Stem Cell Directors Moving on $243 Million Program and Industry-Friendly Efforts

Directors of the California stem cell agency will meet next week to begin the first stage of giving away $243 million in their pursuit to push a stem cell therapy into the clinic.

The immediate effort involves $3.3 million in planning grants for the second round of the CIRM disease team program. Applications are targeting cancer, HIV, Alzheimer's, ALS, Huntington's Disease, Parkinson's and muscular dystrophy, among others. The next step in the disease team effort will be much larger – $240 million, to be awarded next summer with roughly $20 million for each grant.

For the smaller planning grants to be awarded next week, 36 researchers applied for cash of up to $100,000. Nineteen were approved for funding by the grants review group, which is tantamount to full CIRM board approval. Their scores ranged from 87 to 62. One application was approved for funding but no score was listed. However, that application was ranked below the application with a score of 62. CIRM provided no explanation for failing to publish the score. Names of applicants were not disclosed in keeping with the agency's longstanding practice.

The disease team round was open to both business and academic researchers. We have queried CIRM about whether any businesses applied. The stem cell industry has been less than happy with its meager share of CIRM grants. The $3 billion agency's new chair, Jonathan Thomas, has indicated he wants to make CIRM more industry friendly.

The board meeting next week will be Thomas' first full session as chairman. The meeting was originally scheduled for two days, which was not uncommon under the tenure of former Chairman Robert Klein. But next week's session has been reduced to one day under Thomas. The agenda also seems not as fully packed as under Klein, although it has two executive sessions that could consume a fair amount of time. One deals with the evaluation of CIRM President Alan Trounson. The other deals with proprietary matters on grant applications.

Heavy agendas during the Klein era often generated quorum problems because of the supermajority requirements for voting by the board. It took so long to work through the material that competing priorities among board members meant that some – sometimes quite a few – had to leave.

Today – with eight business days before the Aug. 25 meeting – the agenda has a fair amount of background material posted, giving interested parties a chance to examine the information in a timely fashion.

Included on the agenda is a document about CIRM's ongoing issues, including security, with its self-developed, computerized grants management program, a listing of its translational grant portfolio and a plan to extend its $44 million researcher recruitment effort.

The CIRM board also has plans to take up a report from its new Intellectual Property Subcommittee.  The full board agenda contained no indication of what the report would deal with, but presumably it will involve a new, $30 million program aimed at the stem cell industry. That program will be acted on by the IP subcommittee next Monday, preceding the full board meeting. The panel's recommendation would normally go to the full board meeting on Aug. 25.

Also missing from the agenda is any explanation of the purpose of the discussion of the translational grant portfolio or analysis of the portfolio. Additionally, still to come is the latest version of changes in the grant review process for CIRM's big-ticket grant efforts as well as a job description for CIRM's first-ever chief financial officer.

The job description effort has been underway for some months and is linked closely to issues involving CIRM's controversial dual executive arrangement between the chairman and president. The new CFO will be reporting to both the president and the chairman.

The disease team planning grant item also reflected a change in the way CIRM presents the public summary of reviewer comments on the applications. The new format is more concise. Gone is the narrative format that often contained a more fulsome discussion of the applications. Here is a link to one summary on a planning grant application and another link to an application in January.

Implications of Perceptions of Waste and the Stem Cell Agency

The headline in The Sacramento Bee this morning read "Why raise taxes when officials squander our money?"

And prominently mentioned was the California stem cell research agency and the $400,000 salary of its new chairman.

The opinion piece was written by Dan Walters, The Bee's longtime time political columnist, whose articles are reprinted in many other newspapers around the state.

Walters was discussing efforts to raise taxes to help solve the state's ongoing budget crisis. He wrote,

"It's a valid debate to have, but voters' instinctive reluctance to pay more taxes is bolstered by a steady stream of incidents implying that the taxes they already pay are often wasted.

"Take, for example, what occurred as California State University system trustees raised student fees due to budget cuts. Simultaneously, they approved a $400,000 salary for the new president of San Diego State University, $100,000 higher than his predecessor.

"Brown publicly castigated the trustees.  'At a time when the state is closing its courts, laying off public school teachers and shutting senior centers, it is not right to be raising the salaries of leaders who – of necessity – must demand sacrifice from everyone else,'  Brown said.

"But Brown didn't utter a peep when the board that oversees a $3 billion stem cell research bond issue decided to pay its new Brown-appointed chairman – ironically – $400,000.

"So much for demanding sacrifice."

Walters continued,

"We can't solve our basic fiscal problems by just rooting out waste. But when officials squander our money, they undercut their own efforts to persuade voters to give them even more to spend."

Walters cited two other examples in addition to the stem cell agency. One involved the high speed rail project and the other state prisons.

Again, the point about all this is not the specifics on CIRM salaries but the environment in which the agency is operating. Concern about waste and/or excessive public sector salaries is not going to vanish, and the agency must deal with it if it is going to be successful in asking voters to approve another multibillion bond measure to continue its existence.

(A footnote: Walters was in error when he said Brown appointed new CIRM Chairman Jonathan Thomas. He was nominated by Brown and two other statewide officials and elected by the CIRM board.)

The Governor on CIRM Chair's $400,000 Salary: The Board Did It

This week's hooha over high government salaries, including a couple at the California stem cell agency, has found Gov. Jerry Brown delicately ducking any role in the $400,000 part-time salary for the new chairman of CIRM.

The flap has implications for the future of the California stem cell agency. It has triggered public comments ranging from extreme indignation to a cynical, shoulder-shrugging "what's new" reaction. It also found the governor deploring a $400,000 salary at one California state institution but declining to do so in the case of CIRM. Instead he basically said the CIRM board has to take the heat for the $400,000 salary for its new chairman, Jonathan Thomas, who was nominated by Brown for the job.

On July 7, the Los Angeles Times editorialized that the salary could doom the $3 billion stem cell agency to extinction. It reasoned that the compensation matter is almost certain to be a significant and negative issue in an election on the proposed $3 billion to $5 billion bond measure that CIRM needs to continue its operations beyond 2017 or so.

The governor amplified the salary controversy earlier this week when he opposed the $400,000 deal for the new president of San Diego State University, which has 35,000 students and a budget of close to $800 million.

Brown said the executive would be paid more than twice the salary of the chief justice of the United State Supreme Court. Brown said,

"At a time when the state is closing its courts, laying off public school teachers and shutting senior centers, it is not right to be raising the salaries of leaders who--of necessity--must demand sacrifice from everyone else."

Despite the opposition from Brown and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom the salary was approved by the state university board of trustees. Newsom also nominated Thomas for his $400,000 job.

The California Stem Cell Report queried both the Brown's and Newsom's offices via email about how they could oppose the salary for the San Diego State president but not be opposed to the same salary for part-time work (80 percent) at the stem cell agency, which has only about 50 employees and an operational budget of $18 million.

Elizabeth Ashford, a spokeswoman for Brown, replied via email,

"The governor has not endorsed this salary. The (CIRM) board approved the hire, and the board set the salary. These actions were independent of our office. As we've said many times on record, the governor is troubled by high public service salaries - in this case, however, it is in the board's hands."

As a courtesy, we then emailed Ashford,

"Just so you are not surprised, I expect to say something along the lines of that it was widely known that Thomas wanted $400,000 for part-time work and that if the governor didn't know that, he should have. I probably will also say something about how the $400,000 salary for the president of San Diego State was also in the hands of a body independent of the governor's office....As to why there was a difference in the reaction from the governor, I will probably suggest that it was a case of juggling a lot of balls and losing sight of one. Plus Thomas was the governor's nominee while the president of San Diego State was not."

Ashford responded,

"This is not an accurate or factual representation of the governor's relationship to the board or this decision. He does not set or influence salaries for the board, as I stated previously. Your hypothesis is just that - a theory."

The lieutenant governor's spokesman, Francisco Castillo, also responded and ducked the issue of whether the Newsom opposed the $400,000 CIRM salary. Castillo said,

"These institutions have an obligation to live within their means and, when they can't, they shouldn't be asking California's middle class to bear the cost. Unlike the stem cell institute, which the lieutenant governor is proud to have based in San Francisco, our CSU (California State University) has suffered devastating budget cuts offset by record tuition hikes and any salary increases need to be carefully scrutinized in that context."

Controversy over compensation is not peculiar to government. Some segments of the public are not pleased by the 35 percent increase in the median pay of CEOs of Standard and Poor 500 companies in 2010. That compares to a 1.6 percent decline in average hourly earnings of U.S. workers over the last 12 months ending in May. It all adds up to a public opinion environment unfavorable to enterprises perceived as greedy i.e. rewarding executives with excessively high salaries. And that translates to a critical and major minus for CIRM's hopes of winning voter approval of another bond measure.

As for the governor's inconsistencies, here is a personal footnote from Brown's first term in office. In 1974, shortly after Brown was first elected governor, I was the press aide for the Brown transition team. The tiny group had moved into offices in the old State Capitol, which had been declared an earthquake hazard during a campaign to approve tens of millions of dollars for its reconstruction.

A year or so earlier, Brown, then secretary of state, had occupied offices in the Capitol. But when the hazard notice was publicized, he piggybacked on the reconstruction campaign to move out to private offices nearby, declaring that he would not endanger his employees by compelling them to work in an unsafe building. Virtually all of the other occupants of the Capitol remained in their offices.

A UPI reporter recalled the news release in which Brown announced his flight from the Capitol and wrote a somewhat embarrassing story. Brown was privately philosophical about the story. "That's the price of excessive rhetoric," he said.

State Treasurer's Office Says Stem Cell Report 'Violated Fundamental Principles of Journalism'

Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, is sharply critical of some of what has appeared on the California Stem Cell Report concerning Lockyer's role in the election of Jonathan Thomas as chairman of the California stem cell agency.

Following publication of the "price of defiance" item yesterday, we emailed Dresslar and asked him if the treasurer's office would like to make a comment that would be carried verbatim.

Here are Dresslar's remarks. Our response follows.

"Crock conspiracy theories from the shadows might serve the interests of folks who want to generate 'public outrage,' but they do zilch to advance California's stem cell enterprise. Unfortunately, the Stem Cell Report has chosen to give voice to the black helicopter set and, in the process, violated fundamental principles of journalism.

"On multiple occasions, this blog -- either on its own assertion or though anonymous sources -- has reported that in advocating the selection of Jonathan Thomas as ICOC chairman, State Treasurer Bill Lockyer issued an implicit warning to the board: If you don't kowtow to me, the stem cell institute will have a heckuva time getting bond funding any time soon. Not once did the Report contact this office and seek comment before publishing this bunk.

"'Politics and the Price of Defiance (July 11)' provides the latest example. 'Implicit in some of the lobbying by (Governor Jerry) Brown and Lockyer was the likelihood that failure to follow their lead could endanger bond funding for CIRM.' The item went on to hint that it was not so far-fetched to think that Brown and Lockyer were prepared to engage in 'Tammany Hall tactics.' To bolster that point, it cited the example of an assemblyman who alleges he faces office budget cuts
because he voted against the recently adopted state budget. After the item ran, I received this email from you:

"'Today I ran an item on the lobbying on Thomas by Brown and Lockyer. If your office would like to comment, I would be glad to carry any statement verbatim. Thanks.'

"That's not the way journalism works. You don't throw mud on someone and offer to let them try to clean it off after the fact. You give them the opportunity to defend themselves against the mud-throwing. I understand blogs aren't newspapers. But that doesn't absolve blog writers from the responsibility of adhering to basic tenets of fairness and journalistic integrity.

"To set the record straight: Lockyer engaged in no threats -- implicit, implied, hinted, winked or any other kind -- as he advocated for Thomas. Additionally, your readers should know that, while Lockyer sells stem cell bonds and other state bonds, he has no power to refuse to sell any
type of bond.

"Lockyer cares deeply about CIRM, its mission and its success. That's why he nominated Thomas. That's why wrote to his appointees on the ICOC in support of Thomas. Both candidates were exceptionally well-qualified. But considering the qualifications set forth in Proposition 71, and the challenges CIRM faces, Lockyer strongly believed Thomas was the best man for the job. And, in contrast to the other candidate, Thomas was prepared to give the job his all, not half his all. That's what CIRM needs and deserves."

Here is the response from the California Stem Cell Report.

"We respect both Dresslar's professionalism and his frank and forthright opinion. He has been both responsive and accessible to the California Stem Cell Report. 

"However, this blog is first and foremost an expression of opinion and analysis. The traditional reporting that we engage in is there because the mainstream media simply does not cover one of the more extraordinary experiments in state government, the California stem cell agency. 

As a matter of opinion and analysis, it is fair to say that in our judgment some of the actions by the state treasurer can be construed to contain an implicit warning that CIRM's funding could be affected negatively. Certainly some of the CIRM board members took it that way.

"In retrospect, it would have been preferable to have a comment from the treasurer's office in the original post on June 21. However, it is very unlikely that it would have materially altered what we wrote. Did our accounts amount to 'mud-throwing?" Hardly. Whatever Lockyer and Brown did was within their responsibilities as elected officials. To fail to support vigorously their nominee for CIRM chair would be more reprehensible in the eyes of many.

"Finally, one of the operating principles of this blog is to allow and encourage those with differing views extraordinary access to this web site. We have a standing offer to leaders of the California stem cell agency, including all its directors, and others to write on California stem cell matters with the promise that their words will be carried verbatim. That is an offer you will not find from the mainstream media or its opinion writers. We have done that as the result of more than three decades in the news business and two years as a press aide to the governor of California. From that experience, we learned that short shrift is often given to many voices in the public arena. The California Stem Cell Report can provide much greater access. And we would like to encourage its full utilization."

Politics and the Price of Defiance

The California stem cell agency last month had a bit of instruction in politics when directors chose a new chairman.

Both California Gov. Jerry Brown and state Treasurer Bill Lockyer made an extra effort – beyond their nominating letters – to assure the election of their man, Jonathan Thomas, a Los Angeles bond financier, as chairman. We noted a few days ago that such episodes are not uncommon when an enterprise is reliant on public funding.

Implicit in some of the lobbying by Brown and Lockyer was the likelihood that failure to follow their lead could endanger bond funding for CIRM.

Some might think that possibility was remote, that Tamany Hall tactics are just a part of the past. Those who favor that view might want to consider the case of Democratic Assemblyman Anthony Portantino. He voted no on the recently passed state budget in defiance of legislative leaders in his own party.

Now he is being punished. His staff is being sent home for a month of unpaid leave, and he is being threatened with a cutoff of both his mail service and office supplies, according to The Sacramento Bee. Such are examples are not uncommon in California politics in one form or another.

It is something to think about as readers ponder the wisdom of CIRM directors in electing Thomas as their new chairman.

Hooha over CIRM Salaries: Cheap Shot or Legitimate News?

High government salaries are a tender, tender subject.

But are they legitimate news? An anonymous reader on Wednesday raised the question in a comment on the "public salary outrage" item on the California Stem Cell Report. The article dealt with a news story about the $400,000, part-time salary for new CIRM Chairman Jonathan Thomas.

The reader said, among other things,

"Media coverage like this has to be counted as something of a cheap shot."

The reader went on to say that the salary is not out of line with what medical school deans and top level researchers are paid.

The reader's remarks are somewhat ambiguous. It is not clear whether he or she is focusing on the Los Angeles Times story, the California Stem Cell Report's items on the subject or the public reaction based on comments on the Los Angeles Times' web site.

Let's assume that the main focus is the original Times story, which portrays Thomas' salary as excessive, comparing it unfavorably it to the much lower pay of the governor and the head of the NIH. The public reaction on the subject flows from that article by reporter Jack Dolan.

A case can be made that Thomas and CIRM President Alan Trounson ($490,000 annual salary) are paid at roughly the same level as a University of California medical school dean. Sam Hawgood, dean of the UC San Francisco medical school and a member of the CIRM board, for example was paid $572,896 in 2009, according to a Sacramento Bee database. However, CIRM's Thomas and Trounson preside over a staff of about 50 with a budget of about $18 million. Contrast that to Hawgood's staff of about 10,000 employees and budget of $1.52 billion.

However, those sorts of facts are somewhat beside the point when it comes to the news value of high state salaries. What makes them news is how they affect the public debate about government spending, perceived bureaucratic waste and ultimately the future of CIRM. Substantial segments of the California public exhibit an intense, visceral and hostile reaction to what they view as excessively generous compensation. In this case, it is a public that may well be asked to vote to give more billions to the stem cell effort in a few years. That's a reality, however unpleasant, that CIRM must deal with.

How the agency handles the issue is news as well. If CIRM cannot reframe the discussion, the entire campaign for the bond ballot measure may well center on CIRM salaries. The result could be "extinction" of CIRM, as the Los Angeles Times said Thursday in an editorial.

The California Stem Cell Report has discussed on more than one occasion both the nature of the public reaction to generous government salaries and the predilection of the mainstream media to zero in on them. Last July we wrote,

"What is important here is what the voters perceive as lavish or greedy – not the perceptions of recipients or the perceptions of those who approve the pay."

Last spring, the entire CIRM board of directors indirectly acknowledged the public relations problem with the salaries when it approved a dubious scheme to paper over them by channeling $250,000 in funds from private donors to Thomas' paycheck. If the salary is a mistake, the second mistake is trying to hornswoggle taxpayers into believing that they are not paying for it when all the funds come from public coffers.

To one former longtime newspaper editor, John M. Simpson, now stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., coverage of CIRM salaries is not only appropriate but necessary. In a statement to the California Stem Cell Report, he said,

"It's not a cheap shot to report what salaries taxpayers are paying their public servants. It's simply basic watchdog journalism. If this sort of reporting had happened in the mainstream media before the vote, perhaps the outcome would have been far different."

Simpson continued,

"Perhaps the (medical school) deans on the (CIRM) board weren't troubled by the eye-popping salary because they make so much themselves. They need to think like the average person when evaluating salaries. It's clear that a well-qualified candidate was available at a fraction of the cost."

Nonetheless, in some ways, the hooha about salaries is a sideshow. The money amounts to only a tiny fraction of the $3 billion that CIRM is handing out. Meanwhile, other difficult issues remain unexamined by the mainstream media including:

• Conflicts of interest on the part of scientists who make, in secret,  the de facto decisions on grants,
• CIRM's strategy, including whether CIRM has missed or is missing profitable areas of research, as well as management of its grant portfolio, including whether the agency has the stomach to pull grants from big-name, non-performing scientists and
• CIRM's grant management system, which remains a work-in-progress, and needs close attention by directors, particularly with an eye to protecting IP and proprietary information from unprincipled biotech companies and hackers.

Simpson's complete remarks can be found here. The anonymous reader's comments about "cheap shots" can be found at the end of "outrage" item.

Here is an updated reading list on CIRM salaries. More information can be found by searching on the Internet used the terms "cirm salaries" or "california stem cell salaries."
CSCR Reading List: Compensation at the California Stem Cell Agency

Simpson on Salary Coverage: Basic Journalism

Here is a statement by John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., concerning questions about news coverage of the $400,000 salary of the chairman of the California stem cell agency. Prior to joining Consumer Watchdog, Simpson had a long career as a newspaper editor. His statement came in response to an anonymous comment on the "salary outrage" item on the California Stem Cell Report. The comment can be found at the end of that item. What follows here is Simpson's statement.

"It's not a cheap shot to report what salaries taxpayers are paying their public servants. It's simply basic watchdog journalism. If this sort of reporting had happened in the mainstream media before the vote, perhaps the outcome would have been far different.

"The comparison to medical school deans' salaries is inappropriate.  CIRM is a 50-person state agency dedicated to funding research. It does what NIH does, except on a much smaller scale. Being the dean of a medical school is far more complex and demanding than being the Chair of CIRM, a part-time job, that should be an oversight function.

"Perhaps the deans on the board weren't troubled by the eye-popping salary because they make so much themselves. They need to think like the average person when evaluating salaries. It's clear that a well-qualified candidate was available at a fraction of the cost.

"So what if the NIH director took a cut in salary when he assumed that position? That's what the idea of public service is all about.  The salary should be reasonable, but one ought not to be able to feather the nest on the taxpayer's dime.  No mater how you spin it, $400,000 for a four-day-a-week job is too much money.

"There are questions that need to be answered.  When does Jonathan Thomas vest in the state's pension fund? What will his benefit be?"

LA Times Editorial on New CIRM Chair: Tin Ears and Extinction

The Los Angeles Times said this morning that it suspects that the election of Jonathan Thomas as chairman of the $3 billion California stem cell agency "will go a long way toward assuring the institute's extinction."

In an editorial, the state's largest circulation newspaper said,

"It always annoys voters to discover that government workers make more than they do, but what especially rankles about Thomas' big paycheck is that his hiring comes at a time when most state agencies are making radical cutbacks and when the institute itself is considering a ballot measure to ask voters for billions in new funding."

The editorial is the latest in several negative pieces in the mainstream media about the choice of Thomas, a Los Angeles bond financier, to become chairman. The articles focus primarily on Thomas' $400,000, part-time (80 percent) salary.

The Times wrote,

"The new head of California's stem cell research agency, which has a staff of 50, not only makes more money than the governor, he makes twice as much as the chief of the National Institutes of Health, which has 17,000 employees. Does that make him overpaid? Not necessarily. But it does make the board that hired him remarkably tin-eared about politics."

The editorial did note that "it's possible" that Thomas "could earn his big bucks," given his background in finance, if CIRM is forced to try to sell state bonds privately.

The selection of Thomas also drew attention this week in the San Francisco Bay Area in a commentary by San Francisco Chronicle columnist Phil Matier in a report on KCBS television station.

The station picked up the LA Times news story on Thomas' salary, adding that it was one of the highest in state government. Matier said during the news story that it was all part of the "birth of a bureaucracy." He said voters shouldn't expect a stem cell breakthrough for another 10 years. He also called CIRM the "high speed rail of medicine." For non-Californians, that is a reference to another multibillion dollar California bond program that is staggering under heavy public criticism.

In another commentary on a blog called Secondhand Smoke, Wesley J. Smith, author and bioethicist, posted a video of the song "Hey Big Spender." Smith wrote,

"The state is sinking financially.  Cutbacks are being forced across the board.  But not at the CIRM....

"These people live in a different world of 'entitlement' (there’s another word) and 'luxury.'  This is just another reason for the people of California to turn off the borrowing money spigot in 2014."

Prior to the LA Times salary story, Pete Shanks of the Center for Genetics and Society of Berkeley, Ca., on June 29 wrapped up the election of Thomas on its Biopolitical Times blog, quoting John M. Simpson of Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca. Simpson said that the selection of Thomas is "a public relations disaster from which the stem cell agency will never recover."

For other articles on the Thomas election and the situation at CIRM, see here, here, here, here and here.

CIRM Salaries Spark Outrage from LA Times Readers

"Rathole," "Alice in Wonderland," "shut the whole thing down," "they just lost my vote" – some of the reaction to the Los Angeles Times story this morning about the California stem cell agency.

By 3:10 p.m., 142 Times readers had commented – mostly angrily – about CIRM and its salaries, particularly the $400,000 pay for Chairman Jonathan Thomas for a four-day work week. The article  by Jack Dolan was among the top five most emailed stories on the LA Times web site. The article was promoted on the front page of the print edition of the Times. By mid-afternoon today, the story was "recommended" 142 times on Facebook and "tweeted" 58 times, drawing even more unpleasant attention to CIRM.

Obviously, the negative comments are coming from the people who feel the most strongly about the subject and do not necessarily represent a complete view of the sentiments of all readers. And the number of comments is not huge. But they do illustrate the serious PR problem facing CIRM as it ponders whether it should go to the ballot in the next few years and ask voters for another $3 billion to $5 billion.

One can only imagine what the opposition will do when it wraps some of these comments into a TV ad against such a bond measure.

Not all of the comments amounted to simple anti-government venom, however.

One reader wrote,

"Okay let's pretend an agency chairman's main job is fund raising and not running the agency, not evaluating the research, and not recruiting the best researchers.  Shouldn't we give him a small salary plus commission?  Wouldn't that focus him more on successful fundraising?"

Another wrote,

"The Bush-era stem-cell-research restrictions are gone. If the scientists are good enough, they will be able to compete successfully for grants from the National Institutes of Health (your federal tax dollars hard at work). If they are really good, and really lucky, they will be able to get funding from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. There is no longer a reason for this separate California stem cell agency to exist. It's a boondoggle. But like so many government programs, it has taken on a life of its own, and it will consume vast amounts of wealth fighting for its own survival. It's time to shut them down. "

The story received front page attention in the print edition of the Times, a rare occurrence for a story about the stem cell agency. The paper carried the following tease on page one to the article. We should note that the tease may be all that many readers actually read.

"High salaries at state’s stem cell agency
"It will pay its new part-time chairman $400,000, pushing the combined annual income of its two top officials to nearly $1 million."

More media unpleasantness may be in the works for CIRM. If the Times works like most newspapers, an editorial critical of the agency is likely to appear in the next few days.

Thomas: No Conflicts of Interest with Bond Investment Firm

Jonathan Thomas, the newly elected chairman of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, plans to continue his financial ties to a Southern California bond investment firm.

Thomas, who is being paid $400,000 annually by CIRM for four days of work each week, said no conflict of interest exists in his relationship with Saybrook Capital of Santa Monica, Ca. Thomas co-founded the firm and is currently a partner.

In response to an inquiry from the California Stem Cell Report, Thomas said in an email,

"I checked with Board counsel again on the Saybrook issue.  My relationship with Saybrook does not create a real or perceived conflict for me as Chair of CIRM's Governing Board.  Saybrook is not involved in the issuance or underwriting of State General Obligation bonds.  Indeed, Saybrook stopped underwriting muni bonds altogether over 10 years ago when it raised its first distressed muni fund. That fund and the subsequent funds in the series are focused principally on distressed corporate-backed or project-backed municipal bonds.  Furthermore, even if we were still in the underwriting business (which we're not and will not be in the future), the State Treasurer, not CIRM, decides who the State will work with to issue bonds on behalf of CIRM and other state agencies.  In light of these facts, I do not believe there is a perceived conflict, much less a real one.  I will, of course, work with CIRM's counsel to ensure that I comply with the letter and spirit of California's conflict of interest laws."

CIRM's New Chair to Sell Stem Cell Stocks Shortly but Continue Link with Bond Firm

The new chairman of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, Jonathan Thomas, says he will soon sell his interests in a California stem cell company but will retain his financial ties to a bond investment firm, pending a double-check with the agency's outside counsel.

As part of his pitch for the $400,000 post as the chair of CIRM, Thomas, a bond financier and partner in Saybrook Capital of Santa Monica, Ca., said he led an earlier round of financing for Advanced Cell Technology, also of Santa Monica, Ca. He said he still owned a "small portion" of the company's stock and was prepared to liquidate it to avoid any conflicts. He also said he has no other "actual or potential conflicts."

The California Stem Cell Report queried Thomas via email concerning the timing of the sale and also his relationship with Saybrook. The firm posted a news release this week congratulating Thomas and declaring that it was looking forward to a continuing and flourishing relationship with him.

In response to our query, Thomas, who is being paid $400,000 a year for 4/5 time by CIRM, said,

"With respect to ACT, I will be selling my interests very shortly.  Re Saybrook, we don't buy or underwrite (nor have ever bought or underwritten) any State of California GO's (state general obligation bonds).  No conflict of any kind there.  Re severing ties with Saybrook, I have been previously advised that there are no conflicts maintaining affiliations with the firm.  Just to get additional input on both issues, though, I will check again with (the CIRM) Board counsel and advise."

(Thomas later said that no conflicts existed with Saybrook and indicated he was continuing his financial relationship with the firm.)

Advanced Cell Technology reportedly applied for a loan in the $50 million CIRM clinical trial round this spring. No action was reported on the application, but financial scuttlebutt has it that ACT is line for a CIRM loan later this year.

As for the California state bonds, the stem cell agency relies on the state to borrow money for its funding and has no other real source of cash. Saybrook specializes in distressed government bonds. Currently California has the lowest bond rankings of any state in the nation.

Prior to the election for chairman, we asked the CIRM board counsel, James Harrison of Remcho Johansen & Purcell of San Leandro, Ca., whether the board required the chair candidates, including Thomas, to file a written disclosure of financial interest. Harrison said,

"We have discussed the state's disclosure and disqualification rules with both candidates."

But he said no written disclosure was required in advance of board action.

As of this year, the stem cell agency has begun posting the state-required financial disclosure forms of its board members and top officials. Thomas is required to file his within 30 days of assuming office, which would be July 23.

As chair, Thomas will be working with the office of state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, who controls the sale of state bonds. One of the mechanisms Thomas will operate through is the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Finance Committee, a six-member body created by Prop. 71, which also created the stem cell agency. The committee determines whether it is "necessary or desirable" to sell bonds for CIRM. In addition to sitting on the committee, Thomas can appoint two members. The other members are the state treasurer, state controller and state director of finance.

In its press release on Thomas, Saybrook said,

"'JT (Jon Thomas) is the best man for the job. I’ve known him since our high school tennis days and he brings an impressive skill set to the position,' said Jon Schotz, partner at Saybrook Capital, LLC and Jon Thomas’s graduate school roommate at Yale.

"Jonathan Rosenthal, also a partner at Saybrook Capital, LLC says: 'I couldn’t be happier for JT. We’ve had a wonderful partnership and friendship for the past 20 years and expect that it will continue to flourish.'"

Stem Cell Agency Seeking High Level PR Person; Salary Could Top $200,000

The California stem cell agency is seeking to hire a public relations person at a salary of up to $208,250 to peddle the good news about its efforts and pave the way for voter approval of a $3 billion to $5 billion state bond issue.

The CIRM board approved the position last week. It was promptly posted yesterday on the CIRM web site.

The job description does not mention the bond measure, but that is clearly in the minds of the board. Last week, they chose a man to head the $3 billion agency who says it is in "communications war." Jonathan Thomas, a Los Angeles bond financier, said he is embarking on a misssion to tell CIRM's "great story" and assure its continued financing.

The new PR person will work under the direction of Thomas and Co-vice Chairman Art Torres, a former longtime state legislator and head of the state Democratic Party. Torres himself has a better-than-average understanding of PR and what it takes to win elections. Torres is also chair of the CIRM board's Communications Subcommittee.

The salary for the new position, with a range from $139,048 to $208,520, is likely raise some eyebrows. It could exceed that of the head of the NIH, who earns $200,000 and oversees a $40 billion budget, but who is obviously underpaid. It is certain to exceed that of the media director for the University of California system, who earned $110,437 in 2009 and that of the communications chief at UCLA, who was paid $156,180 in 2009.  The chief communications officer at CIRM was paid $194,409 in 2010, but the new person is virtually certain to be paid more. (The salary figures were reported by The Sacramento Bee's state salary database.)

Significantly, the position – director of public communications -- is within the chairman's office and not the office of the president of CIRM, Alan Trounson. Left within Trounson's purview, perhaps only nominally in terms of its strategic direction, is scientific communications. The California Stem Cell Report has commented earlier on the difficulty of running a PR operation with a bifurcated structure.


The job description makes it clear that the new PR person will be contracting with an outside firm for additional help. The description also indicated that CIRM expects to see "quantitative and qualitative growth" in media coverage of the stem cell research effort.

Sacramento Bee: 'CIRM Is In Trouble'

The Sacramento Bee today editorialized on the election of Jonathan Thomas as chairman of the $3 billion California stem cell agency in a commentary headlined "Salary for new CIRM chief does not bode well."

The Bee said,

"Although Thomas comes with an impressive background in the financing world, his salary adds to a management overhead that already is excessive at CIRM. Moreover, it perpetuates a dual-executive arrangement at CIRM that is unusual for a scientific institute and inevitably create conflicts."

The Bee said,

"Robert Klein II, chairman and initiative kingpin of California's stem-cell research agency, has stepped down. Given our assessment of Klein's imperious operating style, you might think that champagne corks would be flying. That is not the case.

"Although Klein no longer is acting in an official capacity, the oversight board of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine decided last week to choose a successor with ties to Klein. To make matters worse, this new chairman – Los Angeles bond financier Jonathan Thomas – will be paid nearly $400,000 for the job."

The Bee continued,

"CIRM is in trouble. It has poured billions into research grants, but is running out of money and has shown itself to be inept at basic governmental functions. Oversight board members are frustrated that basic information about grants and board decisions can't get posted on the institute's website in a timely manner. Members of the public are even more frustrated.
Can Thomas bring a new culture to CIRM? If he can, it might – just might – justify his salary."

As of about 9 a.m. today, the editorial had drawn eight comments from Bee readers. None reflected favorably on CIRM.

Stem Cell Agency's New Chief Heads for BIO

Jon Thomas (right) presided briefly at the end of the CIRM board meeting last week on a resolution
 honoring outgoing Chairman Robert Klein (left). Co-vice
Chairman Art Torres is in the center of the photo. 

SAN DIEGO, Ca. – The newly minted chairman of the $3 billion California stem cell agency kicks off his first full week today with a trip to the mammoth BIO convention in Washington, D.C., to spread the word about CIRM and learn about the latest the biotech industry has to offer.

Jonathan Thomas, who won his $400,000-a-year post on a 14-11 vote by the CIRM board here last week, told the California Stem Cell Report last Thursday that for the next couple of weeks he will be "generally setting up shop." The Los Angeles bond financier expects to spend some time at CIRM headquarters in San Francisco following the BIO meeting.

Once past the initial stages, he estimated that he would be spending one to two days a week in San Francisco and more as needed. He said there is "no substitute for a personal presence."

One of his priorities, he said, will be trying to "get the facts out to the public" about CIRM. In a statement to the CIRM board last Wednesday, he said the agency is engaged in "a communications war." He said CIRM's successes are not well-known.

As for the BIO convention, it is the premier biotech industry event of the year with about 15,000 attendees and 17,000 "business partnering meetings." Presumably other CIRM executives will be attending the session in addition to Thomas.

'A Critical Crossroads:' California Stem Cell Agency's Finances and 'Communications War'

The new chairman of the California stem cell agency, Jonathan Thomas, last week spoke more forthrightly in public about the financial condition of the research effort than we have heard from other CIRM officials.

Thomas also addressed the "communications war" involving the $3 billion research endeavor along with the dual executive arrangement at CIRM. In a conversation at last week's meeting of the CIRM board, he took issue with the coverage of the management structure by the California Stem Cell Report.  Thomas said his prepared statement would more clearly represent his position on the much-criticized arrangement.

Here are excerpts from his remarks dealing with those three areas. The full text of his remarks, which he provided at the request of this blog, can be found at the end of this item.

Thomas summarized the "huge success" story of CIRM and then said,

"Having said all that, CIRM is at a critical crossroads in its history. As the events of the past week continue to remind us, California is in a state of full-out fiscal crisis. No one knows when it will end or how it will ultimately play out. As a result, the agency faces the real possibility that it will not have timely access to the amount of bond proceeds it expected and may be forced to look elsewhere in very short order to the full funding required to meet its projected short term needs or to evaluate how to push grants out or otherwise modify expenses if that becomes necessary. And let's not kid ourselves – this problem could last for a long time. As a result the medium and long term funding questions are no less profound. As the agency enters a translation phase with the goal of getting more and more products into clinical trials, will CIRM be able to help its grantee and loan recipients get the money they need to cover this most expensive part of therapy development? Will CIRM be able to line up funding to sustain it beyond the target last award in 2017? These are huge questions. 

"On other fronts, the agency is in the middle of a communications war. In spite of its great story, the world seems to be focused on internal issues instead of the grand, big picture. These negative impressions distract from CIRM's mission and unnecessarily create adversaries where there would be many fewer if the true story were known. For that reason, CIRM must mount a robust public communications and information effort to get the message out. Front and center in any public communications stragetgy must be the patient advocates and their vast networks. These are the people that it's all about. When you tell their stories, you put a real life face on the marvelous science and cannot help but compel public enthusiasm and compassion."

On the subject of the shared responsibilities of the chair and the president, Thomas said,

"On reading the statute (Prop. 71), the positions of chair and president are designed to be complementary, not overlapping. When carried out as defined in a collaborative and respectful manner, they should together provide 100 percent of what the agency needs to be effective.

"On this latter point, some have decried having two chief executives. I couldn't agree more. If elected, I would attend to my many responsibilities and would expect (CIRM President) Alan (Trounson) to do the same. I would not look to micromanage but would instead empower Alan to handle his considerable job duties. He and I spoke on Sunday on this very issue and agreed that a complimentary, highly collaborative relationship was the best way to bring the agency towards fulfilling its goals."

Here is the full text of Thomas' remarks.
Statement by Jonathan Thomas to CIRM governing board 6-22-11

Nature Magazine's Brief Take on CIRM Chair Election

A Nature magazine blog has carried a brief item on the California stem cell agency's new chairman with the headline reading "Bond king elected as new CIRM chief."

The three-paragraph story by Elie Dolgin was routine although it did point out that Jonathan Thomas' parttime (80 percent) salary of around $400,000 is well above that of the $173,987 for California Gov. Jerry Brown.

The story ran June 23 on Spoonful of Medicine June 23.

NY Times and San Diego UT on New CIRM Chair; LA Times and SF Chron Ignore Election

The New York Times and the San Diego Union-Tribune have published the most comprehensive stories on the election of Jonathan Thomas as chairman of the California stem cell agency, including brief updates on CIRM's progress.

The Times article was posted yesterday on its web site. Andrew Pollack wrote that Thomas was "taking over at a time when the state's fiscal crisis could jeopardize financing for the effort." Pollack wrote that Thomas' financial experience

"... including dealing with government bond issues, seemed to appeal to the (agency's) board. The stem cell effort is financed through bond sales so it has actually been quite well insulated from the budget deficits that have forced huge cuts to many other state programs, including the University of California system.

"Still, the state’s fiscal crisis is now impeding the ability of the state to sell new bonds. That could eventually leave the stem cell agency short of funds, though probably not until next year."

Pollack also mentioned differences between Thomas and Frank Litvack, the other candidate for CIRM chair and a Los Angeles cardiologist, concerning the dual executive arrangement at CIRM. Litvack said the chair's job should be parttime and concerned mainly with oversight. Pollack continued,

"But Mr. Thomas said there was enough work for the chairman to do full time, without conflict with the role of the president."

Pollack's story summarized the current state of CIRM's efforts with three paragraphs:

"Scientifically, it is still too early to determine how successful the program will be. Certainly, it has not yet produced the cures for various diseases that were promised to voters, but realistically it is too early to expect that.

"But from a governance point of view the agency has been criticized by consumer groups, a state commission and newspaper editorials for lack of accountability, an unwieldy structure and conflicts of interest. Many members of the board represent universities and hospitals that receive funding from the agency, though members are not allowed to vote on items that concern their employer.

"The agency is now shifting its emphasis from basic research toward testing potential new therapies in clinical trials, which means it will be giving more of its money to biotechnology companies in the future."

Darce's piece covered more of the debate about the chairmanship. Additionally, Darce wrote:

"The new chairman said he also will try to clean up the institute’s image by launching a public relations campaign focusing on the scientists who have received state funding and the work they have produced.

"'If the true nature of what CIRM does became common knowledge, then the people of California would see this as the amazing success story that it is,' Thomas said. 'They would be very proud to know that California has become the largest center for stem cell research in the world.'"

The Los Angeles Times, the state's largest circulation newspaper, and the San Francisco Chronicle (CIRM's headquarters is in San Francisco) so far have not published any stories on Thomas' election.

Science magazine has carried a brief item by Greg Miller on the election.

Here is CIRM's press release on the election. It does not mention Thomas' $400,000 salary or the actual vote, which is not unexpected for a press release, but which is basic information for a news story.

The Sacramento Bee's story yesterday has triggered 44 comments as of this morning, mostly hostile because of Thomas' salary. But the number of comments is modest compared to other, more high profile stories.

Public Already Commenting Negatively on $400,000 Salary for New CIRM Chair

Initial mainstream media reports about the $400,000 salary of the new chairman of the California stem cell agency, Jonathan Thomas, today promptly triggered compaints from the public.

By late afternoon, the story on The Sacramento Bee website had attracted 39 comments, many of which remarked quite unfavorably on the pay. Torey Van Oot wrote The Bee story.

One anonymous reader said, "'We' the tax payer getting screwed again with this high salary."

Also posting a story on the election of Thomas was Katie Worth of the San Francisco Examiner.

Hand-Off at The Top

Jonathan Thomas takes oath of office. (left to right, Robert Klein, Thomas, Melissa King, executive
director of  CIRM board, James Harrison, outside board counsel)

It was a statement that could be taken in more ways than one.

It came from outgoing CIRM Chairman Robert Klein today as he swore in his successor, Jonathan Thomas, a Los Angeles bond financier.

Thomas read the prescribed oath for all state employees. Then Klein shook his hand and said,

"I congratulate you on a journey that you will never forget."

Klein said one reason he is leaving his post is to spend more time
 with his wife and family.
 (left to right, Klein and his wife, Danielle, and Thomas, following the swearing in. 

Consumer Watchdog: $400,000 CIRM Chair Salary Will Incense Public

Consumer Watchdog's John Simpson, a longtime observer of the California stem cell agency, today said that the public will be outraged by the salary of its new chairman, damaging the prospects of a new multibillion dollar bond measure for stem cell research.

Simpson, stem cell project director for the Santa Monica, Ca., organization, supported the candidacy of Frank Litvack, writing an op-ed piece May 31 in The Sacramento Bee. Jonathan Thomas, a Los Angeles bond financier, was elected last night on a 14-11 vote.

Asked for comment on the outcome of the election, Simpson said in an email,

"The election of Bob Klein's successor was an opportunity for the board to end the dysfunctional dual executive model that has plagued CIRM since its launch and move to a structure where the chair serves in an oversight capacity. All outside evaluators have advocated this.

"Instead, after considerable arm-twisting from some of the state's top Democrats, the board picked a $400,000-a year candidate, Jonathan Thomas, who plans to be deeply involved in the agency's day-to-day operations. CIRM already has one executive who makes a half-million-dollar salary, President Alan Trounson. It's pure folly to spend nearly that much again so that two overly paid executives can trip over each other in a 50-person state agency.

"By comparison Dr. Francis S. Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, gets a salary of $199,700, according to the NIH Department of Human Resources.

"The public outrage that will result from hiring a $400,000-a-year chairman will prove to be a public relations disaster from which the stem cell agency will never recover. Those contemplating going to the public in the future to seek another bond issue should have considered the negative impact such a salary will have. Opponents of a bond initiative will have a field day.

"The board had the chance to correct CIRM's management structure and put the agency on the right track for the future. They squandered that opportunity, opting instead to select the candidate with the best political connections, and did so at considerable unnecessary expense to the public."