Meeting Minutes
July 24, 2007

Members in Attendance:

Staff Attending:

Guests:

New Business :

Chair Mitchell called the meeting to order at 2:14 p.m. after declaring a quorum with six members of the Life Sciences Research Board participating in the meeting.  Chair Mitchell welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked Rob Monsees, Stacey Hirst and Jessica Eads for organizing the meeting.

Chair Mitchell stated the first agenda item was the approval of the minutes from the June 22, 2007 board meeting.  He asked if anyone had any questions or changes to the minutes.  As no changes were brought forth, Chair Mitchell called for a motion to approve the minutes as distributed by email.

Dr. Daffron moved to approve the minutes.  Mr. Sprouse seconded the motion.  Hearing no opposition to the motion, the Chair declared the motion passed and minutes from the June 22, 2007 meeting approved.

Chair Mitchell stated the second agenda item was review and approval of the contract between the Life Science Research Board, the DED and the MTC and he called on Director Monsees to give an overview of the contract provisions.

Director Monsees stated the Department’s contracting staff drafted the contract in consultation with DED’s General Counsel, Daryl Hylton, Ms. Hirst and himself.  The contract follows the statutory provisions and allows for a smooth transfer of administration of the project between the Department (DED) and the Missouri Technology Corporation (MTC).  The language embodies the discussion from the June 22nd board meeting that the MTC would handle the administration which includes setting up the meetings, distributing and collecting RFPs, etc.  The largest funding item will be for the peer review and there will also be some operational costs incurred by the MTC and DED.

Dr. Mitchell asked if any of the board members had any questions or concerns.

Dr. Johnson stated he just received the contract the morning of the meeting and was not aware the board would be contracting with DED or the MTC and wondered about the necessity.

Chair Mitchell responded as it was discussed at the June meeting, Mike Mills reviewed the expected work load and the allowance of the 2% allocation for administrative costs.  There is an expectation of a heavy up front workload in anticipating of the December 1st deadline for reporting back to the General Assembly.  The board did approve that we would proceed with the concept the MTC would be the administering organization.  This is an administrative services contract.
 
Director Monsees added the contract mirrors a similar contract between the DED and MTC to administer the Innovation Center program.  The language and functionality is already in place.  The DED’s General Counsel felt it would be better to have this agreement in place so there is a record of the specific services provided by MTC and the DED staff.  The administration of the board was moved by Executive Order to the DED and this document provides more guidance towards that effort.  The board approved the concept that the MTC would handle the administration of the program for the DED and the LSRB.  The administrative costs will be minimal compared to what you see in other states with comparable programs. The peer review will be the predominant expense and without knowing exactly what that cost is going to be it is difficult to estimate.

Dr. Johnson also had a comment about certain parameters in a contract on page 6, item 3.  He further commented contracts such as this should be distributed earlier than the day of the meeting.

Mr. Fox agreed with Dr. Johnson and he did not feel the contract should be limited under item 3 because this language is already known.  He also asked if all of the money was going to be appropriated at the start of the program, or if it should be appropriated as the board incurs expenses.  He suggested having the MTC put a budget together for the Board to review and approve as the board needs to look at cautiously before anything is spent.

Representative Onder stated the peer review payments could be substantial and he is okay with the arrangement.

Mr. Sprouse commented that if the cost for the peer review could be estimated then the board could look at those versus the administrative costs.

Director Monsees stated he believes the staff expenses and administrative costs would be around $15,000 to $20,000 and the rest of the funds would be spent on the peer review.

Dr. Daffron asked if the peer review is going to be bid out and if the board would be reviewing and approving those bids.

Director Monsees stated yes, the peer review RFP will be sent out as a bid and he brought a handout to the meeting for review, and yes, the board would approve.

Mr. Fox suggested the board approve funding for the first quarter and then wait for the peer review bids before approving those funds.

Dr. Johnson agreed asked that the MTC develop a budget for approval.

Representative Onder also agreed.

Director Monsees suggested the board might approve up to $20,000 for administrative costs to implement the Life Sciences RFP processes.

Chair Mitchell entertained a motion to fund the annual administrative expenses up to $20,000 and have the MTC prepare a budget outline for the board to review and approve.  Dr. Johnson made the motion and Mr. Fox seconded the motion.  Hearing no further discussion Chair Mitchell asked for votes from the members.

            Representative Onder    Aye
            Mr. Fox                        Aye
            Dr. Johnson                  Aye
            Dr. Daffron                  Aye
            Mr. Sprouse                  Aye
            Chair Mitchell               Aye

Hearing all “Ayes” the Chair declared the motion carried.

Mr. Fox asked if the contract was reviewed by an outside counsel and if not, stated that if the board is entering into a contract then outside counsel review on behalf of the board.

Director Monsees stated the board was a Type III organization and therefore is technically part of the Department, and the Department’s counsel has reviewed the contract language. 

Mr. Fox stated he did not see the need for a contract if this is the case.

Ms. Hirst stated the purpose of the contract is to transfer the funds from the Life Sciences Research Trust Fund to the Missouri Technology Corporation.

Director Monsees commented the funds were appropriated to the DED through House Bill 7 into the Life Sciences Research Trust Fund. The MTC is not technically a part of the DED and is a quasi-state government organization, even thought they are closely tied to the DED in statute.  The DED looked at this relationship closely and determined it was best to have a contract between all of the parties involved to specify and track the flow of funds.  He stated that if the board wanted outside review he would check with the Department’s general counsel to see how this would be accomplished.

Mr. Fox stated that it only makes sense if a contract is required that the LSRB have an outside counsel review it.

Chair Mitchell then moved to the next agenda item the review and approval of the four Centers for Excellence RFPs.  He stated they would review the Springfield RFP first. He stated he was impressed by the breadth of representation by the Springfield consortium and asked that comments or questions be brought forward.

Dr.  Johnson stated Springfield’s proposal was much shorter than the others in comparison and they did not appear to have much research funding, per page 4, second paragraph and they did not mention the sources of research.  They state that collectively the members have at least $15 million in annual research funding, but he would have liked to have seen who was conducting the research and more detail regarding the research expenditures.

Mr. Fox commented regarding the Springfield proposal he did not feel there were very many business representatives on the Advisory Board, but appeared to be mostly scientists.

Chair Mitchell stated there appeared to be several members from the business community including Mike Briggs from Willow Brooks Food, Kurt Hellwig from International Dehydrated Foods and John Twitty from City Utilities. 

Hearing no other questions, Chair Mitchell entertained a motion for approval of the Springfield Center for Excellence.

Dr. Daffron made the motion to approve the Springfield Center for Excellence.  Mr. Sprouse seconded the motion.  Chair Mitchell called for further discussion.  Having no further discussion and hearing no opposition the Chair declared the motion carried and Springfield center approved.

Chair Mitchell then asked if any board member had questions or concerns regarding the Statewide Center for Excellence proposal.

Dr. Daffron made the motion to approve the Statewide Center for Excellence.  Dr. Johnson seconded the motion.  Chair Mitchell called for further discussion.  Having no further discussion and hearing no opposition the Chair declared the motion carried and Statewide center approved.

Chair Mitchell then asked if any board member had questions or concerns regarding the Kansas City Center for Excellence proposal.

Representative Onder made the motion to approve the Kansas City Center for Excellence.  Mr. Fox seconded the motion.  Chair Mitchell called for further discussion. Dr. Daffron abstained from voting as she is with Missouri Western University and they are a member of the Kansas City consortium.  Having no further discussion and hearing no opposition the Chair declared the motion carried and Kansas City center approved.

Chair Mitchell then asked if any board member had questions or concerns regarding the St. Louis Center for Excellence proposal.

Mr. Sprouse made the motion to approve the St. Louis Center for Excellence.  Mr. Fox seconded the motion.  Chair Mitchell called for further discussion. Having no further discussion and hearing no opposition the Chair declared the motion carried and St. Louis center approved.

Chair Mitchell moved forward with the agenda and to the review and approval of the RFP for the Statewide Research and Commercialization Proposals.  He asked if any of the board members had questions about the RFP document.

Dr. Daffron stated that on page 7, A., bullet 6, she would be interested in what other dollars might be brought in and could language be added to ask for other funding.

Mr. Fox asked if this RFP was for the LSRB to fund something.

Director Monsees stated this RFP is the second stage in the process of the Life Sciences Trust Fund.  The first stage was the RFP for the Centers for Excellence that was just approved.  The second stage is the call for specific statewide research and commercialization projects.  They will be sent to the appropriate Centers for Excellence and vetted through the advisory boards and screening committees.  As these RFPs filter back to the LSRB there will be uniformity in the proposals.

Dr. Johnson asked if the RFP has funding attached to it.

Director Monsees stated that the RFP is to allow the $13.4 million to flow to specific projects vetted through the Centers for Excellence and approved by the LSRB.

Mr. Fox asked if the 80%/20% split was by statute.

Director Monsees responded yes, this was by statute.  He then went through the RFP document and gave a summary of each section.  Director Monsees commented he had conversations with a peer review group who had conducted reviews for the state of Florida and they suggested changing the number of pages allowed on page 6 be changed from “10 pages” to “25 pages” to allow the peer review committee enough information to make an informed decision.  Another discussion item was the amount of indirect costs allowed.  The RFP has 29%, however, this rate could be a negotiation point for the LSRB.

Mr. Fox asked about the total length of the project and the total cost, referring to the language at the top of page 6 regarding project completion in two years and if the requirement is the project has to spend the money in the first year.

Director Monsees responded the funds will be granted in the first year and the project should be completed within 2 years.  There was discussion with institutions that 3 years may be a more realistic time frame in which to spend the funds, so this item is open for debate. 

There was discussion about the expenditure of funds and the fact there is no requirement for the funds to be distributed in the first year.

Mr. Fox then asked if the proposals have to be in by September 7, 2007.

Director Monsees responded yes this deadline is to allow for the peer review and other necessary work prior to the December 1st deadline.  The timeline is outlined as such:  the LSRB approves the RFP today and it is distributed; responses are due back to the LSRB on September 7th which gives 6 weeks; then late September through early November would allow for the peer review to review and give their recommendations to the LSRB.  Mid-November would be the meeting where the LSRB approves the proposals in order to meet the December 1st deadline for the report to the Senate and House Budget chairs.
We do not want to miss the December 1st deadline and we want to allow adequate time for the peer review because it should be gold standard.

Mr. Linit clarified the submission process that the RFPs would be submitted to the LSRB by September 7th.  Then the LSRB would send these on to the appropriate Center for Excellence to be screened and prioritized by the screening committee.  He asked when the screening committees had to have the proposals back to the LSRB for the peer review.

Chair Mitchell responded it would be the window from September 7th to late September in order to have 4 to 6 weeks for the peer review process.

Chair Mitchell stated it appears Kansas City is focused on animal health and St. Louis on bioenergy.  Springfield seems to have their consortium well organized.  His concern is with the Statewide Center and is this enough time for this Center to adequately respond.  He stated he is comfortable with the other Centers.

Mr. Linit asked if the board would entertain a gateway proposal for the Statewide Center and then have smaller projects behind it.

Dr. Daffron asked if the approval would be “all or nothing” for funding. 

Director Monsees stated they would have to provide detail and explain how the money is to be spent.

Chair Mitchell stated it appeared there were four changes to the RFP.  First, on page 6, first paragraph it should be changed from “two” years to “three” years by consent of the board members.

Mr. Linit commented the funds would be awarded in the first year and then the project has three years to spend those funds.

Chair Mitchell stated the second change was on the bottom paragraph of page 6 from “10” pages to “25” pages by consent of the board members.

Thirdly, Chair Mitchell stated to add language to the 6th bullet on page 7 under A with language asking for other funding that might be available for the project by consent of the board members.

Mr. Linit stated the University negotiated indirect costs with the USDA is 25%.

Lastly, Chair Mitchell stated that a revision was needed on page 9, second paragraph to change the indirect costs to be capped at “25%” instead of “29%” by consent of the board members.

Chair Mitchell, with the changes noted above, entertained a motion to approve the RFP for the Research and Commercialization.

Mr. Sprouse made the motion to approve with the second by Dr. Daffron.  Hearing no other questions and no opposition to the motion, Chair Mitchell declared the motion passed and RFP approved.

Chair Mitchell stated the next agenda item was the Scientific Peer Review method and Director Monsees had supplied the board members present at the meeting with copies of the draft RFP.  It was decided that since the board members on the telephone had not seen the document, the item would be tabled until another meeting could be called. 

Director Monsees stated he or Ms. Hirst would email the draft of the Peer Review RFP to the board members.

Chair Mitchell asked if the board members could participate in a conference call to discuss the Peer Review RFP.  It was decided the teleconference would take place on Friday, July 27, 2007 at 11:00 a.m.  The meeting topics would be reviewing and approving the Peer Review RFP and also hearing back regarding guidance on the contract.

Ms. Hirst stated she would send out an email to the board members in regards to details of the meeting.

Chair Mitchell stated the next agenda item was to decide on the date of the next face-to-face board meeting in September and it appeared September 26th was the best date.  The members agreed and it was decided the meeting would be held at 2:00 p.m. in the Bond Life Sciences Center in Columbia.

Chair Mitchell asked if any further items needed to be brought forward.

Hearing none and hearing no opposition to the adjournment of the meeting, Chair Mitchell declared the meeting adjourned.

Meeting adjourned at 3:53 p.m.