CLINICAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Warren Gold, M.D., Chair
Meeting of April 25, 2001
PRESENT: Chair Warren Gold, Raymond Braham, Joseph Guglielmo, Susan Janson, Scott Soifer, Joel White, Jane Weintraub
ABSENT: Vice Chancellor Haile Debas, Hope Rugo
GUESTS: Stan Glantz
Chair Gold called the meeting of the Clinical Affairs Committee to order on April 25, 2001 in M688 at about 9:15am. A quorum was present.
The minutes from the meeting of March 28, 2001 were approved electronically.
Chair Gold requested feedback from the Committee on the current proposal for the new School of Medicine (SOM) Compensation Plan.
The Department of Medicine Chair has created a Compensation Advisory Committee, allegedly with approval of the Dean, to develop the compensation plan for the Department. The Committee has twelve members: Five elected (one from each series), four appointed by the Chair to provide diversity, and the chairs from Moffit, VA and SFGH. The Advisory Committee will present the plan at meetings to the general faculty, but there is no indication that the final plan will be approved by a vote of the whole faculty or by the vote of an elected faculty committee – as required by the SOM compensation plan. Some faculty members have contested this process, but neither the SOM’s Faculty Council nor the Chair of Medicine has responded constructively to these complaints. Currently, these complaints have been forwarded to the SOM’s Advisory Committee (whose members were selected by the SOM Faculty).
Chair Gold commented that Dean’s Office SOM is circulating a draft set of guidelines defining "preponderance of activity" in the SOM compensation plan. The guidelines state that for the SOM, a Principal Investigator (PI) must submit their research grant proposal(s) only through the department where their academic activities and compensation plan(s) are based.
Chair Gold informed the Committee that the Senate fought this same issue three years ago, arguing that the restriction violated both Academic Freedom and the concept of collaborative research. The SOM subsequently reversed its policy and allowed a PI the freedom choose the department or ORU for grant submission. These draft guidelines raise a serious issue, and Chair Gold feels that the CAC needs to recognize the possible difficulties ahead.
S. Janson agrees with Chair Gold’s concern and suggest that DOM’s current plan could spread to other Schools. Therefore CAC should consider taking a formal position against the plan. However, the Committee on Academic Freedom or the Senate as a whole should take the lead on this issue.
J. Guglielmo pointed out inconsistency among Schools regarding Compensation Plans and suggested that CAC or another Senate Committee should compare the existing plans. In order to reduce the confusion, all Schools plans should be the same.
R. Braham added that School of Dentistry (SOD) has followed SOM’s model and re-wrote it to fit SOD need. The plan was recently finished but has not been discussed or approved.
Action: Chair Gold will prepare a draft memo regarding the Department of Medicine Compensation Plan and will circulate it to the Committee for comments before forwarding it to the Senate and SOM Faculty Council.
Proposed Reorganization of Academic Planning and Budget Committee:
Chair Gold introduced the Academic Planning and Budget Committee (APB) Chair, Stan Glantz, to discuss the proposed reorganization of the APB and to review with the Committee the written proposal that had been distributed prior to the meeting.
Currently, APB is in the process of looking at ways to increase the involvement of the faculty directly with the administration for long-term planning and development of the budget. Stan Glantz indicated that the proposed new process would be of interest to CAC because it involves a careful look at the budget of the Medical Center, whose operations have a powerful impact on the academic mission of UCSF.
Chair Glantz explained the basic elements of the proposed APB reorganization as follows:
The Standing Order of the Regents allows for faculty involvement in planning and development. At the request of the Academic Senate Chair, Larry Pitts, Chair Glantz initiated the reorganization effort of the APB with the intent that it would take a more proactive role in campus-wide planning and budget development. APB Chair Glantz shared with the Committee the process used by his Committee (which started with reviewing the processes used by other campuses) to arrive at the proposed new model for the UCSF campus.
APB Chair Glantz discussed key characteristics of the reorganization: APB is to be organized in parallel with the Administration; and APB members will be assigned to review and analyze budget decisions of established control points (i.e. the four school Deans, Chancellor and all Vice-Chancellor’s). The review of planning efforts will also be built into established processes in a systematic way. APB will be enlarged significantly and members will serve staggered terms. They will specialize in different planning and budgetary areas. Thus, one or two APB members will become experts on the material related to a particular unit (budget or planning) and the staggered terms will provide continuity of knowledge.
In the current UCSF budget process, each Dean submits a budget to the Chancellor’s office and then meets one-on-one with the Chancellor to discuss the budget. APB, in reviewing the budgets submitted by the Deans, will use the opportunity to review budget and planning considerations against the concerns of the Senate and then take a proactive role in making recommendations or offering advice in advance of the Deans’ meetings with the Chancellor. Once the review is complete, APB will send their recommendations to the Chancellor, the Executive Budget Committee and the Deans, giving all parties sufficient time to take the recommendations of APB into consideration.
Sometime after the planning and budgeting process is completed (possibly in the Fall), the Chancellor’s office will provide the Committee with feedback on which recommendations were accepted or rejected and why.
J. White asked about the selection and size of the reorganized APB members, and Chair Glantz responded that the membership portion of the proposal has not been finalized. Currently there are seven members serving on the APB. The proposed reorganization suggests an increase to 17 members, and the creation of two sub-committees from the membership (long-range and short-range sub-committee).
All Faculty Councils have expressed support for the plan, but there remains some disagreement as to the best way to integrate with APB.
APB now suggests that each School Faculty Council change their Bylaws so that one of the elected Faculty Council members is designated as an APB representative. This elected representative would be part of the Faculty Council and would simultaneously serve as an ex-officio member of the APB, Matters pertaining to proposed or necessary changes to Bylaws will be considered by the Senate’s Rules and Jurisdiction Committee and the Senate Parliamentarian.
Dr. Glantz shared some of the process and some of the criticism related to the APB reorganization proposal as follows:
- Appears to be too much concentration on the budget and not enough on the long-term planning. APB recognizes that long-term planning is important. Even though APB has Committee members currently sitting on some campus planning committees, e.g., new hospital development, Mission Bay and 5th School, APB intends to be more proactive in discovering and becoming involved in committees that are doing significant planning on campus.
- Some of the Deans are concerned that APB will try to micromanage their budgets. APB Chair Glantz indicated that he has reassured the Deans that in the long run, APB’s main concern will be the discretionary part of the budget. APB Chair Glantz pointed out that although the discretionary budget may be small, APB is primarily concerned with how it is distributed.
- APB has met with the Vice Chancellors and the Chancellor’s Executive Budget Committee to solicit feedback on the proposed reorganization.
- APB has also met with Medical Center CEO Mark Laret, who has been supportive of the Senate’s involvement in the Medical Center’s planning and budgeting process. Because the Medical Center’s budget calendar runs differently than the academic units, APB has not yet determined how the Medical Center budget will be integrated into APB’s reorganization. The Medical Center significantly impacts academic programs, and APB needs to work with CAC on this issue. APB Chair Glantz suggested that given CAC’s recently established relationship with the Medical Center and its budget process, a solution might be to appoint a CAC representative to report to APB on Medical Center budget and planning progress and concerns.
Committee Members Comments
Chair Gold expressed concern that leaving the Medical Center’s budget out of APB’s proposed review process would be disastrous, given the potential impact of the Medical Center not only on the SOM but on the academic mission of the campus in general. Chair Gold indicated that Medical Center CEO Mark Laret has always communicated his willingness for faculty involvement in the Medical Center’s budgetary and planning process. Chair Gold also indicated that although the Medical Center schedule may be different the academic units, APB should take on the leadership role and take advantage of Mr. Laret’s invitation to ensure faculty input at the beginning of the process, rather than the end.
Chair Gold suggested that CAC might recommend to the Medical Center that a CAC representative sit on their budget committee.
Chair Gold pointed out that CAC would need more time to discuss these issues before deciding on the Committee’s involvement with APB. However, CAC has to recognize that in long -term planning for the Medical Center, there will be the issues of teaching and clinical research, which are of great interest to CAC.
JG commented that in the past, there has not been a link between the Medical Center and the academic units and that the Senate is making progress toward staying connected and informed. There is concern that there might be some overlap, but movement toward dialogue with the Medical Center administration would be a good first step.
The Committee unanimously agreed to continue the discussion of involvement with APB and the Medical Center at its next meeting in May.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45am.
Anna C. Cho