COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PLANNING AND BUDGET
Stanton Glantz, Ph.D., Chair
Meeting of November 21, 2000
PRESENT: Chair S. Glantz, S. Barclay, D. Bainton, D. Bikle, J. Showstack, C. Hunt, L. Zegans
ABSENT: R. Price, N. Agabian, C. Miaskowski, A. Kahn
The meeting of the Committee on Academic Planning and Budget was called to order by Chair Glantz on November 21, 2000 at 1:00 p.m. in Room S-318. A quorum was called.
Chair Glantz noted that this Committee needs to formulate a larger agenda for greater, more active involvement in the UCSF budget process. He received submissions from three different schools, including UCLA, regarding their budget processes. UCLA appears to be a good model for UCSF changes as what they are doing seems analogous to what this Committee would like to do. Although UCLA deals mostly with state resources rather than the overall budgeting picture, they still provide a good model if this Committee wants its involvement to be in the overall budgeting picture. Despite the process only allowing faculty an advisory voice, the Vice Chancellor is required to come back before UCLA’s budget committee and explain the final budgeting decisions. Chair Glantz noted that integrating this Committee and the faculty voice into the budget process here at UCSF is an effort that will take several months to develop.
APB Intent to Increase Budget Involvement: Budget Process Background
Steve Barclay reported the following:
Each of the four schools and the Vice Chancellors create a five-year strategic plan. The first year of the plan is most meaningful because of the difficulties with predictions further out. Those plans are sent directly to the Chancellor. The Chancellor then sits down with each Dean and the Vice Chancellor privately to ask exhaustive questions about the plans. This has been happening for approximately 4-5 years. A separate process occurs with the Executive Budget Committee, e.g., they address issues that transcend the entire enterprise either in their effect on schools or the academic mission due to the large amounts of funding are involved or due to unfunded mandates, etc. The Chancellor is not required to send anything to the President’s Office.
The campus (UCSF) Budget Office is asked to do ad hoc things (e.g., call for capital relating to the capital improvement program, enrollment growth issues). However, campuses generally do not make budget decisions due to the structure of the University budget. The budget is structured as a partnership with the Governor with an agreed 4% base growth and roughly 1% above that, which is permanent, for targeted issues that the President’s office develops in the President’s own Executive Budget Committee. This Committee includes the Academic Council and selected Chancellors (but not every campus). In addition to the 4% base growth and additional 1% for targeted issues, there are exceptional items funded. The funding for these items apparently comes from the surplus and occurs as a result of the perception that the surplus is ephemeral. There is no direct correlation between what is sent to the Chancellor and what is sent to the Office of the President.
The Committee inquired whether faculty input could be integrated into process relating to the 5-year plans. S. Barclay responded that agreement from the individual deans would be necessary as it is currently unclear whether the deans would be willing to be involved in a more open process. An additional place to have dialogue would be in the succession of Executive Budget Committee meetings in the spring. The faculty should relate in these meetings that the institution better served by our participation and have specific ideas in mind when put on table is way to start negotiation for greater involvement.
The Committee discussed the need to be involved in the budget process both at the departmental chair level and higher. Although the chair level would be first level of input for this committee, APB is charged with providing input at the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor level. The Committee should certainly encourage deans and chairs to obtain more faculty input at that level, but APB needs to be involved directly at the higher level as well.
Additional Background Regarding Strategic Support Issue
There has been a decline in strategic support that is not just an issue for UCSF. The existing five medical centers earned roughly $90 million this year but they transferred over $140 million to their home schools of medicine. In other words, they transferred more to their schools than earned, which has made the Regents radar screen (although much of this issue is related to UCLA, which has a unique history).
There are approximately $500 million of hospital revenues on the table and close to $200 million in professional fees that come in that have some flexibility when it goes back to their elements of strategic support. The Hunter Group created the business plan which people have been following in terms of overall strategy to recover first the $170 million structural deficit and then to move to phase 2. The current business plan calls for smaller reductions towards breaking even in no less than two years.
Strategic support during the merger was somewhere around $40 million a year, but the target of reduction was to reduce it to around $30 million (although could have been lower). In the long run the issue is to grow out of the problems rather than keep cutting expenses. This would be done is through more capacity, better reimbursement rates, and through the Public Policy Forum in Sacramento and in Washington, DC.
Chair Glantz noted that one issue that needs to be addressed is the hiring of junior faculty into clinical series to attempt to create profit centers. That issue, and all related issues (e.g., kind of faculty appointments want to make, expectations of faculty, expectations of departments, mentoring, etc.), need to be joined with budget discussions.
There is one other source of revenue if the Medical Center collects what it generates. If between professional fees and Medical Center revenues the amount is roughly $700 million a year then, 1% , or $7 million, is pure profit. Collection rates, however, are quite low generally because billing is an issue.
This issue will be addressed further as the Committee works on integrating itself and the faculty voice into the budget process.
MRU Task Force Draft Report
Summary of Discussion:
- Draft report regarding MRU circulated to Committee. C. Hunt, the Committee’s representative on the task force looking at this MRU, presented regarding report.
- C. Hunt will talk with Chair Pitts regarding the Committee’s questions for S. Pruisner: why an MRU is necessary rather than an ORU and how this fits into the long-range development plan for Mission Bay.
- The Committee suggested an open forum regarding this MRU after relevant parties have discussed the Committee’s questions.
D. Bikle discussed the compendium. There is a list of changes that affect the academic program regarding the MRU. The Senate is expected to comment on these changes. The statewide Academic Council drafted a policy that outlined the steps that should be taken for any one of these programmatic changes. Among those was the development of MRUs and ORUs. For most changes in programs the Graduate Council takes the lead role to the extent that resources are involved. However, for ORUs and MRUs the Committee on Research takes the lead role. Academic Planning and Budget is involved when proposed programs or programmatic changes involve major campus resources, as is often the case.
The Task Force draft report was prepared to inform the faculty of this proposed MRU. Chair Glantz recommends that the task force return to the task force and S. Pruisner with questions, such as why is an MRU necessary rather than an ORU and how does this fit into the long range development plan for Mission Bay. The Committee also questioned whether funds for the MRU would interfere with funding for other campus ORUs and what the impact of the MRU would be on other campus activities. The approval process for an MRU is also different from that of an ORU. The Committee discussed the need to be more involved in the development and changing of 5-year plans, and the Committee discussed that an MRU should be part of the 5-year plan.
Some Committee members feel strongly that as an MRU, it becomes divorced from campus and that that would weaken the campus. This Proposal seems to be mostly basic science but would be much stronger if integrated clinical or policy aspects into it. As a parallel, we need to reinvigorate the ORU program on campus.
The Committee discussed the desire to have Senate Chair Pitts request that the task force respond to the Committee’s questions regarding this proposal. C. Hunt will talk with Chair Pitts regarding this issue for Chair Pitts in turn to talk with S. Pruisner regarding the Committee’s questions of why an MRU is necessary rather than an ORU and how this fits into the long range development plan for Mission Bay.
Uniform accounting standards are being developed and J. Showstack will be on the committee.
Clinical Fellows Salary Survey: was developed to try to collect more data regarding the new salary schedule. Chair Glantz suggested follow up been done by telephone. Some question as to whether new salary scales came from Regents or Office of the President.
The Clinician Scientist Survey: D. Bikle reported that they have finished their faculty focus group surveys and are generating a report now on this. With that report, will then take Senate discussions in two different directions as there are a variety of committees on campus handling different issues relating to this survey. They then need to dialogue with the administration before issuing a final report.
Credit for Fellows: informal ad hoc to discuss postdoctoral activities with Cliff and Susan and then have more extensive discussion at later meeting. We do not have much information on these fellows because sufficient records are not kept of them. A recommendation would be to ask how to regularize this process.
Mission Bay planning: The implementation committee has hit a wall regarding faculty input into the process. D. Bikle collecting suggestions on this issue.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Revised minutes prepared by
Sr. Senate Analyst