CLINICAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Warren Gold, M.D., Chair
Meeting of May 23, 2001
PRESENT: Chair Warren Gold, Susan Janson, Scott Soifer, Hope Rugo, Jane Weintraub
ABSENT: Vice Chancellor Haile Debas, Raymond Braham, Joseph Guglielmo, Joel White
Chair Gold called the meeting of the Clinical Affairs Committee to order on May 23, 2001 in M688 at about 9:15am.
The minutes from the meeting of April 25, 2001 were approved.
Chair Gold introduced new committee member Hope Rugo, who replaced Leslie Saxon. He announced that the Committee on Committees has appointed all current members to the 2001-2002 Clinical Affairs Committee. COC has also increased the number of Committee members to eight with both a Senate and Clinical/Adjunct representative from each School. COC would be willing to appoint another person from the VA Hospital if that becomes appropriate in the future.
Chair Gold also discussed the Governor’s proposed budget revisions that result primarily from the unplanned costs of the power crisis. He noted that these numbers are likely to be revised sometime in June before becoming final.
Those numbers are approximately as follows:
- Total = $89 million, which is comprised of:
- $47 million reduction in benefits and compensation (would have funded faculty and staff merit promotions, 2% COLA for all employees and 1% parity adjustment for faculty and eligible staff)
- $29 million reduction in maintenance, equipment and structural technology and libraries
- $8 million meant to reduce faculty/student ratio
- $5 million inflation adjustment funding
Update Re: Proposal for Academic Impact Review of San Francisco General Hospital
Chair Gold has given a hard copy of the Report to Senate Chair L. Pitts, who has approved posting the Report on the Senate web page. L. Pitts will be distributing the document to the four Deans and to the Coordinating Committee for discussion at its June meeting. Chair Gold summarized the issues addressed by the report as background for H. Rugo. He noted that although SFGH has patched together a budget for this year, there is no long-term plan. Although a bond issue for a replacement hospital is on the ballot, there is no money in that bond for academic space. As a result, researchers who are neither designated to move nor negotiating a move to Mission Bay generally feel that they have no place in the future of General. The Committee discussed the gap in responsibility for finding space for these Faculty members – i.e., the City health department is not responsible for ensuring academic and lab space, and UCSF generally will not invest capital into development when it does not own the land. Under such circumstances, who, if anyone, does have the responsibility of ensuring academic space for these UCSF Faculty members?
Conflict of Interest Regulations – Proposed Changes
The proposed changes were prematurely circulated; so there is no need currently to comment.
New Casual Employee Regulations
The Committee supports the new regulations. The Committee also supports mechanisms that will help alleviate the initial hardship of compliance, especially for those whose budgets are fixed. Such mechanisms might include phasing in the changes.
Interface with Academic Planning and Budget Committee Regarding Medical Center:
The Committee discussed APB’s proposal to become more involved in the campus-wide planning and budget processes (presented by APB Chair S. Glantz at this Committee’s April 25, 2001 meeting). APB has deferred to this Committee the determination as to how much involvement this Committee will have in planning and budget issues, most specifically the Medical Centers’ planning and budget issues.
M. Laret, CEO of the Medical Center, has in the past stated that he supports Senate involvement in the Medical Center budget as long as it does not interfere with the budget timeline and as long as the Senate does not micromanage. He also supports involvement in Medical Center long range planning issues.
The Committee discussed the need to be involved in these issues because of the clear effect many Medical Center budget and planning decisions ultimately have on the academic mission. The Committee believes that merely having a representative on the APB Committee would not be sufficient. Instead, the Committee feels that it should by the primary Committee to interface with the Medical Centers, both on specific budgetary issues that affect the academic mission and on long range planning issues. The Committee would then work with APB to determine how best to communicate Medical Center issues to APB, and to what extent. A primary concern will be minimizing, to the extent possible, double duty for Committee members.
The Committee also wants to work to ensure that M. Laret will place Committee members on meaningful Medical Center committees.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30am.
Sr. Senate Analyst