Festering Issues Surface at Contentious Stem Cell Meeting

SAN DIEGO – A bit of a rumpus broke out Thursday at the board meeting of the California stem cell agency. Nominally, the dispute was about hiring an additional staffer to help support the 29 persons who serve on the board that oversees the $3 billion enterprise.

But the heated discussion raised a host of issues, some of which have been festering behind closed doors for years. They included staff support for the 10 patient advocates on the 29-member board, the two-tier board structure, conflicts of interest, super-quorum requirements, ill-conceived legal limits on staff size, CIRM hiring plans, micromanagement and the agency's budget for the coming year.

“Festering” was a word used more than once by board members. It was connected to concerns of patient advocates about the lack of CIRM staff support for their CIRM-connected responsibilities. The discussion also highlighted the fact that other board members can designate alternates to attend meetings, but the patient advocate members cannot.

Those who are permitted to use alternates are executives at research institutions, universities or businesses. They also can use their own staffs to assist with their CIRM responsibilities. But some of the patient advocate members do not have jobs that allow them to do that.

One patient advocate director, Marcy Feit, CEO of ValleyCare Health Systems of Pleasanton, Ca., pointed out that patient advocates must attend more CIRM meetings -- of which there are many -- than other directors because that is the only way that CIRM, in many cases, can get its business done. She described the workload as “incredible.”

The meeting attendance problem arises because of the board's super-majority quorum requirements, which are embedded by Prop. 71 in state law. Conflicts of interests also regularly disqualify many board members from being counted as part of a quorum, voting and even participating in debates. One example occurred at the Wednesday meeting of the board, when only six board members could vote on $41 million in funding for training grants. All the rest in attendance were barred from the discussion.

Why do the conflicts of interest exist? Because Prop. 71 required the appointment to the board of the very persons whose institutions and enterprises benefit from CIRM largess. And Prop. 71 is all but impossible to change, also because of language the ballot measure wrote into the law.

Patient advocate director Jeff Sheehy, a communications manager at UC San Francisco, triggered Thursday's contentious discussion when he said he would not vote for the proposed budget unless another person was added to the support staff for the board. Currently, virtually all of the support goes through a single person, Melissa King, executive director of the board.

While Sheehy and other patient advocates had high praise for King, they said CIRM staff often was not responsive to their concerns. They said “significant difficulties” have arisen when they have tried to get information from staff.

Patient advocate director Jonathan Shestack, a Hollywood film producer, said that the problems have been festering “since the five-month mark” in CIRM's life. Shestack said,

“The truth is for many patient advocates they have other jobs that do not support the work here.”

He added that “I for one gave up at a certain point” trying to get the information and support that he needed. He said board members cannot go easily to staff to find explanations about complex bond financing or scientific issues.

Patient advocate director David Serrano Sewell, a deputy city attorney for San Francisco, resisted a suggestion from one board member that Thursday's discussion take place in private instead of at a public meeting. He said that efforts have been made in the past to resolve the problem both cordially and in private. But he said they have failed.

Some directors objected to Sheehy's attempt to add help for the board. They said it amounted to micromanagement and would be “demotivating” for top CIRM management. Sheehy flared at comments by Ed Penhoet, former co-founder of Chiron, that singling out a specific individual to be added to staff constituted micromanagement. Sheehy said the Penhoet's comments were “condescending,” something that Penhoet said later that he did not intend.

Board Chairman Robert Klein said the concerns of the patient were legitimate. He said,

“The organization is under stress.”

Sheehy said, however, that Klein has failed to address the concerns for much too long.

Director Michael Friedman, CEO of the City of Hope in Los Angeles, noted that CIRM has not reached its legal cap of 50 employees, suggesting it could be fully staffed to help solve some of the issues. Director Ted Love, president of Nuvelo of San Carlos, Ca., asked,

"Are we trying to do much too inexpensively?”

He said the staff should not be subjected to “extraordinary unbearable long-term situations.”

CIRM President Alan Trounson indicated that staffing was a bit of a juggling act. He said more persons would be needed in the science office as CIRM gives out more money and adds more complex research to its oversight responsiblities.

At one point, Klein, who says he wrote Prop. 71, said,

“I made the mistake perhaps of setting a 50 person cap.”

Sheehy was upset about the inadequate budget documents presented to the directors' Finance Subcommittee last week. And he said the budget material presented this week also was not up to snuff. He said basic year-to-year financial comparisons remained missing along with “global” figures that would show complete totals for spending in various categories, such as legal and communications. Sheehy said he had asked for budget figures by function, which were not provided. And he declared that the proposed budget amounted to a “dereliction of our fiscal duty.”

Klein bridled at the comment, which he called a “gross distortion.” He said,

“I understand your frustrations but we have a mission. Let's not destroy our mission.”

Ultimately the budget was adopted on a 19-4 vote with the requirement that a 5 percent contingency fund be included. Added also was a requirement that Klein and Trounson come up with a plan within two weeks to solve the board support problem. The board will convene in a teleconference meeting to consider the proposal.

Following Thursday's session, Penhoet said,

“The board deserves more support if they think they need it.”

But Sheehy said, also after the meeting, he had little faith that the issue would be properly resolved, given past performance.

Structural Changes in CIRM? Preliminary Thoughts from California's Good Government Agency

SACRAMENTO – Significant structural changes affecting the leadership of the California stem cell agency would be made under preliminary recommendations of a staff report of the Little Hoover Commission, the state's governmental efficiency organization.

The size of the CIRM board would be reduced from 29 to 15, the dual CEO situation would be eliminated, salaries for the chairman and vice chairman would be halted and the super-majority quorums for board action would vanish.

The proposals, which are not yet official recommendations of the Little Hoover Commission, were unveiled Wednesday at a meeting of the group's CIRM subcommittee. The final report with modifications is likely to come up for approval in June.

Public comment on the plan, however, was severely hampered by the commission's refusal to make the document available to either CIRM or interested parties in keeping with the commission's longstanding practice of not publicly disclosing draft documents. Instead the public and CIRM heard a relatively quick oral overview.

Ironically, one of the charges of the Little Hoover Commission is to examine the transparency of CIRM. However, the commission's practice stands in sharp contrast to CIRM's policy of publicly disclosing its draft documents.

At one point, Stuart Drown, executive director of the commission, said that CIRM has worked hard at transparency, declaring,

"They put all kinds of stuff on the Web."

Other potential recommendations offered Wednesday include removal of the cap of 50 on the size of CIRM staff but retaining the 6 percent overhead limitation along with creation of procedures for possible removal of CIRM board members. Currently none exist under Prop. 71, the ballot initiative that created the $3 billion research effort.

The Little Hoover subcommittee also cited the need for a succession plan for CIRM leadership, including the chairman. It recommended a clear, revised, long-term plan for the organization that would lay out its plans for sustainability or shutdown. CIRM is widely regarded as a 10-year program, but there is no sunset provision on its work, which officially began in 2004.

CIRM Chairman Robert Klein has projected its existence for several years beyond 2014 and has mentioned the possibility of seeking additional bond funding, CIRM's only current source of significant cash. CIRM has the capability of creating a nonprofit organization, an unusual attribute among state agencies. Such an organization could possibly serve as a funding arm in the future.

Drown said a perception remains that the CIRM board is an "insiders' club." In addition to shrinking the size of the board, the initial recommendations suggested appointment of outside, independent individuals, possibly from the scientific community or the public, or both.

The subcommittee clearly shied away from any changes that would require another ballot measure, a procedure mandated by Prop. 71 for certain, major alterations in CIRM. The panel also appeared to be reluctant to recommend modification of the 70 percent, legislative vote requirement for other changes involving CIRM.

That super, super-majority vote standard does not apply to any other function in state government and was created by voter approval of Prop. 71.

Any changes recommended by the Little Hoover Commission would have to clear that 70 percent hurdle or be voluntarily adopted by CIRM -- if that is legally possible. CIRM could not, for example, reduce the size of the board on its own.

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., praised the commission's staff for its recommendations and generally expressed support.

Two representatives from CIRM attended the meeting, Don Gibbons, chief of communications, and James Harrison, outside counsel to CIRM. They spoke briefly during the meeting but engaged the commission staff outside on the sidewalk in nearly 100-degree heat following the meeting. Klein sent a letter to the commission, the text of which follows in an item below.

During the session, we expressed our concerns to the subcommittee about its secrecy involving draft reports. We also sent a letter to the Little Hoover Commission concerning the practice. The text of that letter follows the Klein letter.

Individuals interested in making comments about CIRM can send them to the Little Hoover Commission at at littlehoover@lhc.ca.gov.

LA Times Column Rips CIRM as Riddled with Conflicts and Sucking Up Precious Dollars

The first sentence in the article in the Los Angeles Times, California's largest circulation newspaper (1.2 million readers), says,

"In the annals of wrongheaded things done with the best intentions, the California stem cell program has always been in a category of its own."

And that's just the beginning. Next come rife conflicts of interest, spotty public disclosure, a "persistent ethical morass" and a multiplying potential for waste. Not to mention the 2004 ballot initiative that created CIRM through a political campaign of "exceptional intellectual dishonesty," led by the man who is now chairman of the $6 billion research program, Robert Klein (see photo).

The scathing piece was written by Times columnist Michael Hiltzik for Monday's edition of the Times, which says it has 1.2 million daily, generally well-educated readers. The home page of Times website, which has more than 11 million unique visitors a month, also linked to the article.

The activities of the California stem cell agency have rarely graced the pages of the Times. So CIRM is likely to be new subject to many, if not most of its readers, making it easier for a column such as Hiltzik's to have a significant, opinion-shaping impact.

Hiltzik makes his point of view abundantly clear. He writes that CIRM "threatens to suck up precious fiscal resources of a state with none to spare and is rife with conflicts of interest."

He continues,

"The institute is tangled in a persistent ethical morass. From the start, its safeguards against conflicts of interest by members of its 29-person governing board were sketchy, and provisions for vigorous debate over its goals and methods were nil."

Hiltzik says CIRM director John Reed should have been ousted from the board for attempting to overturn rejection of a grant to the organization he heads, the Burnham Institute. Hiltzik quotes figures from the California Stem Cell Report that show 18 institutions with representatives on the board (past and present) have received $552 million in CIRM grants as of last October.

Hiltzik writes,

"Lacking any truly independent members, the board is dominated by Klein and devoid of 'genuine debate,' observes UC Berkeley Law professor Kenneth Taymor, who spent months studying the body. Indeed, reading transcripts of the board's sessions, one sometimes gets the impression that the only vigorous debate among the members involves which historical figure Klein more resembles, Albert Schweitzer or Mahatma Gandhi."

Hiltzik also discusses the ongoing shift at CIRM towards product development. He quotes Arnold Kriegstein of UC San Francisco as saying he fears the move is motived by a "desire to come up with a real clinical triumph they could claim credit for. I'm concerned that in the rush to get there they may be spending a fair amount of funds on projects that are just not ready yet."

There is much more, including a defense of CIRM's strategy by its chief scientific officer Marie Csete.

Hiltzik's observations cannot be written off as the frothings of a journalistic lightweight. The author of three nonfiction books, he shared a Pulitzer Prize in 1999 for reporting on corruption in the entertainment industry. In 2004, he won a Gerald Loeb Award, one of the top national honors in financial journalism, for his columns. Earlier this month, he was a co-winner of another national business reporting prize for a Los Angeles Times series called "Shedding Risk."

It is safe to say that Hiltzik's latest column will not be warmly received by CIRM. It will add fuel to the state's Little Hoover Commission's investigation of CIRM. It will feed legislative efforts to ensure that Californians have affordable access to stem cell therapies that result from CIRM-funded research. And it will hamper both Klein's efforts to privately market state bonds to bail out CIRM and his lobbying efforts for a $10 billion federal, biotech stimulus package.

(Editor's note: What do you think about the Hiltzik column? You can make your comments by clicking on the word "comment" below. The comments are unmoderated and can be totally anonymous. Google, which houses this blog, makes it impossible to identify the authors in such a case. Or you can send your comments to djensen@californiastemcellreport.com for posting.)

CIRM's Financial Immunity

Just how protected is the California stem cell agency from the financial travails of the state of California?

Almost entirely.

During the legislative/gubernatorial budget stalemate earlier this year, nursing homes, hospitals and other private sector providers to the state did not get paid by the state for nearly three months. Some firms went out of business or had to borrow money because the state could not pay its bills.

That did not happen with those providing services to the state stem cell agency because of its unique and unprecedented constitutional position, which assures that it has cash regardless of how the rest of the state is affected.

CIRM's extraordinary position was mentioned briefly last month at the agency's Governance Subcommittee meeting.

John M. Simpson of Consumer Watchdog asked,

"Is it the case that because of the state's budget crisis, the vendors have not actually gotten paid? Does that affect the (grant) checks actually being handed over?"

CIRM Chairman Robert Klein responded,

"No, it doesn't. our funds are segregated from the state budget."

All of which raises significant governmental policy questions. One can make a case that stem cell research cannot proceed properly if it is cut back every time the governor cannot muscle a budget out of lawmakers. But should researchers be treated differently than hospitals? Should they be treated better than needy children dependent on state aid?

Locking up public money in special funds is part of the state's budgetary problem. However, there are no good answers that will satisfy everybody concerning the creation of special pockets of cash for what almost everybody agrees are worthwhile endeavors, whether they are stem cell research or special programs for gifted children.

Nonetheless, it is likely to appear a bit unseemly to a good segment of the public for the stem cell agency to hand out tens of millions of dollars while California is so hard pressed that it may have to ask the federal government for a $7 billion short term loan so that it can pay its bills.

California Lawmakers Make Stem Cell History

Another first has been scored in the brief history of California's unique and unprecedented, $3 billion stem cell research effort.

For the first time, California lawmakers have passed legislation that would affect the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, a tiny state agency that functions largely outside of the control of both the governor and the state Legislature. CIRM was deliberately created that way through an initiative measure passed by voters in 2004. No lawmakers or other elected officials had a say in its contents.

The complex proposal, Prop. 71, set an extremely high bar against tinkering in its operations by the legislature. The ballot measure required a 70 percent vote of both houses to pass legislation that would affect CIRM – a super, supermajority vote that does not exist for any other bill. Even the state budget requires only a two-thirds vote. That hurdle has been so difficult to clear that California is now deadlocked in a record-setting, two-month long budget crisis.

Nonetheless, lawmakers last week sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a bill – SB1565 – by Sens. Sheila Kuehl(see photo), D-Santa Monica, and George Runner, R-Antelope Valley, designed to ensure affordable access to stem cell therapies developed as a result of state funding. The bill was opposed by CIRM, industry and some patient advocates. They complained about its lack of flexibility, economic impediments and a change that would make it easier to fund research that was not based on human embryonic stem cells.

Kuehl said the bill is needed because Prop. 71 "lacks any provisions" to ensure that poor and uninsured Californians will be able to receive state-funded therapies at "the best available prices." She is joined by a raft of supporters included health access groups, retired persons, nurses and others.

The governor has until Sept. 30 to act on the bill. Otherwise it will go into effect without his signature. He could veto it. An override of the veto would seem remote even though the bill passed overwhelmingly. No negative votes were recorded until the measure hit the Assembly and then only a handful. It finally went to the governor after the Senate on Aug. 29 concurred, 37-1, in Assembly amendments.

Schwarzenegger has been a good friend of the stem cell agency and has garnered considerable favorable publicity touting it as a model for a way to get things done. Our bet is that he will veto the bill, but we could be wrong.

(Editor's note: The governor has pledged to veto any bill that comes his way until the budget crisis is resolved. However, he has breached that promise several times already. But his pledge could be good political cover for a veto if he chooses to use it. That also assumes no budget will be in place by Sept. 30.)

The Primrose Path of Stem Cell Research in California

Campaign rhetoric and reality: No, this isn't about this year's presidential election campaign, but about the California stem cell agency, its seductive origins and the sweet promises to voters in 2004.

Those matters have surfaced as part of this week's meeting of the directors of the $3 billion institute, which was born nearly four years ago in what is one of the ultimate political acts – an initiative campaign in which voters thrust aside lawmakers, seize control of the reins of government, write legal code themselves and raise and allocate billions of dollars.

All fueled by campaign promises – in the case of Prop. 71 – that not only will sick people will be cured but California residents, businesses and researchers will receive special treatment.

Well, not exactly, CIRM now says, particularly in the case of California businesses.

The stem cell agency delivered the bad news as the result of a request by Sacramento attorney, John R. Valencia of the firm of Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, on behalf of an unnamed California-headquartered life sciences corporation. Valencia also represents, among others, the California Healthcare Institute, which, in turn, represents California's biomedical industry. That organization has members on its board of directors who also serve as directors of CIRM.

Valencia made a seemingly simple request of CIRM: define "California supplier." The term is found in Prop. 71, which states:

"The ICOC (CIRM's board of directors) shall establish standards to ensure that grantees purchase goods and services from California suppliers to the extent reasonably possible, in a good faith effort to achieve a goal of more than 50 percent of such purchases from California suppliers."

Unfortunately, the two words in question are not otherwise spelled out in the initiative. And it is clear now that CIRM wants few restrictions on where it goes for outside, private contracting. Valencia, however, argues that CIRM can find virtually everything it needs in California, which is not called the Golden State for nothing.

It is not a trivial matter. In his letter to CIRM, which comes before its directors on Wednesday, Valencia points out that it could ultimately run to $300 million.

Valencia says it is "vitally necessary" to define California supplier. He says the definition is virtually required by Prop. 71 whose overall objective is to advance California economic interests. He wrote:

"Why send hundreds of millions of California taxpayer dollars outside the state, where it does nothing to create California jobs, economic growth or tax revenue?"

Tamar Pachter, general counsel to CIRM, has an answer, which boils down to this: CIRM is not legally required to give preference to California suppliers beyond what is stated in Prop. 71 as well as existing law. It's a "goal" not a "mandate," she writes in response to Valencia's request. Weasel words in Prop. 71 -- she explains, although that is not her terminology -- provide plenty of wiggle room. Those terms include "reasonably possible," "good faith effort" and "goal."

We can chalk up that verbiage to CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, who led the initiative campaign and claims responsibility for writing Prop. 71, although other attorneys were involved as well.

More than one issue underlies this matter. One is the question of campaign promises. Some say that CIRM should be measured against the promises of the campaign, however overstated they may have been. Others say that no one should be so naïve as to believe that the sweet talk of a campaign has any connection to the ultimate reality.

Another matter involves the practical realities of running an enterprise involving stem cell research, clearly a global endeavor. Parochial requirements concerning California preferences make CIRM's task more difficult – not easier.

Nonetheless, the stem cell institute must recognize its obligation to California voters in clear and unmistakable ways – perhaps not necessarily in this particular case. But it had its way with voters in 2004. Failing to be responsive could have unfortunate consequences. Hell hath no fury like a voter scorned.

New CIRM Director, Salk, UC San Diego, Coziness and Much More

The Salk Institute for Biological Studies seems to be doing well in connection with the $3 billion stem cell agency. So is the University of California campus in San Diego.

At least so it appears from the latest appointment to the 29-member Oversight Committee that serves as the board of directors for CIRM. On Friday (Aug. 31), Democratic Lt. Gov. John Garamendi announced that he had named Marsha Chandler to the committee as one of four executive officers from a California research organization who sit on the panel.

Chandler is executive vice president and chief operating officer of the Salk Institute in La Jolla, Ca., a job she has held since July 1. That was the date when Richard Murphy retired both as president of Salk, which is a $100 million-a-year enterprise, and from the CIRM Oversight Committee. Early in August, Murphy was hired for six months by the Oversight Committee to serve as the interim president of CIRM. Murphy has said he will not participate in any matters affecting Salk. Chandler was appointed to fill the vacancy left by Murphy's departure from the Oversight Committee.

Prior to joining Salk, Chandler was the No. 2 executive at the UC San Diego campus. The dean of the medical school there, David Brenner, also serves on the Oversight Committee.

The Oversight Committee awards research and lab construction grants to academic institutions such as the University of California and non-profit institutions such as Salk. The committee also sets the rules and standards for awarding the grants. Oversight Committee members are barred by law, however, from voting directly on grants to institutions in which they have economic ties.

So far UC San Diego has received $14.8 million in CIRM grants. Salk has received $6.6 million.

Similar relationships exist involving CIRM and other UC campuses, other universities and other nonprofits, and it all appears suspiciously cozy to many outsiders. But there is no evidence of any wrongdoing. Nonetheless, the links between the persons who control the $3 billion in taxpayer funds and the beneficiaries of that largess virtually demand that the Oversight Committee and CIRM operate with more openness and transparency than most other state agencies or the NIH. Those entities are subject to executive and legislative controls from which CIRM is constitutionally exempt. The stem cell institute, however, has been reluctant at times to make its operations totally transparent. For example, it refuses to disclose the names of public or private universities or research organizations that seek grants until after the grants are approved, which makes it impossible for the public or other interested parties to comment.

Chandler's academic background is in political science, but she has been a university administrator for nearly 20 years. At Salk she fills a newly created position, one aimed at giving Salk's yet-to-be-named, new president more time for scientific work. Ironically, CIRM cannot easily make similar executive management changes because its executive structure is locked in state law that, for all practical purposes, is impossible to change. Chalk that up to the drafters of Prop. 71, the ballot initiative that created CIRM. For readers not familiar with California law, an initiative is drafted by private individuals, usually in secret and outside of the legislative process. We have never seen a list of all the persons involved in drafting the language of Prop. 71, but California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein takes credit for writing most of it.

A check of news sources shows that Chandler has not made headlines in San Diego, although her name surfaced along with many others in stories about the UC executive pay flap and a piece in the San Diego Union-Tribune about the UC housing assistance program. Ironically, CIRM is barred by law from offering such housing assistance in its search for a new, permanent president.

Two vacancies still exist on the Oversight Committee, and it is not known when they will be filled.

(An appeal to readers: If you know of the names of individuals who participated in writing Prop. 71, please send their names along to the California Stem Cell Report – djensen@californiastemcellreport.com. Or you can just post them anonymously, if necessary, by clicking on the word "comments" below.)

Stem Cell Snippets: McGee, Lansing, Prinz

Pricing Stem Cell Cures – The California stem cell agency is still wrestling with anticipated prices of stem cell therapies. Not directly, mind you. It comes under the topic of intellectual property. Glenn McGee, director of the Alden March Bioethics Institute, wrote recently about a drug pricing issue that could resonate in the future – if not currently -- with CIRM. The issue involves Merck and its cervical cancer drug, Gardasil, which he said is priced out of the reach of millions of women. McGee cited a report that Merck has spent $48 million in the last 10 years on lobbying. He wrote:

"If the company can afford to spend huge amounts convincing legislators the vaccine is something every woman deserves, it can afford to take its own advice, and reduce the price."

Variations of McGee's argument are certain to surface in the future involving stem cell cures. Plus they will be freighted with heated rhetoric about how those cures owe their very existence to funds provided by California taxpayers. Something for the good burghers on CIRM Oversight Committee to consider.

Another Presidential Search – Sherry Lansing, a member of the Oversight Committee for the California stem cell agency, has added more to her plate. She will serve as vice chair of the search committee to find a new president for the University of California. As a CIRM director, she is already involved in the search for a new president for CIRM in addition to her other many philanthropic activities. Incidentally, the current UC president earns $405,000 annually, which is apparently not enough to attract a CIRM president. However, the UC position has other benefits, but may or may not involve less aggravation than the CIRM post.

Prisons vs. Stem Cell Research -- California attorney Kristie Prinz wants to know. Writing on her California Biotech Law Blog, she raises a fundamental question about the $3 billion California stem cell agency,

"One cannot help but wonder if the money couldn't have been better spent elsewhere, even if you are a supporter of the biotech industry and of the concept of the research generally. Our schools, health care, keeping drugs off the street, illegal immigration, crime, overcrowded prisons, and terrorism are just some of the many issues facing this state that could have also been better funded with the same money. Did we as taxpayers make a good decision when we voted to use the funds instead on stem cell research? It's a thought-provoking question that all Californians should consider."

Klein, Chimeras and the Yolo Land Deal

In the eyes of some, the unusual lobbying by the chairman of the $3 billion California stem cell agency on behalf of an effort to swap farmland for a new, nonprofit stem cell research institute is not necessarily unethical or inappropriate.

No public hue or cry has erupted over the issue. Yes, two stem cell agency watchdogs have expressed dismay or outrage. One newspaper said Robert Klein should give up his state post if he continues to pursue the lobbying effort. But another good government advocate privately said he did not detect illegal or even unethical conduct.

So what's at stake here? One question centers on whether Klein has something to gain that conflicts or appears to conflict with his role as a state employee. Another question involves whether he is using inappropriately his position as chairman of the CIRM. Would he have been asked to lobby for the land deal if he were not overseeing the agency?

The answer to that question is: Probably not. Klein would be little more than another Darrell Issa if he were not the chair of CIRM's Oversight Committee. “Darrell who?” you might ask. Issa, like Klein, played a major role into a ballot measure that has had an enormous impact on California. In Issa's case, he financed, with $1.7 million of his own money, the effort that placed the gubernatorial recall on the 2003 ballot and sent Arnold Schwarzenegger to the state house. Issa was widely believed to be considering a run for governor. But today he remains an obscure California congressman.

Klein would have lapsed into similar obscurity without his high visibility post at CIRM. He now travels to Australia and Korea to hobnob with international stem cell scientists. He is profiled by Fortune magazine. He is an articulate, aggressive global salesman for human embryonic stem cell research.

But that is almost totally due to his state post. He heads his own private, national stem cell lobbying group in California, but that does not provide the prestige and power that accrues as the result of heading a concern that is giving away money this year at the rate of $29,000 an hour.

Tomorrow(7/12), Klein plans to bring his state-endowed prestige and power to bear on five Yolo County supervisors, some of whom have greater political ambitions and need to raise funds. Failure to act favorably on the 2,800-acre land use change could dry up some potential sources of funding, some of whom may well have ties to Klein, who is a prodigious fundraiser. Those considerations will certainly be going through the minds of supervisors as they hear him speak.

A spokeswoman says that Klein will not benefit financially from the deal that would make farmland along Interstate 80 between Sacramento and UC Davis available for development. In return, Yolo County, one of the top tomato producers in the nation, would be home to a stem cell research center with a $300 million or so endowment. Klein would chair the new institute. The Sacramento Bee reported that Klein is “cagey” about whether he would hold his state position at the same time. However, the proposed nonprofit would certainly look to CIRM for funding of at least some of its activities. Even if Klein has left CIRM by the time those grants are sought, he will still enjoy considerable, residual clout as the result of his CIRM connections. The situation is akin to those Pentagon officials who leave the government and go to work for enterprises seeking lucrative Defense Department contracts.

Klein is a multimillionaire real estate investment banker, who continues to operate his own business. He and Angelo Tsakopolous, the Sacramento developer and major political contributor seeking the land use change, go back a few years, but Klein's aides say they have never done business together. Klein's association with Tsakopolous has already proved beneficial. The developer's firm, AKT, gave $125,000 to Klein's lobbying group, Americans for Stem Cell Therapies and Cures, last April. If the Yolo deal is successful, it could lead to joint real estate work in the future. Tsakopoulos is a firm believer in building good relationships.

From Klein's point of view, he believes more research is better. To fail to bend his best efforts to promote the field and develop more resources would be to short change a campaign he has already devoted years to. Should he remain aloof from an ambitious project because of the tender sensitivities of some? No, he would answer. That's not the way to bring cures to millions of suffering people.

In stem cell circles, scientists talk of the “yuck factor” and chimeras, the mythological beasts composed of more than one animal. Some say that if a stem cell experiment creates such a creature and generates a “yuck” response, the experiment should be dropped.

Klein, who is a man of many parts, generates a “yuck” for his Yolo lobbying, his harshest critics say. We do not entirely disagree. His multiple roles raise questions about his primary priority. Serving as chairman of CIRM was perceived under Prop. 71 as a fulltime position complete with a $412,500 salary (which Klein to his credit does not take). Klein wrote substantial portions of that law. It is now time for him to respect its intent.

(Correction: An earlier version of this said CIRM was scheduled to approve grants at a rate of $54,000 an hour this year.)