The Readers Write

(Please send your comments on CIRM and the failings of this blog to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com. )


Interest and Conflicts Examined
The following was received from the "Old Country Lawyer" in Temecula CA:

"I took the time to read Proposition 71 in some detail a few days ago and have concluded that it is not as bad as I had first thought, at least as regard to potential conflicts. It contains provisions regarding conflict of interest that seem to comport with the general law, in that it both requires disclosure and would prohibit a committee member from voting on matters in which he had a direct financial interest. But the language is a tad equivocal. It says:

'c) Assets and income of public officials which may be materiallyaffected by their official actions should be disclosed and inappropriate circumstances the officials should be disqualified fromacting in order that conflicts of interest may be avoided.'

"Note the use of the term, 'appropriate circumstances.' What does that mean? To me, it says that the writers have foreseen circumstances in which it may be appropriate for a member to vote regardless of his interest. It could be that it is a reference to university employees who are also voting members, but that situation has been directly addressed and excluded from the conflict laws.

"The act also purports to exempt a member from the conflict laws if he votes on a matter of financial interest to one of his competitors. And, in an interesting provision, the meaning of which is obscure, it limits the effect of the conflict of interest laws only to situations where the member not only had an interest, but also actually voted on the issue. I wonder why they thought this necessary? I suspect it may have to do with the requirement of liberal interpretation set forth in the Government Code.

"A liberal interpretation of the financial interest definitions in the Government Code would probably preclude a member acting on any aspect of a competitor's grant, but the various members may find themselves discussing in private session various scientific aspects of either their own or a competitor's grant anyway. Thus, it may be that they are seeing this as acceptable as long as the member does not actually vote on the matter.

"At any rate, the intent behind all this is not very clear, and when such an act attempts to overrule general law provisions on matters as important as the conflict of interest provisions of the Political Reform Act, I suspect the courts might view such attempts with a jaundiced eye. I certainly would. But this is not to say that I think the act would be subject to complete disapproval because of such ambiguities. There is a saving clause that would maintain the basic provisions of the act if any part of it were to be found improper, and in that case the conflicts portion would then be governed strictly by the general law. Either way, it would probably be OK.

"I do not see any great conspiracy behind any of this, but rather an attempt to shape the potentially unique circumstances of scientific inquiry into the cracks of the often arcane conflict laws. They may have succeeded. Then, again, perhaps they did not. Ain't the law fun?"