California's Little Hoover Commission meets this week to consider recommendations for changes in the operations of the California stem cell agency, perhaps even adopting final findings.
The committee will go over the draft report on CIRM Wednesday afternoon in Sacramento. Stuart Drown, executive director of the good government agency, said the commission could adopt the recommendations or ask the staff to make revisions.
If the revisions are minor, he said the staff could bring them back for a final vote on Thursday afternoon. If changes are major, the report will be brought back to the commission in August.
The commission has withheld copies of the recommendations, but it did discuss them publicly earlier this month at a subcommittee hearing. Under the preliminary recommendations, 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.
One longtime CIRM supporter has described the recommendations as “ludicrous” and a “disaster.”
The Hoover Commission has no power to impose changes. They would have to be enacted by the legislature or made voluntarily, if possible, by CIRM. Many of the recommendations, if not most, could take place without changes in state law.
Showing posts with label hoover. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hoover. Show all posts
Monday, June 22, 2009
Monday, June 08, 2009
Patient Advocate Slams CIRM Reforms as Ludicrous
Patient advocate Don Reed recently presented his views on the Little Hoover Commission's preliminary recommendations for improvements in the operations of the California stem cell agency.
The piece on his blog, stemcellbattles.com, used terms like “worst fears,” “disaster,” “ludicrous” and “politicizing.” Reed said the the agency is highly successful. “Why gut it?” he asked.
Reed has followed the agency since the campaign to create it in 2004. He is vice president for public policy of Americans for Cures, which is the private stem cell lobbying group of the chairman of stem cell agency, Robert Klein. He is only one of two staff members currently listed on the group's Web site.
We do not agree with Reed's analysis of what the Little Hoover Commission is considering, and we think that some of his information is off target. For example, Reed asserts that five audits have determined that CIRM is “open and honest.” In fact, all but of one of those audits had a quite limited scope involving compliance with accepted accounting practices. And as many persons know, compliance with accounting standards does not signify a healthy or open enterprise. One recent case in point is General Motors.
The only audit to go beyond such limited scope was a “performance audit” by the state's auditor, but it also did not examine CIRM's openness or honesty.
Like Reed, we support CIRM's endeavors. But we believe that it is hampered by unnecessarily restrictive provisions in Prop. 71, which are now codified in state law and the state Constitution and virtually impossible to change. Many of those provisions are management minutia that should have been left to the CIRM board to decide. Those include the dual CEO structure, super-majority quorum requirements and a poorly thought-out cap on the number of CIRM employees. That is not to mention the conflicts of interest on the board that were built into the initiative in order to win political campaign support from all the key institutions and businesses.
Reed is attempting to drum up a letter-writing campaign from patient advocates and “true believers” in stem cell research to persuade the Little Hoover Commission to pull back on its recommendations.
While we respect Reed's beliefs, the Little Hoover Commission should pay no more attention to “true believer” letters than the NIH should to the thousands of letters it has received from the religious right opposing its proposed rules on human embryonic stem cell research – at least as far as both rely on faith-based reasoning.
The California stem cell agency is giving away $3 billion in taxpayer funds at a cost of another $3 to $4 billion in interest. Evaluation and support of the effort must be based on hard facts and conditioned on how well it actually meets its public responsibilities and its much-touted adherence to the highest standards of openness and transparency.
The piece on his blog, stemcellbattles.com, used terms like “worst fears,” “disaster,” “ludicrous” and “politicizing.” Reed said the the agency is highly successful. “Why gut it?” he asked.
Reed has followed the agency since the campaign to create it in 2004. He is vice president for public policy of Americans for Cures, which is the private stem cell lobbying group of the chairman of stem cell agency, Robert Klein. He is only one of two staff members currently listed on the group's Web site.
We do not agree with Reed's analysis of what the Little Hoover Commission is considering, and we think that some of his information is off target. For example, Reed asserts that five audits have determined that CIRM is “open and honest.” In fact, all but of one of those audits had a quite limited scope involving compliance with accepted accounting practices. And as many persons know, compliance with accounting standards does not signify a healthy or open enterprise. One recent case in point is General Motors.
The only audit to go beyond such limited scope was a “performance audit” by the state's auditor, but it also did not examine CIRM's openness or honesty.
Like Reed, we support CIRM's endeavors. But we believe that it is hampered by unnecessarily restrictive provisions in Prop. 71, which are now codified in state law and the state Constitution and virtually impossible to change. Many of those provisions are management minutia that should have been left to the CIRM board to decide. Those include the dual CEO structure, super-majority quorum requirements and a poorly thought-out cap on the number of CIRM employees. That is not to mention the conflicts of interest on the board that were built into the initiative in order to win political campaign support from all the key institutions and businesses.
Reed is attempting to drum up a letter-writing campaign from patient advocates and “true believers” in stem cell research to persuade the Little Hoover Commission to pull back on its recommendations.
While we respect Reed's beliefs, the Little Hoover Commission should pay no more attention to “true believer” letters than the NIH should to the thousands of letters it has received from the religious right opposing its proposed rules on human embryonic stem cell research – at least as far as both rely on faith-based reasoning.
The California stem cell agency is giving away $3 billion in taxpayer funds at a cost of another $3 to $4 billion in interest. Evaluation and support of the effort must be based on hard facts and conditioned on how well it actually meets its public responsibilities and its much-touted adherence to the highest standards of openness and transparency.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
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,
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.
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.
Klein Letter to Little Hoover Commission
Here is the text of the letter sent by CIRM Chairman Robert Klein this week to the Little Hoover Commission.
May 26, 2009
Daniel W. Hancock Chairman, Little Hoover Commission
925 L Street, Suite 805
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Chairman Hancock:
We understand that the Little Hoover Commission Subcommittee on the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (“CIRM”) will be meeting tomorrow to consider draft recommendations from its staff. Unfortunately, my wife is undergoing treatment for breast cancer, having just completed her third surgery, and my mother passed away this weekend, so I will not be able to attend the meeting, and CIRM’s President, Dr. Alan Trounson, is traveling out of state so he will not be able to share our views with you. After the Commission’s first hearing, Dr. Alan Trounson and I embraced Commissioner Kaye’s sentiments that a collaborative effort, with the Commission and CIRM working together, would be the most productive. I want to assure you that despite the unfortunate timing of tomorrow’s meeting, we remain highly committed to working collaboratively with you on recommendations to improve CIRM’s performance. CIRM has a long history of working with others to find common ground. For example, CIRM has previously acted on suggestions from members of the Legislature, the Bureau of State Audits, the Controller, and members of the public to enhance its efficiency and transparency.
In an effort to promote a dialogue, I have requested, through CIRM staff and through your staff at a CIRM meeting in Los Angeles, the opportunity to meet with members of the Commission to discuss your ideas for improving CIRM’s performance. I believe a discussion of ideas with your board will lead to the best outcome rather than CIRM “staking out” a position. To date, however, no meetings have been scheduled. I also understand that your staff will not share its draft recommendations with CIRM. This, of course, raises a question about how CIRM can participate in this process without seeing the staff’s recommendations.
On behalf of Dr. Trounson and myself, I apologize that we cannot join you tomorrow for the Subcommittee meeting. Again, we strongly believe that a collaborative effort to evaluate proposals will best advance the goal, as expressed by Commissioner Kaye, of identifying recommendations that could be implemented through legislation rather than another ballot measure, and we look forward to working with you to achieve common objectives. I am also committed to taking any recommendations for enhancing CIRM’s effectiveness to CIRM’s full Governing Board for a full discussion. The Board’s diversity spans the spectrum from deans of medical schools to presidents of independent research institutions to patient advocates who are themselves suffering from a chronic disease and to patient advocates who have worked with the federal government to advance this critical research. Finally, the board includes experts who have experience in actually developing and delivering therapies to patients. The rich diversity of the Board can contribute greatly to the development of collaborative recommendations that will benefit CIRM and the citizens of California. I am confident that, by working together, we can ensure that CIRM serves as a model for innovation and effectiveness.
Sincerely, Robert N. Klein Chairman, CIRM’s governing board
May 26, 2009
Daniel W. Hancock Chairman, Little Hoover Commission
925 L Street, Suite 805
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Chairman Hancock:
We understand that the Little Hoover Commission Subcommittee on the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (“CIRM”) will be meeting tomorrow to consider draft recommendations from its staff. Unfortunately, my wife is undergoing treatment for breast cancer, having just completed her third surgery, and my mother passed away this weekend, so I will not be able to attend the meeting, and CIRM’s President, Dr. Alan Trounson, is traveling out of state so he will not be able to share our views with you. After the Commission’s first hearing, Dr. Alan Trounson and I embraced Commissioner Kaye’s sentiments that a collaborative effort, with the Commission and CIRM working together, would be the most productive. I want to assure you that despite the unfortunate timing of tomorrow’s meeting, we remain highly committed to working collaboratively with you on recommendations to improve CIRM’s performance. CIRM has a long history of working with others to find common ground. For example, CIRM has previously acted on suggestions from members of the Legislature, the Bureau of State Audits, the Controller, and members of the public to enhance its efficiency and transparency.
In an effort to promote a dialogue, I have requested, through CIRM staff and through your staff at a CIRM meeting in Los Angeles, the opportunity to meet with members of the Commission to discuss your ideas for improving CIRM’s performance. I believe a discussion of ideas with your board will lead to the best outcome rather than CIRM “staking out” a position. To date, however, no meetings have been scheduled. I also understand that your staff will not share its draft recommendations with CIRM. This, of course, raises a question about how CIRM can participate in this process without seeing the staff’s recommendations.
On behalf of Dr. Trounson and myself, I apologize that we cannot join you tomorrow for the Subcommittee meeting. Again, we strongly believe that a collaborative effort to evaluate proposals will best advance the goal, as expressed by Commissioner Kaye, of identifying recommendations that could be implemented through legislation rather than another ballot measure, and we look forward to working with you to achieve common objectives. I am also committed to taking any recommendations for enhancing CIRM’s effectiveness to CIRM’s full Governing Board for a full discussion. The Board’s diversity spans the spectrum from deans of medical schools to presidents of independent research institutions to patient advocates who are themselves suffering from a chronic disease and to patient advocates who have worked with the federal government to advance this critical research. Finally, the board includes experts who have experience in actually developing and delivering therapies to patients. The rich diversity of the Board can contribute greatly to the development of collaborative recommendations that will benefit CIRM and the citizens of California. I am confident that, by working together, we can ensure that CIRM serves as a model for innovation and effectiveness.
Sincerely, Robert N. Klein Chairman, CIRM’s governing board
Letter from CSCR to Little Hoover Commission
Here is the text of a letter sent by the California Stem Report today to the Little Hoover Commission concerning its refusal to release its staff recommendation reports.
May 28, 2009
To the members of the Little Hoover Commission:
In 2004 California voters overwhelmingly approved (by 83 percent) a change in the state Constitution called the Sunshine Initiative. It established a “broadly construed” guarantee that you and I have a right to know what the government is doing, why it is doing it and how.
Today the Little Hoover Commission, a body devoted to good government, has a chance to pioneer an important aspect of the implementation of the voter's will.
It can do that by publicly releasing the Commission's staff draft reports on the important issues that the Commission examines and which all of California faces.
The issue of staff reports came sharply into focus just yesterday (Wednesday May 27) at a meeting of the Little Hoover Subcommittee looking into the $3 billion California stem cell agency, an extraordinary body unprecedented in state history.
Interested parties, including the stem cell agency, gathered to examine the staff report on the research effort and to make responsible, well-considered comments. Some of the individuals asked for copies of the report in order to inform their thinking. No was the answer. California citizens were told that it is the long-standing tradition of the Little Hoover Commission not to disclose publicly the written staff recommendations. Instead stem cell agency representatives and others were only allowed to hear a rapid-fire oral presentation, necessarily much briefer than what we understand was a 20-plus page document.
However, that practice – a policy of the Little Hoover Commission – flies in the face of the state's Constitution, which now states, as the result of the 2004 change:
“The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.”
We understand the sensitivities involved in making staff reports public. They are not the work of the Little Hoover Commission until modified and acted on by the full commission. But those concerns pale in the face of the benefits.
Publicly releasing the draft reports will be much fairer for such entities as the California stem cell agency (the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine) and any others that the Little Hoover Commission examines. With the release of the reports, they will have a chance to respond more intelligently to staff comments, critical or otherwise. Factual errors will come to attention earlier. The public will have a better chance to make more thoughtful comments. Indeed, public release of the staff reports will help to generate more public attention on the important issues studied by the Little Hoover Commission and will enhance its credibility and increase its impact. The issues will be more widely aired, building support for the Commission's ultimate recommendations.
California state departments have long used the terminology of “draft” to avoid public release of important documents. Speaking from years of experience with state government and the news business, my conclusion is that the use of such terminology is based mainly on timidity and unnecessary anxiety about the impact of the release of the documents. Doing the public's business will never be a tidy process, nor is winning public support. But withholding information -- and secrecy -- is a sure road to breeding cynicism and virulent suspicion of government, however well-intentioned public officials' actions may be.
I come to these judgments after decades as a California journalist, a longtime editor at The Sacramento Bee (business, special projects) and former UPI reporter in the state Capitol. My comments are also informed by two years as a press aide with former Gov. Jerry Brown. I do not represent the stem cell agency. Indeed, my blog on the agency –- now in its fourth year – has been expunged by the agency from its informational clippings, including other news reports and press releases, distributed at state expense to its board members.
I wish I could be with you today to make this presentation personally but my physician needs to see me on a matter she thinks is important. I have asked Stuart Drown to distribute this letter to you today in hopes of moving forward on implementation of the Sunshine Initiative.
I urge the Commission to release publicly its staff recommendations in a timely fashion. By doing so, the Little Hoover Commission can set an example for the rest of the state and take a first step towards restoring public confidence in government.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
David Jensen, Publisher/Editor
California Stem Cell Report
californistemcellreport.blogspot.com
djensen@californiastemcellreport.com
May 28, 2009
To the members of the Little Hoover Commission:
In 2004 California voters overwhelmingly approved (by 83 percent) a change in the state Constitution called the Sunshine Initiative. It established a “broadly construed” guarantee that you and I have a right to know what the government is doing, why it is doing it and how.
Today the Little Hoover Commission, a body devoted to good government, has a chance to pioneer an important aspect of the implementation of the voter's will.
It can do that by publicly releasing the Commission's staff draft reports on the important issues that the Commission examines and which all of California faces.
The issue of staff reports came sharply into focus just yesterday (Wednesday May 27) at a meeting of the Little Hoover Subcommittee looking into the $3 billion California stem cell agency, an extraordinary body unprecedented in state history.
Interested parties, including the stem cell agency, gathered to examine the staff report on the research effort and to make responsible, well-considered comments. Some of the individuals asked for copies of the report in order to inform their thinking. No was the answer. California citizens were told that it is the long-standing tradition of the Little Hoover Commission not to disclose publicly the written staff recommendations. Instead stem cell agency representatives and others were only allowed to hear a rapid-fire oral presentation, necessarily much briefer than what we understand was a 20-plus page document.
However, that practice – a policy of the Little Hoover Commission – flies in the face of the state's Constitution, which now states, as the result of the 2004 change:
“The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.”
We understand the sensitivities involved in making staff reports public. They are not the work of the Little Hoover Commission until modified and acted on by the full commission. But those concerns pale in the face of the benefits.
Publicly releasing the draft reports will be much fairer for such entities as the California stem cell agency (the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine) and any others that the Little Hoover Commission examines. With the release of the reports, they will have a chance to respond more intelligently to staff comments, critical or otherwise. Factual errors will come to attention earlier. The public will have a better chance to make more thoughtful comments. Indeed, public release of the staff reports will help to generate more public attention on the important issues studied by the Little Hoover Commission and will enhance its credibility and increase its impact. The issues will be more widely aired, building support for the Commission's ultimate recommendations.
California state departments have long used the terminology of “draft” to avoid public release of important documents. Speaking from years of experience with state government and the news business, my conclusion is that the use of such terminology is based mainly on timidity and unnecessary anxiety about the impact of the release of the documents. Doing the public's business will never be a tidy process, nor is winning public support. But withholding information -- and secrecy -- is a sure road to breeding cynicism and virulent suspicion of government, however well-intentioned public officials' actions may be.
I come to these judgments after decades as a California journalist, a longtime editor at The Sacramento Bee (business, special projects) and former UPI reporter in the state Capitol. My comments are also informed by two years as a press aide with former Gov. Jerry Brown. I do not represent the stem cell agency. Indeed, my blog on the agency –- now in its fourth year – has been expunged by the agency from its informational clippings, including other news reports and press releases, distributed at state expense to its board members.
I wish I could be with you today to make this presentation personally but my physician needs to see me on a matter she thinks is important. I have asked Stuart Drown to distribute this letter to you today in hopes of moving forward on implementation of the Sunshine Initiative.
I urge the Commission to release publicly its staff recommendations in a timely fashion. By doing so, the Little Hoover Commission can set an example for the rest of the state and take a first step towards restoring public confidence in government.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
David Jensen, Publisher/Editor
California Stem Cell Report
californistemcellreport.blogspot.com
djensen@californiastemcellreport.com
Monday, May 25, 2009
Little Hoover Hearing on CIRM on Wednesday
Possible recommendations for changes in the operations of the $3 billion California state stem cell agency will be discussed on Wednesday in Sacramento at a meeting of the CIRM subcommittee of the state's Little Hoover Commission.
The nonpartisan commission is California's longstanding good government and efficiency body and has been examining CIRM since last November, including the agency's accountability and transparency. The Little Hoover report is expected to be out this summer.
The session this Wednesday afternoon will provide a preview of its thinking and allow the public to make comments. To read more about its proceedings, click on the label below that says "hoover."
The nonpartisan commission is California's longstanding good government and efficiency body and has been examining CIRM since last November, including the agency's accountability and transparency. The Little Hoover report is expected to be out this summer.
The session this Wednesday afternoon will provide a preview of its thinking and allow the public to make comments. To read more about its proceedings, click on the label below that says "hoover."
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Klein Ducks Little Hoover Questions
Late last year a California government efficiency agency investigating the state's $3 billion stem cell research effort asked its chairman, Robert Klein, what changes he would make in it after four years of experience.
Klein's response came in the form of what one might call a "modified stonewall." He will not answer the question because it would be "inappropriate" for him to give his views.
The matter involves the Little Hoover Commission, a state department charged with analyzing the performance of other state entities, and which has held one public hearing concerning CIRM. The commission's staffers and some of its members have also attended some CIRM meetings and interviewed other persons with an interest in the agency.
On Nov. 26, the Hoover commission sent a letter requesting Klein's views, a request first made at its hearing earlier that month. The letter asked for an answer by Dec. 15. On Dec. 19, Klein tried to rope in members of the CIRM board in fashioning a response, declaring that it would be "inappropriate" for him to respond, although he frequently says he wrote Prop. 71, the measure that created CIRM in 2004.
However, at least two board members balked. According to the transcript of the directors Legislative Subcommittee on Dec. 19, board member Jeff Sheehy, a communications manager at UC San Francisco, said,
During the meeting Klein indicated he would poll board members and perhaps staff about recommendations on possible changes.
Sheehy strongly objected to a detailed, full board review on the questions that the Little Hoover Commission directed to Klein. Sheehy warned that it could generate internal controversy that could have "negative consequences."
He said the board should focus on more important, unfinished work. Sheehy said,
He also reiterated his refusal to give his personal opinion about changes. However, in the past he has publicly stated that the 50 person cap on staff was a mistake. He also has acknowledged attendance problems at board meetings, which often make it impossible to do business officially. Those problems stem from the structure of the board and its super-majority quorum requirements that are locked into state law. He also has supported triaging or prescreening grant applications because of difficulties with the grant review process.
We have asked CIRM for copies of the responses to Klein's queries concerning recommendations for changes. We will carry those when we receive them.
Klein's response came in the form of what one might call a "modified stonewall." He will not answer the question because it would be "inappropriate" for him to give his views.
The matter involves the Little Hoover Commission, a state department charged with analyzing the performance of other state entities, and which has held one public hearing concerning CIRM. The commission's staffers and some of its members have also attended some CIRM meetings and interviewed other persons with an interest in the agency.
On Nov. 26, the Hoover commission sent a letter requesting Klein's views, a request first made at its hearing earlier that month. The letter asked for an answer by Dec. 15. On Dec. 19, Klein tried to rope in members of the CIRM board in fashioning a response, declaring that it would be "inappropriate" for him to respond, although he frequently says he wrote Prop. 71, the measure that created CIRM in 2004.
However, at least two board members balked. According to the transcript of the directors Legislative Subcommittee on Dec. 19, board member Jeff Sheehy, a communications manager at UC San Francisco, said,
"I would rather you just wrote the letter based on the items that you think are important."Claire Pomeroy, dean of the UC Davis School of Medicine, told Klein,
"It's asking your opinion about writing the initiative, which was the process that happened before the board even existed. so it seems to me that it is appropriate for you to clarify your personal testimony in response to this letter."Francisco Prieto, a Sacramento physician and CIRM board member, supported Klein's attempts to develop some sort of board consensus on changes.
During the meeting Klein indicated he would poll board members and perhaps staff about recommendations on possible changes.
Sheehy strongly objected to a detailed, full board review on the questions that the Little Hoover Commission directed to Klein. Sheehy warned that it could generate internal controversy that could have "negative consequences."
He said the board should focus on more important, unfinished work. Sheehy said,
"We're still working on trying to get a strategic plan for this institute....I can go down the list. We're still trying to get grants out. We're still trying to figure out a prescreening process. So there's a lot of the nitty-gritty stuff about our work we need to do."On Dec. 22, Klein wrote a five-page letter to the Hoover Commission that said the "board is working well." He said the size of the board is beneficial because it provides diversity of viewpoints. He defended its conflict of interest rules, but did not mention the case of a director being investigated by the state for actions taken on the advice of Klein personally. He defended CIRM's transparency but did not discuss its perennial failure to provide timely public, Internet access to important background material on many proposals(including their texts) to be acted on at directors' meetings.
He also reiterated his refusal to give his personal opinion about changes. However, in the past he has publicly stated that the 50 person cap on staff was a mistake. He also has acknowledged attendance problems at board meetings, which often make it impossible to do business officially. Those problems stem from the structure of the board and its super-majority quorum requirements that are locked into state law. He also has supported triaging or prescreening grant applications because of difficulties with the grant review process.
We have asked CIRM for copies of the responses to Klein's queries concerning recommendations for changes. We will carry those when we receive them.
Monday, December 15, 2008
CIRM Panel to Consider Hoover Questions
California stem cell Chairman Robert Klein is seeking some help this Friday from members of the agency's board of directors in connection with the Little Hoover Commission's inquiry into the $3 billion research effort.
Members of the public will also have a chance to comment at several teleconference locations throughout California. The forum is a meeting of the directors' Legislative Subcommittee. The agenda item reads: "Consideration of request from Little Hoover Commission for additional information regarding CIRM governance, board appointment structure, and other policies."
We have been told that the Little Hoover Commission, a bipartisan state agency devoted to improving the performance of government, posed questions on which Klein is seeking board input.
The current teleconference locations are in San Francisco, Sacramento, Healdsburg, Irvine, Elk Grove and Palo Alto. More may be added before the day of the meeting or even on the day of the meeting. The current listing and specific addresses can be found on the agenda.
Members of the public will also have a chance to comment at several teleconference locations throughout California. The forum is a meeting of the directors' Legislative Subcommittee. The agenda item reads: "Consideration of request from Little Hoover Commission for additional information regarding CIRM governance, board appointment structure, and other policies."
We have been told that the Little Hoover Commission, a bipartisan state agency devoted to improving the performance of government, posed questions on which Klein is seeking board input.
The current teleconference locations are in San Francisco, Sacramento, Healdsburg, Irvine, Elk Grove and Palo Alto. More may be added before the day of the meeting or even on the day of the meeting. The current listing and specific addresses can be found on the agenda.
Monday, November 24, 2008
The Bee Assails the CIRM 'Club'
The Sacramento Bee said today that the board of directors of the $3 billion California stem cell agency is "is rife with potential conflicts," "overly large and unwieldy" and "awards multimillion-dollar grants in a manner that favors secrecy over accountability."The comment came in an editorial on last week's hearing by the state's good-government agency, the Little Hoover Commission, into the stem cell research program.
The editorial said,
"The most striking testimony came from Kenneth Taymor(see photo), executive director of the UC Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy.According to The Bee,
"Taymor, who has been watching the institute's operations for three years, noted that nearly everyone on the institute's governing board – medical school deans, university officials – has some sort of financial interest in the grants being awarded.
"Even with officials recusing themselves, the board's deliberations, he said, have the feel of 'a club that was allocating money among themselves' based on preordained decisions."
"The hearing revealed, once again, that this institute's 29-member governing board is rife with potential conflicts; that it is overly large and unwieldy; and that it awards multimillion-dollar grants in a manner that favors secrecy over accountability."The Bee concluded:
"This is troublesome stuff, yet it doesn't appear the Little Hoover Commission will recommend sweeping structural changes, even though the institute still has more than $2 billion left to spend.
"Downsizing its governing board, eliminating conflicts and stripping the institute's chair of operational authority would require a constitutional amendment to Prop. 71. Based on their discussion Thursday, members of the Little Hoover Commission don't want to go that far.
"That's too bad. Without real reforms, Klein and his board will continue to operate like a club, spending taxpayer dollars without the normal safeguards of other public agencies."
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Minimal Coverage of Hoover-CIRM Inquiry
News coverage of last week's state Capitol hearing into the affairs of the California stem cell agency was quite light, with only one newspaper writing about the session -- at least based on an Internet search. Reporter Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune pulled together the single story on the inquiry by California's Little Hoover Commission, reflecting the importance of the biotech and stem cell industry in her area. The Sacramento Bee did not cover the event, but its Capitol Alert Internet service linked to Somers' piece.
The meager coverage was to be expected. Other matters are consuming news organizations, which also are suffering from heavily cut-back staffs.
Somers led with a statement by CIRM Chairman Robert Klein concerning the possibility of another bond measure to continue the work of the agency, which has only a 10-year funding capability. Another bond proposal could be placed on the ballot if the legislature approves or if it qualifies via the initiative process.
Somers described Klein's "unflinching confidence" in the research enterprise and reiterated his familiar pitch that CIRM has been overseen to a fare-thee-well.
Somers wrote,
"But what was perhaps most revealing were the areas of questioning by the commission members. They asked about the size of the institute's governing board, the transparency of its spending decisions, the ability of biotechnology companies to benefit from stem cell grants and the power and job responsibilities of Klein and (CIRM President Alan) Trounson.She continued,
"'I'm concerned that there is an arrogance in how the funding is handled and the institute is structured,' said commission vice chairman Eugene “Mitch” Mitchell(see photo), a vice president of San Diego's Sempra Energy. 'I find it baffling that it is a state agency, but there are so many rules it doesn't have to adhere to.'"
"Ken Taymor, a UC Berkeley law professor who has attended many of the institute's board meetings, said the public continues to be frustrated that funding decisions are still made behind closed doors. He also urged the commission to look at how power is divided between Klein and Trounson.Somers wrote,
"The board's size, at 29 members, makes it inefficient, said several observers. And it is unusual that it has no members whose sole interest is that of the taxpayers, said Michael Klausner, a Stanford Law School expert on nonprofit governance."
"John Simpson of Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica advocacy group, suggested trimming the board's membership to 15 people with no conflicts of interest."(Simpson put out a press release that was distributed widely.)
Somers additionally reported that Trounson indicated that California businesses will do better on the next round of grants. He predicted that probably one-third of the tools-and-technology grant round will go to the private sector. Only one business has won a grant and that was for only $50,000.
We will have more on the hearing over the next few days, but if you can't wait and want to wade through the testimony, it is all available here on the Little Hoover Commission website. An archived video of the entire session should be available soon via the same link.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Klein Lobbying Group Employee Organizing pro-CIRM Turnout for Hoover Inquiry
Patient advocate Don Reed is attempting to drum up a CIRM-sympathetic turnout at next Thursday's Little Hoover Commission hearing into the California stem cell agency.
Writing on his blog, Reed also acknowledged he is on the payroll of the private lobbying group of CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, Americans for Cures. Reed, who is a vice president of the group, said he receives a "small stipend." Reed regularly speaks on issues before the CIRM board of directors during their meetings.
As far as the Hoover Commission inquiry is concerned, Reed said,
Writing on his blog, Reed also acknowledged he is on the payroll of the private lobbying group of CIRM Chairman Robert Klein, Americans for Cures. Reed, who is a vice president of the group, said he receives a "small stipend." Reed regularly speaks on issues before the CIRM board of directors during their meetings.
As far as the Hoover Commission inquiry is concerned, Reed said,
"Personally, I am a little worried about making changes in something good. That is like going into the hospital for open heart surgery—when there is nothing wrong with you."Reed also looked askance at the appearance of John M. Simpson of Consumer Watchdog and Jesse Reynolds of the Center for Genetics and Society as witnesses next week. Reed said,
"...I object to the choice of two critics as representing the entire consumer population of California. It is my understanding both men are paid lobbyists. (There is nothing wrong with that; they could make a similar comment about me. I work for a group called Americans for Cures Foundation, which supports stem cell research, and receive a small stipend from that organization.) But to choose such vocal critics without a balance is to ignore the 59.2% of California which voted in favor of Proposition 71."
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Little Hoover Commission Opens CIRM Probe Next Week
California's Little Hoover Commission will kick off its inquiry next week into the state's $3 billion stem cell agency with testimony from both its chairman, Robert Klein, and longtime outside observers of the unique experiment.
CIRM President Alan Trounson is also scheduled to appear at the Nov. 20 hearing in the Capitol in Sacramento, following testimony by six other persons about what has become the world's largest source of funding for human embryonic stem cell research.
The commission is a bipartisan and respected California state organization that analyzes state government programs ranging from juvenile justice to California state bonding practices and makes recommendations for changes, if warranted.
The impetus for the commission's probe came earlier this year from legislation by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, who heads the state Senate Health Committee. The inquiry will deal with issues of governance, transparency, accountability and the use of state bond funds, according to Stuart Drown, executive director of the commission.
In addition to Klein and Trounson, the commission will hear from John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., a longtime participant in and observer of CIRM affairs. Jesse Reynolds, director of the Project on Biotechnology in the Public Interest at the Center for Genetics and Society in Oakland, Ca., is on tap as well. He was on the scene during the Prop. 71 campaign and later.
Ken Taymor, executive director of the Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy at the UC Berkeley School of Law, and Michael Klausner, a Stanford Law professor with expertise in governance, are scheduled to appear as well. Taymor has also been on the scene at numerous CIRM meetings.
The other two witnesses are Susan Bryant, a member of the CIRM board of directors and vice chancellor for research at UC Irvine, and Ralph O'Rear, vice president for facilities and planning at the Buck Institute in Novato, Ca. UC Irvine has received $51 million in CIRM grants. Buck has received $25 million.
The commission has scheduled another public hearing for late January, but Drown says that meeting and next week's session are not necessarily the only public events. In response to questions, he said the commission "tries to create opportunities for many voices." Options include "advisory group meetings, site visits, focused discussions with experts – all of which would be open to the public," he said.
Drown continued,
But Drown reported,
The hearing may be televised live on the Internet via the CalChannel. Its schedule can be found here.
CIRM President Alan Trounson is also scheduled to appear at the Nov. 20 hearing in the Capitol in Sacramento, following testimony by six other persons about what has become the world's largest source of funding for human embryonic stem cell research.
The commission is a bipartisan and respected California state organization that analyzes state government programs ranging from juvenile justice to California state bonding practices and makes recommendations for changes, if warranted.
The impetus for the commission's probe came earlier this year from legislation by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, who heads the state Senate Health Committee. The inquiry will deal with issues of governance, transparency, accountability and the use of state bond funds, according to Stuart Drown, executive director of the commission.
In addition to Klein and Trounson, the commission will hear from John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., a longtime participant in and observer of CIRM affairs. Jesse Reynolds, director of the Project on Biotechnology in the Public Interest at the Center for Genetics and Society in Oakland, Ca., is on tap as well. He was on the scene during the Prop. 71 campaign and later.
Ken Taymor, executive director of the Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy at the UC Berkeley School of Law, and Michael Klausner, a Stanford Law professor with expertise in governance, are scheduled to appear as well. Taymor has also been on the scene at numerous CIRM meetings.
The other two witnesses are Susan Bryant, a member of the CIRM board of directors and vice chancellor for research at UC Irvine, and Ralph O'Rear, vice president for facilities and planning at the Buck Institute in Novato, Ca. UC Irvine has received $51 million in CIRM grants. Buck has received $25 million.
The commission has scheduled another public hearing for late January, but Drown says that meeting and next week's session are not necessarily the only public events. In response to questions, he said the commission "tries to create opportunities for many voices." Options include "advisory group meetings, site visits, focused discussions with experts – all of which would be open to the public," he said.
Drown continued,
"The commission welcomes written testimony from the public and provides a chance to speak at the end of the public hearing. Those opportunities should not be discounted, as they have, in some cases, been starting points of discussions with staff."CIRM has been wary of the commission's study, contending that it has been the subject of more than enough scrutiny.
But Drown reported,
"We’ve had positive interactions with CIRM staff. They’ve been very helpful in providing documents and we’ve agreed on a process to how to best communicate with them, using Don Gibbons (CIRM's chief communications officer) as a point person, who then either responds or directs us to someone else. Initially, there was some uncertainty on their part about what we were after and hoped to achieve, and we sensed they were trying to fit us into the frame of what they’d already experienced. A group came up for a chat a couple of weeks ago and we walked through our process and gave them a sense of what our reports attempt to achieve. We explained that this isn’t an audit, but a study and an analysis."Drown also said that Klein and Trounson are last on the Nov. 20 agenda so that they have a chance to respond to earlier comments.
The hearing may be televised live on the Internet via the CalChannel. Its schedule can be found here.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tracking the Little Hoover Commission and CIRM
The Little Hoover Commission, which is looking into the governance of the California stem cell agency, has posted some material concerning its inquiry, accessibility and schedule.
The first meeting will be held Nov. 20 in Sacramento with the second Jan. 22, also in Sacramento. The agenda says,
The first meeting will be held Nov. 20 in Sacramento with the second Jan. 22, also in Sacramento. The agenda says,
"As part of its study, the commission will explore the transparency and accountability of the existing governance structure."The agenda also says that more information can be had by contacting project manager Eric Stern. To be notified of events concerning the CIRM inquiry, send a message to littlehoover@lhc.ca.gov. The phone number for the commission is 916-445-2125.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)