Prop. 71 Minutia Stalls CIRM Again

SAN FRANCISCO – The board of directors of the California stem cell agency Tuesday failed to achieve a quorum and was forced to put off action on regulations tied to its ambitious, $210 million disease team grant round, the largest ever in CIRM history.

That means it will be at least another two weeks or more before the board can act on the IP rules that it needs for disease team project. The grants are scheduled to be awarded later this year.

The board has been handicapped for years by its super-quorum requirement, 65 percent of its 29 members. Tuesday, the quorum was 19 but only 18 answered the roll call during the special, teleconference meeting based here. Twenty-one had been expected. Without a quorum, the board cannot take legal action.

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., said today that problems with quorums are a persistent and important issue at CIRM. Simpson has followed the matter for several years. In one case in 2008, he wrote about how the board “essentially” drafted a member of the audience to raise a quorum.

Commenting today, he said,

“This clearly shows that (the board) has not resolved its nagging problem with mustering a quorum. They should have taken the Little Hoover Commission's (initial) advice and moved to make a simple majority all that is necessary to conduct business. Instead, they insist on a meaningless charade that wasted the time of 18 very busy people.”

The quorum mandate is written into state law by Prop. 71, which created the stem cell agency in 2004. It cannot be changed without a vote of the people or by the legislature. But the latter involves another super-majority requirement, 70 percent of both houses of the legislature and the signature of the governor.

The Little Hoover Commission, the state's government good government panel, earlier this year cited CIRM's problems with achieving quorums. But the CIRM board last month rejected suggestions that the quorum be reduced to 50 percent. It relied on its attorney's opinion that to do so would “undermine” the intent of the voters and would leave the board open to being captured by a minority.

However, super-majority requirements actually facilitate minority dominance of bodies such as the CIRM board. On Tuesday, the absence of one member paralyzed the board. In other cases, a few members have left CIRM board meetings and thus prevented it from taking action. Conceivably, 11 members of the board could control it by simply refusing to attend unless their wishes prevailed.

The regulations under consideration Tuesday dealt with intellectual property requirements. Initially, they appeared to be relatively non-controversial, although CIRM director Susan Bryant, vice chancellor for research, University of California, Irvine, raised anew concerns expressed last July by the University of California (statewide).

Director William R. Brody, president of the Salk Institute, also criticized some of the proposed regulations as “absurd” and suggested that language from federal IP law be adopted. However, others noted that CIRM deliberately moved away from federal law in its development of the regulations over several years.

In the absence of a quorum, CIRM Chairman Robert Klein said the proposed regulations will be taken up later after CIRM director Ed Penhoet, head of the IP Task Force and a co-founder of Chiron, has a chance to discuss them with Brody and Bryant.

The CIRM board also did not act on hiring underwriters (more than one is needed because of potential conflicts of interest) to run its $500 million biotech loan program. The effort is scheduled to begin with the disease team grant round. But the board was told that a very small number of potential borrowers are involved in that round.

Instead of hiring two or more underwriters, John Robson, CIRM vice president for operations, said the lending effort can begin with a pilot project involving one underwriter. He said that it will help the agency develop a better underwriting effort for the directors to approve next year. Following the meeting, Robson said he hopes to conclude a pilot agreement within days.

You can read more on quorum problems, as discussed by Simpson, here, here, here, here and here.

(Editor's note: In an earlier version of this item, the quotation from John M. Simpson did not contain the word "initial" in parentheses.)

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.

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.

Call for CIRM Reform to be Heard by Agency Board

Recommendations for sweeping changes in the $3 billion California stem cell agency come before its board of directors next Thursday, including one proposal that would trim the unwieldy 29-member board to 15.

The full board will hear an interim report on the recommendations by the Little Hoover Commission, the state's good government agency. The meeting will follow a session the same day of its Legislative Subcommittee.

Earlier this month, the subcommittee opposed five proposals by the commission contained in an 88-page report entitled, “Stem Cell Research: Strengthening Governance to Further the Voters' Mandate.” The rejected recommendations included a reduction in the size of the board and a move to curtail the power of its chairman, Robert Klein.

One CIRM director, Jeff Sheehy, has said the Hoover Commission offered some “reasonable suggestions.” Late last month, Sheehy said he was disappointed by the “vigorous negative response” from CIRM.

Prior to next Thursday's meeting of the full board, the Legislative Subcommittee will discuss nine other Hoover recommendations, including polling scientists who review grants about whether they would resign if they must publicly disclose their financial interests.

The grant review group makes the de facto decisions on grant applications, although the board has the final legal authority. In practice, the board almost never overturns reviewers' recommendations either to fund or not to fund a specific grant.

Other Hoover proposals include:

• Elimination of the 50 employee cap, which is unnecessary given that there is also a cap on administrative spending. The limit on staff has created a heavy reliance on outside contracting.


• Adoption of a succession plan for leadership and a transition plan when bond funding is no longer available. State bonds are virtually the source of cash for CIRM.


• Identification of all applicants for a grant. Currently only successful applicants are identified. Identification of all applicants would allow the public to see what is not being funded and allow better assessment of whether certain areas of science are being overlooked.


• A performance audit of CIRM by a special oversight committee chaired by the state's top fiscal officer, the state controller.

Responding to a query, John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., said,

"The (board) needs to spend its time thinking about and acting on many of the issues raised in the report. Number one on my list would be succession planning now that Bob Klein has made it clear he won't be chairman after 2010. Another important thing to deal with is the revised strategic plan that has been lingering in draft form since last December.”

Some of the recommendations being considered on Thursday would require legislative action – an unprecedented, super, supermajority 70 percent vote mandated by Prop. 71, the ballot initiative that created CIRM, plus the signature of the governor. No other California legislation requires a 70 percent vote, including raising taxes and passing a budget.

Earlier this month, the Legislative Subcommittee rejected the more sweeping recommendations largely on the grounds of its own attorney's opinion that they would require a vote of the people – an even more challenging political feat than gaining a 70 percent vote of the legislature.

A memo to other directors from Klein and Art Torres, co-vice chairman of the board and chairman of the Legislative Subcommittee, said that if those changes were adopted only by the legislature, it would be unconstitutional.

They said,

“As members of the board, we took an oath to uphold Proposition 71 and could not support these proposed changes.”

Legal opinions, however, are just that -- opinions. Another equally skilled attorney could come to an entirely different conclusion.

The opinion from the board's attorney was ordered up by Klein before the final report by the Hoover Commission was released. It placed the CIRM board in a box. To do anything but follow the opinion could be construed as a repudiation of Klein and CIRM's outside legal counsel.

The subcommittee session and the full board meeting will be available to the public via numerous locations statewide. The subcommittee meeting begins at 1 p.m. With the full board to follow at 4 p.m. The full board is expected to take up the Hoover recommendations again in August.

Specific addresses can be found on the subcommittee agenda and the board agenda.

The full text of Simpson's remarks can be found in the item below.

Text of Simpson Hoover Comments

Here is the text of comments by John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of the Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., concerning next week's CIRM board meeting on recommendations by the Little Hoover Commission.

“The Little Hoover Commission requires no response and the Legislative Subcommittee is wasting the valuable time of its members trying to formulate one. What matters is action, not rhetoric.

“If the ICOC (the CIRM board) needs to send something, send a simple note:

"'Dear Little Hoover Commission:

"'Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful report. We appreciate its constructive tone and are giving serious consideration to all the recommendations you made.

"'Thank you,
"'The ICOC'

“Then the ICOC needs to spend its time thinking about and acting on many of the issues raised in the report. Number one on my list would be succession planning now that Bob Klein has made it clear he won't be chairman after 2010. Another important thing to deal with is the revised strategic plan that has been lingering in draft form since last December.

“Little Hoover did its job. They offered an independent assessment and a bunch of suggestions. They have done their job and are on to their next study. They really don't care what your write back.

“Now the ICOC needs to do its job. Surely that's not wasting members' valuable time formulating a response to the report. That approach smacks more of ego -- and thin skin -- than anything else. Instead, tackle the very real issues the agency is facing.”

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.

Harrison Response on June 8 Letter

We asked James Harrison of Remcho, Johansen & Purcell of San Leandro, Ca., outside counsel for CIRM, for his opinion on whether the process leading to the June 8 letter to the Little Hoover Commission violated the state’s open meeting laws. Here is the text of his response.

“In fact, the letter states that the authors would like to thank the Little Hoover Commission, on behalf of the Board, for the invitation to meet with LHC staff. 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. As you know, the Legislative Subcommittee has scheduled a meeting to discuss the report and to consider the views of other Board members. I hope this clarifies the matter.”

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. )

The Bee on Hoover Report: Time for Candor

The Sacramento Bee on Sunday carried an editorial headlined "time for a change at stem cell institute."

The editorial, published also in other McClatchy newspapers including those in Fresno and Merced, was keyed to the report by the Little Hoover Commission. The Bee wrote,

"For far too long, this institute(CIRM) and its leadership have been secretive, defensive and unwilling to acknowledge a flawed management structure, the legacy of a flawed ballot initiative.

"Maturity involves being able to consider outside criticism and engage in self-evaluation. Sadly, the leaders of the stem cell institute have developed a bunker mentality that continues to hurt the agency's mission.

"The institute's reaction to a recent report by the Little Hoover Commission is the latest demonstration."

The Bee continued,

“If adopted by CIRM and the Legislature, (the Hoover) recommendations and others could go a long way toward helping the stem cell institute operate more effectively, with greater accountability of taxpayer dollars. Yet instead of taking a few days to absorb the report and discuss it with his board, (CIRM Chairman Robert) Klein immediately dismissed it in a press release.

"The agency's spokesman dismissed the Little Hoover's process as 'ludicrous,' and Klein threatened a court challenge if the Legislature attempted to act on the recommendations.

“Fortunately, Klein is just one of 29 members of the institute's oversight board. Many others are distinguished academics and patient advocates who have greater candor, and less pride of parenthood, in acknowledging CIRM's flaws.

"Now is the time for their voices to be heard, in public meetings, as the institute approaches its five-year mark."

CIRM Director Responds to Hoover Commission Recommendations

Jeff Sheehy, who has served on the board of the California stem cell agency since its inception and as acting vice chair of its grant review group, prepared the following piece on the Little Hoover Commission's report on the agency. Sheehy is a communications manager at UC San Francisco and is a nationally known HIV/AIDs patient advocate. Here is Sheehy's article.

Last Thursday, the Little Hoover Commission issued a report, "Stem Cell Research: Strengthening Governance to Further the Voters’ Mandate," recommending changes to Proposition 71, the initiative establishing the state’s stem cell research funding agency, the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM).

CIRM has already mounted a vigorous negative response, which I, as a member of CIRM’s governing board (the Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee or ICOC), find disappointing.

So while my preferred method of responding would have been through processes of the ICOC, that avenue has not been made available. Therefore, I am taking this opportunity to express my views.

To begin, I should flesh out the three underlying principles implicit in the report. First, CIRM is a tremendous success. While it will take time for the cures to emerge, incredible, innovative science in the new field of regenerative medicine has been funded, a dozen state-of-the-art research facilities are being built around the state, scores of scientists have been recruited to California from around the world, and networks have formed around the state that are the seeds for new Silicon Valleys, but of biotech not chips. Having established itself as the world’s hub for regenerative medicine, California is already reaping the benefit from the initial investments.

Second, Robert Klein has earned the gratitude of California for his incredible leadership in passing Proposition 71 and in leading the establishment of CIRM. His unimaginable level of effort has been the single biggest ingredient in CIRM’s success. If it were up to me, I would honor his service by naming CIRM after him upon his retirement.

Third, given CIRM’s success and Mr. Klein’s announced retirement upon completion of his term, we need to institutionalize CIRM as we plan for a longer future, sustained either by the proceeds of its loan program, additional voter approved funds, or appropriations from the Legislature. By the time the initial tranche of funding is exhausted, CIRM will have moved several potential therapies far down the developmental pipeline, and the economic stimulus from placing California ahead of the world in regenerative medicine will be obvious to everyone. Eventually there will be cures for chronic and life-threatening diseases that will save healthcare dollars. California will reap the economic benefit of being the home of many of the companies that provide those cures.

The Little Hoover Commission offers some reasonable suggestions for improvements that could help the functioning of CIRM and further institutionalize the agency. The 29-member ICOC is too big and too cumbersome—that’s obvious to anyone who regularly attends our meetings and sees us struggle to attain a quorum. The report seems to suggest an organic transition to a smaller board as terms end in 2010 and 2012.

Twelve members’ terms expire in 2010—4 from non-UC research institutions, 4 from non-UC universities, and 4 from the life sciences industry. I would recommend halving that number in proportion, which would reduce the ICOC by 6. The chair and vice-chair terms also expire in 2010 and the Little Hoover commission recommends not reappointing someone to those positions. Rather, they recommend that the chair and vice-chair be nominated from the membership of the ICOC and then voted in by the members. Two-year rotating terms are recommended. This would reduce the size by 2.

In 2012, the 5 UC medical school appointments expire along with the 10 patient advocate terms. I would alter the Little Hoover recommendations by reducing the UC medical school number to 3 and the patient advocate slots to 6 seats with 6 designated alternates. My rationales are that UC is part of the state of California and should be well represented, and that patient advocates currently fill 12 slots since the chair and vice-chair must have patient advocate credentials, so 6 would be the appropriate proportional reduction. Creating 6 alternates addresses persistent complaints of patient advocates that they are not allowed to appoint proxies. In addition, the participation of patient advocates in the working groups has been an extremely positive innovation in Prop. 71 and the alternates would be available for the working groups.

This would give the ICOC, hopefully renamed the Board of Directors for CIRM, 15 members. I would set a quorum of 9, which should be more easily attainable, especially with proxies and alternates. If prospective members cannot commit to adequate attendance, they should decline appointment, and non-attendance should be grounds for removal. I would strongly urge maintaining the original diversity, which has been strength, not a hindrance.

In addition, I would define the pool of conditions and diseases from which the patient advocates are drawn more broadly and not specify which conditions or diseases an individual advocate must be drawn from, but merely state that each patient advocate must be drawn from a different disease or condition. Further, I would recommend that either the chair or vice-chair should be a patient advocate member. And to address the inequitable and immense economic burden of service for lower income ICOC members, I would increase the per diem by a reasonable multiple.

Little Hoover recommends 4-year terms. Again, this makes sense. The transition should occur organically as proposed above and that would give staggered terms so the entire Board does not turn over at once. I think the non-UC appointment process should be considered carefully. It should reflect a balance of power between Legislature and the Governor and/or other constitutional officers such that individuals are appointed for merit and desire to serve CIRM’s mission and not to fulfill any political agenda.

In eliminating the appointed chair and vice-chair, I agree with the Little Hoover commission on eliminating the operational aspects of those positions. The new Board should be focused exclusively on oversight and not day-to-day management, which belongs in the hands of a president hired by and accountable to the Board. This is not intended nor should it be construed as any criticism of Mr. Klein. I believe that if a successful restructuring is accomplished, his dual role will be properly perceived as a heroic sacrifice for CIRM’s mission and an essential feature of its success in initiating its operations. If we try to fill Mr. Klein’s shoes, I believe we risk the success of the entire enterprise.

The Little Hoover ccommission recommends expanding the size of the agency beyond 50 employees. I do not know anyone who does not think this is reasonable. I would suggest a cap, but that number should be determined after thorough analysis.

I also think most agree that the 15-member limit for scientist grant reviewers is too low. This should be expanded, again after thorough analysis. In addition, the current staff-led triage process should be eliminated in favor of a process within the structure of an expanded Grants Working Group. I must reject other changes to the peer review process. The operation of the Grants Working Group has been an outstanding success, and CIRM staff should be commended.

Finally, I heartily support a performance audit by the Citizens’ Financial Accountability Oversight Committee, an entity established by Prop. 71.

In short, I wish the report by the Little Hoover Commission could be perceived and advanced as the beginning of a dialogue about governance structures that results in the strengthening and institutionalization of CIRM and sets it on a path towards a long and fruitful existence.

A Tipping Point for CIRM? Reform Recommendations Coincide with Pressing Problems

California's Little Hoover Commission's sweeping report on the state's $3 billion stem cell agency comes at a time when the ambitious research enterprise could be facing a tipping point in its short life.

Recent weeks have seen several significant developments involving the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which is less than five years old.

• Its chairman, Robert Klein, made it clear he is not going fill the job after 2010.
• Marie Csete, CIRM's chief scientific officer, said she is quitting Aug. 1 for unexplained reasons.
  
• The agency is about to embark on its largest and most ambitious round of research grants, a $210 million effort that Klein has identified as critical.
  
• At the same time, it will launch a related, risky and unprecedented $500 million lending program for the biotech industry.
• Festering questions involving structural and governance issues surfaced in a contentious CIRM board meeting earlier this month.
  
• Revision of CIRM's strategic plan, which has guided it successfully so far, has been moldering for months.
  
• Funding problems – solved for the time being – will arise once again in 2010.
  
• And CIRM staff has identified both the potential loss of key staff and community support as two risks the agency faces.
  

That said, CIRM will have approved $1 billion in grants by the end of this year. It is already the largest source of funding in the world for human embryonic stem cell research. “California has made an investment in innovation that is the envy of the world,” said Daniel Hancock, chairman of the Little Hoover Commission and former president of Shapell Industries.

Nonetheless, said the commission, CIRM can and should do better if some of the niggling and not-so-niggling impediments embedded in state law by Prop. 71 are removed or altered. They include: reducing the size of the unwieldy, 29-member board, adding independent voices to the panel, eliminating the overlapping roles of the chairman and president and beginning the all-important planning for leadership transition. (A list of the recommendations can be found here, excerpts here and the complete report here.)

The commission's report is fair-minded, thoughtful and well-researched. It pointed several times to CIRM's accomplishments and the contributions of Chairman Klein. The commission's recommendations stopped short of seeking another ballot measure, which would be unrealistic and stimulate acrimony from CIRM and its supporters. The good government agency said changes should “be prospective and strategic and minimize disruption that might slow CIRM's ambitious and creative agenda.”

CIRM's reaction was adversarial and defensive, a CIRM tendency that the commission discussed in its study.

The agency reaction came in the form of a news release from CIRM in which Klein said,

“To disrupt and delay the agency’s critical work for a year, or even six months, because of what the commission’s staff has called ‘perception’ issues is unacceptable. Let them talk perception to patients who miss out on a therapeutic breakthrough that would have saved their lives because the agency has been paralyzed by a sweeping reorganization.”

CIRM challenged the legality of legislative enactment of the recommendations and basically threatened a lawsuit, raising the rather bizarre picture of a state agency suing the governor and the legislature. More likely, Klein would find a friendly group to act as a legal surrogate, perhaps his own private stem cell lobbying group, Americans for Cures.

The CIRM press release triggered a less than pleased response today from Jeff Sheehy, a member of the CIRM board.

In a comment posted on the California Stem Cell Report, he said,

“On whose authority are thousands of dollars of lobbying, communications, and legal resources being spent opposing this report? The legislature requested this report and to oppose in this knee jerk fashion could properly and reasonably offend those legislators who supported the engagement of the Little Hoover Commission.”

He said that most CIRM board members would likely agree with recommendations to remove the 50-person cap on CIRM staff and the 15-person limit on outside scientists on the grant review panel.

Sheehy said the board – not the agency – should take a position on the report after thoroughly analyzing it.

From outside the agency came a nod of approval for the commission's work. John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., said,

“This is a thoughtful and thorough analysis from a bipartisan group with no ax to grind. CIRM’s management and board should listen to its advice.”

Klein's longstanding involvement with CIRM was touched on by the commission. It said that much was owed to Klein's hard work, beginning with overseeing the campaign for Prop. 71 in 2004. But it said that his actions and personal style “have been at the core of many of the criticisms of the stem-cell agency, and have made him a lightning rod for calls for more accountability.”

The commission continued,

“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.”

The commission stressed that succession planning should be a top priority of the CIRM board considering Klein's plans to leave his post in 18 months. The commission raised other questions about CIRM's future.

“How will CIRM know when its job is done?
“What happens when CIRM runs out of money?
“Is the mission of Prop. 71 best served by transforming CIRM into a self-sustaining operation?"

Nearly five years ago, voters approved Prop. 71 with the understanding that it was a 10-year effort. While it does lose its ability to sell bonds after that period, the agency will continue to have some sort of life, perhaps only as a vestige in state law books.

CIRM directors should give the commission's report serious consideration as they look at their own plans for the agency's future and life without Robert Klein.

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item incorrectly stated the Little Hoover Commission's final report included a recommendation for reduction of the super-majority quorum requirement for the stem cell agency board. The change was initially recommended in the commission's draft report, but was dropped in the final report, which said the quorum requirement was “problematic.”)

CIRM Mishandles Reaction to Hoover Commission

The California stem cell agency this week fed right into a Little Hoover Commission finding that is prone to defensive and adversarial reaction to outside criticism.

CIRM's response to the commission's report basically threatened a lawsuit if the Hoover Commission recommendations were adopted by the legislature. CIRM said,

“...(A)ny attempt to enact the changes through legislation rather than by a vote of the people would likely result in a court challenge, which would be costly and time consuming.”

The assertion raised the specter of a California state department possibly suing the state's own governor and legislature. More likely, a CIRM-friendly group would be recruited to file the litigation.

CIRM's statement, aside from the rhetoric, was largely based on a legal memo by its outside counsel. CIRM's chief communications officer, Don Gibbons, said the release was distributed to reporters who requested it, but it was not posted on the CIRM web site. We asked Gibbons why. He replied,

"I see no reason for drawing attention to something for which the process was a farce. When, at the last minute they voted to change our quorum requirements, the one item on their original list that made a modicum of sense, there was not a single commissioner who knew what our current requirement was. Only one of many ludicrous moments in the process."

In an email, he also cited the “hypocrisy” of the Hoover Commission recommendation for more openness for CIRM while the commission withheld its draft recommendations from the public and CIRM until the full report was approved this week by the commission. Gibbons has a point there, which we have written about.

CIRM's statement on the report, however, was another bit of evidence supporting the commission's position that the agency has been unnecessarily adversarial and defensiveness at times.

The report quoted Donna Gerardi Riordan, former director of programs at the California Council on Science and Technology, as saying that “framers” of Prop. 71 were “short-sightedly taunting” state lawmakers. The result was “rancorous public attention” that stood in the way of constructive solutions.

More immediately, however, the CIRM statement ired CIRM board member Jeff Sheehy, who aired his concerns publicly in an unsolicited comment here on the California Stem Cell Report. It is reasonably certain that other board members were less than pleased as well.

The CIRM statement also triggered a negative response from a reader who must remain anonymous. Foolish was the term he used. The reader said CIRM should have sent the following comment to the commission regarding its work.

“Thank you very much for your thorough report and recommendations. It’s clear the staff and commission devoted considerable effort to this important project. We appreciate the constructive spirit in which the recommendations were offered and will give them appropriate consideration as we move forward.”

It would be easy to assign responsibility for the CIRM statement to Gibbons, since he is in charge of CIRM public relations. However, it was clearly released under Klein's authorization and is not the only occasion that Klein has demonstrated seriously flawed judgment about public relations matters. (See here, here and here.)

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.

Excerpts Hoover Commission Investigation of CIRM

Here are some excerpts from the report by California's Little Hoover Commission, the state's good government agency, on the California stem cell agency. First, from the cover letter by Daniel W. Hancock, chairman of the bipartisan commission.

“In the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, California has made an investment in innovation that is envy of the world. Known as CIRM, the institute is the product of Proposition 71, which promised voters they could turn California into the global epicenter of biotechnology. The institute since has directed more than $700 million toward scientific exploration, in the process, leveraging an additional $900 million in private and institutional money that has built new facilities, lured scientists to California and spurred growth in the state’s life-sciences industry.”

“The Commission found that CIRM’s governance structure is not adequate to protect taxpayers’ interests or serve its own ambitious goals. The Legislature must take this opportunity to reform CIRM’s governance structure to ensure that it can deliver on its mission of developing cures for the benefit of all, as well as provide transparency and accountability for California’s taxpayers who will be paying off the bonds.”

He continued:

“The 10,000-word proposition (that created CIRM) laid out highly specific qualifications and detailed operational duties for its chairperson. Its very specificity prevents CIRM from evolving, institutionalizes inefficiencies and hobbles its ability to transition to new leadership.”

“CIRM’s 29-member oversight committee includes representatives from institutions that have benefitted from grants the committee approved. This structure, along with overly long terms and the inability to nominate its own leaders or hold them accountable, fuels concerns that the committee never can be entirely free of conflict of interest or self-dealing, notwithstanding a court ruling that established the legality of such a structure. Legal is not necessarily optimal,”

Here are excerpts from the body of the report:

On conflicts of interest
“Criticism that CIRM’s governing board remains an insiders’ club undermines the legitimacy of the agency. Some 80 percent of the funds to date have been awarded to institutions with representatives on the ICOC...(T)he frequent occurrence of members recusing themselves because of conflicts of interest shows a structural defect in the governing board.”

Accountability
“The detailed provisions of the ballot initiative, which placed the governing board outside of the normal scope of accountability compared to other state agencies and boards, provided stability, diversity and the political protection to get the agency up and running. But today, only five years later, Proposition 71 already looks like a relic of another era.”

Personality Driven
“The actions and personal style of ICOC chair Robert Klein have been at
the core of many of the criticisms of the stem-cell agency, and have made
him a lightning rod for calls for more accountability. That he is a
component of much of the discussion is unavoidable as he drafted,
championed and donated money for Proposition 71 and now serves as
the paid, part-time chairman of the governing board. His passion and
leadership made Proposition 71 a reality, and his financial and political
skills helped CIRM survive its early challenges. At the same time, the
media have chronicled how Mr. Klein has alienated members of the
Legislature and at least one newspaper has called on Mr. Klein to
resign.”

“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. Such a situation distorts accountability and succession
planning and could, in the event of an abrupt departure of the
individual, leave the agency leaderless for an extended period. A more
efficient and balanced board is possible and more appropriate as CIRM
matures. For CIRM to prosper and sustain itself, such changes are
essential.”

CIRM's Adversarial Defensiveness
From Donna Gerardi Riordan, former director of programs at the California Council on Science and Technology, “By excluding legislators from participating in the creation and design of CIRM, the framers of Proposition 71 were short-sightedly taunting the state’s most powerful
and skillful political players,”

Management
“CIRM has adopted a co-CEO leadership structure between the board chair and the agency president. The board chair oversees several daily administrative duties at CIRM, which gives the chair a dominant role over other members, creates potential conflict with the CIRM president and blurs the lines of accountability.”

More Open Grant Review Process
“CIRM leadership has argued that fewer institutions would apply for
funding if their identities became known and they were not successful.
CIRM, however, should continually strive to improve the openness of its
process. Based on Connecticut’s experience of disclosing all applicants
without negative consequence, CIRM should conduct a pilot project to
evaluate if a more open process would inhibit researchers from coming
forward and applying for CIRM funds. In an upcoming grant round, all
applicants should be identified retrospectively. Disclosing names of
unsuccessful applicants as well as individual reviewers will allow the
public to better track CIRM’s funding processes for fairness and bias.
Judging by the apparent willingness of rejected applicants to identify
themselves and their organizations in public appeals to CIRM, it is
questionable whether the current lockout of applicant identities poses a
real concern. The burden is on CIRM to demonstrate otherwise.”

CIRM's Future
“The rapidly changing political and scientific environment raises questions about whether the organization is flexible enough to adapt to the field it is supposed to lead....

• “How will CIRM know when its job is done?
• “What happens when CIRM runs out of money?
• "Is the mission of Proposition 71 best served by transforming CIRM into a self-sustaining operation?"

Sheehy Comments on Little Hoover Commission Recommendations and CIRM Reaction

We want to call attention to a comment that Jeff Sheehy posted this afternoon on the “CIRM news release” item. Sheehy is a member of the CIRM board. He has served on the board since its inception and serves regularly as the acting vice chair of its grant review group. You can read Sheehy's unsolicited and unmoderated comment at the end of the item in question.

Quick Links: Recommendations for CIRM Overhaul, Media Coverage and Reaction

The Little Hoover Commission's recommendations for sweeping changes in the $3 billion California stem cell agency became public today, generating some interesting news items and reaction from the agency itself.

We were traveling today and have not had a chance to read the 84-page document but will have an analysis tomorrow. Meanwhile interested readers have plenty to chew on.

First, there is the report itself, which can be found here. Then there is CIRM's reaction to it, which came in the form of a press release dated Wednesday June 24. The release has been circulated to at least some reporters, but has not been posted on the CIRM Web site at the time of this writing. The full text is contained in the item below.

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., issued his reaction at 2:02 p.m. today. You can find that document here.

Ron Leuty of the San Francisco Business Times wrote a relatively lengthy piece about the recommendations. Sandy Kleffman of the Contra Costa Times also filed a fairly substantial article.

We expect to see more coverage in the mainstream media, but Saturday is not a good day if you are looking for newspapers loaded with news. Even in the heyday of newspapers, Saturday papers were thin and did not offer much.

CIRM News Release on Little Hoover Commission Report

Here is the complete text of a CIRM news release circulated to some reporters today in connection with recommendations by the Little Hoover Commission. As of this writing, the release has not been posted on the CIRM Web site.


For Immediate Release Contact: Don Gibbons
415-396-9117
415-740-5855 (mobile)


CIRM Responds to Recommendations of the Little Hoover Commission

Sacramento, Calif., June 24, 2009 – The leaders of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), the state stem cell agency, said today that they were disappointed that the Little Hoover Commission chose to release a report with recommendations that, if enacted by the legislature, would slow the agency’s progress toward cures.

The agency believes that many of the recommendations made by the commission are based on an incomplete understanding of the agency’s operation and are so sweeping they would require another ballot initiative to amend Proposition 71, which created the agency. If enacted by the Legislature and signed by the governor the recommendations would dramatically disrupt and delay the agency’s push to achieve its mission of delivering therapies to patients. In addition, any attempt to enact the changes through legislation rather than by a vote of the people would likely result in a court challenge, which would be costly and time consuming.

The Commissioners have publicly acknowledged that CIRM’s existing structure is quite successful in allocating research funds in a manner that has garnered respect from researchers in the state, nationally and internationally. The Commissioner’s have also acknowledged that multiple audits and court reviews have shown that CIRM is managing potential conflicts of interest well.

“To disrupt and delay the agency’s critical work for a year, or even six months, because of what the Commission’s staff has called ‘perception’ issues is unacceptable,” said Robert Klein chair of CIRM’s governing board. “Let them talk perception to patients who miss out on a therapeutic breakthrough that would have saved their lives because the agency has been paralyzed by a sweeping reorganization. The will of seven million voters who approved this highly functional structure should be respected. I would hope the legislature will not devote any of its valuable time to this measure that has little chance of benefiting the state while it has great potential to do harm.”

Specific fallacies of the report:
• The board is too large and unwieldy. With 29 members it is similar in size to the UC Regents (26) and the California Judicial Council (28). On all three boards, size has afforded a diverse membership that brings a needed breadth of expertise.
• There are no independent voices and as a result there are perceptions of conflicts. There are many board members with no ties to organizations that receive grants and those who are from institutions do not participate in even the discussion of grant applications from their institutions. The Court of Appeals noted, “by approving Proposition 71 the voters have determined that the advantages of permitting particularly knowledgeable persons to decide which research projects to fund outweigh any concerns that these decisions may be influenced by the personal or professional interests of those members.
• Reduce politicalization of the board by letting the governor make all but four appointments. The current process, which divides the appointing authority between the State’s four constitutional officers and the UC Chancellors, is a much more effective means of assuring no one political agenda can shape the board and in turn the science CIRM funds.
• The division of authority between the board chair and the agency president is not effective. Proposition 71 created a clear division of responsibility with an executive chair providing financial leadership and a president providing scientific leadership. Current president Alan Trounson and board chair Klein have both publicly stated that this division is working well for the agency.

One of the key objectives of Proposition 71 was to provide stability and predictability to a research-funding program. The inevitable delays that would be caused if the Commission’s recommendations were enacted by the legislature would disrupt California laboratories the length of the state and slow progress to cures.

Related Media:
Videos explaining stem cell research are available on the CIRM YouTube site.
Stem cell images are available at the CIRM Flickr site. These are available for use with credit to the scientist listed in the caption.


About CIRM CIRM was established in November, 2004 with the passage of Proposition 71, the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act. The statewide ballot measure, which provided $3 billion in funding for stem cell research at California universities and research institutions, was overwhelmingly approved by voters, and called for the establishment of an entity to make grants and provide loans for stem cell research, research facilities, and other vital research opportunities. To date, the CIRM governing board has approved 279 research and facility grants totaling more than $693 million, making CIRM the largest source of funding for human embryonic stem cell research in the world. For more information, please visit www.cirm.ca.gov.

Hoover Commission Report on CIRM Overhaul Out Today

California's Little Hoover Commission is expected to release its full recommendations today for sweeping structural changes at the $3 billion California stem cell agency.

We will be traveling and will not be posting anything on the report until very late today or possibly tomorrow. But you can find the report at the Little Hoover Commission Web site when it is released. John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., is also expected to have something on his organization's site.

Patient advocate Don Reed already has posted some reaction and information on the Daily Kos. He does not look favorably on the commission's work.