Stanton Glantz, Ph.D. Chair

Meeting of June 19, 2001

PRESENT: Chair S. Glantz, D. Bikle, A. Kahn, L. Zegans, J. Showstack, N. Agabian, D. Bainton, S. Barclay

ABSENT: Vice Chair C.A. Hunt, R. Price, J. Norbeck,

GUEST: W. Gold, Chair, Clinical Affairs Committee, S. Janson for J. Norbeck

The meeting of the Academic Budget & Planning Committee was called to order by Chair Glantz on June 19, 2001 at about 1:00 p.m. in Room S 318. A quorum was present.


The Minutes of April 15, 2001 were approved with corrections from S. Barclay.

Chair’s Report


Old Business

  • Update on Restructure Proposal: Chair Glantz reported on the discussion of the restructure proposal at the Executive Budget Committee meeting this morning, June 19. Three of the four School Deans were not at the EBC meeting. Consequently, nothing was resolved. Dean Dracup, however, will convene a meeting of the Deans, Chair Glantz and Senate Chair L. Pitts to discuss the budget portion of the proposal and possibly try to find common ground.
  • Clinical Affairs Committee Interface with APB re: Medical Center Budget: CAC has proposed that it take on the primary responsibility for review of the Medical Center budget due in part to the fact that CAC has already established a relationship with Mark Laret, CEO of the Medical Center. CAC would then have a liaison to APB. Chair of Clinical Affairs, W. Gold, noted that the CEOs of the medical centers will all be ex officio members of CAC once the new bylaw revisions are passed.

The Committee discussed this proposal, focusing on which committee, APB or CAC, should have primary responsibility for review of the Medical Center budget. Many felt that APB should retain the primary responsibility in terms of integration and oversight of all campus unit budgets, even if CAC were to be the committee to interface directly with M. Laret and the Medical Center. All agreed that any coordination must ensure that M. Laret is not having to repeat the same information to more than one committee. The Committee agreed that D. Bikle, J. Showstack, L. Zegans, W. Gold and incoming CAC Chair S. Janson would work with G. Gende to develop an amendment to the restructure proposal that addresses the issues of integration and implementation of review of the Medical Center budget. Chair Glantz has asked for a draft of that amendment in the next two weeks. S. Janson noted that CAC is open to having joint meetings with APB next year and that could be one means of integration on this subject.

5th School Proposal/D. Bainton

Vice Chancellor D. Bainton summarized the history of the 5th School Proposal. It began with a letter on December 18, 1998 from Senior Vice President Judd King inquiring as to the possibility of improved integration between UC Berkeley School of Public Health and UCSF (in part because UCB has many FTEs in the School of Public Health but only about $7million in research monies while UCSF has few FTEs in this area but over $80 million in research money). A retreat followed in June 1999 at which approximately 100 faculty from both campuses attended. Ultimately, UCB did not express great interest in improving integration between the campuses.

Consequently, Dean Debas assembled a committee in February 2000 to look at this issue. The committee was comprised of N. Adler, L. Bero, J. Weintraub, W. Holzemer and R. Feachem, and they created a 15-page report on this issue. In October 2000, a letter came from President Atkinson directing Vice President Drake to give a high priority to analyzing the need for responding to growth in certain fields of health sciences, such as pharmacy, nursing and public health. He subsequently recommended, at a January 2001 meeting, that UCSF make sure the 5th School proposal was included in UCSF’s Five-Year Plan. The result was the 5-page report that was distributed in March to the Senate at the same time that it was sent to J. King (and which is the report now before the Committee). VC Bainton noted that it appears from the Compendium that the proposal will now spend 1-2 years being reviewed by UC Office of the President, which will then either ‘encourage’ or ‘discourage’ the project.

The Committee discussed wanting to review this issue immediately rather than waiting to hear from UCOP in 1-2 years. The Committee also expressed concern that this proposal had been added to the campus Five-Year plan and forwarded to systemwide Senate without any consultation with the Division Senate. The Committee believes the Division Senate should consider whether and in what form the proposed school should move forward, not just how to do it. There was a consensus that APB should take the lead in a Senate assessment of this proposal at a broad level and that such an assessment would occur parallel to any systemwide process. The Committee believes, however, that doing such an assessment requires a formal charge from the Senate leadership, including the suggested scope of review and a deadline for completing this process.

In addition, Senate Chair L. Pitts and incoming Senate Chair D. Bikle will meet with R. Feachem in August on this issue. Committee members will provide input to D. Bikle on how to construct the Senate review process on this issue in order that D. Bikle may have that information for the August meeting.
The meeting adjourned at about 3:00 p.m.

Proposal to Increase Size of School of Nursing Programs

The Committee discussed the draft proposal from the School of Nursing to increase its MEPN program, which is a 3-yr program. It also discussed a second proposal to increase the size of another program that is not yet in written form. These proposals arose out of an invitation to Dean Dracup (and to UCLA’s nursing school) to propose programs that will help address the nursing shortage problems. The invitation was recent and the timeline for getting a proposal out is very short.

Dean Dracup explained that students in the MEPN program elect a specialty after their first year, such as acute care or midwifery (there are many other potential specialties). She noted that there are two primary shortage issues -- approximately a 10-15% shortage of bedside, hospital nurses and a 7-10% shortage of nurse educators. There are other shortages as well that are less easy to categorize because they vary widely depending on specialty and geography. Whether or not expanding the size of the MEPN program will address the nursing shortages depends in part on the specialties that the MEPN students elect to pursue and ultimately where they go to practice. For example, acute care specialists will ultimately work in hospitals whereas other specialties will work mostly in primary care situations.

She also explained that there is likely to be some collaboration with Fresno or Davis for the first year of the MEPN program. The School of Nursing has reason to believe that both would be interested in such a collaboration.

Dean Dracup would like the Committee to provide their ideas for and reactions to the proposal. The Committee agreed to provide written recommendations and make clear that those recommendations are advisory. In discussing the proposal further, the Committee noted that the proposal should address office and research space and equipment for any new FTE’s hired and classroom space for the proposed increased number of students. It should also express the desired faculty/student ratio and should account for overhead costs (e.g., cost to library of increased number of students) in the proposed budget. The Committee will continue discussion on this issue and provide Dean Dracup with recommendations.

The meeting was adjourned at 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