“University of California Council of Postdoctoral Scholars (CPS) -- February 9, 2002 Meeting”

Minutes of the February 9, 2002 meeting (sponsored by the University of California, San Diego).

Meeting location and time: Conference Room 111A, UC San Diego, 10:00 AM to 3:30 PM.

Meeting called to order at 10:05 AM by Tom Peavy (CPS Chair).

(1) Welcome and opening comments by Tom Peavy. At this point, all nine UC campuses are represented at the UC Council of Postdoctoral Scholars (CPS). The CPS was formed last May out of a need to talk to the administration regarding systemwide postdoctoral issues, and is now an organization recognized within the UC system by the UC Office of the President (UCOP), the Council of Graduate Deans (CoGD), and the Coordinating Committee on Graduate Affairs (CCGA). The objectives of this meeting are: (1) to discuss the creation of systemwide postdoctoral title codes with CCGA chair Charles Perrin and CoGD representatives Jean Fort and Richard Attiyeh; (2) to update postdoc representatives as to the status of postdoctoral affairs on their campuses; (3) to discuss the CPS “List of Recommendations”; and (4) to decide on future plans. The postdoc title code issue is broad and includes identifying postdocs, benefits (health coverage), leave policies, appointment letters, salaries, grievance policies, written evaluations, mentorship guidelines, administrative support (e.g., postdoc coordinators), and career services.

Campus representatives present:
• UC Berkeley – Dagmar Truckses
• UC Davis – Tom Peavy and Paulo Verardi
• UC Irvine – Grace Stutzmann
• UC Riverside – Xiangyang Zhou
• UC San Diego – Tara Chapman and Raymond Clark
• UC San Francisco – Luanna Putney
• UC Santa Cruz – Jennifer Armstrong

Invited participants:
• Richard Attiyeh – Vice Chancellor for Research, Dean of Graduate Studies, UCSD
• Jean Fort – Assistant Dean, Academic Planning and Research, Office of Graduate Studies and Research (OGSR), member of the CoGD
• Charles Perrin – Professor, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, UCSD. Chair of the Committee on Coordinating Graduate Affairs (CCGA)
• Megan Houseweart – Stanford University, Stanford University Postdoc Association representative

(2) Jean Fort, UCSD, Assistant Dean, Academic Planning and Research, Office of Graduate Studies and Research (OGSR).

The administration estimates that there are about 5,000 postdocs at the UC system. About 3,000 are funded by faculty research grants and are in the employee category. The other 2000 are fellow trainees, with their own national fellowships, foreign-funded fellowships (international agencies and governments), or funds from training grants received by faculty for postdoc training (e.g., NIH training grants). Out of these 2,000, about 1,500 have their stipend paid through the UC system, and 500 are paid directly by funding agencies. A very small number of postdocs are self-supporting. There are over 100 agencies that fund postdocs, each with their own regulations. There are also federal grant policies, and federal and state laws that need to be addressed. The administration is attempting to place postdocs in a separate group distinct from faculty, students and staff.

The postdoc issue has been recognized nationally in the last 5 years. The Graduate Deans in 1998 put together a Report on Postdoctoral Education at UC with a list of recommendations. The recommendations have been reviewed by several sectors of the administration and faculty, and the CoGD is now refining the policies. A totally consistent treatment is not possible because of the different agency requirements. The policies are being discussed now with the UCOP. The proposal is to create two different academic title codes for postdocs. One will be for postdoc employees and the other for postdoc fellows. All salaries would be paid through the payroll system (as currently done at UCB and UCSD), which would make all postdocs eligible for benefits (medical, dental and vision). NIH insists that fellows and trainees are not employees of the University, and therefore fellows would not be in the retirement system and would not be eligible for Medicare. However, fellows would be eligible for UC voluntary investment programs such as the Defined Contribution (DC) Plan and the Tax-Deferred 403(b) Plan. Final approval from the UCOP is pending, as both federal and state laws affect these policies. The policies will include worker’s compensation coverage for fellows (with a medical component and a salary stipend), sick and vacation leave (if the funding agency does not have overriding policies), as well as parental and family leave. In summary, fellows will only not be eligible for retirement, Medicare, and unemployment insurance.

Postdoc salaries and stipends are mostly externally funded and therefore subject to funding agency regulations. For postdoc employees, the postgraduate researcher (PGR) series payscale (currently ranging from about 31 to 46 K) would be broadened. The lower range (floor) is not established at this point but the current suggestion is 25K (for fellows). The upper range has also not been specified as yet but would be higher than the current scale. A period of adjustment (grandfathering) would be necessary. A broad minimum and maximum salary scale would be implemented and then it would be up to each campus to determine the criteria to decide salaries, which could include the discipline, years of experience, area of research, etc. A five-year limit on a postdoc title would be part of the recommendation. A new title is under consideration for postdocs that complete their training, since professional researcher salary scales are now quite high (starting at 54K). The new series (which is already in place at UCSD), called the Project Scientist, would start at 44-45K. People in this series are not independent investigators but make substantial original contributions to projects. This series would allow the advancement of postdocs that complete their training to a career position intermediate between postdoc and professional researcher. These title codes are due for review within the next 3-4 months, and would be effective at the earliest next fall.

With the new postdoc titles, 100% appointments would be required with exception permitted at the request of the postdoc. Appointment letters and mentor evaluations are under discussion. Guidelines and minimum requirements for grievance procedures would be outlined and then campuses would establish them. Guidelines and minimum requirements for termination of postdocs are also under consideration. In terms of implementation, current postdocs would have a choice to be granfathered into their present title or change to the new title codes.

(3) Charles Perrin, UCSD, Chair of the Committee on Coordinating Graduate Affairs (CCGA).

CCGA is the systemwide Academic Senate body responsible for all graduate education. The main duties of CCGA are to advice the President and administration in issues regarding graduate education (and to some extent research), and to approve, modify and review programs for graduate degrees. CCGA also coordinates with Graduate Councils. The CCGA has a chair, a vice-chair, and nine members (one from each campus). There are also administration representatives (UCOP, CoGD), and two graduate student representatives that are elected by the Graduate Student Associations. Postdocs are officially under the charge of Graduate Deans, but are also part of the responsibility of Graduate Councils. A postdoc representative is being considered by CCGA now that there is a systemwide postdoc association (before postdocs participated at meetings only unofficially).

The faculty is generally supportive of the current proposals, but there are some concerns. Full health coverage is absolutely required, even though there is the issue how it will be funded by some fellowships. Life insurance and retirement is up to postdocs. Regarding leave policy, there is a concern with regard to timing of grant renewal for postdocs funded by faculty research grants. If a postdoc takes a lot of time off, grants may not be renewed, as it may be hard to find temporary replacement of postdoc duties. Regarding the minimum salary, the CCGA generally supports a minimum salary, depending on the final figure. CCGA worries that if the minimum is too high, postdocs may be placed out of the market. The NIH payscale is being raised to levels that are too high compared to other funding agencies such as NSF. A broad scale with a high maximum is necessary for certain areas such as engineering, but the minimum must accommodate funding agencies other than NIH. The 100% appointment rule is supported, but needs the exception for postdocs that have family, teaching or other responsibilities. The issues of appointment letters, written evaluations, strengthening mentoring relationships, and grievance procedures are fully supported by the CCGA. Career planning is a problem. Career centers are overwhelmed with undergraduate and graduate students. Centers are funded by student fees and provide services mostly to undergraduate students.

(4) Roundtable discussion and comments:

Asst. Dean Fort commented that the new postdoc titles would be distinct from the PGR title, which could eventually be phased out. Fellows would be paid through payroll, but the salary would be considered a stipend (fellows would get a 1099 instead of a W-2). A small number of visiting foreign scholars paid by foreign agencies will still need individual enrollment through health care facilitators to be eligible for health benefits.

Regarding who will pay for fellow health benefits, Asst. Dean Fort mentioned that for NIH, the institutional allowance will fully cover health care benefits expenses in 2 years. Some departments are offering supplemental funding for it now. For agencies that do not provide funds for health insurance (or not enough), the UC administration will start putting pressure on the agencies to provide supplemental funding. One of the proposals would be that if an agency does not come up with the funds, there would be an employer contribution by the university to come up with the difference. Each campus will determine how to come up with the supplemental funds.

The 25K minimum salary for the new postdoc titles was emphatically protested by CPS members as being outrageously low, even though it is only the floor and the payscale is broad. CPS members felt that PIs will hire postdocs at the set floor by default, regardless of the broad payscale. The CPS agrees that a 25K minimum would be better than no minimum, but 25K is not a living wage for Ph.D. professionals and undervalues the services they provide for the institution. If some postdocs are being paid outrageously low salaries (sometimes as low as 10K at UCSD as quoted by Asst. Dean Fort), it is no justification to set all postdoc salaries at such a low level. Besides, mentors who pay their postdocs such low salaries will in all likelihood continue to do so even when a minimum salary is set by administration. In addition, such a low figure would put forth a “negative image” of the UC system, which would not be as attractive to postdocs nationwide as other universities, consequently compromising the quality of research performed at the UC system. It is the opinion of the CPS that if a PI does not have the funds to support a postdoc at a decent level of salary with benefits, then they should not hire one. Funding agencies such as NSF have stated that they will increase their allowances for postdocs. Asst. Dean Fort mentioned that the salary floor would be re-evaluated after 2 years in the current proposal. Vice Chancellor and Dean Attiyeh suggested that the University should be commissioned to do a cost-of-living study for each campus, to help them set their own campus minimum salaries. That would provide individual campuses flexibility to raise their minimums above the systemwide minimums. Asst. Dean Fort mentioned that according to the proposal, each campus would decide how to apply the payscale for the new titles (e.g., based on years of experience, etc.). Concerns raised by CPS members also included the differential treatment of fellow postdocs regarding leave policies.

CPS members also emphasized the need to allow postdocs to have PI status to secure intra- and extramural funds that are targeted to young investigators, as a means to prove their ability to secure funds. This ability is highly sought by search committees when applying for assistant professorships. Asst. Dean Fort mentioned that PI exceptions are handled differently at each campus. At UCSD, PI exceptions are granted to postdocs with the understanding that if the grant is funded, the postdoc needs to be moved to a research position such as Assistant Project Scientist or Assistant Researcher.

Lunch break: 12:06 PM – 1:07 PM

(5) Updates on postdoctoral affairs by campus representatives:

(i) UC Davis (Tom Peavy): During last year the Postdoctoral Scholars Association (PSA) at UC Davis developed a list of recommendations that was submitted to Graduate Council last February. The Council provided a point-by-point response that basically accepts all of our recommendations (full benefits, salary at NIH minimum level, etc.). The Academic Senate is now reviewing the recommendations and in the March 8 meeting they will talk about the input they received from faculty. Another issue at Davis now is staff support at Graduate Studies to deal with postdoctoral affairs. The PSA is working with the Graduate Dean (Cristina González) and the Provost (Virginia Hinshaw) to get staff support specific to postdocs. We almost lost our Science Nextwave campus subscription but the Provost provided funds for the subscription. Our new Provost seems to be supportive of postdocs. Graduate Studies has provided the PSA with $3,000 last year and $3,000 again this year.

(ii) UC Irvine (Grace Stutzmann): Grace Stutzmann and Karen Nowak are the new representatives from Irvine. Tom Peavy read a statement from Grace and Karen: “The task of coordinating a database of the postdoctoral trainees at UCI is presently ongoing. At present, there is no mechanism in place with which to exclusively access the postdoc population at UCI, and this is one of our first priorities. We could not accurately represent the collective views of the postdocs here without such a system. An administrative position does exist which covers postdoc affairs and programming/coordination, which primarily involves policy development, agency funding, healthcare and insurance processing. Both Karen Nowak and I are working with this administrator to create a postdoc listserv so we can communicate with the estimated 300 postdocs on campus. Once given access to this list, we will forward the relevant information and collect feedback from the UCI community. Once the purpose of the CPS is communicated through the proper channels, we hope to present a more thorough depiction of postdoc views from UCI in the near future.”

(iii) UC San Diego (Tara Chapman and Raymond Clark): Tara and Raymond are trying to set up a listserv to attract the attention of postdocs on campus (UCSD is spread out). Jennifer Oh, the part-time (50%) administrator in charge of postdocs, is having a hard time tracking postdocs on campus. The goals are to form a formal postdoc association and to get postdoc representation at the Graduate Council. Tom mentioned that one of the best ways to contact postdocs is to get a list of MSOs (Management Services Officers) and ask them to identify postdocs in their units/departments (at UC Davis there is an administrative listserv of MSOs).

(iv) Stanford University (Megan Houseweart): Stanford postdocs were recently moving towards unionization, but due to some progress and the willingness of Stanford to negotiate, they have held off. The Stanford University Postdoc Association (SUPD) has placed major efforts in:
• Increased salary (Stanford minimums raised to 34K and are enforced by the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs).
• Improved childcare for postdocs (SUPD survey results made University realize the problem, $2,500 per child subsidy possible by Fall 2002 through “private funds”).
• Pre-tax spending plans (in place by Fall 2002). Stanford postdocs have a "non-matriculated graduate student" status, pay tuition (that was lowered from $1,000 to $125/quarter thanks to SUPD efforts), and are currently not eligible for such plans.
• Disability/life insurance plans (adopted Winter 2002).
• Maternity/vacation/sick leave policies (drafted and nearly approved).
SUPD ongoing efforts:
• Uniform postdoctoral scholar status other than “non-matriculated graduate student” (under consideration).
• Career Center benefits (workshops, databases, and panels).
• Housing subsidies (temporary housing for incoming postdocs, on-campus housing for postdocs).
• Better benefits (retirement accounts, paid dental plan, and dentist recommendations web page). The recommendations web page is being considered for PIs, restaurants, etc.
• Lobby Congress to change laws regarding supplementation of postdocs on fellowships. This is one area where help from the UC CPS would be beneficial.

(v) UC Berkeley (Dagmar Truckses): The Vice Chancellor for Research is responsible for postdoctoral affairs. A task force on postdoc affairs has been intimately involved in the proposal presented by Asst. Dean Fort. The Berkeley Postdoctoral Association (BPA) is trying to work on specific items:
• Communicating and reaching postdocs. The administration has a mailing list (not an e-mail list) of all postdocs. The current BPA listserv (voluntary subscription) has turned into a “for rent/for sale” e-mail list. Half of the postdocs like it and half hate it (some have unsubscribed to the list).
• Last Nov/Dec, the BPA sent out a newsletter with a survey focusing on salaries, rent, living conditions, childcare concerns, visa, etc. The administration got interested and compiled the results (n=58), which will be posted on the BPA web page.
• A three-page long FAQ will be posted on the BPA web page next week. The administration has promised now for three years to publish a “Postdoc Handbook” but that has not happened yet. The administration does not have yet a web site with postdoc affairs information.
• Considering the current budget crisis, at this point the administration does not have money to hire more staff for postdoc affairs.
• The Graduate Division used to give up to $10,000 for career advancement: workshops, etc. Now the Vice Chancellor for Research will only give money for career-related events, but not for social events (i.e., postdoc receptions). Once a year they put together a postdoc pizza parlor. They are considering having an orientation for new postdocs in addition to the new-employee orientation.
• The BPA wants to get representation at Graduate Council.

(vi) UC Santa Cruz (Jennifer Armstrong): We estimate that there are 50-70 postdocs at UC Santa Cruz (mostly in the Biology Department). A new Assistant Dean, Sandra Pacheco, is responsible specifically for postdoctoral affairs (20% time). She and the new Dean of Graduate Studies are very sympathetic of postdocs. Dean Pacheco will be meeting with postdocs in a couple of weeks to discuss title codes and Graduate Council representation will be discussed. Results from a survey conducted December 1999 were presented previously by Renee Baran. Postdocs at the Biology Department now have a mailbox. For the first time postdocs hosted a seminar speaker. The major concerns now are that the postdoc organization is unofficial and that the original seven or so members who initiated the organization are now moving on. Jennifer will look into registering the organization as a campus interest group or organization and getting people involved so that there is continuity to the group. They will also look into finding postdocs at other departments. At this point, the organization has an e-mail list of postdocs only at the Biology Department.

(vii) UC San Francisco (Luanna Putney): The PSA was established about 5 years ago. About 3 years ago, the primary goal of the PSA was to establish a seminar series (Practice of Science Series) to bring people involved in careers in science (academic, industry, alternative). Today the PSA has a core group comprising the president, a vice-president (Luanna), a Treasurer and a Secretary. To run the Practice of Science Series there are 3-4 other postdocs. We have general meetings 3-4 times/year (attendance is about 20-30 people). Now funding has been secured for the next three years from the seven basic science departments ($20,000/per year) to support career development for postdocs (i.e., Practice of Science series, networking and social events). Every year the PSA writes a progress report. The new director of the Career Center is very supportive of postdocs and the PSA has contributed some money to the Center to host speakers. The PSA has also sponsored programs in the Life Sciences (mentoring luncheons, speakers) and the Student Academic Enrichment Program (workshops on Powerpoint, grant-writing skills, teaching, etc.). Just like the Career Center, their office is sponsored by Graduate Student fees. They are willing to accommodate postdocs but have no funds. The PSA is also sponsoring an Alumni Gala in a couple of weeks at the San Francisco MoMA to bring alumni, postdocs, faculty, and graduate students together, emphasizing networking.

About one year ago an Assistant Dean of Postdoctoral Affairs (Christine Des Jarlais) was appointed 50% time on postdoc affairs. They are hiring a new assistant primarily for postdocs. Asst. Dean De Jarlais and the Dean of Graduate Studies (Cliff Attkisson) have done an orientation for postdocs in October (there will be one in spring) with information booths from Child Services, Medical Benefits, etc. The PSA has had a representative at Graduate Council for the last 4 years. A list of recommendations was developed and about 6 months ago Graduate Council approved it (with salaries based on nothing less than the NIH minimum). Now the recommendations are being discussed by the Academic Senate. Dean Attkisson wants to focus on local issues (such as mentoring guidelines), since issues such as benefits and so on are being discussed at the systemwide level through CoGD. As far as communication, there are about 1,000-1,200 postdocs of which 750 are considered postdoctoral scholars and are managed through the Graduate Division (PGRs and postdocs in the clinical series are not managed/accounted by Graduate Division). The PSA listserv has about 150 voluntary subscriptions and is a great way to announce seminars and events.

(viii) UC Riverside (Xiangyang Zhou): UC Riverside is rapidly growing. Now there are about 225 postdocs at UC Riverside, but we have no postdoctoral network and no interaction amongst postdocs on campus. There is no postdoc association or e-mail listserv. With the help of UC Riverside Graduate Council, I am doing a survey of postdocs at UC Riverside to try to understand their needs in research, salaries, benefits, and the importance of a postdoctoral association at UC Riverside. This survey is in progress and the data may be obtained in the next two weeks. An e-mail listserv is also being set up, as I now have the e-mail of about 50% of the postdocs. Following this work, we hope to assemble a postdoctoral association at UC Riverside campus to serve our postdoc community.

(6) Discuss the CPS “List of Recommendations”. At our last meeting, the CPS decided to develop a prioritized list of recommendations and issues regarding postdoctoral affairs at the University of California. Responsibility to develop an actual proposal (a summary with a rationale) for each recommendation/issue was delegated to CPS representatives from each campus. At the CoGD meeting last October, Tom was asked to submit an official list of prioritized recommendations for the postdoctoral title codes. Tom submitted a memo to Ellen Switkes in November describing the recommendations without great detail. Now we are down to specifics and we need to write a finalized version of the recommendations (particularly regarding the title code).

The consensus is that the proposal by the administration on title codes is satisfactory except for the minimum salary and the lack of support from the chair of CCGA for leave policies and career services. Even though having a minimum of 25K is better than having no minimum, we expect an established 25K minimum to become the default salary for postdocs, and to have a negative impact on how the UC system is seen nationwide. The consensus was to request a baseline salary that reflects the high-skilled services provided by postdocs (unlinked from the NIH payscale) and ask for cost-of-living adjustments for each campus. Regarding leave policies, postdocs want standard leave policies (similar to faculty and staff ). Even though it is “hard to find temporary replacement of postdoc duties” as stated by the CCGA Chair Perrin, there is no logic behind singling-out postdocs, as PIs and other investigators would be hard to replace as well if they would be on leave.

It is NIH policy that fellowship recipients cannot be supplemented by other NIH moneys (only moneys from other funds). Similarly, it is NIH policy that fellows cannot be considered employees by their training institutions. These NIH policies hurt NIH postdoc fellowship recipients. The CPS will gather more information and will consider lobbying Congress to change this policy at a later meeting.

Regarding career training, postdocs need (and as trainees are supposed to be provided) pedagogical and career training, workshops, management classes, etc. Support for postdoc career services and development is essential. The CPS should look at how much Graduate Students pay for career services and ask the administration for money to cover these expenses from training grants, etc.

(7) Decide on future plans.

(i) Finalize draft of list of recommendations, approve it through e-mail, and distribute it to UCOP, CCGA, CoGD, and campus Graduate Councils.

(ii) Science NextWave meeting. The Postdoc Network is inviting postdocs to attend the second national Postdoc Network meeting “Implementation 2002: Opportunities for Collaboration” on 20 April 2002 in Washington, D.C. Tom contacted Laure Haak for a chance to present the work of CPS and there will be a spot for the CPS. Tom will go and he wants more council members to participate.

(8) Discuss organizational bylaws. The CPS is now an officially recognized organization. Perhaps now is the time to formalize our organizational bylaws (e.g., mission, election of chair and officers, one postdoc representative with voting privileges per campus, etc.). Graduate Deans should supply money for campus representatives to travel to CPS meetings. Officers should be elected through the CPS or campus PSAs, and be required to find a replacement if leaving duties. We will have a draft of the bylaws for discussion at the next meeting.

(9) Minutes from previous CPS meeting (09/22/2001) approved.

(10) The next UC Systemwide meeting of the CPS will be sponsored by the UC San Francisco during Spring Quarter, 2002. The specific date, time and location will be announced by e-mail.

(11) Tom thanked the UC San Diego campus, and in particular Tara Chapman and Raymond Clark, for organizing and hosting the CPS meeting.

Meeting adjourned at 3:37 PM by Tom Peavy (CPS Chair).

Prepared by Paulo Verardi, UC Davis Postdoctoral Scholars Association Secretary/Treasurer.