Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...
Posted on 02/28/2006 8:45:38 AM PST by NormsRevenge
HAYWARD — California's $3 billion, voter-approved stem cell institute went on trial Monday as opponents sought to invalidate the program on grounds that it operates outside state control.
The institute violates conflict of interest rules governing state agencies and its officials are not acting in the best interest of taxpayers, attorneys representing taxpayer groups said in opening statements in Alameda County Superior Court.
"This agency as it is currently created is not responsive to the people," said David Llewellyn, attorney for the California Family Bioethics Council, one of the groups bringing the suit.
Voters in November 2004 approved Proposition 71, which created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, a new state agency that would oversee the allocation of $3 billion in funds over 10 years toward stem cell research in the state.
The agency's goal was to advance the promising field of embryonic stem cell research — despite federal restrictions put in place by President Bush in 2001 because of moral objections to experimenting on human embryos.
One key aspect of the trial this week is whether the 29 members of the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee, which oversees the stem cell institute, and their subcommittees and working groups are operating without regard to state laws.
In his hourlong opening, Llewellyn sought to paint members of the ICOC as directly violating basic conflict of interest standards.
For instance, five University of California officials were among those serving on the ICOC when it approved $39 million in scientific training grants last year, some of which went to UC campuses. Although individuals recused themselves from voting on grants for their own campuses, they voted on grants benefiting other campuses in the UC system.
"The training grants show the most obvious problems in the current structure of the ICOC," Llewellyn told the court.
Robert Klein, chairman of the ICOC, said in an interview outside the courtroom that UC campuses routinely compete against each other for grants.
Klein also defended the makeup of the ICOC, which includes deans of University of California medical schools, patient advocates and pioneers in biomedicine, some of whom hold stock in biotechnology companies but not companies performing stem cell research.
He said the ICOC, whose members are appointed by the governor and other top elected state officials, should have expertise in the field, as outlined in the language of Proposition 71.
"He (Llewellyn) wouldn't let anyone who goes to school serve on a school board," Klein said.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Bonnie Lewman Sabraw threw out several parts of the plaintiffs' case in November but allowed the trial to go forward. It is expected to last one to two weeks.
Plaintiffs also include the People's Advocate and National Tax Limitation Foundation, represented by Dana Cody, an attorney with Life Legal Defense Fund, an anti-abortion group that opposes embryonic stem cell research.
Tamar Pachter, deputy attorney general of California, said in her opening that the stem cell agency is working well within the letter of the law.
"The only violations anyone has perceived are in the plaintiffs' minds," Pachter said.
Only two other similar legal challenges have been successful in state history, Pachter said. In one case, a state entity was set up to benefit the Catholic Church, and in another, a private company benefited.
"State money is not being drawn for a purpose other than a public purpose," in this case, Pachter said.
The plaintiffs said Monday they plan to rely on documents written by top officials at the institute and the ICOC to make their case.
The stem cell agency's fate rests on this case because the state is unable to issue bonds to fund the scientific research until it is resolved. Although it has awarded training grants, it hasn't been able to issue the money to go along with the grants, or any other funds.
The institute relies on private donations to keep basic operations going.
Even if the state wins, the appeals process likely won't be exhausted for 15 more months, officials said.
Oh my God, we can't have that!!!
The idot voters left the anti-religious rhetoric of the promoters of the plan rule the propaganda war over the plan, while hiding many of the "governance" details in hard to understand legaleze. If the voters had stopped to thoroughly read the ballot initiative material, they would have found that the resulting law would PREVENT the governor, the legislature and the people from having much say over the "stem cell" commission.
Some of the conflicts of interest were written in plain sight, with the commission board described as composed of, and only of, reps from the various government, academic and private research groups to whom the state funds were to be allocated. No rep from the governor or anyone who reports to the governor and no legislative oversight at all.
In addition, in legal language, the law passed by the initiative prevents any action by the state legislature from affecting the work of the commission for the first ten years, and with restrictions that followe after that period.
Nice huh?
It is what I said it was at the time - an employment insurance policy for the embryonic stem cell community in California, with no oversight by the taxpayers permitted - just give us your money and then leave us alone.
People vote based on perceptions and feelings.
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...
"Promising field"??? More like a politician's promises. We keep hearing about the "promising" hopes, but have yet to see any promising results, especially when compared to adult stem cell research, which has produced a lot of useful results.
No surprise. Voters went for Reiner's "first five" initiative back in '98, adding a 50-cent-a-pack cigarette tax and reserving a big gob of the money for a commission that's essentially outside the control of the usual government overseers like the legislature. Reiner's been shoveling a lot of the dough at organizations headed by his buddies. We'll be seeing more and more of this sort of thing as people realize they can run a vacuum hose into the CA treasury and just suck out money for themselves and their pet causes.
Don't we want the headless human clones ready when boomers need replacement organs?
I looked up the minutes of this agency sometime last year. All they have done is hire their friends, and have meetings! At outrageous salaries mind you.
Bad law, top to bottom.
What happens when you hand over $3 billion ($6 billion with interest) to a totally unaccountable bunch of venture capitalists masquerading as do-gooders? Taxpayers get shafted.
Those that promoted this sham should be exposed and punished, accordingly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.