Charles Halpern, public-interest lawyer
A citizen petitions for a redress of grievances
Charles Halpern is a public interest lawyer working out of Berkeley, California. On January 3, 2005, he sent a letter to all the members of the then-recently-impaneled Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee (ICOC), the board of directors for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) created by California voters when they passed Proposition 71 by a 3-2 margin in November, 2004.
The primary areas of concern raised in that letter involved conflict-of-interest and openness of process for the operations of the ICOC and CIRM.
Mr. Halpern appeared as a guest on California Politics Today on January 15, 2005, to talk about that letter to the ICOC.
On February 16, 2005, Mr. Halpern, along with Philip R. Lee, MD, former federal Assistant Secretary for Health, filed a petition with the ICOC asking it to adopt the reforms enumerated and discussed in Mr. Halpern's January 3, 2005, letter to the ICOC.
A copy of that petition is available by clicking here.
The filing and content of this petition are also reported upon in a previous California Politics Today article, available by clicking here.
Mr. Halpern appeared again today on California Politics Today to discuss in detail the substance and process involved in the petition that he and Dr. Lee have submitted to the ICOC.
Conflicts-of-interest, strategic vision, challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 71
On the subject of conflicts-of-interest, Mr. Halpern indicated that, under the terms of the reforms he's proposing,
Edward Penhoet, Vice-Chair of the ICOC,
"is deep into the conflict-of-interest problem" and would need either to give up his bio-medical financial investments and other involvements, or resign his position on the ICOC.
In this interview, Mr. Halpern said that, even though it's essential, "there's been no discussion of strategic direction" by the ICOC, adding that
"you can't have grant guidelines unless you have a strategic vision."
Mr. Halpern said that Proposition 71 actually launched two experiments, one scientific and the other political scientific, and mentioned that two law suits had just been filed
challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 71.
Getting a public hearing to argue for a public hearing to discuss these proposed reforms to ICOC operations
Mr. Halpern's petition requests a public hearing to discuss the reforms he's proposing, and asks for 30 minutes to present the case for that hearing before the ICOC at its next,
March 1, 2005, meeting. Item #11 on that meeting's agenda calls for "Consideration of delegation of authority to Chair to respond to petitions filed pursuant to Government Code section 11340.6, including petition filed by Charles Halpern and Philip R. Lee."
Asked if this approach is "standard procedure," an adequate response to his petition under the provisions of California Code Section 11340.6, Mr. Halpern said that
"no, it is not a standard procedure, and I'm hoping that the ICOC will have the good sense to reject that proposal from Mr. Klein" and, that as of now, the ICOC does not plan to allow him to address them at their next meeting on the need for the reforms he's proposing. "I'm planning on writing to Mr. Klein and encouraging him to re-think that," Mr. Halpern said.
Asked what legal recourse he might have if the ICOC refuses to allow him to address them, Mr. Halpern said that
"we have a right to seek judicial review, whether we do so or not, we haven't decided."
You can listen to this conversation with Charles Halpern in its entirety by clicking
here.
What the ICOC is willing to say at the point about the Lee-Halpern petition
Asked repeatedly this afternoon by this reporter whether or not the ICOC would accede to Mr. Halpern's request and allow him 30 minutes during the March 1, 2005, regular meeting of the ICOC at Stanford University to make the case for a public forum to discuss the reforms proposed by him and Dr. Lee, Julie Buckner, spokesperson for the ICOC at Redgate Communications, repeatedly said that she could not and would not presume to speak for future actions of the ICOC and that this question about allowing Mr. Halpern to testify before the ICOC was completely addressed by ICOC Agenda Item #11 for that meeting.
ICOC Agenda Item #11 for that meeting is: ""Consideration of delegation of authority to Chair [Robert Klein] to respond to petitions filed pursuant to Government Code section 11340.6, including petition filed by Charles Halpern and Philip R. Lee."
Join the "Etopia Media Medical News Network™" mailing list (unless you're already on another Etopia Media mailing list)