Quote of The Day: Noah's Ark and the California Stem Cell Agency

'''CIRM operates at the nexus of the Political (with a capital P), scientific, institutional, and business forces of an aggressive state that views economic development as a priority.' Its organization, (Hamilton Moses) adds, doesn't help. ' 'Noah's Ark' boards, where each member is appointed to represent a constituency, rarely work.'"
 --  Hamilton Moses is a biomedical consultant in Virginia who focuses on non-profit governance, quoted in Nature Reports Stem Cells, from article Sept. 13, 2007, by Monya Baker

CIRM Directors Tackle Touchy Management Issues

Key leaders of the California stem cell agency have scheduled a 60-minute meeting tomorrow to decide long-standing, thorny matters at the $3 billion enterprise, ranging from the province of the new chairman and the current president to just exactly who is a senior officer of CIRM.

The matters, which come under the rubric of "internal governance policy," have been around for some time – in some cases for years, particularly the much-criticized dual executive arrangement involving the chair and the president. In this latest episode, only bits and piece of that management issue have surfaced. (Here are links to an introductory memo and the text of the proposal.)

The proposed changes in the structure of CIRM involve both major and minor matters, including the agency's bond financing and budgeting and adding staff in the chair's office, boosting it from eight to nine persons. Currently CIRM has about 50 employees. The board has 29 members.

The governance proposals were originally prepared by CIRM President Alan Trounson and grew out of the evaluation last year of his performance by the CIRM governing board. The plan has triggered an unusual exchange of memos on the agency's web site that illustrates the contentiousness of some of the issues. First is a "Memo from two staff members to Governance Subcommittee of Board." Then comes a "Memo from Vice-Chair Senator Art Torres in response to memo from two staff members."

The nomenclature describing the memos has significance. The description is controlled by the office of the chair, which posts material to meeting agendas -- in this case the directors' Governance Subcommittee, which is the group that meets tomorrow. The memo from "two staff members" did not originate with ordinary CIRM employees but Trounson and Ellen Feigal, who is the recently hired No. 2 executive at CIRM with the title of vice president for research and development.

The "two staff members" memo takes issue with a number of provisions in the proposed internal governance policy. The memo also appears to seek a 30-day delay in considering the plan. At that time, Trounson and Feigal propose consideration of a presidential reoganization plan as well as another from the new chair, who is to be chosen June 22-23 at a meeting in San Diego.

Among other things, the Trounson-Feigal memo says the new chair may not be qualified to supervise public meeting and conflict of interest issues as well as the legal and financial accountability of the CIRM board. Thus, they suggest a provision to that effect in the new policy should be deleted. Trounson and Feigal said the executive director of the CIRM board and the new public media director should not – and they underlined not – be considered senior officers of CIRM. They also said the new position of chief financial officer, who will direct budget and bond financing matters, should reside in the office of the president for the purposes of budgeting. Presumably that would give the president a bigger handle on the compensation for the CFO, who is supposed to report to both the chair and the president.

In his response, CIRM co-vice chairman Torres took issue with nearly everything in the Trounson memo.

All this involves devilish details that can add up to much more than their surface appearance. During debate last month on the plan at both the Governance Subcommittee and the full board meetings, the discussion became so touchy (see debate excerpt below) that the committee and the board felt compelled to go into executive session. During the board meeting, Trounson exited the room before the topic came up. Feigal and Elona Baum, CIRM general counsel, were left to represent his position and ran into some resistance from board members.

Given that a new chairman is yet to be elected, two board members, co-vice Chairman Duane Roth, a San Diego businessman, and Claire Pomeroy, dean of the UC Davis Medical School, have objected to action on the plan, even though it is couched as a "starting point." The response has been that the plan has been in the works since Trounson's evaluation last year and needs to be moved forward.

It would be easy to dismiss the flap over internal governance as inside bureaucratic baseball. But the proposal and discussion about it highlight issues at the heart of how CIRM does its business for the people of California. Without effective management, it is not at all certain that taxpayers will get a meaningful return on their $6 billion investment (including interest). The issues also speak to the limitations and handicaps that Prop. 71, drafted by outgoing Chairman Robert Klein, places on the research effort. The 10,000-word proposal wrote into state law management minutia, which is now nearly impossible to change, also because of Prop. 71. Beyond that, CIRM and its conduct are  providing a civics lesson in whether the ballot initiative process can or should be used in connection with complex California issues. Finally, how CIRM conducts its affairs will have major impact on the hESC research worldwide and help determine whether the public supports stem cell research or regards it as something less than worthy.

Also on Monday's agenda is the first-ever code of conduct for the CIRM board. (See here and here.)

If you are interested in taking part or listening in on Monday's meeting, teleconference locations are available throughout California, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, South San Francisco, La Jolla, Irvine, Stanford and Palo Alto. Specific addresses can be found on the meeting agenda.

Here is an exchange from the May 4 CIRM board meeting debate on the internal governance policy.
CIRM Management -- Excerpt from debate at the directors meeting May 4, 2011

Fresh Approach Urged on CIRM Chair Selection, Self-evaluation of CIRM Board Included

Directors of the California stem cell agency are being asked to make a "clean start" in their effort to elect a new chair of the $3 billion enterprise – an effort that would also include a self-assessment of the board itself.

The appeal is being made by Claire Pomeroy, a CIRM director and dean of the UC Davis School of Medicine and is scheduled to be considered at a Jan. 26 meeting of the CIRM directors' Governance Subcommittee. The full board will take up the panel's recommendations the next day.

In an email to Sherry Lansing, chair of the Governance panel, Pomeroy said,

"In the spirit of a clean start and an open process, I would suggest that the Governance Committee consider proactively attaining input from all the board members in two areas:
"1. Self-assessment of board performance/function to date
"2. Desired attributes of board chair"

In her email, Pomeroy noted an article last month in Science magazine, headlined "CIRM: The Good, the Bad And the Ugly." Pomeroy said her recommendations would help to "to ensure an open process free of conflict of interest and personal agendas." She said,

"This is our chance to emphasize the mission over in-fighting and can define what kind of organization CIRM and the board will be."

Asked for a comment., John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., said that Pomeroy's suggestions sound "like exactly the right approach."

Pomeroy's proposal and other important background material were posted on the CIRM web site on Saturday, 11 days in advance of the meeting. CIRM has had considerable difficulty in posting such material in a timely fashion. But the postings for the Jan. 26 session represent a substantial improvement and offer the public and interested parties an opportunity to make thoughtful comments in time for the meeting or to make plans to attend.

Pomeroy said she borrowed the self-assessment plan from another organization on whose board she serves. The plan would involve a series of questions for all 29 board members with "Yes/Sometimes/No answers" and a section for free-form comments.

Some of the questions proposed by Pomeroy:

• "Board focuses on the appropriate strategic, fiduciary, and generative issues that guide the work of the organization
• "Board attends to policy related activities that guide the work of management staff
• "Board is composed of a diverse group of individuals with a variety of skills to consider the interests of the organization's broad constituencies
• "Board avoids getting into administrative/management details
• "Board members offer a diversity of opinions and addresses issues in a respectful manner
• "Board is too influenced by the views of the president and/or other management staff

Another section would deal with individual board members. Some proposed questions:

• "I understand my responsibilities as a board member
• "I come to the board meetings fully prepared to participate
• "I receive adequate information, presented in a concise and focused manner, on matters that come to the board in a timely manner
• "At board meetings, I feel comfortable raising and discussing dissenting or contrary opinions
• "I think about the work of the organization (CIRM) between board calls and meetings
• "I understand the issue of conflict of interest and have no conflicts other than those disclosed in writing
• "I receive personal satisfaction from my role as board member."/li>
  

On the subject of desired attributes of a new chair, Pomeroy said,

"It seems to me that we don't always hear from all the board members about their thoughts on this issue and as a committee we should know the ideas of all the (board) members."

She proposed a survey of all board members asking such things as:

• "Desired attributes of a chair (e.g. collaborative, etc)- list top 3
• "Desired skill sets of a chair (e.g. advocacy, financial, etc)- list top 3
• "Desired background/experience of a chair (e.g. academics, patient advocate, industry experience, etc)- list top 3
• "Recommended time commitment of chair (e.g. full time, 1 day a week, attendance at meetings and availability by phone in between, etc)
• "Recommended financial compensation for chair (e.g. salary range)"

Included on the agenda for the Governance meeting in Burlingame is a memo on the legal criteria for the CIRM chair.

 Another issue dealing with openness and transparency is also on the committee's agenda. It consists of a request from the Citizens Financial Accountability Oversight Committee that CIRM post on its web site the statements of economic interests and travel expense claims by the CIRM board and executive staff. The committee, which reviews the financial operations of CIRM, made the request nearly a year ago.

The panel is chaired by the state's top fiscal officer, Controller John Chiang, one of four state officials who makes nominations for the CIRM chair. Chiang's office posts the economic interest statements and expense claims of its top staff on its web site, as did former Gov. Arnold Schwarznegger. It is unclear whether Gov. Jerry Brown will follow the practice.

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this story did not mention that the Governance Subcommittee's recommendations will be taken up by the full board of directors on Jan. 27.)

More Coverage on the New Research VP Position at CIRM

For more on creation of the new VP of research and development at CIRM, see a posting by Monya Baker on The Niche, Nature magazine's stem cell blog.

Among other things, Baker wrote,

“In the last organizational plan, (former chief scientific officer Marie) Csete had reported to (CIRM President Alan) Trounson, and Patricia Olson, director of scientific activities, had reported to Csete. Science officers, who decide what kinds of grant programs will be offered, reported to Olson. Under the new organizational chart, Olson will report directly to President Trounson, as will the vice president of R&D. (The general counsel and the vice president of operations already report to Trounson).”

In a related development, seven executive search firms have responded to CIRM's RFP to help in finding a Csete replacement.

In response to a question from the California Stem Cell Report, Don Gibbons, chief communications officer, said the firms are: Korn/Ferry International, McCormack & Farrow, Levin and Company, Caliber Associates, Russell Reynolds Associates, Spencer Stuart and The A-list.

CIRM paid Spencer Stuart about $500,000 previously for two presidential searches. In neither case did Spencer Stuart produce a candidate who would accept the job.

Also at yesterday's meeting, Trounson left open the possibility that CIRM might have to pay more than $332,000 to fill the position. That is the top of the current salary range at CIRM for the post. Csete earned $310,000. Trounson, however, said yesterday he hopes to fill the position without boosting the salary range.

Support for Public Health Care Option, but "Nyet" to Hoover

SACRAMENTO – The California stem cell agency appears to be on track to reject nearly all of the recommendations for improvements in its operations made by the state's good government agency, the Little Hoover Commission.

Meeting yesterday in a teleconference session, the directors' Legislative Subcommittee concluded its discussion of the Hoover report with a consensus “nyet” to the commission.

The panel earlier last month rejected the most sweeping recommendations, including reducing the size of the board of directors from 29 to 15 and trimming the powers of its chairman. The action was taken based on an opinion from the CIRM's outside counsel that the legislature could not make those changes.

Yesterday, the subcommittee went along (no vote was taken) with the CIRM staff response, which can be found here and here. The panel did agree to poll its scientific grant reviewers on whether they would resign if their statements of economic interests were made public. It also agreed to post vote tallies in the future by the board of directors on grant applications.

Art Torres, chairman of the subcommittee and a former state legislator, will prepare a report on the group's discussion and present it to the full board at its meeting Aug. 19-20 for ratification.

The Legislative Subcommittee, on a 6-3 vote, also expressed support for a public option in the national health care reform legislation. Director Jeff Sheehy, a UC San Francisco communications manager and AIDs activist, and Torres backed the effort.

Sheehy said access to health care and future stem cell therapies is critical to CIRM's mission. Duane Roth, co-vice chairman of the board of directors, opposed the endorsement, citing problems elsewhere in the world with government-run health care plans.

The endorsement will come before the full board at its meeting later this month.

Also meeting yesterday was the full CIRM board, again in a teleconference session, to discuss a proposal by President Alan Trounson connected to finding a replacement for Chief Scientific Officer Marie Csete, who has resigned.

Trounson plans to create a new vice president for research and development to enhance CIRM's engagement with industry. The title and additional responsibilities could also make it more appealing to possible job candidates.

Trounson's proposal does not require board approval but he is obviously taking care to ensure support from the CIRM board.

The plan hit a bump when Claire Pomeroy, dean of the UC Davis School of Medicine, raised questions about reporting ambiguities in Trounson's organizational chart, which seemed to conflict with the reporting lines in the job description dealing with basic science research.

Sherry Lansing, chairperson of the Governance Subcommittee and former head of a Hollywood film studio, indicated that the plan seemed to justify the creation of a third VP. In that case, the executive director of scientific activities would be designated as a vice president.

In other action, the board added Gerald Levey, dean of the UCLA School of Medicine, and Ted Love, a Bay Area biomedical businessman, to the newly created Evaluation Subcommittee. Levey was then elected chairman of the committee and Francisco Prieto, a Sacramento physician, vice chairman.

The full list of committee members can be found here, minus the Levey and Love additions.

For the record, we should note that some of the material for yesterday's two meetings was posted extremely late on the CIRM web site. One memo dealing with the Hoover report was not available at teleconference location in Sacramento, although it may have been posted on the Web at the time of the meeting. The staff's discussion draft of the Hoover report did not appear until the day before the meeting. Likewise for the organizational chart.

CIRM Dwarfed in Biotech Patent Fight

The battle to protect the biotech industry from generic drug makers, a war in which CIRM is a dogface, is going swimmingly, according to an article this week by The Associated Press.

In a piece headlined “The influence game: Biotech drug lobbying war,” Alan Fram wrote that the weapons include “millions of dollars in lobbying, thousands in campaign contributions and uncounted visits to members of Congress. And one noteworthy letter.”

His conclusion?

“The lobbying battle has so far been one-sided. The Senate health committee voted 16-7 for a 12-year (patent) protection period last month, while (Rep. Henry) Waxman's House energy panel voted 47-11 for 12 years of protection last Friday on an amendment by Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., who has numerous biotech firms in or near her Silicon Valley district.”

CIRM is a decidedly bit player on this stage, given the vast stakes and expenditures involved. The agency has written a letter – NOT the one cited by Fram – after directors, over the last few months, debated whether a state-funded agency should lobby to protect the biotech industry. That letter in turn generated another letter from U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. (Both can be found here.)

CIRM also has hired a Washington lobbying firm, the Podesta Group, an unusual step for a state agency, paying it $240,000 for 10 months work. But Podesta's assignments from CIRM seem to involve more than patent protection.

All of CIRM's efforts are hardly a dribble on the health care reform playing field, where all the action is taking place. The Associated Press article, distributed nationally, spells out how money talks when it comes to locking up intellectual property. Fram described a “huge disparity” in cash. He wrote,

“Representing biotech companies, the Biotechnology Industry Organization has spent $3.7 million lobbying so far this year. Their ally, (the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America), has spent $13.1 million — the second most of any group that lobbies in Washington.

“The main group opposing them, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, has spent $1.1 million lobbying this year. Another group, a coalition of generic drug companies, insurers and large employers, has spent another $180,000, though most of its members — like AARP and the General Motors Corp. — are more focused on the overall (health reform) bill and are devoting few resources to the generic fight.”

Fram continued,

“All that money has let the biotech industry launch a lobbying blitz, with targets including lawmakers from biotech-heavy states like California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and North Carolina.

“The biotech organization has brought its CEOs to Washington, and has run print and radio ads in the states of pivotal lawmakers. The pharmaceutical association has helped organize lobbying by universities that conduct biotech research and venture capitalists who invest in such firms, and paid for a Duke University study that concluded biotech firms need 12 to 16 years of protection from generic competitors to break even.”

All of which brings us to a business maxim of Jack Welch, the fabled executive who once led General Electric. He did not mess with enterprises in which GE could not be No. 1 or No. 2. Even today, his Web site says that maxim “stopped the decades-long practice of sprinkling money everywhere.”

The California stem cell agency is not even close to being No. 1 or No. 2 in the biotech patent protection game. That is something for CIRM directors to think about as they consider their priorities later this month when they deal with their strategic plan. Their grant portfolio is just about to hit $1 billion. They have only a tiny staff to oversee those expenditures and to hand out another $2 billion over the next few years. They will soon launch a new $210 million grant round, the largest research round ever for CIRM. And they will enter new, uncharted waters with a risky $500 million biotech lending program. A sharper focus on essentials may be in order.

A Look Behind a 13-word Matter for CIRM Directors

A bureaucratic yawner – at least that seems to be the appearance of one of the matters before the directors of the $3 billion California stem cell agency on Thursday.

But appearances are sometimes deceptive. And in this case, the issue is freighted with baggage related to the performance of CIRM Chairman Robert Klein and President Alan Trounson. And it goes to touchy matters involving CIRM directors and their oversight of CIRM.

Agenda item No. 3 simply says “consideration of appointment of at-large members and chair and vice-chair for Evaluation Subcommittee.”

The matter comes before the board as it is about to establish – for the first time in nearly five years – a formal evaluation procedure for its chairman and president. The procedure will also include the vice chairmen of the board of directors.

One could make something of a case that formal evaluations were not necessarily called for earlier because until recently Klein had declined a salary. The former vice chairman also refused pay. Now, however, one of the co-vice chairmen and Klein both receive half-time salaries, respectively $75,000 and $150,000.

Director Ricardo Azziz, chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Hopsital in Los Angeles, put it this way last spring,

“We have been remiss and we are now backtracking to make sure that we have this.”

In late April, CIRM directors created their Evaluation Subcommittee. But they did not settle upon the at-large members or the chair or vice chair of the panel.

The subject triggered a contentious debate during which some directors expressed concerns about public appearances and conflicts of interests because the CIRM vice chairmen and chairman would be serving on the Evaluation Subcommittee, even though they would recused when their performances came up.

According to the transcript, Azziz said,

“There is a potential for the perception of conflict of interest. While I think it is crucial that we obtain feedback from the chair and vice chairs regarding the other members of that group performance, I think that having them as a member of the group raises a significant risk of conflict of interest. And I'm unaware of any other evaluation team, for example, a financial oversight committee, that would include the CFO that is composed similarly.”

Director Carmen Puliafito, dean of the USC medical school, said the committee created a “perception of self-dealing and self-interest.”

Nonetheless the directors approved the structure of the committee, which was presented by Sherry Lansing, chair of the Governance Committee and a former head of a Hollywood film studio. She said Claire Pomeroy, dean of the UC Davis medical school and co-chair of the governance panel, took the lead in coming up with the structure. Lansing indicated that other possibilities were rejected because they appeared to lack support.

Director Jeff Sheehy, a communications manager with UC San Francisco, offered a motion that would have made Lansing and Pomeroy the co-chairs of the Evaluation Subcommittee in addition to their roles on the governance panel.

He said they were most familiar with the evaluation process. But his effort failed after it was opposed by Klein. Initially Klein said the Evaluation Subcommittee should decide who should be the chair, although Klein normally names the chairs of subcommittees. Later, he indicated he would be willing to have the full board select the head of the evaluation panel, setting the stage for this week's meeting.

The session is available to the public at many locations throughout the state. Specific addresses can be found on the agenda.

The Meaning of "Further" and a $3 Billion Science Program

Patient advocate Don Reed has pulled together a lengthy piece on a proposed overhaul of the California stem cell agency, concluding that that the $3 billion enterprise does not need to be fixed.

Reed said CIRM is doing “a terrific job.” Writing on his blog, stemcellbattles.com, he said,

“Why should major changes be imposed on such an outstanding program?”

Reed wrote yesterday about the recommendations of the Little Hoover Commission, the state's good government agency, and a meeting earlier this month of the CIRM directors' Legislative Subcommittee.

The heart of Reed's article deals with whether a vote of the people is required on five Hoover recommendations, including trimming the size of the board from 29 to 15 and reducing the powers of the chairman, who has responsibilities that overlap with the president. Both the size of the board and the dual executive situation have created difficulties for CIRM.

Proposition 71, which created the agency nearly five years ago, says the legislature can make changes in CIRM only if they “further” the purposes of the act. Otherwise, a vote of the people is needed to alter the ballot initiative.

That's where the issue hangs. What does further mean? CIRM's lawyers, in an opinion sought by Chairman Robert Klein, have opined that five of the Hoover recommendations require a vote of the people. The Hoover Commission says it is an open question. And as Reed points out in his piece, we told the CIRM Legislative Subcommittee that other, equally capable attorneys could find that the recommendations in question could be legally enacted by state lawmakers.

Reed, an unabashed supporter of CIRM, explores the issue in some detail and notes that it will come before the full board in August. An interim report from the Legislative Subcommittee is scheduled for Thursday of this week.

CIRM Director Love Wades into the Trenches at CIRM

It is not exactly an internship, but one of the directors of the California stem cell agency is working as a volunteer at CIRM during the next few months.

The director is Ted Love, a physician and businessman, who until recently was CEO of Nuvelo, Inc., of San Carlos, Ca. He has served on the CIRM board since its first meeting in December 2005.

Earlier this month, CIRM announced that Love will be assisting the agency's management one to two days a week until CIRM appoints a new chief scientific officer. The agency noted that Love has “extensive experience bringing medical therapies to the market.” CIRM said Love will be of “considerable value” in connection with the $210 million disease team grant round scheduled for approval later this year.

Love sits on the board of directors of Arca biopharma, Inc., of Broomfield, Colo., Affymax, Inc., of Palo Alto, Ca., and Santarus, Inc., of San Diego, Ca. Arca is the biopharmaceutical company that absorbed Nuvelo earlier this year. Affymax is another biopharmaceutical business, and Santarus acquires and develops products dealing with gastrointestinal problems.

Given ongoing issues about conflicts of interest at CIRM and more recent questions about micromanagement by CIRM directors, we posed several questions to the agency about Love's involvement.

Amy Adams, CIRM communications manager, responded. She said Love will not be acting chief scientific officer in the absence of Marie Csete, who has announced her resignation. Adams said,

“Ted Love is acting as a part time advisor to the president on the overall architecture of our grants programs.”

We asked,

“Does any of his work involve potential conflicts of interest considering his involvement in Arca and potential future employment in the biotech industry? “

Adams' response:

“No. To the extent that any potential conflicts arise, Ted will recuse himself from participating in the decision.”

She said none of his work will involve applications from any company that has applied for a grant or that is expected to apply for a grant. Adams said that it is “uncertain at this time” what role he will play in the review of the disease team applications by the grants working group.

We also asked,

“How can Love fulfill his oversight responsibilities as a CIRM board member when he is actually performing the tasks that could come under board scrutiny?”

Adams replied,

“He will be assisting the science office on an interim basis and does not expect that his brief tenure at CIRM will interfere with his oversight responsibilities. Indeed, he thinks it will give him a better understanding of CIRM's internal operations.”

She said that Love will receive no compensation for his work, including the per diem granted board members for meetings.

We also queried longtime CIRM observer John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., about his thoughts on Love's volunteer work. Simpson replied,

“Ted Love has been a substantial and important contributor to the ICOC. He is a talented executive who brings the perspective of the bio-medical industry to the table. That’s a necessary perspective, but by no means the only important perspective. If he can briefly help CIRM after the departure of Chief Science Officer Marie Csete, that’s probably a good thing. I worry, however, that if this arrangement lasts too long and he becomes too involved in day-to-day operations, it will be difficult for him to fulfill his oversight responsibilities on the board.

“I also wonder what advising 'the president on the overall architecture of our grants programs' means. That phrase prompts me to wonder about the status of the revised strategic plan, which was first presented in a draft last December. It was the subject of hearings in February and March, but still hasn’t come back to the ICOC. If I were a board member, I would have wanted to approve that revised plan before I even considered the budget for 2009-2010. “

A footnote on all this: Prop. 71 has specific criteria for board members. Love was appointed to the board when he was CEO of Nuvelo, but he no longer is an “executive officer of a commercial life science entity.” He can continue to sit on the board because of his position as board member of a life science firm.

CIRM Directors Rebuff Five Reform Proposals

CIRM directors listen to a presentation on the Little Hoover Commission report. From left to right, CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, Vice Chairman Art Torres and Jeff Sheehy. Torres is chairman of the Legislative Subcommittee.

SAN FRANCISCO – A key group of directors of the $3 billion California stem cell agency today rejected proposals that would cut their board in half and substantially reduce the power of its chairman.

The directors' Legislative Subcommittee formally opposed, on an 8-0 vote with one abstention, the reform proposals made by the state's Little Hoover Commission last month. The action came after CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, a real estate investment banker, warned that “the entire thing (CIRM) could be swept away.” He declared that “certain things should not be on the table.”

The subcommittee took up only five of 14 proposals by the Hoover Commission, the state's good government agency. Following months of study, the bipartisan panel said the current CIRM structure is "is not adequate to protect taxpayers’ interests or serve its own ambitious goals."

The other nine proposals are scheduled to be discussed by the Legislative Subcommittee sometime during the next month. Today's action and any later action will go before the entire board at its meeting Aug. 19-20. Ultimately, however, it is up to the legislature to decide whether to act on the recommendations, although CIRM could make some modest changes on its own.

In addition to proposals to reduce the board from 29 to 15 members and eliminate the dual CEO problem, the other recommendations rejected today call for permitting the board to select its own chairman instead of selecting from outside nominees, reducing the length of board members to four years and directing the governor to appoint 11 of the 15 members, four of whom would have to be public members. The board currently has no public members.

The Legislative Subcommittee's action today was largely based on Klein's arguments and earlier ones by CIRM's outside counsel James Harrison of Remcho, Johansen & Purcell of San Leandro, Ca. He contended that the legislature could not make the five changes and that the proposals would have to go a vote of the people. Harrison reasoned that the legislature could not enact the changes, even with a 70 percent vote and the signature of the governor, because they would not “enhance” the purposes of Prop. 71, which created the stem cell agency. The enhancement requirement is contained in the 10,000-word ballot initiative.

CIRM Director Jeff Sheehy, a communications manager at UC San Francisco, told directors that the Hoover report provided an opening to discuss what might be needed to create an “an organization that has long-term stability.” He said he hoped for “an agency that will outlast us all,” noting that conditions have changed since 2004 when Prop. 71 was approved.

Sheehy, who abstained from the motion by Klein to reject the five Hoover proposals, challenged Harrison on the question of what changes might be considered an enhancement to Prop. 71. He questioned Harrison's opinion that removing the 50 person cap on staff could be done by the legislature while the other changes could not.

Sheehy asked Harrison whether the courts would be likely to consider the five changes an “enhancement” if the CIRM board were to endorse them. Harrison did not answer the question directly.

Sheehy's arguments found little support among the other directors. Their positions may have been best summarized by Vice Chairman Duane Roth, who said the current structure “may not be optimal but is workable.”

Our comment: Klein had the directors in a box. By ordering up the June 23 opinion from the board's counsel, he effectively limited the board's possible action. To do anything other than what they did today would have meant rejecting the advice of their $592,000-a-year outside lawyer, a man who helped Klein write Prop. 71. And it would have been a rebuff to Klein and his strongly held position that the survival of CIRM is at stake.

In going along with Klein, the board, however, indirectly lent support to a finding by the Little Hoover Commission that CIRM is, in many ways, “personality driven.” The commission declared:

“An agency governance structure that features key positions built around
specific individuals does not serve the best interests of the mission of the
agency or the state of California, however well-qualified the individuals
may be.”

CIRM Made Last Minute Bid to Delay Hoover Report

The California stem cell agency made a last-ditch effort to stall release of the results of an investigation into the agency by California’s good government commission despite the fact it had been underway for seven months

The attempt came in the form of a letter signed by four members of the CIRM board of directors, including Chairman Robert Klein, and its president, Alan Trounson. One anonymous critic suggested the letter was a violation of the state open meeting laws because “it was prepared and approved outside any public process” and involved the four board members.

In response to a query from the California Stem Cell Report, James Harrison of Remcho, Johansen & Purcell of San Leandro, Ca, CIRM’s outside counsel, said,

“The letter was not intended to be a statement on behalf of the Board with
respect to the draft proposals. Rather, it was intended to reflect, and
did reflect, only the views of the individuals who signed it. The Board
has not taken any action with respect to the Little Hoover Commission
report.”

The June 8 letter was directed to the Little Hoover Commission, which last month recommended an overhaul of the operations of the California stem cell agency. The commission said changes were needed in CIRM's structure because it is "is not adequate to protect taxpayers’ interests or serve its own ambitious goals."

The letter urged the commission to postpone consideration of the draft recommendations “to allow us time to engage in a meaningful dialogue.” The Hoover Commission began its investigation last November. CIRM knew months earlier that the inquiry would be forthcoming. The commission released its report on June 26.

In addition to Klein and Trounson, Art Torres and Duane Roth, co-vice chairmen of the agency, and Sherry Lansing, chair of the CIRM board’s Goverance Subcommittee signed the letter.

Our comment: It is not uncommon for enterprises under public fire to engage in dilatory tactics. The reasoning is that prolonging an inquiry weakens it, exhausts the investigators and could likely be outdated by the time it is concluded.

Below is the full text of Harrison’s response concerning the legality of the process leading to the June 8 letter.

CIRM on Lawsuit and Hoover

We want to call attention to a comment posted yesterday by the California stem cell agency concerning its reaction to the Little Hoover Commission report. Amy Adams, CIRM’s communication manager, filed the comment on the “Klein Warns Stem Cell Directors” item that went up July 10.

She says that CIRM is not threatening a lawsuit in connection with legislative enactment of the Hoover recommendations.

We have posted a response to her comments, which can be found either through the “recent comments” column to the left or at the end of the “Klein Warns” item. Her comments can be found there as well.

Klein Warns Stem Cell Directors on CIRM Reform Proposal

Recommendations for sweeping changes in the $3 billion California stem cell agency come before its directors next Thursday, although the agency's chairman has warned that support of some of the proposals would violate the directors' oath of office.

In an email to directors June 30, Robert Klein said five of the recommendations by the Little Hoover Commission, the state's good government agency, would be unconstitutional if enacted through the normal legislative process.

Klein wrote,

"As members of the board, we took an oath to uphold Prop. 71 and could not support these changes."

CIRM Vice Chairman Art Torres, who co-authored the memo, scheduled a meeting July 16 of the directors' Legislative Subcommittee to discuss the Hoover report. The board has not taken an official position on the study, but CIRM issued a press release last month that threatened a lawsuit should the legislature and the governor enact many of the recommendations without a vote of the people.

In response to a question from the California Stem Cell Report, Stuart Drown, executive director of the Little Hoover Commission, said neither he nor his predecessor could recall a time when a state agency had threatened a lawsuit in connection with Hoover recommendations.

The five purportedly unconstitutional recommendations would:

• Reduce the size of the unwieldy board from 29 to 15
• Reduce board member terms to four years following expiration of current members' terms, which run from six to eight years
• Eliminate the current dual CEO structure that has proved divisive in the past
• Allow the board to select its own chairman and vice chairman instead of having to accept nominations from state politicians
• Give the governor authority to appoint 11 of the reconstituted board's 15 members. (Presumably Klein would also oppose as unconstitutional a plan to require that four independent persons be placed on the board, although he did not mention it in his June 30 email. The board is currently dominated by representatives of institutions that receive grants.)

In an interview earlier this week at CIRM headquarters, Torres, newly appointed chairman of the Legislative Subcommittee, declined to discuss the specific recommendations. He said he wanted to hear first from members of the CIRM board. He said whatever action the subcommittee takes would go before the full board, presumably in August.

Klein's contention that support of changes would violate directors' oath of office is based on two memos from attorneys. One came from the board's outside counsel. The other came from a Sacramento law firm hired by Klein's private stem cell lobbying group. That firm also has a $50,000 annual lobbying contract with CIRM.

The Hoover Commission took note of the memos from the two law firms, but said the question remains legally open.

Yesterday, Daniel Hancock, former president of Shapell Industries and chairman of the Little Hoover Commission, wrote an op-ed piece in The Sacramento Bee defending the recommendations.

He said,

"As CIRM exits its startup phase, it is unclear whether the founding leaders on the governing board can objectively evaluate the best course for CIRM's future, including the crucial question of whether it should exist beyond its initially intended 10 years. Given that the longer-than-normal terms on the governing board limit turnover, current board members – whose organizations have received 80 percent of the research and facilities grants – may lack the independent perspective required to determine when CIRM's contributions to stem cell science have peaked."

Hancock, however, also said the report is designed to "start discussion."

He cited an article by one CIRM director, published on the California Stem Cell Report, as "encouraging." Jeff Sheehy wrote that he would like the Hoover study to be perceived as "the beginning of a dialogue about governance structures that results in the strengthening and institutionalization of CIRM and sets it on a path toward a long and fruitful existence."

The Hoover Commission report has received little attention in the mainstream media, which has increasingly limited resources because of the news industry's financial problems. But Alex Philippidis of BioRegion News wrote a lengthy piece on the subject on Tuesday.

He quoted Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for CIRM, as saying that changes proposed by Hoover Commission could "waste" time. Philippidis wrote,

"He(Gibbons) cited the 2007 reorganization of California's Department of Public Health, which at least one local news report blamed for a delay in payments to area shelters for victims of domestic violence."

Philippidis reported that Gibbons said a court challenge to the Hoover proposals "would not come from the agency, but most likely from a board member set to lose his or her seat, or patient advocates who have defended CIRM and the ICOC(the CIRM board), saying their value in helping research institutions leverage private donations outweighed any concerns over conflicts of interest raised by Little Hoover."

Philippidis also quoted a state higher education official, Charles Reed, who warned that giving the governor more appointment power would politicize the agency. The president of the UC system currently appoints two members of the 29-person CIRM board. The UC system also has another five appointees on the panel. California politicans appoint the remaining 22.

The meeting of Legislative Subcommittee will be conducted via teleconference with locations throughout the state from which the public can participate. They include San Francisco, Healdsburg, La Jolla(2), Palo Alto and Elk Grove. Specific addresses can be found on the agenda.

(Editor's note: Based on incorrect information from the BioRegion News article, earlier versions this item erroneously connected Charles Reed to the UC system. )

California Stem Cell Agency to Hit Staffing Cap

SAN FRANCISCO – The California stem cell agency has added two new positions to support its 29-member board in a move that is likely to push its staffing to its legal limit of 50 for the first time ever.

CIRM President Alan Trounson provided the additional staff after some members of the board complained at a meeting in June that they could not get adequate back-up from CIRM staff. The contentious session in San Diego also highlighted what several board members called “festering” issues dealing with governance and the limitations of Prop. 71, which created the stem cell agency and is virtually impossible to change.

One of those limitations is the 50-person cap on staff, which CIRM could reach this fiscal year. The agency was scheduled to hit 47 under the budget approved last month. However the spending plan did not include the two additional staffers for the board nor did it include a high level finance specialist that the agency is planning to hire.

CIRM Chairman Robert Klein told directors at a special teleconference meeting that the two new board staff positions will terminate at the end of 2010 because of the staff limit. He explained that the agency will then need to hire two additional scientific officers to help handle its burgeoning grant load. By the end of this year, the agency is expected to have approved $1 billion in grants.

Although Wednesday's meeting did not specifically discuss hitting the 50-person cap, Klein said the agency plans to come up with alternative means of financing the board positions after 2010.

Klein also raised the possibility of having the board vote on the move to add the two staffers. Several board members said that was not necessary because hiring the persons was entirely within Trounson's authority.

Board member Jeff Sheehy, who raised the board staffing issue at the June meeting, said adding the new staff still did not provide adequate support for CIRM's big board. Only one person has had primary responsibility for dealing with the board, although additional help is provided by others.

Sheehy, a communications manager for UCSF, alluded to criticism by some board members that the board was micro-managing by seeking additional support. He said,

“If the board can't suggest a minimal level of support for the board, the board is not in control of the agency.”

One of the two persons will be assigned to Vice Chairman Art Torres, who deals with bond financing and legislative issues. That position has been filled. The other position will be an administrative assistant for board executive director Melissa King. That job is expected to be posted shortly.

Following the brief public meeting, the board went into executive session to discuss personnel matters, including the recent resignation of Marie Csete as chief scientific officer.

Hoover Commission Recommendations

Here is the text of the recommendations for CIRM from California's Little Hoover Commission:

Recommendation 1: The Legislature should restructure the CIRM governing board around principles of efficiency and transparency.

• The Legislature should amend the Health and Safety Code to reduce the board size, shorten terms and restructure membership.
• Decrease board size to 15 from 29. Keep diversity of membership but add independent voices to the board: five patient advocates from unspecified disease groups, two independent business leaders and two independent scientists with no ties to CIRM-funded institutions; two University of California officials, one university official (non UC); two private sector biotechnology executives, and one leader of a California research institution.
• Reduce terms to four years for all members.
• The Legislature should amend the Health and Safety Code to streamline the appointment process for CIRM board members.
• Allow the governor to appoint 11 of 15 board members, subject to Senate confirmation. Legislative leaders should continue to appoint two members. The UC system presidentshould appoint two UC representatives.
• The Legislature and CIRM should realign the roles of chair and president to eliminate overlapping authority and to enhance clarity and accountability.
• The Legislature should modify all statutory references inthe Health and Safety Code to the nominating process, job duties and qualifications for the chair and vice chair to invest this authority with the board.
• The CIRM board should elect a chair and a vice chair from within the existing board, subject to set terms and conditions for re-election/removal.
• The CIRM board should clarify that the president manages all day-to-day operations.
• The Legislature should amend the Health and Safety Code to rename the board to more accurately reflect its composition. The Independent Citizens Oversight Committee should be called the Board of Directors.
  

Recommendation 2: The Legislature and CIRM should improve efficiency and transparency for distributing grant and loan funds.

• The Legislature should amend the Health and Safety Code to remove the 50-employee cap on staffing.
• The Legislature should amend the Health and Safety Code to remove the 15-person limit on peer reviewers. CIRM should modify its triage plan to review grants internally.
• CIRM should explore options for greater disclosure of the peer review process.
• CIRM should poll CIRM’s peer reviewers anonymously about their willingness to participate in the review process if their financial disclosure statements are made available
• to the public. The results of this poll should be made public.
• CIRM should conduct a trial grant application round that identifies all applicants.
• CIRM should provide full grant evaluations to applicants.
• CIRM should amend all meeting minutes to specify individual board members’ votes and recusals, and continue the practice moving forward.

Recommendation 3: The CFAOC and the CIRM governing board should use their authority to enhance oversight.

• The Citizen’s Financial Accountability Oversight Committee (CFAOC), chaired by the State Controller, should exercise its existing authority, or be statutorily authorized if necessary, to conduct performance audits and hold regular meetings to review CIRM’s programmatic and strategic performance, in addition to overseeing CIRM’s annual financial audits.
• The governing board should hold its members accountable by adopting removal provisions in its bylaws.
  

Recommendation 4: The CIRM governing board should begin planning for CIRM’s future through an open process.

• The CIRM governing board should create succession plans for board leadership.
• CIRM’s strategic plan should provide clear transparent
• CIRM should develop a transition plan for the eventual expiration of bond funding.

Torres-Roth Election: An Adroit Move for CIRM

Without so much as lifting a finger, Art Torres has already had a salubrious financial impact on the California stem cell agency.

Last week, Torres(at left), the leader of the state Democratic Party and a former, longtime state legislator, was elected co-vice chair of the agency. As a result, CIRM has dropped its efforts to hire an in-house legislative relations staffer. That position has a salary range that tops out at $138,800. Torres is being paid $75,000 for halftime work.

On Tuesday, we noticed that the job opening was missing from the CIRM web site. We queried Don Gibbons, chief communications officer, whether the position was filled. He responded,

"We are saving money. The position is not needed with Art here."

Dropping the recruitment effort is modestly beneficial financially now and for the foreseeable future, given the agency's financial plight. But CIRM is chronically understaffed – capped at 50 persons by a nearly immutable state law. The agency relies heavily on outside contractors for its work – a situation fraught with well-documented financial and managerial peril at any level of government.

As for the election of Torres and Duane Roth as dual vice chairs, we think it was an adroit move, one that will benefit CIRM, certainly in the short term. A potential political problem was avoided. Much-needed internal heft was added to CIRM's governmental relations efforts along with its relations with the biotech industry. Torres will also bring a long-needed, experienced voice in governmental affairs to the highest levels of CIRM.

But as in all things, the devil is in the details of execution. If Roth and Torres butt heads significantly, either sooner or later, it could be a serious diversion from CIRM's main objectives. That is not to mention whether CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, who controls what the men do, can delegate responsibility and authority effectively without micromanaging their work. That goal for Klein should be high on the evaluation priorities by the CIRM directors' Governance Subcommittee.

Earlier this week, The Sacramento Bee editorialized that the dual vice chair situation is a poor idea because it makes it harder to check Klein's broad powers. A single vice chair would be more powerful, The Bee argued. There is a certain logic to that argument. However, the vice chairs are largely Klein's creatures. He is the one who is charged with setting their agendas, although the board of directors has a role as well. Should Klein feel that either Roth or Torres are impinging on his prerogatives, we have no doubt that he will move to freeze them out.

On the other hand, Torres is a veteran political operator and will soon develop his own constituencies and alliances both within the board as well as with outside organizations and lawmakers, both in Washington and Sacramento. Roth also already has his own constituencies within the biomedical industry and on the board.

One final note on Torres and his salubrious impact: Any savings resulting from leaving vacant the governmental affairs position will be minimized by Torres' travel and other expenses, which we assume will be relatively high and involve multiple trips to the nation's capital.

CIRM Director Sheehy Decries Unfortunate Lack of Information

CIRM Director Jeff Sheehy, a patient advocate representative on the stem cell agency's board and a communications officer at UC San Francisco, sent along this note regarding our posting of the funding priorities presentation used at Thursday's board meeting.

"Thank you for posting this doc. I'm glad you have it up so the public can see it. I still don't have a copy, though I requested one at the meeting. And, I cannot understand why this doc was not provided to ICOC members and the public prior to the meeting since the Chair had a copy of the Power Point slides that he alone used to follow the presentation.

"In this troubling budget environment, it is extremely unfortunate that information is either withheld from the Board or provided in such a way that the Board is in a position of having to make decisions without all of the information or without adequate time to digest and consider the information presented."

Roth and Torres Chosen as Vice Chairs of CIRM

This item is part of the continuing coverage today of the board meeting of the California stem cell agency based on its audiocast.

The board of the California stem cell agency today unanimously elected two vice chairpersons – Art Torres, who is the head of the state Democratic Party, and Duane Roth, who has biomedical industry connections.

The board also voted to approve a $75,000, halftime salary for Torres(photo on left). Roth(on right) is a current member of the board of directors and is rejecting a salary. He receives $112 a day for CIRM meetings and $14 an hour for meeting preparation.

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., suggested the salary should be $90,000 although he has been critical of much higher salaries at the agency. However, Bob Klein, chairman of the agency, indicated that the vice chair deal had already been worked out. The implication of Klein's remark was that changing the terms at this point could make things come unglued.

The vote came after several board members noted that the men bring different, high level skills that will enhance what CIRM is attempting to do.

Director Sherry Lansing, former head of a Hollywood film studio, said the agency had a "high class problem" when the two men were nominated. She electing both will total more than two – more like five.

Lansing is co-chair of the CIRM Governance Subcommittee. She and her co-chair, Claire Pomeroy, dean of the UC Davis School of Medicine, were the key players in putting together the dual vice chair plan.

CIRM Calendar Hooha Raises Transparency Issues; Agency Says Calendars Cost $23 Each

The California stem cell agency said today that its 2009 calendar cost $23 apiece and provided figures that indicated the total expense for the calendars was about $35,310.

Based on the numbers provided by CIRM, that seems to mean that 1,535 calendars were printed. Earlier, CIRM said the calendars were sent free to its grant recipients and trainees to remind them "365 days a year where their funding comes from." The agency has 448 recipients and trainees, according to figures on its web site. Calendars were also sent to an unspecified number of "constituents."

In comments on our earlier item on CIRM's 2009 calendar, some readers of this blog said production of expensive, free calendars is a waste of taxpayer money.

Here is the current breakdown on the calendar cost, based on a CIRM report and information supplied by Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for the agency: Printing, $14,000; design, $10,200, and $11,110, which was part of a larger contract.

The $11,110 is a new figure and came today from Gibbons. He said it was part of a $45,000 expenditure with Abbott and Company that CIRM now says was for "image development, office art design and framing." The Abbott contract was initially identified as involving the calendar. After the California Stem Cell Report inquired about the calendar project, the description of Abbott contract was altered on the CIRM web site to remove any mention of a calendar. No footnote was provided on the PDF document to notify the public or directors that a change had been made from an earlier version.

Here is the text of what Gibbons sent earlier today concerning our original item on this subject.

"For the record, you never asked me for the cost per calendar. Instead you chose to make one of your usual worst-case projections. The portion of the Abbott contract that covered the calendar was $11,110, which made the cost per calendar $23. Also, this project began in July, long before the complete budget meltdown."

More than a week ago, we asked Gibbons for the total number printed. He has not provided that number. Following his latest email today, we asked again for that information as well as the number distributed and the cost of postage.

As for our "projections," you can read them here along with our assumptions. They were based on information from CIRM, which was incomplete then and remains incomplete today.

The CIRM calendar is a minor expense in the agency's $13 million operational budget. But outside contracts are not. They now total more than $3 million, up from $2.7 million, as the result of action earlier this week. The outsourcing, which often poses major oversight issues for government agencies, is the second largest category in the budget.

How the agency describes the contracts and other budget items and responds to questions about them is basic to the agency's transparency and openness. The calendar issue is not the only one. A lobbying contract with the Nielsen, Merksamer firm in Sacramento continues to be described as "public education." There may be other fanciful descriptions, but without an examination of contracts and other documents, it is impossible to tell.

Several years ago, CIRM directors initiated the requirement for regular reports on outside contracting because they felt they were not fully informed. While creative budgeting occurs in every organization, without good information it is impossible to make good decisions.

Obviously it is nice to offer gestures of good will to "constituents" and others associated with any enterprise, but CIRM's calendar project came at an impropitious time. The project began shortly after a salary freeze at the CIRM that ran through December. As we remarked then, such freezes affect those on the lower end of the pay scale much more harshly than at the top levels. Perhaps during the holidays, CIRM management could have spread that $35,310 among employees making less than $70,000 a year. That would have been a nice gesture as well.

Stem Cell Bifurcation at the Vice Chairmanship Level

Come Friday the 13^th of this month, it is a good bet that the $3 billion California stem cell agency will have two vice chairmen or something akin to that.

No matter that the legal charter for the agency calls for only one, the board of directors is likely to find a way. They have a $1 million crew of artful legal beagles to help them sniff out an appropriate direction for almost any course.

CIRM Chairman Bob Klein signaled the dual vice chairmanship likelihood in his agenda for the March 12 meeting of the agency's board of directors. It was a simple but ambiguous matter of saying something in the plural and not the singular – chair(s) versus chair. The agenda item only says:

“Consideration of election of Vice-Chair(s)”

It was a move that the 17^th century Jesuit Baltasar Gracian (see drawing), a student of the exercise of power and control, would have admired and whose works we became acquainted with as a student 47 years ago.

“Maintain an air of uncertainty,” Gracian said in 1653. “Know the meaning of evasion.”

But in 2009 we need to know more. So here it is: The board has a choice between two men: Art Torres, chairman of the state Democratic Party, and Duane Roth, a current member of the CIRM board of directors and an executive with biomedical industry ties and head of Connect business development organization in La Jolla, Ca.

Torres is a former state legislator and was nominated by Democratic state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, who is the final arbiter on the state bonds that finance CIRM's grants and operations. Lockyer is also a former state lawmaker and friend of Torres, who needs a paying job since he is stepping down as head of the state Democratic party. Roth was nominated by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who okayed a $150 million state loan to CIRM when it was on the financial ropes a few years ago. The governor has expressed concern about the high salaries at CIRM, and Roth has said he will not need a salary.

Both men bring different skills to the job. Torres is well connected in California politics and Washington. He is endorsed by Sen. Ted Kennedy and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Torres would contribute mightily to Klein's lobbying effort for a $10 billion aid package for the California biomedical industry. Roth is connected directly to the industry itself, chairing a CIRM committee that pulled together CIRM's $500 million lending program.

No one at CIRM wants to offend either Lockyer or Schwarzenegger.

While our good Jesuit Gracian would likely have admired Klein's agenda item on the Torres-Roth election, another more contemporary observer and participant in California stem cell issues does not.

In response to a query, John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca. and a man who is reasonably adroit in his own political maneuverings, said,

"Once again Chairman Bob Klein is posting an ICOC (board of directors) agenda that raises more questions than it answers. This serves neither the public nor CIRM. If they are thinking about having more than one vice chair, why not say so?"

One CIRM director, David Serrano Sewell, in response to a query about the result next week, said,

"We'll see what happens at the meeting."

As for CIRM's official views on this, earlier today we told the agency via email that we intended to write that the board is considering electing two vice chairmen. We asked whether CIRM considered that accurate.

CIRM Communications Chief Don Gibbons responded,

"No decisions have been made. The board will decide what motions to consider."

Applying flackery's Rosetta Stone to that comment, it means,

"I am not denying the accuracy of what you are writing. I can't say anything else. This is a delicate issue involving my bosses and issues at a much higher level that they do not want to air in public."

-----------

(Editor's note: I have a copy of Gracian's 1653 work -- “A Truthtelling Manual and the Art of Worldly Wisdom” -- in a net bag next to my bunk on our sailboat here on the west coast of Mexico. The version I have was copyrighted in 1945. More recent versions exist, but they are not as powerful as the 1945 version. And by the way, I am fond of legal beagles that can find ways to make things happen.)