The stem cell HQ beauty contest has attracted all the attention in recent days, but other doings of the agency are more important in producing the cures that Prop. 71 promised.
Reporter Carl Hall of the San Francisco Chronicle this morning put together a good look at the selection of some key players and their significance.
Hall quoted Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate and former head of the National Institutes of Health, who now serves as president of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
"'A lot of money is involved, and people are concerned about the outcome,' Varmus said. 'If the money goes to the wrong people, that would be terrible. It would undermine confidence in the public process. But there is, in principle, no reason this can't work as well as the federal system' of dispersing money for scientific research."
While Hall focused on selection and names of members of the working groups(the scientists who will make grant recommendations to the Oversight Committee), he also wrote about the selection of a president.
"Some of the more-often-mentioned possibilities include James Battey, who has directed a stem cell task force for the National Institutes of Health and directed the NIH's National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Per Pedersen, who was identified as a senior staff scientist for Johnson & Johnson in Sweden; and George Daley, a top-rated stem cell researcher at Harvard University who already has agreed to be an ad hoc science adviser for the stem cell program.”
Friday, May 06, 2005
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Just Say No to $200 Million
The California stem cell agency should be prevented from issuing $200 million in bonds because it is not “necessary or desirable” under state law, according to Berkeley attorney, Charles Halpern.
In a letter to the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Finance Committee, Halpern said, “The ICOC does not have a plan for spending such money and has no criteria for making grants or monitoring the uses of the bond proceeds. As of today the ICOC has not even adopted an operating budget....”
Halpern requested the committee to reject the bond request by the agency and not approve more than $25 million in bond sales.
The former dean of the law school at the City University of New York also said, “It should be noted that tantalizing press reports in recent weeks have suggested that (stem cell chairman Robert) Klein has a secret plan to finance Prop. 71 without selling bonds. This morning (May 5) the CIRM has posted on its website a notice that it is working with state officials 'on an interim financing program that does not use state funds. This will be discussed at the May 9 Finance Committee.' This alternative financing program has never been discussed by the ICOC in an open meeting, and it does not appear on the Agenda for tomorrow’s ICOC meeting.”
Halpern said discussion of such a plan would be in violation of state law because the public did not have enough notice.
We are seeking comment from the stem cell agency on Halpern's letter, which follows below.
In a letter to the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Finance Committee, Halpern said, “The ICOC does not have a plan for spending such money and has no criteria for making grants or monitoring the uses of the bond proceeds. As of today the ICOC has not even adopted an operating budget....”
Halpern requested the committee to reject the bond request by the agency and not approve more than $25 million in bond sales.
The former dean of the law school at the City University of New York also said, “It should be noted that tantalizing press reports in recent weeks have suggested that (stem cell chairman Robert) Klein has a secret plan to finance Prop. 71 without selling bonds. This morning (May 5) the CIRM has posted on its website a notice that it is working with state officials 'on an interim financing program that does not use state funds. This will be discussed at the May 9 Finance Committee.' This alternative financing program has never been discussed by the ICOC in an open meeting, and it does not appear on the Agenda for tomorrow’s ICOC meeting.”
Halpern said discussion of such a plan would be in violation of state law because the public did not have enough notice.
We are seeking comment from the stem cell agency on Halpern's letter, which follows below.
Text of the Halpern Letter
Here is the text of Charles Halpern's letter:
To Members of the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Finance Committee
Dear Chairman Angelides and Committee members:
The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Finance Committee
(“the Committee”) plays a critical role in the structure of Proposition 71. It is charged by Section 125291(a) to “determine whether or not it is necessary or desirable to issue bonds authorized pursuant to this article…and, if so, the amount of bonds to be issued and sold.” In other words, the Committee has gatekeeper responsibility -- deciding when and if bonds will be issued, and in what amounts, based on its determination regarding necessity and desirability.
The “necessary or desirable” determination is particularly important in this instance because the Treasurer, the Controller, and the Finance Director are the only officials answerable to the electorate who have a role in overseeing the expenditure of public funds by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). The voters who supported Proposition 71 expect that no bonds will be issued until the Committee has concluded that it is necessary and desirable to do so, after giving careful consideration to the justifications offered by the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee (ICOC).
Remand to ICOC to make the case that issuing $200,000,000 in state bonds is necessary and desirable
In this case the ICOC has given the Committee no factual basis to support the conclusion that it is “necessary or desirable” to issue $200,000,000 of bonds at this time. The ICOC does not have a plan for spending such money and has no criteria for making grants or monitoring the uses of the bond proceeds. As of today the ICOC has not even adopted an operating budget, though it has been hiring and incurring expenses for four months. The CIRM has sufficient funds to continue operations until November.
This is not a typical bond issue, where a highway has been planned and designed in detail, and the bond proceeds are necessary to buy concrete and begin construction. In this case, no one knows where the bond proceeds will go. For example, ten percent is earmarked for capital construction. Where will the buildings be? Will the state’s participation be debt or equity? How will the state be assured that the buildings will only be used only for Prop. 71 purposes, and for how long? Moreover, since Prop. 71 grants are not limited to stem cell research, bond proceeds could be channeled into any as yet unspecified medical research that seems promising to the members of the ICOC.
The statutory context indicates that the terms necessary and desirable should be read in the conjunctive, but matters of close interpretation are unnecessary in this case. The ICOC has not submitted any information to the Committee to support a conclusion that the issuance of $200,000,000 is either necessary or desirable. Oral assurances made by Mr. Klein or the other Committee members who also serve on the ICOC cannot substitute for ICOC policy and factual presentation, and do not constitute a basis for an informed Committee judgment.
This Committee does not meet its statutory obligation by presenting the ICOC with a blank check for $200,000,000, to be repaid over thirty years by the state’s taxpayers . The Committee’s decision is not a technical matter, of interest only to experts in public finance and bond traders. It goes to the core of government accountability.
The oversight responsibility of this Committee is especially important in light of the recent unanimous vote of the state Senate Health Committee putting forward a Constitutional amendment to strengthen the accountability of the ICOC process. (See SCA 13.) Ten Senators across both parties voted their belief that the present governance system provides inadequate oversight and needs strengthening, In light of this legislative concern and commitment to crafting a stronger governance structure (a time-consuming referendum process), the Committee must be particularly attentive to its statutory oversight responsibility under the present Prop. 71 governance scheme.
I request the Committee to remand the matter to the ICOC to give it an opportunity to deliberate on its resolution requesting the issuance of bonds in the amount of $200,000,000, and to present a justification for that number along with a plan for its grant-making program over the next year. If no such plan is forthcoming, the Committee should authorize no more than $25,000,000 in bond sales, to permit the CIRM to continue to develop a grant-making program.
Revising the Agenda-- Pending litigation on the Constitutionality of Proposition 71
The Attorney General has represented to the Supreme Court of the state, in the name of the ICOC, that these bonds will be unsalable, or salable only at higher interest rates, so long as litigation is pending. Litigation is still pending. The Committee must review this issue in open session prior to voting whether to issue bonds at this time, not at the end of the meeting in connection with the possible filing of bond validation lawsuit. It is hard to imagine that it is “desirable” to issue a large amount of bonds under such circumstances. There must be a public explanation and an opportunity for public comment. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Attorney General has not changed his opinion.
The circulated Agenda, which indicates that the Committee will vote to issue the bonds at the outset, before considering the pending litigation, should be revised.
The alternative financing program
It should be noted that tantalizing press reports in recent weeks have suggested that Mr. Klein has a secret plan to finance Prop. 71 without selling bonds. This morning the CIRM has posted on its website a notice that it is working with state officials “on an interim financing program that does not use state funds. This will be discussed at the May 9 Finance Committee.” This alternative financing program has never been discussed by the ICOC in an open meeting, and it does not appear on the Agenda for tomorrow’s ICOC meeting.
In light of the California commitment to open process, raised to constitutional status by the voters last November in Prop. 59, this is a startling announcement. Needless to say, the discussion that the CIRM promises at this Committee’s meeting on May 9 would be in clear violation of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act .
Conflict of Interest
The Prop. 71 process has received much critical scrutiny around the issue of conflict of interest, from the Senate, the press, and from nonprofit groups. Therefore, in order to reassure the public on this critical matter, it is especially important that this Committee be as free of conflict of interest as is possible. In that respect, the substantial campaign contributions made by Mr. Klein to Mr. Angelides ($19,000) and Mr. Westly ($27,000) for their 2006 campaigns present a problem. The public must have confidence that the members of the Committee are each acting with full autonomy, without gratitude for past gifts or expectations of future ones.
In order to bolster public confidence I urge that the two campaign contribution recipients—Angelides and Westly-- return past contributions to Mr. Klein and commit to accept no more contributions from him or any other member of the ICOC so long as the Committee continues to function. These steps would help to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest and reassure the public that the Committee members are single-mindedly committed to protecting the interests of the public and that each member is wholly independent in his judgments.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, I respectfully request the Committee to:
Remand this matter to the ICOC for reconsideration with the request that the ICOC submit a record to the Committee which it considers sufficient to support the conclusion that the issuance of bonds in a particular amount is “necessary or desirable.”
Review in an open meeting, prior to authorizing the issuance of any bonds or other debt securities, the impact of the pending litigation on the sale of bonds, in light of the representations made to the Supreme Court by the Attorney General on behalf of the ICOC.
Address the problem of conflict of interest on the Committee, allowing an opportunity for public comment.
Revise the Agenda appropriately.
Set a time for discussion of the alternative non-bond financing plan with appropriate advance notice and preparation.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles Halpern
Charles Halpern was elected to membership in the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences in recognition of his work as a public interest lawyer practicing at the intersection of medicine, biomedical ethics, and public policy. He was a Professor at Stanford and Georgetown Law Schools and Dean of the City University of New York Law School. As Founding President of the Nathan Cummings Foundation, he administered a substantial grants program in the health field.an He has been an active public participant in the administration of Proposition 71 since its passage. With Dr. Philip Lee, he filed a petition with the ICOC requesting attention to conflict of interest problems, public access issues, and other governance matters.
To Members of the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Finance Committee
Dear Chairman Angelides and Committee members:
The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Finance Committee
(“the Committee”) plays a critical role in the structure of Proposition 71. It is charged by Section 125291(a) to “determine whether or not it is necessary or desirable to issue bonds authorized pursuant to this article…and, if so, the amount of bonds to be issued and sold.” In other words, the Committee has gatekeeper responsibility -- deciding when and if bonds will be issued, and in what amounts, based on its determination regarding necessity and desirability.
The “necessary or desirable” determination is particularly important in this instance because the Treasurer, the Controller, and the Finance Director are the only officials answerable to the electorate who have a role in overseeing the expenditure of public funds by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). The voters who supported Proposition 71 expect that no bonds will be issued until the Committee has concluded that it is necessary and desirable to do so, after giving careful consideration to the justifications offered by the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee (ICOC).
Remand to ICOC to make the case that issuing $200,000,000 in state bonds is necessary and desirable
In this case the ICOC has given the Committee no factual basis to support the conclusion that it is “necessary or desirable” to issue $200,000,000 of bonds at this time. The ICOC does not have a plan for spending such money and has no criteria for making grants or monitoring the uses of the bond proceeds. As of today the ICOC has not even adopted an operating budget, though it has been hiring and incurring expenses for four months. The CIRM has sufficient funds to continue operations until November.
This is not a typical bond issue, where a highway has been planned and designed in detail, and the bond proceeds are necessary to buy concrete and begin construction. In this case, no one knows where the bond proceeds will go. For example, ten percent is earmarked for capital construction. Where will the buildings be? Will the state’s participation be debt or equity? How will the state be assured that the buildings will only be used only for Prop. 71 purposes, and for how long? Moreover, since Prop. 71 grants are not limited to stem cell research, bond proceeds could be channeled into any as yet unspecified medical research that seems promising to the members of the ICOC.
The statutory context indicates that the terms necessary and desirable should be read in the conjunctive, but matters of close interpretation are unnecessary in this case. The ICOC has not submitted any information to the Committee to support a conclusion that the issuance of $200,000,000 is either necessary or desirable. Oral assurances made by Mr. Klein or the other Committee members who also serve on the ICOC cannot substitute for ICOC policy and factual presentation, and do not constitute a basis for an informed Committee judgment.
This Committee does not meet its statutory obligation by presenting the ICOC with a blank check for $200,000,000, to be repaid over thirty years by the state’s taxpayers . The Committee’s decision is not a technical matter, of interest only to experts in public finance and bond traders. It goes to the core of government accountability.
The oversight responsibility of this Committee is especially important in light of the recent unanimous vote of the state Senate Health Committee putting forward a Constitutional amendment to strengthen the accountability of the ICOC process. (See SCA 13.) Ten Senators across both parties voted their belief that the present governance system provides inadequate oversight and needs strengthening, In light of this legislative concern and commitment to crafting a stronger governance structure (a time-consuming referendum process), the Committee must be particularly attentive to its statutory oversight responsibility under the present Prop. 71 governance scheme.
I request the Committee to remand the matter to the ICOC to give it an opportunity to deliberate on its resolution requesting the issuance of bonds in the amount of $200,000,000, and to present a justification for that number along with a plan for its grant-making program over the next year. If no such plan is forthcoming, the Committee should authorize no more than $25,000,000 in bond sales, to permit the CIRM to continue to develop a grant-making program.
Revising the Agenda-- Pending litigation on the Constitutionality of Proposition 71
The Attorney General has represented to the Supreme Court of the state, in the name of the ICOC, that these bonds will be unsalable, or salable only at higher interest rates, so long as litigation is pending. Litigation is still pending. The Committee must review this issue in open session prior to voting whether to issue bonds at this time, not at the end of the meeting in connection with the possible filing of bond validation lawsuit. It is hard to imagine that it is “desirable” to issue a large amount of bonds under such circumstances. There must be a public explanation and an opportunity for public comment. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Attorney General has not changed his opinion.
The circulated Agenda, which indicates that the Committee will vote to issue the bonds at the outset, before considering the pending litigation, should be revised.
The alternative financing program
It should be noted that tantalizing press reports in recent weeks have suggested that Mr. Klein has a secret plan to finance Prop. 71 without selling bonds. This morning the CIRM has posted on its website a notice that it is working with state officials “on an interim financing program that does not use state funds. This will be discussed at the May 9 Finance Committee.” This alternative financing program has never been discussed by the ICOC in an open meeting, and it does not appear on the Agenda for tomorrow’s ICOC meeting.
In light of the California commitment to open process, raised to constitutional status by the voters last November in Prop. 59, this is a startling announcement. Needless to say, the discussion that the CIRM promises at this Committee’s meeting on May 9 would be in clear violation of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act .
Conflict of Interest
The Prop. 71 process has received much critical scrutiny around the issue of conflict of interest, from the Senate, the press, and from nonprofit groups. Therefore, in order to reassure the public on this critical matter, it is especially important that this Committee be as free of conflict of interest as is possible. In that respect, the substantial campaign contributions made by Mr. Klein to Mr. Angelides ($19,000) and Mr. Westly ($27,000) for their 2006 campaigns present a problem. The public must have confidence that the members of the Committee are each acting with full autonomy, without gratitude for past gifts or expectations of future ones.
In order to bolster public confidence I urge that the two campaign contribution recipients—Angelides and Westly-- return past contributions to Mr. Klein and commit to accept no more contributions from him or any other member of the ICOC so long as the Committee continues to function. These steps would help to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest and reassure the public that the Committee members are single-mindedly committed to protecting the interests of the public and that each member is wholly independent in his judgments.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, I respectfully request the Committee to:
Remand this matter to the ICOC for reconsideration with the request that the ICOC submit a record to the Committee which it considers sufficient to support the conclusion that the issuance of bonds in a particular amount is “necessary or desirable.”
Review in an open meeting, prior to authorizing the issuance of any bonds or other debt securities, the impact of the pending litigation on the sale of bonds, in light of the representations made to the Supreme Court by the Attorney General on behalf of the ICOC.
Address the problem of conflict of interest on the Committee, allowing an opportunity for public comment.
Revise the Agenda appropriately.
Set a time for discussion of the alternative non-bond financing plan with appropriate advance notice and preparation.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles Halpern
Charles Halpern was elected to membership in the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences in recognition of his work as a public interest lawyer practicing at the intersection of medicine, biomedical ethics, and public policy. He was a Professor at Stanford and Georgetown Law Schools and Dean of the City University of New York Law School. As Founding President of the Nathan Cummings Foundation, he administered a substantial grants program in the health field.an He has been an active public participant in the administration of Proposition 71 since its passage. With Dr. Philip Lee, he filed a petition with the ICOC requesting attention to conflict of interest problems, public access issues, and other governance matters.
The $10,000-a-Month Stem Cell Lobbyist
In an unusual move, the California stem cell agency has hired a private and influential lobbyist at a rate of nearly $10,000 a month to represent it in the state Capitol.
Few if any state agencies hire private lobbyists. Instead they rely on civil servants to appear before legislative committees and handle the myriad of details of the legislative process. California cities and counties, however, do hire Sacramento lobbyists.
The stem cell agency has contracted with Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller and Nayor of Sacramento to carry its legislative water. The five-month contract is capped at $49,900 with a monthly retainer of $9,600, billed in advance. The firm bills at rates of up to $645 an hour for attorney time.
Gene Erbin, one of two attorneys in the firm focusing on the stem cell agency, said the firm helped draft Prop. 71 and represented the campaign organization during last fall's election. Erbin indicated that some state agencies use private lobbyists, but did not give any specific examples. A spokeswoman for the California Secretary of State's office, which regulates lobbyists, said she did not know offhand of any state agency with private lobbyists.
Robert M. Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, said, “Obviously, the stem cell agency is unique because it was done by initiative and because the legislature (or some legislators) want to amend its law substantially (and also because it has its own budget.)
“I don’t have a problem with state agencies having lobbyists but I believe that they should be state employees, rather than private contractors. It is more efficient (they are full time and less expensive), and the employees don’t have other clients.”
The Nielsen firm has a blue chip list of clients, including some in the health industry. They include Genentech, Merck and Pfizer. The Wall Street Journal on April 12, in a story by Antonio Regalado, reported that Merck had been involved in stem cell research.
In a contract letter to the stem cell agency, Steven Merksamer, a member of the firm's management committee and one of its founders, said that it is “virtually inevitable” that the firm will work on projects for other clients that have “different governmental or political objectives or views.”
He added that because of the diversity of the firm's practice, “it is certainly possible, even likely” that the firm will represent other clients with interests that are “adverse” to those of the stem cell agency “but which are not directly related to the matters for which you are retaining us.”
Merksamer, once chief of staff to then Gov. Deukmejian, also said that the firm is not legally a “consultant” that makes a governmental decision and thus is not subject to economic disclosure.
Erbin was once a legislative consultant to Democratic legislative committee chairmen and is a specialist on initiatives. Jim Gross is the other member of the firm focusing on the agency. He is an expert on health issues.
Few if any state agencies hire private lobbyists. Instead they rely on civil servants to appear before legislative committees and handle the myriad of details of the legislative process. California cities and counties, however, do hire Sacramento lobbyists.
The stem cell agency has contracted with Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller and Nayor of Sacramento to carry its legislative water. The five-month contract is capped at $49,900 with a monthly retainer of $9,600, billed in advance. The firm bills at rates of up to $645 an hour for attorney time.
Gene Erbin, one of two attorneys in the firm focusing on the stem cell agency, said the firm helped draft Prop. 71 and represented the campaign organization during last fall's election. Erbin indicated that some state agencies use private lobbyists, but did not give any specific examples. A spokeswoman for the California Secretary of State's office, which regulates lobbyists, said she did not know offhand of any state agency with private lobbyists.
Robert M. Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, said, “Obviously, the stem cell agency is unique because it was done by initiative and because the legislature (or some legislators) want to amend its law substantially (and also because it has its own budget.)
“I don’t have a problem with state agencies having lobbyists but I believe that they should be state employees, rather than private contractors. It is more efficient (they are full time and less expensive), and the employees don’t have other clients.”
The Nielsen firm has a blue chip list of clients, including some in the health industry. They include Genentech, Merck and Pfizer. The Wall Street Journal on April 12, in a story by Antonio Regalado, reported that Merck had been involved in stem cell research.
In a contract letter to the stem cell agency, Steven Merksamer, a member of the firm's management committee and one of its founders, said that it is “virtually inevitable” that the firm will work on projects for other clients that have “different governmental or political objectives or views.”
He added that because of the diversity of the firm's practice, “it is certainly possible, even likely” that the firm will represent other clients with interests that are “adverse” to those of the stem cell agency “but which are not directly related to the matters for which you are retaining us.”
Merksamer, once chief of staff to then Gov. Deukmejian, also said that the firm is not legally a “consultant” that makes a governmental decision and thus is not subject to economic disclosure.
Erbin was once a legislative consultant to Democratic legislative committee chairmen and is a specialist on initiatives. Jim Gross is the other member of the firm focusing on the agency. He is an expert on health issues.
"Nothing If Not Political"
Picture the contestants in the Miss Stem Cell beauty pageant: Sluttish San Francisco, surf-and-turf San Diego and Sacramento, the demure farm girl.
That's how The Sacramento Bee editorialized today on the process of selecting a location for the stem cell headquarters.
While the newspaper had a little fun with the subject, it said the process illuminated the political nature of the Oversight Committee.
“It has revealed how parochial interests will likely dominate the dispersal of $3 billion of public funds over the next decade.
“At Monday's meeting of the institute's site-selection subcommittee, (stem cell chairman Robert) Klein ranked San Francisco - a quick drive from his Portola Valley home - as his top choice. Richard Murphy and Dr. John Reed gave even more lavish scores to their home team, San Diego. When it was clear that the fix was in, Dr. Phyllis Preciado of Fresno asked to change her score. Her extra five points for Sacramento kept it in the competition.
“Let's fast-forward to later this year, when the oversight committee is expected to start dispersing $300 million in annual research grants. Bay Area representatives will undoubtedly direct funds to Stanford and UC San Francisco. The Los Angeles contingent will push hard for UCLA, University of Southern California, Cedars-Sinai and the City of Hope. The San Diego appointees will make sure that UCSD, the Salk Institute and the Burnham Institute get their gravy. (UC) Irvine and (UC) Davis supporters will probably need to trade votes to avoid being shut out.
"Klein says he designed the 29-member oversight committee to shield it from politics, but make no mistake: This board is nothing if not political.”
That's how The Sacramento Bee editorialized today on the process of selecting a location for the stem cell headquarters.
While the newspaper had a little fun with the subject, it said the process illuminated the political nature of the Oversight Committee.
“It has revealed how parochial interests will likely dominate the dispersal of $3 billion of public funds over the next decade.
“At Monday's meeting of the institute's site-selection subcommittee, (stem cell chairman Robert) Klein ranked San Francisco - a quick drive from his Portola Valley home - as his top choice. Richard Murphy and Dr. John Reed gave even more lavish scores to their home team, San Diego. When it was clear that the fix was in, Dr. Phyllis Preciado of Fresno asked to change her score. Her extra five points for Sacramento kept it in the competition.
“Let's fast-forward to later this year, when the oversight committee is expected to start dispersing $300 million in annual research grants. Bay Area representatives will undoubtedly direct funds to Stanford and UC San Francisco. The Los Angeles contingent will push hard for UCLA, University of Southern California, Cedars-Sinai and the City of Hope. The San Diego appointees will make sure that UCSD, the Salk Institute and the Burnham Institute get their gravy. (UC) Irvine and (UC) Davis supporters will probably need to trade votes to avoid being shut out.
"Klein says he designed the 29-member oversight committee to shield it from politics, but make no mistake: This board is nothing if not political.”
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Where's The Money?
Reporter Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle follows the bond money trail at the California stem cell agency in a story that looks at the strategies in dealing with lawsuits against the institute.
His article says, “Prop. 71 committee chairman Robert Klein and state lawyers have publicly discussed filing a bond validation suit in Sacramento County Superior Court. Such a suit might be resolved within months, because courts have generally confined their review to the state's ability to pay for the bonds.” That would mean much quicker sale of the bonds than would be the case in dealing directly with the litigation from fundamentalist and right wing groups.
The subject of the litigation is up for closed-door consideration at the Oversight Committee meeting on Friday.
His article says, “Prop. 71 committee chairman Robert Klein and state lawyers have publicly discussed filing a bond validation suit in Sacramento County Superior Court. Such a suit might be resolved within months, because courts have generally confined their review to the state's ability to pay for the bonds.” That would mean much quicker sale of the bonds than would be the case in dealing directly with the litigation from fundamentalist and right wing groups.
The subject of the litigation is up for closed-door consideration at the Oversight Committee meeting on Friday.
Poor Policy, Poor Management
In less than 48 hours, the group that will be the largest single source of stem cell research funding in the world -- $3 billion -- will meet to discuss a wide range of complex issues, including its budget and appointment of key officials.
But the public has no real idea what the Oversight Committee is considering. At the time of this posting, they only can see perfunctory statements listed on the web site of the California stem cell agency. The agenda for this Friday's meeting does not even indicate whether items will be voted on or merely discussed. "Consideration" is the term used, which can cover a multitude of possibilities.
Presumably the 29 members of the committee that is supposed to make decisions on the issues are also limited to what they can see ahead of the meeting. Some of the committee members have already expressed their displeasure at not having sufficient time to prepare for the meetings and review the issues. Rushed agendas and lack of advance background material have been a problem with the Oversight Committee since its inception.
Normal governmental procedures in California, including those of the lowliest school boards, provide for far more disclosure on subjects to be considered at public sessions than that offered by the stem cell agency.
Chairman Robert Klein has promised the highest standards in openness and transparency. That promise has not been fulfilled in terms of giving the public and Oversight Committee members adequate advance notice and material on the complex issues the panel considers each month.
It is simply poor management and poor policy to continue in this fashion. And it will continue to alienate unnecessarily Oversight Committee members that Klein needs support from.
For a more on this issue see the item “Consider This” on this blog on April 1.
But the public has no real idea what the Oversight Committee is considering. At the time of this posting, they only can see perfunctory statements listed on the web site of the California stem cell agency. The agenda for this Friday's meeting does not even indicate whether items will be voted on or merely discussed. "Consideration" is the term used, which can cover a multitude of possibilities.
Presumably the 29 members of the committee that is supposed to make decisions on the issues are also limited to what they can see ahead of the meeting. Some of the committee members have already expressed their displeasure at not having sufficient time to prepare for the meetings and review the issues. Rushed agendas and lack of advance background material have been a problem with the Oversight Committee since its inception.
Normal governmental procedures in California, including those of the lowliest school boards, provide for far more disclosure on subjects to be considered at public sessions than that offered by the stem cell agency.
Chairman Robert Klein has promised the highest standards in openness and transparency. That promise has not been fulfilled in terms of giving the public and Oversight Committee members adequate advance notice and material on the complex issues the panel considers each month.
It is simply poor management and poor policy to continue in this fashion. And it will continue to alienate unnecessarily Oversight Committee members that Klein needs support from.
For a more on this issue see the item “Consider This” on this blog on April 1.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Flogging Not Yet Finished
San Franciso Mayor Gavin Newsom this morning is echoing the words of the soul singer James Brown.
“I feel good,” Newsom said after his city's bid for the permanent HQ of the California stem cell agency was ranked No. 1 by the agency's site selection committee. Sacramento and San Diego ran neck-and-neck for second.
But as someone once said, “It ain't over til it's over.” The three cities make presentations to the full Oversight Committee on Friday. The candidates for the presidency of the agency will also make their views known or reaffirm them. Then there are the wishes of Chairman Robert Klein.
Backers of each city made it clear they will pitch their proposals throughout the week. For example, the most powerful legislator in California on stem cell issues, Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, stressed once again that she would like to see the agency in Sacramento.
Her office released a statement late Monday that said, “While all of the proposals were outstanding, I believe Sacramento, like the state-of-the-art research authorized by Proposition 71, represents the promise and hope of the future.
“While other regions have been stagnant, Sacramento has seen a 30 percent growth in medical, health and technology sectors. We are the shiny new home to a growing hub of cutting-edge research and treatment into cancer, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, organ transplants, cardiology and spinal cord injuries. We offer an affordable, quality-of-life, the seat of state government and an integrated, world-class health care system.”
Reporter Laura Mecoy of The Sacramento Bee noted some regional bias on the part of the San Diego site selection committee members, John Reed and Richard Murphy. Reporter Carl Hall of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote that Phyllis Preciado of Fresno leaned heavily towards Sacramento.
Here are links to other stories: Reporter Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times; Sandy Kleffman, Contra Costa Times; Rebecca Vesely, Oakland Tribune, Jim Hopkins, USA Today; San Diego Daily Transcript (no byline) Paul Elias, The Associated Press, Terri Somers, San Diego Union Tribune.
“I feel good,” Newsom said after his city's bid for the permanent HQ of the California stem cell agency was ranked No. 1 by the agency's site selection committee. Sacramento and San Diego ran neck-and-neck for second.
But as someone once said, “It ain't over til it's over.” The three cities make presentations to the full Oversight Committee on Friday. The candidates for the presidency of the agency will also make their views known or reaffirm them. Then there are the wishes of Chairman Robert Klein.
Backers of each city made it clear they will pitch their proposals throughout the week. For example, the most powerful legislator in California on stem cell issues, Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, stressed once again that she would like to see the agency in Sacramento.
Her office released a statement late Monday that said, “While all of the proposals were outstanding, I believe Sacramento, like the state-of-the-art research authorized by Proposition 71, represents the promise and hope of the future.
“While other regions have been stagnant, Sacramento has seen a 30 percent growth in medical, health and technology sectors. We are the shiny new home to a growing hub of cutting-edge research and treatment into cancer, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, organ transplants, cardiology and spinal cord injuries. We offer an affordable, quality-of-life, the seat of state government and an integrated, world-class health care system.”
Reporter Laura Mecoy of The Sacramento Bee noted some regional bias on the part of the San Diego site selection committee members, John Reed and Richard Murphy. Reporter Carl Hall of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote that Phyllis Preciado of Fresno leaned heavily towards Sacramento.
Here are links to other stories: Reporter Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times; Sandy Kleffman, Contra Costa Times; Rebecca Vesely, Oakland Tribune, Jim Hopkins, USA Today; San Diego Daily Transcript (no byline) Paul Elias, The Associated Press, Terri Somers, San Diego Union Tribune.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Who's on Second: Sacramento and San Diego
San Diego and Sacramento emerged as closely ranked for second choice for the headquarters. Now the leading candidates for the president's job at the agency will weigh in privately with their thoughts. The Oversight Committee votes on Friday, but Paul Elias, biotech writer for The Associated Press, writes that it looks like Baghdad-by-the-Bay will the headquarters for the biggest stem cell research effort in the world.
Here is a link to his story. The agency's web site is likely to post an official version of the subcommittee's action sometime today.
Here is a link to his story. The agency's web site is likely to post an official version of the subcommittee's action sometime today.
Surprise: San Francisco Gets the Nod
San Francisco is the first choice recommendation for the new headquarters of the California stem cell agency.
Happy supporters of the bid released the news about 15 minutes ago on the Internet even before it was posted by the agency. Here is the item from the Bay Area Council.
"Today, Jim Wunderman, President and CEO of the Bay Area Council, released the following statement regarding the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) Site Search Subcommittee's decision to make San Francisco their first choice recommendation for the Institute's new headquarters.
"Today's announcement is one of the final steps towards cementing the Bay Area's role as the center of biotechnology in the world. If approved by the 29-member Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee on May 6, this may be the psychological turnaround point for the Bay Area -- a historical marker of when the economic recovery began in earnest.
"We already have the most important companies in biotechnology. We were the birthplace of the industry. We have the world's largest concentration of life sciences companies, with more than 820. If we win the headquarters of the $3 billion stem cell institute, the Bay Area's leadership in this industry will grow further.
"The message this choice would send out is that if you want to either conduct cutting-edge research, or grow a company, or find a good job in biotechnology and stem cell research, you must come to the Bay Area.
"The contest to win the Institute's headquarters has been one of the hottest and most competitive in recent California history. The site search subcommittee has been under tremendous pressure from all involved. They are to be congratulated for running the process fairly and to the letter of the law. Since they held themselves up to such high standards, the entire state can know that the committee's recommendation is in the best interest of stem cell research and the people of California.
"Locating the stem cell institute headquarters in the Bay Area will help grow an already robust industry cluster in the region -- one that pays good dividends to our residents. The biotechnology industry contributes more than $12 billion to the Bay Area economy each year and employs more than 79,000 people. Bay Area biotech jobs pay an average of $80,000, which is 35 percent higher than normal for our region. Our research institutes draw in more than $900 million a year in grants for biotechnology research. Biotech is a true engine of our economy and will likely be key to our recovery."
Happy supporters of the bid released the news about 15 minutes ago on the Internet even before it was posted by the agency. Here is the item from the Bay Area Council.
"Today, Jim Wunderman, President and CEO of the Bay Area Council, released the following statement regarding the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) Site Search Subcommittee's decision to make San Francisco their first choice recommendation for the Institute's new headquarters.
"Today's announcement is one of the final steps towards cementing the Bay Area's role as the center of biotechnology in the world. If approved by the 29-member Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee on May 6, this may be the psychological turnaround point for the Bay Area -- a historical marker of when the economic recovery began in earnest.
"We already have the most important companies in biotechnology. We were the birthplace of the industry. We have the world's largest concentration of life sciences companies, with more than 820. If we win the headquarters of the $3 billion stem cell institute, the Bay Area's leadership in this industry will grow further.
"The message this choice would send out is that if you want to either conduct cutting-edge research, or grow a company, or find a good job in biotechnology and stem cell research, you must come to the Bay Area.
"The contest to win the Institute's headquarters has been one of the hottest and most competitive in recent California history. The site search subcommittee has been under tremendous pressure from all involved. They are to be congratulated for running the process fairly and to the letter of the law. Since they held themselves up to such high standards, the entire state can know that the committee's recommendation is in the best interest of stem cell research and the people of California.
"Locating the stem cell institute headquarters in the Bay Area will help grow an already robust industry cluster in the region -- one that pays good dividends to our residents. The biotechnology industry contributes more than $12 billion to the Bay Area economy each year and employs more than 79,000 people. Bay Area biotech jobs pay an average of $80,000, which is 35 percent higher than normal for our region. Our research institutes draw in more than $900 million a year in grants for biotechnology research. Biotech is a true engine of our economy and will likely be key to our recovery."
Managing Stem Cell Expectations
The California stem cell agency is working hard to put money in the field to find cures for everything from cancer to dementia. But Stu Leavenworth, an associate editor of The Sacramento Bee, sounded a cautionary note in an opinion piece.
It said in part:
“Now that the initiative is law, Proposition 71 supporters face a daunting challenge - how to manage lofty public expectations.
“Partly because of the P.R. campaign, many patient advocates and California taxpayers believe that medical miracles are imminent. In reality, most scientists say it will take years, and possibly decades, before embryonic stem cell treatments are proven and made widely available.”
It said in part:
“Now that the initiative is law, Proposition 71 supporters face a daunting challenge - how to manage lofty public expectations.
“Partly because of the P.R. campaign, many patient advocates and California taxpayers believe that medical miracles are imminent. In reality, most scientists say it will take years, and possibly decades, before embryonic stem cell treatments are proven and made widely available.”
Penhoet, Selling and Management
Now a millionaire venture capitalist and philanthropist, Ed Penhoet grew up in Oakland, the son of a piano teacher, Helene, and a hardware store owner, Etienne.
Some of the tidbits from a profile of the vice chairman of the stem cell agency in the San Francisco Chronicle. Reporter Alex Barnum wrote the piece that also tells us Penhoet learned some of his management skills that he used at Chiron from a year selling cars.
"If you have highly productive, highly trained people working for you, you can't order them around every day. ... You have to sell them on the concepts that you're trying to put forward,” Penhoet told Barnum.
The story also reported:
“Penhoet's restless ambition has led him down other paths as well. After a stint as dean of the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, he is now president of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the country's sixth largest philanthropic organization, where his job is making sure that $5 billion is put to work in solving some of society's toughest problems.”
Barnum wrote, “What's unusual, friends and colleagues say, is that someone of such ambition is also a genuinely nice guy, modest and open-minded. The same characteristics that served him in academia and business -- an ability to attract talented people, a skill at solving problems and defusing difficult situations -- will be valuable in his latest, most public role as vice chair of the stem cell board, they say.”
Some of the tidbits from a profile of the vice chairman of the stem cell agency in the San Francisco Chronicle. Reporter Alex Barnum wrote the piece that also tells us Penhoet learned some of his management skills that he used at Chiron from a year selling cars.
"If you have highly productive, highly trained people working for you, you can't order them around every day. ... You have to sell them on the concepts that you're trying to put forward,” Penhoet told Barnum.
The story also reported:
“Penhoet's restless ambition has led him down other paths as well. After a stint as dean of the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, he is now president of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the country's sixth largest philanthropic organization, where his job is making sure that $5 billion is put to work in solving some of society's toughest problems.”
Barnum wrote, “What's unusual, friends and colleagues say, is that someone of such ambition is also a genuinely nice guy, modest and open-minded. The same characteristics that served him in academia and business -- an ability to attract talented people, a skill at solving problems and defusing difficult situations -- will be valuable in his latest, most public role as vice chair of the stem cell board, they say.”
Saturday, April 30, 2005
The Bee: Sad Situation At CIRM
“Kaiser works to prevent conflicts of interest while California's institute wimps out” reads the headline on the editorial in The Sacramento Bee.
The piece said that while stem cell chairman Robert Klein pays lip service to NIH standards, he does not seem ready to go along with the latest that have resulted in the resignation of some NIH scientists.
“Thus we have a sad situation. Weak standards in California are attracting scientists who don't want to deal with new ethics standards in Washington. This wasn't the magnet effect voters envisioned when they approved Proposition 71."
The piece said that while stem cell chairman Robert Klein pays lip service to NIH standards, he does not seem ready to go along with the latest that have resulted in the resignation of some NIH scientists.
“Thus we have a sad situation. Weak standards in California are attracting scientists who don't want to deal with new ethics standards in Washington. This wasn't the magnet effect voters envisioned when they approved Proposition 71."
“Pants Off” in Sacramento
San Francisco took its best shot at winning the bid for the California stem cell agency's new headquarters, but Sacramento is promising a surprise during its site visit today.
Reporter Steve Johnson of the San Jose Mercury News wrote:
“Oleg Kaganovich, chief executive of the Sacramento Area Regional Technology Alliance, which helped put together that city's bid, wouldn't talk in detail about what Sacramento's backers have planned for the visiting board members. 'It's going to be somewhat of a surprise,' he said. 'We're going to wow the pants off of these people.'''
It's not clear whether he was talking about the Sacramento Kings' smashing victory over Seattle Friday night in the NBA playoffs.
Reporter Carl Hall also had an account of the site selection committee's visit to San Francisco on Friday.
“There was free Hetch Hetchy bottled water. The Giants scoreboard at SBC Park signaled a welcome. And the bus ran more or less on time,” Hall wrote.
“San Francisco officialdom did everything but hire Tony Bennett to melt the hearts of state officials shopping this weekend for a headquarters city on behalf of California's Proposition 71 stem cell program.”
Were the decision makers impressed? “Side talk among members was also ruled out,” Hall wrote. “If anyone gave a clue as to how he or she was leaning on Friday, it was well out of the earshot of the mayor and the media.”
By the way, the next Kings-Seattle game is Sunday night at 7:30 p.m. West Coast time.
Reporter Steve Johnson of the San Jose Mercury News wrote:
“Oleg Kaganovich, chief executive of the Sacramento Area Regional Technology Alliance, which helped put together that city's bid, wouldn't talk in detail about what Sacramento's backers have planned for the visiting board members. 'It's going to be somewhat of a surprise,' he said. 'We're going to wow the pants off of these people.'''
It's not clear whether he was talking about the Sacramento Kings' smashing victory over Seattle Friday night in the NBA playoffs.
Reporter Carl Hall also had an account of the site selection committee's visit to San Francisco on Friday.
“There was free Hetch Hetchy bottled water. The Giants scoreboard at SBC Park signaled a welcome. And the bus ran more or less on time,” Hall wrote.
“San Francisco officialdom did everything but hire Tony Bennett to melt the hearts of state officials shopping this weekend for a headquarters city on behalf of California's Proposition 71 stem cell program.”
Were the decision makers impressed? “Side talk among members was also ruled out,” Hall wrote. “If anyone gave a clue as to how he or she was leaning on Friday, it was well out of the earshot of the mayor and the media.”
By the way, the next Kings-Seattle game is Sunday night at 7:30 p.m. West Coast time.
Friday, April 29, 2005
HQ Countdown: Tittering and Cheesiness
As the decision approaches for the location of the stem cell agency's headquarters, San Francisco is smirking a little this morning about San Diego's mayoral follies.
Ken Garcia wrote a “personal perspective” in the San Francisco Chronicle on the behind-the-scenes tittering in San Francisco.
“No one I spoke with would comment on the record, but it's fair to say that San Francisco officials are not exactly saddened by San Diego's woes. It certainly can't help if the future capital of the world's biggest private stem- cell program is mired in scandal. With San Diego reeling from another mayor-go- round -- (Mayor) Murphy was re-elected in November after a judge threw out thousands of write-in ballots that would have elevated surfer/councilwoman Donna Frye to the post -- it's hard to see how the selection committee wouldn't at least consider it a factor.
"'It does raise some interesting questions,' one City Hall official said. 'But it's not our place to raise them.'''
Garcia skated over San Francisco's own rather checkered political history. Another minor note: Frye is not a surfer; she ran a surf shop.
Reporter Terri Hardy of The Sacramento Bee wrote that local officials there staged a “cheesy” news conference Thursday to support the Sacramento bid but were quite unified when they did it. She quoted Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo as saying, "Sacramento is in fact the best location, and location should be critical. The Capitol is where stem cell decisions are made."
Reporter Rachael Gordon of the Chronicle covered the perspective from all four cities. The San Diego Union Tribune did not appear to carry a story on the matter this morning.
Ken Garcia wrote a “personal perspective” in the San Francisco Chronicle on the behind-the-scenes tittering in San Francisco.
“No one I spoke with would comment on the record, but it's fair to say that San Francisco officials are not exactly saddened by San Diego's woes. It certainly can't help if the future capital of the world's biggest private stem- cell program is mired in scandal. With San Diego reeling from another mayor-go- round -- (Mayor) Murphy was re-elected in November after a judge threw out thousands of write-in ballots that would have elevated surfer/councilwoman Donna Frye to the post -- it's hard to see how the selection committee wouldn't at least consider it a factor.
"'It does raise some interesting questions,' one City Hall official said. 'But it's not our place to raise them.'''
Garcia skated over San Francisco's own rather checkered political history. Another minor note: Frye is not a surfer; she ran a surf shop.
Reporter Terri Hardy of The Sacramento Bee wrote that local officials there staged a “cheesy” news conference Thursday to support the Sacramento bid but were quite unified when they did it. She quoted Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo as saying, "Sacramento is in fact the best location, and location should be critical. The Capitol is where stem cell decisions are made."
Reporter Rachael Gordon of the Chronicle covered the perspective from all four cities. The San Diego Union Tribune did not appear to carry a story on the matter this morning.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Not Even Bread, Only Water
The selection process for the HQ of California's stem cell agency is no graft-riddled process a la the Olympics.
“So cautious is the (selection) committee that cities were warned they could provide no food or gifts during site visits. Said one staff member, 'Only coffee or water can be served,'" wrote reporter Terri Hardy in The Sacramento Bee.
Reporter Carl Hall of the San Francisco Chronicle pretty much says Baghdad-by-the-Bay has it in the bag. But he also reported, “San Francisco officials made it clear they are not yet ready to start celebrating -- and not only because they want to avoid looking too smug in advance of the key votes.
“The reason the subcommittee is recommending a runner-up city is that a separate group from the institute is now searching for a permanent chief executive. Officials want a couple of possibilities in the event that person has a strong preference on location.”
“So cautious is the (selection) committee that cities were warned they could provide no food or gifts during site visits. Said one staff member, 'Only coffee or water can be served,'" wrote reporter Terri Hardy in The Sacramento Bee.
Reporter Carl Hall of the San Francisco Chronicle pretty much says Baghdad-by-the-Bay has it in the bag. But he also reported, “San Francisco officials made it clear they are not yet ready to start celebrating -- and not only because they want to avoid looking too smug in advance of the key votes.
“The reason the subcommittee is recommending a runner-up city is that a separate group from the institute is now searching for a permanent chief executive. Officials want a couple of possibilities in the event that person has a strong preference on location.”
Is the River City Bid Underwater?
Can the city that is the home to virtually every state department win the bid for the HQ of the California stem cell agency?
Reporter Laura Mecoy weighed that question in a story on the competition for the site. She wrote that Sacramento “is closest to state government and has the lowest cost of living.
“Problem is, neither point is getting much attention from the site selection panel that will visit Sacramento and the three other finalists over the next four days.
“The panel plans to use the site visits to help advise the full stem cell board when it picks the headquarters city on May 6.
"'We are working against the notion that the Legislature should have no role in the stem cell program,' said Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento.
“Tom Zeidner, Sacramento's senior economic development project manager, said the stem cell agency's chairman also told him 'rather curtly' that cost of living didn't matter.
“Most of the employees at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine are expected to earn more than $100,000 a year. Its board is considering paying up to $600,000 to hire a president.”
The Sacramento News and Review offered up an editorial touting the Big Tomato's bid. But the editorial may have actually been a disincentive. “What better location than Sacramento--with its taxpayer attentiveness, watchdog organizations and capital press corp--to keep this agency above reproach in its role to safeguard the public's interest in all things stem-cell?” the newspaper wrote. Given the agency's sketchy relations with Capitol denizens, it may not want to be any closer than San Francisco, at the very least.
Reporter Laura Mecoy weighed that question in a story on the competition for the site. She wrote that Sacramento “is closest to state government and has the lowest cost of living.
“Problem is, neither point is getting much attention from the site selection panel that will visit Sacramento and the three other finalists over the next four days.
“The panel plans to use the site visits to help advise the full stem cell board when it picks the headquarters city on May 6.
"'We are working against the notion that the Legislature should have no role in the stem cell program,' said Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento.
“Tom Zeidner, Sacramento's senior economic development project manager, said the stem cell agency's chairman also told him 'rather curtly' that cost of living didn't matter.
“Most of the employees at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine are expected to earn more than $100,000 a year. Its board is considering paying up to $600,000 to hire a president.”
The Sacramento News and Review offered up an editorial touting the Big Tomato's bid. But the editorial may have actually been a disincentive. “What better location than Sacramento--with its taxpayer attentiveness, watchdog organizations and capital press corp--to keep this agency above reproach in its role to safeguard the public's interest in all things stem-cell?” the newspaper wrote. Given the agency's sketchy relations with Capitol denizens, it may not want to be any closer than San Francisco, at the very least.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Erratic Fallout
Postings on this blog are likely to be a tad more erratic than normal during the next few days. A friend and fellow sailor down here in Romantic Old Mexico fractured his pelvis when he fell from a 15-foot ladder on his boat, which was on the hard. He was flown to the US for surgery. We are helping to deal with some of the fallout, so to speak, from the accident.
Venturing into the Stem Cell Business
Venture capitalists are expanding their role in stem cell issues all across the country.
Their actions follow last fall's approval of Prop. 71 in California, which had major support from some venture capitalists in that state. Robert Klein, chairman of the California stem cell agency, told thedeal.com that his venture capital supporters had personal reasons for supporting the measure.
One venture capitalist, Michael Goldberg, sits on the Oversight Committee of Klein's agency. The entry of successful business men and women into public life is to be lauded. They bring much energy, talent and a different perspective to difficult issues. Nonetheless venture capitalists make their bones by flinty attention to their economic self-interest. As in any business deal, it behooves public officials to exercise equally flinty attention in dealing with venture capitalists.
Here is more on what writer Alex Kash of thedeal.com had to say about venture capitalists and stem cells and their effort in Massachusetts:
“It marked the second time VCs have rallied at the state level to support
the controversial research, which creates human embryonic stem cells as
a research tool and, proponents hope, eventually as a treatment for chronic diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Researchers and VCs scored a big win in California last November with the adoption of California's Proposition 71, protecting research there and providing a $3 billion state research fund. A good portion of the $24 million or more raised to support the measure came from VCs such as Brook Byers, John Doerr, Vinod Khosla and Joseph Lacob (all of Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers of Menlo Park, Calif.), Gordon Gund and Amgen founder William Bowes of U.S. Ventures.
“Campaign chairman Robert Klein, a real estate investment banker, was the main political and financial force behind Prop 71. Klein, whose teenage son has juvenile diabetes, said through a spokeswoman that the VC contributors all had personal reasons for getting involved in Prop 71. The law creates a state board, chaired by Klein, that will dole out $3 billion in public funds mostly to research institutions, although startups will be allowed to apply for grants.
"'It was a role model for me,' (Massachusetts VC Chris) Gabrieli says. Prop 71 backers not only made their point about the research potentially saving lives, Gabrieli says, but also the campaign was "the first time effective arguments were made" in the stem-cell debate about economics, jobs and innovation.”
Their actions follow last fall's approval of Prop. 71 in California, which had major support from some venture capitalists in that state. Robert Klein, chairman of the California stem cell agency, told thedeal.com that his venture capital supporters had personal reasons for supporting the measure.
One venture capitalist, Michael Goldberg, sits on the Oversight Committee of Klein's agency. The entry of successful business men and women into public life is to be lauded. They bring much energy, talent and a different perspective to difficult issues. Nonetheless venture capitalists make their bones by flinty attention to their economic self-interest. As in any business deal, it behooves public officials to exercise equally flinty attention in dealing with venture capitalists.
Here is more on what writer Alex Kash of thedeal.com had to say about venture capitalists and stem cells and their effort in Massachusetts:
“It marked the second time VCs have rallied at the state level to support
the controversial research, which creates human embryonic stem cells as
a research tool and, proponents hope, eventually as a treatment for chronic diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Researchers and VCs scored a big win in California last November with the adoption of California's Proposition 71, protecting research there and providing a $3 billion state research fund. A good portion of the $24 million or more raised to support the measure came from VCs such as Brook Byers, John Doerr, Vinod Khosla and Joseph Lacob (all of Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers of Menlo Park, Calif.), Gordon Gund and Amgen founder William Bowes of U.S. Ventures.
“Campaign chairman Robert Klein, a real estate investment banker, was the main political and financial force behind Prop 71. Klein, whose teenage son has juvenile diabetes, said through a spokeswoman that the VC contributors all had personal reasons for getting involved in Prop 71. The law creates a state board, chaired by Klein, that will dole out $3 billion in public funds mostly to research institutions, although startups will be allowed to apply for grants.
"'It was a role model for me,' (Massachusetts VC Chris) Gabrieli says. Prop 71 backers not only made their point about the research potentially saving lives, Gabrieli says, but also the campaign was "the first time effective arguments were made" in the stem-cell debate about economics, jobs and innovation.”
Monday, April 25, 2005
Will the New Stem Cell CEO Be a Surfer?
By the time you read this, the stem cell site selection committee will have finished its 7 a.m. meeting, but the real news this morning is found in two paragraphs buried deep in the background material for the session.
It tells us that if the top candidate likes opera, San Francisco could become the new headquarters for the stem cell agency. But if surfing and a truly wonderful climate are what matters, San Diego could get the nod. If it is professional basketball (Go Kings!) and skiing in the Sierra, Sacramento looks better.
We remarked on Jan. 27(“The CEO Reality”) that the most important factor in corporate location decisions is the desire of the CEO.
Walter Barnes, chief administrative officer of the stem cell agency, reinforced that in a letter to Julie Wright, president of the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corp. He was responding to some of Wright's concerns about the site selection process.
“At the most recent meeting of the ICOC on April 7, 2005,” Barnes wrote, “several members expressed the opinion that a decision on the headquarters site was a critical element of the recruitment for a permanent president. Your comment that the 'location of the job should not matter to the right candidate and that all postings should be viewed as interim' is disputed by Spencer Stuart – the presidential search firm hired by the ICOC. They have told the ICOC that a mid-May decision is needed. For example, a candidate with school-aged children will be able to relocate his or her family without inconvenience that might prevent him or her them from accepting an offer made at a later date.
“The Presidential Search Committee has adopted a plan of its own to make a decision on a recommendation at a meeting planned to be held on May 18, 2005. A decision on the headquarters site by May 6, 2005 will allow that Committee to ensure that uncertainty of location will not affect the finalist recommendations for the presidency of the CIRM.”
Perhaps the competing cities should plug themselves into the presidential search process for a little lobbying with the job candidates. However, some might think that would be unseemly.
On another recruitment note, some experts believe it is better to move children during the school year as opposed to summer. During the summer, displaced children have less to do – no school, etc. So they have more time to whine as they contemplate the loss of their old friends and environs.
As for the site selection subcommittee meeting, the finalist cities are seeking to have their scores changed. The recommendation to the committee was to alter the scores slightly, but that did not change the pre-meeting rankings that left San Francisco No. 1 and Sacramento No. 2.
It tells us that if the top candidate likes opera, San Francisco could become the new headquarters for the stem cell agency. But if surfing and a truly wonderful climate are what matters, San Diego could get the nod. If it is professional basketball (Go Kings!) and skiing in the Sierra, Sacramento looks better.
We remarked on Jan. 27(“The CEO Reality”) that the most important factor in corporate location decisions is the desire of the CEO.
Walter Barnes, chief administrative officer of the stem cell agency, reinforced that in a letter to Julie Wright, president of the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corp. He was responding to some of Wright's concerns about the site selection process.
“At the most recent meeting of the ICOC on April 7, 2005,” Barnes wrote, “several members expressed the opinion that a decision on the headquarters site was a critical element of the recruitment for a permanent president. Your comment that the 'location of the job should not matter to the right candidate and that all postings should be viewed as interim' is disputed by Spencer Stuart – the presidential search firm hired by the ICOC. They have told the ICOC that a mid-May decision is needed. For example, a candidate with school-aged children will be able to relocate his or her family without inconvenience that might prevent him or her them from accepting an offer made at a later date.
“The Presidential Search Committee has adopted a plan of its own to make a decision on a recommendation at a meeting planned to be held on May 18, 2005. A decision on the headquarters site by May 6, 2005 will allow that Committee to ensure that uncertainty of location will not affect the finalist recommendations for the presidency of the CIRM.”
Perhaps the competing cities should plug themselves into the presidential search process for a little lobbying with the job candidates. However, some might think that would be unseemly.
On another recruitment note, some experts believe it is better to move children during the school year as opposed to summer. During the summer, displaced children have less to do – no school, etc. So they have more time to whine as they contemplate the loss of their old friends and environs.
As for the site selection subcommittee meeting, the finalist cities are seeking to have their scores changed. The recommendation to the committee was to alter the scores slightly, but that did not change the pre-meeting rankings that left San Francisco No. 1 and Sacramento No. 2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)