California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein remains publicly mum on a $700 million question involving his actions during the Prop. 71 campaign a year ago.
Each day, his continued silence damages his credibility as well as that of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.
At issue is a report in the San Francisco Chronicle last week that said Klein knew that there was a federal cloud over the use of tax-exempt bonds during the campaign but failed to disclose the information. At least one neutral observer, Bob Stern from the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, has said Klein had a moral obligation to disclose the matter.
While it is seemingly a technical tax issue, it could increase taxpayer costs for the stem cell research program by an additional $700 million – close to $7 billion instead of $6 billion.
The Chronicle article came up again at the legislative hearing earlier this week into billion-dollar intellectual property issues involving CIRM, an agency that has taken a "trust us" position on many key matters before it.
"If this report is true, then Mr. Klein knowingly misled the voters of California and the supporters of Prop. 71," said Jesse Reynolds, director of biotechnology accountability for the Center for Genetics and Society in Oakland.
Trust is what is involved here. Klein was the most visible advocate for Prop. 71, carrying its water on television, radio and print media. It would be one thing if he had slipped out of the public limelight following the campaign, as do many electioneers. Instead he took charge of the agency that he is credited with creating. Now he is in a different role – that of a public steward, whose rhetoric must be connected to reality.
It hardly seems in his best personal interest or that of CIRM to let stand unanswered allegations that he deceived the public. How does that reflect on his future promises and plans for the stem cell agency? Can he be trusted on the complex and financially important issues of intellectual property?
One public relations strategy on issues such as this is to ignore them publicly, hoping that they will go away. The public has a short memory, goes the reasoning. In many ways, however, the public may not be the most significant constituency. In this instance, the international stem cell community is probably more important. So are the political and business decisionmakers in California. The questions raised by the Chronicle article are not likely to be forgotten when they evaluate future statements by Klein.
He may want to look at the example of Nelson Rockefeller, the former governor of New York. Rockefeller once had a tough re-election campaign that focused heavily on taxes. During the election, he promised that he would not support a tax hike. Rockefeller won the election and offered up a tax increase the next year. He was asked how he could square that with his election promise. "That was the biggest mistake of my life," he replied.
No comments:
Post a Comment