Stanton Glantz, Ph.D. Chair

Meeting of February 20, 2001

PRESENT: Chair S. Glantz, Vice Chair C.A. Hunt, S. Barclay, R. Price, L. Zegans, A. Kahn, J. Showstack, D. Bikle, J. Norbeck

ABSENT: N. Agabian, D. Bainton

GUESTS: W. Gold, Chair Clinical Affairs Committee

The meeting of the Academic Budget & Planning Committee was called to order by Chair Glantz on February 20, 2001 at about 1:00 p.m. in Room S318. A quorum was present.


The Committee approved the November, 21, 200 and January 16, 2001 Minutes.

Chair Glantz introduced Jane Norbeck as a new member of the Committee.


PROPOSED COMMITTEE RESTRUCTURE: The Committee discussed the draft proposed restructure presented by Chair Glantz. The Committee approves of the general framework of two subcommittees. Any restructure will have to be approved by the Senate and will require changes in the Bylaws.

  • The other Committee suggestions/comments regarding the proposal are set forth as follows in no particular order:
  • Including review of all funds rather than only state-allocated funds is the right approach.
  • Emphasize Committee’s desire that this restructure be collaborative and facilitate and add value to the budget and planning processes.
  • Make clear that the Committee will form working relationships with other committees as needed where committee responsibilities overlap.
  • Expansion of the Committee will result in membership slots to fill, which should be used as an avenue to increase Clinical and Adjunct voices in the process.
  • State explicitly the mechanism by which the Committee will actively seek out all faculty voices.
  • One proposed mechanism is for the Committee to meet with the Faculty Councils to obtain their comments and technical assistance in formulating a Committee response.
  • Emphasize that planning is a critical stage of involvement.
  • The goal of how the proposed restructure should look will be finalized and then implementation will be worked out.
  • State explicitly that budget review includes Hospital/Medical Center budget.
  • Be clear that Committee members will become expert in budget s/he is assigned to review.

The Committee agrees that this is a positive opportunity regarding involvement in the planning surrounding the Moffitt-Long replacement hospital.

The Committee discussed and approved Chair Glantz presenting an oral report on the proposed restructure at the February 21, 2001 Executive Budget Committee Meeting. The Committee discussed the need to meet next with the Schools and the Hospital individually to discuss the proposal. Chair Glantz will also announce at the Executive Budget Committee meeting the Committee’s intent to meet with individuals. The Committee decided that the following individuals will meet with the different Schools and the Hospital:

Medicine: J. Norbeck, Chair Glantz and Vice Chair Hunt
Dentistry: Vice Chair Hunt and R. Price
Pharmacy: J. Norbeck and A. Kahn
Nursing: L. Zegans and A. Kahn
Hospital: J. Showstack, L. Zegans and Warren Gold, Chair Clinical Affairs Committee

Action Item: Motion passed to adopt amended version of the Summary in 2.20.01 draft of proposed restructure, as set forth below.

The Academic Planning and Budget Committee proposes a reorganization that will allow the Committee to make recommendations to the Chancellor and Deans, or their designees, and to Senate agencies regarding the allocation of resources, academic priorities, and the planning and budgetary process at UCSF. The APB Committee believes that by reorganizing and integrating into the campus-wide budget and planning processes, the Committee will better meet its mission and increase responsiveness to and participation of the Faculty.
For this reorganization, the APB Committee proposes to review and formally articulate Senate recommendations regarding all UCSF operating and major capital budgets and each major campus space-use and building project at each project’s proposal, planning, and budgeting stages. The APB Committee would form working relationships with Faculty Councils and other Senate committees as appropriate (e.g., Committee on Research, Clinical Affairs Committee, and Committee on Educational Policy, etc.) as well as with appropriate Administrative bodies (e.g., the Executive Budget Committee, the Mission Bay Planning Committee, and the Fundraising Advisory Committee).
The APB looks forward to enhancing their communications with the Faculty via this reorganization as well as increasing the voice of the Senate in these important issues. This restructuring will take time to be implemented and, so, may need to be phased in. This report suggests what the final structures and processes might look like.

CLINICAL FELLOW SALARY SURVEY: R. Price reported that Senate Staff G. Gende had completed calls to approximately 35 of the 70 persons listed on the phone survey. The Committee discussed the efficacy of calling the remaining persons listed. R. Price noted that the responses thus far appeared to coincide with the web survey responses and with informal sources of information – namely that although the OP directive had hurt some of the larger fellow programs, many other programs believed that the salary increases were appropriate. R. Price will work with the task force and Senate Staff to wrap up the survey and provide a summary and any recommendations to the Committee at the next meeting.

CLINICIAN SCIENTIST ISSUES: D. Bikle discussed the final report, which was distributed to the Committee at the meeting. The report is complete. The Committee will review to determine if there is any Committee action that should be taken in relation to the report’s recommendations. The School of Medicine already has plans to address the Clinician Scientist issue; the question remains how the task force will integrate with those plans. Although there are some recommendations the Academic Senate can act on, the Deans of the Schools should also meet with faculty to look at ways to implement the report’s recommendations on a campus-wide level. The Committee discussed the need for greater planning regarding the overall composition of the faculty and clearer criteria and plans for new faculty appointments. One suggestion was for the Committee on Academic Personnel to require, as a prerequisite to approving appointments, a letter from the department delineating a three-year plan for any new faculty appointment.

TOBACCO CENTER: Chair Glantz left the meeting at this time, and Vice Chair Hunt reported his recommendation that a task force review the Tobacco Center proposal and report back to the Committee at the next meeting. The Committee agreed. Vice Chair Hunt will head the task force, which will include, among other persons from outside the Committee, a member of the Library Committee.

MEETING RE-SCHEDULING: Due to various conflicts with 1-2 of the set meeting dates, Committee members will be polled via email to determine new dates for those meetings.



The meeting adjourned at about 3:00 p.m.

Prepared by:
Senate Staff
Gretchen Gende
Sr. Senate Analyst

Last Webpage Update: 5/20/13

University of California, San Francisco
San Francisco, CA 94143, (415) 476-9000
The Regents of the University of California