MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 14, 2000
DIVISION MEETING OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE
Lawrence H. Pitts, MD, Chair


Lawrence H. Pitts, MD, Chair called the meeting of the San Francisco Division of the Academic Senate to order on November 14, 2000 at 3:00 p.m. in Room N225 on the Parnassus Heights Campus. A quorum was not present

Announcements from the Chair:

  • Zena Werb, PhD, Professor of Anatomy has been named by the Academic Senate to be the Faculty Research Lecturer for 2000-01
  • In June 2000 the Chancellor created a Capital Planning Workshop which includes a broad representation from faculty and administration. At this workshop, the topic of the UCSF consideration of the Moffit Long hospital replacement was raised. The Environmental Impact Report process (governed by State law) requires that there be consideration of all potential options and part of this exercise has included addressing the potential movement of the hospital footprint to Mission Bay.

    Based on seismic safety standards, scientists can work in Moffit/Long Hospital footprint, but for patients, it is not deemed safe and the hospital will have to be substantially seismically upgraded by 2030.

    As a follow up to the concept of potentially moving the Hospital to MB, the Chancellor appointed a committee of people who are in a group call the Hospital Replacement Committee.

    Mark Laret and Vice Chancellor Bruce Spaulding, Chair
    Nancy Ascher
    Bruce Wintroub
    Larry Shapiro
    Lee Goldman
    Steve Hauser
    Craig Van Dyke

    Chair Pitts indicated that he will seek feedback from this Committee and put it to out to faculty.
  • UCSF, UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz have submitted a joint proposal to the Governor in response to the Governor’s request from the UC campuses to undertake new science initiatives within the University of California. The joint proposal will focus on Biotechnology and Bioinfomatics and if awarded, is anticipated to be built at Mission Bay.
    The Governor has indicated that there will be funding for a total of three centers and that a 2:1 match will be required. State funding will cover capital costs only.
  • Information from the Chancellors Cabinet meeting:
    1. CUE – the University signed a contract with CUE, which will pay clerical workers higher salaries and hopefully improve recruitment. Approximately $3million of the anticipated $15 million costs University-wide will come from 19900 funds (State). All other costs associated with this settlement will be born by other funding sources (grants, etc.) from the individual campuses.
    2. The formation of a new school at UCSF is under consideration. The impetus for this is how to address the importance and magnitude of social and behavioral science issues as they relate to health policy that do not necessarily rest in clinical or scientific laboratories. Between 20-25% of grant income that comes to UCSF falls into the social and behavioral sciences arena. In recognition of the highly respected group of social scientists at UCSF, last spring a group was formed to look at alternatives and looked at the possible formation of a School of Public Health, which was ruled out, as was a collaborative effort with UC Berkeley. The possible formation of a new school raises issues for some of the Deans relative to the loss of funding from grants within existing schools and also the additional costs to the campus as a whole, related to a fifth school.
    3. Supportive Work Environment Issue –Alma Cisco Smith will make Presentations to all schools and Faculty Councils. Chair Pitts indicated that he will meet with Alma to talk about Faculty Mentoring. The Supportive Work Environment embraces the concept of release time for employees during the work year and would allow one week/yr for staff for personal development. Conditions for what the employee does during this time are still under negotiation. The idea is that this time is to be used for personal development beyond what would normally be provided in the workplace, for example, in the way of training. The hope is that his program will help to retain and recruit staff.
    4. Outreach was discussed especially how to enhance the University’s role in the community and how to address diversity on this campus.
  • Compensation Plans. All schools now have compensation plans out to the department and Chair Pitts expressed hope that they will be completed in time for implementation by January 2001.
  • The Faculty Welfare Committee has reviewed extended sick leave/disability coverage for faculty that would include six weeks of salary continuation or more, if Individual Departments could afford this. This requirement will be built into School Compensation Plans.


Current Status UC and Department of Energy (DOE) Contract

  • There has been a lot of press coverage related to the University of California facilities at which DOE contracts exist. The current proposal is an extension of the current DOE contracts with UC which are due to expire in two years. The current proposal would add another three years to these contracts.
  • The Academic Senate is involved in limited oversight capacity as follows: 1) University of California Research Policy Committee (UCOR) receives regular presentations regarding the status of DOE funded laboratories and 2) The President’s Council on DOE Labs has three or four Senate members who are ex officio members. These are the Chair and Vice Chair of the Council and the immediate past Chair of Council as well as the Chair of UCOR. Additionally, there are Sub Committees of President’s Council that also include Senate members.
  • Rulon K. Linford, Associate Vice Provost, Research and Laboratory Programs, Office of the President was available to answer questions and was asked about the timing of the contract extensions and why the University was being asked to consider contract extensions between DOE at this time.
    • According to Mr. Linford, generally DOE and University contracts are reviewed & renewed on five- year contract basis. Usually 18 months before a contract is scheduled to expire, the DOE will notify the University as to whether the contract will be put out for renewal.
    • With regard to the contracts in question, under usual circumstances, these contracts would not be considered until next March (2001), however because of the problems with security at Livermore Laboratories, it was suggested that the University look at ways to improve its management and security. After increased interactions bet the University and DOE the University made suggestions to DOE about seeking outside Proposals to seek outside in the areas of security and project management at DOE laboratories. The DOE accepted these proposals and DOE wanted the University to implement them right away. However because there were large costs associated with the new security and project management proposals, the University didn’t want to enter into new agreements or take on add costs unless it knew that its contract(s) would extend beyond 2002. As a result, the DOE agreed to extend the University’s contracts for a three-year period, but not the full 5 years.
    • DOE is not, at this time, opening the entire agreement up for re-negotiation it has only opened the security and management portions of the contract. DOE can, if it chooses, based on existing terms in its contract with the University, extend the contract for an additional five years.
    • In mid-2004, full contract negotiations will open up regarding DOE contracts and a full-scale review will take place. The review at this time is of limited scope, only in the context of security and project management.
    • These contract renewal actions are a vote of confidence for the University of California.
    • Collaborative efforts will not be impaired as a result of the new security measures because the FBI, CIA and DOE must agree on security measures and processes to allow collaborative interactions. These are currently in place.
  • John Featherstone also spoke on the matter of UC contracts with the DOE. Dr. Featherstone was on UCOR for four years and helped to pave the way for the UCOR representative to serve on the President’s Council, as well as on the Science & Tech panel. Dr. Featherstone reported that Senate faculty input was very valuable and invited and that UCOR members had made site visits to all UC labs with DOE contracts – Lawrence Livermore, Lawrence Berkeley and Los Alamos. Dr. Featherstone also reported that UCOR enjoys a much more positive interaction with the Office of the President now than perhaps existed with former UCOR chairs.
  • Warren Gold inquired as to whether Lawrence Berkeley Labs were involved in weapons research and Mr. Linford indicated that the Berkeley lab was considered to be a Tier 3 lab, at which no weapons research is conducted. However, Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos Labs both conduct Tier 1 & 2 level research that does involve weapons.

Dr. Gold expressed the opinion that whenever University committees have been involved in the review of DOE contracts, there have been marked improvements in the Labs and the way in which they are run. DOE labs are unique labs with unique scientists. Dr. Gold further indicated that in his mind, there were still major issues present and indicated that the UC contracts with DOE are supposed to be a public service to the nation and the world and questioned whether or not the development of weapons of mass destruction could be considered a public service. Dr. Gold also questioned whether the classified research performed at the University Labs with DOE contracts have a role in a University committed to Academic Freedom. Dr. Gold also questioned the oversight efforts of UC with respect to faculty involvement and indicated that in his view the management of DOE contract labs is delegated to the Directors and that for instance, protection for whistle blowers is NOT present in these labs.

  • Girish Vyas, current UCSF representative to UCOR indicated that Directors of DOE contract the Office of the President, not DOE, appoints Labs.

Distance Learning Task Force - Nancy Byl and Mark Ryder, Co-Chairs

  • Nancy Byl, Co-Chair presented the findings of the Task Force on Distance Learning, whose full report can be found on the Senate’s home page www.ucsf.edu/senate.
  • Dr. Byl reported that the Task Force, in reviewing the matter of Distance, or Web-based learning, that the Committee members did not want to re-invent wheel and sought input from the Faculty Associations of other Universities as well as faculty from other universities to obtain their insights.
  • The Task Force report focused on the Principals of Distance Learning, rather than coming out and recommending a policy because it was difficult to get consensus by the entire task force on many of the issues.
  • Issues looked at by the Task Force included: Academics, Resources, Facilities, Copyright, ownership and others. The Committee worked with the administration on copyright issues.
  • Felt that academic departments should decide what population will be served by Distance Learning classes but that Principles for running distance learning classes should follow the same standards as non distance learning classes in terms of units, tuition and other requirements.
  • Resources should be similar and/or equal to those available to faculty for regular classes and the question of who provides all of the resources was raised, particularly as it related to the consensus by the Task Force that there should be a center on Campus that would provide help to all schools and departments developing web based courses and that these resources should NOT consume all other resources available to instructors.
  • One concern was raised about the potential conflict regarding how to evaluate faculty and consider their contribution relating to course development of web based classes.
  • The Task Force felt that Ownership/Copyright issues should be considered to be the same.
  • The question of academic honesty – who owns the material when it is a collaborative effort?
  • The Task Force grappled with the question of whether to develop a policy at UCSF or participate in a broader UC discussion.
  • The Task Force recommended that the Library house a central technology center for use by all schools and departments and that there be a unified presentation of responsibilities relating to Distance Learning efforts, including the possibly a campus coordinator for these efforts.
  • The campus will need to look at increasing time commitments and changes for faculty relating to distance learning and increased use of technology.


Standing Committee Reports:

Committee on Research - Girish Vyas for Chair Dennis Deen

Dr. Vyas reported that the Committee on Research had approved an increase in travel grant awards from $500/year to $750/year and that Individual Investigator Grant Awards had also been increased from $30,000 to $35,000.


Academic Planning and Budget – Stan Glantz, Chair

  • Dr. Glantz reported that the Committee is working to be more proactive and less reactive and that it will work with the Clinical Affairs Committee and the School of Medicine Faculty Council to determine how proposed cutbacks in hospital and clinical services will affect the University.
  • Clinical Fellows salaries – An APB Task Force is looking at the reaction to the proposal to increase the salaries. Reactions have been varied – some departments are supporting the increase enthusiastically, others are worried about the costs and how to support them.
  • The Committee is looking at how to become more proactive in the campus budget process. Dr. Glantz has been talking to his counterparts at UCLA and Santa Cruz. He reported that the Senate Divisional APB Chair has been added to the UCSF Chancellor’s Executive Budget Committee. Dr. Glantz reported that he hopes to develop a new protocol to involve more faculty in the budget process. This will probably mean more work for committee members and a larger committee. The UCLA model is what seems to be the best parallel at this time. According to the information provided by UCLA, the UCLA administration does not have to take all of the Senate’s recommendations, but that the agreement is that the administration reports back to the committee to explain how and why funding decisions were made.


Clinical Affairs Committee – Warren Gold, Chair

  • A major focus of the committee has been the financial crisis at SFGH and the affect of reductions on care to citizens of city, as well as on the impact to the mission of UCSF.
  • SFGH :
    • Is one of the last major urban publicly funded hospitals
    • Has AIDS research & patient care
    • Top rated Trauma Care
    • Regional Center for California Poison Control
    • 30-40% of students, Housestaff rotate to SFGH
    • TB Public Health Control
    • Major research units in Biology, Liver and others reside at SFGH.
  • There are problems with decreased revenues, along with increased numbers of patients, which makes it difficult to serve all patient needs.
  • Medi-Cal decreases of $38 million in past 5 years
  • More restrictive policies relating to patient care for immigrants
  • Costs have increased
  • City share would have to substantially increase to make up for deficits and the City has not been forthcoming in providing that level of increased funds.
  • Seismic rehabilitation of patient care and research buildings – these are buildings owned by the City, not UC
  • SFGH has lost a number of staff and does not have sufficient translators – a major obstacle to patient care.
  • Emergency ambulances are often diverted to other hospitals (almost 50% of the time) because SFGH cannot handle all of its patients.
  • Shortage of beds, understaffed in all departments, especially the emergency room.
  • Overflow of patients who are in beds in hallways waiting for rooms.
  • Emergency services and preventive procedures have been cut (cancer, heart and others)

Dr. Gold indicated that the CAC is preparing a report that will assess and make recommendations relative to the impact of the findings on the Academic Mission of UCSF as it relates to the operation and services at SFGH. This report will be presented to the Coordinating Committee and the Division upon completion.


Committee on Academic Personnel, Martin Bogetz, for Chair Brian Alldredge

  • Dr. Bogetz represented the committee and provided information regarding the role of CAP in the process of review for faculty promotions, merits, change in series, stewardship and appraisals.
  • CAP sees itself as faculty advocates.
  • Dorothy Bainton, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs appointed Mel Cheitlan, MD emeritus, to Chair a Task Force charged with looking at appointment process within confines of APM. CAP is represented on the Task Force and a report is expected in early 2001.
  • CAP is supporting the efforts of the Equal Opportunity Committee to re-write and update the Faculty Handbook for Success, which is now available on the Senate’s and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs web sites. Dr. Bogetz indicated that faculty need to take ownership for promotions, including taking responsibility for having updated CV’s as well as all information required to support the action contained in the file for CAP’s review. Dr. Bogets urged that. Letters provide documentation for what has been represented, such as having a reputation at a national and/or international level.


Faculty Welfare – Norm Oppenheimer for Chair Renee Binder

  • No Report on Housing at this time - the Chancellors Committee will meet soon and he hopes to have a report available at a future meeting.
  • Fee Waiver Program has been approved at the statewide level, pending approval regarding where funds will come from to support the program. The Program will provide up to 12 years of fee waiver (basic tuition. At UCSF cost, there is an estimated cost of $ 500,000. The campuses are hoping that OP will cover all costs related to the implementation of this program. The broad based support for this program is related to benefits for retention of staff at all levels and faculty.
  • Disability coverage will be guaranteed for faculty for up to 6 weeks paid and then either faculty disability coverage or department coverage will kick in. Faculty may need to identify alternative coverage in the event that their department will not cover beyond the 6 weeks paid disability coverage.


Clinician Scientist Task Force – Dan Bikle, Chair

Dr. Bikle provided a status report on the work of the Task Force, indicating that they had completed their survey and conducted focus group discussions with faculty and were in the process of preparing a report with initial recommendations. The report will be published on the Senate’s web page www.ucsf.edu/senate upon completion.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,

Maria Pallavicini, PhD
Secretary

Last Webpage Update: 6/20/13


University of California, San Francisco
San Francisco, CA 94143, (415) 476-9000
The Regents of the University of California