More Information Available This Morning on Future Direction of $12 Billion, California Stem Cell Program

California's $12 billion stem cell research program, which is embarking on a major new pathway, has posted additional information online that provides some clues to its direction for the next five years. 

The information comes in the form of 33 pages of slides to be used today at a daylong, public meeting of the agency's governing board. The slides were created by Maria Millan, president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the agency is formally known, and other top executives of the enterprise. 

While the slides need considerable explanation, which will be forthcoming later today, they provide a start for those seeking to understand how the 16-year-old agency is planning to spend $5.5 billion in the Golden State over the next decade or so. 

Beyond the 33 pages of slides, other information is being offered as well that deals with a $182 million awards budget for the next six months and new requirements for sharing research data and increasing diversity.  

Still missing is information on the launch of the agency's new effort at dealing with affordability and access questions involving stem cell treatments, a new task created by Proposition 14, the ballot initiative that saved CIRM's financial life. 

The agenda for Monday's meeting contains instructions for participating in the online meeting. Written comments are always useful as well as oral presentations. Written material can provide needed backup for the briefer oral comments and are directly in front of CIRM directors and staff. Comments should be emailed to kmccormack@cirm.ca.gov.

The session starts at 9 a.m. PST today.

California Stem Cell Agency Wants to Weaken Financial Disclosure for Execs and Board

The $3 billion California stem cell agency, which is moving to engage the biotech industry ever more closely, is proposing a major weakening of the financial disclosure requirements for its board of directors and executives.

The move comes as the agency is also seeking to raise cash from the private sector to continue the state research effort's existence.  CIRM's dimming of transparency runs counter to government trends nationally for more disclosure rather than less, including regulations enacted last year by the NIH.

The proposed changes will be considered next Thursday by the CIRM directors' Governance Subcommittee, which will have public teleconference sites in San Francisco and Irvine and two each in Los Angeles and La Jolla.

Currently CIRM board members and top executives must disclose all their investments and income – in a general way – along with California real property that they hold. Under the changes, disclosures would instead be required only "if the business entity or source of income is of the type to receive grants or other monies from or through the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine." CIRM offered no explanation of what it means by "of the type to receive" funds from the agency.

The proposal further narrows disclosure in connection with income or investments in enterprises that provide facilities or services used by CIRM. With the removal of the requirement for reporting all investments, CIRM's changes also specified disclosure of income and investments connected to business entities (nonprofits are not mentioned) that are engaged in biomedical research or the manufacture of biomedical pharmaceuticals.

The new code would appear to give CIRM directors and executives wide personal latitude in determining what should be disclosed. The current language simply states that "all" investments, etc., must be disclosed. That language originated in the 1974 ballot initiative that created the state disclosure requirements. The initiative's intent was to give the public and interested parties access to key information that would allow them to determine what forces are at work in government and whether conflicts of interests exist – as opposed to simply trusting the assertions of officials without additional substantiation.

The new code also appears to relieve CIRM officials of reporting investment in or income from venture capital or other firms that may be engaged in financing biotech or stem cell enterprises, since the firms do not receive cash from CIRM or engage in biomedical research. While the code appears to provide more reporting freedom for board members and executives, it also may indirectly impose a burden on them to determine whether any of their investments may involve biomedical research or enterprises that could possibly receive funds from CIRM at some point

Earlier this week, the California Stem Cell Report asked the stem cell agency about such issues. Kevin McCormack, CIRM's new senior director of public communications and patient advocate outreach, replied that the changes were "proposed" by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, which oversees state disclosure laws.

He said the FPPC says agencies "should tailor their disclosure categories to type of work performed by the agency." McCormack cited as examples the State Board of Education and the state retirement system.

As for the specific changes in CIRM's code, McCormack said,

"Because these are the types of entities that are likely to create potential conflicts of interest, we believe the disclosure categories are appropriate."

McCormack did not comment on whether the proposed code would give board members more reporting latitude or whether it relieve them of reporting investments tied to the financing of biotech or stem cell firms. (The text of his response can be found here.)

The California Stem Cell Report is querying the FPPC concerning its policy regarding disclosure codes. CIRM's new code is expected to go before the the full CIRM board in late May. The changes are subject to review by the FPPC and then must formally go through the state administrative law process during which the public can comment and the code modified before final adoption.

Our take? The proposed changes are not in the best interests of CIRM or the people of California. The absence of transparency and disclosure only breeds suspicious speculation of the worst sort. The agency is already burdened by conflicts of interest that are built in by the ballot measure that created it in 2004. Nearly all of the $1.3 billion that CIRM has handed out has gone to institutions linked to CIRM directors. Weakening disclosure at a time when the biotech industry will become more closely tied to CIRM inevitably raises questions about financial linkages – present and future – between CIRM directors and executives and industry. For the past seven years, CIRM directors and staff have been able to comply with more complete disclosure. They should continue to do so for the life of the agency, which will expire in less than a decade unless it finds additional sources of cash.

Text of CIRM Response on the Weakening of Financial Disclosure Requirements

On April 24, the California Stem Cell Report asked the state stem cell agency about its proposed changes in its requirements for financial disclosures from its officials. Here are the key elements from that query with the stem cell agency's response following.

The agency was invited to respond to the following: "The new code appears to give discretion to the employee to determine what enterprise is 'the type to receive grants or other monies' from CIRM. Additionally, it would not appear to require disclosure of an investment with or income from, for example, Kleiner Perkins, which is a major investor in iPierian, which holds $7 million in CIRM grants and could well be a future applicant...(T)he weakening of the code comes at a time when the agency is moving to cozy up to industry and looking to raise funds to continue its existence, all of which raises even greater conflict of interest issues than earlier in CIRM's existence."

Here is the text of the response April 25 from Kevin McCormack, CIRM's new senior director for public communications and patient advocate outreach.

"In answer to your question, we are proposing changes to the Conflict of Interest Code based upon recommendations from the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). The Political Reform Act requires state agencies like CIRM to review their Conflict of Interest Codes every two years.  The FPPC, which is charged with enforcing the Political Reform Act, is responsible for reviewing and approving CIRM's Conflict of Interest Code.  In preparation for this review, CIRM's counsel met with the FPPC staff who suggested the proposed amendments which are the subject of the upcoming Governance Subcommittee meeting.  The proposed amendments to CIRM's Conflict of Interest Code are consistent with the FPPC's position that agencies should tailor their disclosure categories to type of work performed by the agency.  For example, CalPERS's conflict of interest code requires CalPERS officials to disclose investments in, and income from, entities that are of the type with which CalPERS contracts and entities in which funds administered by CalPERS could be invested.  Likewise, the State Board of Education requires its members to disclose investments, business positions, and income from a publisher, manufacturer, or vendor of instructional materials, or services offered to educational institutions in the State of California and investments, positions of management and income from any private school in the State of California.  Similar to these codes, the FPPC proposed that CIRM's Code be tailored to the nature of CIRM's work.  Thus, the FPPC proposed that CIRM require its board members and high-level employees to disclose investments in, and income from, entities that are of the type with which CIRM would contract or from which CIRM could procure goods or services as well as investments in, and income from, biotech and pharmaceutical companies.  Because these are the types of entities that are likely to create potential conflicts of interest, we believe the disclosure categories are appropriate.  It is important to remember, however, that this is a preliminary proposal.  CIRM will seek input from the Governance Subcommittee, the Board, and members of the public before seeking approval of the amendments."

CIRM Director Samuelson on Laggard Information: 'It's crazy. It isn't professional. It bugs me.'

Failure of the $3 billion California stem cell agency to make information available this month in a timely fashion led one of its directors to vote against major changes in its grant review procedures and abstain on another $30 million grant proposal.

Joan Samuelson

The director involved is Joan Samuelson of Healdsburg, Ca., an attorney and patient advocate member of the 29-member board. The occasion was the June 6 meeting of the directors' Science Subcommittee. Ironically,  one of the proposals involved would mandate greater advance notice to some grant applicants about issues on their applications than the advance notice that the CIRM board itself receives on matters it is considering. The other item  would create a new, $30 million "opportunity fund."

Both proposals were not made available to the public until Saturday June 4 for a meeting Monday June 6. Members of the Science Subcommittee apparently did not receive information about the matters any sooner than the public. Samuelson's reaction to the laggard performance was stronger, but not isolated from complaints heard in the past from some directors about late information. (See here for a discussion of problems with CIRM openness.)

Here are excerpts of what Samuelson, other directors and CIRM staff had to say June 6, according to the transcript, which was posted two days ago with little notice -- standard policy for CIRM.

Samuelson: "This is going to feel like the bad kid at the birthday party. I think we have to go back to the beginning and just acknowledge that we didn't have time to reflect on this stuff. The beginnings of the agenda came on Friday, and there wasn't -- at the end of the day and then we were getting stuff just a few hours ago.

"So I'm hoping we're not going to make any permanent decisions or recommendations to the (governing board) until we've had some time to reflect on it. And in part that's because it seems to me there's some questions about whether this changes programmatic review, whether it changes the nature of the (grant review group), and the way that the patient advocates are involved in it. It excludes them from participation in at least one place."

Outgoing CIRM Chairman Robert Klein pressed for action on the matter. He said a "number of board members" asked that it come to the full board in June.

Ellen Feigal, CIRM vice president for research and development, responded, generating the following exchange:

Feigal: "Frankly, we're not going to be able to try this out until next year."

Samuelson: "Then, for goodness sakes, let's wait till the next board meeting."

Feigal: "Well, we don't need to wait. I think --"

Samuelson: "If it was in such a rush, why didn't we get the material earlier? We should have some kind of timetable."

Feigal: "I think what we're trying to do is be responsive to the board and to -- at our last review group meeting, we had told people that we were going to do this in due diligence, and we tried to pass this forward. So just let us know how --"

Samuelson: "I'd like two weeks notice for any changes in the process."

Jeff Sheehy(chair of the committee): "I have a motion on the floor, and I'd like to get a second, and then I'm going to take public comment."

The discussion continued with more comment about how some board members wanted to consider the proposal while the problems with the clinical trial round were fresh in their minds.

Feigal then said that the proposal would have to go out to affected parties before this fall.

Feigal: "If we don't present it (to the board)in June, we don't have much time.

Samuelson: "I'm going to have to vote against it, and I don't want to do that. I just feel like in good conscience, I need to feel like the process was deliberative enough, and I just don't feel that way."

CIRM President Alan Trounson said he had brought the matter up a year ago and has been talking about it to board members for a "long time."

Samuelson said: "Jeff, could you add to the agenda a discussion of the timetable for bringing materials to the subcommittee?"

Sheehy: "I take responsibility for the delay in getting materials for it, Joan."

Samuelson: "We're going to in a minute be voting on something that I didn't have any time to look at at all because it arrived about an hour ago."

Sheehy: "I understand. I understand. we're trying. all of us –"

Samuelson: "I'm not complaining as long as I'm not obligated to make decisions on it in real time. It's crazy. It isn't professional. It bugs me. so I think -- if we can't be sure that staff will get it to us, then we've got to set a time frame."

Sheehy: "I think it's something we can discuss at the next subcommittee meeting."

Pat Olson, executive director of scientific activities, subsequently addressed the matter, declaring:

"Joan, I do apologize for the delay in getting the materials out. That was actually my fault. I'm not going to let Jeff take the blame for that. And I apologize because I've been working on getting an RFA out. So there is a lot of things going on right now. So that's wholly my problem, and I take full responsibility for it. Nonetheless, I think that the dialogue here should be helpful in essentially clarifying things."

CIRM Posts Details of Change in Big Ticket Grant Reviews

The California stem cell agency has added substantial amounts of additional information to its agenda for its board meeting next week, including a proposal that will make significant changes in the reviews for its important clinical trials and disease team rounds.

The additional material was posted late yesterday, only two business days before the meeting that begins next week in San Diego. As we noted yesterday, the dilatory postings do not serve the public, the California stem cell community, the agency or its directors well. One CIRM director, Joan Samuelson,  says laggard postings at CIRM are "crazy" and unprofessional.

"It bugs me," she told other directors earlier this month.

The new review procedures would involve grants or loans in the roughly $20 million and up range. They would provide an opportunity for applicants to comment on reviewer questions in advance of the formal peer review meeting. They would also allow reviewers to question applicants by telephone on the day of the review. The procedures grew out dissatisfaction by some board members with the process in which Geron was loaned $25 million in May.

The Geron funding represents CIRM's first entry into clinical trials. The agency is expected to be involved in more clinical trials as it tries to push stem cell therapies into the marketplace. The agency is seeking to produce results that would persuade voters to approve another bond measure – perhaps as large as $5 billion – to continue CIRM's efforts.

Ellen Feigal, CIRM's new vice president for research and development, told a panel of CIRM directors earlier this month that the new procedure is aimed at "making sure we have complete information in real time about the research grant." She said the changes are designed "to make sure that the investigators, the applicant, actually feel that they have an opportunity to address some of the difficult questions that could arise during the review process."

Her comments were made at the directors' Science Subcommittee meeting June 6. The transcript of the session, which is worthy of review by all potential CIRM applicants, was released two days ago with little notice, which is standard procedure for CIRM.

The review changes call for scientific reviewers to complete their initial review of applications 14 days in advance of a review meeting along with a list of key questions. The questions, plus any additional issues that CIRM staff has, would be go to applicants 10 days ahead of the review to give them time to respond. Applicants would be asked to be available by phone on the day of the review for any additional questions.

The discussion at the committee meeting largely involved details in execution of the plan and whether reviewers would pose questions directly to applicants. The answer was no, that some other person would pose the questions to avoid possible identification of scientific reviewers, whose identities are kept secret by CIRM.

Also discussed was the nature of the questions – whether they would involve nuanced matters or matters that could be addressed with a yes or no. From the committee's discussion, it was clear that this initial effort will be a testing ground to work out exactly how the new procedure will be implemented.

Other information freshly available on the agenda for next week's meeting involves:

• An $80 million grant program, beginning next year, for physician scientists to conduct research that will translate into possible applications.
• A $30 million "opportunity fund," controlled initially by the CIRM president, to accelerate development of therapies and implement a recommendation of last fall's blue-ribbon external review panel and assist industry.
• A $27 million, three-year extension of a training program involving California state colleges(but not the University of California) and community colleges.
• A job description for CIRM's new director of public communications, who apparently would run the agency's PR efforts from the chair's office as opposed to the president's. The post is part of a reorganization of CIRM management.

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item did not contain the comments from Joan Samuelson.)

Openness Failure – Public Stiffed on Major California Stem Cell Matters

With only two business days remaining before a critical directors' meeting of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, the research institute has failed to provide basic background information to the public and the California stem cell community on many of the issues to be decided.

The CIRM openness failure makes it nearly impossible for researchers and biotech business executives and the public to make thoughtful suggestions or raise questions before the matters will be approved at the meeting next Wednesday in San Diego. The failure is not a onetime breakdown. It is the latest in a years-long demonstration of mismanagement of what should be a routine task. The dearth of information additionally damages CIRM's ability to generate the kind of positive news stories about its efforts that directors increasingly desire. 

The matters involved next week are not picayune. One involves major changes in the peer review process on applications for big-ticket, high profile grants ($20 million or so) on which CIRM is staking its future as well as the actual clinical development of stem cell therapies. The proposal will immerse CIRM ever more deeply in the earliest stages of grant applications. Some candidates will benefit. Others will lose out. But no details are available via the board meeting agenda about what exactly is under consideration.

Another matter with missing information involves creation of a $25 million "opportunity fund" that would be controlled by CIRM President Alan Trounson – not the CIRM board. Another involves extension of a $90 million training program. Still another involves a new, $180,000 federal lobbying campaign – a subject that generated some controversy two years ago.

Persons who understand the murky navigational nuances of the CIRM web site might be able to ferret out some outdated information dealing with the issues. But one cannot assume that two- and three-week-old memos, some of which are quite scanty, represent exactly what will be presented to CIRM directors next week.

This is not a problem for the public alone. Some CIRM directors have complained that they have received documents too late to examine them carefully. It is clearly unreasonable to expect the 29 persons (business executives, medical school deans, physicians and so forth) who serve on the board to push aside all their other concerns to perform a last minute study of material that should have been provided days earlier.

The responsibility for this sad state of affairs rests clearly with CIRM Chairman Robert Klein and CIRM President Alan Trounson. Klein controls the board agenda. Trounson is responsible for the staff work necessary to generate most of information. Klein's staff generates the rest.

One can only hope that the election of a new chair next week and revision of the CIRM management structure will also mean a major improvement in a critical interface between a $3 billion enterprise and the people who are paying for it – not to mention Californa's entire stem cell research community.  

CIRM Deficient Again on Informing the Public and Stem Cell Community

Directors of the $3 billion California stem cell agency have scheduled a two-day meeting in San Diego next week that is chock-a-block full with complex and enormously expensive business ranging from generous grant programs to revamping reviews on its highest profile financing rounds.

That is not to mention the matter of electing a new chairman for what may well be the final years of the research enterprise.

Outgoing Chairman Robert Klein has stuffed 24 items into the agenda. Some are routine but others are controversial, such as the management restructuring plan. Another far-reaching proposal involves significant changes in how the agency reviews applications in its clinical trials and disease team rounds, which can award $20 million or more on an individual application.

Meanwhile, the public and the California stem cell research community is coming up short. With only five business days left before the meeting begins next Wednesday, CIRM has failed to post on the board agenda any significant background information on the matters that its 29 directors are set to consider.

CIRM leadership fusses and fumes from time to time about the lack of media coverage, particularly "good" media coverage of the agency. One of the basics in helping to drive media attention is to make information about an enterprise accessible and transparent. CIRM is famously deficient in that area when it comes to its most important activity – meetings of its board of directors. (See here, here, here, here, here and here for a few examples.)

Beyond that, as a taxpayer-funded endeavor, CIRM has an obligation to openness and transparency under California law.

The agency will run out of cash in a few years and is talking up a fresh pitch to California voters for as much as $5 billion – money that the state has to borrow. Given the financial crisis in California state government – which is not going away in one or two years – CIRM will need tangible research results that the public will find persuasive. But another critical measure is the agency's record of openness and transparency. A pattern of withholding information leads even supporters to suspect the worst.

As state Controller John Chiang, the state's top fiscal officer, said more than a year ago,

“To ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent lawfully, wisely and successfully, the stem cell program must pursue the highest standards of transparency to be fully accountable to the public.”

CIRM Directors Tackle Touchy Management Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CIRM Headed for Another Federal Lobbying Effort

After an abortive attempt in 2009, the $3 billion California stem cell agency is moving forward once again with a significant commitment – for CIRM – in the lobbying game in Washington, D.C.

Yesterday the directors' Finance Subcommittee indicated that it favored spending $180,000 during the coming fiscal year to hire a lobbyist, which would make CIRM one of the rare California agencies with its own federal advocate. The move comes at a time when Gov. Jerry Brown is slashing the Washington lobbying office for the entire financially troubled state from six persons to two.

The CIRM directors' committee did not have a quorum so it could not vote, said Don Gibbons, chief communications officer for CIRM, but he said that the committee informally supported the proposal by outgoing CIRM Chair Robert Klein and co-vice chair Art Torres, a former state lawmaker. The plan will go to the full board later this month in San Diego.

Two years ago, CIRM hired a flamboyant but well-connected lobbyist, Tony Podesta, for $240,000 for 10 months work. The latest public accounting shows that he was ultimately paid less than $21,000. Klein began that lobbying effort only after debate about mission creep at CIRM and whether CIRM could really make a difference on issues where it is only a tiny, tiny player.

In a memo made available to the public only yesterday, CIRM noted that the directors' Legislative Subcommittee on Monday voted to oppose patent "reform" legislation now before Congress. The battle over the bill involves some of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world and has already resulted in millions of dollars in lobbying expenditures by affected enterprises.

The CIRM memo said the bill and other federal proposals

"...could have a substantial impact on CIRM’s mission, ranging from a bill that would fundamentally change U.S. patent law to a bill that would support regenerative medicine through funding for research and commercial development of regenerative medicine products and development of a regulatory environment that enables rapid approval of safe and effective products."

"In addition, the Sherley v. Sebelius litigation, regardless of outcome, is likely to lead to
additional efforts by opponents or proponents of human embryonic stem cell research to push legislation regarding federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research."

The memo continued,

"To ensure that the chair and vice chairs have the support necessary to keep abreast of new developments and to protect and advance CIRM’s interests, it is critical that CIRM have the support of a government relations firm in Washington, D.C."

Belated Info on Election of New CIRM Chair, $120 Million Grant Round and Costly CIRM Study

With only one business day remaining before its meeting this week, the California stem cell agency released details of its plan for an expensive study of its activities along with procedures for election of a new chairman.

The late-coming information disclosed that the proposed Institute of Medicine study of CIRM would cost $615,000. Previously, CIRM discussions indicated that the cost would be in $1 million range. The memo called for the study to be completed in August or September 2012, a few months prior to the presidential election. CIRM Chairman Robert Klein has said the study would be key to winning support for a multi-billion dollar bond measure that would be presented to voters at an unspecified date. CIRM relies state bonds -- borrowed money -- to finance its operations and grants.

The agency today also released an important memo on procedures for replacement of Klein, who said he will step down in December when his six-year term expires. Unclear is whether Klein wants to remain on the board as a regular member. The board cannot simply choose one of its members as the new chairman. Under the terms of Prop. 71, it must pick only from candidates nominated by the governor, treasurer, controller and lieutenant governor. In theory, however, it could reject all of them and ask for new candidates, although the memo does not discuss that possibility.

The procedures proposed by James Harrison of Remcho, Johnansen & Purcell of San Leandro, Ca., the board's outside counsel, envisioned nominations coming from those officials prior to the board's December meeting. Harrison said the board could meet behind closed doors to consider the candidates. Presumably that would be classified as a personnel session, since both the chairman and vice chairman are considered employees.

Another important item was posted late, in this case Friday. It is a proposal for a $120 million grant round, the second in the disease team effort.

As we remarked earlier, this information comes far too late for the public to evaluate it and formulate well-thought out comments for tomorrow's meeting.