ACADEMIC PLANNING & BUDGET
Stanton Glantz, Chair
Meeting of January 16, 2001
PRESENT: Chair S. Glantz, N. Agabian, L. Zegans, A. Kahn, J. Showstack, D. Bikle, D. Bainton
ABSENT: Vice Chair C.A. Hunt, C. Miaskowski, S. Barclay, R. Price
The meeting of the Academic Budget & Planning Committee was called to order by Chair Glantz on January 16, 2001 at about 1:00 p.m. in Room S318. A quorum was present.
Approval of 11.21.00 and 12.19.00 minutes was tabled due to the need for revision. Chair Glantz requested that all revised, unapproved minutes be distributed to Committee members by January 30, 2001 for review.
- TOBACCO CENTER: Chair Glantz discussed the details of the Tobacco Center and funding received in relation to the Center. The digital library component will likely be the largest in the country. T. Hunt will be responsible for reviewing the proposal on behalf of the Committee.
- MRU AND NON-ORU CENTER: The Committee discussed a draft letter from Dr. Hunt to Dr. Pitts reflecting Committee discussion on this matter. The Committee determined that the letter fairly represents said discussion.
- CLINICIAN SCIENTIST ISSUES: D. Bikle reported on the draft Clinician Scientists Report, which was distributed to all Deans and Committee Chairs. Chair Glantz noted for the record that this Committee has received favorable feedback on the report, and D. Bikle concurred that the draft report had been well received. D. Bikle noted that the Clinician Scientist issue was a main focus at the Leadership Retreat he attended January 13-14, 2001. One recommendation of the draft report is the development of an Academy of Medical Investigators, which would be a position in the Dean’s office geared toward increasing student, resident, and fellow involvement with research. This increased exposure to research is intended to address in part the lower percentage, comparatively, of UCSF graduates obtaining academic positions. D. Bikle reported that this recommendation has generated great interest. The Committee discussed that even if such a program starts first in the School of Medicine, the University would benefit from its ultimate expansion to all Schools. As such, incorporating all Schools in the planning stages would be constructive. The Committee further discussed Clinician Scientist issues, including the effects of a majority of full-time paid faculty who are not Senate members. The Committee determined that it somehow needs to address the implications of this trend. Chair Glantz noted that the efficacy of any solution requires that the Clinician Scientist issue is addressed campus-wide. A related question was posed: does the Faculty want to represent a diverse mix of people or be a smaller group?
- CLINICAL FELLOW SURVEY: Chair Glantz requested that survey be completed as soon as possible by calling those who run the affected programs to discuss this issue.
- AFFORDABLE HOUSING: The Committee discussed the negative impact of housing prices on faculty and staff recruitment and retention. A. Kahn recommended this issue as appropriate for this Committee to consider and suggested the Committee ultimately direct relevant action. T. Maimon reported that the University is also addressing this issue and has some nascent solutions, although implementation remains relatively distant.
- CAMPUS FINANCIAL PLANNING AND BUDGET: The Committee discussed the need to be more integrated into the campus financial planning and budget process. This discussion concurred with N. Agabian’s suggestion that this Committee should work to identify campus-wide issues on which it can advise the Chancellor’s office and other relevant administrative decisionmakers. Chair Glantz suggested UCLA as a resource regarding integrated involvement in financial planning as UCLA has a specialized budget committee that connects all their departments. UCSF Faculty needs, however, a commitment on the part of the administration that Faculty will be integrated into the budget process via this Committee. Michael Bishop was suggested as the best contact on this issue, and the Committee discussed the need to look at other levers into this new role. Chair Glantz suggested that this Committee propose to the Chancellor new parameters that will re-define the Committee’s structure and integration into the financial planning process. As action on this issue, Chair Glantz requested that Committee members bring to the next Committee meeting ideas of what ideally the structure and role of this Committee should be. The objective is not to usurp administrative authority but rather to better understand how decisions are made and have the opportunity to advise regarding the academic impact of those decisions. The target date for having this new structure in place is June 2001.
The meeting adjourned at about 2:55 p.m.
Sr. Senate Analyst