Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

December 12, 2014

Time:

11:30 PST/12:30 MST/1:30 CST/2:30 EST/9:20 EET

Attendees: David Blake, Ross McKinney, Co-Chairs; Marie Beaulier, Mike Champa, Luke Diorio, Betty Harvey, Ray Hutchinson, Kirke Lawton, Monika Markowitz, Raj Mehrotra, Heather Pierce, Kelly Reddick, Tim Robinson, Bill Sacks, Steve Singer, Valerie Smothers, Radu Vestemean, and Gary Wimsett. 

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes of last meeting

The minutes were accepted as submitted.

2 Discuss David Blake's memo and more detailed data requirements

David explained that he tried to represent the data in a way that made more sense to him. He noted that Designees and company or entity had not been identified as a high level data item.  The information is stored relative to companies, not activities.  Form of business would indicate if a company is a pharmaceutical company, IT company, device company, etc. Type of entity would indicate publicly traded or privately held. Designees were added under the first question; second “if subsidiary, to whom” was added for the second question.

Ross suggested the need for a directory to avoid conflicting information.  Monika stressed the need to capture whether or not the company is a subsidiary of a larger company.  Valerie volunteered to put that into the form.  Ross provided an example of Janssen Pharmaceuticals being a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson. 

Ross commented that when describing the relationship with a company or entity, we should add “Founder.” David would put that first.  Ray asked if one could be both Founder and Owner; David replied yes. Any number of relationships could be indicated in the repository.  The group also suggested differentiating between an equity owner or the owner or partner of a non-incorporated entity. The group agreed that if the partner or spouse or dependent child had the relationship, that should be indicated. 

Ross mentioned “Equity” could be a gift, not financial support or gratuity.  The group agreed that gifts, including in-kind gifts, should be presented as a kind of relationship with an entity.

Valerie agreed to flesh out the high level requirements and add additional requirements as needed.  Steve commented the definitions are up to interpretation.  The group commented that financial support would include research grants, educational grants, loan, and equity. Valerie agreed to add a comment to clarify that. 

Radu asked about promissory notes for start-ups; often promissory notes are used to pay employees in the early days of a company.  David thought they could be under ownership or equity. The group agreed that the nature of ownership could include public equity, private equity, options, or promissory note.  

Heather asked what was meant by employed services.  David gave examples of consulting/advising.  Ray mentioned respondents will view themselves different so it is better to be more inclusive.  Ross provided the examples of working for temps and contracting to pharmaceutical companies.  David commented the most important thing to resolve is the basic relationship. Monika suggested allowing a way for individuals to express who has the relationship.  Ross agreed that is important to determine.  It is hard to track down who is a spouse of someone with a different name.  Heather added for each financial interest there should be a way to designate whom they apply to; the group agreed to add on an additional data element.  Valerie recommended adding a question: who has the relationship you are disclosing? 

Radu asked if political committees must be disclosed.  David recommended a general category of “Other” to cover those relationships.  Valerie will put together a list of relationships and their secondary data elements and circulate to the group for comment.  She added Betty has already begun that work in the hierarchy spreadsheet.  Valerie will also compare the memo document to the other lists and spreadsheets developed to make sure nothing is missing. Heather expressed her appreciation for David’s work and for the helpful conversation within this group.     

David asked if the meeting on the 23rd was feasible given people’s schedules. Valerie agreed to do a doodle poll and find out everyone’s availability.


3 Review edits to high level requirements

4 Discuss glossary

 

Decisions

  • Add Entity as a high level data item.
  • Add support for Designees
  • When describing a company/entity, we will capture the parent company for those companies that are subsidiaries.
  • Add the following to relationship: Founder, Partner  of non-incorporated entity, Equity owner, Recipient of gift (including in-kind), Other
  • Change Owner to Owner of non-incorporated entity
  • if the partner or spouse or dependent child had the relationship, that should be indicated
  • Add public equity, private equity, options, or promissory note as potential answers for describing nature of ownership.

Action Items

  • Valerie will flesh out the high level requirements and add additional requirements as needed
  • Valerie will modify David’s memo to reflect the group’s decisions.
  • Valerie will add a comment to clarify that that financial support includes research grants, educational grants, loan, and equity
  • Valerie will put together a list of relationships and their secondary data elements
  • Valerie will also compare the memo document to the other lists and spreadsheets developed to make sure nothing is missing
  • No labels