<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://nafonline.net/blog" xmlns:dc="
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Little Hoover Commission</title>
 <link>http://nafonline.net/blog/topics/little-hoover-commission</link>
 <description>The taxonomy view with a depth of 0.</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Little Hoover: Stem Cell Agency Board Should Shrink, Restructuring Needed</title>
 <link>http://nafonline.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/2009/little-hoover-stem-cell-agency-board-should-shrink-restructuring-needed-1</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;California&#039;s Little Hoover Commission, which investigates government agencies and focuses on efficiency, is out with a thoughtful new &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lhc.ca.gov/studies/198/report198.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;report&lt;/a&gt; on the state&#039;s stem cell agency and its governing board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The report concludes that the board of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) is too large and that the initiative that created the agency, Prop 71 in 2004, is &amp;quot;overly prescriptive&amp;quot; and locks in place too many inefficiencies. I reported as much last month in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=stem-cell-research-in-california&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Scientific American&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among the major recommendations, from a summary released by Little Hoover:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;-Restructure the CIRM governing board around principles of efficiency and &lt;br /&gt;transparency.  The board size should be reduced to 15 from 29, maintaining the &lt;br /&gt;diversity of membership but adding independent voices to the board.  Board terms &lt;br /&gt;should be shortened to four years for all members and the appointment process should &lt;br /&gt;be streamlined.  To eliminate overlapping authority and enhance accountability, the &lt;br /&gt;roles of chair and president should be restructured and clarified.  To minimize &lt;br /&gt;disruption that can occur through turnover and changes in the governance structure, &lt;br /&gt;new board members should be phased in as terms expire.  The ICOC name also should &lt;br /&gt;be changed to the Board of Directors to more accurately reflect its composition. &lt;br /&gt;Improve the process for distributing grant and loan funds.  To enhance &lt;br /&gt;efficiency and transparency, the 50-employee cap on staffing should be removed, as &lt;br /&gt;should the 15-person limit on peer reviewers.  CIRM should modify its triage plan to &lt;br /&gt;review grants internally.  CIRM also should explore options for greater disclosure of the &lt;br /&gt;peer review process and amend all meeting minutes to specify individual board &lt;br /&gt;members&#039; votes and recusals, and continue the practice moving forward. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;-Enhance oversight of CIRM.  The Citizens Financial Accountability Oversight &lt;br /&gt;Committee (CFAOC) and the CIRM governing board should use their authority to &lt;br /&gt;enhance oversight.  The CFAOC, chaired by the State Controller, should exercise its &lt;br /&gt;existing authority, or be statutorily authorized if necessary, to conduct performance &lt;br /&gt;audits and hold regular meetings to review CIRM&#039;s programmatic and strategic &lt;br /&gt;performance, in addition to overseeing CIRM&#039;s annual financial audits.  The CIRM &lt;br /&gt;governing board should hold its members accountable by adopting removal provisions &lt;br /&gt;in its bylaws.   &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;-Require the CIRM governing board to begin planning for CIRM&#039;s future.  To &lt;br /&gt;prepare for change in leadership, the CIRM governing board should create succession &lt;br /&gt;plans for board leadership through an open process.  The agency should include in its &lt;br /&gt;strategic plan clear direction for spending funds, with measurable benchmarks and a &lt;br /&gt;transition plan for when bond funding expires.&amp;quot;     &lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://nafonline.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/2009/little-hoover-stem-cell-agency-board-should-shrink-restructuring-needed-1#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://nafonline.net/blog/which-blog/blockbuster-democracy">Blockbuster Democracy</category>
 <category domain="http://nafonline.net/blog/topics/california-4">California</category>
 <category domain="http://nafonline.net/blog/topics/cirm">CIRM</category>
 <category domain="http://nafonline.net/blog/topics/little-hoover-commission">Little Hoover Commission</category>
 <category domain="http://nafonline.net/blog/topics/stem-cell-research">Stem Cell Research</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:31:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Joe Mathews</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">12862 at http://nafonline.net/blog</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Little Hoover On California Stem Cell Agency</title>
 <link>http://nafonline.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/2009/little-hoover-california-stem-cell-agency-12248</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine -- the state&#039;s stem cell agency -- was created by Prop 71, and is still governed under its rules. For more than six months, the Little Hoover Commission -- a California body that studies government structure and reform -- has been investigating CIRM, which has struggled with governance issues. (I reported on this last month in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=stem-cell-research-in-california&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Scientific American&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Last week, Little Hoover staff disclosed some of its preliminary recommendations for changing the agency, as reported at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2009/05/structural-changes-in-cirm-preliminary.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;California Stem Cell Report&lt;/a&gt;. At first blush, the proposed changes, which have not been formally released, make sense to me. Reducing the size of the board. Concentrating executive power in one official of the agency (currently, the president and the board chair share executive power). And changing the quorum rule, which often has hamstrung the agency&#039;s board. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The difficult part will be enacting such measures. It&#039;s far from clear that the board has the power, or inclination, to make these changes. Under Prop 71, making changes to the agency requires a 70 percent vote of the legislature (or another vote of the people). Neither will be easy to achieve. &lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://nafonline.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/2009/little-hoover-california-stem-cell-agency-12248#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://nafonline.net/blog/which-blog/blockbuster-democracy">Blockbuster Democracy</category>
 <category domain="http://nafonline.net/blog/topics/california-institute-regenerative-medicine">California Institute for Regenerative Medicine</category>
 <category domain="http://nafonline.net/blog/topics/california-stem-cell-report">California Stem Cell Report</category>
 <category domain="http://nafonline.net/blog/topics/cirm">CIRM</category>
 <category domain="http://nafonline.net/blog/topics/little-hoover-commission">Little Hoover Commission</category>
 <category domain="http://nafonline.net/blog/topics/prop-71">Prop 71</category>
 <category domain="http://nafonline.net/blog/topics/scientific-american">Scientific American</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:21:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Joe Mathews</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">12248 at http://nafonline.net/blog</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>

