Stanton Glantz, Ph.D., Chair


During the 2000-01 academic year, the Committee on Academic Planning and Budget met as a Committee twelve times. Electronic communications augmented the Committee’s work by facilitating discussion of urgent and other issues.

Issues reviewed and acted on by the Committee included:

  • Dr. S. Pruisner Proposal for an MRU in Neurodegenerative Diseases
  • Restructuring and Expansion of the Committee
  • Status of the UCSF Medical Center and San Francisco General Hospital
  • Impacts of the Directive to Clinical Fellows’ Salaries
  • Proposal for a Tobacco Center and Digital Archive Partnership with the UCSF Library
  • Proposed Expansion of School of Nursing Programs
  • Potential Revisions to UCSF Conflict of Interest Policies
  • Postdoctoral Policy Guidelines Proposal
  • Initial Proposal for a UCSF 5th School (School of Advanced Health Studies)
  • Revision of the Committee Bylaw

Systemwide Issues

The Committee received regular written reports from its UC Planning and Budget Committee Representative, Dr. Richard Price. Among the issues reported on by Dr. Price with a direct or indirect connection to UCSF were the varying status of the proposed state budget, consideration of new schools in the UC system and a task force to study Multi-Campus Research Units.

California State Budget
Financial office projections predicted a continued slowdown. Energy costs combined with the slowdown have significantly impacted the budget. Because of the revised revenue estimates, there have been cuts in the Governor's requests and recently an increase in the proposed reserve.

In July 2001, Vice President L. Hershman reported to UC Planning and Budget that "not so good times" (compared to last few years) are predicted ahead for next 2-3 years, which relates to lower state income. The reduction is approximately $3 billion in revenue, and there is a projected deficit next year.

The implications for the University (as established or predicted) are:

  • Research Institutes (3) will stand, including that at UCSF.
  • Reduction to 2% increase in base partnership which will have implications for COLAs & Merits.
  • $100 million given for energy which will largely cover natural gas; this includes UCSF related to co-generation.
  • $18 million for Internet2.
  • $530 million for capital outlay.
  • $26 million for Fresno building.
  • None of new research initiatives funded.

It is possible that the Governor may cut more out of the final budget. Due to a predicted fall in state income next year, there is some concern that there will be even more difficulty with next year’s budget. UC will try for an 11% increase in its budget to maintain parity with 8 comparison institutions.

Proposed New Schools at UC
The Academic Council voted in March 2001 to support a UC Riverside Law School proposal. However, a second proposal for Law School at UC Irvine is also in the pipeline and it was decided to make this a comparative review. While not directly relevant to UCSF, this comparative procedure might provide precedent for future reviews of the "School of Advanced Health" being considered at UCSF. Other proposals discussed included: Graduate School of the Environment at UC Davis, School of Information and Computer Science at UC Irvine, School of Design at UC Irvine, Graduate Program in Public Health at UC Irvine, College Nine at UC Santa Cruz (already functional), and a Sixth College at UCSD.

Multi-Campus Research Units
An MRU working group is funded and will examine the MRU program and how to increase funding, which has been flat.

University Issues

The Committee worked on several issues at the Division level.

Dr. S. Pruisner Multi-Campus Research Unit (MRU) in Neurodegenerative Diseases
The Committee was asked in the fall to review Dr. S. Pruisner’s proposal to create an MRU in Neurodegenerative Diseases. The Committee created a task force to do this review. Ultimately, the task force returned with additional questions for Dr. Pruisner regarding the MRU, such as why an MRU is necessary rather than an ORU (Organized Research Unit, which is intra-campus), 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. In May 2001, the Committee received a copy of correspondence from Dr. Pruisner to D. Bainton, Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs, dated May 22, 2001, discontinuing for now his pursuit of the establishment of an MRU. As time permits, Dr. Pruisner plans to work on this proposal in the future.

Proposal to Restructure and Expand APB
The Committee determined that it should be more involved both in campus long-range planning and in budget issues that affect the campus academic mission. The Committee produced a proposal that included expansion of the Committee, involvement in campus long-range planning on a more intimate, proactive level, and review of the Schools’ budgets to provide recommendations to the Chancellor. Members of the Committee met with all of the Schools’ Deans as well as the Vice Chancellors to obtain their suggestions regarding the proposal, which resulted in various revisions to the original proposal. Although there is nearly universal support for the Committee’s involvement in long-range planning issues, the Deans currently remain unconvinced of the utility of the Committee’s review of and recommendations regarding their budgets. The Committee was, at the end of the academic year, working to obtain endorsement of the proposal from the Chancellor’s Executive Budget Committee. The proposal remains in draft form and has not yet been forwarded to the Chancellor.

Status of the Medical Center
Both the Medical Center and San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) have faced financial difficulties over the past year, and the Committee explored some of the reasons at length at their December 2000 meeting. The Committee also discussed the University’s role in looking at who is attracted to academic practice in a medical center. The Committee worked to evaluate and make recommendation about how the campus could best use resources to address the challenges facing the Medical Center and SFGH relative to meeting the University’s academic mission.

Addressing some of these complex issues will be a long-term project. The Committee has begun working closely with the Clinical Affairs Committee (CAC) to become knowledgeable about and involved in the Medical Center budget and planning process as it relates to UCSF’s academic mission. Medical Center CEO Mark Laret has been and continues to be supportive of Senate involvement. The Committee looks forward to continued collaboration with CAC in serving as a resource for the Medical Center on issues involving the academic mission.

Impacts of the Directive to Increase Clinical Fellow Salaries
In Fall 1999, the UC Office of the President directed that salaries of clinical fellows be raised. Starting in Spring 2000 and into this academic year, the Committee researched the impact of this mandatory increase. The Committee conducted an electronic survey that was followed up by a phone survey. Overall, it appeared that many thought it was appropriate to raise clinical fellow salaries. However, certain departments with a high number of clinical fellows were negatively impacted by the policy. These departments, whose set amount of grant money often did not cover the increase, were forced to find the means to cover the increases until new grants could be written and funding received. Another complaint regarding the increase was that no distinction was made between clinical research fellows and other clinical fellows. It appears that most departments have now adjusted or are working to do so.

Tobacco Center and Digital Archive
The Committee was asked to review Dr. S. Glantz’ proposal for the formation of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education (the Center) in partnership with the UCSF Library. A subcommittee was formed with C. Anthony Hunt as chair (who is also the Committee's Vice Chair), and Committee Chair Glantz did not participate in any of the Committee’s deliberations or decisions on this issue.

The Committee, upon recommendation of the subcommittee, supported the proposal and provided a written report to Senate Chair L. Pitts. It found the partnership agreement between the Library and the Center to locate the Center within the Library to be reasonable, and noted that it had already been approved by the Chancellor. The Committee emphasized, however, that the design must respect and not restrict existing functions of the Library, and that the Center should be accessible to all of the UCSF community and its graduate programs accessible to all UCSF graduate students. The Committee also observed that planning for the Center and arrangements between UCSF and the American Legacy Foundation were essentially complete when the Academic Senate was asked, very late, to enter the process, even though the Director advocated much earlier involvement of the Academic Senate. The Committee urged Senate Chair Pitts to explore strategies that will enable the Academic Senate to be informed earlier in a process such as this so that it can adequately accomplish its mission.

Proposal to Expand School of Nursing Programs
The Committee discussed the draft proposals from the School of Nursing to increase two of its programs. These draft proposals arose out of an invitation to Dean Dracup (and to UCLA’s nursing school) to propose programs that will help address the nursing shortage problems.

The Committee discussed with Dean Dracup whether the proposed program expansion would in fact address the nursing shortage problems. Dean Dracup noted that there are two primary shortage issues -- approximately a 10-15% shortage of bedside, hospital nurses and a 7-10% shortage of nurse educators. There are other shortages as well, which are less easy to categorize because they vary widely depending on specialty and geography. Whether or not expanding the size of programs will address the nursing shortages depends in part on the specialties that the students elect to pursue and ultimately where they go to practice. The School of Nursing has reason to believe that Fresno or Davis may be willing to engage in collaboration for the first year of one of the expanded programs.

The Committee provided Dean Dracup with recommendations as to additional requests the proposals should address, such as office and research space, equipment for any new FTE’s hired, and classroom space for the proposed increased number of students. The Committee as well recommended that the proposals express the desired faculty/student ratio and should account for overhead costs (e.g., cost to library of increased number of students) in the proposed budget. The Committee reviewed the later proposals, which appeared to incorporate many of the Committee’s recommendations.

Proposal for 5th School at UCSF
The Office of Academic Affairs submitted a preliminary proposal for a 5th School (tentatively named the School of Advanced Health Studies) to the Office of the President and the Systemwide Senate. The Committee reviewed the proposal and asked the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, Dr. D. Bainton, to discuss the proposal at a Committee meeting.

Vice Chancellor Bainton summarized the history of the 5th School Proposal at the Committee’s June 2001 meeting. The process began with an inquiry from J. King, Provost and Senior Vice President, Academic Affairs, regarding the possibility of improved integration between UC Berkeley School of Public Health and UCSF. Ultimately, UCB did not express great interest in improving integration between the campuses. Dean Debas, of the UCSF School of Medicine, then assembled a committee, comprised of Drs. N. Adler, L. Bero, J. Weintraub, W. Holzemer and R. Feachem, in February 2000 to look at this issue, and they created a 15-page report. In October 2000, Vice President Drake stated that health services education should have a high priority, and he subsequently recommended, at a January 2001 meeting, that UCSF make sure the 5th School proposal was included in UCSF’s Five-Year Plan. The result was a 5-page report that was distributed in March to the Senate at the same time that it was sent to J. King. It appears from the Compendium that the proposal will now spend 1-2 years being reviewed by UC Office of the President, which will then either ‘encourage’ or ‘discourage’ the project.

The Committee discussed wanting to review this issue immediately, rather than waiting until a more detailed proposal is released. The Committee believes the Division Senate should consider whether and in what form the proposed school should move forward. The Committee will take the lead in a Senate assessment of this proposal (which would occur in parallel to any systemwide process) if the Committee receives a charge from the Senate leadership (including scope and deadline) to do so.

Proposed Conflict of Interest Policy Changes
At the request of Senate Chair L. Pitts, the Committee discussed proposed conflict of interest policy changes generated by a group of faculty in the School of Medicine. The Committee emphasized in its discussion the need to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and that changes that make policy less restrictive need be carefully reviewed. In addition, the Committee discussed that knowledgeable person(s) should review changes to determine whether other rules and regulations, such as insider trading laws, impact any attempts to change the current policy. The Committee also discussed whether these changes are ambiguous in light of the compensation plan requirements. However, after formulating recommendations regarding the proposed changes, the Committee learned that its discussion was premature as the proposed changes were not yet being officially put forward. The Committee nonetheless forwarded its suggestions to Chair Pitts in the event this issue is re-opened in the future.

Proposal for Postdoctoral Policy Guidelines
The Committee reviewed and discussed a proposal from the Graduate Council entitled "University Of California San Francisco Proposed Policy Modifications For The Appointment And Mentoring Of Postdoctoral Scholars, April 2,2001." The Committee discussed this proposal and endorsed the principles as outlined, but recommended that there be careful analysis of the budgetary implications before such a proposal moves forward.

Revision of the Committee Bylaw
At the request of Senate Chair L. Pitts, the Committee reviewed its bylaw. The Committee recommended revisions to its bylaw, many of which relate to the proposed restructure, to the Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction, including an expansion of APB Committee size. Because the Committee would also like to formally include the Faculty Councils in its restructure, it may in the future request that the Faculty Councils create in their bylaws a formal APB liaison position. The Committee would in turn state in its bylaws that these representatives are APB members ex officio. The Committee’s suggested bylaw revisions are on hold pending a determination of the extent of the Committee’s restructure.

Issues for the 2001-02 Academic Year

  • APB Restructure – including implementation of the long-range planning component of the restructure, implementation of the budget review of the Medical Center’s and possibly the School’s budgets, and continued collaboration with the Clinical Affairs Committee on Medical Center issues.
  • Review of the 5th School proposal and establish process for more timely Senate review than what is required by the Compendium.
  • Ensure involvement in planning for Mission Bay, Phase II.

Respectfully submitted,

Committee on Academic Planning and Budget

Stanton Glantz, Chair
C. Anthony Hunt, Vice Chair
Nina Agabian
Steve Barclay, ex officio
Daniel Bikle, ex officio
Arnold Kahn
Jane Norbeck
Richard Price
Jonathan Showstack
Len Zegans

Prepared by:
Gretchen Gende
Sr. Senate Analyst

Last Webpage Update: 5/20/13

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