Odd Bedfellows Want Fair Rules For Voters’ $6 Billion Investment

"Early stumbles provide a vivid illustration of the need for strict oversight of how the public’s money is being spent and who is benefiting from California’s [stem cell research] investment."

You’ve heard the saying: politics makes for odd bedfellows.

This year’s best example came when Senators Deborah Ortiz and George Runner teamed up to reform California’s new stem cell agency, the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, and its board, the Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee (ICOC).

Sen. Ortiz, a Democrat from Sacramento, actively supported Proposition 71, the 2004 initiative approved by voters to fund stem cell research to the tune of $6 billion ($3 billion in bonds and $3 billion in interest). Sen. Runner, a Republican from Lancaster, firmly opposed Prop 71 on moral grounds.

Despite their differing opinions on the core topic of stem cell research, the duo agreed that the new state agency and its board should adhere to certain good government principles. And so, to make this happen they introduced SCA 13. I stood with them at a state capitol press conference in January to unveil the measure and to applaud their work.

SCA 13 will fix troublesome flaws with Prop 71. First, it will force the stem cell agency and board to abide by the state’s open meetings laws.

Second, it will require those involved in doling out stem cell grants to disclose their economic interests, and it provides for an independent review by the state auditor of those interests. This is needed to ensure that grant-making decisions are based on applicants’ merits, not the personal economic interests of the decision-makers.

Third, it will ensure that if private companies profit from state stem cell grant funding, taxpayers will share in the reward via cheaper medicine or money reinvested in the state.

To understand why it’s so important to put fair rules in place now, consider the early stumbles by the ICOC. At its first meeting in December, it was forced to scuttle several agenda items after learning that including them would violate provisions of the state’s open meetings law, which calls for advance public notice of topics to be discussed.

Later, eyebrows were raised by the millions of dollars in biotech stock owned by many of the board members, their generous travel and per diem rates, and the six-figure salaries bestowed on several staffers.

More recently, even board members expressed concerns about reports that the board continues to spend money on outside consulting contracts for legal and public-relations work — expenditures made without many of the board members’ knowledge or consent. These early stumbles provide a vivid illustration of the need for strict oversight of how the public’s money is being spent and who is benefiting from California’s investment.

Currently, we’re waiting to see if the new agency and its board initiate the needed reforms. If they fail to take needed action, we’ll work with Sens. Ortiz and Runner and others to pass SCA 13 next year. We want to ensure that Californians have confidence in the integrity of a multibillion dollar program they created at the ballot.

Sincerely,

Steve Blackledge
Legislative Director