February 24, 2015
9 MST/10 CST/11 EST/17 CET/18 EET
Attending: David Blake, Ross McKinney, Co-Chairs; Marie Beaulier, Mike Champa, Betty Harvey, Norman Kahn, Monika Markowitz, Pamela Miller, Bill Sacks, Cory Schmidt, Steve Singer, Valerie Smothers, John Sweeney, and Gary Wimsett.
1 Review minutes
2 Discuss results of Feb 11 meeting
David began the discussion with a brief overview of work completed at the in-person meeting. The group developed a fairly complete list of data elements in four categories: Financial Stake, Professional Services, Financial Support and Intellectual property. He explained the list of data elements under each heading.
Under Financial Stake there were four possible activities: Stock, Stock Options, Securities or Bonds, and Non-secured ownership such as the sole owner of a company. The corresponding proposed elements included: original acquisition date, divestment date, type of company (private or public), number of shares, percent of ownership and value of shares. David reiterated that your organization might not collect all information for central repository. Cory asked about the value of shares only for public held companies; she suggested adding privately owned companies as well. Ross agreed but mentioned most are meaningless values. Under Stock options the corresponding data elements were number of shares, original offer date, offer price and expiration date. Other security data elements were estimated value, description, acquisition date and divestment date. David explained the definition used for Non-secured ownership meant a company started up but not being traded. The data elements were ownership type, partnership type, percentage of ownership, business description, gross income of business, and investment. Cory commented in addition to gross income of business, total of business received could be added. David mentioned gross ownership gives us an idea of the significance of the company.
The next category Professional Services included two categories, employment or independent contractor. Under Employment the data elements listed were: start and end date of employment, annual compensation amount, average hours, and form of compensation. Ross suggested making a distinction between annual compensation amounts, which could be a rate per annum or total amount paid in a previous year such as bonuses. Valerie clarified what would be on a W-2. Ross commented it could be linked to a person’s tax form. The Independent Contractor elements included the type of Independent Contractor, start and end date, annual compensation amount, form of compensation and activity date. If you were providing some training, the date the training occurred could be included. David asked if there were any other contractor types anyone collected. Gary asked about an expert witness making $400 an hour; they receive hourly rates in additional to annual compensation. David suggested using either hourly or annual rate under values. Valerie asked if anybody collected estimated hours. Gary said they do. Ross commented the caveat is do you want to know when they were paid for the service or the date of the service? Valerie suggested using what is on the tax form. She would make sure to clarify in the documentation that the annual compensation amount should reflect the year paid and not the year of the activity.
Grants, Travel and Gifts: Under Grants the data elements were recipient of grant, amount of the grant, and institutional purpose. The data elements for Travel were start date, end date of travel, estimated value, location, purpose and payment. Ross suggested adding sponsor of travel. Under Gifts, the value of the gifts and the date received was captured. Pam suggested including a free text box to describe what the gift is. Valerie added a description field for gifts.
David continued with a discussion on Intellectual Property and the four components of that activity: Patent, Trademark, Copyright and Other. Under Patent the data elements listed were status, filing date, patent number. Pam asked if we want to include where patent is filed. Ross added there are a lot of countries issuing patents. Heather asked if anyone was collecting that information, and if so, where it was filed? Bill asked if we want to include a lay description of patent. Monica agreed and commented it helps it to be associated with the research it is being linked to. Pam commented you should be able to add more than one entity for licensee. David suggested Valerie circulate the revised spreadsheet to identify anything anyone collects that is not included so that it can be included. He asked Valerie process for next steps.
Valerie will circulate revised spreadsheet, and then after that, see if there are multiple people collecting the same data to insure elements are being collected across many institutions. Following that step, they will work on schema and specification development, where the definitions would reside. Valerie and Heather will discuss with AAMC developers to make sure they are happy with the spreadsheet and then she will circulate the revised spreadsheet. Valerie will revise the spreadsheet as needed and circulate to group and see if others are collecting those data elements. Valerie will meet with technical team first, hopefully within the next week or so but in time for the next call on March 10. Valerie will start at a high level with a conceptual diagram, lay out the landscape to look at the big picture, and then go into greater detail.