|
|||||||
| SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 2007 | ||||||||
| 10 A.M. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WELL, LET'S GET STARTED. AND I'M GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER, AND LET ME WELCOME YOU. THIS IS A MEETING OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP FOR THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF REGENERATIVE MEDICINE. I WANT TO THANK OUR WORKING GROUP MEMBERS FOR TAKING TIME TO ATTEND TODAY, AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FOR PARTICIPATING IN WHAT I THINK IS AN IMPORTANT MEETING. SHERRY LANSING AND BOB KLEIN COULD NOT BE HERE, BUT THEY WILL BE JOINING US BY TELEPHONE AT VARIOUS TIMES TODAY. PAT, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. | ||||||||
| MS. BECKER: MARCY FEIT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: HERE. | ||||||||
| MS. BECKER: SHERRY LANSING. | ||||||||
| UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: SHERRY WILL BE ON THE PHONE IN ABOUT TEN MINUTES. | ||||||||
| MS. BECKER: THANK YOU. JOAN SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: MY UNDERSTANDING IS JOAN IS HERE AND WILL BE HERE MOMENTARILY. | ||||||||
| MS. BECKER: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. JEFF SHEEHY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: HERE. | ||||||||
| MS. BECKER: JANET WRIGHT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: HERE. | ||||||||
| MS. BECKER: ROBERT KLEIN. RUSTY DOMS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: HERE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: HERE. | ||||||||
| MS. BECKER: ED KASHIAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: HERE. | ||||||||
| MS. BECKER: DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: HERE. | ||||||||
| MS. BECKER: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: THANKS, PAT. I'D LIKE TO START BY INTRODUCING THE CIRM STAFF THAT ARE PRESENT TODAY. ZACH HALL, OUR PRESIDENT AND CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER; LORI HOFFMAN, CHIEF FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER; ARLENE CHIU, DIRECTOR OF SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES; AND RICK KELLER, OUR SENIOR OFFICER FOR SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL RESEARCH FACILITIES. | ||||||||
| I THINK SINCE OUR LAST PUBLIC MEETING, ARLENE -- I'M SORRY -- LORI AND RICK ARE NEW TO THE STAFF. THEY ARE WONDERFUL ADDITIONS TO THE STAFF. | ||||||||
| WE HAVE TWO IMPORTANT ITEMS FOR OUR MEETING TODAY. THE FIRST IS THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS THE PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR REVIEWING THE GRANT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE SHARED RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSE GRANTS RFA. WE WILL BE MEETING AGAIN ON MAY 2D TO CONDUCT THE ACTUAL REVIEW. TODAY'S DISCUSSION WILL HELP YOU UNDERSTAND HOW MEMBERS OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THIS REVIEW PROCESS. | ||||||||
| WHEN WE'VE FINISHED OUR REVIEW, WE WILL BE RECOMMENDING FUNDING TO PROVIDE UP TO 15 SHARED LABORATORIES FOR SUPPORTING REGIONAL NEEDS IN CULTURING HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS, AND WE WILL BE RECOMMENDING FIVE SITES WHERE STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSES WILL BE HELD. I EXPECT THAT THE DISCUSSION OF THE REVIEW PROCESS WILL TAKE UP MOST OF THE MORNING. WE'LL THEN BREAK FOR LUNCH. WHEN WE RECONVENE, WE WILL PROCEED TO DISCUSS THE SECOND AGENDA ITEM, A BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION OF THE ICOC'S INPUT ON A CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR FACILITIES GRANTS, WHICH WILL BE LARGER GRANTS. | ||||||||
| BOB KLEIN WILL BE JOINING US BY TELEPHONE LATER IN THIS DISCUSSION. THE MEETING TODAY IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. MORNING, DAVID. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: MORNING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: IN A FEW MINUTES I WILL INVITE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE WORKING GROUP TO COME FORWARD. BEFORE THE PUBLIC'S COMMENTS, I WANT TO MAKE A BRIEF STATEMENT REGARDING THE WORK OF THIS GROUP. THE MEMBERS OF THIS WORKING GROUP WILL BE COLLABORATING IN THIS PROCESS WITH THE GOAL OF PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, TO THE ICOC. THE WORKING GROUP -- THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP HAS ALREADY MET TO REVIEW THESE PROPOSALS TO DETERMINE SCIENTIFIC MERIT. THE MEMBERS OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP DO NOT KNOW THE SCORE THAT WAS GIVEN BY THE GRANTS GROUP. WE WILL NOT KNOW THAT SCORE UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE EVALUATED AND SCORED THESE APPLICATIONS. SO THERE WILL BE NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. WE WILL NOT HAVE ANY IDEA HOW THE GRANTS GROUPS HAS SCORED THESE APPLICATIONS, SO IT WILL NOT INFLUENCE IN ANY WAY OUR REVIEW FROM A FACILITIES STANDPOINT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: COULD I MAKE A COMMENT ON IT? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: YEAH. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THAT'S NOT ACCURATE. I KNOW THE SCORES. AND ANYBODY -- SO HOW -- AND IT WILL INFLUENCE HOW I SCORE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WELL, WE'LL GET INTO THE PROCESS LATER. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: BUT ALL THE PATIENT ADVOCATES CAN SEE AND REALLY WOULD KNOW THE SCORES. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: THOSE WHO ARE -- I DON'T KNOW THAT ALL ARE. MAYBE THEY ALL ARE, BUT THOSE ON THE -- | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: NOT ALL PARTICIPATED, BUT ALL FACILITIES WORKING GROUP MEMBERS MUST SERVE ON THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: OKAY. I MISSPOKE THERE. THE REAL ESTATE, THE FOUR REAL ESTATE MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP, WHO WILL BE THE PRIMARY REVIEWERS FOR THESE GRANTS, WILL NOT KNOW THE SCIENTIFIC SCORES. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SORRY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I WAS THINKING OF THE REAL ESTATE PEOPLE. THE REAL ESTATE PEOPLE WHO WILL DO THE PRIMARY REVIEWS WILL NOT KNOW THE SCORE FROM THE SCIENTIFIC GROUP. | ||||||||
| THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP WILL BE EVALUATING THE SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE APPLICATIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCESS THAT WAS DEVELOPED BY THE WORKING GROUP AND APPROVED BY THE ICOC. ONE OF THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS WORKING GROUP, THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, AND THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP IS THAT OUR REVIEW WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. | ||||||||
| I ALSO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT DISCUSSIONS IN THIS ROOM AMONG MEMBERS OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP ARE TO BE FRANK AND HONEST. EACH PERSON ON THE WORKING GROUP IS ENTITLED TO VOICE THEIR OPINION ON THE BUSINESS OF THE WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| I BELIEVE THAT IN THE COURSE OF CONDUCTING THIS BUSINESS, SOMETIMES THERE WILL BE CONCURRENCE AND SOMETIMES THERE WILL BE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION. I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT SPEAKING THEIR MIND BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE -- THEY MAY BE OFFENDED BY -- THINK THEY MAY OFFEND SOME PEOPLE BY THEIR REMARKS. I BELIEVE THAT FREE EXPRESSION OF YOUR OPINIONS, OUR OPINIONS, IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE WORK TO BE CREDIBLE AND OF VALUE TO THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| SO AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, I'M SURE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP WILL EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. AND AS I SAID, THERE WILL BE SOME DIFFERENCES OF OPINION, AND WE'LL WORK THROUGH THOSE. | ||||||||
| THOSE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE ATTENDING TODAY'S MEETING, I WANT TO, AGAIN, ADVISE YOU OF THE ROLE OF THIS WORKING GROUP. THIS ROLE IS TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ALONG WITH THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP REGARDING THESE APPLICATIONS. THE ICOC CAN EITHER APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR MAKE CHANGE TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS. NOT UNTIL THE BOARD ACTS WILL THERE BE A DECISION MADE ON THE FUNDING OF THESE APPLICATIONS. THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE ICO REGARDING THESE APPLICATIONS AT THEIR JUNE 5TH MEETING. | ||||||||
| IN ORDER TO COMPLETE OUR WORK IN AN EFFICIENT MANNER TODAY, I WOULD INVITE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE GROUP TO COME FORWARD, AND I'LL MENTION THE APPROPRIATE TIMES. IN ADDITION, WE WILL BE ALLOWING COMMENTS TO BE MADE ON INDIVIDUAL AGENDA ITEMS. I WOULD ASK MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO KEEP THEIR COMMENTS BRIEF AND TO THE POINT. IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I WOULD ASK YOU TO RESPECTFULLY TRY TO KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES OR LESS. | ||||||||
| NOW, I'D LIKE TO ASK THOSE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THIS GROUP FROM THE PUBLIC AT THIS TIME TO RAISE THEIR HANDS. OKAY. SEEING NO ONE, HEARING NO ONE, WE'LL CONTINUE TO MOVE ON. SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 5. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: CHAIRMAN DOMS, BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, AND THIS MAY HAVE BEEN IN YOUR REPORT, AND I APOLOGIZE, COLLEAGUES, FOR COMING IN A FEW MINUTES LATE. BUT TO THE REAL ESTATE EXPERTS ON THE COMMITTEE WHO MAY NOT HAVE HEARD SOME EXCITING NEWS, YOU PROBABLY CAUGHT IT IN THE PRESS ACCOUNTS, THE GRANTING OF OUR SEED AND COMPREHENSIVE, WHICH WAS VERY EXCITING. WE HAD THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE GOVERNOR AT ONE EVENT AND THE SPEAKER AND THE MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES AT ANOTHER EVENT. IT WAS REALLY QUITE POSITIVE. | ||||||||
| WE RECENTLY REASSEMBLED -- RECONVENED, RATHER, THE PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH COMMITTEE. DR. HALL HAS ANNOUNCED THAT HE IS RETIRING. WE ARE AGGRESSIVELY LOOKING FOR A SUCCESSOR, AND WE HOPE TO HAVE A NAME TO THE ICOC WITHIN THE NEXT -- WELL, SHORTLY. WE HAVE A LIST. WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT LIST, INTERVIEW THE CANDIDATES, AND FIND SOMEONE TO FILL ZACH'S SHOES. | ||||||||
| SO THOSE ARE THE UPDATES. THE COLLEAGUES ARE EAGER TO SEE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO TODAY, I THINK, RUSTY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: IT WILL BE AN INTERESTING DAY. THANK YOU, DAVID. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: SURE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 5, WHICH IS PRESENTATION ON FACILITIES WORKING GROUP CONFLICT OF INTEREST REGULATIONS. I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE JAMES HARRISON OF REMCHO, JOHANSON & PURCELL TO GIVE US A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON THESE CONFLICT OF INTEREST REGULATIONS THAT ARE PERTINENT TO THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: THANKS, RUSTY. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. I KNOW THIS IS PROBABLY NOT THE MOST EXCITING TOPIC, SO WE'LL TRY TO GET IT DONE QUICKLY. BUT IT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE, OF COURSE, EVERYTHING THAT THE CIRM DOES IS SUBJECT TO GREAT SCRUTINY. SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE CONDUCT OURSELVES IN A WAY THAT ENSURES THAT GRANTS ARE AWARDED IN A FAIR, OPEN MANNER THAT IS FREE FROM CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. | ||||||||
| SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I WANT TO BRIEFLY DESCRIBE TO YOU WHAT THE RULES ARE THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO YOU AS MEMBERS OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. FIRST OF ALL, THIS GROUP IS PURELY ADVISORY, AS RUSTY POINTED OUT. IT HAS THE POWER ONLY TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. ULTIMATELY THE ICOC, UNDER PROPOSITION 71, IS THE FINAL DECISION MAKER. AS A RESULT, THE NON-ICOC MEMBERS OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP ARE NOT GOVERNED BY CALIFORNIA'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST LAWS. TO AVOID A GAP, THE ICOC HAS ADOPTED CONFLICT OF INTEREST STANDARDS THAT WILL APPLY TO YOU IN YOUR REVIEW OF THE APPLICATIONS. AND THESE STANDARDS ARE MODELED ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICIES ADOPTED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH AND THE CALIFORNIA SPECIAL RESEARCH PROGRAM. | ||||||||
| THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY THAT THE ICOC HAS ADOPTED REQUIRES THAT YOU DISCLOSE CERTAIN FINANCIAL INTERESTS AND ALSO REQUIRES THAT YOU DISQUALIFY YOURSELF FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE CONSIDERATION OF AN APPLICATION IN THE EVENT THAT YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE THAT THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICIES THAT THE ICOC HAS ADOPTED TO GOVERN YOUR CONDUCT ACTUALLY GO BEYOND THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW. STATE LAW COVERS ONLY FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. AGAIN, TO ENSURE THAT THIS PROCESS IS FREE OF BIAS, THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICIES THAT APPLY TO YOU ALSO COVER PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. | ||||||||
| IN ORDER TO AVOID POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, THE ICOC HAS ADOPTED A POLICY THAT REQUIRES YOU TO DISCLOSE CERTAIN FINANCIAL INTERESTS. ALTHOUGH THESE DISCLOSURES ARE CONFIDENTIAL IN THE SENSE THAT YOUR FORMS WILL BE MAINTAINED IN CONFIDENCE HERE AND WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST, THEY ARE AVAILABLE FOR AUDIT TO ENSURE THAT NO DECISIONS WERE MADE WHEN A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WAS PRESENT AND, IF THAT HAPPENS, TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION. | ||||||||
| LET'S TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THEN. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE CURRENT INCOME OR OTHER BENEFITS OF $5,000 OR MORE THAT YOU RECEIVE, YOUR SPOUSE RECEIVES, OR OTHERS WITH WHOM YOU HAVE A COMMON FINANCIAL INTEREST RECEIVE FROM A CALIFORNIA-BASED ACADEMIC OR NONPROFIT RESEARCH INSTITUTION. YOU'RE ALSO REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE INCOME OR OTHER BENEFITS OF $5,000 OR MORE, AGAIN, RECEIVED BY YOU, YOUR SPOUSE, OR SOMEONE WITH WHOM YOU HAVE A COMMON FINANCIAL INTEREST, FROM A CONSTRUCTION, REAL ESTATE, OR DEVELOPMENT FIRM. AND FINALLY, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS IN CALIFORNIA THAT ARE EITHER HELD BY YOU, YOUR SPOUSE, OR OTHERS WITH WHOM YOU HAVE A COMMON FINANCIAL INTEREST. | ||||||||
| TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THIS PROCESS, THE CIRM POLICIES ALSO REQUIRE THAT YOU SIGN A PREREVIEW CERTIFICATION, WHICH IDENTIFIES ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST YOU HAVE, AS WELL AS A POSTREVIEW CERTIFICATION THAT MAKES CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE NOT PARTICIPATED IN ANY DECISIONS IN WHICH YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. | ||||||||
| THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY ALSO INCLUDES CERTAIN PROHIBITIONS. SOME OF THESE ARE REFLECTED IN PROP 71 ITSELF, AND SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN ADDED BY THE ICOC, SO LET ME BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THOSE. | ||||||||
| MEMBERS OF THIS WORKING GROUP ARE PROHIBITED FROM RECEIVING COMPENSATION FROM ANY CONSTRUCTION OR DEVELOPMENT ENTITY THAT PROVIDES SPECIALIZED SERVICES FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH FACILITIES. YOU'RE ALSO PROHIBITED FROM PROVIDING REAL ESTATE FACILITIES BROKERAGE SERVICES FOR ANY APPLICANT FOR OR RECIPIENT OF CIRM FUNDING. YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM RECEIVING COMPENSATION FROM ANY RECIPIENT OF CIRM FUNDING. AND THIS IS THE ONE WE'RE GOING TO FOCUS ON THE MOST. YOU'RE PROHIBITED FROM PARTICIPATING IN A DECISION OF THIS WORKING GROUP IN WHICH YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. AND A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS DEFINED AS EXISTING WHEN YOU HAVE A REAL OR APPARENT INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF AN APPLICATION SUCH THAT YOU'RE IN A POSITION TO GAIN EITHER FINANCIALLY, PROFESSIONALLY, OR PERSONALLY FROM A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL. | ||||||||
| LET'S FLESH THAT OUT A LITTLE BIT. A FINANCIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ARISES WHEN YOU, YOUR SOUSE, OR A PERSON WITH WHOM YOU HAVE A COMMON FINANCIAL INTEREST, ONE, IS AN EMPLOYEE OF ANY CONSTRUCTION, REAL ESTATE, OR DEVELOPMENT ENTITY ON AN APPLICATION; TWO, IS UNDER ACTIVE CONSIDERATION FOR EMPLOYMENT BY AN APPLICANT INSTITUTION; THREE, STANDS TO RECEIVE A FINANCIAL BENEFIT OF ANY AMOUNT FROM AN APPLICATION THAT'S UNDER REVIEW; AND, FOUR, HAS RECEIVED OR COULD RECEIVE A FINANCIAL BENEFIT OF ANY TYPE OVER $5,000 PER YEAR FROM AN APPLICANT INSTITUTION UNRELATED TO THE PROPOSAL. | ||||||||
| WHAT THAT'S REALLY INTENDED TO GET AT IS ANY FEES OR HONORARIA THAT YOU MIGHT RECEIVE FROM AN APPLICANT'S INSTITUTION THAT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED HERE, BUT, NONETHELESS, COULD CREATE AN APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. | ||||||||
| I WANT TO BRIEFLY DESCRIBE WHAT A PROFESSIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS. UNDER THE POLICY, A PROFESSIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST OCCURS WHEN YOU AS A MEMBER OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP AND A PROJECT DIRECTOR OF AN APPLICANT ARE EITHER ENGAGED CURRENTLY OR ARE PLANNING TO BE ENGAGED IN A JOINT PROJECT, OR IF YOU HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN A JOINT PROJECT WITH A PROJECT DIRECTOR OR AN APPLICATION IN THE LAST THREE YEARS. AND UNDER OUR POLICY, A PROJECT DIRECTOR IS DEFINED TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL DESIGNATED BY THE APPLICANT TO DIRECT THE PROJECT THAT WOULD BE SUPPORTED BY THE GRANT OR LOAN THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING. | ||||||||
| YOU ALSO HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN YOU HAVE A PERSONAL INTEREST IN AN APPLICATION, AND THAT'S DEFINED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: PERSONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ARISES WHEN YOU HAVE CLOSE PERSONAL TIES TO THE PROJECT DIRECTOR FOR THE APPLICANT INSTITUTION, FOR EXAMPLE, OR WHEN YOU SERVE IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY TO THE APPLICANT INSTITUTION OR ANY OF ITS DEPARTMENTS OR AFFILIATED ASSOCIATIONS. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU SERVE ON THE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION BOARD, THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE A PERSONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST. A PERSONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ALSO ARISES WHEN YOU HAVE AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER WHO'S A CURRENT STUDENT OR FACULTY MEMBER OF AN APPLICANT INSTITUTION, OR IF YOU HAVE LONG-STANDING PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL DIFFERENCES WITH THE PROJECT DIRECTOR FOR THE APPLICANT INSTITUTION. | ||||||||
| UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, THEN, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DISQUALIFY YOURSELF FROM PARTICIPATING IN CONSIDERATION OF ANY DECISION THAT COMES BEFORE YOU. WHEN YOU HAVE ANY OF THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT I JUST ENUMERATED, FINANCIAL, PROFESSIONAL, OR PERSONAL, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO REFRAIN FROM PARTICIPATING IN ANY CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION IN WHICH YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT YOU'RE NOT ONLY FORBIDDEN FROM REVIEWING THE APPLICATION AS A PRIMARY OR SECONDARY REVIEWER, BUT YOU'RE ALSO REQUIRED TO LEAVE THE ROOM WHEN THAT APPLICATION IS DISCUSSED AND TO REFRAIN FROM PARTICIPATING IN ANY CONSIDERATION OF IT, INCLUDING THE SCORING OF THE APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PRESIDENT OF THE CIRM HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THAT THE NEED FOR YOUR SPECIAL EXPERTISE OUTWEIGHS THE APPEARANCE OR POSSIBLE BIAS THAT'S POSED BY THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. AND THAT WILL PROBABLY ARISE ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT IT IS A POLICY THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE, AGAIN, TO GET YOUR SPECIALIZED EXPERTISE WHEN IT'S ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL. | ||||||||
| SO THAT'S A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE RULES. ONE OF THE THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT THE APPLICATION OF THESE RULES IS VERY FACT SPECIFIC. AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ADVICE I CAN GIVE YOU IS TO REALLY TRY TO BE AWARE OF WHAT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS ARE; AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WHATSOEVER ABOUT WHETHER UNDER OUR POLICY YOU MIGHT HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PLEASE PAUSE BEFORE ACTING. STOP AND ASK QUESTIONS AND WE'LL RESOLVE IT TO ENSURE THAT THIS PROCESS IS AS FREE OF BIAS AND AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: VERY COMPREHENSIVE. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: RUSTY, THIS MIGHT BE A TIME -- I MEANT TO SAY THIS EARLIER, BUT I REALLY NEED TO SAY IT NOW, THAT THE BOARD WANTS TO THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP FOR VOLUNTEERING. I BET YOU'VE NEVER VOLUNTEERED FOR SOMETHING WITH THIS MANY STRINGS ATTACHED. BUT WE ARE VERY APPRECIATIVE OF ALL THE TIME AND EFFORT AND YOUR EXPERTISE TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, JAMES. | ||||||||
| THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, AGENDA ITEM 6, IS PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROCESS FOR REVIEWING THE RFA'S FOR THE SHARED LABORATORIES AND STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSE GRANT APPLICATIONS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON WITH STAFF OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS. AND I'M GOING TO ASK RICK KELLER, WHO I INTRODUCED EARLIER, TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION. HE WILL MAKE THE PRESENTATION. THEN WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR COMMENTS, REVIEWS, CONCERNS, WHATEVER IS ON THE MIND OF THE WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| I WANT TO STRESS THAT WHEN WE DID THIS, WE HAD -- THESE ARE INTERIM PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA. AS I SAID EARLIER, WE WILL BE TALKING THIS AFTERNOON ABOUT, ON A VERY CONCEPTUAL BASIS, LARGE GRANTS. THESE GRANTS ON THE RENOVATION OF LAB SPACE ARE $1 MILLION OR LESS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 15 GRANTS, IF THEY MEET THE CRITERIA, BEING APPROVED. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT $15 MILLION OR LESS IN THIS AREA. | ||||||||
| SO HE'S GOING TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO OPEN IT UP AMONGST THE WORKING GROUP FOR COMMENTS AND CONCERNS AND DISCUSSION. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: JUST IN FUTURE, CAN WE GET THIS IN ADVANCE SO THAT WE GET TO REVIEW IT BEFORE BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF HARD. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THAT WOULD BE NICE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: YES. I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT. WE'RE LEARNING AS WE GO ALONG. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: EXACTLY. I CAN TELL YOU I CAN WRITE A NOVEL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON GETTING IT THERE. YOU WILL RECEIVE IT IN ADVANCE. I GUARANTEE YOU THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THANK YOU, RUSTY. I THINK THIS IS -- HOPE THIS WILL BE JUST MORE CLARIFICATION OF THINGS THAT YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN MADE AWARE OF IN TERMS OF THE RFA THAT'S POSTED ON THE WEBSITE AND SOME OF THE BACKGROUND MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE. | ||||||||
| LET ME START BY SAYING THERE'S THREE COMPONENTS THAT WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT TODAY. THE TECHNICAL REVIEW IS ACTUALLY THE IDEA THAT WE HAVE THESE APPLICATIONS AND THERE ARE SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THOSE APPLICATIONS THAT NEED TO BE EVALUATED. WE'RE CALLING THAT THE TECHNICAL REVIEW, AND THEN THOSE WOULD BE SCORED. AFTER THERE HAS BEEN A TECHNICAL REVIEW, THERE WILL BE A PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW WHICH, I LIKE TO SAY, KIND OF DEALS WITH THE PORTFOLIO OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE ICOC. AND WHILE THAT'S BEEN FOCUSING ON THE SHARED LABS, THERE'S ALSO THIS NOTION THAT WITH SEVERAL, NOT ALL PROPOSALS, BUT ABOUT NINE OF THE 22 PROPOSALS, EXACTLY NINE OF THE 22 PROPOSALS WE RECEIVED, INCLUDES A PROPOSAL FOR A STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSE, AND THE INTENTION IS TO FUND FIVE OF THOSE AS WELL. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: WHEN YOU SAY TECHNICAL, CAN YOU BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WELL, I THINK THE TECHNICAL REVIEW IS THE SPECIFIC REVIEW THAT ADDRESSES THE CRITERIA THAT WAS ADOPTED IN OCTOBER BY THIS COMMITTEE AND APPROVED BY THE ICOC WHERE THE SIX EVALUATION CRITERIA THAT I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH APPLIES. AND WE'RE CALLING IT TECHNICAL IN ORDER TO MAKE A DISTINCTION FROM THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. | ||||||||
| SO I THINK IN TERMS OF PROCESS, THE PROCESS THAT I SEE THAT WE WANT TO DEAL WITH HERE ARE BASICALLY FOUR STEPS. WE HAVE THE APPLICATIONS. YOU NEED TO REVIEW THE DATA AS IT'S BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS. YOU NEED TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND FIND WHERE THE INFORMATION IS WITHIN THE APPLICATION THAT BASICALLY GIVES YOU THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO BASICALLY EVALUATE HOW RESPONSIVE, HOW THAT PARTICULAR APPLICATION CAN BE EVALUATED, AND THEN ASSIGN IT -- AND AT THE MEETING ON MAY 2D, ASSIGN IT A SCORE. SO THAT WOULD BE SCORING. | ||||||||
| FOR THE ACTUAL PROCESS, WE HAVE RECEIVED THE ONLINE APPLICATIONS, AND WE'VE GONE THROUGH AN INITIAL REVIEW OF MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE COMPLETE, AND WE ARE EXTRACTING BASICALLY DATASETS THAT MAKE SENSE IN TERMS OF PROVIDING COMPARABLE INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW, LIKE THE COST, THE SCHEDULE, AND MATERIAL SUCH AS THAT. | ||||||||
| THE NEXT STEP IS WE ARE GOING TO MAKE ASSIGNMENTS TO EACH OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP RELATIVE TO THE REAL ESTATE SPECIALISTS. THEY WILL BECOME THE PRIMARY REVIEWERS AND WILL BE REVIEWING APPLICATIONS BY BASICALLY COMPARING THE INFORMATION THAT IS, AS I SAID, INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION AND LOOKING AND COMPARING THAT INFORMATION TO THE CRITERIA THAT YOU HAVE ADOPTED. | ||||||||
| THE CRITERIA THAT WE ARE GOING TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS TODAY ARE EXACTLY WHAT WAS ADOPTED IN OCTOBER, FEASIBILITY, COST, TIMELINE/MILESTONES, INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, WHICH WE THINK IS KIND OF A STAND-IN FOR MATCHING FUNDS, HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, AND RESPONSIVENESS. I'LL GO INTO MORE DETAIL OF THESE SIX CRITERIA AND EXPLAIN WHAT WE THINK ARE THE PERTINENT ISSUES IN THE APPLICATIONS THAT APPLY TO THESE SIX. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: RICK, LET ME JUST SAY. I WANTED TO SAY INITIALLY. FOR MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP, IF WE COULD LET RICK GO THROUGH HIS PRESENTATION, WE ALL HAVE THE POWERPOINT AND WE HAVE THE SLIDES HERE. LET HIM FINISH, AND THEN WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION AS OPPOSED TO TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC ITEMS BEFORE WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE WHOLE PRESENTATION. I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WHEN I WAS MENTIONING THE REVIEWS, THE REAL ESTATE MEMBERS OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP WILL DO THE PRIMARY REVIEWS. THE SECONDARY REVIEWS WILL BE BY THE PATIENT ADVOCATE MEMBERS OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. THERE'S FOUR AND SIX, SO THERE'S GOING TO BE ROUGHLY FIVE OR SIX REVIEWS BY EACH OF THE REAL ESTATE PEOPLE TO GET TO 22, AND THERE'S GOING TO BE THREE OR FOUR REVIEWS ASSIGNED TO EACH OF THE PATIENT ADVOCATES TO GET TO 22. SO THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO ASSIGN IT OUT. | ||||||||
| FOR THESE SIX CATEGORIES, THE FIRST THING THAT WAS CONSIDERED WAS THE PROCEDURES THAT WERE ADOPTED IN OCTOBER MEETING, THAT THE SCORE WILL BE ZERO TO A HUNDRED. AND THE NOTION WAS TO TAKE THE SIX CRITERIA AND LOOK AT OPPORTUNITIES TO GIVE IT MORE GRANULARITY BY HAVING A SCORING SYSTEM THAT WOULD ASSIGN SPECIFIC ELEMENTS TO THAT. THE PROPOSAL AT THIS POINT, WHICH YOU NEED TO REVIEW AND BECOME COMFORTABLE WITH OR PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE, IS TO HAVE FEASIBILITY BE ZERO OR 15 POINTS. AGAIN, THIS IS A WEIGHTING BASED ON THE SIX CRITERIA. THE IDEA WOULD BE, THOUGH, THAT IF A PROPOSAL WERE DEEMED INFEASIBLE, THERE WOULD BE LIKELY SOME OTHER IMPLICATIONS FOR THAT, LIKE YOU MAY NOT WANT TO SCORE THE REST OF THE WAY. | ||||||||
| COSTS, WE'VE ASSIGNED UP TO 20 PERCENT OF THE AVAILABLE SCORES, FOR TIMELINE AND MILESTONES AN ADDITIONAL 20 PERCENT, THE MATCHING FOUNDS UP TO 10 POINTS, AND FOR HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE 20 POINTS, AND RESPONSIVENESS, AGAIN, IN THE SAME CATEGORY OF FEASIBILITY ARE ZERO OR 15 POINTS. AND IF A ZERO WERE ASSIGNED, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME LIKELY IMPACT ON OTHER CATEGORIES BY SAYING IF IT'S NOT RESPONSIVE, HOW IMPORTANT IS THE COST FOR THE HISTORIC PERFORMANCE OF THE OTHER CATEGORIES. | ||||||||
| SO IF MY MATH IS CORRECT, THOSE SHOULD ADD UP TO A HUNDRED POINTS, AND THAT WOULD BE THE BASIS OF WHAT WE CALL A MORE GRANULAR EVALUATION. AND WE HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THESE BE ASSIGNED KIND OF IN INCREMENTS OF FIVE POINTS, AND WE SET UP THE ONLINE SCORING CARD TO REFLECT THAT. IF THE COMMITTEE FEELS THAT THEY WANT TO GO INTO MORE, AGAIN, PRECISE NUMBERING, EACH SCORE OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP MEMBERS WILL BE RECORDED ON MAY 2D AND THERE WILL BE AN AVERAGING OF THOSE 11 SCORES TO ASSIGN A FINAL SCORE TO EACH APPLICANT. | ||||||||
| SO I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THESE SIX CATEGORIES WITH THE IDEA OF GIVING YOU A BIT MORE INFORMATION IN TERMS OF WHAT'S STATED IN THE RFA IN TERMS OF THE APPLICABLE QUALITIES OR ASPECTS OF THE APPLICATION THAT APPLY, AND THEN WHAT WE THINK ARE SOME OF THE THINGS YOU NEED TO LOOK AT IN ADDRESSING YOUR EVALUATION OF THAT CATEGORY. | ||||||||
| WITHIN FEASIBILITY, THE RFA NOTES THAT ARE THE PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION/RENOVATION REASONABLE, AND ARE THEY WELL ORGANIZED, AND IS THERE SUFFICIENT DETAILS? WE WANT TO SEE A GOOD RESTRICTION. WE WANT TO SEE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE SPECIFIC KINDS OF WORK THAT'S ENGAGED IN ORDER TO BRING WHAT IS CURRENTLY EITHER AN EXISTING LAB OR EXISTING STORAGE ROOM OR AN EXISTING OFFICE SPACE AND TURN IT INTO A SHARED LAB OR TO TECHNIQUES COURSE SPACE. | ||||||||
| I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THERE BE A DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS BECAUSE OFTENTIMES THE VARIABILITY OF COST IS WHAT ARE YOU STARTING WITH. IF YOU'RE STARTING WITH A SHELL SPACE IN AN EXISTING BUILDING, THAT HAS AN INFLUENCE ABOUT WHAT YOUR COSTS AND COMPLEXITY -- HOW THE COSTS WOULD BE AND THE SCHEDULE AND SOME OF THESE OTHER ISSUES OF FEASIBILITY AS WELL. IF IT'S EXISTING IN APPROVED SPACE THAT HAS TO HAVE ASBESTOS ABATEMENT OR HAS TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DEMOLITION, THEN THAT ADDS COST AND TIMING. AND SO THAT'S PART OF THE ISSUE OF FEASIBILITY. | ||||||||
| ON THE COST SIDE, THE RFA SPECIFIES THAT IT SHOULD BE REASONABLE AND IS A COMPARABLE TO THE OTHER PROPOSALS. IS THE COST PER RESEARCHER, DOES IT ALLOW FOR MAXIMUM USE AND ACCESS BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING FOR SHARED USE. YOU MIGHT CONSIDER THE DISCREPANCY, IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY, BETWEEN THE COST PER SQUARE FOOT AND COST PER PI, DEPENDING ON THE BALANCES WITHIN THOSE TWO CATEGORIES, AND WHAT'S THE RATIONALE FOR IT, AND HOW INSTITUTIONS LEVERAGE THE CIRM RESOURCES. I THINK A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT IS THAT IF A SHARED LAB IS BEING CONSTRUCTED IN AN AREA OR IN A BUILDING WHERE THERE IS ALREADY HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IN THE AREA AND THE INSTITUTION IS LEVERAGING THAT EXISTING SPACE AND COMMITTING THAT USE OF THAT EXISTING SPACE TO SHARED USE, THEN THAT WOULD BE LEVERAGING OBVIOUSLY THE CIRM PROPOSAL. | ||||||||
| SO THE OTHER FACTORS ARE WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE, WITH RESPECT TO COST PER SQUARE FOOT AND IF THERE ARE OUTLIERS WITHIN THE -- I THINK THAT'S KIND OF A EUPHEMISM TO SAY IF SOMEONE HAS REALLY GOT A COST THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE NORM, WHAT ARE THE FACTORS THAT MIGHT MITIGATE THAT OR MAKE YOU BETTER UNDERSTAND WHY THAT IS THE CASE. OFTENTIMES IT HAS TO DEAL WITH CIRCUMSTANCES IN TERMS OF THE CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS OR THE COMPLEXITY OF A PARTICULAR CONSTRUCTION SITE, WHETHER IT BE IN A HIGH RISE OR IN A VERY DENSELY OCCUPIED SPACE. | ||||||||
| AND THEN LASTLY, THIS NOTION THAT THE COST SHOULD BE A BALANCE BETWEEN WHAT'S ACTUALLY GOING IN TO IMPROVE THE SPACE TO PROVIDE FOR THE RESEARCH AND FOR THE MISSION OF THE SHARED RESEARCH LAB VERSUS WHAT PORTION SEEMS TO BE GOING TO MITIGATE OTHER PROBLEMS THAT MIGHT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PREEXISTING CONDITIONS, SUCH AS HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ABATEMENT OR FIXING OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD BE A NORMAL INSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION. | ||||||||
| NEXT CATEGORY OF EVALUATION IS TIMELINE AND MILESTONES. THIS BASICALLY IS HOW WELL THE APPLICANTS HAVE DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF SCHEDULE. WHEN CAN IT BE COMPLETED? IS IT A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE WORK INTENDED? AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO IMPEDIMENTS TO CONSTRUCTION BY VIRTUE OF EITHER PERMITS OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS. AND IS THE SCHEDULE VERY CLEAR? AND WITHIN THE APPLICATIONS WE HAVE ASKED FOR VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT -- WE HAVE ASKED FOR 15 MILESTONES OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT FROM PREPARATION OF ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS OR PRELIMINARY PLANS TO THE ACTUAL OCCUPANCY OF THE SPACE. SO YOU HAVE AN IDEA AND UNDERSTANDING HOW THOSE INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS ARE BEING INCLUDED IN THE SCHEDULE. AND, AGAIN, CONSIDERING WHETHER THERE'S ANY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MIGHT BE A SOURCE OF DELAY, FOR INSTANCE, PERMITTING OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. | ||||||||
| INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, THE RFA SPECIFIES THAT IT HAS TO BE SUFFICIENT. WHAT THAT MEANS IS THERE'S A 20-PERCENT MATCH REQUIREMENT, 20 PERCENT OF THE CIRM AMOUNT. SO A MILLION-DOLLAR CIRM CONSTRUCTION PROJECT WOULD HAVE $200,000 OF INSTITUTIONAL MATCH. SO THE ACTUAL PROJECT COST COULD BE A $1.2 MILLION PROJECT. WE ALSO SPECIFIED THAT SINCE PART 1 OF THIS APPLICATION, THAT WAS REVIEWED BY THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, PROVIDES OPERATING FUNDS FOR THESE SHARED LABS AND TECHNIQUES COURSE FOR TWO TO THREE YEARS, THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF HOW THE INSTITUTION WOULD CONTINUE THE UTILITY AND VIABILITY OF THIS INVESTMENT BEYOND THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD. | ||||||||
| THE LAST FACTOR IS CONFIRMING THAT PRIOR FUNDS ARE ACCURATE. THIS REALLY DEALS WITH A PROVISION WITHIN THE RFA THAT IF INSTITUTIONS HAVE SPENT SINCE JANUARY 2005 TO THE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE, THEY HAD EXPENDED FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSES SIMILAR TO THE SHARED LAB, THEN THOSE FUNDS QUALIFY AS MATCHING FUNDS. SO IT'S A BIT LIKE A PREEXISTING OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THE MATCHING FUNDS, AND THEN THE PROJECT THAT CIRM FUNDS BASICALLY BECOMES A MILLION-DOLLAR PROJECT AT A MAXIMUM OF $1 MILLION. | ||||||||
| HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, AND THE RFA SPECIFIES THAT WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF AN APPLICANT RECEIVES THE FUNDS, DO THEY HAVE THE INTERNAL CAPACITY TO DELIVER PROJECTS AND DELIVER THEM ON TIME. AND SO THIS ASPECT OF THE APPLICATION DEALS WITH HOW WELL THE ACTUAL PERFORMANCE HAS BEEN BY THE APPLICANTS. WE SOLICITED INFORMATION IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION WHICH BASICALLY ASKS THAT APPLICANTS SPECIFY THREE PROJECTS THAT WERE COMPLETED RECENTLY AND TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON HOW THE PLAN VERSUS ACTUAL BUDGETS AND SCHEDULES FOR THOSE THREE PROJECTS TURNED OUT SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE A BASIS OF COMPARISON OR BASIS OF JUDGMENT ABOUT HOW WELL THE INSTITUTION CAN PERFORM IN THE CONSTRUCTION AREA. | ||||||||
| AND FINALLY, THE LAST CATEGORY, RESPONSIVENESS. IT'S ALMOST KIND OF INTRINSIC THAT IF YOU ASK IN THE RFA FOR A SHARED LAB, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE AFTER. A SHARED LAB, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR SOME OTHER KIND OF LABORATORY. SO IF THERE'S MORE EXTRANEOUS OR NOT -- OR WORK THAT APPEARS TO BE PROPOSED FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE THAN THE SHARED LAB, THEN THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD INFLUENCE A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT PROJECT OR APPLICATION IS RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS OF CIRM IN TERMS OF SHARED LABS OR THE TECHNIQUES COURSE. | ||||||||
| SO WITH THOSE SIX CATEGORIES, THE IDEA WOULD BE TO READ THE APPLICATIONS, UNDERSTAND THE CRITERIA, APPLY THE CRITERIA, AND THEN DRAFT YOUR COMMENTS REGARDING THOSE. IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME STUDY. YOU THEN WOULD BE -- WE WOULD RECEIVE THE COMPLETED ONLINE EVALUATIONS ON THE 29TH OF APRIL IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT SHARED WITH OTHER REVIEWERS. SO IT REALLY IS A TEAM EFFORT, I THINK. AND OUR PUBLIC MEETING WILL BE ON MAY 2D. I THINK THIS VENUE IS A LITTLE LARGER, I THINK IT'S LARGER, BUT WE CAN PROBABLY DO SOMETHING MORE APPROPRIATE. WE'RE HOPING IT WILL BE MORE ALONG THESE LINES. | ||||||||
| ON MAY 2D THE REVIEWERS WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION, THE PRIMARY REVIEWER AND SECONDARY REVIEWER WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION OF THEIR REVIEWS TO THE WORKING GROUP. THERE WILL THEN BE DISCUSSION OF EACH PROPOSAL. AND THEN AT THAT TIME EACH WORKING GROUP WILL ESTABLISH A SCORE, AND THAT WILL BE A PRIVATE BALLOT WITHIN THE PUBLIC MEETING. WE'LL COLLECT THOSE, AND WE WILL SCORE EACH APPLICATION, AND RANK THEM BASED ON THOSE SCORES. SO THAT WOULD BE THE COMPLETION OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW. AND THEN WE WOULD MOVE INTO PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. | ||||||||
| PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW WOULD BE IN CLOSED SESSION, AND IT WOULD CONVENE TO RECEIVE THE PERTINENT -- SINCE WE'VE ALREADY NOW COMPLETED THE TECHNICAL, THE INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE REVIEW BY THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP TO COMPLETE WHAT I'LL CALL A PORTFOLIO OF ITS RECOMMENDATION. AND I THINK WHAT THAT'S TRYING TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT THINGS FIT TOGETHER STRATEGICALLY. | ||||||||
| AND THE TWO ISSUES THAT WERE DISCUSSED, I THINK, IN PRIOR MEETINGS OF THIS GROUP AND OF THE ICO IS GEOGRAPHY, WHICH BASICALLY SAYS IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SHARED LABS, THEY HAVE TO BE IN PLACES THAT CAN ADEQUATELY SERVE THE COMMUNITY OF HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCHERS. AND SO BY VIRTUE OF THE SCORING, AND IF WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, WE MAY WANT TO ADJUST SO THAT WE ARE MAKING GOOD RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ADDRESS NOT ONLY THE TECHNICAL MERIT, BUT ALSO WHERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE THESE EITHER EFFICIENT OR MAKE SURE THAT SERVICE'S RESOURCES ARE MADE AVAILABLE IN A PATTERN THAT MAKES SENSE GEOGRAPHICALLY. | ||||||||
| AND THEN THE SECOND ISSUE OF PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW WAS ALSO TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT MAY BE OVER AND ABOVE THE MINIMUM INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, AND THAT THIS WOULD BE ONE CONSIDERATION THAT THE COMMITTEE COULD MAKE IN A PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. | ||||||||
| WITH THOSE TWO, THE FINAL SCORES WOULD BE TALLIED AND RECOMMENDATIONS PREPARED FOR THE ICOC. ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA, AGAIN, TIER 1 IS THE RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING, TIER 2 WOULD BE FUND IF FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE, TIER 3 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING AT THIS TIME. WE WOULD HOPE THAT THERE'S PLENTY AT THE TOP SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND PROVIDE THESE RESOURCES TO THE SCIENTISTS THAT NEED TO SUPPORT THE MISSION OF CIRM. | ||||||||
| SO WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THE REVIEW. AND BE GLAD TO TURN IT BACK OVER TO RUSTY FOR QUESTIONS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: BEFORE WE GET INTO DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS AMONG THE WORKING GROUP, I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE COMMENT REGARDING THE PROCESS. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE DONE IS ASKED THE STAFF TO PROVIDE A TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OR REVIEW OF THESE GRANTS FOCUSING ON THE SIX CRITERIA. THE STAFF HAS A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE. AND AS I MENTIONED, IT IS A RESOURCE DOCUMENT. AND THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE CAN USE IT AS THEY SEE FIT. IF THEY DECIDE THEY DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT IT, THAT'S UP TO THEM. | ||||||||
| I THINK FROM MY STANDPOINT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE THE BEST OUTCOME POSSIBLE IN TERMS OF REVIEWING THESE GRANTS, GRANT APPLICATIONS. AND THE MORE INFORMATION, THE MORE KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE THAT CAN HELP US MAKE THAT DECISION THE BETTER OFF WE ARE. SO I'VE ASKED THEM TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE. AGAIN, TO MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, SHOULD YOU WANT TO USE IT AND REFER TO IT, IT'S THERE. IF YOU WANT TO DO IT INDEPENDENTLY OR ON YOUR OWN, THAT'S UP TO YOU ALSO. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: CHAIRMAN DOMS, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT POINT. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE IDEA, AND I THINK IT WILL HAVE A LOT OF BENEFIT IN OUR REVIEW PROCESS. COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. THE FIRST ONE BEING -- AND YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTIONS WHEN I'M DONE. FIRST ONE IS WHICH MEMBERS OF THE CIRM STAFF WILL PROVIDE THE ANALYSIS? THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS WHAT SORT OF ANALYSIS WILL IT BE? WILL THEY BE USING THE SAME FORM HERE? WILL THEY BE DOING THE SCORING AS WELL, OR WILL IT JUST BE A WRITTEN NARRATIVE? WHAT WILL IT LOOK LIKE? | ||||||||
| FIRST, THOUGH, WHICH STAFF PEOPLE WILL BE DOING THE ANALYSIS? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: THE TWO STAFF PEOPLE THAT WILL BE DOING THE ANALYSIS ARE LORI HOFFMAN AND RICK KELLER. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WILL ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF CIRM STAFF BE DOING THE ANALYSIS? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I DON'T BELIEVE SO AT THIS TIME. THEY ARE THE TWO PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE EXPERTISE AND THE EXPERIENCE TO DO THAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I AGREE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: PREEXISTING CONFLICTS. THEY CAN'T REVIEW EVERY GRANT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THEY'RE PROVIDING AN ANALYSIS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WELL, THEY -- | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: JEFF, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. AND WE'RE PROVIDING A TECHNICAL ANALYSIS, AND I WILL NOT BE WORKING ON ANY OF THE UC CAMPUS APPLICATIONS. AND, IN FACT, I BELIEVE THAT THE ONLY CONFLICT THAT EXISTS BETWEEN BOTH OF US IS, OF COURSE, UC DAVIS. AND WE HAVE -- WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY HERE, AND WE WOULD THEN LIKE TO GO OUTSIDE AND GET AN OUTSIDE EXPERT WHO HAS NO CONFLICTS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: TO MY SECOND QUESTION, WHAT WILL THE NARRATIVE ANALYSIS LOOK LIKE? IF MS. HOFFMAN OR MR. KELLER WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT, THAT'S OKAY, OR YOU CAN, RUSTY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I'LL RESPOND TO IT. THEY WILL TAKE EACH OF THE CRITERIA, AND THEY WILL WRITE AN ANALYSIS FOCUSING ON THESE POINTS. THEY IN NO WAY SCORE THIS. IT WILL BE A STRICT ANALYSIS OFF THE GRANT APPLICATION, FACTS, FIGURES. THEY WILL NOT BE ISSUING ANY OPINIONS ON WHETHER THIS MAKES SENSE OR NOT. THEY MAY SAY THE COSTS ARE X NUMBER OF DOLLARS A SQUARE FOOT. RELATIVE TO OTHERS, THIS APPEARS TO BE ON THE HIGH SIDE, AND THAT WILL BE IT, BUT THEY WILL NOT BE SCORING IT. THEY WILL NOT BE COMMUNICATING WITH THE REVIEWERS IN TERMS OF SCORE. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT EITHER RICK OR I WOULD EVEN BE SAYING ANYTHING AS OBJECTIVE AS THIS APPEARS TO BE ON THE HIGH SIDE. I THINK THAT WHAT WE'LL DO IS PROVIDE PERHAPS A BENCHMARK. AND THOSE EVALUATIONS WILL BE DONE BY THE WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: ARE THEY PROVIDING A SUMMARIZATION, OR ARE THEY PROVIDING AN ANALYSIS? THE TWO ARE DIFFERENT. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: LET ME MAKE A COMMENT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THESE COME IN VERY DIFFERENT FORMS FROM DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS. AND TO EXTRACT THE RELEVANT INFORMATION FOR EACH ITEM IS NOT ALWAYS EASY. AND SO I THINK ONE OF THE MAIN INTENTS IS SIMPLY THAT FOR EACH OF THE ONES TO PULL OUT THE INFORMATION THAT IS THERE, AND THEN TO MAKE SOME RELEVANT COMMENTS ABOUT HOW IT MAY COMPARE TO A BENCHMARK OR THAT. IS THAT CORRECT? THE ATTEMPT IS TO BE OF HELP TO YOU, NOT TO SOMEHOW PREJUDGE OR PASS -- DIRECT YOU EXCEPT TO SAY THERE MAY BE A PROBLEM HERE. YOU MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT. THAT WOULD BE THE EXTENT OF IT, BUT I THINK IT'S NOT ANY ATTEMPT TO DO MORE THAN THAT. IT'S TO BE OF HELP TO YOU. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: AS THE STAFF HAS OUTLINED THE PROCESS HERE, THIS IS A GREAT PROCESS. I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THE PROCESS. MY CONCERNS ARE OF A LARGER NATURE. WE'VE USED TERMS "CRITERIA" AND "OBJECTIVES" THAT ARE IN THE RFA. WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE BASED ON. WHERE DID THEY COME FROM? | ||||||||
| I HAVE A LITTLE CONCERN THAT THE INSTITUTE HAS NOT SET A SET OF GOALS FOR THESE RESEARCH FACILITIES. WE HAVEN'T REALLY CONSIDERED BROAD-RANGE GOALS OF WHAT WE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH. ONCE WE COMMIT THESE DOLLARS AND THESE FACILITIES ARE BUILT, WE'RE DONE. THERE'S NO GOING BACK IN TERMS OF FINDING MORE FUNDING OR RESOURCES TO COMMIT TO THIS. | ||||||||
| SO MY QUESTIONS WOULD BE AROUND WHAT ARE THE GOALS OF THE INSTITUTE IN TERMS OF THE RESEARCH FACILITIES? DO WE HAVE A GOAL THAT WE WANT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF RESEARCH FACILITIES GEOGRAPHICALLY PLACED IN THE STATE BECAUSE THAT'S APPROPRIATE? ARE WE COMMITTED TO A RESEARCH FACILITY DEDICATED TO THE STEM CELL RESEARCH OF CHILDREN? IS THAT PART OF OUR GOAL? I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT WE'RE MOVING VERY FAST AND WE'RE GOING TO BE COMMITTING A LOT OF MONEY. AND I MYSELF WANT TO FEEL MORE THAN WE HAVE SOME BROAD-BASED BRUSH DIRECTION OF SOME INTENT ON THE PART OF THE INSTITUTE OF WHAT WE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THAT MONEY, AND HOW DO WE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH IT. | ||||||||
| AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING, A COMMENT WAS MADE BY ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT THERE IS A COALITION OF INSTITUTIONS WHO ARE GOING TO BE WORKING TOGETHER COLLABORATIVELY TO CONDUCT RESEARCH, SEVERAL MAJOR INSTITUTIONS. AND THAT BOARD MEMBER WAS INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE THAT MAYBE THE INSTITUTE WOULD WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH WAS A MAJOR GOAL. | ||||||||
| I'M JUST EXPRESSING THAT I'M CONCERNED THAT WE HAVEN'T COME TOGETHER ON THAT, THOSE CONCEPTS YET. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: MARCY, I'M GLAD YOU RAISED THOSE ISSUES AND THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE PERTINENT TO TODAY'S DISCUSSION. IT'S MY RECOLLECTION, AND I MIGHT BE WRONG, AND I WOULD LOOK TO LORI AND RICK TO AUGMENT WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY. AND THAT IS, FOR THE SHARED, THE GRANTS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, THERE WAS A NEED. DR. PENHOET AND DR. MAXON DID A TOUR OF THE STATE WHEN THE INSTITUTE FIRST GOT STARTED. AND THE PURPOSE OF THEIR TOUR WAS TO SORT OF DISCUSS WHAT'S GOING ON. THEY MET WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS STATEWIDE. AND WHAT THEY HEARD UNIVERSALLY ACROSS THE BOARD WAS A NEED FOR THIS KIND OF RFA BECAUSE WE NEEDED THE SAFE HAVENS. THERE'S ISSUES WITH -- YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT -- ATTACHMENTS WITH THE FEDERAL DOLLARS AND WHATNOT. SO STAFF HAD PRESENTED TO THE ICOC THAT THIS WAS THE MOST PRESSING AND IMMEDIATE NEED. THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION. | ||||||||
| NOW, IN TERMS OF DRAFTING THIS PARTICULAR RFA, I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF MS. HOFFMAN OR MR. KELLER. THEY ARE REAL ESTATE FACILITIES EXPERTS ON THE STAFF SIDE. AND HAD WE HAD THE BENEFIT OF THEIR SORT OF WISDOM, THIS RFA MAY HAVE BEEN CRAFTED A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY. I THINK THAT'S FAIR TO SAY. BUT FOR ME THE IMMEDIATE QUESTION IS DOES IT SERVE THE NEED? DOES IT SERVE THE GOAL? | ||||||||
| WE IDENTIFIED AN OBJECTIVE. DOES IT SERVE THAT OBJECTIVE? I THINK IT DOES. IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT I THINK IT DOES. BUT THE ISSUES YOU RAISE ARE PERTINENT TO THE NEXT ROUND OF GRANTS. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION LATER ON. WE'VE GOT TO TALK ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT YOU'VE IDENTIFIED, AND I KNOW MY COLLEAGUES WILL HAVE OTHER PRIORITIES THAT THEY WISH TO DISCUSS AS WELL. BECAUSE AFTER THIS RFA, WE ONLY HAVE THREE MORE, THE LARGE FACILITIES, THE STEM CELL BANK, AND THE GMP. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YES, IT DOES. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: EXCUSE ME JUST A MOMENT. I JUST ASKED PAT IF SHE WOULD, JUST FOR OUR REFERENCE, MAKE A COPY OF THE RFA THAT COULD BE DISTRIBUTED TO EVERYBODY. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: VERY HELPFUL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: MARCY, LET ME JUST RESPOND ALSO. I THINK DAVID COVERED IT VERY WELL FROM A STRAIGHT REAL ESTATE STANDPOINT AND A RENOVATION STANDPOINT. THE ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE ADDRESSED, I THINK, ARE LARGER ISSUES. WE'RE REALLY FOCUSING ON NOT THE RESEARCH THAT'S GOING TO BE DONE THERE. WE'RE FOCUSING ON CREATING THE SPACE FOR RESEARCH TO BE -- IN WHICH IT WILL PERFORMED. AT LEAST THAT'S MY PERCEPTION OF HOW. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: I HAVE TWO THINGS. I WANT TO FINISH THIS ONE POINT. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE LORI AND RICK DO SOME KIND OF SUMMARIZATION OF THOSE GRANTS AND FOCUS ON KIND OF PULLING OUT THE FACTS AND THE RELEVANT PARTS BECAUSE, AGAIN, ZACH'S POINT ABOUT -- I HAVEN'T SEEN THEM, SO I WON'T KNOW WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE, BUT I GATHER SOME OF THEM MAY NOT BE ALL THAT WELL ORGANIZED. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: ORGANIZED DIFFERENTLY, I THINK. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: SO THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE HELPFUL TO LOOK AT THAT POTENTIALLY, AFTER I READ THE GRANT APPLICATION, WITH A FOCUS ON STATING THE FACTS AND STATING WHAT VERY CLEARLY IS STATED IN THE GRANT WITH LESS FOCUS ON OPINIONS. I WOULD SUPPORT THAT IDEA. | ||||||||
| THE NEXT -- | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: MAYBE WE CAN GO BACK. I DID HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ANALYSIS. I HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF QUESTIONS. WILL THAT BE A PUBLIC DOCUMENT? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THEIR DOCUMENT? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I WILL DEFER TO COUNSEL. BUT IT WOULD BE WHEN YOU'RE REVIEWING IT -- SO WHEN IT'S POSTED ON THE WEBSITE ONLINE, YOU CAN GO TO, FOR EXAMPLE, WHATEVER WE'RE GOING TO CALL IT, STAFF SUMMARY, STAFF ANALYSIS, WHATEVER YOU DEEM CORRECT. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IT WOULD BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT ONLY. AT THE TIME OF THE PUBLIC MEETING AND WHEN YOUR REVIEWS ARE IN, THEY WILL ALSO BE ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFTS, AND THERE WILL BE AN ATTEMPT TO PUT YOUR COMMENTS AND SCORING TOGETHER FOR PUBLIC REVIEW. AND I WILL LEAVE IT UP TO COUNSEL WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFTS THAT YOU HAVE USED PRE THAT POINT IN TIME. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: THIS IS A QUESTION I THINK WE'LL NEED TO EXAMINE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSELY. LORI'S RIGHT. THERE IS AN EXCEPTION UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT FOR DRAFTS. AND CONCEIVABLY THIS ANALYSIS OR SUMMARY COULD FALL WITHIN THAT EXCEPTION. LIKEWISE, THERE'S AN EXCEPTION FOR THE RECORDS OF THE WORKING GROUP WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE RECORDS THAT ARE FORWARDED TO THE ICOC AS PART OF THE WORKING GROUP'S RECOMMENDATIONS. SO I THINK IT'S AS A LEGAL ISSUE SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSELY. OF COURSE, THERE ARE POLICY IMPLICATIONS AS WELL, WHICH I WILL LEAVE TO YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: CAN I FOLLOW UP? FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD HOPE THAT THAT WILL BE PUBLIC. SECOND, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SUGGEST VERY STRONGLY, SINCE STAFF KNOWS THE SCORES, SINCE SOME OF THE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS KNOW THE SCORES, THAT THE SCORES SHOULD ALSO BE PROVIDED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS. THE STAFF WILL BE DOING THE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS, TECHNICAL SUMMARIES, WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SCORES, WITH THE SCIENTIFIC SCORES KNOWN. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THE TECHNICAL REVIEW FIRST, THEN MOVING INTO EXECUTIVE CLOSED SESSION FOR THE DISCUSSION WITH ARLENE ON THE SCORES OF THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP AND THEN MOVING BACK INTO PROGRAMMATIC WAS THERE WERE SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH BOTH THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. AND IT WAS DEEMED THAT IN AN EFFORT TO STAY FOCUSED ON THE SIX CRITERIA OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW, THAT AT THAT POINT IN TIME IT WASN'T NECESSARY -- I GUESS WE'RE NOW DISCUSSING THIS AGAIN. BUT IT WASN'T NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC SCORE WAS AT THAT POINT IN TIME, BUT IT WAS NECESSARY IN TERMS OF THE, PERHAPS, GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP WOULD DEEM TO BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED UNDER PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: BUT YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE ME A SUMMARY THAT YOU PREPARED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SCORES. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SCORES. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: RICK DOES. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: NOR WILL I -- | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: RICK IS GOING TO BE PREPARING MOST OF THEM. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: HALF. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: BUT YOU SEE -- ACTUALLY IF YOU'VE SEEN THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST LIKE I HAVE OVER ALL THE DOCUMENTS, ACTUALLY YOU KNOW -- THE UC WOULD MORE THAN DISQUALIFY. IT'S A LOT MORE COMPLICATED THAN YOU ARE MAKING IT SOUND. I'M VERY UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT THE ONLY PEOPLE NOT KNOWING THE SCIENTIFIC SCORES ARE THE FOUR REAL ESTATE EXPERTS. AND EVERYBODY ELSE BEING PRIVY SO THAT KNOWLEDGE, I THINK WE PUT THEM AT A DISTINCT DISADVANTAGE OF GETTING SUMMARIES -- COULD YOU NOT INTERRUPT, PLEASE -- AND GETTING SUMMARIES THAT ARE PREPARED BY STAFF. WE'RE HAVING A VIRTUAL STAFF REVIEW WITH SCIENTIFIC SCORES IN MIND. I'M VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS PROCESS. | ||||||||
| I THINK THE SCIENTIFIC SCORES SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO EVERYBODY UP FRONT. THE SCORES EXIST. I MEAN I DON'T WANT TO BE PUTTING FORWARD A DOCUMENT WHERE I LOOK LIKE I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M DOING BECAUSE THE SCIENTIFIC -- THE SCIENTISTS HAVE ALREADY DEEMED THIS THING NOT WORTH THE TROUBLE, YOU KNOW, THAT IT'S NOT SCIENTIFICALLY FEASIBILITY. AND OUR FIRST CRITERION IS FEASIBILITY. AND IF THE SCIENTISTS HAVE SAID IT'S NOT FEASIBLE, THEN I SAY, OF COURSE, IT'S FEASIBLE. DON'T I LOOK LIKE A DUMMY? | ||||||||
| I CAN TELL YOU WHEN I DO MY REVIEW, IF I KNOW THAT INFORMATION, I'M GOING TO SCORE IT VERY LOW ON FEASIBILITY. BUT SOMEONE WHO'S A PRIMARY REVIEWER WITH ME WHO DOESN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION MAY SCORE IT HIGH. THEN WE'RE LIKE WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT JUST SEEMS AWKWARD. MAYBE I'M CRAZY. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: JUST MAKE A POINT. THAT IS, JEFF, I THINK, ALTHOUGH THE SCIENTIFIC GRANTS WORKING GROUP HAS MADE ITS RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH I, BY THE WAY WAS NOT THERE, BUT THE ICOC, AS YOU KNOW, HAS THE RIGHT TO FUND ANY OF THESE. AND SO I THINK THE ISSUE IS RECOGNIZING THAT, THEN, ONE WANTS A THOROUGH TECHNICAL REVIEW OF EACH GRANT BECAUSE THERE MAY BE ONE THAT THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP DOES NOT GIVE -- DOES NOT RECOMMEND FOR FUNDING, BUT THE ICOC SAYS, WELL, WE WANT TO FUND IT, I THINK IF AT THAT POINT YOU SAY, WELL, WE REALLY DIDN'T GO THROUGH THIS BECAUSE WE KNEW THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP DIDN'T CONSIDER IT, I THINK THAT LIMITS THEIR ABILITY TO MAKE A DECISION. | ||||||||
| SO I THINK THE INTENT IS SIMPLY TO TRY TO MAKE, ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS ALONE, TO MAKE A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF EACH ONE INDEPENDENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC SCORE SO THAT IF A DECISION IS MADE TO FUND ONE AGAINST A PRIOR RECOMMENDATION, YOU HAVE A TECHNICAL SCORE THAT IS NOT SLANTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BASED ON THAT EARLIER SCORE. SO THAT'S JUST A COMMENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I'D LIKE TO HEAR JAMES COMMENT ON THIS, PLEASE. YOU'RE RIGHT. THIS IS A TOUGH ISSUE. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: I THINK IT IS A TOUGH ISSUE. ONE OF THE THINGS, THOUGH, YOU NEED TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT THE CRITERIA BY WHICH YOU ARE ASKED TO REVIEW THESE APPLICATIONS, THE SIX CRITERIA THAT RICK JUST DISCUSSED, DO NOT INVOLVE ANY COMPONENT OF CONSIDERATION OF SCIENTIFIC MERIT. FEASIBILITY, FOR EXAMPLE, IS LIMITED TO THE FEASIBILITY OF THE PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION AND WHETHER THEY'RE REASONABLE. SO IN THAT SENSE, WHETHER OR NOT THE RESEARCH THAT'S GOING TO BE CONDUCTED THERE IS FEASIBLE OR MERITORIOUS REALLY HAS NO RELEVANCE TO YOUR DETERMINATION OF THE FEASIBILITY TECHNICALLY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE FACILITIES REVIEW. | ||||||||
| AS LORI SAID, SOME OF THESE ISSUES MAY ARISE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. BUT WHEN YOU'RE SCORING THE APPLICATIONS BASED ON THOSE SIX CRITERIA, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE CONSIDERING SCIENTIFIC MERIT. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: MAY I JUST SAY, AS A REAL ESTATE MEMBER, I WOULD NOT REALLY CARE TO SEE THE SCIENTIFIC SCORES BECAUSE I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO VIEW THE APPLICATION STRICTLY ON ITS REAL ESTATE MERIT. I HAVE NO EXPERTISE IN THE SCIENTIFIC ARENA. AND I THINK THAT, LET'S SAY, FOR INSTANCE, THAT SCIENTIFICALLY THEY'RE DEEMED TO NOT BE WORTHY OF PROCEEDING, BUT FROM A FACILITIES STANDPOINT THEY WERE. IF I HAD KNOWN SCIENTIFICALLY THEY HAD NO MERIT, I DON'T WANT TO BE INFLUENCED BY THAT DECISION BECAUSE I WANT THOSE PEOPLE, WHEN THEY GET BACK THEIR SCORES BECAUSE THEY WILL, ALL THESE INSTITUTIONS WILL GET BACK THEIR SCORE, I WANT THEM TO KNOW WHERE THEY STOOD FROM THE FACILITIES STANDPOINT. THEY NEED TO KNOW THAT THEY WERE ON TARGET WITH THE FACILITIES SIDE OF IT. THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN ON TARGET WITH THE SCIENTIFIC SIDE. | ||||||||
| SO THEY REALLY NEED TO HAVE SORT OF AN UNBIASED LOOK AT HOW, JUST ON THE REAL ESTATE MERITS STRICTLY, THAT THEY SCORED. I THINK THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO KNOW THAT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: ARE WE GOING TO BE FUNDING, THEN, FACILITIES THAT WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING MERITORIOUS IN SCIENCE? I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT CONFLICT, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE MEANING, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: NO. NO. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: THAT'S THE ICOC'S DECISION FINALLY. IT'S THE ICOC WHO WILL TAKE THESE TWO SCORES AND MAKE THAT DECISION. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: ULTIMATELY REMEMBER THAT BOTH THE SCORE THAT YOU ALL ASSIGN COLLECTIVELY TO THESE APPLICATIONS, AS WELL AS YOUR RECOMMENDATION AFTER PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, WILL GO TO THE ICOC ALONG WITH THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP SCIENTIFIC SCORE OF THE APPLICATION. SO THE ICOC WILL THEN HAVE BOTH OF THOSE PIECES OF INFORMATION BEFORE IT TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT TO FUND A PARTICULAR APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: THAT WORKS. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE. I WASN'T AT THE LAST WORKING GROUP MEETING, SO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I MAY HAVE MAY HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED THERE. SO FIRST OF ALL, I THINK STAFF DID A GREAT JOB IN PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. EXCELLENT JOB. | ||||||||
| I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. SO YOU SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THE TECHNICAL REVIEW PROCESS, AND I LIKE THE REVIEW CRITERIA. I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT HOW WE HAVE THIS WEIGHTED, THOSE CRITERIA HOW WE HAVE WEIGHTED, BECAUSE HAVING THOSE SPECIFIC NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF 100 GIVES ME SOME CONCERN THAT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY PUT A POTENTIAL APPLICATION IN AN OVERLY POSITIVE OR OVERLY NEGATIVE LIGHT DEPENDING UPON THE OTHER FACTORS. SO IT KIND OF SEEMS TO PIGEONHOLE WHEN YOU HAVE THESE PERCENTAGES SET UP THIS WAY. | ||||||||
| AND THEN THE BIGGER QUESTION I HAVE IS WE HAVEN'T REALLY TALKED ABOUT THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, AND HOW DO WE WEIGH -- LET'S SAY WE HAVE ALL THESE RANKED AT THE END. AND NOW WE GO INTO THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. WELL, HOW DO WE WEIGH THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW RELATIVE TO THE TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS? AND HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE OVERALL SCORE AT THE END OF THE DAY FOR EACH OF THESE GRANT APPLICATIONS? | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: WHY DON'T YOU DESCRIBE WHAT HAPPENS AT THE GRANTS REVIEW. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SO I THINK WHAT THE SCORES DO IS THEY GIVE YOU A BASELINE. AND LIKE MANY THINGS IN LIFE, NOT HAVING DONE THIS PROCESS, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WILL LOOK LIKE THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, BUT YOU TEND TO HAVE CLEAR EXCELLENCE AND CLEAR FAILURE. AND THE SCORES ARE A GREAT WAY OF REALLY GETTING TO THE HEART OF THAT FAIRLY QUICKLY. | ||||||||
| THEN YOU HAVE USUALLY A GRAY AREA WHERE THERE'S SOME FLAWS, IT'S NOT PERFECT. AND AT THAT POINT I THINK THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION THAT IS BOTH STRUCTURED AND OPEN-ENDED. AND WE FOUND IN DOING THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW AT THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP THAT WE HAVE USED IN SOME WAYS SIMILAR BUT DIFFERENT CRITERIA EACH TIME. GRANTED, WE'VE HAD THREE DIFFERENT GRANTS, FOUR DIFFERENT GRANTS, SO THAT MAY COLOR HOW THE CRITERIA -- I WOULD ARGUE AGAINST SETTING VERY HARD CRITERIA IN ADVANCE FOR PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW BECAUSE A LOT OF IDEAS COME OUT IN DISCUSSION IN THE WORKING GROUP AS YOU REVIEW GRANTS, BUT SOME ARE CLEAR. AND I THINK GEOGRAPHY WILL BE CLEAR. THERE MAY BE OTHER PROGRAMMATIC ONES. | ||||||||
| IN THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE COME UP HAVE BEEN SPECIFIC DISEASES, IF THERE WAS A REASONABLE WELL-REVIEWED GRANT, BUT DIDN'T QUITE SEEM TO GET INTO THE TOP TIER, BUT IT WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS ADDRESSING A SPECIFIC DISEASE OR CONDITION, REVIEWERS GAVE THAT CONSIDERATION. JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF ONE CRITERIA THAT CAME OUT. SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT, AT LEAST AT THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, HAS BEEN BOTH DYNAMIC AND STRUCTURED. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: HERE'S MY CONCERN. SO WE GET THESE TECHNICAL SCORES, AND THEN WE GO INTO THE PROGRAMMING PORTION OF THE EVALUATION. AND HYPOTHETICALLY THERE COULD BE ONE POTENTIAL GRANT WITH A VERY HIGH SCORE, BUT NOW DURING THE WHOLE PROGRAMMING DISCUSSION, THERE ARE NEGATIVE INFLUENCES THAT ARE WEIGHING ON THAT APPLICATION. I HAVE A CONCERN HOW THAT WILL BE PERCEIVED IF THAT GRANT ISN'T APPROVED AND WE DON'T HAVE AS MANY SPECIFIC GUIDELINES IN TERMS OF THE PROGRAMMING PORTION OF THIS REVIEW. | ||||||||
| SO I JUST HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT WE HAVE THIS TECHNICAL REVIEW, AND THEN THERE MAY BE AN ISSUE, FOR EXAMPLE, CREATING NEW STATEWIDE CAPACITY. OKAY. IS THAT A PROGRAMMING REVIEW ITEM? AND THAT MIGHT BE AN OVERRIDING PROGRAMMING REVIEW ITEM THAT WOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER POTENTIALLY SOME OF THESE TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS. SO I JUST HAVE A CONCERN THAT WE MAY BE PIGEONHOLING OURSELVES WHEN WE HAVE THIS -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: PIGEONHOLE IN WHAT RESPECT? | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: WELL, THAT YOU MAY HAVE A GRANT -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: TOO NARROW? | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: THAT IT'S NUMERIC, NO. 1. AND SO, FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A GRANT APPLICATION THAT HAS A HIGHER SCORE THAN ANOTHER, BUT WE DECIDE POTENTIALLY NOT TO FUND THAT PARTICULAR GRANT APPLICATION BECAUSE OF OTHER PROGRAMMING CONSIDERATIONS. DOES THAT OPEN US UP TO POTENTIAL LITIGATION OR CONCERNS? | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: LET ME JUST SAY -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DR. HALL, RUSTY, JUST A POINT OF ORDER. YOU'RE THE CHAIRMAN, SO I'D ASK EVERYONE, IF THEY HAVE COMMENTS -- AND I'M ALWAYS GUILTY OF THIS TOO, SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO BE ON MY BEST BEHAVIOR -- IF YOU COULD SEEK RECOGNITION FROM THE CHAIR, AND IF RUSTY IS NOT HERE THE VICE CHAIR. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: YES. ABSOLUTELY. I'M SORRY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DR. HALL, YOU'RE NOT A MEMBER OF THIS WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: THAT'S TRUE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: SO IF YOU WOULD PLEASE SEEK RECOGNITION BEFORE YOU SPEAK. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: JOAN. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: JUST A COUPLE GENERIC COMMENTS ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT MAY ANSWER SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS. ONE IS THAT THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ALL PAID THE BIG BUCKS. WE HAVE A MANDATE FROM THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA TO GET AN END RESULT TO TRY TO DELIVER CURES USING THE TECHNOLOGY OF REGENERATIVE MEDICINE. AND THIS IS A PIECE OF THAT PROCESS. AND SO I THINK THE REASON THAT THEY PUT US ON THESE WORKING GROUPS, THE COMBINATION OF US, YOUR EXPERTISE AND OUR PATIENT ADVOCATE EXPERTISE, IS THAT WE KEEP OUR EYE ON THAT BALL. AND THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW IS A PLACE WHERE WE TAKE THE INFORMATION FROM THE VARIOUS SCORING HISTORIES THAT WE'VE GOT, AND WE'LL HAVE A COUPLE OF THEM IN THIS CASE, AND THEN WE THINK ABOUT THOSE OTHER OUTSIDE CONSIDERATIONS. AND IT CAN BE VERY OPEN-ENDED, AS JEFF SAID. AND THEN WE SEE WHAT WE HAVE. | ||||||||
| AND I THINK THERE MAY BE SOME INCLINATION FOR SOME DEFERENCE TO SCORES BECAUSE IT'S NUMERIC. I THINK WE LOOK AT THAT AND DEAL WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: DAVID, WHAT I HEAR YOU ASKING FOR, AND I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU, IS A LITTLE BIT MORE SUBSTANCE TO THE CRITERIA FOR THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. THIS A GREAT FORUM TO START TO GATHER THAT, BUT I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO REFLECT BACK AFTER THE DECISION IS MADE ON THE FOUNDATION FOR THE DECISION FROM THE PROGRAMMATIC VIEW. | ||||||||
| SO GEOGRAPHY IS ONE, INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT WAS THE SECOND. SO MAYBE WE SHOULD HEAR WHAT OTHER CRITERIA SHOULD APPLY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I'D BE INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT OTHER MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP HAVE TO SAY IN TERMS OF ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR THE PROGRAM SIDE. I DON'T THINK THAT THIS GROUP CAN GO INTO THE DIRECTION OF THE FOCUS OF THE SCIENCE OR THE RESEARCH. THAT'S NOT PART OF OUR CHARGE HERE. | ||||||||
| SO IN THAT CONTEXT, I'D BE INTERESTED IN COMMENTS FROM THE WORKING GROUP ON OTHER POTENTIAL CRITERIA FOR PROGRAM. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: RUSTY, THIS IS A VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION. DO WE -- CAN WE HAVE THE RFA REVIEW CRITERIA AS WE HAVE IT, BUT MUST WE ASSIGN THESE PERCENTAGES IN NUMERICAL? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THIS HERE IS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: YES. DO WE HAVE TO ASSIGN SPECIFIC PERCENTAGES IN THE WEIGHTING THE WAY IT'S SET UP? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: DO WE HAVE TO? NO. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: OKAY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: BUT WE HAVE TO SCORE THESE APPLICATIONS, AND I THINK THAT THE BASIS OF A HUNDRED POINTS MAKES SENSE. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH THE HUNDRED POINTS; BUT IF WE HAVE -- LET ME BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC. WE HAVE ALL OF THESE GRANTS SCORED AND NOW WE GO INTO THE PROGRAMMING SESSION AND EVALUATE THOSE ITEMS. WHAT IS OUR WEIGHTING OF THE PROGRAMMING REQUIREMENTS VERSUS THE TECHNICAL? THAT'S MY CONCERN. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: DAVID'S HAND WAS UP ALSO. DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: NO, I DON'T. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: AGAIN, JUST TO AMPLIFY ON WHAT JEFF SAID ABOUT HOW THIS HAS WORKED BEFORE PERHAPS AS A MODEL FOR THIS WORKING GROUP, YOU MAY END UP DOING THINGS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY. THE TECHNICAL SCORE STANDS. THAT SCORE WILL GO TO THE ICOC. AND YOU WILL SEE AND YOU CAN RANK THEM. IT'S A NUMBER, SO YOU CAN RANK THEM FROM TOP TO BOTTOM. AND, IN GENERAL, THE GRANTS AREN'T REARRANGED UNLESS THERE IS A CLEAR REASON FOR DOING THAT. AND JEFF GAVE AN EXAMPLE -- | ||||||||
| UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I HAVE MS. SHERRY LANSING GETTING ON THE CALL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: SHERRY. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: SO AT ANY RATE, AND, IN GENERAL, THOSE HAVE NOT BEEN THINGS THAT SAY LET'S TAKE DOWN ONE, BUT HAVE SAID LET'S MOVE ONE UP FOR A REASON THAT WE DON'T FEEL GOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED AND IT WASN'T PART OF THE STRICT TECHNICAL SCIENTIFIC REVIEW AS YOU MAY FEEL IT'S NOT PART OF THE TECHNICAL THING HERE. I THINK AS LONG AS THERE'S A CLEAR RATIONALE FOR IT, I THINK IT'S FINE. AND REMEMBER THAT THIS WORKING GROUP ONLY MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ICOC, AND THE ICOC THEN WILL HEAR, NOT ONLY SEE THE SCORES, BUT WILL HEAR YOUR REASONS FOR THINKING THAT IT SHOULD BE REARRANGED. AND SO THEY WILL HAVE A CHANCE, THEN, TO ALSO MAKE A JUDGMENT ON THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: SO THANK YOU, RUSTY. LET ME JUST FINISH MY ONE POINT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: NO, PLEASE. THIS IS WHY WE'RE HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: SO HYPOTHETICALLY I'M EVALUATING A GRANT, AND LET'S JUST SAY IT'S VERY CLEAR FROM THIS GRANT APPLICATION THAT THEY HAVE BEEN UNRESPONSIVE. OKAY. SO I CAN ONLY GIVE THEM ZERO OR 15 POINTS. WELL, PERHAPS -- | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: ZERO TO 15. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: THAT'S THE POINT. IT'S NOT ZERO TO 15. THE POINT IS -- I THINK WHERE YOU'RE GOING -- | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: AN UNRESPONSIVE GRANT APPLICATION WOULD MAKE ME VIEW THAT APPLICATION VERY NEGATIVELY; SO, THEREFORE, I'M JUST SAYING WE'RE ONLY ASSIGNING POTENTIALLY 15 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL SCORE TO THAT ONE ITEM. I THINK THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER HOW RESPONSIVE THEY ARE AS A HIGHER PERCENTAGE. I'M JUST POINTING OUT THAT THE WEIGHTING OF THE CRITERIA IS MY CONCERN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I'M GOING TO -- | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I ACTUALLY THINK ONE WAY TO DO THIS MIGHT BE JUST TO SAY THAT THESE ARE SUGGESTED WEIGHTINGS BECAUSE I ALSO KNOW, FROM SITTING IN THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEWS, FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THE GRANT WAS VERY LOW. AND I ALSO THINK, IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT OUR SCORES, WE NEED TO BE CLEAR BEFORE WE SCORE THAT WE'RE GOING TO USE THE WHOLE SCALE OR NOT USE THE WHOLE SCALE. | ||||||||
| I THINK THE THIRD POINT, JUST TO PUT -- SO THAT I THINK IT'S CLEAR, THE WAY -- I'M ASSUMING THIS IS MODELED AFTER THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. THE WAY IT WORKS IS THAT THE REVIEWERS PRESENT THEIR SCORES, BUT THOSE ARE PRELIMINARY SCORES. AND THEN EVERYBODY WITH THEIR SCORE SHEET ACTUALLY WRITES DOWN THEIR FINAL SCORE. | ||||||||
| SO YOU MAY REVIEW AND WRITE DOWN A SCORE, AND YOU'LL SAY, "I HAD UNIVERSITY OF OREGON, AND I SCORED THEM AT 70." AND I'LL BE THE SECONDARY REVIEW, AND I'LL SAY, "WELL, I DIDN'T LIKE THEM FOR THIS. I SCORED THEM AT 50." THEN WE'LL HAVE A DISCUSSION AND PROS AND CONS, AND THEN WE'LL GET QUESTIONS AND OTHER PEOPLE WILL FEED IN AND SAY, "WELL, I KNOW OREGON, AND THEY ACTUALLY HAVE SOME VERY NICE CAPABILITY TO DO THIS." AND THEN WE'LL GIVE FINAL SCORES. I'M JUST MODELING THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP AND ASSUME IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE THAT. SO COME BACK TO US AND SAY, "DO YOU STAY WITH 70?" "WELL, YOU KNOW, I GIVE THEM 75." I'LL SAY I'LL COME UP TO DAVID'S SCORE OF 75. AND THEN WE ALL COLLECTIVELY WILL WRITE OUR SCORES BASED ON THOSE DISCUSSIONS, AND THOSE ARE ALL TABULATED AND AVERAGED TO GIVE THE FINAL SCORE. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME. BUT IF THE RULES STATE THAT -- THE RULES STATE THAT THEY CAN ONLY GET ZERO OR 15 POINTS ON RESPONSIVENESS, IN THAT MEETING I COULD SAY, WELL, THIS PARTICULAR GRANT APPLICATION, THEY WERE VERY UNRESPONSIVE. I, THEREFORE, THINK I'M GOING TO GIVE THEM ZERO ON THAT PARTICULAR ITEM, BUT I THINK THAT SHOULD HAVE MORE THAN -- A HEAVIER WEIGHT. BUT THESE ARE THE SPECIFIC RULES THAT WE MUST FOLLOW. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: OKAY. LET ME JUST RESPOND TO THAT. THE SIX CRITERIA ARE FIXED. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE. THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE ICOC. THE WEIGHTING SYSTEM, THIS IS WHAT IS ON THE TABLE. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: I AGREE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IS WHAT A FAIR STATEMENT, RUSTY? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: AT THIS POINT IN TIME, YES, YOU MAY CHANGE THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE WHAT JEFF SAID, WHICH IS I THINK YOU SHOULD ALL AGREE AND BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THE SCORING RANGES ARE SO IT IS AN APPLES-TO-APPLES COMPARISON. | ||||||||
| I THINK ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT, JEFF, ALTHOUGH YOU DO USE THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP FORMAT, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST REMIND YOU ALL THAT IT WOULD BE IN PUBLIC AS OPPOSED TO A CLOSED SESSION. AND SO YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO SAY A SCORE WHETHER IT'S AN OVERALL SCORE OF PERHAPS 70 OUT OF A HUNDRED OR IN ANY ONE OF THE AREAS, THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO USE MORE DESCRIPTORS BECAUSE, AS WITH TODAY, THERE WILL BE APPLICANTS THAT WILL BE SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: HOW DO WE SCORE? IF YOU LOOK AT THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, THE BASIS FOR THE ONSET OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE INITIAL SCORES BY THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REVIEWER, SO HOW DO YOU -- YOU SAY, WELL, I KIND OF LIKE THIS ONE. AND I DON'T HAVE A SCORE FOR IT, BUT I KIND OF LIKED IT, SO MAKE SOME DECISION. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT DISCUSSION GETS INITIATED. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I AGREE. TO FINISH, BECAUSE I THINK THE IMPORTANT PIECE HERE, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS THAT, I BELIEVE, RUSTY IS ASKING FOR MAYBE A TECHNICAL SUMMARY, THAT IT'S IMPORTANT WHEN YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT COST, THAT IT'S NOT, OH, I THINK THIS COST IS HIGH OR I THINK THIS COST IS LOW. I'M NOT SURE IF THE INSTITUTION CAN BUILD AT THIS COST. BUT THERE ARE SOME REAL BENCHMARKS AND SOME ABILITY TO KIND OF SEE WHERE THESE INSTITUTIONS ARE FALLING EITHER RELATIVE TO OTHER INSTITUTIONS OR CERTAINLY WITHIN THEMSELVES IN THAT REGIONAL AREA. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WHY WOULD WE NOT DECLARE OUR SCORES IN PUBLIC SESSION? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: YOU CERTAINLY COULD. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE ONLY REASON WAS BECAUSE THE WAY THE PROCEDURES WERE ADOPTED GUARANTEED A SECRET BALLOT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WHY WOULDN'T OUR SCORE SHEETS BE PUBLIC? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: BECAUSE THE PROVISION -- THAT IS THE WAY THE ICOC DECIDED IT WOULD BE HANDLED, I GUESS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: JUST A SECOND. I'D LIKE ZACH. ZACH HAD SOMETHING HE WANTED TO SAY. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: WELL, THERE ARE SEVERAL ISSUES HERE. LET ME JUST TRY TO ADDRESS. ONE IS, I THINK, JEFF, THERE WAS THE SENSE, FIRST OF ALL, IN GIVING -- IN ALLOCATING THESE AMONG THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, THAT THE TECHNICAL REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION HAD MORE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA THAN A SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION MIGHT DO. AND THE EFFORT WAS TO HAVE A RECORD THAT WOULD SAY EXACTLY WHAT THE SCORE WAS IN EACH OF THESE PARTICULAR CATEGORIES. | ||||||||
| NOW, ONE ALTERNATIVE THAT THE WORKING GROUP MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER THAT WE DISCUSSED WAS OF HAVING TWO OF THOSE, RESPONSIVENESS AND FEASIBILITY, BE ABSOLUTE CRITERIA. THAT IS, IF YOU GOT A ZERO ON THOSE, END OF STORY. AND YOU HAD TO HAVE A 15 ON THOSE IN ORDER TO GO FORWARD. BUT THAT THE OTHERS COULD THEN BE GRADED. | ||||||||
| AND LET JUST SAY THERE'S ONE OTHER ISSUE, JEFF. AND THAT IS, YOU CAN HAVE A REVIEWER, PRIMARY REVIEWER, LET'S SAY, HERE'S THE WAY I GRADED THIS. I GAVE IT X ON FEASIBILITY, Y ON COST, Z, GO DOWN THE LIST, FOR A TOTAL SCORE OF WHATEVER IT IS. AND THEN TO HAVE EACH OF THE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS ALSO VOTE IN THOSE CATEGORIES. THAT'S ONE WAY TO DO IT. AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE A RECORD THAT WOULD BE AN AVERAGE FOR EACH OF THE CATEGORIES, AND INSTITUTIONS COULD SEE WHICH PARTS THEY'D DONE WELL AND WHICH PARTS THEY HADN'T. | ||||||||
| ALTERNATIVELY, WHICH IS MORE LIKE THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, YOU COULD SIMPLY HAVE EVERYBODY VOTE FOR THE FINAL NUMBER, AND THEN YOU COME OUT WITH A NUMBER. THE PROBLEM THERE IS THERE'S LESS OF A CLEAR RECORD ABOUT WHERE THAT NUMBER CAME FROM. SO THOSE ARE THE CONSIDERATIONS. THESE ARE YOUR CHOICES, I WOULD SAY, NO. 1, ABOUT WHETHER TO HAVE ABSOLUTE CRITERIA OR NOT; NO. 2, ABOUT WHETHER YOU WANT TO KEEP THESE STRICT CATEGORIES WITH THEIR POINTS AND/OR REARRANGE THEM; AND, NO. 3, WHETHER YOUR VOTE IS WITHIN THE CATEGORIES SO THAT THERE'S A RECORD CLEAR OR WHETHER YOU JUST HAVE A SINGLE NUMBER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM OTHER MEMBERS. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I'M CONCERNED, AND MAYBE BECAUSE I HAVE PROBABLY THE ONLY STATE EXPERIENCE ON THE REAL ESTATE PANEL WORKING WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS BOARD AND ALSO ON THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS. THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN NOW, I CAN'T GO PAST FEASIBILITY IF I RATE IT NOW. IT'S CONSIDERED A NONRESPONSIVE BID. SO YOU KIND OF ESTABLISH THIS THRESHOLD, AND YET IT'S NOT CLEARLY WRITTEN AS SUCH. I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED BECAUSE YOU CANNOT -- THERE WOULD BE NO PURPOSE, AND YOU WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A LOT OF PUBLIC SCRUTINY IF YOU WERE TO PROCEED PAST FEASIBILITY IF YOU RATE IT AT ZERO. | ||||||||
| AND THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN. YOU'VE ASKED QUESTIONS THAT MAYBE PORTIONS OF IT AREN'T REASONABLE, BUT IT'S WELL ORGANIZED. YOU HAVEN'T WRITTEN IT IN A WAY THAT WOULD MAKE YOU SAY YES OR NO BECAUSE THERE ARE MULTIPLE QUESTIONS THAT FORM THAT PARTICULAR ITEM. SO I MEAN THERE MAY BE BIDS THAT ARE NONRESPONSIVE AND THAT SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED AS SUCH. WHAT WOULD DEEM A BID TO BE NONRESPONSIVE? WHAT WOULD BE SO PROBLEMATIC FOR THE GROUP THAT WE SIMPLY COULDN'T GO BEYOND LOOKING AT ANY OTHER CRITERIA? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE DIDN'T ESTABLISH -- MAYBE WE DID -- MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS IN THIS RFA, DID WE? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: THAT'S RIGHT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE DID NOT. THE RFA'S THAT I'M ACCUSTOMED TO DRAFTING AND ADVISING MY CLIENT FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY IS YOU DO HAVE A SET OF MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS. FEASIBILITY COULD BE ONE OF THEM. AND IF YOU DON'T MEET THESE MQ'S, AND OFTEN STAFF CAN DO THAT ANALYSIS. I'M NOT SAYING THEY'D DO IT HERE. I'M SAYING THAT'S HOW WE DO IT AT THE CITY. IF YOU DON'T MEET THE MQ, THEN YOU DON'T PASS GO. THE REVIEWERS DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT IT. THE PROPOSERS ARE NOTIFIED THAT YOU DON'T MEET THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS AND YOU'RE DONE WITH IT. AND THE REJECTED PROPOSER DOESN'T HAVE A BASIS FOR A CHALLENGE BECAUSE YOU'VE OUTLINED AT THE VERY BEGINNING, AT THE ONSET, WHAT THOSE MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS ARE, THE MQ'S. WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT IN THE RFA. | ||||||||
| I WANT TO POINT OUT FOR THE FUTURE RFA'S, I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT MQ'S. THAT BEING SAID, WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I DON'T LIKE -- I'VE NEVER LIKED THRESHOLDS. I'VE NEVER LIKED -- BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH WORK THAT GOES INTO PREPARING THIS, AND I IMAGINE THAT ALL THE INSTITUTIONS ARE VERY WELL QUALIFIED. THEY HIRE QUALIFIED STAFF TO HANDLE THE GRANTS PROCESS. SO I CAN'T IMAGINE ANY ONE OF THESE INSTITUTES BEING NONRESPONSIVE. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: CAN I GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF A NONRESPONSIVE APPLICATION, AND IT'S ONE THAT RICK GAVE. THESE ARE FOR SHARED LABORATORIES MEANT TO SERVE A LARGE COMMUNITY. IF WE GOT AN APPLICATION IN WHICH IT WAS CLEAR THAT, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE A NUMBER OF RESEARCHERS AT THE INSTITUTION DOING THIS WORK, THIS LABORATORY WAS REALLY BEING BUILT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ONE OR TWO RESEARCHERS, WE WOULD SAY THAT'S A NONRESPONSIVE. THIS IS NOT A SHARED LABORATORY. THIS IS A PLAN FOR A LABORATORY TO HELP YOU RECRUIT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, AND THAT WAS NOT THE PURPOSE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: AND THEN IF THAT'S WHAT THIS COMMITTEE WANTS TO DO, THEN IT NEEDS TO WRITE THIS DIFFERENTLY. IT NEEDS TO SAY THAT A POINT OF ZERO IN THIS KIND OF CATEGORY WOULD BE DEEMED NONRESPONSIVE. I PERSONALLY DON'T LIKE THEM BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT'S AN EDUCATIONAL PROCESS FOR THE SUBMITTALS. THEY NEED TO KNOW WHERE THEY WENT WRONG BECAUSE THE NEXT TIME AROUND THEY NEED TO CORRECT THAT ERROR. IF WE SIMPLY STOP HERE, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT THEY COULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY GOING FORWARD. | ||||||||
| BECAUSE THESE ARE INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THESE ARE OUR PARTNERS AND OUR COLLABORATORS, I REALLY WANT THEM TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEY CAN DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY AND BETTER. SO I HATE NONRESPONSIVE BECAUSE I JUST THINK THAT YOU STOP THE COMMUNICATION THERE. THEY DON'T LEARN FROM THIS. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: THEY LEARNED THAT THEY WEREN'T RESPONSIVE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: IN THAT CATEGORY. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: YOU WOULD SAY -- BUT YOU WOULD SAY WHY THEY WEREN'T RESPONSIVE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: WELL, THEY WILL LEARN THAT THEY SCORED LOW, AND THEY WILL LEARN WHY THEY SCORED LOW, AND THEY'LL DO BETTER NEXT TIME. BUT TO JUST SIMPLY STOP IT AND NOT SCORE ON THE OTHER POINTS, I THINK, DOESN'T GIVE THEM THE ADVANTAGE OF OUR EXPERTISE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DEBORAH, DO I TAKE YOU TO UNDERSTAND, THEN, IF AN APPLICATION WAS GIVEN A ZERO, THEN THE REVIEWER COULD STILL PROCEED? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I DON'T THINK IT CAN THE WAY WE'VE WRITTEN IT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IS THAT WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE, THOUGH? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: YES. I THINK IF YOU GIVE THEM -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: FOR THE REASONS YOU ARTICULATED. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: IF YOU GIVE THEM ZERO IN THIS CATEGORY AND 20 HERE AND 15 THERE, THEY STILL CAN PROCEED. HOWEVER, IF WE WRITE IT -- I THINK WE'VE WRITTEN IT SUCH THAT, ESPECIALLY FEASIBILITY, MY GOD, IF IT'S NOT FEASIBLE, THEN WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHAT IT COSTS AND HOW THEY'VE HISTORICALLY DONE THINGS? IT JUST LOOKS BAD. I DON'T PERSONALLY LIKE ZERO EVER AS A SCORE, BUT I THINK IT HAS TO BE WRITTEN DIFFERENTLY IF THAT'S THE WAY THAT WE NEED TO PROCEED. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH WHAT DEBORAH IS SAYING. I THINK THAT WE COULD HAVE A SLIGHT TWEAKING OF THE CRITERIA WEIGHTING AND, I THINK, SOLVE THIS ISSUE. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A PROPOSITION THAT IF A GRANT APPLICATION IS NOT FEASIBLE, THEN WE REALLY WOULDN'T NEED TO CONSIDER THE BALANCE OF THESE ITEMS, AND THAT WE COULD PUT ALL THESE OTHER ITEMS AS RECOMMENDED PERCENTAGES OF THE HUNDRED. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, COST, WE CAN SAY WE ARE RECOMMENDING GUIDELINES THAT IT CAN WEIGHT UP TO 20 PERCENT OF A HUNDRED. WE RECOMMEND UP TO, TIMELINE AND MILESTONES, UP TO 20 PERCENT; INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT UP TO 10 PERCENT. SO MAKE IT A RECOMMENDED GUIDELINE. RESPONSIVENESS, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY IS NOT RESPONSIVE AT ALL, WE COULD MAKE THAT A DISQUALIFYING ITEM, BUT THERE ARE DEGREES OF RESPONSIVENESS. | ||||||||
| I MEAN I'VE SEEN WHERE PEOPLE ARE TOTALLY UNRESPONSIVE. WELL, YOU CAN'T REALLY CONSIDER THEM, BUT THERE MAY BE SOME FOLKS THAT ARE EXTREMELY RESPONSIVE, AND I MIGHT WANT TO GIVE THEM A 15, AND THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER FOLKS THAT MIGHT BE A 12. SO I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE TO MAKE IT IF IT'S NOT FEASIBLE, THAT POTENTIALLY WE WOULD NOT NEED TO GO THROUGH THE REST OF THAT APPLICATION, AND WE COULD DISQUALIFY THAT. I MEAN I'M PROPOSING THAT. AND THEN POTENTIALLY MAKE THESE RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES AS PERCENTAGES. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: NOT THE WAY THE QUESTION IS WRITTEN. REASONABLENESS IS SORT OF QUALITATIVE. I'M CONCERNED BECAUSE, FOR INSTANCE, SOME OF THE REAL ESTATE EXPERTS MAY HAVE A LEASING BACKGROUND AND NOT A CONSTRUCTION BACKGROUND. CAN THEY JUDGE ON THAT? AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW IS SO CRITICAL BECAUSE IT'S REALLY THE DIALOGUE WITH THE PEERS THAT HAVE VARIOUS LEVELS OF EXPERTISE TO LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT A LEASING PERSON HAS THE EXPERTISE TO LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT A PROJECT CAN BE DONE -- IF THE BLUEPRINTS ARE ALL IN PLACE, IF IT CAN BE DONE WITH THE PROJECT MANAGERS THAT THEY'VE PROVIDED. | ||||||||
| I THINK THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A QUESTION LIKE IS IT REASONABLE, HOW DO YOU GIVE IT A ZERO? AND THEN IF YOU GIVE THAT 15, DO YOU GIVE THE NEXT QUESTION -- IT'S JUST NOT WRITTEN TECHNICALLY VERY WELL TO BE ABLE TO THEN REJECT ENTIRELY THIS KIND OF APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I'M GOING TO ASK JAMES. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: ONE THING TO BEAR IN MIND HERE, AND ONE REASON WHY YOU REALLY DO NEED TO CONSIDER ALL OF THE CRITERIA, IS THAT ULTIMATELY YOU'RE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ICOC. SO IF THE ICOC, NOTWITHSTANDING YOUR DETERMINATION THAT AN APPLICATION WAS NOT FEASIBLE, DECIDES THAT IT IS, IT WILL NEED TO HAVE THE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF IT ABOUT HOW YOU EVALUATED THE APPLICATION BASED ON THE OTHER CRITERIA. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: WHY CAN'T THAT HAVE A SLIDING SCALE LIKE THE OTHER ONES DO? | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: I THINK THAT'S ENTIRELY UP TO YOUR JUDGMENT. YOU COULD DO ZERO TO 15. BY THE WAY, I CREDIT SCOTT TOCHER WITH THAT POINT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WE CAN HAVE A SLIDING SCALE ON FEASIBILITY AND RESPONSIVENESS. DOES THAT ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN? | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: PARTLY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: NOT REALLY. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: I'M CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING SET PERCENTAGES ASSIGNED TO ANY ONE ITEM. THAT'S REALLY MY BIG CONCERN VERSUS RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES OF PERCENTAGES. THAT'S MY BIG CONCERN. AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST GOING TO PICK ONE. HISTORIC PERFORMANCE, WELL, LET'S JUST SAY HYPOTHETICALLY THAT THERE WAS A PARTICULAR APPLICATION THAT SCORED VERY WELL ON ALL OF THEM EXCEPT THAT ON HISTORIC PERFORMANCE, IT DID HORRIBLY. WELL, AGAIN, SHOULD THAT HAVE GREATER WEIGHTING WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT APPLICATION THAN 20 PERCENT? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: OR LESS. IT WAS THEIR FIRST -- MAYBE IT'S THE FIRST ONE THEY'VE EVER DONE. THERE IS NO HISTORIC PERFORMANCE. SHOULD THEY START OFF 20 POINTS BEHIND, WHICH SEEMS UNFAIR. AND IT MAY BE THAT THEY HAVE VERY GOOD COST, THEY HAVE GREAT COST, AND THEY HAVE A GREAT INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, AND THEY SET A GOOD TIMELINE AND MILESTONES, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THEY GET 80. SO THEY SCORED 80 AND THEY START OFF AT 80 BECAUSE THEY'VE NEVER DONE A SHARED LAB BEFORE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T DONE IT, IF ALL THE OTHER FACTORS -- I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE THEM A ZERO. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: ONE OF THE CHALLENGES YOU FACE, IF DON'T USE A SCALE LIKE HAS BEEN DESCRIBED HERE, IS THAT IF YOU EACH HAVE A DIFFERENT IDEA ABOUT THE VALUE OR WEIGHTING OF A PARTICULAR CRITERIA, SAY, ONE OF YOU BELIEVES THAT HISTORIC PERFORMANCE IS SO IMPORTANT, THAT YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE ASSIGNED A VALUE UP TO 35 POINTS; WHEREAS, SOMEBODY ELSE THINKS IT'S REALLY ONLY WORTH 5 POINTS EVEN IF THE ENTITY HAS THE GREATEST TRACK RECORD IN HISTORY. THEN YOU'RE REALLY ULTIMATELY NOT COMPARING THINGS ON AN EQUIVALENT BASIS. | ||||||||
| THE OTHER THING I'D REMIND YOU IN THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU POSED, IF AN ENTITY HAS NO HISTORIC PERFORMANCE; BUT, NONETHELESS, BASED ON THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION, YOU THINK THIS IS ONE THAT REALLY STANDS OUT ABOVE THE OTHERS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER IN YOUR PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. AGAIN, AS ZACH STATED, IF YOU CLEARLY DELINEATE THE REASONS WHY YOU BELIEVE AN APPLICATION DESERVES TO BE BUMPED UP OVER OTHERS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SCORE, IT'S SOMETHING THE ICOC CAN THEN EVALUATE AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT AGREES WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: BUT IF WE'RE CONSISTENT, LIKE LET'S SAY I OVERVALUE THIS HISTORIC PERFORMANCE, AS LONG AS I'M SCORING THAT WAY ON EVERY SINGLE GRANT, THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY I'M HERE BECAUSE I MAY HAVE EXPERTISE IN THAT AREA, AND I MAY OVERWEIGHT IT. IT DOESN'T MEAN MY COLLEAGUES SHOULD BE ASSIGNING THE SAME WEIGHT TO THAT CRITERIA. AND IF YOU LOOK AT SCIENTIFIC REVIEW, I THINK PEOPLE DO USE DIFFERENT CRITERIA, EACH OF THEM, AND THEY WEIGHT THEM, BUT THEY WEIGHT THEM CONSISTENTLY ACROSS EVERY GRANT. THEY'RE NOT SAYING ON THIS GRANT, I'M GOING TO WEIGH. SO I DON'T WANT TO CUT PEOPLE OFF AT THE KNEES AND SAY WE ALL HAVE TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING THROUGH THE SAME PAIR OF GLASSES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: VERY QUICKLY. WHAT I HEARD FROM STAFF, THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T HAVE -- EACH REVIEWER, IN MY OPINION, HAS TO HAVE THE SAME CRITERIA, HAS TO HAVE THE SAME SET OF INSTRUCTIONS. AND THEN IT'S UP TO THAT REVIEWER TO SORT OF INTERNALIZE IT BASED ON THEIR EXPERIENCE AND WHAT'S BEFORE THEM AND ASSIGN A SCORE. I THINK THAT'S OKAY. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ONLY FAIR TO THE APPLICANTS. WE DON'T WANT TO DO THE APPLES AND ORANGES, EACH ONE THINKING A DIFFERENT THING, AND WE DON'T WANT TO SUBJECT OURSELVES TO ANY SORT OF A LEGAL CHALLENGE. IF EACH ONE OF US IS USING THEIR OWN SYSTEM OF DOING IT, AND THAT'S NOT ARTICULATED IN THE RFA, IT THEN BECOMES, I THINK, ARBITRARY, AND THAT CAN POSE SOME LEGAL PROBLEMS, IN MY OPINION. | ||||||||
| SECONDLY, I WANT TO GET BACK TO DAVID BROUGHT UP A VERY GOOD POINT, AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT OF ALL THE ASSIGNING OF SCORES, THIS IS THE ONE THAT IN MY MIND JUMPED OUT THE HIGHEST. THAT IS HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE. I THINK THAT'S TOO MANY POINTS. I DO. TODAY WE CAN CHANGE IT. TODAY WE CAN CHANGE IT. I'LL JUST SAY I THINK IT'S TOO HIGH. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT SHOULD BE. MAYBE FIVE, MAYBE TEN POINTS, AND I'LL GIVE YOU A REASON, AN EXAMPLE. | ||||||||
| UC MERCED. IT'S A NEW UNIVERSITY. THEY'RE JUST STARTING. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE ANY FACILITIES LIKE THIS. THEY SHOULDN'T BE, AS YOU SAY, JEFF AND DAVID, DINGED BECAUSE OF THAT AT ALL. SO I THINK HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS RFA OUGHT TO BE ADJUSTED IN TERMS OF POINTS DOWNWARD AND MAYBE ADDED TO FEASIBILITY, SOMEWHERE ELSE THAT'S OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. IN TERMS OF FEASIBILITY, I THINK A SLIDING SCALE IS OKAY, BUT IT OUGHT TO BE IN SEGMENTS OF WHATEVER WE DECIDE COLLECTIVELY, 5, 10, 15, WHATEVER, BUT EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE DOING THE SAME SORT OF THING. | ||||||||
| I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT TODAY IS, AND I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO FEEL PRESSURED, BUT WE HAVE TO GET A WORK PRODUCT OUT OF HERE SO WE CAN BEGIN THE REVIEW PROCESS. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: JUST ONE OTHER POINT. I WANT TO BRING UP ANOTHER INTERESTING DILEMMA. LET'S TALK ABOUT COST, UP TO 20 PERCENT. WELL, BUT YET YOU HAVE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT OR LEVERAGE ONLY UP TO 10 POINTS. LET'S SAY HYPOTHETICALLY YOU'VE GOT A GRANT APPLICATION THAT LOOKS VERY GOOD EXCEPT THAT HYPOTHETICALLY IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE THAN OTHERS, BUT THEY'VE GOT TEN-TO-ONE LEVERAGE WHERE SOMEONE ELSE ONLY HAS FIVE-TO-ONE LEVERAGE. WELL, TO ME YOU'VE GOT THOSE TWO MISALIGNED BECAUSE THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT OF MATCHING FUNDS SHOULD BE AT LEAST EQUAL TO WHAT THE COST IS BECAUSE THOSE TWO ARE IN LINE. AM I WRONG ON THAT? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: NO. I AGREE WITH YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I'D JUST LIKE TO COMMENT. KIND OF THE DERIVATION OF SOME OF THESE WEIGHTING CRITERIA WAS REALLY LOOKING AT WHAT THE CRITERIA OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE ICOC APPROVED AND THEN DECIDING HOW MUCH LATITUDE IS THERE IN TERMS OF MAKING IT MORE, LET'S SAY, RESPONSIVE OR WORKABLE FOR THE ACTUAL APPLICATION SINCE THIS IS OUR FIRST TIME. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT SOMETIMES THERE'S ISSUES THAT MAY NOT BE FAIR. WE WANT FAIRNESS AND WE WANT THINGS TO BE EQUITABLE, BUT WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO BOTH. | ||||||||
| SO THE TWO EXAMPLES, THE CRITERIA THAT, AS IT EXISTS, THE CRITERION OF INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT IS IS THE INSTITUTION GOING TO HAVE FUNDING TO THE PROJECT SUFFICIENT? SO THAT'S VERY DISTINCT. SO THAT'S WHY THE PROGRAMMATIC, AND WE THOUGHT THAT YOU ALL NEEDED TO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY RELATED TO THAT, SO WE THOUGHT PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW WOULD HAVE TO COVER BOTH AREAS FOR THAT VERY REASON. AND WHERE WE HAVE THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THERE'S -- WHEREAS THERE'S A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE, SAY, SIX VERY HIGHLY RATED STEM CELL COURSES ARE ALL IN THE SAME GEOGRAPHIC AREA AND THERE'S NONE IN ANOTHER AREA, WE WANT -- SO THE MERIT OF THE PROPOSAL IS PREEMPTIVE, IF YOU WILL, BY THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: PROGRAMMATIC -- EXCUSE ME. SO THE POINT, I THINK, MAYBE WE'RE ADDRESSING, THE PROGRAMMATIC, THE IDEA IS IF WE END UP WITH 15 GRANTS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NONE IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE EVEN LOOKING AT THE TECHNIQUES COURSE IN THIS WORKING GROUP. I DON'T SEE ANY ABILITY TO MAKE THE EVALUATION ON THAT RELATIVE TO THIS WORKING GROUP. I DON'T THINK THAT'S PART. IT'S NOT A FACILITY. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: WELL, APPARENTLY, THOUGH, THERE WERE FACILITY IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COURSE, AS I READ THE RFA. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: THAT'S RIGHT. ON A LIMITED BASIS. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE RFA OFFERED THE APPLICANTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION IF THEY WERE TO CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR THE TECHNIQUES COURSE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WHAT CRITERIA ARE WE GOING TO USE TO EVALUATE THE TECHNIQUES COURSE? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WELL, WE THINK THAT THERE WILL BE A JUDGMENT ABOUT -- GOING BACK TO HOW REASONABLENESS CAN BE INTERPRETED, IF, FOR INSTANCE, THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT THEY ARE SAYING THEY NEED FOR A TECHNIQUES COURSE IS FIVE TIMES LARGER THAN WHAT OTHERS ARE USING, AND IT APPEARS THAT THAT SPACE IS REALLY INTENDED TO BE USED FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE RATHER THAN A TECHNIQUES COURSE, WE MIGHT MAKE A JUDGMENT THAT THAT COMPONENT HAS A DIFFERENT SCORE THAN THE SHARED RESEARCH LAB. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I JUST DON'T SEE THESE SIX CRITERIA BEING APPLIED TO A TECHNIQUES COURSE. I REALLY DON'T. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: ISN'T THAT RIGHT? THE ONLY POSSIBILITY MIGHT BE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IT WOULD BE APPLIED TO THE SPACE COMPONENT FOR THE PROVISION OF SPACE FOR THE TECHNIQUES COURSE AS IT WAS PRESENTED IN PART 2. AGAIN, PART 1 HAVING BEEN DETERMINED WHO CAN PUT ON A TECHNIQUES COURSE, THEN THIS WOULD PARALLEL THAT PROCESS AS A SHARED LAB THAT SAYS OF THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S BEING REQUESTED OF CIRM FOR THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, IF IT'S UP OR DOWN, HOW DOES THAT INVESTMENT STACK UP IN THESE CATEGORIES, OR IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME? IS THERE A RATIONALE FOR A DIFFERENCE? | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: I HAVE A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, IF I COULD, MR. CHAIR. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: IT'S ALLUDING ME. I'M HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: CAN I GIVE A SPECIFIC, JEFF, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE RELEVANT AND MAYBE NOT. BUT SUPPOSE AN INSTITUTION SAYS, OKAY, I WANT, WHAT IS IT, $2 MILLION TO OUTFIT AND RENOVATE THE BASIC LABORATORY, AND THAT LABORATORY WILL BE 1500 SQUARE FEET. NOW, WE ALSO WANT TO GIVE A COURSE THERE, AND NOW WE WANT ANOTHER HALF MILLION DOLLARS TO RENOVATE THAT, AND THE ADDITION FOR THE COURSE IS ONLY GOING TO BE A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET. DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? THEN THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VERY SMALL ADDITION IN SPACE, BUT A LOT OF MONEY MORE TO ADD THAT SMALL ADDITION. | ||||||||
| IT SEEMS TO ME THAT'S WITHIN THE REALM OF THE COMMITTEE TO SAY THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. IF YOU CAN BUILD FOR A MILLION DOLLARS, YOU CAN RENOVATE 1500 SQUARE FEET, WHY DO YOU NEED ANOTHER HALF A MILLION JUST TO ADD A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET TO IT? IT'S THINGS LIKE THAT, I WOULD THINK. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES SENSE TO YOU, BUT TO EVALUATE WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY WANT TO ADD THAT ADDITIONAL SPACE IS REASONABLE IN TERMS OF THE SPACE THAT THEY'RE ADDING IS, I THINK, A RELEVANT CRITERIA. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SO WE'RE GOING TO APPLY ALL SIX OF THESE CRITERIA TO THE TECHNIQUES COURSES? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I WOULD SAY THAT IN MANY CASES HISTORIC PERFORMANCE WOULD BE THE SAME. I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT YOU WOULD JUDGE THE TECHNIQUES COURSE DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU WOULD JUDGE THE SHARED LABS ON HISTORIC PERFORMANCE. BUT CERTAINLY ON COST, AS ZACH JUST GAVE AN EXAMPLE, TIMELINE AND MILESTONE, IT COULD BE THAT SOME OF THE APPLICANTS HAVE ONLY ADDED A MONTH TO THE TIMELINE AND SOME HAVE ADDED AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS FOR SOME REASON. SO YOU'D WANT TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. AND THEN THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, SINCE WE'VE ASKED FOR A MATCH ON THAT AS WELL, AND, OF COURSE, RESPONSIVENESS. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR JAMES. SO, JAMES, CAN WE HAVE THE RFA CRITERIA WEIGHTING AS A RECOMMENDED GUIDELINE, OR IT HAS TO BE MORE SPECIFIC? | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: WELL -- | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: LET ME ADD TO THAT SINCE THAT'S MY QUESTION TOO. IS THERE AN EXTENT TO WHICH WE CAN TAKE THE ICOC CRITERIA AND INTERPRET THEM WHERE THERE'S ANY DEGREE OF -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: FLEXIBILITY? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YEAH. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: LET ME TRY TO RESPOND TO THAT. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: TO MAKE SENSE OF IT IN THE CONTEXT WE'RE OPERATING IN. AND THEN PERHAPS LATER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVISIONS, BUT WHEN WE INTERPRET WHAT WE'RE GIVEN. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: FIRST OF ALL, THE ICOC HAS ADOPTED THESE CRITERIA. THEY'RE INCLUDED WITHIN THE RFA, SO THE CRITERIA THEMSELVES CANNOT BE ALTERED AT THIS POINT IN TIME. FURTHERMORE, THE CRITERIA INCLUDES SOME ELABORATION OF THE TYPES OF ITEMS THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO EACH CRITERIA. SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LOT OF ROOM THERE TO CHANGE WHAT THOSE QUESTIONS ARE, FOR EXAMPLE. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: AND I WASN'T PROPOSING THAT. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: SOUNDS LIKE THE ISSUE IS MORE THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE POINT STRUCTURE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: YOU KNOW, MY EXPERIENCE IN THE PUBLIC BIDDING PROCESS IS YOU REALLY WANT TO BE VERY QUANTITATIVE. THE MORE QUALITATIVE YOU ARE, THE MORE OPEN TO PUBLIC SCRUTINY YOU BECOME. IT'S SO MUCH EASIER TO DEAL IN VERY CONCRETE. IN FACT, THERE'S ALREADY GOING TO BE SUCH DIVERSITY AMONGST OUR OPINIONS, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE NUMBERS AND THOSE ARE VERY CONCRETE FACTS, I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE ENOUGH DIVERSITY THAT THAT ALONE MAY RAISE SOME QUESTIONS. WELL, WHY DID THIS REVIEWER RATE MY GRANT THIS WAY? AND WERE THEY UNFAIRLY REVIEWED? I THINK IT'S SO MUCH EASIER, I THINK, WHEN YOU HAVE VERY CONCRETE FACTS. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE PROBLEMS IN THE QUALITATIVE, THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, IF THEY DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE TECHNICAL PORTION. THAT'S JUST MY BELIEF. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: SO, DAVID, TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION, I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT IT'S LEGALLY COMPELLED THAT YOU ASSIGN SCORES TO EACH CRITERIA. HOWEVER, TO THE DEGREE THAT YOU INTRODUCE MORE ARBITRARINESS OR THE POTENTIAL FOR ARBITRARINESS INTO THE PROCESS, I THINK YOU DO CREATE A GREATER RISK, NOT ONLY OF PUBLIC SCRUTINY AND CRITICISM, BUT ALSO THAT AN APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT IT HAS BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BECAUSE CERTAIN REVIEWERS ASSIGN A MUCH HIGHER VALUE TO ONE CRITERIA THAN ANOTHER. AND, THEREFORE, THE APPLICATIONS WERE REALLY WEIGHTED DIFFERENTLY ULTIMATELY. AND WE DO HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THIS IS OUR FIRST EFFORT, AND WE HAVE NOT OBVIOUSLY PERFECTED IT YET, BUT WE DO NEED TO TRY TO STRIVE TO ENSURE THAT IT'S AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE TO MINIMIZE, NOT ONLY THE RISK OF PUBLIC CRITICISM, BUT ALSO A POTENTIAL LITIGATION EMANATING OUT OF THIS PROCESS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RUSTY AND DAVID, THIS IS BOB KLEIN. I'M JUST ON AND LISTENING. I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT JAMES HARRISON. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO BRING THIS TO SOME KIND OF A CONSENSUS CONCLUSION OF THIS DISCUSSION. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, ONE, THE SIX CRITERIA, WE'RE GOING TO LIVE WITH THAT. THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED AND APPROVED BY THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| I THINK THAT THE WEIGHTING SYSTEM IS SOMETHING THAT, FOR BETTER, FOR WORSE, WE HAVE TO USE AT THIS POINT. I THINK THE FLEXIBILITY THAT WE DO HAVE IS THE POINTS IN EACH CATEGORY. AND I WELCOME SUGGESTIONS ON THAT, BUT LET'S REACH A CONSENSUS AND MOVE ON. I THINK WE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS. WE BROUGHT UP A LOT OF ISSUES THAT ARE EXCELLENT ISSUES. I THINK THE DISCUSSION IS INCREDIBLY GOOD AND HEALTHY. WE HAVE DISAGREEMENTS, AND I THINK WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THOSE. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'RE LOCKED IN ON CRITERIA. WE'RE LOCKED IN ON A WEIGHTING OR SCORING SYSTEM. WE CAN TALK ABOUT HOW WE WANT TO ALLOCATE THE POINTS IF WE'RE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH IT AS IT STANDS. I THINK THERE IS SOME CONCERN ABOUT THAT, PARTICULARLY ON FEASIBILITY AND RESPONSIVENESS, AND ONE VERSUS THE OTHER, COST VERSUS HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE. SO I WOULD TAKE SUGGESTIONS ON THAT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I WOULD MOVE, TO GET US ROLLING HERE, TO REDUCE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS FOR HISTORIC PERFORMANCE TO TEN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WHERE WOULD YOU PUT IT? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: THAT'S A SEPARATE MOTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: YOU GOT TO PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: WELL, WE TALK -- THAT WILL BE THE NEXT MOTION. I'LL GO WITH DOWN TO TEN. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: SECOND. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THERE WAS A SECOND BY DAVID. DISCUSSION? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: JUST ASK IF THERE'S PUBLIC COMMENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: IS THERE PUBLIC COMMENT? | ||||||||
| DR. HALME: IT'S NOT ABOUT THE TEN POINTS, BUT JUST IN GENERAL -- DINA HALME FROM UCSF. AS INSTITUTIONS WHO ARE APPLICANTS, IT WOULD BE REALLY USEFUL FOR US, AND WE UNDERSTAND THIS TIME THERE WAS A RUSH, BUT MOVING FORWARD TO KNOW WHAT THE SYSTEM IS GOING TO BE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION BECAUSE WE MAKE CHOICES EVERY DAY ABOUT, WELL, WE COULD PUT MORE MONEY OR WE COULD MAKE IT BIGGER, OR WE COULD DO THIS, THAT, AND THE OTHER. KNOWING THAT AHEAD OF TIME WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT AND A FAIR POINT, AND WE WILL ENDEAVOR TO DO THAT. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION? IF NOT, I'D LIKE TO CALL A ROLL CALL VOTE. I'LL DO IT. I'LL ACT AS SECRETARY. | ||||||||
| DEBORAH. | ||||||||
| MR. HYSEN: AYE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DAVID. AYE. RUSTY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: AYE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JANET. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: AYE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ED. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: AYE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: MARCY. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: AYE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DAVID. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: AYE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JEFF. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JOAN. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: AYE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AYE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: SHERRY LANSING. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: AYE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: MOTION PASSES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: NOW, I STILL THINK THAT WE HAVE A GOAL -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE SHARE THAT DUTY, BY THE WAY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: -- OF A HUNDRED POINTS, SO -- | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: WE HAVE TEN POINTS HANGING AROUND THERE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WE'VE TAKEN TEN OFF. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS? | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION, THAT WE CAN MAKE THE FEASIBILITY AND RESPONSIVENESS ZERO TO 15 POINTS ON EACH VERSUS ZERO OR 15 POINTS. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SECOND. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT SIMPLY THAT I THINK FEASIBILITY SHOULD BE HIGHER, AND THAT THAT MAY BE WHERE SOME OF THOSE POINTS THAT WE JUST REDUCED GO TO. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: TO THE FIRST MOTION -- DAVID SPEAKING -- COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR MOTION? | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: MY MOTION IS TO CHANGE THE RFA CRITERIA WEIGHTING FOR FEASIBILITY AND RESPONSIVENESS FROM A RANGE OF ZERO TO 15 POINTS, NOT ZERO OR 15 POINTS FOR EACH. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: SO, DEBORAH, TO THAT DISCRETE ISSUE, THAT DISCRETE MOTION, I THINK IT MIGHT BE BETTER IF WE JUST TAKE A MOTION, BY MOTION. AND PERHAPS YOUR MOTION NEXT COULD BE TO INCREASE THE FEASIBILITY IF YOU SO WANT TO MAKE THAT MOTION BECAUSE WE HAVE TEN POINTS FLOATING AROUND. IS THAT OKAY? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THAT'S FAIR. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: OKAY. ARE THERE ANY -- I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHAT IS THE EXACT MOTION? YOU EITHER GIVE SOMEONE ZERO OR 15? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: THAT'S THE STATUS RIGHT NOW, BOB. HE'S RECOMMENDING A RANGE INSTEAD OF AN ALL OR NOTHING, ZERO OR 15. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ABSOLUTELY. I THINK THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, SO WE'RE NOT PUT INTO A POSITION WHERE SOMEONE HAS BEEN MOSTLY RESPONSIVE, BUT MAYBE NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT, AND WE NEED TO PUT CONDITIONS ON AN APPROVAL OF THEM BEING FORCED TO GIVE THEM ZERO. SO I THINK THAT'S VERY VALUABLE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: SHERRY, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: I AGREE WITH THAT. I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN LISTENING BECAUSE THIS IS ALL SO NEW TO ME, THAT I'M LEARNING AS I GO, BUT I AGREE WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE MOTION? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: ONE QUESTION, DAVID, FOR THE REAL ESTATE FOLKS. ARE FEASIBILITY -- FEASIBILITY AND COST, ARE THEY COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I THINK EVERYTHING IS INTERRELATED TO SOME EXTENT. IS THE COST COMPARATIVE TO THE CONSTRUCTION? YOU REALLY CAN'T, I DON'T THINK, SEPARATE ANY OF THESE FROM EACH OTHER. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, JOAN? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YEAH. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ARE THERE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS MOTION? HEARING NONE, I'LL CALL THE ROLL CALL. JOAN. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: WHICH IS THIS? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THIS IS DAVID'S MOTION. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: ZERO TO 15. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: THIS IS THE ZERO TO 15. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JOAN. AYE. JEFF. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DAVID. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: AYE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: MARCY. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ED. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: AYE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JANET. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: RUSTY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DAVID. AYE. DEBORAH. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB. BOB. SHERRY. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: MOTION PASSES. | ||||||||
| I THINK, DEBORAH, YOU NOW WANT TO MAKE A MOTION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: WELL, WE DO HAVE THOSE EXTRA TEN POINTS. AND I THINK BEFORE I MAKE A MOTION, I WOULD SIMPLY LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT SOME OF THOSE POINTS GO TO FEASIBILITY. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE REMAINING POINTS WOULD GO, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT AT LEAST FIVE OF THEM WOULD GO TO FEASIBILITY. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: I FEEL LIKE THERE SHOULD BE SOME BALANCE BETWEEN COST AND THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT MATCHING FUNDS BECAUSE, AGAIN, IF THE COST IS SOMEWHAT HIGHER, BUT THERE'S GREATER LEVERAGE IN THERE, I MEAN I KIND OF FEEL LIKE THOSE TEN POINTS SHOULD GO TO INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT UNLESS THAT'S NOT DEFINED AS I'M SEEING THAT IN TERMS OF LEVERAGE. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I'M JUST WONDERING. THIS MAY BE A REALLY BAD IDEA, BUT I'LL TOSS IT OUT THERE. SINCE WE HAVE TEN POINTS TO SPEND, DO WE NEED AN OTHER CATEGORY? DO WE NEED TO PROGRAM -- NO. BAD. THAT'S WIGGLE ROOM. OKAY. IT'S A GOOD GROUP FOR DISCUSSION. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: EXCELLENT QUESTION BECAUSE I THINK THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT INCREASING IT, YOU ALSO NEED TO SAY, THEN, WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD FOR INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT? RIGHT NOW THE REQUIREMENT OR MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS 20 PERCENT. SO THE QUESTION WOULD BE IS IF YOU WANTED TO INCREASE IT, IF AN INSTITUTION MET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 20 PERCENT, HOW MUCH DO THEY GET? AND THEN HOW MANY MORE POINTS WOULD YOU LIKE TO AWARD BASED ON ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE? OR IF YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO LOOK FOR THE MINIMUM 20 PERCENT COMMITMENT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU KNOW, ON THAT POINT, MS. HOFFMAN, THE 20 PERCENT IS REQUIRED UNDER PROP 71. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT IS CORRECT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: SO I MEAN THAT'S THE MINIMUM. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: THEY HAVE TO DO IT OR THEY'RE NOT ELIGIBLE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO GIVE MORE POINTS THERE BECAUSE IF THEY MEET THE -- IF THEY JUST MEET THE 20 PERCENT, OKAY, FINE, THAT'S A REQUIREMENT OF THE RFA AND OF PROP 71. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: SO MY QUESTION, THOUGH, IS IF WE HYPOTHETICALLY INCREASED THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT TO 20 POINTS AND SOMEONE HAD A MUCH GREATER LEVERAGE, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO GIVE THEM A HIGHER SCORE THAN SOMEONE WHO HAD THE MINIMUM? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: REMEMBER THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, THIS IS YES OR NO. THIS ISN'T A SLIDING SCALE, SO YOU'D HAVE TO NOT ONLY INCREASE THE AMOUNT, BUT ALSO MAKE IT A SLIDING SCALE. IT'S A YES OR NO IN OUR SCORING. IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE THAT, BUT IT'S YES OR NO. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S JUST A REVIEW PIECE. WHEN YOU ACTUALLY HAVE YOUR SCORECARD, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ASSIGN ANY POINTS. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: IT'S NOT CLEAR ON OUR SCORECARD. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WE'RE GOING TO GET A MOTION REAL QUICKLY HERE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THAT'S WHY WE WERE CONCERNED WITH THE FEASIBILITY AND THE RESPONSIVENESS. SO ALL OF THESE ARE SLIDING SCALE THEN? NONE OF THESE -- BECAUSE THIS SAYS YES OR NO. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I WAS TRYING TO HEAR. SO WE REALLY NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO MAKE IT A SLIDING SCALE SO THE PUBLIC KNOWS THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A SLIDING SCALE. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: SO WE KNOW BECAUSE OUR REVIEW DOES NOT SAY THAT. WE EITHER GET TO GIVE THEM TEN OR ZERO. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. THAT'S A DISCREPANCY IN PUTTING THE SLIDE TOGETHER. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: I THINK IT SHOULD BE SLIDING SCALE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: COULD I JUST -- COULD WE GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THIS INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK MATCHING THE MINIMUM SHOULD RECEIVE ANY POINTS BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T MATCH THE MINIMUM, THEY'RE NOT RESPONSIVE. DOES THAT COLOR HOW MANY POINTS -- DO YOU WANT TO GIVE THEM MORE THAN TEN POINTS FOR ADDING BEYOND THE 20 PERCENT? | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING IS THAT CAN WE DEFINE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT DIFFERENTLY AS A LEVERAGE VERSUS MEETING THE MINIMUM COMMITMENT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT DIRECTION BECAUSE, AS JEFF SHEEHY SAYS, MEETING THE MINIMUM IS JUST QUALIFYING TO HAVE YOUR GRANT CONSIDERED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC LEVELS OVER AND ABOVE THE MINIMUM? | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: YES. YES. SO I'M SAYING THAT I THINK THAT IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE MINIMUM, THEN THEY'RE NOT RESPONSIVE, AND WE OBVIOUSLY SCORE IT ACCORDINGLY. THERE MAY BE CERTAIN GRANT PROPOSALS THAT ARE HIGHLY LEVERAGED, AND I THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST WEIGH THAT ISSUE AS MUCH AS WE'RE WEIGHTING COST BECAUSE IF THE COSTS ARE OFFSET BY THE LEVERAGE, OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD MAKE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB, WE'LL GET TO YOU. MARCY IS SPEAKING. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I BELIEVE IF PROP 71 STATES THAT THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS 20 PERCENT, I DON'T EVEN THINK WE SHOULD BRING IT FORWARD FOR SCORING. I MEAN WE'RE AUTOMATICALLY VIOLATING PROP 71. SO THOSE SHOULD BE JUST DISQUALIFIED. IT'S JUST DIFFERENT. WE SHOULDN'T EVEN SCORE THEM. SO I THINK THEN WE SHOULD TALK, OKAY, FROM THAT POINT ON, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION? | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: I AGREE. THAT MAKES SENSE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I THINK YOU'RE -- THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW IT WOULD FUNCTION. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: MAYBE TO CLARIFY, WE SIMPLY CHANGE THE PHRASE TO INCREASE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SO THAT IT REFERENCES THAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB AND SHERRY, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS SORT OF ISSUE? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DAVID, SO YOU CAN FINALLY TELL I HAVE MY HAND UP. SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT, DON'T WE NEED A RECORD HERE THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE POINTS ASSIGNED FOR BEING OVER 20 PERCENT OR AUTHORIZING THE COMMITTEE TO AWARD POINTS FOR OVER 20 PERCENT, WE SHOULD REALLY PUT THAT IN A RESOLUTION OR A MOTION OF SOME KIND SO THAT IT'S PART OF THE FORMAL RECORD, SHOULDN'T WE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: CAN I RAISE A QUESTION? AND MAYBE IT'S ADDRESSING THE UCSF RESPONSE. WE DIDN'T ASK TO SHOW THE ENHANCEMENT. I FEEL THAT THAT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO COME THROUGH AN ADDENDUM TO THE RFA. IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT YOU ASK YOUR SUBMITTERS TO RESPOND TO, YOU REALLY ASKED THEM JUST FOR THE MATCHING FUND. I DON'T SEE, AND MAYBE SOMEONE CAN ARTICULATE HERE, HOW WOULD YOU OFFER AN ENHANCEMENT TO THE APPLICATION BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE IF SOMEONE TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO DESCRIBE WHAT THOSE ENHANCEMENTS MIGHT BE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE INITIATIVE MAKES IT QUITE CLEAR THAT HIGHER LEVERAGE IS TO BE GIVEN A PRIORITY. THAT'S IN THE INITIATIVE ITSELF. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I KNOW, BUT THE ACTUAL RFA DOESN'T DETAIL IT UNLESS SOMEONE CAN POINT IT OUT. I'M RAISING THAT. MAYBE SOMEONE FROM THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, THERE'S SOME VERY CONCRETE THINGS YOU ASK FOR. AND SO IF YOU'RE SOMEONE ON THE TEAM THAT'S SUBMITTING THESE APPLICATIONS, YOU DO ADDRESS THOSE CONCRETE THINGS, SO YOU DON'T MISS ANYTHING. BUT SOMEONE THAT'S REALLY GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO, AND I'M SURE THEY'RE ALL VERY GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO, WANTS TO ENHANCE. THEY WANT TO MAKE THEIR PROPOSAL MORE ATTRACTIVE. IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY YOU'RE INCENTIVIZED TO DO THAT BECAUSE, AS BOB SAID, IT PROBABLY WAS IN THE INITIATIVE THAT WE WANT TO SEE ADDITIONAL KINDS OF LEVERAGE OPPORTUNITIES. BUT IF THE ACTUAL GRANT PREPARER IS SIMPLY FOLLOWING POINT A, B, C, D, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS REQUESTED. AND IT'S NOT REQUESTED. EVEN IN A QUALITATIVE WAY, IT'S NOT ASKED FOR HERE. | ||||||||
| SO I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT WE'RE PUTTING SOME HIGHER RATE ON SOMETHING THAT WE ACTUALLY DIDN'T EVEN POINT OUT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DON'T WE ASK IN THE RFA FOR INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: YOU DO, BUT IF YOU READ THE DESCRIPTION, IT'S REALLY JUST MATCHING. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IT SAYS ONLY SHOW THE 20 PERCENT MATCHING. IS THAT WHAT IT SAYS? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: IT DOES. NOW, IT DOES SAY DETAIL THE USE OF THE SPACE AFTER THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD. AND PERHAPS THAT'S WHERE YOU GET SOME ENHANCED RESEARCH ACTIVITY, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT A GRANT APPLICANT WOULD NECESSARILY SEE THAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: LET ME ASK A QUESTION TO LEGAL. JUST TAKE -- I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WILL HELP US OR HURT US. BUT WERE WE TO -- THERE SEEMS TO BE A DESIRE AMONGST SOME OF US TO AWARD MORE POINTS TO INSTITUTIONS THAT EXCEED THE 20-PERCENT MATCH. AND WE WANT TO ARTICULATE THAT SOMEHOW IN THIS APPLICATION FORM. I'M GETTING TO MY QUESTION. | ||||||||
| SO MY QUESTION IS I GUESS CAN WE DO THAT? AND WOULD WE BE IN ANY WAY IN CONFLICT WITH WHAT DEBORAH'S SAYING OR STATED IN THE RFA? IF WE CAN DO IT, I THINK THERE'S A MOVEMENT TO DO IT. IF WE CAN'T AND IT WOULD EXPOSE US TO LAWSUITS, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO FACTOR IN WHEN WE MAKE THIS DECISION. SO THAT IS MY QUESTION TO MR. HARRISON. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: WELL, LET ME START BY SAYING -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: -- THAT, FIRST OF ALL, THE CRITERIA ITSELF, AS SPECIFIED IN THE RFA UNDER INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, ASKS IS THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT OF FUNDING TO THIS PROJECT SUFFICIENT. SO IT, FRANKLY, DOESN'T ADDRESS THIS PRECISE QUESTION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. SO WE HAVE SOME AMBIGUITY HERE. | ||||||||
| IT IS, AS BOB KLEIN NOTED, HOWEVER, A STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE OF PROPOSITION 71 TO GIVE PRIORITY WHERE MATCHING FUNDS EXCEED 20 PERCENT. SO ONE WAY TO POTENTIALLY DEAL WITH THIS IS TO LOOK AT THAT AS A STRATEGIC ISSUE AND TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATION IN YOUR PROGRAMMATIC EVALUATION. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A POINT HERE IF I COULD. LET ME JUST SAY THAT IT SEEMS TO ME THE QUESTION OF 20-PERCENT MATCHING FUNDS IS NOT QUITE SO OPEN AND SHUT AS IT'S PRESENTED HERE. HAVING BEEN AT AN INSTITUTION IN WHICH MATCHING FUNDS ARE REQUIRED FOR A PARTICULAR PROJECT, YOU CAN MAKE ALL SORTS OF CLAIMS ABOUT MATCHING FUNDS. YOU CAN SAY, WELL, WE ACTUALLY RENOVATED THIS FOR WHEELCHAIR SPACE THREE YEARS AGO AND THAT'S OUR MATCH. WE'VE ALREADY INVESTED IN THIS SPACE TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE FOR THE DISABLED VERSUS OR, WELL, THE INVESTIGATORS WHO ARE GOING TO GET THIS ARE GOING TO BRING IN INDIRECT COSTS, SO THAT'S ALSO GOING TO BE PART OF THE MATCH. OR TO SAY THE INSTITUTION IS ACTUALLY VERY COMMITTED TO THIS PROJECT. WE HAVE SPENT $750,000 ALREADY, OR WE WILL SPEND $750,000 ON EQUIPMENT FOR THIS SPACE. OR WE WILL PROVIDE TWO-THIRDS OF THE SALARY OF A PERSON. AND THE QUALITY OF THOSE DIFFERENT MATCHING FUNDS IS VERY DIFFERENT. | ||||||||
| I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE FIRST TWO ARE DUBIOUS, AND THE LAST TWO ARE VERY CONCRETE AND INDICATE. SO THERE IS A QUALITY JUDGMENT TO BE MADE HERE ABOUT WHETHER THE INSTITUTION IS REALLY SORT OF MEETING THIS LETTER OF THE LAW BY GENNING UP SOME THINGS, OR WHETHER IN ACTUAL FACT THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE A REAL COMMITMENT OF DOLLARS ON THE TABLE FOR THIS PROPOSAL. | ||||||||
| AND SO I WOULD SAY THAT IS -- IT'S NOT SIMPLY THAT THEY'VE DONE IT OR NOT. I WOULD SAY THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN BY INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT. ARE THEY REALLY BEHIND THIS PROJECT? ARE THEY REALLY GOING TO PUT THEIR OWN RESOURCES INTO IT IN A VERY DIRECT AND SPECIFIC WAY? OR ARE THEY GOING TO, YOU KNOW, DO SOMETHING ELSE? THAT WOULD BE MY ARGUMENT OR MY SUGGESTION OF SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY AN ALL OR NONE THING, AND YOU MIGHT WANT TO KEEP THAT SLIDING SCALE AND REALLY JUDGE IT ON A MATTER OF NOT JUST OF DID THEY COME UP WITH A NUMBER, BUT WHAT'S THE QUALITY OF THAT COMMITMENT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ZACH, IN TERMS OF THE QUALITY, WHICH IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT, SINCE THERE WASN'T A LOT OF DEFINITION IN THE RFA OF WHAT THE MATCH WAS, AS FAR AS I KNOW. I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME WHERE I AM, BUT CERTAINLY IN GIVING ADDITIONAL POINTS THAT THIS COMMITTEE CAN EVALUATE BOTH AND SHOULD EVALUATE, AND I THINK I'M AGREEING WITH YOU IN TERMS OF -- I'M SURE I'M AGREEING WITH YOU IN TERMS OF THE SCALE, EVALUATING BOTH THE AMOUNT AND THE QUALITY OF THE MATCH SO THAT BOTH THINGS ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. BUT THIS GROUP CERTAINLY HAS THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT BOTH OF THOSE COMPONENTS IN REACHING A SCORE. | ||||||||
| BUT YOU'RE ALSO POINTING OUT THAT IT'S VERY, VERY CRITICAL FOR US TO GET OUT DEFINITIONS ON WHAT MATCHING FUNDS WILL MEAN FOR MAJOR FACILITIES BECAUSE WITH THE HUGE DOLLARS, WE'VE GOT TO BE VERY CLEAR ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO EVALUATE MATCHING FUNDS AND GIVE POTENTIALLY EXAMPLES OF WHAT WOULD FALL INTO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES SO THAT PEOPLE HAVE THE PROPER DIRECTION BEFORE THEY EVEN SUBMIT A LETTER OF INTENT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. LET ME JUST SAY TO MY COLLEAGUES -- I DON'T EVEN HAVE A MOTION TO MAKE. I THINK WE'VE HAD A HEALTHY DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE. I WANT TO SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS. | ||||||||
| IN A SIDEBAR CONVERSATION WITH DEBORAH, SHE BROUGHT UP A VERY GOOD POINT. I JUST WANT TO REPEAT IT. AND THAT IS, ONE, IF THERE'S ANY MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS, THEY'RE EMBODIED IN PROPOSITION 71. OKAY. ONE OF THEM IS YOU HAVE MEET THE 20-PERCENT MATCHING GRANTS. OKAY. IF YOU DON'T MEET THE 20-PERCENT MATCHING GRANT, THE APPLICATION ON ITS FACE CAN'T BE CONSIDERED. OKAY. IT CAN'T BE CONSIDERED. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: WHY WOULD IT EVEN BE IN FRONT OF US? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: EXACTLY. IT SHOULD NOT BE HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: WHY ISN'T THE DECISION MADE BY STAFF PRIOR TO BEING SUBMITTED? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I WOULD SUBMIT THAT IT OUGHT TO BE. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: SO THEN THE SLIDING SCALE BECOMES PERTINENT. THE MORE THEY HAVE AND THE HIGHER POINT AVERAGE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: WE THINK YOU CAN LEAVE THIS IN AS AN ENHANCEMENT, BUT CERTAINLY NOT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN BECAUSE THIS IS A NONRESPONSIVE ITEM RIGHT HERE. SO IF YOU WRITE IT SUCH THAT, AND KEEP THE ZERO TO TEN BECAUSE IT IS QUALITATIVE, IF YOU WRITE IT SUCH THAT WHAT IS THE ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT THAT'S OFFERED RELATIVE TO THIS RFA, THAT MAKES SENSE. THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN NOW -- | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: DEBORAH, ALSO THE QUALITY. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: -- IT'S A NO GO AT THIS POINT IF THEY SAY NO. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: I WOULD ALSO INSERT THE QUALITY. WHAT THEY HAVE GIVEN AS THEIR INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT MAY BE MORE OR LESS. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: RIGHT. THAT MAKES SENSE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: THIS MIGHT BE A WAY OF RESOLVING THIS FOR THIS PHASE, WHICH WOULD BE TO DECIDE AMONG US THAT, IN INTERPRETING THESE CRITERIA FOR THIS ROUND, THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT WOULD BE ZERO POINTS. AND THAT BECAUSE OF THE COST ITEM, THE LAST QUESTION, IS HAS THE INSTITUTION LEVERAGED THE CIRM RESOURCES? MAYBE THAT CAN BE A PLACE TO PUT THE EXTRA POINTS WHICH WOULD GO TOWARD INCREASED ENHANCEMENT ON THE PART OF THE INSTITUTION OVER AND ABOVE THE REQUIRED MATCH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: JOAN, I THINK WE HAVE TO LEAVE THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT IN. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I'M SAYING LEAVE IT IN, BUT DECIDE AMONG US, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ROUND, THAT IT WILL BE ZERO POINTS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WELL, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN HAVE A CRITERIA THAT HAS ZERO POINTS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM JAMES. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: RICK MAKES AN EXCELLENT POINT. AND THE REASON WHY YOU HAVE TO CONTINUE TO CONSIDER INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, IT'S NOT TRULY A MINIMUM QUALIFICATION BECAUSE UNDER PROPOSITION 71 YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO RECOMMEND THAT IT BE WEIGHED IN CASES OF EXCEPTIONAL MERIT. SO THE ONE MINIMUM QUALIFICATION YOU HAVE HERE IS IT BE A NONPROFIT ENTITY. IF YOU WERE TO RECEIVE AN APPLICATION FROM A FOR-PROFIT ENTITY -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: COUNSEL, ISN'T THAT THE DECISION OF THE ICOC? | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: ULTIMATELY IT'S THE DECISION OF THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: IT'S NOT MINE. I CAN'T MAKE THAT DECISION. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: NO, BUT YOU CAN RECOMMEND TO THE ICOC THAT AN APPLICATION IS OF SUCH EXCEPTIONAL MERIT, THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT IT HAS LESS THAN A 20-PERCENT MATCH, IT SHOULD BE FUNDED. YOU HAVE THE SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: FROM A REAL ESTATE POINT OF VIEW? I CAN'T AGREE WITH YOU. THE MERIT LIES IN THE TECHNICAL PART. FROM THE REAL ESTATE POINT OF VIEW, IT'S CLEAR. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: WOW, YOU GOT AN ATTORNEY TO NOT TALK. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: LET ME JUST SEE. DOES EVERYBODY AGREE THAT INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, IT OUGHT TO BE A SLIDING SCALE? I'M PROBABLY STATING THE OBVIOUS. YES. OKAY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DO YOU NEED A MOTION? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE DO. YES, WE'LL GET TO IT. DO WE THINK IT SHOULD BE MORE THAN TEN POINTS BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE THE TEN POINTS OUT THERE, TEAM? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: NO, I DON'T. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I AGREE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: LET'S POLL EVERYONE. LET'S JUST SEE IF WE CAN GET A CONSENSUS. I THINK -- I'LL WAIT FOR MINE. YOU THINK NO, RUSTY? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: NO. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JANET. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: NO. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ED. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T HEAR. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: TEN POINTS IS THE MAX ON THAT INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE ALL AGREE IT SHOULD BE A SLIDING SCALE. SHOULD WE PUT MORE POINTS TO IT? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I AGREE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU DO. OKAY. MARCY. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I AGREE. MORE POINTS TO IT. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: I THINK IT SHOULD BE HIGHER, GIVEN AT LEAST AS MUCH AS COST BECAUSE, AGAIN, THAT HAS TO DO WITH LEVERAGE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JEFF. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YEAH. I THINK IT SHOULD BE HIGHER. I AGREE IT SHOULD BE MATCHED TO COST. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JOAN. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YES, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T JUST PERTAIN TO THE 20-PERCENT MATCH. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I AGREE WITH, I THINK, JEFF. IT SHOULD BE MATCHED WITH COST BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE HIGH COST, BUT YOUR LEVERAGE IS VERY HIGH, IT TOTALLY OFFSETS -- IT SHOULD TOTALLY OFFSET THE COST. WE'RE GETTING MUCH MORE VALUE. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. IT'S LIKE SELLING TWO $500,000 CATS FOR A MILLION-DOLLAR DOG. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I JUST WANT TO PUT ON RECORD. MY CONCERN IS THAT YOU DIDN'T ASK THE APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION, AND IT MIGHT BE DEEMED TO BE UNFAIR IN THE REVIEW PROCESS. SO I JUST WOULD LIKE TO BE ON RECORD THAT, ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF LEVERAGE BECAUSE LEVERAGE BUYING IS KEY TO MAXIMIZING YOUR DOLLARS, I THINK THAT WE DID NOT NECESSARILY SPELL THAT OUT TO THE APPLICANTS. | ||||||||
| DR. HALME: I THINK YOU DID. SORRY TO INTERRUPT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DR. HALME, WE'LL RECOGNIZE YOU. | ||||||||
| DR. HALME: THANK YOU. SO GIVEN THAT THIS IS A QUOTE FROM THE RFA, PART OF THE COST PIECE, AS JOAN HAS POINTED OUT, HAS THE INSTITUTION LEVERAGE TO CIRM RESOURCES. FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE AS AN INSTITUTION, WHEN WE LOOKED AT COST, WE WANTED TO KNOW IS THAT COST PER SQUARE FOOT OR IS THAT CIRM COST PER SQUARE FOOT? IF WE HAVE A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT PROJECT, CIRM IS EFFECTIVELY PAYING THE 5,000 SQUARE FEET, THEN YOU COST PER SQUARE FOOT AND CUT IT IN HALF, OR HOW DO YOU DO THAT? SO THIS WOULD BE -- WE DID FEEL LIKE WE WERE ASKED. IT'S ON THE SLIDE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IT'S IN THE RFA THE QUESTION IS IS IT IN THE RFA? | ||||||||
| DR. HALME: IT SAYS RFA HERE IN THE SLIDE. I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE RFA. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO FIND. | ||||||||
| MS. BECKER: UNDER COST. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: IT'S UNDER THE COST PORTION OF THE ANALYSIS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THE RFA. | ||||||||
| DR. SAMBRANO: IT'S PAGE 12 OF THE RFA. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: ON PAGE 12 OF THE RFA. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: WELL, WOULDN'T THAT MAKE SENSE TO MOVE THOSE POINTS INTO THE COST PORTION IF IT WAS ASKED IN THE COST SECTION? | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: NO. BECAUSE, AT LEAST HOW I'M SEEING IT, IS THAT IT'S REALLY THE COST OF THE CIRM, AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE LEVERAGE AND THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT. SO, NO, I ACTUALLY THINK IT SHOULD GO IN THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT SECTION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: OKAY. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: PLEASE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I MOVE THAT THE -- THERE'S TWO COMPONENTS TO THE MOTION. I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE TWO COMPONENTS TO THE MOTION. FOR INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, THAT IT BE A SLIDING SCALE. THAT'S THE FIRST COMPONENT OF THE MOTION. THE SECOND COMPONENT IS THAT THE POINTS AWARDED BE ON A SLIDING SCALE ZERO TO 20. IS THERE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: SECOND. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I WOULD MAKE A SECOND IF THE MAKER OF THE FIRST WILL INCLUDE IN THAT THAT THE QUALITY OF THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT WILL BE CONSIDERED AS A PART OF THAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S FINE. ACCEPTED. THE MOTION HAS BEEN SECONDED BY DAVID. IS THERE DISCUSSION AMONGST THE COLLEAGUES? IS THERE DISCUSSION AMONGST THE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS? | ||||||||
| MS. MOSCA: EXCUSE ME. CAN I ASK A -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: NO. WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT IN ONE MOMENT. | ||||||||
| MS. MOSCA: AFTER THE VOTE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: NO, OF COURSE, NOT. THAT'S NOT THE WAY WE DO IT. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GET TO YOU. | ||||||||
| IS THERE COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP? NO. SEEING NONE, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. MA'AM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? | ||||||||
| MS. MOSCA: DEBBIE MOSCA FROM THE SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE. FIRST IF ALL, CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYBODY FOR A VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS. AND BEING ON THE APPLICANT SIDE, WE REALLY ARE LOOKING FOR CLARITY IN DEFINITIONS. AND I THINK ZACH MADE A GOOD COMMENT, AND BOB HAS SUPPORTED THAT IN TERMS OF QUALITY. BUT EVEN AMONGST YOURSELVES, IT'S LIKE HOW DO YOU DEFINE QUALITY? HOW DO YOU DEFINE -- ONE PERSON MAY VALUE THE QUALITY, AS ED WAS SAYING BEFORE, OF SOME REAL ESTATE ASPECTS VERSUS THE ABILITY OF AN INSTITUTION TO LEVERAGE NOT ONLY AMONG SEVERAL INSTITUTIONS IN A CERTAIN LOCATION, BUT ALSO AMONG OTHER FACULTY WITHIN THE INSTITUTION. SO LARGER INSTITUTIONS MAY BE ABLE TO LEVERAGE BETTER BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE FACULTY TO PULL ON AND MORE DRAW FOR OTHER FACULTY TO JOIN THEIR INSTITUTION. | ||||||||
| I APPLAUD YOUR EFFORTS. I THINK DEBORAH'S COMMENTS ARE VERY WELL TAKEN. IT MAY HAVE BEEN STATED, BUT IT WASN'T REALLY DEFINED WELL ENOUGH SO THAT PEOPLE COULD BE STRATEGIC IN HOW THEY MADE THEIR APPLICATION PROCESS. AND IT MAY BE TOO LATE AT THIS POINT, BUT I THINK GOING FORWARD IT HAS TO BE DEFINED BETTER THAN JUST QUALITY. MATCHING FUNDS, THE DEFINITIONS HAVE TO BE DEFINED. ALL THAT HAS TO BE WORKED OUT. FOR THIS ONE, I AM CONCERNED BECAUSE THERE DOES SEEM TO BE A LOT OF DISCORD AMONG THE MEMBERS HERE AS TO HOW IN THE ACTUAL PROCESS THAT WILL WORK OUT. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT PROCESS WILL BE PUBLIC, SO I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT HOW IT'S GOING GET WEIGHTED. BY INCREASING THE 20 PERCENT NOW THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT AND WHETHER OR NOT OTHER THINGS ABOUT THEIR COMMITMENT, IT'S NOT JUST DOLLARS. COMMITMENT IS MORE THAN DOLLARS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU, MA'AM. ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD WISH TO SPEAK TO THIS MOTION? SIR. | ||||||||
| MR. OSHIRA: I WAS GOING TO SHARE EXACTLY THE SAME THING. DAN OSHIRA FROM J. DAVID GLADSTONE INSTITUTES. I ACTUALLY RAISED EXACTLY THE SAME POINT YOU MADE AND WHISPERED IT TO ARLENE WHEN YOU SAID THAT, BUT I AGREE THAT IT'S NOT CLEAR UP FRONT THAT THE MORE YOU PROVIDE IN MATCHING, THE BETTER THE SCORE YOU ARE GOING TO GET. EVEN THIS, HAS IT BEEN LEVERAGED? WELL, YES, IT'S BEEN LEVERAGED. IT DOESN'T INDICATE THAT THE MORE YOU LEVERAGE IT, THE BETTER OFF YOUR SCORE WILL BE. AND I THINK WHAT IT DOES IS IT BIASES IT TO A LARGER ORGANIZATION THAT HAS MORE RESOURCES AND IS ABLE TO PERHAPS LEVERAGE MORE AS BIASED AGAINST A SMALLER ORGANIZATION, WHICH MAY, IN FACT, BE THE BEST PROJECT GEOGRAPHICALLY AND PROGRAMATICALLY. | ||||||||
| MS. OLSON: PATRICIA OLSON, CIRM. I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION. IF WE INCREASE OR IF THE GROUP VOTES TO INCREASE THIS CRITERIA TO SAY A 20 WEIGHTING, DOES THAT MEAN IT ALSO GETS REVISITED AGAIN IN THE PROGRAMMATIC BECAUSE AT LEAST WHAT I'VE HEARD IS THAT IS ONE OF THE PROGRAMMATIC CRITERIA AS WELL. SO IT SEEMS TO ME YOU END UP CONSIDERING IT TWICE IF YOU DO IT THAT WAY. SO I JUST THROW THAT OUT FOR THE WORKING GROUP'S CONSIDERATION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO COMMENT? SEEING NONE, WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE, IF THAT'S OKAY. I'LL START WITH JOAN. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JEFF. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DAVID. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: MARCY. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ED. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: NO. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JANET. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: NO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: RUSTY YES. DAVID YES. YOU CAN ABSTAIN. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I'D LIKE TO ABSTAIN. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THE MOTION CARRIES -- OH, I'M SORRY. BOB KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: SHERRY LANSING. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: I'M SO CONFUSED, I THINK I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ABSTAIN. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: OKAY. THAT'S FINE. THAT'S FINE. I BELIEVE THE MOTION CARRIES. ARE THERE OTHER -- | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: SORRY. I DON'T USUALLY DO THAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S FINE, SHERRY. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I DON'T EITHER. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: I JUST AM SO CONFUSED. I SEE BOTH SIDES OF IT. SO I FEEL LIKE I NEED MORE DIALOGUE, BUT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH -- BECAUSE I'M ABSTAINING, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH WHATEVER THE MAJORITY WANTS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: OKAY. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW TO REVISIT THIS PIECE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I HAVE A COUPLE OF JUST TECHNICAL QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS. ARE THE RFA'S, WHEN WE'RE REVIEWING THEM, ARE THEY COMPLETELY SELF-CONTAINED DOCUMENTS? CAN WE CONSIDER ANY OTHER EXTERNAL INFORMATION WHILE WE'RE REVIEWING THESE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: LEGAL. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: CERTAINLY THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THE INITIATIVE LIKE THE PROHIBITION AGAINST DOING REPRODUCTIVE CLONING. THERE ARE -- I WOULD THINK THAT THERE ARE -- THE INITIATIVE LANGUAGE WOULD NEED TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE CONTEXT FOR THE RFA, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR JAMES HARRISON'S VIEW. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: WELL, FOR MY PURPOSES, FOR INSTANCE, I LOVE TO RESEARCH INFORMATION. AND SO IF I WAS LOOKING AT, LET'S JUST DRAW OUT UC IRVINE. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE IS HERE FROM THAT INSTITUTION. BUT IF THEY WERE TO SUBMIT A GRANT AND I FELT LIKE I NEED A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION, IF I WENT TO THEIR WEBSITE AND LOOKED AT SOMETHING IN THERE, LOOKED AT THEIR FACILITIES, LOOKED AT THEIR STAFF, I MEAN CAN I DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS? CAN I AUGMENT THE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME TO MAKE A BETTER DECISION OTHER THAN THE ADVISORY DOCUMENT THAT THE STAFF IS PREPARING FOR US? | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: LET ME, FIRST YOU ALL, RESPOND TO BOB'S QUESTION. AFTER THE GRANT AWARDS ARE MADE, STAFF WILL DO A REVIEW BEFORE THE DOLLARS ARE ACTUALLY ISSUED. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT WAS DETERMINED THAT ONE OF THE APPLICANTS WAS NOT A NONPROFIT, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THE APPLICATION WOULD BE REJECTED. SO THAT IS TO RESPOND TO BOB'S QUESTION. | ||||||||
| I THINK WHEN YOU BEGIN TO INTRODUCE INFORMATION THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE RECORD THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED AND SHARED AMONG ALL OF YOU, YOU AGAIN INTRODUCE A RISK FOR ARBITRARINESS TO SET IN BECAUSE YOU HAVE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF YOU THAT YOUR COLLEAGUES DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE WHICH MAY INFLUENCE YOUR DECISION. SO THE BEST COURSE IS PROBABLY ONLY TO RELY UPON WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED AND ANY DISCUSSION THAT OCCURS IN AN OPEN PUBLIC MEETING. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I CONCUR ON THAT. I THINK THAT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT, THAT THAT'S ONE OF THE GUIDELINES SET FOR THE TEAM. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BUT, JAMES, THERE ARE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE OBVIOUS IN THE INITIATIVE THAT, AS I SAID, PROHIBITION OF HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLEANING, I MEAN THEY'RE ON NOTICE OF. NOW, I AM AN ADVOCATE FOR COMPLETELY DEVELOPING DEFINITIONS AND GUIDELINES SO THAT THE APPLICANT HAS THE GREATEST ABILITY TO PERCEIVE THE INTENT, SUBSTANCE, AND QUALITY OF THE REQUEST IN THE RFA. WOULD THEY NEED MORE DIRECTION? THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION WE JUST HAD ON MATCHING IS A GREAT EXAMPLE, PARTICULARLY BEFORE WE GET TO MAJOR PROJECTS. BUT I WOULD THINK THAT THE INITIATIVE LANGUAGE ITSELF ALWAYS CREATES A LEGAL CONTEXT IN WHICH AN RFA IS PERMITTED TO BE ISSUED, AND IT EXISTS WITHIN THAT LEGAL CONTEXT. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. AS I POINTED OUT, A GRANT COULD NOT AWARDED, FOR EXAMPLE, TO A FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTION BECAUSE THAT'S PROHIBITED UNDER PROPOSITION 71. LIKEWISE, AS BOB POINTS OUT, YOU COULDN'T FUND A GRANT OR FACILITY IN WHICH HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLEANING WOULD OCCUR. SO THESE ARE LEGAL BASELINES THAT EVERY APPLICANT HAS TO ADHERE TO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: THANK YOU. DAVID. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: THIS IS JUST A QUICK QUESTION. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT CONDITIONS UPON THESE GRANTS. THAT'S ALL. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: CONDITIONAL APPROVAL? | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: YES. POTENTIALLY REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO REBID. I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT AS AN IDEA, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE GET INTO THE LARGER DOLLARS THAT WE'LL BE CONCERNED WITH THIS AFTERNOON. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: LET'S KEEP IT SEPARATE. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE CONDITIONS ON GRANTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, THE SHARED RESEARCH LAB SPACE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: ONE LAST TECHNICAL QUESTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I'M NOT QUITE FINISHED. I'D ASK YOU, JAMES, ABOUT CONDITIONS. I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, DAVID. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: I'M TALKING ABOUT LET'S SAY THERE'S AN APPLICATION THAT HAS A LOT OF MERIT, IT HAS A HIGH SCORE, BUT THERE'S A PARTICULAR CONCERN THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS ON IT. CAN WE GIVE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OR PUT A CONDITION THAT THEY -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: YOU MEAN APPROVED WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS? | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: CORRECT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I'M NOT SURE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB, THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE THAT WANT TO TALK HERE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: JAMES. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: I THINK WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THAT, DAVID, BEFORE WE ANSWER THAT QUESTION. YOU DO HAVE THE POWER TO RECOMMEND PARTIAL FUNDING. WHETHER YOU COULD IMPOSE SOME CONDITION ON AN APPLICANT, I THINK, WOULD DEPEND UPON WHETHER IT'S ENCOMPASSED WITHIN THE RFA OR NOT. SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT I'D LIKE TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT BEFORE ANSWERING AT THIS TIME. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JAMES, THIS IS BOB KLEIN. THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED AND HOPEFULLY LEGALLY APPROVED IN THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, THAT WE CAN DO CONDITIONS. AND IN A PUBLIC DISCUSSION, I BELIEVE, THAT THAT TOPIC HAS BEEN RAISED BEFORE WITHOUT OBJECTION. BUT IT IS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF GRANTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY THAT INSTITUTIONS ARE ABLE TO PUT CONDITIONS ON THEM SO THAT THEY MAKE CERTAIN THAT -- AND REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF FUNDING. IT SHOULDN'T BE A LEGAL ISSUE TO PUT CONDITIONS ON A GRANT AS PART OF THE CONSIDERATION. CERTAINLY IN PORTFOLIO REVIEW, THE VERY EXISTENCE OF PORTFOLIO REVIEW MAY BE BASED UPON THE EVALUATION THAT CERTAIN PUBLIC POLICY OBJECTIVES ARE BEING REACHED, AND THAT THERE BE CONDITIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ARE ACHIEVED. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU, BOB. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: LET'S CUT TO THE CHASE. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CAN IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE GRANTS IF THE WORKING GROUP DEEMS NECESSARY. AND THE REASON THAT IT MAKES SENSE IS THAT THIS IS A ONE-TIME ONLY. SO THERE'S NO ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AND COME BACK A SECOND TIME. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JEFF, I'D LIKE TO SECOND THE MOTION, AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. IF YOU DON'T, THAT'S FINE AND I'LL STILL SECOND THE MOTION. THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD SEEK THE ADVICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL AND INCORPORATE ANY RECOMMENDATION THEY HAVE INTO YOUR MOTION. SO WE'RE WITHIN THE LEGAL PARAMETERS OF WHAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO. DO YOU ACCEPT THAT? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE MOTION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: QUESTION ON THE MOTION. IF WE CAN MAKE THAT GENERAL COUNSEL AND OUTSIDE COUNSEL SINCE OUTSIDE WAS INVOLVED IN DRAFTING. THERE'S LEGAL RESEARCH THAT MIGHT BE CLEARLY AVAILABLE AS WELL. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: WE'LL GET REMCHO IN HERE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: HE NEEDS MORE BILLABLE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: ONE COMMENT HERE. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR MOTION, JEFF. WOULD THAT APPLY TO ALL THE WORK OF THIS GROUP OR JUST THE SHARED LABS? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THE SHARED LABS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: JUST THIS. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: RUSTY, COULD I JUST MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION? AGAIN, WHAT YOU WOULD BE DOING IS RECOMMENDING THAT CONDITIONS BE IMPOSED UPON APPLICANTS. AND BECAUSE THE ICOC HAS NOT YET CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER BOTH THE NATURE OF THE POWER AS WELL AS THE PARTICULAR CONDITION THAT YOU RECOMMENDED. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I THINK THE WAY IT WOULD GO IS THAT IT WOULD BE RECOMMENDED TO THE ICOC AS A MERITORIOUS GRANT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. ABSENT THOSE CONDITIONS, IT WOULDN'T BE RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: OKAY. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS? | ||||||||
| MR. REED: DON REED. I WONDER ISN'T THERE A PRECEDENT IN THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS WHERE PEOPLE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SWEETEN THE DEAL LATER ON? IF WE WERE TO SAY WE ACCEPT THIS WITH THESE CONDITIONS CHANGED, COULD NOT SOMEONE ELSE SAY, HEY, WE'RE HAPPY TO CHANGE OUR PROPOSAL AS WELL. WOULDN'T THAT CREATE ARGUMENT THERE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DON, TO RESPOND TO YOU, AND THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT, PART OF THE MOTION NOW IS TO SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL ADVICE. BOB SUGGESTED THAT WE GO WITH MR. HARRISON SINCE HE HAD A HAND IN THIS. I COULD CARE LESS. I THINK TAMAR PACHTER IS EQUALLY AS QUALIFIED TO OPINE ON THE MATTER. I'LL LEAVE IT TO THE ATTORNEYS TO DEAL WITH. BUT THAT IS THE MOTION, AND WE WOULDN'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD GET US IN ANY TROUBLE. YOU RAISE A GOOD POINT, DON. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IN THE PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH, WE SPECIFICALLY HAVE PROVISIONS THAT SAID WE WOULD NOT CONSIDER AMENDMENTS OR CHANGES OF ANY KIND. AND WE HAD POLICY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CONDITIONS AND DIDN'T HAVE CONDITIONS IN WHAT -- I'D JUST LIKE TO INDICATE THERE WAS A DIFFERENT RULEMAKING CONTEXT. HERE WE'RE SPECIFICALLY ADOPTING CONDITIONS BEFORE WE DO THE EVALUATIONS AS ONE OF THE THINGS WE CAN PUT INTO A RECOMMENDATION. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: BOB, I THINK YOU MEAN THE SITE SEARCH. I CERTAINLY WASN'T AWARE OF ANY CONDITIONS ON MY PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: JUST THAT YOU STAY FOREVER. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I'M GOING TO CALL -- ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? POLL THE GROUP. JOAN. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: NO. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: YES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: YES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: BOB. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: SHERRY. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I HAVE ONE LAST TECHNICAL QUESTION. YOU KNOW I DO. YOU MENTIONED THAT A NUMBER OF THE AREAS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, THAT THEY'RE, COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING, THESE COSTS COMPARATIVE TO THE OTHERS. NOW WE'RE SPLITTING THESE FACILITIES UP. I IMAGINE WE'LL GET FIVE OR SIX EACH. IS THIS COMPARATIVE TO THE ONES WE HAVE, OR ARE WE ALLOWED TO SAY, BECAUSE PERHAPS WE MIGHT HAVE ONES THAT ARE VERY COMPARATIVE TO EACH OTHER, BUT COMPLETELY NOT COMPARATIVE TO MAYBE THE GROUP THAT ANOTHER MEMBER HAS. SO IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPARE THE ENTIRE GROUP BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT ISSUES? I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT LOOKING AT THINGS THAT I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: MAY I ANSWER THAT? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: YES, LORI. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: WHAT RICK AND I ARE PREPARING FOR YOUR USE, AND YOU WILL RECEIVE THAT IN YOUR INITIAL PACKAGES WITH YOUR ASSIGNMENTS, IS A SPREADSHEET THAT WILL HAVE ALL THE FACTS FOR ALL OF THE INSTITUTIONS, THE APPLICANTS. AND THAT'S FOR YOUR USE. THERE WILL BE NO JUDGMENT THERE. IT WILL BE FACTUAL INFORMATION ONLY. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: OKAY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: LET ME -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WAIT. WAIT. WAIT, BOB. JEFF. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: JUST BEFORE, AND I HAVE TO MAKE THE MOTION THAT THAT INFORMATION IN THOSE DRAFTS, THOSE TECHNICAL ANALYSES, BE PUBLIC RECORDS, THAT THE VOTES OF THE REVIEWERS, THEIR NUMERICAL SCORES BE STATED IN PUBLIC, AND THAT OUR SCORE SHEETS BE PUBLIC RECORD. I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: IS THAT HOW IT'S CURRENTLY SPELLED OUT? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: IN THE INTERIM CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THIS WORKING GROUP IN OCTOBER AND THEN FORWARDED TO THE ICOC FOR RECOMMENDATION IN OCTOBER, IT SAYS THAT, AND I DON'T LIKE USING THIS TERM, BUT IT SAYS SECRET BALLOT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: AT A MINIMUM I'D LIKE THE TECHNICAL ANALYSES AND THE DRAFT DOCUMENTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO USE TO MAKE OUR DECISIONS, THOSE BE PUBLIC RECORDS. AND I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANNOUNCE OUR SCORES IN PUBLIC BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION. I THINK THOSE TWO POINTS, THOSE TWO SHOULD BE PUBLIC. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: JEFF, HOW DID THE GRANT DIVISION WORK THIS? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THEY MEET IN CLOSED SESSION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: THEY DON'T. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: SCIENTISTS WOULD NOT REVEAL THE SCIENCE PUBLICLY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION WITHOUT SOME ANNOUNCEMENT OF SCORES. TRANSPARENCY, I JUST WANT TO MAKE FOR THE RECORD, WE'RE GOING TO BE ENDING UP GIVING OUT A LOT OF MONEY. AND TRANSPARENCY IS A WAY THAT WE PROTECT OURSELVES. WHEN WE SUPPLY INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC, WHICH I BELIEVE IS GOOD IN AND OF ITSELF, BUT I ALSO WOULD SAY FOR THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THE MORE TRANSPARENT WE ARE, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST IF WE MAKE MISTAKES, THEY'LL JUST SAY WE WERE STUPID. THEY WON'T ACCUSE US OF ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE IT'S ALL OUT THERE FOR EVERYBODY TO SEE. | ||||||||
| I'M NOT UNCOMFORTABLE WITH GETTING STAFF-PREPARED DOCUMENTS THAT CAN MATERIALLY AFFECT HOW WE MAKE OUR JUDGMENT, INCLUDING COST COMPARISONS THAT AREN'T AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, AND WE COME BACK AND WE DON'T DO GRANTS. THEY SAY, WELL, WE GOT ALL THIS STUFF FROM STAFF. AND I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| IN THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, ALL YOU GET IS A GRANT APPLICATION TO MAKE YOUR DECISION. AND THE APPLICANT KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT THE REVIEWER BASED THEIR REVIEW ON. WE'RE RECEIVING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ON WHICH WE'RE GOING TO BE BASING OUR REVIEW THAT NEITHER THE APPLICANT NOR THE PUBLIC WILL BE PRIVY TO. AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT SCORES WITHOUT ACTUALLY USING THOSE SCORES. AND WE'RE GOING TO BE SCORING WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THOSE SCORES ARE THAT THE PEOPLE MADE. I DON'T KNOW HOW I'M GOING TO COME UP WITH A SCORE WHEN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT SCORES IN THE ABSTRACT WITHOUT ACTUALLY DECLARING THE SCORES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE REVIEW. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS THAT THE STAFF WILL MAKE HERE WILL BE A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY QUESTION ABOUT THAT. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: ALL I SAID WAS THAT WAS A DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENT, AND THEN COUNSEL WOULD REVIEW THAT. WE HAD NOT GOTTEN TO THAT, JEFF. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT, IN FACT, THERE IS NO COST COMPARISON. IT REALLY IS FACTUAL DATA, SO THAT IS ALL PUBLIC. SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PROBLEM WITH THE SPREADSHEET BEING AVAILABLE AT ALL. I THINK THAT THAT'S FINE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I JUST WANT FOR THE APPLICANTS TO KNOW WHAT WE HAD IN FRONT OF US BESIDES THEIR APPLICATION AND OUR OWN WITS TO MAKE OUR DECISION. I THINK THAT'S ONLY FAIR. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WHY DON'T YOU RESTATE YOUR MOTION? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WELL, THE MOTION IS THAT DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED BY THE -- THAT STAFF PROVIDES US IN ORDER TO MAKE EVALUATION OF THE GRANTS BE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. | ||||||||
| AND THE SECOND IS THAT IN THE REVIEW PROCESS, THAT WE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE OUR SCORES, THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REVIEWER, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION. SO WE'RE GOING TO SAY I HAVE A GRANT FROM SO-AND-SO. WE HAVE TO PUBLICLY SAY I SCORED IT AT X. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ARE THERE ANY OTHER ELEMENTS TO YOUR MOTION? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: NO. THAT'S THE ONLY ELEMENT. THE OTHER ONE IS ALREADY PRECLUDED BY -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: IS THERE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: ANY DISCUSSION? | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: YEAH. SO THE FIRST PART I TOTALLY AGREE WITH. I'M NOT SURE ON THE SECOND PART. I'M NOT SAYING NO, BUT I THINK WE NEED SOME FURTHER DISCUSSION TO UNDERSTAND THE RAMIFICATIONS FOR THE SECOND PART. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WELL, OKAY. WE'RE ALL GOING TO HAVE SCORE SHEETS LIKE THIS. AND FOR EVERY GRANT THAT WE'RE NOT CONFLICTED ON, WE'RE GOING TO WRITE DOWN A SCORE. RIGHT? BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO WRITE DOWN SCORES FOR THE ONES WE DIDN'T REVIEW. THE ONES WE REVIEWED, WE'RE GOING TO COME UP -- YOU'RE GOING TO COME UP -- LET'S JUST DO A SCENARIO. WE'LL USE OREGON. SO YOU DO THE PRIMARY REVIEW. YOU'VE GONE THROUGH THESE CRITERIA. YOU AWARDED POINTS. YOU HAVE A NUMBER. I DO A SECONDARY REPORT. I DO A NUMBER. | ||||||||
| NOW, THE WAY WE HAVE SET UP THE PROCESS, WHEN WE COME TO THE GROUP AS A WHOLE, AND THERE WILL BE MEMBERS THERE, NONE OF THESE PEOPLE WILL HAVE LOOKED AT THIS, BUT THEY'LL HAVE A SCORE SHEET THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO FILL IN, RIGHT, THAT'S GOING TO PROVIDE THE SCORE THAT WE HAVE AT THE END. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT THE APPLICATIONS THAT THEY'RE NOT CONFLICTED ON AND TO MAKE SOME EVALUATION OF THEIR OWN, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO BE RELYING ON US. THEY'LL ASK US QUESTIONS. | ||||||||
| NOW, WE'RE GOING TO COME UP AND WE'RE GOING TO SAY, WELL, I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD GRANT, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU A NUMBER. THE WAY WE HAVE SET UP THE PROCESS, I'M NOT GOING TO DECLARE A SCORE AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DECLARE A SCORE. AND THEN WE'RE ALL GOING TO SIT THERE AND FILL OUT ON OUR SHEET SCORES. | ||||||||
| WHEREAS, THE WAY IT WORKS IN THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP IS THE PRIMARY REVIEWER ANNOUNCES THEIR SCORE, THE SECONDARY REVIEWER ANNOUNCES THEIR SCORE -- | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: RECOMMENDED SCORE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: RECOMMENDED SCORE. AND I THINK THIS IS A GOOD PROCESS, BY THE WAY, AND THIS IS THE PROCESS I'D LIKE TO SEE US USE. AND THEN WE HAVE A HOPEFULLY ROBUST, OR IF IT'S GREAT OR TERRIBLE, IT MIGHT NOT BE THAT ROBUST, BUT WE HAVE A DISCUSSION. AND THEN THEY COME BACK AND THEY ASK US IF WE WANT TO CHANGE OUR SCORES FOR OUR FINAL SCORING. WE MAY DECIDE TO GO UP BECAUSE I MAY HAVE BEEN PERSUADED BY YOU, YOU MAY HAVE BEEN PERSUADED BY ME. WE MAY GET NEW INFORMATION FROM THE KNOWLEDGE OF OTHER WORKING GROUP MEMBERS THAT CAUSES US TO RAISE OR LOWER OUR SCORES. WE GIVE OUR FINAL SCORES. | ||||||||
| USING THAT AS THE BASIS FOR DOING THEIR OWN SCORING, THE OTHER MEMBERS WRITE DOWN SCORES. BUT IF WE DON'T DECLARE A SCORE, OUR WHOLE DISCUSSION BECOMES RATHER DIFFICULT TO HAVE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JEFF, WE SORT OF WENT OVER THIS AT THE LAST MEETING -- IT'S OKAY TO CHANGE. IT'S FINE -- THAT WE WANTED, AS LORI SAID, THE BALLOT TO BE SECRET. THE ONE DIFFERENCE -- WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING IS AN EXCELLENT PROCESS FOR THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. THEY CONDUCT THEIR PROCEEDING -- | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THE BALLOT IS STILL SECRET. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND. THEY CONDUCT THEIR PROCEEDINGS IN CLOSED SESSION, AS WE KNOW. SO THAT DIALOGUE, THAT ORGANIC PROCESS THAT HAPPENS AT THE SCIENTIFIC GRANTS WORKING GROUP, BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH PROPRIETARY INFORMATION DISCUSSED, AND FOR OTHER POLICY REASONS, THAT DISCUSSION IS IN PRIVATE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE MEETING LAWS. I THINK HERE -- I'M UNDECIDED. HERE IT'S A LITTLE SQUISHY BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE MEETING IN PUBLIC. WE MAY, FOR POLICY REASONS, NOT WANT TO DISCLOSE THE SCORES OF CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS BECAUSE THEY SCORED REALLY LOW. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO EMBARRASS THOSE ORGANIZATIONS. WE HAVE THE TIERED PROCESS. SO THOSE ARE MY ONLY COMMENTS. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: LIKE YOU COME UP AND YOU'RE GOING TO DELIVER A REVIEW. HOW AM I GOING TO SCORE YOUR REVIEW? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU'LL HAVE YOUR SCORE, AND I'LL HAVE MY SCORE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: NO. I'M NOT PART OF YOUR REVIEW TEAM, BUT I'M NOT CONFLICTED BECAUSE I HAVE TO SCORE EVERY GRANT TO WHICH I'M NOT CONFLICTED EVEN THOUGH I DID NOT REVIEW EVERY GRANT I WILL SCORE. SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO REVIEW YOUR GRANTS. LET'S SAY IT'S UCLA. I'M NOT CONFLICTED ON UCLA. THE TWO OF YOU DID UCLA. SO I HAVE UCLA AND I'VE GOT TO GIVE THEM A SCORE OF ZERO TO A HUNDRED, A TECHNICAL SCORE. NOW, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TELL ME A SCORE. YOU'RE JUST GOING TO IN GENERIC TERMS DISCUSS HOW YOU FELT ABOUT IT. SO I'M GOING TO GUESS A NUMBER. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: JEFF, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO RELY ON DAVID'S ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE THE QUALITY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WHY NOT DECLARE A SCORE? | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: I JUST WANT TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION. IT'S THE BALLOT ON WHICH EACH OF YOU ASSIGN THE ULTIMATE SCORES THAT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. IF YOU WANT TO VOLUNTEER WHAT SCORE YOU HAVE ASSIGNED, THAT'S COMPLETELY WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS. BUT IT'S JUST THAT BALLOT THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, UNLESS THE ICOC CHANGES THE PROCEDURES, THAT CONTINUES TO BE PRIVATE. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THERE'S NO REASON UNDER THE PROVISIONS THAT WE'VE ADOPTED NOT TO DO WHAT JEFF SAYS, TO HAVE A PRIMARY REVIEWER SAY I WILL GIVE THIS -- I'M GOING TO GIVE IT TEN POINTS ON THIS, FIVE POINTS ON THIS, SIX POINTS ON THIS, WHATEVER IT IS, FOR A TOTAL SCORE OF 79 POINTS. THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THAT WOULD BE TRANSPARENT. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT OFFENDING INSTITUTIONS. THE REASON THAT WE HAVE ALL THIS IS BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS IS WE DON'T WANT TO DISCOURAGE INDIVIDUAL RESEARCHERS FROM PARTICIPATING. LIKE IF SOMEONE GIVES A GRANT AND THEY GET A REALLY LOWER SCORE, WE DON'T WANT TO HOLD THEM UP AS AN INDIVIDUAL TO PUBLIC RIDICULE. I THINK INSTITUTIONS HAVE THICKER SKINS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: OKAY. SO, MARCY, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YEAH. I'M GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. I'M GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO PUBLICLY DECLARE OUR SCORES OF GRANTS THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED, BUT THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND ALSO THAT THE FINAL BALLOTS ARE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL AS WE ORIGINALLY AGREED. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S ANOTHER WAY TO ARTICULATE YOUR MOTION, JEFF. IS THAT OKAY? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WE ALREADY HAVE -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IS THAT OKAY? | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: JAMES HAS GOT A POINT. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: THAT'S A RESTATEMENT OF WHAT THE EXISTING PROCEDURES ARE. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: UNLESS YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT, THERE'S NO REASON TO VOTE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. I WANT TO HONOR THE MOTION. IS THAT OKAY? AS VICE CHAIR CAN I DO THAT? | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY WHERE WE'RE AT. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: I'M STILL A LITTLE FUZZY ON IT, BUT I DON'T FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THIS ISSUE. I THINK I NEED TO EXPLORE THIS MORE, BUT I'M OKAY WITH IT IF EVERYONE ELSE IS OKAY WITH IT. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: I THINK IT WILL BE VERY HELPFUL TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. IT WILL BE TREMENDOUSLY HELPFUL. EVERYBODY WILL UNDERSTAND MUCH BETTER HOW IT WORKS ONCE YOU'VE GONE THROUGH IT AND WHAT YOU NEED TO DO. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JEFF, GIVEN THE DISCUSSION HERE AND WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM STAFF AND COUNSEL, THAT WHAT YOU'VE SAID IS IN NO WAY COUNTER TO OUR EXISTING RULES THAT THE ICOC HAS ADOPTED, ARE YOU THEN -- YOU STILL HAVE YOUR MOTION ON THE FLOOR. I'M OKAY WITH VOTING YES ON IT BECAUSE IT'S A REAFFIRMATION OF WHAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE, I THINK, AND IS NOT COUNTER TO WHAT WE'VE ALREADY ADOPTED, OR DO YOU WANT TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION AND SORT OF WE CAN MOVE ON? IT'S UP TO YOU, JEFF. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD WITH THE MOTION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THERE'S A MOTION. THERE'S BEEN A SECOND. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I ALREADY SECONDED. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JANET HAS ALREADY SECONDED. THANK YOU. ARE THERE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? YES, COUNSEL. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE COULD -- SINCE WE'VE HAD THE DISCUSSION ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS, IF WE COULD CLARIFY WHAT THE MOTION IS THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING NOW FOR THE RECORD. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SURE. I'LL RESTATE IT, THAT THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE RECEIVE FROM STAFF RELATED TO GRANT APPLICATIONS BE MADE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS SO THAT THE APPLICANTS AND THE PUBLIC WILL KNOW WHAT INFORMATION WE HAD IN FRONT OF US TO MAKE OUR DECISION, AND THAT WE ANNOUNCE OUR -- PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REVIEWERS ANNOUNCE SCORES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE REVIEW OF EACH INDIVIDUAL GRANT. THAT THEY ANNOUNCE IN PUBLIC -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THEY CAN IF THEY WANT TO. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THEY CAN. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IT'S VOLUNTARY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WE'LL MAKE IT VOLUNTARY. WE WON'T MAKE ANYONE -- IF SOMEONE FEELS UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT ANNOUNCING -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DOES COUNSEL UNDERSTAND THE MOTION? | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: I DO. THERE'S ONE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION. YOU ARE ALSO DOING REVIEWS YOURSELF? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: SECONDARY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YES, SECONDARY, YEAH. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: IS THAT ENCOMPASSED WITHIN THIS OR NOT? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WHAT DO YOU MEAN? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I THINK IT IS. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: DOES THE SECONDARY REVIEWER HAVE TO DECLARE HIS SCORE? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: CAN. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REVIEWERS CAN. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IN THE INTERIM PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR CONDUCTING YOUR SHARED SPACE LABORATORY APPLICATIONS APPROVED BY YOU AND THE ICOC IN OCTOBER, ONE OF THE SENTENCES, AND I'LL JUST READ FROM THE LAST PART OF THIS PARAGRAPH, A DRAFT OF EACH REVIEWER'S COMMENTS WILL BE SUBMITTED TO CIRM STAFF AT LEAST THREE BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING FOR CIRCULATION TO OTHER REVIEWERS OF THE APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| SO THE QUESTION IS, AND THAT'S ALSO WHAT I WOULD DEEM AN ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT DOCUMENT, SO AT THIS POINT WOULD THAT ALSO BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC? JUST A CLARIFICATION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: LORI, I THINK YOU NEED TO WORK IT OUT WITH COUNSEL WHEN YOU WANT TO DEFINE WHAT'S A DRAFT AND WHAT'S NOT A DRAFT. I'LL LEAVE THAT TO COUNSEL TO DECIDE. THERE'S PLENTY OF CASE LAW AROUND THAT TOPIC. I'VE RESEARCHED IT MYSELF AND I'LL LET COUNSEL DEAL WITH IT. AND I, FOR ONE -- | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I WITHDRAW THE MOTION IF THERE'S SOME CONFIDENCE THAT EVERYTHING THAT WE WERE GOING TO RECEIVE TO MAKE OUR DECISION -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: AND I'M OKAY WITH COUNSEL SAYING WHEN IT'S A DRAFT AND WHEN IT'S NOT A DRAFT. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: IT'S WHAT YOU RECEIVE. IT'S WHAT YOU PRODUCE. I DON'T THINK YOU WANT THE DRAFT OF WHAT YOU PRODUCE MADE PUBLIC UNTIL AFTER THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE YOUR OPINIONS MAY CHANGE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: IT'S GENERATED -- | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: STAFF STUFF WILL BE MADE PUBLIC. THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I'LL WITHDRAW THE FIRST PART AND RELY ON THE -- I'M GOING TO TAKE THE ASSURANCE OF THE PRESIDENT THAT -- BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS A NEW DOCUMENT THAT WILL BE PRODUCED THAT IS AN ANALYSIS OR A SUMMARY, SOMETHING RELATED TO THIS. BECAUSE I THINK IF AN APPLICANT FELT LIKE THERE WAS INFORMATION IN THERE THAT WAS NOT ACCURATE ABOUT THE GRANT AND THAT WAS SOMETHING WE HAD IN FRONT OF US TO MAKE OUR DECISION, THEY SHOULD HAVE THAT -- THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO KNOW THAT. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: THAT'S FAIR. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: KIND OF TO CLARIFY FOR MY PURPOSES, THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE RECORDS OF THE WORKING GROUP ARE PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR. ALL RECORDS OF THE WORKING GROUP SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE WORKING GROUP'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ICOC FOR APPROVAL SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. I RELY ON YOU AS THE ATTORNEY FOR THE ICOC TO KEEP ME HONEST AS IT RELATES TO THE LAW. | ||||||||
| SO IF A RECORD IS DEFINED AS ACTS, THEN I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M VERY AWARE THAT THAT'S A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. IT'S NOT TYPICAL OF AN ADVISORY BODY TO PROVIDE ADVISORY DOCUMENTATIONS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. SO FOR ME I'M IN SORT OF NEW TERRITORY. I DEFINITELY WILL RELY ON YOU TO MAKE SURE THIS GROUP IS VERY CLEAR ON WHAT'S TO BE SUBMITTED. AND IF THERE'S -- EVEN IF THERE'S A LITTLE SCRATCH PAPER, IF I'M WRITING LITTLE NOTES -- I MEAN IN THE PAST, SOME OF MY SCRATCH PAPER HAS HAD TO BE SUBMITTED AS PART OF PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS BACK AND FORTH. SO I REALLY NEED YOU TO CLARIFY FOR ME WHAT WILL BE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DAVID. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF JAMES HARRISON COULD ADDRESS. IT'S VERY PRECISE WHAT IS SUBMITTED FROM THE WORKING GROUP TO THE ICOC IS WHAT IS ADDRESSED AS BEING SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. SO IT'S NOT SCRATCH PAPER YOU'RE WORKING ON IN A COMMITTEE SESSION. THAT'S NOT SUBMITTED TO THE ICOC. MAYBE JAMES COULD EXPAND ON THAT. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: DAVE, JEFF HAS MADE THE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION THAT ANY MATERIAL PROVIDED BY THE STAFF THAT AIDS THE WORKING GROUP SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: MY THING IS DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY STAFF EVALUATING OR SUMMARIZING OR LOOKING AT THE APPLICATION FOR THE TECHNICAL REVIEW, AND EXCEPTING THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP THINGS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE YET, BUT FOR THE TECHNICAL REVIEW, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEW DOCUMENTS SEPARATE FROM THE GRANT APPLICATION, THAT THOSE BE MADE PUBLIC. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: MY CONCERN IS THAT THIS GROUP IS OVERSTEPPING ITS BOUND BY MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION. IT SEEMS THAT IT WOULD BE MORE RELEVANT THAT THE ICOC MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION, THAT DOCUMENTS, THE INTERNAL WORKING DOCUMENTS, BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD ACT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I DON'T THINK IT'S ANTICIPATED BY THE APPLICANTS TO THE GRANT THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER DOCUMENT ABOUT THEIR GRANT PRODUCED BY STAFF THAT WILL BE ADDED TO THEIR GRANT APPLICATION BEFORE IT'S REVIEWED. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I THINK THE CHALLENGE WE HAVE HERE, DEBORAH, IS STAFF HAS INTRODUCED TODAY A NEW CONCEPT. THAT IS, THIS STAFF ANALYSIS REPORT. WE'RE DECIDING AS A WORKING GROUP AS A POLICY MATTER HOW BEST TO PROCEED WITH IT AND AT WHAT STAGE IT BECOMES PUBLIC. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: CAN'T WE JUST SAY THAT WHATEVER THEY PRESENT TO US, NOT THEIR NOTES, NOT WHAT THEY GET, BUT WHATEVER IS PRESENTED TO OUR WORKING GROUP BECOMES PUBLIC, WHICH IT WOULD ANYWAYS, I THINK. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AS A CLARIFICATION, JEFF, AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, WOULD YOU EXCLUDE FROM THAT ITEMS THAT UNDER OUR OWN RULES WOULD BE CONFIDENTIAL, LIKE LAND SALES CONTRACTS THAT MAY BE IN ESCROW? THERE'S A SPECIFIC CLASS OF THINGS WE'VE IDENTIFIED IN OUR OWN OPERATING PROCEDURES LIKE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS THAT ARE IN NEGOTIATION OR SOMETHING THAT COULD BE EXCLUDED. BUT I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT ANY ANALYSIS THAT'S SUBMITTED TO US THAT IS NOT IN THOSE PARTICULAR SENSITIVE CATEGORIES. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: MAYBE IN AN EFFORT TO KIND OF MOVE THROUGH THE MEETING, AND I WANTED TO SAY AS WELL THAT THERE WAS EVERY INTENTION OF ULTIMATELY HAVING THIS STAFF REVIEW BE AVAILABLE CERTAINLY TO THE ICOC AS WELL. IF THEY WANTED TO USE IT, THEY COULD. I THINK THE ONLY INSTANCE THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO NOT MOVE FORWARD ON MAKING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT NOW PUBLIC RECORD IS THAT MIGHT PUT INTO QUESTION SOME OTHER ISSUES. YOU CAN BRING THIS UP AGAIN AT THE MAY 2D MEETING, AND AT THAT POINT DECIDE THAT THIS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION OR NOT. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: LET ME -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: WOULD THIS IN ANY WAY LIMIT OUR ABILITY AS INDIVIDUALS TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO THE STAFF ABOUT THE DOCUMENT? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY LIMITATION ON YOU SPEAKING WITH STAFF. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: SINCE THERE SEEMS TO BE SO MUCH CONFUSION AROUND WHAT DOCUMENTS WE CAN OR CANNOT, I REALLY THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THE TIME TO ALLOW LEGAL COUNSEL TO ADVISE US ON WHAT DOCUMENTS SHOULD GO FORWARD. AND SO RATHER THAN JEFF MAKING A MOTION, WE'RE ASKING LEGAL TO COME BACK. WE'RE ASKING LEGAL A QUESTION AND ASKING THEM TO COME BACK TO ADVISE THE WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I THINK THIS IS A POLICY QUESTION, AND LEGAL STATED THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING WHETHER OR NOT THIS DOCUMENT THAT IS GENERATED BY STAFF THAT IS EXTRANEOUS TO THE GRANT APPLICATION, WHICH TYPICALLY HAVE BEEN IN OTHER WORKING GROUPS THE ONLY DOCUMENT ON WHICH DECISIONS AND ANALYSIS HAS BEEN DONE. WE'RE INTRODUCING A NEW STAFF-GENERATED DOCUMENT ABOUT A GRANT APPLICATION THAT THE GRANT APPLICANTS HAVE NOT SUBMITTED THEMSELVES, NOR HAVE THEY SEEN. THEY COULD HAVE INFORMATION THAT GRANT APPLICANTS OR THE PUBLIC -- I THINK IT'S HIGHLY UNFAIR TO HAVE TO PRODUCE A SUMMARY THAT'S NOT AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANTS ABOUT THEIR APPLICATION. IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO WORK DIRECTLY OFF THE APPLICATION, AND I'M HAPPY TO HAVE THE ANALYSIS OF STAFF, BUT THAT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE SO THAT IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ACCURATE, THE APPLICANT HAS SOME SORT OF REDRESS. OTHERWISE, THEY'LL NEVER SEE IT, AND THEY COULD HAVE THEIR APPLICATION KNOCKED OUT BY SOMETHING IN THAT SUMMARY. | ||||||||
| I DO NOT -- EVEN A MISTAKE, YOU KNOW, JUST A CLERICAL ERROR COULD HAVE AN IMPACT THAT MIGHT MATERIALLY NEGATIVELY AFFECT THAT. IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME WHY THIS WOULD NOT BE A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JEFF, I'M WITH YOU ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. IT OUGHT TO BE A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. I THINK UNDER ANY LEGAL ANALYSIS, IT EVENTUALLY BECOMES A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. TO ME THE ISSUE IS, AND MAYBE I'M SENSING THIS FROM STAFF, AND I'LL DEFER TO STAFF. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE SENSING, BUT WHEN DOES IT BECOME A PUBLIC DOCUMENT? IF I STAMP ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT ON IT, GUESS WHAT. IT'S PROTECTED UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. IT'S NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. | ||||||||
| NOW, THERE ARE SOME REALLY LEGITIMATE POLICY REASONS WHY THAT'S THE CASE BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO SHARE DRAFTS, IT'S AN EARLIER DRAFT, YOU'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH. THERE'S REASONS WHY DRAFTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. SO I SEE IT AS A WHEN DOES IT BECOME PUBLIC. IN MY MIND IT IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT -- EVENTUALLY BECOMES A PUBLIC RECORD. | ||||||||
| THE QUESTION IS WHEN IN THIS PROCESS DO YOU THINK IT OUGHT TO BE A PUBLIC RECORD? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I FEEL LIKE IF IT'S NOT A PUBLIC RECORD, WE'RE SUBSTITUTING STAFF'S JUDGMENT FOR THE WORKING GROUP AND POTENTIALLY FOR THE -- | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT WAS VERY GOOD. I'M SORRY, JEFF, THAT YOU FEEL -- AND I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY TO EITHER NOT DO IT OR DO IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY THAT HELPS THE WORKING GROUP. BUT IT IS THE ISSUE OF TIMING. AND THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: LET ME JUST SAY, AGAIN, THE ATTEMPT HERE IS TO HELP YOU IN YOUR WORK AND NOT TO IMPOSE AN OPINION ON YOU OR TO SAY THIS IS WHAT YOU OUGHT TO DO. THAT'S NOT PART OF IT. | ||||||||
| I TAKE YOUR POINT, AND IT IS REALLY TO TRY TO ORGANIZE AROUND THE ISSUES WHAT THE STAFF SEES. AND WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY HIGHLY QUALIFIED IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING HOW RESEARCH SPACE IS CONSTRUCTED, HOW THE FIGURES ARE CALCULATED, WHAT THE COMPARATORS ARE, AND SO THAT INFORMATION IS AN ATTEMPT TO AID YOU IN YOUR WORK, SHOULD YOU WANT IT, BY ORGANIZING THAT INFORMATION IN A CONSISTENT WAY FOR ALL THE DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS. | ||||||||
| I TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY YOUR POINT THAT THERE COULD BE AN ERROR IN THAT THAT WOULD HAVE CONSEQUENCES. WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO DO THIS WOULD BE THAT WE PROVIDE THAT MATERIAL TO YOU, TO THE REVIEWERS, AT THE BEGINNING, AND THAT WE NOT AT THAT POINT MAKE IT PUBLIC. BUT THAT AT THE TIME THE MEETING IS ANNOUNCED BEFORE -- I FORGET HOW THE SCHEDULE GOES -- BUT AT SOME TIME BEFORE THE MEETING MAY 2D AND 3D, THE DOCUMENT BE MADE PUBLIC. | ||||||||
| THE REASON I SAY THAT IS I THINK WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO GET INTO -- SO THE INTENT HERE IS TO CLEAR UP ANY UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS THAT MAY BE IN THERE. WHAT I DON'T WANT TO ENCOURAGE, HOWEVER, IS INSTITUTIONS ENGAGING PERHAPS IN SOME ARGUMENTATIVE WAY WITH US ABOUT WHETHER SOME PHRASE OR SENTENCE OR WHATEVER MIGHT BE BIASED IN IT BEFORE THE PROCESS HAS REALLY GOTTEN GOING. | ||||||||
| AND SO MY SUGGESTION -- THERE'S NO QUESTION IN THE END, I BELIEVE, THAT, JUST AS DAVID SAID, IT IS AND SHOULD BE A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT IT BE ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT UNTIL SOME PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE THE MEETING SO THAT APPLICANTS HAVE A CHANCE TO SEE IT, AND THEN THEY CAN COME TO THE MEETING AND SAY, BY THE WAY, WE NOTICED THAT YOU'VE SAID IN HERE THAT THIS IS TRUE, AND WE DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT. AND THEN IT CAN BE DISCUSSED IN THE OPEN MEETING. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THAT'S FINE. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: OTHERWISE WE GET INTO SORT OF THE INSTITUTION CALLS US UP AND SAYS YOU MADE A MISTAKE HERE, AND THEN THERE'S ALL THIS BEHIND THE SCENES STUFF GOES ON THAT I THINK IS NOT -- | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: NO. I THINK THAT'S NOT CONDUCIVE. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: THIS WAY IT'S IN THE PUBLIC, AND EVERYBODY HAS A CHANCE TO SEE IT BEFORE THE MEETING. AND THEN IF THERE ARE ERRORS, THEY CAN BE CALLED OUT RIGHT THEN AND THERE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, JEFF? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I'M VERY COMFORTABLE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: AS A POLICY MATTER, DO YOU THINK WE NEED A VOTE ON IT? I DON'T. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I DON'T THINK WE DO. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB, YOU WANT TO VOTE ON IT? HELLO, BOB? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: COULD I ASK A QUESTION? IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS, THERE COULD BE SECTIONS PICKED UP FROM THE LAWYERS THAT SAYS THERE'S A LEGAL PROBLEM IN THE LAND SALES CONTRACT. SUCH-AND-SUCH A PROBLEM MAY CREATE A PROBLEM TRYING TO CLOSE THIS, OR IN A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. WE SHOULD PROVIDE A PROVISION THAT WHERE THERE'S LEGAL ANALYSIS THAT CAN DAMAGE THE POSITION OF THE APPLICANT IN RESOLVING THE PROBLEM, THAT PERHAPS WE CAN SAY THOSE LEGAL PROVISIONS COULD BE IN THE FINAL DRAFT REVISED SO THAT THEY DO NOT PREJUDICE THE APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM, THAT THIS ADDRESSES ISSUES THAT UNDER OUR OWN OPERATING POLICIES WE'VE ADDRESSED AS BEING SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE DONE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: IF THERE ARE CONFIDENTIAL ASPECTS OF THE STAFF ANALYSIS THAT PERTAIN TO LEGAL ADVICE OR CONFIDENTIAL LAND NEGOTIATIONS, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU CONSIDER REDACTING THOSE PROVISIONS BEFORE THEY'RE MADE PUBLIC SO IT DOESN'T PREJUDICE THE APPLICANTS OR THE INSTITUTE ITSELF. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S MY POINT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WE DON'T NEED A MOTION. YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH IT AS OUTLINED? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: UNLESS YOU WANT A MOTION, JEFF. IT'S YOUR CALL. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: OKAY. I'LL WITHDRAW THE MOTION. I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE PRESIDENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: ON THE SHARED LAB SPACE, WE'RE COMPLETE ON THAT SUBJECT. WE NEED TO TAKE ABOUT A 20-MINUTE LUNCH, AND WE'LL COME BACK AND TALK ABOUT NEW FACILITIES. | ||||||||
| (A RECESS WAS TAKEN.) | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: LET'S GET STARTED, PLEASE. WE'RE GOING TO GET STARTED. SO THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN HERE FOR THE AFTERNOON SESSION, THANK YOU AND I HOPE YOU LEARN SOMETHING FROM IT. BUT OUR NEXT AND FINAL AGENDA ITEM IS A BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION ON THE ICOC'S INPUT ON THE CONCEPT PLAN. IT'S OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS IT. ZACH WILL GIVE US A PRESENTATION ON THE CURRENT THINKING OF THE ICOC ON LARGER GRANTS. WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY RECOMMENDATIONS. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS JUST SIT IN MY SEAT HERE RATHER THAN USE THE PULPIT, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT. WE CAN ASK THE REVEREND KELLER TO PRESS THE APPROPRIATE BUTTON AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I'M HERE TO SAVE YOU. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: I BELIEVE. I BELIEVE. OKAY. SO AS WE'VE HAD SEVERAL ALLUSIONS TO ALREADY, WE ARE APPROACHING THE CRITICAL STAGE OF OUR REVIEW OF THE SHARED LABORATORY FACILITIES AND AT THE SAME TIME ARE ALSO BEGINNING A MUCH BIGGER PROJECT, AND THAT IS TO CONSIDER OUR OVERALL FACILITIES GRANTS AND IN PARTICULAR OUR FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION GRANTS. | ||||||||
| SO I WANTED TO JUST TALK ABOUT THAT. AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS REALLY TO GET INFORMATION FROM YOU. ALSO, TO LET YOU KNOW WHERE WE ARE IN THE PLANNING PROCESS AND TO GET INFORMATION AND INPUT FROM YOU THAT WE CAN USE GOING FORWARD. | ||||||||
| SO LET ME JUST REMIND YOU WITH THE NEXT SLIDE THE OVERALL AIMS OF THE FACILITIES GRANTS AND, REMEMBER, I'M SURE YOU DON'T NEED TO BE REMINDED, THAT SOME 10 PERCENT OF THE FUNDS OF THE OVERALL BOND ISSUE, THAT IS UP TO $300 MILLION TOTAL, CAN BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION, A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THAT ACTUALLY. THAT'S OKAY. LORI IS WINCING AT MY IMPRECISE USE OF NUMBERS. | ||||||||
| BUT THE POINT OF THIS IS, AND, AGAIN, LET ME GIVE CREDIT TO THE CHAIR, BOB KLEIN, WHO WROTE PROPOSITION 71 AND I THINK IS VERY PRESCIENT IN UNDERSTANDING THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO EXPAND THIS EXCITING NEW ENTERPRISE OF STEM CELL RESEARCH IN CALIFORNIA, THAT IT'S NOT ENOUGH JUST TO GIVE GRANT MONEY AND TO TRAIN PEOPLE AND TO BRING PEOPLE IN, BUT THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED NEW FACILITIES IN ORDER TO DO THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: ZACH, EXCUSE ME FOR INTERRUPTING. ARE BOB AND SHERRY ON THE LINE HERE? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'M ON THE LINE. THIS IS BOB. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WHAT ABOUT SHERRY? DO WE NEED TO RECONNECT WITH HER? | ||||||||
| MS. BECKER: NO. SHE WILL CALL IN WHEN SHE CAN. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: SO THE OVERALL AIMS OF THE FACILITIES, THEN, ARE JUST HERE SUMMARIZED. TO FACILITATE AND STIMULATE STEM CELL RESEARCH IN CALIFORNIA, PARTICULARLY RESEARCH ON PLURIPOTENT HUMAN STEM CELLS, BY PROVIDING NEW FACILITIES FOR RESEARCH. AND THAT ARISES FROM REALLY THREE SOURCES. ONE IS THE EXPANSION IN THE OVERALL RESEARCH ENTERPRISE, WHICH IS REPRESENTED BY THIS. AND SINCE THIS IS A NET ADDITION TO THE CALIFORNIA BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH ENTERPRISE, IT MAKES SENSE THAT WE REQUIRE A NET ADDITION OF SPACE IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THIS RESEARCH. | ||||||||
| SECONDLY, THE ISSUE THAT I'M SURE YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH, THAT SPACE IS NEEDED FOR RESEARCH OUTSIDE THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES. AND, FINALLY, THERE'S A VERY POSITIVE SCIENTIFIC BENEFIT HERE, WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS PLAIN OR I THINK UNDERSTOOD BY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE SCIENTIFIC CULTURE. AND THAT IS, IN SPITE OF THE POPULAR STEREOTYPES OF SCIENTISTS AS LONELY INDIVIDUALS WHO SIT IN THEIR CLOSETS AND THINK GREAT THOUGHTS, IN FACT, MOST SCIENCE, AND PARTICULARLY THESE DAYS, IS INTENSELY SOCIAL. IF YOU GO TO ANY LABORATORY NOW IN BIOMEDICAL SCIENCE, YOU WILL FIND -- ANY ACTIVE LABORATORY, YOU WILL FIND THAT THEY'RE ENGAGED WITH ACTIVE COLLABORATIONS WITH MAYBE TEN OR TWELVE OTHER LABORATORIES ON VARIOUS PROJECTS. IT'S A CONSTANTLY SHIFTING THING. AS PROJECTS CHANGE AND COME AND GO, THEN THOSE COLLABORATIONS CHANGE. BUT IN ACTUAL FACT, SCIENTISTS WORK AND LEARN FROM EACH OTHER AND ARE DEPENDENT ON EACH OTHER. AND HAVING A DEDICATED FACILITY FOR AN EMERGING AREA LIKE STEM CELL RESEARCH IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT IN PROMOTING THAT AREA AND ATTRACTING YOUNG PEOPLE AND BEING A PHYSICAL LOCUS FOR THE WORK THAT GOES ON. | ||||||||
| AND I'M, AS I SAID, A GREAT BELIEVER IN SCIENCE BY THE WATER FOUNTAIN. THAT IS, YOU GO GET A DRINK OF WATER AND RUN INTO SOMEBODY AND SAY, "OH, BY THE WAY, HOW DID THIS EXPERIMENT GO? HOW'S THAT STUDENT'S PROJECT GOING? GEE, I HAD A FUNNY IDEA THE OTHER DAY THAT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP ME WITH." AT ANY RATE, IT'S THOSE SORTS OF INFORMAL AND INADVERTENT EVEN ASSOCIATIONS THAT ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE OVERALL SUCCESS. | ||||||||
| AND WHAT'S IMPORTANT IN CALIFORNIA IS THAT WE ARE NOT ONLY CREATING AN INCREASED NUMBER OF LABORATORIES DOING STEM CELL RESEARCH. WE ARE, MORE IMPORTANTLY, CREATING A VERY VITAL AND VIABLE COMMUNITY OF STEM CELL RESEARCHERS. AND THE WAY IN WHICH PEOPLE FEED OFF EACH OTHER TO MAKE THESE THINGS HAPPEN IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. | ||||||||
| SO THOSE THREE REASONS, THEN, ARE THE RATIONALE BEHIND IT ALL. | ||||||||
| NOW, THE FACILITIES PROGRAM, THEN, STARTS WITH A SHARED RESEARCH LABORATORIES PROGRAM, WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED WITH NOW. AND, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE IC APPROVAL FOR UP TO 15 GRANTS OF ABOUT ONE TO ONE AND A HALF MILLION, DEPENDING ON WHETHER OR NOT CONSTRUCTION MONEY, FACILITIES MONEY, DEPENDING ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A COURSE INVOLVED, AND THE ROUGH TOTAL OF THAT IS ABOUT $17 MILLION. | ||||||||
| WE ALSO HAVE, THEN, TARGETED FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION GRANTS, WHICH ARE GRANTS FROM FIVE MILLION TO TENS OF MILLIONS THAT COULD BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTING LARGER FACILITIES. | ||||||||
| NOW, OF THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT OF MONEY, ACCORDING TO THE SCIENTIFIC STRATEGIC PLAN, WE HELD OUT 35 MILLION FOR FUTURE USES HAVING TO DO WITH STEM CELL BANK, GMP PRODUCTION FACILITIES, PERHAPS A NEED FOR FIXED EQUIPMENT, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE PROPOSITION FALLS UNDER THE FACILITIES GRANTS, AND THIS IS, IN ESSENCE, SORT OF SO THAT WE DON'T COMMIT AND SPEND ALL THE MONEY UP FRONT, BUT MAKE PROVISION FOR FUTURE NEEDS, SOME OF THEM WHICH MAY BE UNFORESEEN. | ||||||||
| AND THE NEXT FIGURE WHICH, THANKS TO RICK KELLER, JUST ILLUSTRATES HOW THIS FITS INTO OUR OVERALL BUDGET. AND THE OVERALL PIE THERE IS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE HAVE. THE RESEARCH GRANTS, AS YOU SEE, COME TO ABOUT 2.5 MILLION ROUGHLY, WE HAVE ADMINISTRATION AND ISSUANCE COST, AND THEN WE HAVE 274 MILLION THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR CAPITAL USES. AND THE BREAKDOWN THERE IS JUST WHAT I'VE SAID, ABOUT 17 MILLION FOR THE SHARED LABS, 222 MILLION FOR THE FACILITIES GRANTS, LARGE FACILITIES GRANTS, AND THEN STEM CELL BANK, CORE LABS, AND OTHER OPPORTUNITIES WOULD BE ABOUT 35 MILLION OF THAT. | ||||||||
| NOW, WE HAVE A TENTATIVE SCHEDULE FOR THE FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION GRANTS. AND LET ME UNDERLINE THE WORD "TENTATIVE" BECAUSE, AS YOU WILL SEE, WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO, BUT THIS IS SORT OF THE OVERALL PLAN BY WHICH WE'RE PROCEEDING. | ||||||||
| WE BEGAN BY GATHERING INFORMATION ABOUT THIS AT THE APRIL 10TH ICOC MEETING LAST WEEK. AND WE ARE ALSO HERE TO GATHER INFORMATION AND IDEAS FROM YOU. WE WILL NEED, ACCORDING TO PROPOSITION 71, TO DEVELOP CRITERIA FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE ICOC, AND BOTH GRANTS AND FACILITIES WORKING GROUPS WILL HAVE TO DO THAT. AND I THINK OUR DISCUSSION THIS MORNING IS A VERY GOOD PREAMBLE TO THAT DISCUSSION, WHICH WE HOPE TO HAVE ACTUALLY BEFORE THE JUNE MEETING. AND IT'S CLEAR THAT WE NEED, AS WE'VE HEARD THIS MORNING, NOT ONLY TO RECOMMEND CRITERIA, BUT TO BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT HOW THEY WILL BE WEIGHTED, I THINK, AND ALSO TO BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT AS MANY ITEMS AS WE CAN SO THAT WE HELP THE INSTITUTIONS AS THEY PREPARE THESE GRANTS. SO THAT WORK CAN BE DONE. | ||||||||
| OUR RATHER AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULE HERE CALLS FOR POSSIBLE CONCEPT APPROVAL OF AN RFA AT THE JUNE ICOC MEETING. THE RFA WOULD BE ISSUED IN JUNE OR JULY, REVIEWED IN THE FALL, AND APPROVED, WE HOPE, BY THE MARCH 2008 ICOC MEETING. SO THAT'S AT LEAST THE TARGET, AND WE MAY OR MAY NOT MEET THAT. | ||||||||
| NOW, THE NEXT SLIDE JUST SUMMARIZES THE RESULTS OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD LAST TUESDAY AT THE ICOC MEETING. AND I THINK THE FIRST POINT THAT WE HEARD FROM CERTAINLY THOSE MEMBERS OF THE ICOC WHO ARE CONCERNED WITH RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS WAS A SENSE OF URGENCY ABOUT THIS. AND THAT DRIVES FROM TWO THINGS, NO. 1, THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF OUR LARGE-SCALE FACILITIES, AND THE OVERALL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THESE CAN TAKE SEVERAL YEARS. AND SO IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE USE OF THESE MAXIMALLY IN A TEN-YEAR TIMELINE, WE NEED TO GET UNDER WAY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE IN ORDER TO GET THEM GOING. AND THAT'S VERY CLEAR. | ||||||||
| AND THEN THE OTHER THING WHICH IS NOT SO OBVIOUS TO THOSE NOT IN THE BUSINESS, BUT IS VERY, VERY REAL, IS THE CONTINUING COST ESCALATION. I DON'T KNOW RIGHT NOW, BUT AT LEAST I'M A LITTLE BIT OUT OF THE LOOP ON THIS, BUT I THINK NOT TOO LONG AGO THERE WAS A BIG INCREASE IN THE COST OF STEEL WHICH HAD HUGE EFFECT ON BUDGETS. COST OF CONCRETE HAS GONE UP. AND ALMOST NEVER DO THESE THINGS GO BACK DOWN. SO THERE IS SOME FLUCTUATION, BUT THE OVERALL TREND IS CLEAR, THAT CONSTRUCTION GETS MORE AND MORE EXPENSIVE WITH EACH PASSING YEAR. AND SO THE SOONER THAT WE CAN ENGAGE IN THIS THE BETTER. | ||||||||
| THE INSTITUTIONS MADE CLEAR THAT MANY OF THEM HAVE BEEN PLANNING FOR THIS PRACTICALLY SINCE THE PROPOSITION WAS PASSED. AND THEIR PLANS FOR RECRUITMENT OF NEW FACULTY MEMBERS AND THEIR PLANS FOR MOVING AHEAD ARE DEPENDENT ON THEM KNOWING AT LEAST WHAT KIND OF COMMITMENT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE FROM CIRM FOR CONSTRUCTION. SO THAT WAS ONE THEME. | ||||||||
| A SECOND THEME WAS THE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS SHOULD BE STRONGLY LINKED TO PROGRAMMATIC AIMS. THAT IS, IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO SAY WE'RE JUST GOING TO PUT UP A BUILDING, BUT THE INVESTMENT IN FACILITIES SHOULD BE JUSTIFIED BY PROGRAMMATIC COMPONENTS. AND BY THIS I MEAN WHAT ADDITIONAL VALUE IS GOING TO BE GAINED FROM THIS? WHAT NEW FACILITIES WILL YOU BE ABLE TO BUILD? WHAT NEW SERVICES WILL YOU BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE STEM CELL PEOPLE AT YOUR INSTITUTION? AND WHY DOES IT MAKE SENSE FROM A SCIENTIFIC AND PROGRAMMATIC POINT OF VIEW FOR CIRM TO INVEST IN THE BUILDING FOR YOU? | ||||||||
| NOW, THE STRATEGIC PLAN HAD ORIGINALLY ENVISAGED A GROUP OF RELATIVELY LARGE GRANTS, TENS OF MILLIONS, AND THEN A LARGER GROUP OF SOMEWHAT SMALLER GRANTS OF FIVE TO 10 MILLION. THE ICOC MADE VERY CLEAR AT THE MEETING LAST TUESDAY THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER GRANTS OF VARIOUS SIZES ALL AT ONE TIME AND NOT HAVE THEM BROKEN UP IN THIS WAY. SO THERE WOULD BE A CONTINUOUS RANGE OF FUNDING AVAILABLE, THEN, PRESUMABLY FROM FIVE MILLION UP TO 50 OR MORE, AND IT WOULD BE UP TO THE APPLICANTS TO BOTH, THEN, SAY WHY THEY NEEDED A PARTICULAR AMOUNT OF MONEY AND TO BE ABLE THEN TO JUSTIFY THE FACILITY THAT THEY WERE GOING TO CONSTRUCT IN TERMS OF THE VALUE TO THE PROGRAM AND THE SIZE OF THE COMMUNITY THAT WOULD BE USING IT. | ||||||||
| AND I THINK WE ALL RECOGNIZE AND VALUE THAT WITHIN THE STATE THERE ARE A RANGE OF INSTITUTIONS THAT RANGE IN SIZE AND THAT RANGE IN DEGREE OF SPECIALIZATION. SOME INSTITUTIONS ARE VERY HIGHLY SPECIALIZED FOR ONE THING OR ANOTHER SO THAT OUR AIM IS TO SERVE THIS DIVERSE CONSTITUENCY, AND IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT ONE SIZE WILL NOT FIT ALL, BUT THAT WE WILL NEED TO HAVE FACILITIES THAT MAY BE HELPFUL TO QUALITY INSTITUTIONS AT A VARIETY OF LEVELS, SOME RATHER MODEST IN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THEY HAVE, BUT WITH VERY HIGH QUALITY, OTHERS, SOME OF THE LARGER INSTITUTIONS HAVE LITERALLY ALMOST HUNDREDS OF RESEARCHERS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN STEM CELL RESEARCH. SO WE WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT DIFFERENCE SORT OF IN THE SAME WAY WE DID WITH THE TRAINING GRANTS. NOT SIMPLY SAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO -- WELL, WE RECOGNIZE THAT DIFFERENCE AND BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THAT DIVERSITY ACROSS A RANGE. | ||||||||
| A VERY ACTIVE DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING WAS THE VALUE OF COLLABORATIVE ARRANGEMENTS. AND I THINK THE CONSENSUS WAS THAT WE VALUE COLLABORATION, AND WHERE INSTITUTIONS CAN GET TOGETHER AND PUT UP A JOINT FACILITY THAT WILL ENHANCE WORK AT THE INSTITUTIONS, THAT'S TERRIFIC. I THINK IT WAS ALSO RECOGNIZED AT THE MEETING THAT THIS IS NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE FOR GEOGRAPHIC OR CULTURAL OR OTHER REASONS; AND ALTHOUGH WE WANT TO PROMOTE THAT AS VALUE, WE WOULD ENCOURAGE IT WHERE FEASIBLE. | ||||||||
| AN ISSUE THAT AROSE TODAY THAT WAS SPELLED OUT VERY CLEARLY AT THE MEETING WAS A DESIRE FOR CLARITY FOR THE 20-PERCENT MATCH. I THINK WHAT WE ALSO HEARD THIS MORNING WAS WHATEVER ARRANGEMENTS WE HAVE ABOUT LEVERAGING ABOVE THAT, WE NEED TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT HOW THAT IS DONE AND WHAT KINDS OF THINGS ARE ACCEPTABLE AND WHAT ROLE THAT WILL PLAY IN THE OVERALL EVALUATION. AND, AGAIN, AS I SAY, THESE ISSUES WERE -- I THINK THE DISCUSSION THIS MORNING WAS A VERY NICE PRELUDE TO JUST THIS QUESTION. | ||||||||
| AND FINALLY, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE NEEDED A PRIOR SURVEY OR PREQUALIFICATION. AND THE CONSENSUS AT THE ICOC WAS THAT THIS WAS NOT REQUIRED. | ||||||||
| SO THIS IS MORE OR LESS WHERE WE STAND RIGHT NOW. AND THE INTENT OF THIS MEETING WAS TO GET INPUT FROM THE REAL ESTATE MEMBERS, ALSO THE PATIENT ADVOCATES ON THE WORKING GROUP, AND ALSO FOR THOSE HERE WHO ARE REPRESENTING INSTITUTIONS WHO HAVE SOME CONTRIBUTION TO MAKE TO THIS OVERALL PROCESS. WE'D BE HAPPY TO HEAR THAT AS WELL. SO OUR INTENT IS TO GATHER INFORMATION, TO GET IDEAS, AND THEN TO TRY TO PUT TOGETHER SOME SORT OF CONCEPT CLEARANCE DOCUMENT THAT WOULD OUTLINE RATHER SPECIFICALLY ALL THE MAIN ELEMENTS THAT MIGHT BE IN AN RFA AND SEE IF WE CAN TAKE THAT TO THE JUNE ICOC MEETING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: THANK YOU, ZACH. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, HOW I'D LIKE TO START IS HAVE A DISCUSSION AMONG THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP MEMBERS FIRST, AND THEN WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. WE'RE VERY INTERESTED IN PUBLIC COMMENT BECAUSE WE'RE EMBARKING IN A NEW AREA, AND WE WOULD BE VERY RECEPTIVE TO LISTENING TO YOUR IDEAS, COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS, WHATEVER. SO WE'RE GOING TO GET TO YOU. I WANT TO START FIRST WITH THE WORKING GROUP AND THEIR COMMENTS ON THIS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I ATTENDED THE MEETING. I THINK, ZACH, THAT'S A GOOD SUMMARY OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED. I JUST WANT TO, SINCE WE'RE QUOTING PROP 71, AND I HOPE I'M NOT TAKING THIS OUT OF CONTEXT, I DON'T THINK I AM, THIS WORKING GROUP SHALL -- THIS IS UNDER PROP 71 -- PERFORM THE FOLLOWING FUNCTIONS: MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ICOC ON INTERIM AND FINAL CRITERIA, REQUIREMENTS, AND STANDARDS FOR APPLICATIONS, ETC., FOR AWARD OF GRANTS. SO THAT'S WHAT WE GET TO DO IN ADDITION TO DECIDING, WE HAVE TO ESTABLISH AND IDENTIFY THE CRITERIA. AND THAT IS NO EASY TASK, IN MY MIND. | ||||||||
| I WROTE THAT NUMBER UP THERE NOT TO BE OVERLY DRAMATIC, $222 MILLION; BUT WHERE I COME FROM, THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY. IT'S A BIG RFA. AND THAT'S WHAT THE ICOC HAS ASKED US TO DO. FOR THIS NEXT RFA, PUT IT OUT ON THE STREET FOR $222 MILLION. OKAY. I THINK WE CAN HANDLE THAT. I THINK WE CAN. BUT IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME. IT WILL TAKE SOME DUE DILIGENCE ON OUR PART TO IDENTIFY THAT CRITERIA, TO HAVE A DIALOGUE AMONGST OURSELVES, PRIORITIZE WHAT WE THINK IS IMPORTANT. THAT'S SORT OF OUR JOB. THEN PITCH IT TO THE ICOC. AND I THINK WE CAN DO THAT, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF TIME, THAT WE'RE NOT RUSHED. I DON'T WANT TO BE RUSHED WITH $222 MILLION. I WANT TO TAKE MY TIME, AND I DON'T WANT TO FEEL PRESSURED BY MY COLLEAGUES ON THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| I KNOW THAT THEY ARE ANXIOUS. THERE'S ESCALATING COST, COST FOR MONEY, EVERYTHING ACROSS THE WORLD A BIG BUILDING BOOM. BUT LET'S GET THIS RIGHT. | ||||||||
| SO LET'S JUST PLAY IT OUT. WE HAVE OUR MEETING TODAY. MOST OF IT WAS CONSUMED DISCUSSING THE SHARED LAB SPACE, WHICH WAS APPROPRIATE. THIS WAS TAGGED ON AT THE LAST MINUTE, THIS AGENDA ITEM. WE HAVE OUR MEETING IN JUNE -- EXCUSE ME -- MAY 2D AND 3D. THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THAT MEETING IS TO GO OVER THE SHARED LAB APPLICATIONS THEMSELVES AND SCORE THEM AND DO WHAT WE DISCUSSED TODAY. AFTER MAY IS JUNE. THERE'S THE ICOC MEETING. SO WE HAVE TODAY, AND MAYBE WE CAN TACK ON PART OF THAT MAY 2D AND 3D MEETING TO RECOMMEND TO THE ICOC A $222-MILLION RFA. I'M HOPEFUL AND I'M OPTIMISTIC, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S ENOUGH TIME. I REALLY DON'T. I THINK WE'VE LEARNED A LOT FROM THIS SHARED LAB RFA. I THINK WE'VE LEARNED A LOT, RUSTY, FROM THIS DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD, AND IT WILL BENEFIT US IN DRAFTING AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT IN NO WAY IS IT SUFFICIENT. | ||||||||
| THOSE ARE MY INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS. THAT'S JUST SORT OF HOW I FEEL. I'M NOT OUT TO STALL THE PROCESS. I'M NOT OUT TO BE AN OBSTRUCTIONIST. BUT WE'VE ALL GOT OUR FINGERPRINTS ON THIS RFA, EACH ONE OF US. AND WE NEED TIME. MARCY, YOU BROUGHT UP ISSUES. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? WHAT ARE WE DOING IN CENTRAL VALLEY? WHAT'S GOING ON ELSEWHERE? THOSE ARE ALL LEGITIMATE POLICY QUESTIONS THAT WE ARE EMPOWERED TO DISCUSS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: MARCY. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ON THE ICOC AT THE LAST MEETING THIS WEEK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HAVE WE SET ASIDE ENOUGH ALLOCATION FOR THE BANKS BECAUSE IF THERE'S A CHANGE IN THE THINKING AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND MORE MONEY BECOMES AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH, THEN ARE WE MISSING A CUE NOT HAVING A LARGER ALLOCATION TOWARD BUILDING THE BANKS INSTEAD OF FACILITIES? SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF DUE DILIGENCE THAT HAS TO BE DONE BEFORE WE CAN SAY WE KNOW WHAT THE CRITERIA AND OBJECTIVES ARE FOR CASTING THE $222 MILLION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: LET ME RESPOND TO THAT. IT WOULD SEEM TO ME -- I'M NOT ON THE SCIENCE SIDE OBVIOUSLY -- BUT IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, BUT THAT HAS TO COME FROM THE ICOC BEFORE WE CAN REALLY FOCUS ON IT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: WELL, THEN I CAN TELL YOU AT THE LAST MEETING WE HAD A SHORTENED MEETING THAT WE BARELY GOT THROUGH THE AGENDA. THIS TOPIC COULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED FOR TWO MORE HOURS, THIS FACILITY TOPIC. WE WERE -- WE DIDN'T EVEN GET THROUGH A BREAK OR LUNCH, AND WE WENT DIRECTLY INTO MEETINGS WITH LEGISLATORS. SO IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT A REASONABLE DISCUSSION AT THE ICOC NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE, THEN WE NEED TO SET ASIDE TIME FOR THAT TO TAKE PLACE. AND WE NEED TO HAVE INPUT FROM THE GENERAL ARENA IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON WHAT THEIR THINKING IS ON THIS TOPIC BEFORE WE SPEND THIS KIND OF MONEY. THAT'S JUST MY THINKING, WHATEVER FORM THAT TAKES. AND I DON'T WANT TO BE AN OBSTRUCTIONIST EITHER. I DON'T WANT TO DELAY THE PROCESS BECAUSE I'M WELL AWARE OF WHAT CONSTRUCTION COSTS ARE. I BUILD BUILDINGS ALL THE TIME. BUT AT THE HEART OF IT IS WE HAVE ONE TIME HERE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, AND WE DON'T WANT TO BE SO QUICK TO DRAW ON ASSUMPTIONS THAT WE MISS AN OPPORTUNITY. | ||||||||
| SHOULD THERE BE A WITHHOLD TO LET SOME OF THIS EVOLVE, AND THEN MAYBE COME FORWARD WITH ANOTHER ROUND OF FACILITY ALLOCATION? IS THAT THE RIGHT THINKING? WE DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS TODAY. AND I COULDN'T GIVE THEM TO YOU. SO WHATEVER PROCESS WE USE TO GET THAT DUE DILIGENCE DONE, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: RUSTY, JUST SO OUR COLLEAGUES UNDERSTAND, THIS IS JUST A FACT, BEFORE WE ISSUED THAT FIRST ROUND OF SCIENTIFIC GRANTS, WE HAD THAT TWO-DAY SYMPOSIUM. STAFF WAS INVOLVED IN THAT. WE HAD INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL EXPERTS COME AND TALK ABOUT THE STATE OF STEM CELL SCIENCE. THEN WE ISSUED THE RFA'S. TWO DAYS. LOT OF STAFF TIME WAS SPENT ON IT. THEY DID A GREAT JOB. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: WE HAD INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: EXPERTS. WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT FACILITIES SO MUCH AT THAT SYMPOSIUM. IN DRAFTING THIS SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT HERE, WHICH IS A FINE DOCUMENT, WE HAD FOCUS GROUPS. I DON'T REMEMBER. THERE WERE EIGHT TO TWELVE, AND I DON'T RECALL ANY ONE OF THOSE FOCUS GROUPS TOUCHING ON FACILITIES. SO THE QUESTION OF DUE DILIGENCE, ONE, THE ICOC ON TUESDAY, THAT WAS THE FIRST DISCUSSION THEY EVER HAD ABOUT MAJOR FACILITIES. TECHNICALLY THIS IS THE SECOND DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING IF WE COUNT THIS AS A DISCUSSION. | ||||||||
| SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE DUE DILIGENCE WE'VE DONE AND WHAT THE ICOC HAS DONE IN THE PAST AS PRECEDENCE, THAT SHOULD HELP GUIDE THIS DISCUSSION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: SHERRY, WE CAN PICK UP YOUR CONVERSATION. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: SORRY. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? I'M LISTENING AND MULTITASKING. I AM LISTENING AND MULTITASKING. I FEEL LIKE I'M GETTING A CRASH COURSE IN THINGS I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. I APOLOGIZE. AND THEN I WAS MULTITASKING BECAUSE AT 2 O'CLOCK I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO SOMETHING ELSE, SO I DIDN'T WANT TO GET OFF THE PHONE. SO I APOLOGIZE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: THANK YOU. THE REPORTER WAS HAVING TROUBLE. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: WHATEVER I SAID WASN'T VERY INTERESTING IN MY MULTITASKING. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: IT WILL APPEAR IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THIS MEETING, SHERRY, DON'T WORRY. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: LAURA, TAKE CARE OF THIS. OKAY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: SORRY, DAVID. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT WAS IT. I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT FACT. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: WELL, I HAVE SEVERAL THOUGHTS, BUT ONE OF THEM IS I AGREE THAT THAT'S AN AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULE. AND, AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO RUSH. I'M ALSO VERY KEENLY AWARE OF CONSTRUCTION INFLATION RIGHT NOW. BUT PERHAPS MAYBE WE COULD HAVE SOME MORE FREQUENT INFORMAL MEETINGS THAT ARE BETWEEN THE WORKING GROUP TO MAKE SOME PROGRESS ON SOME OF THESE GUIDELINES. AND THIS WOULD NOT BE -- THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY DECISIONS MADE, BUT JUST, YOU KNOW, INFORMATIONAL EXCHANGES IN A WAY THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO MAKE PROGRESS IN BETWEEN THESE QUARTERLY MEETINGS SO WE COULD DISCUSS, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL GUIDELINE RULES AND THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO MAKE PROGRESS. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT WE HAVE OUR FINGERPRINTS ON THIS RFA, AND WE DON'T. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY PART OF THE PROBLEM. I THINK WE COULD HAVE HEADED OFF SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT ABSORBED A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION. I REALLY THINK -- AND I THOUGHT I MADE A POINT TO ASK TO SEE THE RFA FIRST GO-ROUND, BUT I THINK IT'S REALLY CRITICAL THAT WE'RE PART OF THE RFA DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE A LOT OF CONCERNS THAT WE'RE HAVING AT THIS MEETING COULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED THERE. | ||||||||
| AND I REALLY THINK WE NEED TO LEVERAGE TECHNOLOGY. THERE'S LOTS OF SHARED DOCUMENTATION SOFTWARE OUT THERE. SHAREPOINT IS ONE WHERE THE STAFF CAN GO AHEAD AND PUT THE RFA IN PLACE, AND WE CAN GO IN ONLINE AND START TO MAKE OUR COMMENTS THERE. THEY CAN BE LOOKED AT, INCORPORATED, WE CAN ALL SEE WHAT'S GOING ON. BECAUSE I THINK THAT, ONE, YOU WANT TO HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT ASKS THE RIGHT QUESTIONS AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW, AND GET THAT RFA WHERE WE ALL HAVE INPUT BECAUSE WHEN WE GET TO A MEETING LIKE THIS, IT'S PRETTY HARD TO GO THROUGH. FOR ME, IT'S KIND OF EMBARRASSING TO SIT BEFORE YOU AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT A DOCUMENT THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE PRESENTING IS FLAWED. | ||||||||
| AND I THINK IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE FORM TO DO IT INTERNALLY AND ALLOW US THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE INPUT SO THAT IT'S -- WE COULD EXPEDITE THIS PROCESS, I THINK, MUCH MORE QUICKLY IN MAY IF WE WERE TO ACTUALLY OPINE ON THE ISSUES INTERNALLY AND THEN HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT WE ALL AGREE IS THE GOOD DOCUMENT STARTING FROM RIGHT THEN AND THERE. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: IT'S A LITTLE -- LET ME JUST SAY IT'S A LITTLE COMPLICATED IN PUTTING THIS TOGETHER IN THAT WE NEED TO CONSULT WITH YOU, BUT ALSO, THEN, ICOC, AND WE HAVE THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. SO WE HAVE A VERY COMPLICATED CONSTITUENCY HERE TO CONSULT. AND OUR APPROACH HAS BEEN TO TRY TO GET WHAT WE CALL CONCEPT CLEARANCE; THAT IS, GO THROUGH ALL THE IMPORTANT POINTS, INCLUDING THE CRITERIA, AND WE LEARNED A LOT FROM THIS FIRST TIME AROUND, BUT THEN TO HAVE THE FINAL WORDING WHICH WERE SENT FOR COMMENT ACTUALLY TO THE HEADS -- FOR THIS RFA TO THE HEADS OF THIS WORKING GROUP, THE HEADS OF THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. JUST IF YOU HAVE, HOW MANY PEOPLE, 22 PEOPLE ON THE GRANTS GROUP, HOW MANY PEOPLE ON THIS GROUP ALL WORKING ON A DOCUMENT AND THEN THE ICOC AS WELL, IT GETS PRETTY COMPLICATED. | ||||||||
| SO WE DO NEED TO THINK ABOUT HAVING A PROCESS FOR PRODUCING THESE IN WHICH ALL THE ESSENTIAL POINTS ARE POINTS THAT WE CAN DISCUSS, AGREE ON, BUT THEN IN WHICH THERE'S A FAIRLY EFFICIENT WAY OF GETTING THE FINAL DOCUMENT OUT. SO JUST A POINT OF LOGISTICS. I UNDERSTAND YOUR INTEREST IN SEEING IT, COMMENTING ON IT, BUT WE HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT COULD BE CONSULTED IN A SIMILAR WAY, AND IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: IT WORKS THOUGH. LET ME TELL YOU IT DOES WORK. I HAD A SHAREPOINT DOCUMENT FOR BIDS GOING OUT TO 60, 70 PEOPLE, AND IT DOES WORK. TECHNOLOGY IS REALLY THERE TO FACILITATE THIS. IT CAN BE A BIT CUMBERSOME, PARTICULARLY IF YOU'RE THE PERSON THAT'S TRYING TO INCORPORATE ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS. BUT, YOU KNOW, TO COME TO A MEETING WHERE MAYBE -- LET'S SAY WE COME IN MAY OR JUNE OR WHENEVER WE COME, AND THE RFA, WE'RE LOOKING AT IT AND WE DON'T LIKE IT, AND WE'VE JUST SPENT A WHOLE DAY AND WE'VE DECIDED THAT THIS IS NOT A DOCUMENT WE CAN LIVE WITH. WE'VE SORT OF WASTED A LOT OF TIME. | ||||||||
| SO IT'S JUST -- I THROW IT OUT THERE AS AN EXAMPLE THAT YOU COULD POSSIBLY DO USING TECHNOLOGY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: LET ME JUST SAY. I GUESS I WOULD TAKE ISSUE ON YOUR COMMENT THAT THAT DOCUMENT IS FLAWED. WE COULD HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB, BUT I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF VALUE TO THAT DOCUMENT AS IT WAS PRESENTED. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YOU KNOW, MY COMMENTS ARE NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM TO NOT APPRECIATE THE TALENTS AND SKILLS THAT WE HAVE ON THE CIRM STAFF. THEY JUST DO HEROIC THINGS FOR US, AND I REALLY PERSONALLY APPRECIATE THAT. BUT IN THIS WHOLE ASSIGNMENT THAT WE HAVE HAD FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, REPRESENTING WHAT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WANT, WE HAVE MADE SURE THAT WE HAVE ENSURED A PROCESS. AND THE SIMPLE THING THAT DEBORAH IS ASKING IS PART OF THAT. | ||||||||
| WE ALSO MADE SURE WHEN WE WERE DEVELOPING STANDARDS AND WE WERE DEVELOPING THE GRANTS PROCESS THAT WE TOOK IN EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM THOSE WE SOUGHT TO DEVELOP OUR CRITERIA, TO DEVELOP OUR DOCUMENTS, AND TO DEVELOP THE PROCESS. AND I REALLY FEEL STRONGLY RIGHT NOW WE ARE AT THAT POINT. AND I DON'T CARE IF WE HAVE TO MEET WITH A HUNDRED PEOPLE OR A MILLION PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THAT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE WE GO FORWARD. AND I THINK DEBORAH IS RAISING A KEY POINT ABOUT PROCESS. I THINK IT'S JUST A SMALL PART OF THE PROCESS. I THINK WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO APPLY THE SAME PROCESS THAT WE DID IN THE OTHER PARTS OF OUR WORK THAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS IN MOVING AHEAD BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB OF THAT. | ||||||||
| WE HAD A LOT OF INPUT. WE HELD PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE DID A LOT OF WORK BEFORE WE MOVED AHEAD TO BE CLEAR THAT WE UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS EXPECTED OF US BECAUSE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, BASED ON THE TIMEFRAME YOU GAVE, THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY THAT RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE CAN MOVE AHEAD IN THAT FASHION. THAT HAS TO HAPPEN. SHE IS ASKING FOR A VERY SIMPLE PROCESS. THAT IS TO ME JUST A SMALL PART OF WHAT HAS TO BE DONE HERE BEFORE WE MOVE AHEAD. I AGREE WITH HER WHOLEHEARTEDLY. WE SHOULD WANT AS MUCH INPUT AS POSSIBLE. | ||||||||
| JUST IN THE BRIEF TIME THIS MORNING, I HEARD SEVERAL COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE HERE WHO ARE ADVISING US IF WE HAD ONLY KNOWN WHAT THE DEFINITIONS WERE. WHERE WAS THE DEFINITION FOR LEVERAGE? AND SO WE ARE MISSING A LOT HERE. I WOULD NOT WANT TO GO AHEAD AND SPEND THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY WITH THIS PROCESS THAT WE USED TODAY. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: AGREED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I THINK WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT. I THINK YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELL TAKEN, DEBORAH, IN TERMS OF HOW WE INTEGRATE THIS WHOLE PROCESS. BUT I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO THINK THAT THE PROCESS THAT WE USED TODAY IS ONE THAT WILL BE USED IN THE FUTURE. THESE ARE FOR SMALLER GRANTS. THEY'RE FOR EXISTING SPACE. IT'S GOING TO BE RENOVATED. IT'S A MUCH LESS COMPLICATED UNDERTAKING. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAJOR FACILITIES, AND SO WHAT IS DONE TODAY, THAT'S HOW WE'LL HANDLE THE SHARED RESEARCH LAB SPACE, BUT WE'LL TAKE WHAT WE'VE LEARNED TODAY AND MOVE FORWARD AND COME UP WITH A MUCH BETTER PROCESS. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: FIRST, I WANT TO SUPPORT DEBORAH ON HAVING AN ITERATIVE PROCESS ON THE RFA. AND I ACTUALLY THINK WHEN YOU START TO DECONSTRUCT THAT, IN THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, THERE'S NOT A DESIRE TO BE PART OF THE RFA DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEWER TO AN RFA IS DIFFERENT, I THINK, THAN WHAT YOU VISUALIZE FROM THIS WORKING GROUP WHERE THERE ACTUALLY NEEDS TO BE SOME LINKAGE BETWEEN THE TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT YOU ARE GOING TO EVALUATE IN THE RFA. YOU KNOW, THAT TYPE OF BRIDGE ACTUALLY DOESN'T EXIST IN THE SCIENTIFIC. | ||||||||
| IN THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW, THEY WOULD LIKE THOSE PARTS TO BE SEPARATE. SO WE'RE ONLY TALKING REALLY ABOUT A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE THAT WE WOULD WANT TO BE. AND I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT WANT -- I THINK MARCY MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE USEFUL. I WOULDN'T NEED TO LOOK AT AN RFA IN ANY DETAIL. I DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF EXPERTISE. SO THAT'S POINT ONE. | ||||||||
| I DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE INVOLVING A CAST OF THOUSANDS. I THINK WE'D PROBABLY ONLY BE INVOLVING A RELATIVELY SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE TO HAVE AN ITERATIVE PROCESS ON THE RFA DEVELOPMENT AT THE WORKING GROUP LEVEL. | ||||||||
| THE SECOND POINT IS THE MORE I STARTED THINKING ABOUT OUR PROCESSES, AND I'M SO GRATEFUL FOR MARCY'S COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY HAVE HAD PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE HAD SEVERAL PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT. WE HAD SEVERAL PUBLIC HEARINGS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RULES. WE HAD SEVERAL PUBLIC HEARINGS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN. AND THIS IS THE ONLY THING THAT WE HAVEN'T GONE UP AND DOWN STATE AT HEARINGS AND LISTENED TO WHAT PEOPLE WANT, WHAT THEY NEED, WHAT THEY THINK WE SHOULD BE DOING. | ||||||||
| I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE A HEARING IN THE BAY AREA, THAT WE HAVE A HEARING IN LOS ANGELES, THAT WE HAVE A HEARING IN SAN DIEGO, THAT WE HAVE A HEARING IN THE CENTER OF THE STATE, AND KIND OF GET A REAL ASSESSMENT OF WHAT THE NEED IS SO THAT WE'RE NOT GOING INTO THIS BLINDLY, JUST BACK IN THE BRINKS. | ||||||||
| I HAVE A FEELING THAT IF WE DON'T, WE'RE GOING TO BE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE BACKING THE BRINKS TRUCK UP TO A COUPLE OF REALLY WELL-ESTABLISHED INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE ACCESS TO A TON OF WEALTH, AND WE'RE NOT DOING THE JOB WE SHOULD BE DOING IN TERMS OF DISTRIBUTING RESEARCH FACILITIES AROUND THE STATE. WE'RE NOT GIVING AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO ANYBODY IN THIS STATE WHO WANTS TO DO STEM CELL RESEARCH. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE THE SMALLER, MORE NIMBLE INSTITUTIONS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPETE FAIRLY. AND I THINK JUST THIS GIANT GRANT WHERE EVERYBODY IS THROWN TOGETHER IN A BIG POT KIND OF SCARES ME. AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. THAT'S HOW WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING UP TO NOW. | ||||||||
| IF I NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD HOLD SOME PUBLIC HEARINGS AND LISTEN TO FOLKS. THIS IS ALMOST 10 PERCENT OF THE MONEY WE'VE GOT TO SPEND. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: SO LET ME JUST -- CAN I JUST FOR INFORMATION ASK WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO HEAR? YOU WANT TO HEAR PROGRAMMATIC? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: HERE'S ONE THING I WOULD WANT TO HEAR, WHICH IS WHAT IS IT WE KNOW OR IS KNOWN THAT TELLS US THAT SPENDING THAT MONEY ON FACILITIES AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING ELSE, LIKE MORE RESEARCH GRANTS OR A HUGE PRIZE FOR A SCIENTIFIC TEAM THAT DEVELOPS A THERAPEUTIC BREAKTHROUGH. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: IT'S THE CASE FOR THE FACILITIES, RIGHT? YOU WANT SOMEONE TO MAKE THE CASE FOR FACILITIES. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: WHAT ELSE IS THAT GOING TO ACCOMPLISH BEYOND WHAT THE RESEARCH GRANTS THEMSELVES WILL ACCOMPLISH? I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT CASE MADE. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: HAVE A PLACE TO WORK. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: YOU'RE NOT INTERESTED IN HEARING ARCHITECTS WHO DESIGN BUILDINGS OR FLOORS COME IN; IS THAT RIGHT OR NOT? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: MAYBE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: MAYBE. I'D BE INTERESTED IN HEARING WHAT THE NEED IS. I'D LIKE TO HEAR PEOPLE'S EXISTING PLANS BECAUSE I GET THE SENSE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN RFA IN THE CONTEXT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY DEVELOPING. YOU KNOW, THE SAN DIEGO CONSORTIUM IS -- YOU KNOW, WHY ARE WE GOING TO ISSUE AN RFA THAT MAY NOT -- I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULD ISSUE AN RFA FOR THAT CONSORTIUM, BUT I'M ALSO SAYING WE SHOULD NOT ISSUE AN RFA THAT'S AT LOGGERHEADS WITH THAT CONSORTIUM WHEN THEY'RE DOING EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE ENCOURAGED FROM DAY ONE. THEY PARTNERED. THEY'RE SHARING RESOURCES. THEY'RE SHARING SCIENCE. AND WE COULD ISSUE AN RFA THAT IS CONTRADICTORY TO WHAT I THINK HAS BEEN A LAUDABLE EFFORT BY THE PEOPLE OF SAN DIEGO TO COME TOGETHER AND, I THINK, WITH LEVERAGE AND CREATE VALUE COLLECTIVELY. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: EXCUSE ME, JEFF. I DON'T SEE THERE'S ANY WAY WE CAN DO THAT. WE HAVE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING HOW MUCH WE VALUE THAT CONSORTIUM. AND WE HAVE BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH THEM. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ZACH, I THINK WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION HERE, AND IT'S A BEAUTIFUL THING, BUT LET'S LET THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SPEAK. I SAW JANET'S HAND UP. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK THE QUESTION THAT ZACH ASKED, WHICH IS LET'S TALK ABOUT -- LET'S USE THIS FORUM TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THOSE PRESENTATIONS. WHAT DO WE NEED TO LEARN? LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN FOR SOMETHING WE'RE NOT SOLICITING, BUT LET'S SPECIFICALLY SOLICIT SOME CONTENT THAT WILL HELP US CRAFT AN RFA THAT DRAWS IN WHAT WE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: LET'S HEAR WHAT PEOPLE NEED,WHAT THEY'RE DOING. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DAVID, WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE ASKING TO SPEAK, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB, GO AHEAD. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, IN RESPONSE TO JANET'S QUESTION, I MEAN THERE'S REALLY THREE DIFFERENT THINGS I THINK WE NEED TO DEVELOP HERE: POLICY GUIDELINES, RULES, AND DEFINITIONS. AN EXAMPLE OF POLICY GUIDELINES WOULD BE HOW IMPORTANT IS LEVERAGE? YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF OUR OBJECTIVE IS TO SPREAD FACILITIES ACROSS THE STATE, LEVERAGE MAY BE VERY IMPORTANT IN BEING ABLE TO HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS TO DISTRIBUTE TO AREAS THAT ARE DEVELOPING CAPACITY, THAT ARE NOT AT THE SAME LEVEL OF SOME OF THE AREAS THAT HAVE CONCENTRATED CAPACITY NOW. | ||||||||
| IN RULES, AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE IF YOU HAVE A SHARED FACILITY IN SAN DIEGO THAT YOU ARE PARTICIPATING IN, AND YOU HAVE A SPECIALIZATION IN YOUR FACILITY, LET'S CALL IT ROBOTICS, CAN YOU ALSO APPLY FOR A SMALL FACILITY GRANT? OR IF YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ALSO APPLY FOR A SMALL FACILITY GRANT AS WELL AS PARTICIPATE IN A LARGE ONE, DO YOU HAVE SPECIAL POLICY JUSTIFICATION WHERE THAT SMALL FACILITY WILL BE A SHARED FACILITY AND AVAILABLE AS A RESOURCE TO THE STATE, JUST LIKE THE CURRENT ROUND OF EVEN KIND OF TRANSITIONAL VERY SMALL FACILITIES GRANTS? | ||||||||
| IN TERMS OF DEFINITIONS, WE REFERENCED IN MANY DISCUSSIONS TODAY, FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT IS A MATCHING GRANT? ZACH PROPERLY RAISED THE QUESTION OF QUALITY. JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE SAY THEY'RE GOING TO PROVIDE A MATCH, IS THAT IN CASH? DO WE TREAT LAND THE SAME AS CASH? HOW IS IT WE'RE GOING TO TREAT THAT? | ||||||||
| FURTHERMORE, IN TERMS OF DEFINITIONS, WHAT COSTS ARE QUALIFIED? ARE COSTS INCURRED, YOU KNOW, FROM THE DAY THE PROPOSITION 71 WAS PASSED? ARE ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING QUALIFIED? I WOULD HOPE SO, BUT THIS COMMITTEE HAS TO DEFINE THAT SO PEOPLE REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH HERE. | ||||||||
| SO I THINK THERE'S THREE LEVELS OF INPUT THAT WE NEED TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS. AND THERE ARE POLICY GUIDELINES, RULES, AND DEFINITIONS THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO MAKE THE APPLICATIONS DESERVE TO BE INFORMED ABOUT, BUT THIS WOULD BE A WAY TO GET THAT INFORMATION AS PROPOSED BY JEFF AND OTHERS IN TALKING ABOUT THE HISTORICAL PROCESS WE'VE GONE THROUGH. MARCY REFERENCED WE'VE ALWAYS HELD HEARINGS TO GET PUBLIC INPUT AND SHOW THAT WE CLEARLY ARE COMMITTED TO TRANSPARENCY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: LET ME ASK A QUESTION. IN THESE GRANTS THERE WILL BE A SCIENTIFIC GRANT REVIEW; IS THAT CORRECT? | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: YES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME VERY LARGE GRANTS HERE. IF THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW, MAYBE THIS GETS INTO PROCESS, BUT I SEE THE DUE DILIGENCE BEING QUITE CONSIDERABLE ON LOOKING AT THESE GRANT REQUESTS, PARTICULARLY FOR THE LARGER ONES, WHICH, AS DEBORAH SAID WHEN WE WERE HAVING LUNCH, SITE VISITS, MEETING WITH, DEPENDING ON THE STAGE OF THE BUILDING, MEETING WITH, IF IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR DESIGN, THE ARCHITECT, THE VARIOUS GROUPS, THE USER GROUPS, LOOKING AT SUCH THINGS AS THE LAB SPACE AND HOW IT'S GOING TO BE LAID OUT, GOING INTO THOSE KINDS OF ISSUES. HOW IS THE ICOC OR THE GRANTS GROUP GOING TO EVALUATE THESE PROPOSALS? AND IF SOME OF THEM ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE LINES THAT MARCY WAS TALKING ABOUT, HOW DO WE DO THAT IF WE DON'T WORK TOGETHER? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: RUSTY, DO YOU MEAN BY WORKING TOGETHER, WORKING WITH THE OTHER WORKING GROUPS IN THE ICOC? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: YEAH. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: MY ANSWER TO THAT IS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE SCIENTIFIC GRANTS WORKING GROUP, THEY'RE EQUAL IN THIS PROCESS. THEY'RE A PARTNER. THE BODY THAT'S OVER EVERYONE IS THE ICOC OBVIOUSLY. BUT WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH AN RFA THAT'S $222 MILLION, I SAY, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, OKAY, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT, FOLKS. I DON'T WANT TO THROW A MONKEY WRENCH INTO ANYBODY'S SCHEDULING, BUT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM GOING TO THE ICOC. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM PICKING UP THE PHONE AND CALLING DR. STUART ORKIN AT HARVARD AND SAYING, "DR. ORKIN, I KNOW YOU HAVE A SCHEDULE. I KNOW YOU WANT TO OPINE ON THIS, BUT THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP FELT VERY STRONGLY THAT IT NEEDED TO DO SOME DUE DILIGENCE. THEREFORE, IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME. SORRY." SORRY IN A GOOD WAY, LIKE, SORRY, WE NEED TO DO OUR JOB FOR $222 MILLION. | ||||||||
| NOW, I THINK SOMEONE LIKE A STUART ORKIN WILL UNDERSTAND THAT. I THINK ANYBODY WHO'S EVER GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS WILL SAY, "YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU HAVEN'T DONE THE HEARINGS." | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: I DON'T THINK STUART ORKIN HAS A HORSE IN THIS RACE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I USED HIM ONLY AS AN EXAMPLE, ZACH. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: IT'S NOT STUART THAT'S PUSHING FOR THE URGENCY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT YOU DID BRING UP THE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, SO I WAS JUST USING STUART AS AN EXAMPLE. I'LL USE THE STANDARDS CHAIR AS AN EXAMPLE, BERNIE LO, IF YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT THAT. I'M JUST SAYING THOSE OTHER WORKING GROUPS, THEY JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED TO GATHER MORE INFORMATION BEFORE WE GO ABOUT OUR PROCESS. AND THAT'S JUST SORT OF WHAT RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE DO, IN MY OPINION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WELL, THE OTHER CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS, ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE IS THE WHOLE ISSUE OF STAFFING. WE'VE GOT TWO INCREDIBLY CAPABLE PEOPLE WITH US TODAY. AND RICK'S PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITIES IS IN THE FACILITIES AREA. LORI DOES A LOT OF OTHER THINGS IN ADDITION TO WORKING WITH THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. THIS IS A HUGE UNDERTAKING, AND IT'S -- WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE TO GET DONE BETWEEN NOW AND MAY 2D AND THEN THE ADMINISTRATION AND GETTING EVERYTHING READY FOR THE ICOC, THEY HAVE TO WRITE THEIR REPORTS, AND THEN TRYING TO DO ALL THAT, HAVING THEM DO ALL THAT, TAKING THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE ISSUE OF STAFF. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: DAVID. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: ADDRESSING THAT CONCERN, I AGREE WITH YOU. YOU KNOW, ONE IDEA THAT BOB HAD BROUGHT UP PREVIOUSLY WAS EVENTUALLY HAVING SOME KIND OF APPLICATION FEE OF A QUARTER OR A HALF A PERCENT POINT TO HELP FUND STAFF REQUIREMENTS TO FACILITATE THIS PROCESS. I MEAN THIS IS -- SPENDING $222 MILLION RESPONSIBLY IN A HOST OF DIFFERENT WAYS REQUIRES A LOT OF DIFFERENT EXPERTISE IN THE CONSTRUCTION AREA. THERE SHOULD BE PEOPLE THAT HAVE GROUND-UP CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE. THERE SHOULD BE PEOPLE POTENTIALLY ON STAFF WHO HAVE A LOT OF PROCESS PIPING EXPERIENCE, MEP EXPERIENCE. SO THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT WE CAN -- THAT CIRM CAN USE MORE BANDWIDTH AND MORE STAFF WITH DIFFERENT EXPERTISE THAT WILL MAKE SURE THE MONEY IS SPENT WISELY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, TWO POINTS. ONE, I THINK THAT THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP WILL BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT -- THEY'RE ALL OUT OF STATE. THEY DON'T NEED TO BE PART OF AN ELABORATE PROCESS. SO I THINK IT REALLY WILL BE MORE OF THIS WORKING GROUP, AND I THINK THAT'S ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE. I MEAN GRANTS WORKING GROUP IS REALLY LOOKING AT SCIENTIFIC ISSUES, AND THOSE WILL BE CRITICAL; BUT I THINK ONCE WE DECIDE MORE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, THE SCIENCE WILL THEN FOLLOW AND THEN LEAD, YOU KNOW, BUT THERE WILL BE A RELATIONSHIP. IT'S BOTH SEPARATE AND INTEGRAL TO WHAT WE'RE DOING. | ||||||||
| THE SECOND POINT I WANT TO COME UP TO, AND I THINK THE STAFFING ISSUE IS AN IMPORTANT ONE, IS I WANT TO LOOK AT OUR HISTORY. SO WHEN WE NEEDED STANDARDS, THE ACTUAL FIRST RUN WAS DONE BY THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, SO WE WENT TO AN OUTSIDE BODY. WE NEEDED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. THE FIRST RUN WAS DONE BY CHI, OUTSIDE BODY. WHEN WE DID THE STRATEGIC PLAN, WE HIRED A CONSULTING FIRM, PRICE WATERHOUSE. | ||||||||
| SO, YOU KNOW, IN ALL OF THESE INSTANCES WITH VARYING DEGREES OF INTERRELATIONSHIPS, CHI DID THEIR THING COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM US, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, I THINK, GOT A LITTLE PROD FROM THE CAMPAIGN. WE DIRECTLY HIRED A CONSULTING FIRM TO HELP CREATE THE STRATEGIC PLAN. ANY ONE OF THOSE MODELS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO ASSIST US IN DOING THE KIND OF DUE DILIGENCE WE NEED TO DO TO SPEND THIS MONEY. AND I WOULD BE PERFECTLY HAPPY TO BRING ON A CONSULTING FIRM TO ASSIST WITH DOING THIS MYSELF. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE AN IRRESPONSIBLE USE OF THE MONEY, AND I THINK SOME EXPERTISE AND SOME EXTERNAL ANALYSIS BY AN OBJECTIVE VIEWPOINT MIGHT BE VERY HELPFUL IN DETERMINING HOW WE GO FORWARD. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JEFF, THIS IS BOB KLEIN. IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SETTING UP HEARINGS AND THEY'RE IN MAY, WE DON'T HAVE A BOARD MEETING IN MAY. AND MY STAFF COULD VOLUNTEER, SINCE THEY'RE USED TO SETTING UP PUBLIC MEETINGS, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT JEFF HAS SUGGESTED IN MAY, THEY COULD ACTUALLY HELP MOBILIZE THAT BECAUSE WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITES THAT HAVE BEEN CONTRIBUTED IN THE PAST BY INSTITUTIONS. WE KNOW THE LOGISTICS. AND WE CAN KEEP THEM SIMPLE AND SET THEM UP PRETTY QUICKLY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WE HAVE SET UP PUBLIC MEETINGS ON THE FACILITIES SIDE. WE HAD ONE IN SAN FRANCISCO AND ONE IN IRVINE AND HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: HOW COME YOU FORGOT MY PART OF THE WORLD? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I'M JUST SAYING WHAT WE'VE DONE. I'M NOT SAYING WHAT WE SHOULD DO. YOU'RE RIGHT, ED. I'M NOT SURE THAT THE PUBLIC MEETING IS ONE OF THE TASKS THAT WE NEED TO UNDERTAKE TO DO THIS CORRECTLY. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I WAS GOING TO SAY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO, AND WE'VE DONE PARTICULARLY ON CONTROVERSIAL BIDS AND HIGH PROFILE BIDS, IS THAT YOU ISSUE WHAT WOULD BE CALLED A PRELIMINARY RFA. AND YOU GET IT OUT THERE IN THE PUBLIC FORUM, AND YOU ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENTARY. CAN BE ONLINE, CAN BE FACILITATED IN PUBLIC HEARING, BUT THAT WAY THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT ARE PART OF THE PROCESS CAN LOOK AT IT AND SAY -- THEY CAN GIVE COMMENTS AND THEIR INPUT. DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO INCORPORATE IT, BUT IT CAN BE CONSIDERED. | ||||||||
| NOW, IT CAN GET A LITTLE COMPLICATED LEGALLY WHEN YOU'RE HAVING STAKEHOLDERS THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THAT RFA CHIME IN ON THE DOCUMENTATION. SO THERE HAVE TO BE SOME PARAMETERS THERE, BUT YOU CAN DO PIECES OF THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: DAVID, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I HAVEN'T BEEN PRIVY TO ALL OF THE MEETINGS YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN TO WITH ALL THE OTHER GROUPS, SO I REALLY HAVE A VAGUE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. HOWEVER, I AGREE TOTALLY WITH AN ARTIFICIAL DEADLINE IN DEALING WITH THESE ISSUES. I DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD SET BACK THE PROCESS A GREAT DEAL BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING FORWARD WITH THE SMALLER GRANTS AS YOU GO. AND THE IDEA OF HAVING PUBLIC HEARINGS AROUND THE STATE I TOTALLY SUPPORT. | ||||||||
| YOU CAN'T GET ENOUGH PUBLIC INPUT. AND I BELIEVE IT CAN BE DONE IN A REASONABLY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, BUT A MUCH LONGER PERIOD OF TIME THAN MAY 2D. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I ALMOST LOST MY POINT. I WAS SO INTENT. I ALMOST LOST MY POINT. GO AHEAD. IT WILL COME BACK TO ME. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: WELL, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT ALL THE COMMENTS I'VE HEARD, AND RIGHTLY SO, AT THIS MEETING DEAL WITH THE TECHNICAL ISSUES OF CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING, APPROPRIATENESS, FEASIBILITY. AND I THINK JEFF IS EXACTLY RIGHT, THAT THE SCIENTIFIC, THE REVIEW, THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW, WILL DEAL WITH HOW STRONG THE SCIENCE IS AT EACH INSTITUTION. THE ONE LINK THAT I SEE IS HOW WILL WE TOGETHER REACH THE GOAL OF THE WHOLE INITIATIVE? AND THE GOALS OF THE INITIATIVE ARE AS CITED IN THE FIRST SLIDE OF THE PRESIDENT. AND THAT IS, TO MOVE THOSE THREE THINGS FORWARD. AND THAT IS TO BUILD PROGRAMS IN THE STATE THAT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN BUILT BEFORE THROUGH FACILITIES AND THROUGH SOME STRONG SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMS AND THE INSTITUTIONS FIVE-YEAR PLAN, TEN-YEAR PLAN, THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS, NOT ONLY MONETARILY OR IN LAND, BUT ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THE SCIENCE. ARE THEY GOING TO PUT IN FACULTY, ETC.? | ||||||||
| SO IN THE SENSE OF LOOKING AROUND FOR INFORMATION UP AND DOWN, WE SHOULD HEAR, NOT ONLY ABOUT THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS, BUT ALSO ABOUT THEIR SCIENTIFIC ASPIRATIONS TOO BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO TIE TOGETHER. THAT'S ALL. OTHERWISE -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT SOUNDS LIKE, DR. CHIU, WHAT JOAN SAID A LITTLE BIT. WHAT ARE THESE INSTITUTIONS DOING? WHAT COMMITMENTS HAVE THEY MADE ON THE SCIENCE? WHAT ARE THOSE SETS OF PRIORITIES? I SUPPORT THE IDEA OF HAVING A HEARING. I LIKE WHAT DEBORAH SAID. PERHAPS IT WOULD EXPEDITE THINGS A BIT TO SAY, OKAY, LET'S TRY TO HOBBLE TOGETHER A PRELIMINARY RFA. LET'S PUT THAT OUT THERE. BUT IN THAT PROCESS INCLUDE A HEARING, AT A MINIMUM TWO, AT A MINIMUM TWO, AND MAYBE MORE. AND IN THOSE HEARINGS WE CAN TAKE COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC, FROM INTERESTED PARTIES. I KNOW THESE HEARINGS WILL MAKE THIS A BETTER DOCUMENT. I KNOW THEY WILL. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DAVID, JEFF SHEEHY SUGGESTED THE BAY AREA, L.A., AND SAN DIEGO, AND MAYBE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA. AND I KNOW FROM THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS, THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF SENSITIVITY UNLESS YOU GO TO EACH OF THOSE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS. BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS, NOT ALL OF THAT COMMITTEE WAS AT EACH HEARING SO THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO HOLD IT UP TO GET EVERYBODY PRESENT. SOME HEARINGS HAD, YOU KNOW, EIGHT OR NINE MEMBERS, SOME HAD FIVE. THESE ARE PUBLIC INPUT HEARINGS, SO HAVING FOUR HEARINGS DOESN'T DISABLE AND CREATE HUGE OBSTACLES IN PULLING EVERYONE TOGETHER BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE ACTION IN THESE HEARINGS. YOU'RE COLLECTING PUBLIC INPUT, AND THERE ARE GOING TO BE TRANSCRIPTS SO THAT EVERYONE ON THE COMMITTEE WOULD GET THE BENEFIT OF THE INPUT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE'LL GET MARCY, JEFF, AND JOAN. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I REMEMBERED MY POINT. I DON'T WANT TO LOSE TRACK OF THE THOUGHT THAT JEFF PUT OUT A MOMENT AGO REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE MAY WANT TO HAVE AN INDEPENDENT SURVEY OF THE CLIMATE. AND LET ME SAY THIS. WE'RE MAKING AN ASSUMPTION, AND WE KNOW IN OUR HEART, IN OUR GUT, IT'S A GOOD ASSUMPTION, THAT THERE'S THIS HUGE NEED. WE'RE MAKING THAT ASSUMPTION BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD IT. WE NEED NEW RESEARCH FACILITIES. WE NEED THIS. WE NEED THIS. AND I'LL TELL YOU IN MY OWN ORGANIZATION, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE SPEND AND HOW MUCH WE BUILD, THEY CAN STILL GENERATE A LIST THAT WOULD CHOKE A HORSE. | ||||||||
| HAVING SAID THAT, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT'S IN THE ENVIRONMENT ALREADY, WHAT ALREADY EXISTS, WHAT'S THERE. BECAUSE IT'S LIKE GOING BLINDLY INTO THE FOREST AND TRYING TO DECIDE WHERE EVERYTHING SHOULD BE. JEFF MADE THE POINT THAT IN THE PAST WE HAVE USED OUTSIDE ORGANIZATIONS TO COME IN AND GIVE US ADVICE OR OFFER THAT OPPORTUNITY. SO I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO LOSE THAT THOUGHT BECAUSE I STILL THINK IT'S A GOOD ONE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SINCE I WAS NEXT UP, BUT I WAS COMING BACK TO THAT BECAUSE I COULD SEE THEM DOING THAT ROLE AND FACILITATING THE DATA COLLECTION AND ORGANIZATION THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS SO THAT STAFF ISN'T OVERWHELMED WITH IT, BUT IN MUCH THE SAME WAY THAT THEY DID WITH THE STRATEGIC PLAN. THEY WERE AT ALL THE PUBLIC MEETINGS, THEY COLLECTED ALL THE INFORMATION, COLLATED IT. AT THE SAME TIME THEY WERE LOOKING AT, INDEPENDENT OF ALL OF THIS, THE SCIENTIFIC NEED. AND SO I THINK THAT IF WE COULD IDENTIFY SOMEONE, THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD WAY, AND THAT REPORT WOULD BE A NICE, CLEAN, OBJECTIVE DOCUMENT TO START FROM. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: WELL, I GUESS THE FIRST THING, FOR THE RECORD, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAY THIS, I THINK IT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE FOR US TO SPEND THAT MUCH MONEY ON FACILITIES WITHOUT A MUCH BETTER DOCUMENTED LINK BETWEEN THAT AND OUR END RESULT. SO I THINK ALL THESE IDEAS ARE WELCOMED, AND WE SHOULD EMBARK ON THEM. | ||||||||
| AND SORT OF ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE OF THE QUESTION, I'VE BEEN HEARING FROM LOTS OF PEOPLE DON'T THROW A LOT OF MONEY AT FACILITIES. THIS IS FROM SCIENTISTS AND ACADEMIC MEDICINE AND FROM HIGH LEVEL MANAGERS IN THE PATIENT ADVOCACY MOVEMENT AND SO ON. SO IT'S ANOTHER REASON I THINK WE SHOULD REALLY LOOK CLOSELY AT IT. | ||||||||
| AND TO AMPLIFY ON WHAT ARLENE SAID, WE HAVE WONDERFUL SCIENTISTS EMBARKED ON THIS IN OUR GRANTS WORKING GROUP, OUTSIDE EXPERTS, AND SO ON. BUT ACADEMIC MEDICINE ISN'T WHERE CURES TYPICALLY COME FROM. THEY COME FROM BIG PHRMA. THEY COME FROM IDEAS AT BIOTECHS. AND WE CAN'T GIVE THIS MONEY TO THEM. IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WOULD GIVE THEM AN INCENTIVE TO GET THEM GOING SO THAT WE'RE JUMP STARTING THE END GAME, WHICH WE HAVE TO DO IF WE'RE GOING TO SATISFY THE MANDATE OF PROP 71. AND IF WE DON'T DO THAT AFTER SPENDING ALL THIS MONEY, WE'RE GOING TO BE IN BIG TROUBLE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I'D LIKE TO ASK JAMES TO COMMENT ON THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: WELL, PROPOSITION 71 REQUIRES YOU -- IT DOESN'T REQUIRE YOU. IT ALLOWS THE ICOC TO SPEND UP TO 10 PERCENT OF THE PROCEEDS ON FACILITIES. IN TERMS OF THE FACILITIES AWARD, THEY'RE STRICTLY LIMITED TO NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: SO MAKING THE BRIDGE TO THOSE INSTITUTIONS THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YEAH. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE CALIFORNIAN, A SYSTEMS ENGINEER, SAID TO ME, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULDN'T YOU SPEND -- TAKE A NICE CHUNK OF MONEY, ENOUGH, WHATEVER THAT IS, FOR INCENTIVE GRANTS, INCENTIVE PRIZES TO A SCIENTIFIC TEAM THAT DEVELOPS A THERAPEUTIC BREAKTHROUGH? IT GETS THE END GAME DONE SO THOSE GUYS ARE MOTIVATED. BECAUSE PRESUMABLY THE FACILITIES MONEY IS NEEDED TO MOTIVATE THE INSTITUTIONS ENOUGH THAT THEY'LL WORK HARDER ON THE GRANTS THAT THEY'VE GOT THAN THEY ARE RIGHT NOW OR THEY'LL BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR MORE GRANTS. WE DON'T KNOW THAT. IN ANY CASE, IT'S ESSENTIALLY ENOUGH OF AN INCENTIVE. IS THERE AN INCENTIVE WE CAN GIVE BIOTECH OR BIG PHRMA OR SOME BRIGHT GUY WHO'S GOT A GREAT IDEA SOMEWHERE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: RUSTY, IF I CAN MAKE A MOTION, IF THAT'S OKAY. I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP CONDUCT A MINIMUM OF TWO, BUT NO MORE THAN FOUR, HEARINGS IN RELATION TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE $222 MILLION RFA. THEY'RE CALLING IT THE FACILITIES GRANTS RFA. AND THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE HEARING IS TO INCORPORATE THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE DURING THIS PORTION OF THE DISCUSSION THAT CAN BE DISTILLED LATER ON BY STAFF, SO I DON'T HAVE TO RECITE EACH ONE OF THEM, BUT THEY CAN DO THAT LATER, THAT, AS BOB KLEIN SAID, ATTENDANCE IS NOT MANDATORY AT THESE HEARINGS, BUT THAT WE INVITE ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND WORK WITH MR. KLEIN'S STAFF TO PUT THOSE -- AND THE PRESIDENT'S STAFF TO PUT THESE HEARINGS TOGETHER, AND THAT THE STATED NEED FOR PUTTING THESE HEARINGS IS THAT THE COMMITTEE FEELS THAT IT NEEDS TO DO MORE DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE WE MAKE A FINAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE RFA -- TO THE ICOC. IS THERE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: SECOND. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION -- WE'LL GET TO PUBLIC COMMENT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AMONGST THE COLLEAGUES? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: AND THAT'S FOR THE PURPOSES OF CREATING THE RFA? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I HEARD THE NEED FOR TWO THINGS. MAYBE YOU'RE PLANNING TO MAKE TWO MOTIONS, BUT ONE IS INPUT FROM INSTITUTIONS AROUND THE STATE AND OTHER SOURCES WHO FEEL THEY HAVE INFORMATION THAT WILL HELP US. BUT THE OTHER IS THE EXPERTISE ANGLE. I'M NOT SURE THAT WE CAN CAPTURE THAT IN A PUBLIC HEARING. THE IDEA OF PRESENTATIONS. MAYBE WE'LL TAKE THAT UP IN A SEPARATE MOTION. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SIMILAR TO WHAT WE WENT THROUGH FOR IP POLICY, FOR THE STRATEGIC PLAN. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: CONFERENCE CALLS. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: GET PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT CONSTRUCTION, ABOUT CONSTRUCTION OF RESEARCH FACILITIES. WE CAN GET PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT PLACES WHERE THEY HAVE OR HAVE NOT BUILT NEW FACILITIES AND THEY'VE HAD PAYOFF OR NOT. | ||||||||
| AND THEN IN ANSWER TO JOAN'S QUESTION -- | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: EVEN USING BOB'S'S EXAMPLE -- | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: -- WE CAN GET PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT SCIENTIFIC NEED IN THE STATE. IT'S A VERY, VERY BROAD ISSUE. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: POLICY, RULES, DEFINITIONS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: LET ME JUST SAY I'M VERY CONCERNED. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING -- I THINK WE'RE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I THINK WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED HERE IS GREAT, BUT WHO'S GOING TO DO IT? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND, RUSTY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WELL, WE'RE TALKING -- OKAY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE'RE HAVING DISCUSSION. YOU'RE ASKING WHO'S GOING TO DO IT? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I'M HAVING DISCUSSION. I'M COMING BACK TO THE ISSUE GOING EITHER WITH JEFF IN TERMS OF SOME KIND OF A CONSULTANT TO HELP US OR STAFF. BUT I JUST DON'T THINK WE CAN DO ALL THIS IN THE WAY IT NEEDS TO BE DONE WITH THE EXISTING STAFF. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: AS A COROLLARY TO THIS MOTION, I WOULD ALSO, ASSUMING IT PASSES, AND IT MAY NOT, BUT IF IT WERE TO PASS, I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, BECAUSE THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, THE ICOC GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE AWARDING OF CONTRACTS OR THE PRESIDENT DOES UP TO 250,000, ZACH, UP TO TWO FIFTY, THE PRESIDENT CAN EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITHOUT ANY SIGN-OFFS. HE'S BEEN DELEGATED THAT AUTHORITY. IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S OVER $250,000, IT REQUIRES OR BETWEEN 250 AND 500, IT REQUIRES GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE CONSENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. | ||||||||
| SO IF MY FIRST MOTION PASSES, MY SECOND MOTION WILL BE THAT WE ASK THE PRESIDENT, AND IT'S UP TO THE PRESIDENT AT HIS DISCRETION, BUT WE ASK THE PRESIDENT TO HIRE A CONSULTANT TO ASSIST STAFF IN THIS ENDEAVOR. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: OR ADDITIONAL STAFF. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: OR ADDITIONAL STAFF. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: OKAY. LET ME -- MAYBE I SHOULD SAY A FEW WORDS. SO I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THAT IS, THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THERE TO BE A PERIOD OF CONSULTATION WITH EXPERTS, A PERIOD OF PUBLIC HEARING, DEVELOPMENT OF A CONSENSUS ABOUT WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN AREAS THAT CONCERN CONSTRUCTION, THAT CONCERN SCIENCE, THAT CONCERN THE RELATION BETWEEN THE TWO. AND THERE IS NO QUESTION BUT WHAT WE CAN DO THAT. WE'VE DONE THAT. WE DID THAT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN. WE DID IT WITH THE ORIGINAL CONFERENCE. WE CAN BRING IN EXPERTS TO GIVE TALKS. WE CAN HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS SO THAT PEOPLE SAY WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. | ||||||||
| LET ME JUST SAY, AS PRESIDENT I'M FACED WITH A PECULIAR DILEMMA HERE BECAUSE THERE IS A REAL SPLIT BETWEEN WHAT THIS COMMITTEE IS SAYING, THIS WORKING GROUP IS SAYING, AND WHAT WAS SAID AT THE ICOC MEETING BY IN PARTICULAR THOSE REPRESENTING THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THE INSTITUTIONS. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: BUT THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT CONFLICT OF INTEREST BY EVERY ONE OF THESE SPEAKERS. SIGNIFICANT. I WOULD HAVE SAID THAT HAD I BEEN THERE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, YOU JUST HAVE TO WAIT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: ONE PERSON AT A TIME. GO AHEAD. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: IF ONE WANTS TO SAY THERE'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THAT HAS TO BE IDENTIFIED AND SAID SO. WE HAD A MEETING JUST LAST WEEK. WE HAD DISCUSSION, AND THERE SEEMED TO BE A CONSENSUS DEVELOPING OUT OF THAT. | ||||||||
| NOW, I KNOW DAVID AND MARCY AND OTHERS REPRESENTED A MINORITY POINT OF VIEW. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: SHERRY LANSING. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: JEFF WASN'T THERE AND JOAN WASN'T THERE. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING AS PRESIDENT, I FEEL LIKE I'M GETTING TWO CONFLICTING BITS OF INFORMATION. I HAVE HEARD FROM THE BEGINNING ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING THESE FACILITIES GOING, THAT THIS WAS A DIRECT DRIVER FOR BUILDING THE RESEARCH ENTERPRISE IN CALIFORNIA. AND IF WE NEEDED TO DO IT, WE NEEDED TO GET GOING WITH IT. THERE WAS TALK WHEN THE BIG MONEY CAME, WHEN THE BOND MONEY CAME, HOW NICE IT WOULD BE IF WE WERE ALONG IN THIS PROCESS SO THAT WHEN THE MONEY CAME, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET IT OUT VERY QUICKLY TO THE INSTITUTIONS SO THAT THEY COULD BUILD AND GET THESE BUILDINGS GOING. | ||||||||
| SO I'M NOT -- WE CAN DO IT EITHER WAY. AND I'M NOT -- BUT I THINK THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE SORTED OUT AT THE ICOC MEETING. AND IF YOU FEEL THE INSTITUTIONAL REPRESENTATIVES HAVE A CONFLICT, THEN YOU NEED TO SAY THAT, BUT I'M GETTING CONFLICTING DIRECTIONS. I GOT ONE SET OF DIRECTIONS IN THE ICO MEETING. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: WE'RE ENTITLED TO EXPRESS OUR OPINION, ARE WE NOT? | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: YOU'RE ENTITLED TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AS A WORKING GROUP, WE CAN EXPRESS OUR OPINION. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: YOU CERTAINLY CAN. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: I WILL NOT ACT ON IT UNTIL I HEAR FROM THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S FINE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: TIME OUT. TIME OUT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DAVID, THIS IS BOB KLEIN. CAN I ADDRESS THAT FROM AN ICOC PERSPECTIVE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YES, PLEASE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'VE BEEN ONE OF THE ADVOCATES FOR MOVING QUICKLY, BUT PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY IS CRITICAL. THIS COMMITTEE IS THE FACILITIES COMMITTEE WHO IS SUPPOSED TO DEVELOP THE CRITERIA AND THE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD. THIS COMMITTEE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY. AND I HEARD A LOT OF REALLY GOOD REASONS, INCLUDING THE COMMITMENT TO THE PUBLIC PROCESS WE'VE BEEN THROUGH FOR EVERY OTHER DECISION, AND THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD ACT ON WHAT IT BELIEVES ITS BEST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE AND CARRY THEM OUT. | ||||||||
| THIS COMMITTEE CAN CARRY OUT ACTIONS AND DIRECT THE STAFF. IN ADDITION, I'M NOT HAPPY ABOUT MARCH OF 2008, BUT I THINK THERE'S FAR TOO MUCH TIME IN THE PROCESS. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T TAKE PROPER AMOUNT OF TIME IN THE FRONT END TO GET PUBLIC INPUT BECAUSE IF WE HIRE MORE STAFF SO THAT WE HAVE FOUR OR FIVE STAFF MEMBERS, THEN WE CAN CUT DOWN ALL OF THAT TIME THAT'S IN THE HUGE PROCESSING TIME BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE STAFF, ADEQUATE STAFF, TO MOVE THESE APPLICATIONS FORWARD. | ||||||||
| SO I DO THINK WE CAN, A, ACCOMPLISH THE PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY THAT'S BEEN SO CRITICAL TO OUR EXISTENCE; AND, B, SPEED UP THE PROCESS AS WELL BY HIRING MORE STAFF? ONCE THE APPLICATIONS COME IN, WE HAVE THE EXPERT WOMANPOWER AND MANPOWER TO REALLY MOVE THESE THROUGH THE SYSTEM FASTER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WE'LL GO TO MARCY AND THEN WE'LL ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YOU KNOW, I WAS AT THE ICOC MEETING. AND, ZACH, I AGREE ON ONE POINT THAT YOU MADE IS THAT THEY WANTED THE PROCESS TO MOVE EXPEDITIOUSLY, THAT THEY WANT TO MOVE THIS ALONG BECAUSE THEY ARE RECRUITING SCIENTISTS AND THEY NEED A PLACE TO PUT THEM. HOWEVER, SAYING THAT, THEY ALSO DIRECTED THIS WORKING GROUP TO DEVELOP THE PROCESS. AND WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY. AND IF WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO THEM, I'M WILLING TO DO THAT AND GO BACK TO THEM AND SAY WE'RE NOT COMFORTABLE. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: THAT'S FINE. I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: THEY'RE RELYING ON US TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION ON THESE GRANTS; AND UNTIL WE'RE COMFORTABLE AND WE HAVE A PROCESS THAT WE FEEL THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR SPENDING THE TAXPAYER DOLLARS, THEN WE WILL MOVE AHEAD. AT NO TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THIS INSTITUTE DID I EVER HEAR THE ICOC AND A WORKING GROUP GET IN CONFLICT. IT WAS CLEAR THAT I DIDN'T HEAR THAT CONFLICT THEN AND I DON'T HEAR IT NOW. I DON'T HEAR IT THE WAY YOU'RE DESCRIBING IT. THEY GAVE THE DIRECTION TO THIS WORKING GROUP TO MOVE THIS PROCESS AHEAD, BUT WE WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT PROCESS. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: I'M NOT TRYING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AWAY FROM YOU, MARCY, AT ALL. IT IS IN THE END, HOWEVER, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE STAFF TO DEVELOP AN RFA IN CONSULTATION WITH THE WORKING GROUPS TO BRING TO THE ICOC FOR FINAL CONCEPT APPROVAL. MY UNDERSTANDING -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S -- | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: BOB, I'M SORRY. I'VE GOT THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE MEETING LAST TUESDAY WAS THAT WE WERE GOING TO TRY TO DO THAT FOR THE JUNE MEETING. I DON'T -- IF WE CAN'T DO IT, WE CAN'T DO IT. WHAT'S BECOME VERY CLEAR FROM THIS AND -- BY THE WAY, THE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO DO THIS IN CONSULTATION AND WORKING WITH THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT -- BUT I FEEL LIKE I HAVE GOTTEN TWO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. ONE IS TO LET'S MOVE AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE, AND THE OTHER IS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE AN EXTENSIVE PERIOD OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC PROCESS BEFORE WE REALLY MAKE THESE FINAL DECISIONS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: AND THAT WAS THE UNFORTUNATE RESULT OF SCHEDULING, ZACH. WE HAD THE ICOC MEETING ON TUESDAY AND THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP MEETING ON A FRIDAY. I GUESS IN HINDSIGHT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT, SCHEDULED DIFFERENTLY. WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT THAT? IT'S OVER WITH. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT, IN MY MIND, BETWEEN THE DIRECTION IN WHICH YOU'RE GOING, AND I'M NOT SAYING YOU SHOULDN'T GO IN THAT DIRECTION. ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT IN THE END I TAKE MY DIRECTION AS PRESIDENT, RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING THE RFA'S, FROM THE ICOC. AND SO WE WILL NEED TO GO BACK TO THE ICOC AND THEN HASH THIS OUT. AND IF THE ICOC SAYS TO GO AHEAD WITH THESE BIDS, I'M HAPPY TO DO IT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S FINE. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: MR. CHAIRMAN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WAIT. WAIT. WAIT. BOB'S BEEN WANTING TO SAY SOMETHING. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: EXCUSE ME. THAT'S NOT THE WAY THIS INITIATIVE WAS WRITTEN. THE INITIATIVE WAS WRITTEN SO THAT THE PRESIDENT'S STAFF PROVIDES THE SUPPORT TO THE FACILITIES COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP ITS RESPONSIBILITIES. IT HAS SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE INITIATIVE THAT DAVID WAS KIND ENOUGH TO READ AT THE VERY BEGINNING. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: WE'RE NOT TRYING TO EVADE THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE'RE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THIS ENTITY. WHILE THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS COMMITTEE ARE BEING CARRIED OUT, YOU WANT TO ASK ME TO CALL A NEW ICOC MEETING, I'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU MAKE THAT REQUEST. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE HAVE TO CARRY OUT THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS COMMITTEE. IT'S THE WAY THE INITIATIVE WAS WRITTEN. THEY HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES. THEY'RE TRYING TO CARRY THEM OUT. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: BOB, I'M SORRY. AS PRESIDENT, I RESPOND TO THE ICOC. IT IS MY JOB TO DO THAT. AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO TAKE WHATEVER YOU DECIDE HERE THAT WILL GO BACK TO THE ICOC. WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION. AND I WILL DO WHATEVER IS DECIDED. BUT THAT IS WHERE I TAKE MY ULTIMATE -- THAT'S WHO I REPORT TO. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I DON'T SEE ANY CONFLICT IN THE TWO STATEMENTS. I HEARD DAVID SAYING THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE ICOC THAT THEY EXTEND THE TIMELINE AND ALLOW US TO DO THIS. I DON'T THINK HE RECOMMENDED -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S MY MOTION. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: -- HE DIRECTED YOU TO DO ANYTHING. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO VOTE ON DAVID'S MOTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: CAN WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT -- CAN WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I WANTED TO CREATE A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. | ||||||||
| MR. REED: I'M GLAD TO SEE THIS BE TALKED OUT. IT'S VITAL. THIRTY YEARS AGO IN MY SCHOOL DISTRICT THERE WAS A BUILDING MADE VERY FAST. IT WAS THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE DISTRICT. THE TEACHERS UNIONS WERE NOT CONSULTED. IT BECAME A HUGE ISSUE. IT LED TO A STRIKE. THIRTY YEARS LATER IT'S STILL REFERRED TO AS THE TAJ MAHAL IN TERMS OF CONTEMPT AND ANGER. WE ARE GOING TO BE WATCHED CAREFULLY. WHATEVER WE PUT OUT, THESE ARE GOING TO BE BIG BUILDINGS, COULD BE THE POINT OF ANGER AND PUBLIC AGAINST US. IT'S GOT TO BE DONE VERY CAREFULLY. THANK YOU FOR FIGHTING THIS OUT. WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. WE ALL WANT THE BEST FOR WHAT MUST GO FORWARD. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: ANY OTHER -- YES. COULD YOU IDENTIFY? | ||||||||
| DR. HALME: DINA HALME, UCSF. I WAS ONE OF THE PERSONS THIS MORNING WHO ASKED FOR MORE CLARIFICATION, AND I APPRECIATE THAT THAT TAKES TIME. BUT I REALLY LIKE THIS IDEA OF A DRAFT RFA BECAUSE HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING, I'M UNFORTUNATELY NOT GOING TO COME AND TELL YOU WHAT UCSF IS PLANNING BECAUSE MY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE HERE IS NOT GOING TO COME AND TELL YOU WHAT IRVINE IS PLANNING. WE COLLABORATE ON THE SCIENCE, AND WE COMPETE FOR FACILITIES. AND SO HAVING A DOCUMENT, A DRAFT, TO RESPOND TO WOULD HELP WITH THE SITUATION. MAYBE THE SAN DIEGO CONSORTIUM SEES THERE'S A PROBLEM, SO THEY TELL YOU THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM RATHER THAN THIS OPEN-ENDED GAMISH WHERE PEOPLE ARE BEING CAGEY OR THEY'RE STRATEGIZING, AND THAT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE. AND WE ARE IN A RUSH BECAUSE WE WOULD LOVE TO HIRE MORE PEOPLE TO GET MORE CIRM GRANTS, AND WE HAVE NOWHERE TO PUT THEM. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? | ||||||||
| MS. CORY: JENNIFER CORY FROM STANFORD. I WOULD HAVE TO SECOND WHAT SHE SAID JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A HUGE NEED FOR FACILITIES RIGHT NOW. YOU ALL, I THINK, UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT SCIENCE IS MOVING VERY QUICKLY. I GOT THE SENSE THAT THERE WAS SOME UNEASE ALMOST THAT MAYBE THERE WASN'T THIS HUGE SCIENCE NEED FOR ACTUAL FACILITIES, BUT I CAN TELL YOU FROM AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE THAT THERE IS A HUGE NEED FOR FACILITIES. WE HAVE NOWHERE TO DO THIS RESEARCH RIGHT NOW. AND SO I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO MOVE FORWARD CAUTIOUSLY, BUT THERE SHOULD BE A SHORTER TIMELINE, I THINK, THAN -- LET'S NOT DRAG THIS OUT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WELL, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WAS TALKING ABOUT DRAGGING IT OUT. I THINK IT'S THE PROCESS AND MAKING SURE THE PROCESS GETS THE BEST END RESULT. AND I THINK WE ALL SHARE THE SAME FEELING, THAT THERE IS A TREMENDOUS NEED FOR THESE FACILITIES, AND THE SOONER THE BETTER FOR ALL OF US. FACILITIES, THE RESEARCH, ETC., I MEAN IT'S BIG WIN FOR EVERYBODY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DID YOU WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT? | ||||||||
| MR. WOODS: JOHN WOODS, AND I'M RECENTLY RETIRED FROM UCSD, AND I HAD THE FACILITIES RESPONSIBILITY. AND I THOUGHT THE THINGS I'D BE TALKING ABOUT ARE THINGS YOU'VE ALL ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED. I FELT VERY PAINFULLY OVER THE LAST EIGHT OR NINE YEARS WHAT INFLATION HAS DONE TO US AND TO OUR BUDGETS. AND THE SCIENTISTS ARE SO EXCITED, ALL THESE FOUR INSTITUTIONS WORKING TOGETHER. WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU IF YOU NEED TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO AND CAN'T DO, BOTH BECAUSE OF THE SPACE WE DON'T HAVE FOR THE PEOPLE WE ALREADY HAVE, AS WELL AS THE SPACE WE DON'T HAVE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WE'RE TRYING TO RECRUIT FROM OUT OF STATE TO MAKE US AN EVEN RICHER PROGRAM. | ||||||||
| AND FOR MANY OF THEM, THE AWARD OF THESE GRANTS, ASSUMING WE WERE LUCKY ENOUGH TO GET ONE, IS BOTH SYMBOLIC AS WELL AS PRACTICAL IN TERMS OF MAKING THAT SPACE AVAILABLE. THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO TELL FOLKS THAT THE DOORS ARE REALLY OPEN TO THE CONTRACTS AND GRANTS THAT WILL FOLLOW WITH ALL OF THIS. AGAIN, WE ONLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO MOVE AS SPEEDILY AS YOU'RE COMFORTABLE MOVING. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IF THERE'S NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT, I THINK WE'RE PREPARED TO VOTE. JOAN SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JEFF SHEEHY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DAVID. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: AYE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: MARCY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ED. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: JANET. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: RUSTY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DAVID. AYE. DEBORAH. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: SHERRY LANSING. SHERRY. SHE'S NOT ON. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COUNSEL. SO IS THERE ANY REASON WHY, BESIDES THESE -- ARE THESE QUARTERLY MEETINGS WE'RE HAVING? OR ARE WE JUST CALLED ON ESSENTIALLY WHEN WE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: AS NEEDED. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: AS NEEDED. IS THERE ANY REASON WHY ALL OR PART OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP CAN'T MEET MORE REGULARLY IN DISCUSSION PRIVATE MEETINGS? | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: NO. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: YES, THERE'S A REASON. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: THE ANSWER IS, YES, THERE IS A REASON. THE ICOC HAS ADOPTED A POLICY THAT THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP WILL MEET IN OPEN PUBLIC SESSION EXCEPT FOR VERY LIMITED SPECIFIED PURPOSES TO HEAR INFORMATION REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL LAND NEGOTIATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE. HOWEVER, YOU CAN DO TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS IF YOU DESIRE. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: OKAY. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: PUBLIC TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: CAN I ASK A QUESTION? THAT, YOU KNOW, I DO HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE INSTITUTIONS, THAT WE SHOULD TRY AND EXPEDITE THIS PROCESS. AND THE STAFFING ISSUE WAS RAISED, I GUESS, BY DAVID LICHTENGER, WHO MENTIONED THAT FOR THE VARIOUS KINDS OF SPECIALIZATION IN A STATE THE SIZE OF CALIFORNIA, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED MORE STAFF. THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE HAD A JUNE 1 RFA AND A MARCH COMPLETION DATE. | ||||||||
| NOW, WE NEED THE PROPER TIME FOR TRANSPARENCY AND WORKING OUT THE PUBLIC POLICY AND HAVING THE RFA. I WOULD SUGGEST IT WILL SAVE TIME ON THE BACK END, BUT SHOULDN'T WE ALSO HAVE A MOTION HERE TO REQUEST THAT THE FACILITIES STAFF COMES BACK TO THIS COMMITTEE WITH A STAFFING AND MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT WOULD TAKE US FROM THE DATE THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE RFA SUBMITTED, MAYBE IT'S JULY 1ST, AND PROVIDING A STAFFING PLAN THAT WOULD IMMEDIATELY HIRE MORE MANPOWER SO THAT THE PROCESSING TIME COULD BE CUT DOWN AND HOPEFULLY, EVEN WITH USING THE PROPER TIME FOR PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY, WE COULD HAVE THESE DONE AND PROCESSED FOR A BOARD VOTE BY THE END OF THE YEAR? | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: JUST ONE POINT OF INFORMATION. IN DOING THE SCHEDULES, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS VERY HARD IS THE LENGTH OF TIME FOR THE INSTITUTIONS TO PREPARE THESE GRANTS. EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS AND KNOWING ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF PUTTING TOGETHER THE FINANCING, PUTTING TOGETHER DETAILS -- I DON'T KNOW OF EITHER LORI OR RICK OR ANY OF THE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE ROOM WHO REPRESENT THE INSTITUTIONS MIGHT WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS -- BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, PARTICULARLY FOR THE UC'S FOR VARIOUS REASONS, YOU SIMPLY CANNOT MOVE THESE THINGS THROUGH IN A MATTER OF MONTHS. | ||||||||
| THIS WAS REFLECTED IN OUR SHARED EVEN LABORATORY FACILITIES GRANTS, AND NOTICE THE WAY IT WAS PHASED, PART 1 AND PART 2, AND PART OF THE REASON FOR THAT IS YOU COULD PREPARE THE SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION MUCH MORE QUICKLY THAN YOU CAN PREPARE EVEN FOR A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MUCH LESS, MANY THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, SO THAT IS BUILT IN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS IN THE SYSTEM THAT ARE BUILT IN THAT UC COULD CREATE A SPECIAL TRACK TO BE ABLE TO PROPERLY COMPETE WITH THE OTHER INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE FOR FACILITIES GRANTS. AND I WOULD MAYBE BROADEN WHAT MY STATEMENT WAS TO ASK THAT THEY COME BACK WITH A STAFF AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TO ACCELERATE THE PROCESS AS WELL AS RECOMMENDATIONS OF WHAT WE CAN DO WITH THE UC SYSTEM OR ANY OTHER STRUCTURAL DELAY IN THE SYSTEM TO TRY AND REQUEST THOSE -- THAT THERE BE INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES TO ACCOMMODATE A FASTER PROGRAM FOR PROCESSING. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: I THINK -- LET ME JUST ADD. I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE A REQUEST TO DEVELOP A PLAN. I THINK WE WOULD REQUEST INPUT FROM THIS COMMITTEE, BUT I THINK THE APPROVAL FOR ANY STAFFING PLAN OF THAT WOULD GO THROUGH GOVERNANCE AND THROUGH THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, THAT COULD BE FINE, BUT AT LEAST WE CAN GET A COPY OF THAT PLAN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. | ||||||||
| MS. HEINEKE: I'M TRUDY HEINEKE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. I THINK THE TIME IT TAKES FOR ONE OF OUR CAMPUSES TO PUT TOGETHER AN APPLICATION IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE KIND OF REVIEW YOU'RE GOING TO DO. I HEAR TALK ABOUT SPECIALISTS, ENGINEERS, AND ARCHITECTS, AND WHATEVER. AND I MUST SAY I NEVER REALLY CONSIDERED THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO -- THERE WOULD BE A DETAILED ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEW. IT NEVER EVEN CROSSED MY MIND. | ||||||||
| IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT, THEN INSTITUTIONS HAVE TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY TO GET TO THE POINT OF PREPARING PLANS FOR YOU TO REVIEW. SOME OF OUR CAMPUSES HAVE MOVED FORWARD WITH DESIGN FASTER THAN OTHERS, AND WE WOULD HAVE TO KNOW THAT IN ADVANCE IF YOU WANT DETAILED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. SO THAT'S A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION AS OPPOSED TO A KIND OF REVIEW THAT LOOKS AT UNIT COST AND REASONABLENESS OF SCHEDULE AND WHATEVER. | ||||||||
| SO THE TIME FOR US TO PREPARE IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE CRITERIA YOU ADOPT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: THIS IS ON A SOMEWHAT SEPARATE SUBJECT, AND IT'S KIND OF A CLEANUP MOTION BASED ON MY BEING COMPLETELY PERSUADED BY SOME COMMENTS OF DEBORAH AND SOME OF THE OTHER FOLKS. I WOULD PROPOSE THAT THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP HAVE SIGN-OFF AUTHORITY FOR ANY RFA, INCLUDING THIS ONE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: ANY DISCUSSION? | ||||||||
| UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'M SORRY. I COULDN'T HEAR HER OVER HERE. COULD YOU REPEAT IT, JOAN? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YEAH. I WAS RESOLVING THAT THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP WOULD HAVE SIGN-OFF ON RFA'S, AS DEBORAH WAS DESCRIBING. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I THINK THAT'S AN INTERESTING MOTION, JOAN, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT. OKAY. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE HANDLED. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: LET ME FINISH. LET ME JUST SAY THAT WE AS A WORKING GROUP WERE UNANIMOUS IN COMMUNICATING ONE THOUGHT TO THE ICOC. THAT IS, WE WANT TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE, AND WE NEED MORE TIME. I DON'T WANT TO OBSTRUCT THAT MESSAGE IN ANY WAY OR CLOUD IT WITH ADDITIONAL LATCH-ONS. OKAY. BECAUSE WHEN I GO TO THE ICOC -- | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IT'S SEPARATE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WHEN I GO TO THE ICOC IN JUNE AT THE JUNE MEETING SO WE CAN RESOLVE THIS CONFLICT OF RESPONSIBILITIES FOR FOLKS AND WHAT TO DO, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT THEM TO LOOK AT THAT SINGLE QUESTION. SHOULD YOU OR SHOULD YOU NOT ALLOW US -- SHOULD YOU OR SHOULD YOU NOT GIVE US MORE TIME? YES OR NO, ICOC? I'M SURE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A REALLY HEALTHY DISCUSSION AT THAT JUNE MEETING. | ||||||||
| IF THE ICOC SAYS YES, THEN THAT GIVES US SOME COMFORT, I THINK. THEN WE CAN SAY, OKAY, WELL, THEN LET'S LOOK AT THE RFA. AT WHAT POINT DO WE WANT TO HAVE SIGN-OFF AUTHORITY ON IT, OTHER ELEMENTS OF WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED TODAY. TO PIGEONHOLE NOW IT, JOAN, I JUST WANT TO CAUTION -- | ||||||||
| MS SAMUELSON: I AGREE WITH YOU. I'LL WITHDRAW IT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: -- TO PIGEONHOLE IT NOW MIGHT BE A LITTLE TOO MUCH. I JUST WANTED -- TO ME THAT'S CENTRAL -- | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: CAN WE CALENDAR IT FOR A FUTURE AGENDA? I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: TO ME THAT CENTRAL ISSUE -- TO ME IT'S A CENTRAL ISSUE HERE, AND I WANT IT RESOLVED, AND WE CAN GET IT RESOLVED IN THE NEXT FIVE WEEKS OR WHENEVER THE JUNE MEETING IS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DAVID, THIS IS BOB KLEIN. IT WOULD BE A REAL SHAME IF THOSE HEARINGS COULDN'T START RIGHT AWAY. THERE IS NO REASON TO WASTE FIVE WEEKS TO GET TO THE JUNE DATE. THOSE HEARINGS COULD BE DONE. | ||||||||
| NOW, IF ALL THE HEARINGS AREN'T DONE BY THE JUNE 2D MEETING, THAT'S A SEPARATE SUBJECT. BUT CERTAINLY WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, FIVE WEEKS OR SIX WEEKS BETWEEN NOW AND -- SIX WEEKS OR MORE BEFORE THE JUNE MEETING. AND THOSE HEARINGS, SEVERAL OF THOSE HEARINGS COULD BE CONDUCTED AND BE OUT OF THE WAY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB, LET'S BE FRANK. WE CAN'T CONDUCT THESE HEARINGS WITHOUT THE EXPRESS SUPPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT AND HIS STAFF. IF THERE'S ANY AMBIGUITY AS TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD DO, AS HE ARTICULATED, THEN I DON'T SEE US GETTING THAT AID. ZACH, I'M SORRY IF I'M SPEAKING FOR YOU, BUT I DID THINK I HEARD YOU SAY YOU WERE SORT OF UNCLEAR ABOUT WHAT IT IS YOU HAD TO DO. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: WELL, I'M CONFUSED IN THE SENSE THAT THE ICOC MEETING LAST TUESDAY, IT'S AMAZING OVER THE COURSE OF THREE DAYS, IT'S BEEN QUITE AMAZING. THE NO. 1 THING I PUT UP HERE IS, IN FACT, THE NO. 1 MESSAGE THAT I HEARD FROM THIS. IN FACT, IT BEGAN DURING MY PRESIDENT'S REPORT WHEN ONE OF THE INSTITUTIONAL REPRESENTATIVES SAID WHAT POSTURE SHOULD WE TAKE FROM RECRUITMENT, WAS ASKING ABOUT FURTHER PLANS, FUTURE PLANS. AND WE HAVE HEARD AGAIN AND AGAIN ACTUALLY GOING BACK SEVERAL MEETINGS ABOUT THE URGENCY OF GETTING STARTED ON THE FACILITIES. SO I HAVE TRIED TO RESPOND TO THAT. AND SO THAT IS WHAT THIS AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULE THAT YOU ALSO SAW THIS MORNING WAS IN RESPONSE TO THAT DIRECTIVE FROM THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| WE TALKED AT THE ICOC MEETING LAST TIME ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE SHOULD BE A PRELIMINARY SURVEY. AND, AGAIN, ALTHOUGH THERE SEEMED TO BE SOME VALUE IN THAT, THE ISSUE OF MOVING FORWARD AND TRYING TO GO AHEAD WITH THIS BY VOTE, STRAW VOTE, SEEMED TO TRUMP THAT ISSUE. AND THE DIRECTIVE I TOOK AWAY FROM THAT MEETING WAS LET'S TAKE THIS AMBITIOUS SCHEDULE, SEE IF WE CAN COME UP WITH THE OUTLINES FOR AN RFA IN JUNE. | ||||||||
| NOW, GIVEN THE UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THIS WORKING GROUP, THERE IS NO -- I THINK THERE'S NO POINT IN US DOING THAT. IT'S VERY CLEAR. BUT IT'S ALSO VERY CLEAR TO ME THAT THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW REPRESENTED ON THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: ZACH, IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION. YES OR NO? BEFORE THE JUNE MEETING, WILL YOU AID THIS WORKING GROUP IN A HEARING? | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: I WILL. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YES OR NO? WILL YOU ASSIST THIS WORKING GROUP? | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: I WANT DIRECTION FROM THE ICOC ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD PROCEED ON THIS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I'LL TAKE THAT AS A NO. IF YOU'RE NOT HELPING US BEFORE THE JUNE MEETING BY COMMITTING RESOURCES, SAYING, YES, WORKING GROUP, I WILL COMMIT RESOURCES, I WILL COMMIT TIME IN AIDING YOU SETTING UP THESE HEARINGS WHICH YOU UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: I'M SORRY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: IT'S EITHER A YES OR A NO. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: WE WILL BEGIN PLANS GIVEN -- THIS NOW GIVES US TWO STRETCHES. I FRANKLY THINK IT WILL BE SURPRISING TO ME IF THE ICOC WERE TO HEAR THAT THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP HAD TAKEN A UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND THEY SAID WE'RE GOING TO IGNORE THIS. LET'S GO AHEAD. ON THE OTHER HAND, I FEEL THIS IS A VERY, VERY STRONG ISSUE. THIS IS AN ISSUE ON WHICH THERE ARE STRONG FEELINGS ON BOTH SIDES. I FEEL IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT IT BE WORKED OUT AT THE HIGHEST GOVERNANCE LEVEL FOR THIS WHOLE ORGANIZATION, WHICH IS THE BOARD. I THINK THAT IS THE KEY. THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE HERE, AND THERE'S A, I WOULD EVEN SAY, A CULTURAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE INVOLVED IN THE SCIENTIFIC CULTURE WHO SEE THE NEED, WHO UNDERSTAND THE URGENCY, AND WHO ARE TRYING TO MOVE THIS FORWARD IN ORDER TO GET THE WHOLE PROJECT GOING, AND THOSE HERE WHO'S POINT OF VIEW I HAVE HEARD -- | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: WHO SEE A NEED AND KNOW THE URGENCY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I DISAGREE WITH THAT DICHOTOMY. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: JUST A MOMENT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I THINK DAVID AND MARCY AND JANET WANT TO SPEAK. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: I'M NOT FINISHED YET. AND THE POINT THAT I'VE HEARD TODAY, WHAT I'VE HEARD TODAY, IS THAT WE NEED PUBLIC INPUT. THAT TO UNDERTAKE THIS WITHOUT GOING THROUGH SOME PUBLIC HEARINGS, SOME SENSE OF GATHERING INFORMATION FROM A VARIETY OF EXPERTS, AND GETTING THE SUPPORT OF THE PUBLIC FOR THIS WOULD BE A MISTAKE. I THINK THAT IS AN IMPORTANT POINT. AND I THINK THAT THAT WILL -- THE ICOC NEEDS TO HEAR THAT AND NEEDS TO DECIDE THAT. | ||||||||
| ON THE OTHER HAND, I SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE ICOC. THAT IS WHO I TAKE MY DIRECTIONS FROM, THE ENTIRE ICOC. THIS GROUP IS ADVISORY TO CIRM AND TO THE ICOC, AND I DON'T TAKE MY DIRECTIONS DIRECTLY FROM YOU. I'M SORRY. THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: WELL, YOU DO FROM ME BECAUSE I'M ON THAT BOARD. WAIT A MINUTE. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: PLEASE LET ME JUST FINISH. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: WAIT A MINUTE, ZACH. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE LET ME FINISH. WHAT WE WILL DO, GIVEN THIS SITUATION, IS MAKE A CONTINGENCY PLAN BASED ON EACH OF THESE. THAT IS, WE WILL BEGIN TO PLAN FOR A SERIES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PUBLIC MEETINGS AND STAFFING SO THAT WE CAN MOVE AHEAD WITH THAT. BUT I WILL NOT IMPLEMENT THAT UNTIL I'M SURE THAT I HAVE THE ICOC BEHIND ME. AND I THINK WE WILL ALSO CONTINUE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT WE MIGHT DO FOR THE RFA. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I'M JUST SAYING THAT A SENSE OF URGENCY WAS NOT DEFINED AT THAT BOARD MEETING. AND I THINK IF TWO HEARINGS WERE HELD IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS OR THREE WEEKS OR FOUR WEEKS, WE WOULD BE MEETING EVERYBODY'S NEEDS TO FEEL VERY TRANSPARENT. THIS IS A PUBLIC AGENCY WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS. AND WE ARE FOOLHARDY IF WE DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO OUR RESPONSIBILITY. BUT NOWHERE ON THAT BOARD MEETING DID I HEAR ANY BOARD MEMBER NOT ENCOURAGE US TO DO OUR JOB. | ||||||||
| SO I WOULD BEG TO DIFFER WITH YOU, THAT THERE IS A CULTURAL DIFFERENCE. THERE IS NOT A CULTURAL DIFFERENCE. I THINK IF THERE WERE THE REST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HERE TODAY, THEY WOULD AGREE WITH US BOARD MEMBERS WHO WOULD SAY WE HAVE A PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY TO FOLLOW A PUBLIC PROCESS IN DOING THIS. SO NOWHERE DID THE SENSE OF URGENCY INTERFERE WITH THAT MANDATE. NOWHERE DID I HEAR THAT FROM ANY BOARD MEMBER, NOWHERE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: DAVID. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: SO, ZACH, I THINK THE WORKING GROUP, MYSELF INCLUDED, HAVE A SENSE OF URGENCY, AND THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO PUSH FORWARD WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND I'M ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT NOW TO HAVE THOSE MEETINGS HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY SO THAT WE CAN MAKE PROGRESS. I WANT TO MAKE PROGRESS JUST AS MUCH YOU DO AND THE ICOC. I THINK EVERYONE HERE REALIZES THAT, GIVEN THE PUBLIC NATURE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING, WE'RE GOING HAVE TO DO THIS, AND WE NEED TO DO IT QUICKLY, AND WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT. I DON'T THINK THEY'RE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. IT'S NOT A ZERO-SUM SITUATION HERE. WE CAN HAVE A SENSE OF URGENCY AND GO AHEAD AND HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: I'M NOT SAYING YOU DON'T HAVE A SENSE OF URGENCY. I JUST -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THIS IS BOB. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: BOB, PLEASE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ALL THOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS CAN BE HELD. THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE. ALL THOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS CAN BE HELD, URGENCY CAN BE ATTAINED, AND PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY CAN BE HONORED. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: I HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING LIKE THIS WITHOUT CONSULTING THE ICOC. I HAVE NOT. AND THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST TIME IN MY PRESIDENCY THAT I HAVE SAID, WELL, HERE'S ONE SET OF INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE ICOC -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S NOT TRUE.DR. HALL: -- AND NOW WE GET ANOTHER POINT ON IT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: I CAN GIVE YOU EXAMPLES WHERE YOU'VE DONE THAT, ZACH. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I HAVE A MOTION, RUSTY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: NO. NO. WAIT. I WANT JANET TO SPEAK. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I WOULD -- I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF IMPORTANT ISSUES HERE. I DON'T HEAR AS MUCH DISAGREEMENT AS I THINK HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT. I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE CALL A PHONE CALL OF THE ICOC OR SOME WAY FOR US ALL TO COMMUNICATE BECAUSE THERE'S A KEY ISSUE THAT WE'RE NOT SPEAKING ABOUT. AND THAT IS, INFORMING THE ENTIRE BOARD OF THE DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE HERE TODAY, WHICH IS VERY VALUABLE. AT THE BOARD MEETING WE DID GET A SENSE THAT PEOPLE WANT TO MOVE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. WE ALL DO, BUT WE HAVE TO PUT METHODICALLY, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND THIS, WE HAVE TO BE EDUCATED ABOUT AREAS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THE FACILITIES. | ||||||||
| IF WE GET THE BOARD'S BLESSING, BUT WE DON'T WAIT UNTIL THE MAY MEETING OR THE JUNE MEETING, WE CAN USE THE TIME BETWEEN NOW AND JUNE TO BE DOING THE HEARINGS WITH ZACH'S FULL ENGAGEMENT. I JUST -- MAY I MOVE THAT WE HAVE AN EMERGENCY MEETING OF THE BOARD? CAN WE DO THAT BY PHONE, JAMES? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I CAN CALL AN EMERGENCY MEETING OF THE BOARD, JANET. SO IF ZACH DECIDES THAT HE CAN'T MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT AND HONOR THE REQUEST OF THIS UNANIMOUS VOTE, I CAN CALL AN EMERGENCY MEETING OF THE BOARD. I'D LIKE TO GIVE ZACH SOME TIME TO THINK ABOUT THAT, BUT I WILL ACT TO DO THAT IF THAT'S NECESSARY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I ONLY WANT TO SAY A COUPLE OF POINTS. NO. 1, ALL WE'RE PROPOSING IS THAT THIS WORKING GROUP CONVENE A PUBLIC MEETING FOR A VERY SPECIFIC PURPOSE. AND I'VE NEVER HEARD OF ANY OF THE OTHER WORKING GROUPS BEING TOLD THEY CAN'T SET THEIR OWN SCHEDULE. SO I DON'T SEE THAT CONFLICT, YOU KNOW. I ALSO WOULDN'T OBJECT TO GETTING THE ACTUAL RESOLUTION THAT THE BOARD PASSED SO I COULD BE INSTRUCTED BECAUSE I WASN'T AT THAT MEETING. I'M SURE THAT THERE'S A PUBLIC RECORD THAT CAN BE OBTAINED. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: THERE WAS NO FORMAL VOTE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT AGENDIZED AS SUCH. IT WAS A STRAW VOTE, AND IT WAS WORKING BY CONSENSUS. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SO I SEE OUR LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY IN ACTUALLY -- NO RFA CAN GO FORWARD UNTIL WE PROPOSE CRITERIA, AS I UNDERSTAND THE READING OF THE PROPOSITION. SO IF WE'RE NOT -- YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE CAN'T HOLD A COUPLE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS. IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO FORWARD WITH A CRITERIA BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO DO SO, I DON'T THINK THAT PUTS US IN ANY KIND OF CONFLICT WITH THE ICOC AND THEIR OBJECTIVES. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FULFILL OUR STATUTORY MANDATE. WE'RE TRYING TO HOLD ADDITIONAL MEETINGS. CERTAINLY IT IS PREPOSTEROUS TO THINK THAT WE WOULD HAVE WALKED OUT OF THIS MEETING TODAY WITH CRITERIA FOR A GRANT OF $222 MILLION. | ||||||||
| NOW, I DON'T THINK THE ICOC -- | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: THAT WAS NEVER ANTICIPATED. THAT'S NOT ON THE SCHEDULE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SO AT WHAT POINT WOULD WE HAVE COME UP WITH OUR CRITERIA TO PRESENT TO THE ICOC FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR RFA? WHAT WAS THE PLAN? | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: THAT WAS GOING TO BE DISCUSSED ON THE SECOND DAY OF THE MAY 2D AND 3D MEETING, ASSUMING THERE WERE TIME. AND IF THERE WASN'T TIME, WE WOULDN'T MEET THE SCHEDULE. WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO IT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THEN I'M JUST NOT GETTING WHAT ALL THESE DIFFERENT CONFLICTS ARE. WE DON'T HAVE A RESOLUTION FROM THE ICOC. WE HAVE A STATUTORY MANDATE. WE'RE TRYING TO FULFILL IT. WE PROPOSED A PROCESS, AND WE'RE BEING TOLD WE CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE IN SOME WAY WE'RE IN CONFLICT WITH THE ICOC, WHICH DIDN'T EVEN TAKE A FORMAL MOTION. I'D LIKE A RULING FROM COUNSEL WHY WE CAN'T GO FORWARD WITH FULFILLING -- WHAT I DID THINK -- WHAT I AM HEARING WAS A CLEAR INTENT OF THE ICOC, WHICH IS TO START DEVELOPING THE CRITERIA, WHICH WE'RE STATUTORILY OBLIGATED TO DO, BEFORE ANY RFA CAN GO FORWARD. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: JEFF IS CORRECT, THAT ONE OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE WORKING GROUP IS TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE CRITERIA BY WHICH GRANT APPLICATIONS WILL BE REVIEWED. AND THIS WORKING GROUP IS ALSO EMPOWERED TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC MEETINGS THROUGH THE CHAIR WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF STAFF. | ||||||||
| ZACH IS CORRECT, THAT THE ICOC EXPRESSED ITS INTENT THAT GATHERING INFORMATION THROUGH A SURVEY OR THROUGH SOME PRENOTICED LETTER WAS NOT NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE IN LIGHT OF THE SENSE OF URGENCY THAT WAS EXPRESSED. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: IN TERMS OF DEVELOPING CRITERIA, JEFF, THERE IS NO -- THERE'S NO PROBLEM ABOUT THAT. ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVES WE HAD CONSIDERED WAS IF WE DIDN'T GET TO IT OR WE WEREN'T FINISHED WITH IT MAY 2D, WE WOULD SEE IF WE COULD SCHEDULE A LATER MEETING. THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. BUT WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED IS SOMETHING RATHER DIFFERENT. WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED IS A WHOLE PROGRAM OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AROUND THE STATE, ENGAGING SCIENTISTS, ARCHITECTS, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS. | ||||||||
| SO WHAT IS NEEDED NOW AT THIS STAGE IS, BY COMPARISON WITH THE PLAN FOR A PLAN, THE SCIENTIFIC STRATEGIC PLAN, IS BASICALLY A CAMPAIGN PLAN NOW. SO WE WOULD SAY HERE'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS. HERE'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO ORGANIZE IT. HERE'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO DEVELOP CRITERIA. HERE'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO INVOLVE THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. HERE'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO INVOLVE THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. HERE'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO INVOLVE THE ICOC. HERE'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO STAFF IT. I MEAN IT'S NOT WHAT I HAVE HEARD TODAY, AND I HAVE HEARD WHAT YOU'VE SAID IS THAT YOU WANT A REAL PROCESS. AND THAT TOOK ABOUT SIX MONTHS WITH THE SCIENTIFIC STRATEGIC PLAN. WE PRESUMABLY COULD DO THAT MORE QUICKLY HERE, BUT I THINK THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS FOR US TO TRY TO PREPARE SUCH A PLAN AND THEN PRESENT A PLAN FOR A PLAN, IF YOU WILL, AT THE ICOC MEETING AND TRY TO GET SOME RESOLUTION ON THIS. AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE AN EMERGENCY MEETING OF THE ICOC MEETING BEFORE JUNE. I DON'T OBJECT TO THAT AT ALL. | ||||||||
| MY POINT IS THAT WE SHOULD NOT DO THIS JUST ON THE GROUNDS OF DEVELOPING CRITERIA BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S MUCH BIGGER. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IN A FIVE- OR SIX-WEEK PERIOD YOU COULD HAVE THREE PUBLIC MEETINGS. AND SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A SIX-MONTH PROCESS. IT'S A MISSTATEMENT TO CHARACTERIZE IT IN THOSE TERMS. AND, IN FACT, ALL THOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS COULD TAKE PLACE BEFORE THE JUNE BOARD MEETING. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: MAYBE LET'S TAKE SOME OF THE HEAT OUT. I THINK -- COULD I JUST ASK AN OBJECTIVE OPINION OF THE PRESIDENT. BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A SENSE THAT YOU'VE GOT YOUR FINGER ON THE SCALE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, AND I'M NOT COMPLETELY SURE THAT IT'S TRUE. YOU SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD. WHATEVER THEY TELL YOU TO DO YOU'RE GOING TO DO. BUT I WONDER IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE TWO OPTIONS AS THEY'RE RATHER STARKLY PRESENTED JUST AS OBJECTIVE. AND I'M HEARTBROKEN THAT WE'RE LOSING YOU. BUT SO YOU CAN KIND OF MAYBE SPEAK A LITTLE BIT OUT OF SCHOOL, BUT JUST AS SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN THROUGH SOME OF OUR PROCESSES AND IS RESPONSIBLE, I THINK, FOR A TREMENDOUS NUMBER OF VERY, VERY POSITIVE PROCESSES AND ENORMOUS, UNBELIEVABLY STRONG RESULTS IN RECORD TIME WITH AN INCREDIBLE SENSE OF URGENCY, IS IT NOT -- DON'T YOU THINK THAT A LITTLE MORE PROCESS THAN WHAT KIND OF CAME OUT OF THE ICOC MAYBE MIGHT NOT BE WELL ADVISED SO WE'RE NOT WORKING AT CROSS PURPOSES? | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: LET ME BE STRAIGHT. I REALLY DO TRY TO SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE ICOC AND TO DO WHAT IS WANTED TO DO. THIS IS LIKE A HUNDRED PERCENT REORIENTATION FOR ME BECAUSE WHAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING IS LET'S GET THIS DONE. LET'S GET THIS DONE. AND WE TALKED ABOUT HAVING, EVEN BEFORE THE BOND MONEY IS READY, HAVING ALL THIS DECIDED, SO WE ALREADY HAD THE INSTITUTIONS LINED UP, READY TO GO, THE MONEY WAS OUT THE DOOR. THE BOND MONEY NOW IS GOING TO BE READY IN THE SUMMER. I'M ABOUT TO LEAVE. | ||||||||
| I THOUGHT THE BEST THING I CAN DO IS TO TRY TO GET THIS ON TRACK BEFORE I GO BECAUSE THERE IS THIS SENSE OF URGENCY. OKAY. I AM PERFECTLY WILLING TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS. IF I'M GOING TO DO IT AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, I WANT IT TO BE CAREFULLY PLANNED. I WANT IT TO BE THOUGHT OUT. I WANT TO THINK THROUGH THE ISSUES OF PROCESS, WHO WILL TAKE AND SYNTHESIZE ALL THE RESULTS OF THESE VARIOUS MEETINGS. EXACTLY WHO DO WE WANT? HOW DO WE DO IT? FOR ME IT'S LIKE TURNING UPSIDE DOWN. IF I CAN DO IT, THERE IS NO PROBLEM. I CAN GET STARTED. | ||||||||
| BUT THE POINT IS I'M WILLING TO DO IT, BUT I WANT TO DO IT RIGHT, AND IT OUGHT TO BE DONE RIGHT, AND IT OUGHT TO BE DONE WELL, AND IT OUGHT NOT TO BE RUSHED INTO. AND IT OUGHT TO BE DONE BY THE PRESIDENT WITH THE STAFF OF THE CIRM. AND WE WOULD ALSO HAVE A STAFF PLAN FOR THIS. AND WHETHER WE HIRE OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS OR GET INSIDE PEOPLE OR STAFF, AN ESTIMATE, WE ARE MOVING AT LIGHTNING SPEED HERE. AND THIS IS A COMPLETE 180-DEGREE TURNAROUND FROM THREE DAYS AGO. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS. IT IS NOT. I WILL BEG TO DIFFER, BEG TO DIFFER. THAT IS NOT WHAT I HEARD SAID. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: MARCY, I RESPECT YOUR OPINION. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I WAS AT THE BOARD MEETING. IT IS NOT. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: AS THE PRESIDENT, I HAVE TO HEAR WHAT I HEARD. IF WE DISAGREE, WE DISAGREE. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: MR. CHAIRMAN. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: I'M TRYING TO DO MY JOB HERE. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: WE CAN BEAT THIS HORSE TO DEATH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I AGREE WITH YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I THINK WE'VE HAD ENOUGH. I THINK DR. HALL HAS SAID THAT HE BELIEVES THAT HE HAS TO HAVE THE OPINION OF THE ICOC, THE COMMITTEE. BOB KLEIN HAS SAID, IF NECESSARY, AND WE'LL GET TOGETHER AND I'LL HAVE AN EMERGENCY PHONE MEETING. IN THE MEANTIME, WHY DON'T WE ALLOW HIM TO START HIS PLANNING CONTINGENCY AND MOVE ON? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU HAVEN'T WORKED AS CLOSELY AS WE HAVE WITH ZACH. LET'S SEE IF WE CAN'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AND MOVE THIS MEETING TO A CLOSE. ARE THERE ANY MORE LAST COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? | ||||||||
| MR. REED: JUST THAT I'M ENDLESSLY PROUD TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS OUTSTANDING GROUP OF PASSIONATE PEOPLE. WE HAVE DONE A FANTASTIC JOB. JUST THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GOING THROUGH ALL THIS HASSLE FOR EVERYBODY. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I WOULD LIKE TO -- I THINK YOU'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK, ED. THEY WILL CALL THE MEETING, SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ICOC, AND WE WILL GET SOME DIRECTION FROM THEM. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I THINK BOB IS PASSIONATE ABOUT THE ISSUE, AND SO IS DR. HALL, AND SO IS EVERYONE ELSE. THE POINT IS THAT WE'VE GOT QUALIFIED PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING. I'LL GUARANTEE. I'VE KNOWN BOB KLEIN FOR A LONG TIME. AND IF HE DOESN'T MAKE THAT THING HAPPEN FAST, I'D BE VERY SURPRISED. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: ZACH, LET'S ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY THAT THE ICOC AGREES WITH THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING. COULD WE, YOU KNOW, TRY TO BE A LITTLE PROACTIVE? OBVIOUSLY YOU WOULD NEED TO GET THAT DIRECTION, BUT ARE THERE STEPS THAT WE COULD TAKE IN BETWEEN AND THEN? AND IF WE MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION, OBVIOUSLY IF WE DON'T GET THAT DIRECTION -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: PLANNING PROCESS WHICH HE SAID HE WILL START. | ||||||||
| DR. HALL: MYSELF AND THE STAFF NEED TO THINK THROUGH THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY, AND WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO. AND THEN I THINK IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR OF THIS WORKING GROUP, WE WOULD RECONVENE THE WORKING GROUP. WE'RE CERTAINLY GOING TO SEE YOU IN, WHAT, LESS THAN A MONTH TO DEAL WITH THESE ISSUES. AND SO WE WILL -- TO DEAL WITH THIS PARTICULAR RFA. SO WE WILL BE IN CONTACT WITH YOU. AND, YEAH, OUR POINT IS NOT TO EITHER TRY TO CONTRAVENE YOU OR TO IGNORE YOU, BUT TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT WILL BOTH FULFILL WHAT WE'VE HEARD HERE TODAY. AND I THINK WE DO -- I THINK THE ICOC HAS REAL WORK TO DO, I BELIEVE, TO RESOLVE SOME OF THE ISSUES AMONG ITSELF. I THINK THAT IS THE CASE. I THINK THERE WILL BE A RESOLUTION, AND I THINK IT WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, VERY STRONG ACCOUNT, WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE. BUT I THINK THAT GROUP DOES NEED TO SORT OUT THESE ISSUES. I HAVE NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. LICHTENGER: I WOULD BE OPEN TO A CONFERENCE CALL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: I WILL SAY, ZACH, ONCE YOU HAVE SORTED OUT THE ISSUES WITH THE ICOC, IF WE HAVE TO HAVE A TELECONFERENCE MEETING PRIOR TO MAY 2D, WE WILL DO THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: THERE'S ONE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO CLEAR UP FROM MY POINT OF VIEW. I'M NOT SURE WHAT EVERYBODY THINKS ABOUT CONSULTANTS AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS, BUT I DON'T THINK ARCHITECTURAL PLANS SHOULD HAVE ANY PART IN THE INITIAL APPLICATION OR CONTRACTORS OR ANY OF THE TECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION ISSUES. THIS IS STRICTLY A SCIENTIFIC PROCESS AND IT HAS TO DEAL WITH ALL THE PEOPLE. | ||||||||
| DOCTOR, I WOULD BE VERY PLEASED IF YOU COULD SET A SCHEDULE OR MEETINGS IN ADVANCE OF GETTING THE APPROVALS, AND DON'T MAKE IT A BIG THING. JUST MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS THE HEARINGS ARE ON. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN DOMS: THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL. | ||||||||
| (THE MEETING WAS THEN ADJOURNED AT 3:20 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
