Josie Villareal

							                                          MINUTES
                                 Academic Personnel Workgroup
                                   Tuesday, October 19, 1999
                                      10:00 - 11:30 a.m.
                                        12-407 MDCC



Present:                      Princy Barrios, Arlene Bieschke, Cynthia Brooks, Lisa Burch,
                              Consuelo Castro, Gus Chavez, Barry Corrin, Joan Cowan,
                              Toby Cronin, Mary Daghlian, Lynne Duncan, Lan Duong,
                              Christina Flores, Mary Lou Force, Jennifer Gino, Albert Glover,
                              Wendy Hagar, Paul Hallenberg, Randi Haut, Carol Heuman,
                              Dianne Hillman, Karen Kannmacher, Thomas Kaver, Pat Kearney,
                              Connie Knight, Ginny Kreman, Kristin Kuntz, Beverly Lau,
                              Chery Lineberry, Mark Lucas, Sheila Mann, Dian Mitchell,
                              Debra Moorehead, Juddy Mossman, Lorinda Murdock-Lane,
                              Chris Musselman, Ernie Norris, Wendy Reed, Diana Roman,
                              Lisa Rubin, Steve Shaevel, Stephanie Shaw, Sherri Simpson,
                              Marcella Tong, Marilynn VanderHule, Norma Vaquerano,
                              Josie Villareal




Albert Glover called the meeting to order and introduced our two speakers, Rochelle Caballero and
Eugene Harrison.

Rochelle spoke about "Mission FTE" and explained the handouts she distributed. A few years ago,
the School of Medicine initiated cost centers to more closely identify how each faculty member is
working toward the missions of the School, namely Clinical, Education, and Research. She also
explained how each fund number is associated with one of the three School missions. She provided
an example of a person's salary and broke it down to the three areas of the mission, excluding the
"Z" portion of this fictitious person's income since "Z" is considered bonus.

There is currently a pilot group (Departments of Pediatrics, Surgery, and Medicine) which have
been testing the new Mission FTE and Clinical Revenue Expense Reports. The trial used was for
1998-99 because that was the first year cost centers were used by all departments. Adjustments
should be made in the EDB so they accurately reflect the Mission FTEs. Stephanie Shaw pointed
out that they didn't need to go retroactive, however. She went back only as far as October 1st.
Rochelle pointed out that faculty at Olive View and Harbor are different, because they're often paid
on a by-agreement amount. Also, if faculty are paid a percentage against a rate lower than the TNS
(e.g., VA employees), the EDB would have to be adjusted. Personnel Activity Reports (PARs) are
created from amounts in the EDB and the percentages are recomputed. Mission FTE and Clinical
Revenue Expense Reports will not be calculated in the same manner. They will be based on actual
Academic Personnel Workgroup Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page 2




percentages. PARs will probably report greater percent effort than these new reports. Ginny
Kreman asked how the calculation would affect faculty on NIH caps. Rochelle indicated that that
shouldn't be a factor.

Judy Mossman asked how this will effect service credit. Rochelle responded that there is a monthly
covered compensation which may not add up to 100%. Service credit is only calculated based on
covered compensation. Albert added that the lines used for disclosure were at one time subtracted
from service credit so someone who should be earning 100% service credit was only being credited
with 50%. This is no longer in practice.

Rochelle explained that she is calculating the percentages for each of the three missions on a
monthly basis, adding them together, and dividing the total by twelve to generate a true monthly
average, since changes are often made during the year. Stephanie offered that, as a pilot participant,
the biggest change she experienced was altering cost center 1C to 1A. There was more clinical
teaching coded as education rather than as clinical. This is a difficult area to separate. Clinicians
see patients at the same time as they are instructing residents how to care for these patients.
Therefore, does this fall under patient care or education? It should now be coded 1A for clinical
care with the understanding that that is also a component of the education mission. Rochelle added
that she does not expect everyone to code the missions for each small piece of the salary.

The second handout Rochelle provided was a starting off point from which to calculate the mission
percentages (e.g., Clinical (Compensated) faculty start at 100% in clinical duties and should be
adjusted from there based on the individual's actual responsibilities). Regarding faculty in the
Adjunct series, if they are on a compensation plan, at least 15% of their efforts must be coded as
education. If they are part-time Adjuncts who are not on a compensation plan, 10% of their effort
must be coded as education. The CALL indicates that at least one half-day per week must be used
for education and that translates to 10%. Rochelle pointed out that faculty don't generally work 40
hours per week; they generally work 50 or 60 hours per week. Therefore, 20 hours per week on
patient care isn't necessarily 50% effort, it may be less than that.

Researchers, PGRs and GSRs should all have a cost center of 1B if they're paid from other than
federal grants. If they're paid from grant sources, the cost center is the PI's initials.

Rochelle reminded everyone that cost centers 1D, 1E, and 1F should only be used if they get
permission from the Dean's Office to use compensation plan balances from a prior year.
Academic Personnel Workgroup Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page 3




Rochelle will be generating these reports by November. Please e-mail your input to her. Ernie
Norris asked if they could be generated by Division rather than Department. Rochelle said that they
could certainly do that, and to please notify her if that's how you would like your reports.
She next discussed account ownership. Please be aware that faculty members will show up on the
report of the department owning the account, rather than the home department of the faculty
member. For example, if a faculty member in Neurology is funded by the NPI, that portion of
his/her salary would show up on the NPI report, not the Neurology report. Faculty members with
joint appointments where a department is transferring funds to another department will be affected
in the same manner.

Departments should return the reports with corrections to Rochelle within two weeks of receiving
the reports.

The next speaker was Eugene Harrison from the Payroll Office. The campus is involved in a UC
program to improve the ASAP process. ASAPs will be on the Web. UCOP may be putting money
into providing bulk reports which can be used by people who need to review ASAPs, but who don't
need to be primary reviewers, as long as they have EDB access. Eugene needs to know what the
Payroll Office can do to help streamline this system. These reports could theoretically be seen all
the time with updates added each time an ASAP is generated, with the idea that anomalies would
jump out at you. Although ideally all preparers should check the IMSG screen after each EDB
transaction, this is not done with any sort of consistency across the campus.

Please e-mail Eugene with your requests and ideas at:

                              eharriso@finance.ucla.edu

Ernie Norris asked if ASAPs for staff and academic could be separated. Stephanie Shaw responded
that she currently receives ASAPs only for academic actions in her department. Departmental
DSAs can designate which ASAPs are to be received by each individual reviewer.

Sheila Mann would like some kind of "no title" notification if the account fund and cost centers are
not linked. Chris Musselman would like to see a report with all of the PIEs.

Eugene cautioned that it is extremely important that the accounts being input on distribution lines
are from your own department. Don't add a distribution line to an appointment in another
department. If a faculty member has a joint appointment with your department, separate
appointment and distribution lines must be added.
Academic Personnel Workgroup Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page 4




Steve Shaevel requested a report that would summarize temporary funding lines by pay period
ending dates. Albert Glover added that a lot of people look up everyone individually before the end
of a given pay period to ensure they're being paid correctly. This is time-consuming. A bulk report
could save this extra time and work. Ernie requested a report that indicates people being paid on
DRS lines. Eugene indicated that he may send out sample reports later on to get School of
Medicine input.

The next item on the agenda was the new mentoring guidelines from the Dean, which were handed
out to the group. Albert informed everyone that LOUs should include a statement about mentoring.
Additionally, all future cases must include documentation of mentoring meetings of assistant
professors. We will provide more information at our next workgroup meeting.

The deadline to implement the new rates for the Research series to be input in EDB is the
November 22nd payroll cutoff to effect December 1st monthly paychecks. All retroactive
adjustments must be completed by December 16th for the December 22nd bi-weekly paycheck.
The Dean's Office will try to put some guidelines together for PI's. The University's intent is to
begin budgeting at higher rates to eventually coincide with the professorial series. We should be
careful that PIs don't simply reduce the percentage of time of their Researchers. There is currently
discussion of having two separate research tracks. Albert will investigate the parity increases at
other UC campuses within the next couple of weeks.

Lisa spoke about 8-year limit reviews. Please make sure that both the ballots and the vote pages
read "8-Year Limit Review and proposed Promotion..." rather than just the promotion. There is an
important distinction between the two. Voting faculty must be fully aware that the action is an up
or out review rather than a simple promotion with no major ramification if disapproved.
Additionally, the count of years at rank and step on the cover sheet should reflect the year the
candidate is being considered, not the year the form was prepared (if earlier). Wendy added that if a
merit increase is under consideration in the Dean's Office at the time the 8-year limit is being
submitted, please indicate the years at rank and step based on the assumption that the pending merit
will be approved. Please also affix a note to the dossier indicating that there was a merit increase
pending at the time the forms were prepared.

Lastly, it is important that the correct scale base be indicated in LOUs, not just scale 0. If someone
is paid on scale 3, for instance, the LOU should quote the scale 3 rate and should read something
like "at an annual base (x) salary rate of..." Additionally, we have modified the data summary cover
sheets to include not only the scale 0 rate, but the appropriate scale (i.e., 3 or 5, etc.) rate. Please
start using them immediately. If a faculty member has no base salary support paid from UCLA,
please indicate NBSS or WOS as the case may be on the data summary cover sheet. Letters from
Academic Personnel Workgroup Minutes
October 19, 1999
Page 5




the Chancellor to faculty members who are not paid from UCLA should not indicate a salary
starting with cases effective July 1, 2000.


The meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.



                                         Submitted by:




                                         Wendy Reed
                                         Dean's Office
                                         School of Medicine
/wr