Boxing in the California Stem Cell Board

Klein was adept at many tasks, such as
directing the ballot campaign that resulted in passage of Proposition
71 in 2004 and creation of of the agency. One of Klein's less
publicly recognized skills was putting the governing board of the
agency in a box from time to time.

The 29 members of that board could well
be headed for another box – this time in connection with their
position on the Institute of Medicine's sweeping recommendations for major changes at the stem cell agency.

Here is how that could work based on a
similar situation in 2009 involving Klein and the Little Hoover
Commission, the state's good government agency.

Klein did not welcome the inquiry by
the commission, which was requested by state lawmakers who had butted
heads with Klein. He knew that the commission would come up with
recommendations that he would find odious.

So even before the Hoover report was
released in its final form, Klein had the board's outside counsel,
James Harrison, prepare a legal memo on a draft version of the study.
Harrison's memo said many of the most far-reaching recommendations of
the commission would require a vote of the people – a more costly
and unlikely proposition than a vote of the legislature.

Harrison's memo was dated June 23,
2009. The commission report was released June 26, 2009. On June 30, 2009, Klein warned directors in an email that support of some of the
proposals would violate their oath of office. The first time a
subcommittee of directors had to a chance to react publicly came on
July 16, 2009. The full board did not have the Hoover report on its
agenda until Aug. 6, 2009. By that time, they were thoroughly boxed
in.

Their choices were minimal, even if
they disagreed with Klein. To do anything other than go along with
him would mean rejection of a 10-page legal opinion from Harrison,
which could be interpreted as no-confidence vote on Harrison and
possibly Klein. Board members were not interested in losing
Harrison, who has been valuable asset to the board since day one.
Overthrowing Klein was even less likely in 2009.

Harrison is currently revisiting his
2009 memo in the wake of the Institute of Medicine recommendations,
which echo some of the major Hoover proposals. The board has also
scheduled a workshop for Jan. 23 that will discuss the IOM proposals.

If Harrison produces another legal memo
that is as explicit as the 2009 document, CIRM directors will have
few choices.  The best procedure may well be for Harrison
to continue his work on the memo until after the Jan. 23 meeting.
Directors could then decide on initial steps in connection with the
IOM recommendations and ask Harrison how they can proceed legally, although the task is really more of a political challenge than a legal
one.

Directors paid $700,000 for the IOM's evaluation and advice. It is a prestigious body with virtually no critics in the scientific community. It would be odd, to say the least, for CIRM directors to now reject major recommendations from the blue-ribbon panel only because the proposals might require a statewide vote. The response is likely to be from some: Well, stem cell directors, let's have a statewide vote, and we expect you to support the IOM changes if you plan to seek additional state funding. 

Placing another stem cell measure on the ballot -- with or without related additional funding for the agency -- would bring into play a host of issues, including possible elimination of the agency. Not to mention disturbing existing stakeholder relationships and raising uncertainty in the scientific and biotech business communities. 

Directors believe the agency has made a major contribution both to California and to science. So does the IOM. The directors need to move forward on the IOM recommendations if they are to continue their research efforts beyond 2017, when cash for new grants runs out.  And putting the board in a box is not the best way to give them the room they need to maneuver.