RETREAT CONCLUSIONS

QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, DISCUSSION

JOHN ZYSMAN: Now the Advisory Group chairs have removed themselves from the stage. I'm not quite so sure that's appropriate, but what we can do is perhaps use their comments as a way of trying to start a conversation.

Is this an accurate representation of the conversations you folks you were engaged in? What would you add to it? How would you change the tone of what we've been hearing? There are two ways of doing that, speaking now and secondly, in fact you should send comments, objections, minority reports, repudiations to the Office of the President. Actually Suzanne Quick will be the recipient of all of this. In your yellow sheet there is an address so you can mail it to her. You can fax it to her or, of course, you can e-mail it to her.

So this is really meant as the beginning of a conversation. What I think we'd like to do for the next period of time is try to open a conversation among the group as a whole. Let's see if we can manage it in this setting. It may be difficult, but let's try. Reactions?

Please, and again, state who you are.

FREDERIC WAN: I'm Fred Wan from UC Irvine. In conjunction with the patent group, we had an additional item that we thought should be brought out. Most of us set up over the years to deal with the Federal grant and contract situation. With the new changes, we are dealing with private sponsors who have a different set of issues, different set of conditions, different set of negotiations. And the staff, in terms of size and background, may not be as ready to deal with them. There is a demand for flexibility. Different cases need to be dealt with separately and lengthy negotiations take place. That puts a different kind of workload requirement on the staff. Resources needed both for the pre-award negotiation and post-award management are quite different from what they used to be. I think that should be factored into the equation.

JOHN ZYSMAN: Comments from anyone? Why don't we collect some comments and why don't people line up so we can keep a flow going.

EDWARD DENNIS: Ed Dennis, Chemistry and Biochemistry at UCSD. I just wanted to amplify the last point that Joe Cerny made about postdocs. I think it should be appreciated that, especially in the industrial grants and interactions, it's probably heavier involvement of postdocs than even graduate students. And to encourage that, everywhere language is used in these documents that refers to students, and often they refer to graduate students, that should be expanded to say, "and postdoctoral scholars" because I think that's a central point. And, if it's done throughout the industrial liaison pieces, that may have a second consequence for the University in expanding the State Legislature's knowledge that postdoctoral training plays a very central role at UC.

PAMELA SAMUELSON: Randy made a number of points that we made together in the copyright discussion, but another theme that I think we developed in the course of our discussion in the copyright session was the multiple roles that the University and University community members have as regards copyrighted material. Most of the policies so far have talked about ownership and royalties and things of that sort. In fact, we are massive users of copyrighted material too. Because we have interests as publishers, as creators, and as consumers, we ought to have a kind of integrated understanding of the importance of these materials and how we can use each of those roles to further the larger mission of disseminating knowledge and we ought to see the balancing principles in each of those domains and, hopefully, have a kind of integrated approach to all of this. This is not only good for helping our students understand responsible use of copyrighted material, but also can enable UC to help lead some national community discussions about the role of copyright, particularly as it goes into the digital network environment more and more.

JOHN ZYSMAN: And we want to protect everything Robert Winter did.

GARY MATKIN: Gary Matkin from Berkeley. I think one significant but subtle issue that has not been brought up in this conference has to do with the notion that as we embrace the notion of greater University/industry interaction and form more and more friendships, partnerships with our industry colleagues, we will be developing relationships in which exchange happens. The University will exchange some value in some way with our industry colleagues, and that exchange will come back to us. We'll be seen, I think, as a public university that is creating friends. We've heard about how all this is very much a contact sport.

COMMENTOR: Reaching consensus across the entire University is something I would really like some thought put into. Maybe it's to put something together, a white paper that we can point to, that's one way. But I'd really like to see this go up to another level. At least if it can be thought about...

JOHN ZYSMAN: I think that is important. I think we have the fact that the consensus here may or may not be representative of the consensus that one would have on the various campuses. So, if we, in fact, actually agreed among ourselves, there's an educational role. If we actually want to continue the debate at the various campuses, there's a question about how to sustain and develop whatever becomes the overall consensus. I think it's clear that the outcome of this conversation is not in itself a policy. It is what we said at the beginning, the beginning of a discussion of what is an appropriate policy and the beginning of a debate and discussion that will lead to a new balance, but, in itself, it is not that policy.

PAUL BARTLETT: Paul Bartlett from Berkeley. It's my perception -- I think, all of our perceptions -- we've heard a lot about the desirability of increasing the fluidity of the connection between industry and the University. And we've heard the desirability, the new recommendations suggested that we should replace rules with guidelines. I'm struck by the relative lack of representation at this conference from University Counsel. It's my perception that many of the rules and many of the connections which we try to make, which our administrators try to administer, depend upon opinions from University Counsel and their perception of what is allowed and what is disallowed. We've heard about the need for the University to recognize risk and manage risk, and yet the people whose job it is to avoid risk have perhaps a different job description than what we're talking about. So I would like to hear from the organizers of the conference at some point, and perhaps from the counsel that's here, as to their perception of their role and whether my perception is incorrect or not.

JOHN ZYSMAN: Is your hand up with the intent of making an immediate response to that?

CANDACE VOELKER: Yes.

MODERATOR: Can you speak to the microphone? And bring the lawyers with you.

[laughter]

CANDACE VOELKER: Resident Counsel of the General Counsel's Office in charge of intellectual property matters is here.

[applause]

JOHN ZYSMAN: Would you have a reaction to the tone of the conversation as it's currently going. Does it pose such unique and difficult problems that we should go back to our drawing boards or is it a conversation -- a conversation you can live with.

P. MARTIN SIMPSON: Well, no I think it's a conversation that you have as a matter of a policy discussion and then counsel will look at where you want to go with the policy to advise you on it. The General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel who work in this the area were not here. I am, and I will brief them on the meeting. And then you'll have a conference document and they will get that. So you will get advice from the General Counsel at that point. And in Jay's group I gave my two cents.

JOHN ZYSMAN: Well would you be willing to share your two cents with us in this context? We'll even give you a quarter. It would be very helpful. I don't mean to be flip.

P. MARTIN SIMPSON: When you're talking about conflict of interest, which was Jay's group, there are some statutes that we have to comply with and there also are some things that we're trying to accomplish as goals. So, when you come out with a set of things you're trying to do and a set of statutes you have to comply with, you then try to come out with some sort of a document that does both.

And when you're thinking about a change in the statement that someone could put the words "conflict of interest" on, you still need it handled in a way that doesn't get people into problems. We have a mechanism under State law, and now we have to arrange things as a matter of Federal law so that we don't run into problems. So it may be more a question of, are there safe harbors where people know they're safe? Are there places where they know they need to go through further procedures to be safe? And that actually reflects current procedures now.

JOHN ZYSMAN: Jay, do you want to...

JAY STOWSKY: There is one other obstacle that you might consider. UC researchers are currently subject to the California Political Reform Act of 1974, which was aimed at politicians, at making sure their official decisions were not biased by their personal financial interests. The FPPC applies the same financial reporting requirements to UC faculty when their research projects are funded by private industry, and it just doesn't fit us well. We might want to request that the Fair Political Practices Commission remove UC researchers from the conflict of interest code so that UC faculty are no longer included in the reporting requirements for public officials that are mandated by the State law. That's one possible solution to the problems he's referring to.

JOHN ZYSMAN: I think that these last two comments are very important because they should remind us that, in fact, we can try and discuss and change the tone and direction and attitude of the University. But there are lots of steps between that and an actual operational change in policy that the University can live by. And I think your comments here are very helpful to that.

HARRY TOM: Harry Tom from Riverside. I just wanted to address the rewards issue. There was obviously a whole panel on that. But first we have to recognize that the culture that we have now certainly doesn't reward public service. So if the mission statement is, let's all collaborate with industry because that's our public service mission, then there's no reward system for that. Because no one ever gets tenure for public service. Okay, and we've all sat on those reviews, right, and we know what's discussed. And public service, unless it's extraordinary public service--really extraordinary--is not going to be even talked about. I mean Mother Teresa wouldn't get tenure. [laughter] So, maybe in a medical school if you brought out a drug and it saved lives, of course, that's fine. But I mean if you were in a biology departments, it's iffy if transfer of technology would ever get you even that far. And so that's the first thing.

The second thing is, if you change the reward system to reward that kind of intellectual technology transfer, then you disenfranchise all of those disciplines where that's not possible. And so the whole reward system has to really be changed. Because if you're a professor of philosophy, you're not going to be able to compete, at least, on that same level.

BILL OTTERSON: Hi. I'm Bill Otterson from UC San Diego and I'm the business-man. I'm involved in the technology marketing area and so I was delighted to hear the stories of the benefits to students that we heard this morning of interfacing with industry; of the benefits to faculty research of interfacing with industry; and the benefits to economic development of the region. I think that the story at UC Santa Barbara was very eloquent this morning.

But I would like to make one other comment, not as the director of the CONNECT Program, but as a cancer patient. And I'd like to tell you what I -- how I view why we do what we do. And it tells you a new constituency, if you hadn't thought of it.

I've had cancer for 16 years. I am a beneficiary of the University of California system of patents and licenses. Niels Reimers who was here -- Niels wrote the patent for recombinant DNA that was taken by Genentech and from which alpha-interferon was developed. I've talked with the developer of that. I have taken interferon for three years, four years, and I am clearly alive today. Thank you! I do not say my life is dependent upon your research, but thank God you do it! Thank you.

[applause]

DEREK CHEUNG: Hi. My name is Derek Cheung. I come from a Rockwell. It's one of the local industries. Even though we have sold most of the industry here to Boeing, we're still here. As a person from industry, I'm very, very encouraged by what I hear. I'm very impressed by the overwhelming cooperative spirit of working with industry and impressed about the sincerity of everybody involved here. I'd like to make two comments.

One is that technology transfer is not a simple thing. And through the years the most effective way is for industry to hire the right student. That's the most effective way of truly transferring a lot of the knowledge and know-how into the company. So, keep on turning out and educating the right students. That's the biggest impact you can make on the economy here.

And the second point is that I think it's very essential to keep University research open. The industry should do their part. These things that are getting too proprietary--they should not do them here.

JOHN ZYSMAN: I think this point is very well taken. This issue of teaching and students is not just an abstraction that we cite for our own amusement. It is, in fact, the ultimate, the major contribution of the University. And it spills over into the other objectives with which we're concerned as well. I think it should remind us that those who have the deepest interest in technology transfer have the deepest interest in the quality of the teaching, and ultimately the quality of the research as well.

GEORGE KENYON: George Kenyon, UCSF. I was on Advisory Group Number 4 -- Faculty Incentives, Cultural Differences -- and I'm impressed by the fact that of all of our recommendations, we could only present one or two, but most of all the rest have been covered including, in part, the one I'm going to try to tell you about next which I think we need to pay even more attention to than has been brought to the group up until now. And that's that we observed, in our group, that sufficient numbers of technology transfer contracts and grants officers are not always available, either at OTT or in the decentralized campus-oriented offices, to do the job. We believe that more people should be trained and empowered to facilitate technology transfer as efficiently and flexibly as possible. And to quote, "Staffing and training levels on the campus should be reviewed and adjusted accordingly to ensure the correct capabilities and numbers of staff on each campus. And that a mechanism be put in place to allow the future adjustment as needed to accommodate expanding activity."

DAVID MEARS: Amen!

[Applause]

MARY WALSHOK: John, I wanted to respond to the comment from the gentleman from Rockwell because this is what Group 9 really focused on. We have published a document that's being distributed statewide that describes revenues from technology transfer. There is no comparable document that describes the numbers of engineering students from the eight campuses, the biology students, the business students who went to work in the industries that are growing and developing in this region. And that's part of what we're trying to get at in our specific recommendations. We'll get it in terms of the metrics because that's a wonderful story to tell because Dick Atkinson likes to make speeches about the importance of this new industry and of technology. And the numbers are just stunning in terms of where our own students are going. If we begin then too to describe the kinds of internships undergraduates have, the range of research projects on which our own students are working, we tell a much fuller story about how technology transfer takes place between the University of California and the state.

CLIFFORD DETZ: I'm Cliff Detz with Chevron Research and Technology Company so I'm from one of those industries that Jud described that doesn't quite look at patents the same way as the biotech industry does or the electronics industry. But I've been involved in putting together collaborative research relationships with universities now for about...about six years in my job. And I'm really heartened by what I hear here today--recognition on the part of the people who are involved in the formal technology transfer that there's a need for flexibility and a recognition that different industries have different views on intellectual property. And even within an industry, within a company, depending upon what the subject matter is, there are different needs and different requirements.

I'd also like us all to remember that that's also just one part of the equation of technology transfer, the formal effort to license and deal with intellectual property. Because in the six years that we've been doing collaborative research relationships with universities, very few of the benefits have come from formal technology transfer activities such as licensing. There have been inventions made, but they, quite frankly, haven't really generated any revenue. The real value is the technology transfer that goes on when we put together a collaboration and that's the transfer that occurs between our person working with the university and the faculty member and the students working on this project that we've put together. Now that's not to minimize the importance in our agreements of dealing with formal intellectual property issues. That's also very important to us because the last thing we want to do is invest high-risk money and then have our competitor reap the benefit from an invention. So it's still important to us. But when you put it all in perspective, the real value is in the accretion of information that occurs while the project is going on and how that works its way through our organization and enables us to do things you wouldn't otherwise be able to do.

The other thing I'd like to say is that, you know it's very popular to talk about university professors going off and starting their own companies. And some have gotten rich that way and others have just struggled, I guess. But I think it's very important for university people, when they work with industry, to understand what their own values are. When we come to you from industry, we clearly understand what our values are. And they tend to be, in many cases, quite different than universities' values. And, really, we should only work together when we don't do violence to each other's values and roles. So the university shouldn't be afraid to say no. I really do believe there are some things and some projects that are probably inappropriate to do at a university. Now we try to be responsible and not come to you with those. But I'm sure others will because, quite frankly, labor is cheap at a university. Graduate students don't get paid as much as we do in industry.

Another thing has to do with conflict of interest, which is not something I've thought very much about. In industry we have a way of dealing with that. If somebody works for Chevron who wants to put his time and energy into his own company outside of Chevron's businesses, it's likely that his performance on the job will fall off because there are only so many hours in a day and he will suffer accordingly. He may even lose his job. Now at a university it's hard for me to imagine how somebody can go and start a company, which is a full-time, high-energy activity, and still discharge his responsibilities to do teaching and research at the university. And the university, perhaps, has to have a way of dealing with that. You know people have to make choices in life, and consequences have to flow from those choices. Now sometimes you have to decide to do one or the other. So, these are my observations and comments.

JOHN ZYSMAN: I think those remarks are very important. The evidence is overwhelming that technology development really takes place in local community learning environments and interaction among people and the formal structure shouldn't mislead as to what the real and central dynamics are. And I would hope that your comment on the university having the courage to say no when it's appropriate to say no, that, in fact, there are ways in which the industrial community as a whole can help back the university in the settings in which it feels obliged to do that so that it can facilitate the kinds of arrangements which are appropriate and are more attractive. I think the more support there is from industry for being able to say no to the inappropriate, the easier it is for the university to be able to say yes to the rest.

JAY STOWSKY: I almost want to pause for a minute to let those last comments sink in a little more. I've been interested in how many of the industry folks here have told me that they want us to clarify our own conflict of interest and commitment policies so that they also can know exactly whom they are dealing with, for example, if a faculty member has financial relationships with their competitors or if the faculty member has a company of his or her own.

I did want to follow up on Mary's comments about developing better metrics, broader metrics to measure the benefits of our relationships with industry. And I wanted to do a little advertisement for some of the work that Susanne Huttner has supported through her Critical Linkages Project in biotechnology and also the fund that she's identified under the umbrella of the President's Initiative on Industry-University Research Collaboration to support and encourage that kind of research; and to say also that Robert Shelton, the Vice Provost for Research for whom I work, wants to develop more resources to do more of that kind of work. So any of you who have stories to tell or know other faculty who would like to tell those stories, please be in touch with Susanne and be in touch with me and we'll try and get those stories told in a way that is useful to all of us.

EDWARD DENNIS: Ed Dennis, UCSD. I was pleased to hear the emphasis not just on dollars into the University that's come out of this, but also on the transfer out. But there is still another subtle point and that is the transfer of information and knowledge to the faculty from the industrial collaborations. There was a recent survey study of life scientists which came to the conclusion that those faculty members who received up to one-third of their grant support from industry had much higher productivity rates, as measured not only by rates of publication but by influence and impact, than faculty who didn't have industrial grant support. Whereas those who were at 100% level of industrial support had less impact and less influence. And the point being that some small portion of industrial influence was helpful and productive in the academic setting for our faculty and that may help us having an influence on broader acceptance of these kinds of policies by the faculty.

GEORGE VRANDENBERG: My name is George Vrandenberg and I'm with Latham and Watkins and I work in the entertainment industry. I'm a private sector participant. I'd like to touch on just two things that we obviously haven't focused on here today because they weren't the focus on what we're talking about. But one of them is that we have been focusing on technology which is largely been high tech, science, engineering and the like. And I'd like to emphasize, at least for this gigantic industry that is a California industry called entertainment, that undergraduate students' education on the soft side is very, very important to what we do. Increasingly artists, artisans, people with skills in sound, people with skills in music, people with skills in artistic talents, are increasingly a skill needed for Southern California, Northern California industry. And the continuing emphasis on hard technology loses sight of a balance that this particular industry needs in terms of your undergraduate students and, to some extent, your graduate students.

But I hear your talking about the benefit of what the university does as a broad-based, liberal arts institution and feeding people with soft-side skills as well. People with perspective, people who can tell stories, people who can analogize a current story, like the Lion King to Hamlet (or distort it, depending on your perspective). People with some literary backgrounds and some knowledge of books and learning. Just some history, some perspective is something that increasingly we need in our industry just to populate what we do as an industry.

A somewhat unrelated but nevertheless important point arises out of my own experience at UCLA where I relate very much to some policy orientation that goes on inside the University. The University has an enormous value to businessmen who are caught up, like molecules inside some sort of atom, in the chaos. The University gives some perspective, some longer-term perspective, to some of the events that may be happening in the world. And one of the things that UCLA does in bringing people in from outside to what they're doing here in the Communications School, or in various other schools here at the University, is to give business people some perspective on what is happening out there. And, indeed, some longer-term perspective. And so there's an enormous value to the institution in terms of its longer-term perspectives on the impact of what's going on in society, its objective approach to some of these events which is very important to continue to inform and give perspective to business as it looks at what is going on in the world. And so I say, you have enormous value to the business community. And as you begin to open yourselves up to these relationships, do not lose what you are. Because what you are, as a culture separate and distinct from business, is very valuable to business to continue to have access to.

JOHN ZYSMAN: Thank you, sincerely, particularly from someone not from the hard sciences, but like myself from the arts and sciences. I think those kinds of words are important in reminding us why a broadly-funded university, and not just a narrowly-funded university around what is currently the scientific fashion, is so critical.

DAVID MEARS: Two points, first I would whole-heartedly support the recommendation to invest additional resources in the contracts and grants function. I'm David Mears. I happen to be the Office of the President Director of Research Administration. One of the things I've observed over the last decade is at least a flat level of resources for contracts and grants or decreases as a result of budget cuts. At the same time, the volume of proposals, the volume of awards, has escalated greatly and there's just not the capacity there to handle what needs to be done. As the resources are stretched further, it's impossible to provide the kind and quality of services to the campus and to the faculty that take resources. I feel compelled to say this, just because a good number of my colleagues are here and I feel that I need to support them as well as express my own personal concern about this.

A second point I would make is that I would ask the framers of the reports to think very carefully about how to make sure that the recommendations that have been made and distilled from these two days are converted into action. I worry about you. We've had a good time talking, but what's going to happen beyond simply, okay we have another report, we'll copyright it in the name of The Regents, we'll publish it. Where's it going to go from there? I hear a lot of things that I think need to be done; a lot of actions that need to be taken by management, by administrators like me. But it's not just action by administrators. It's the Deans; it's the academic managers as well that need to take these suggestions and convert them into specific changes. Reallocations of resources, redesign of support systems, mapping out how to get things done on a campus so everybody knows, if they want to find out, how to go about getting certain things done. So, I would request that somehow there be attention given to either coming up with a list of action items, agreeing that in six months there will be a report to the President, or something to make these things happen.

JOHN ZYSMAN: I think that I'm starting to feel a certain restlessness in the room so I'm going to let Robert Conn make a comment and I'm going to make a few closing comments myself.

ROBERT CONN: Nobody wants to make anybody miss the bus, right? I feel very encouraged by this. I've been Dean of Engineering now going on to four years. And when I first had to deal with some of the issues that we're here discussing, we were just remarking privately with Nick Alexopoulos, we basically went out and did things. Then we came back, because we felt they were appropriate and right to do. I mean, we did it with intelligence. We didn't just do it. But when we did it that way, we found out that people would come back and say, well now are you sure you can do this or are you sure you can do that? And most of the time, if you got out in front of the curve, the system ended up responding, sometimes stiffly, sometimes a little more flexibly.

And so I'm very encouraged for all of us that we're actually doing this. We are a very big system and I'm convinced that the kind of meeting we're now having is part of a process of getting people to be more open, to be more flexible, to be more understanding of the kinds of things that will be occurring. What we're talking about is a new era. If you really think it's different--and I believe fundamentally it is different--you can't do business the same way you did 15, 20, 30 years ago. This doesn't mean you throw your core values out the window-- and we've heard a lot -- there's a natural tension between changing and making sure your core values are held sound. That's good and we'll never get away from that. We should have that tension. It will be at every meeting we'll ever have. We shouldn't feel, because people raise the question, are our core values the right ones, should we add this or that to it, that somehow those people are blocking progress and the other people are somehow too far out in front of the curve. So I feel very good about the recommendations that have come in, the natural tension that exists, it should exist. There's nothing wrong with it. I think it's going to make the ability for us to make some progress much easier going down the road if we continue to interact like this.

I have a couple of specific points. One was that I think the main 9-10 recommendations are really good. I think it would be very helpful to just see the two or three things that you might come up with as the reasons why. If you take the first two things, that we should have a big picture and somehow indicate that UC cares about the people of California and the economy of California and that we care about partnering with industry. Why do we care? Why should anybody else care? And so I think if we can have along with the targeted points that Jud summarized, two or three key reasons why, then you'll make certain that they're consistent with our core values. You'll make certain that it's the kind of thing that you can go out and sell. Because, frankly, the first three points are about selling ourselves to the State of California and the people of California, what might amount to public relations. And it's very important for us as we go forward. So thinking about the two or three key reasons why, I think is very important.

We talked about devolving to campuses. I'm a strong promoter of devolution and so I hope as you look at what are the responsibilities of central OP versus what are the responsibilities of the campus. Each of those campuses is the equivalent of a Stanford. We all operate in somewhat different markets with somewhat different constituencies. Giving the campuses each more autonomy with respect to making policy as well as implementing policy in this general area is, I think, a wise move. We ought not be afraid that somehow the chancellors don't really understand, right. That's effectively the statement that we've got to have something that every chancellor will do, every campus will do the same. I think we should be a little more open to devolving down and trust the campuses, trust the chancellors and trust the deans to be able to implement. I think that's important. And this is a real culture change for this system. I think most of you know what I'm talking about. It's a real culture change for this system.

Two other points. One, we have not talked at all about is a business office. We have talked about tech transfer. I can tell you, fundamentally, tech transfer and business are different. The people who operate technology transfer have backgrounds in areas such as copyright and patent and things of that sort, licensing, that is not necessarily a business background. In fact, I'm not even sure how many of the people have had experiences in business. But that being said, I think that there is a difference between business and tech transfer. It would be very helpful for us to have a business office that operated somewhat in parallel but in cooperation with tech transfer, to help us with the kinds of interactions we're likely to have. Whether it's assigned to the schools or not, think about whether or not a business officer as opposed to an intellectual property rights and transfer officer is something that could be valuable. Maybe, maybe not.

And finally, on faculty rewards. I was very happy that somebody from the faculty finally said, "But you know, if there's no reward I'm not going to do it." This is a fundamental issue for us in the University from the faculty. If you say you want more teaching and better quality teaching you have to be prepared to reward it. If you say you're only going to make judgments on the basis of research, that's what you're going to get. And our faculty are very smart, as we all know. So they understand the reward system and they will respond to it.

My sense about partnering with industry is that it should not be put in the context of public service. Partnering with industry should, in fact, enhance one's teaching and research agenda. And if it's reviewed in that context, it's not out of alignment with how evaluation will be done. So you're absolutely right, if you set up something important for industry but it doesn't advance either the education and research and teaching agenda that we have, any of those, then it will be hard to figure out how to make a reward. I don't think the system's going to change that reward structure. Therefore, in thinking about partnering with the industry, the faculty will have to do it in the context of the reward system about high quality teaching, high quality creation of new knowledge. Impact and recognition are ultimately the key things. I think that's the way it fits and then it's not out of alignment with our reward structure.

Return to Main Page