Report 2006-108 Recommendations

When an audit is completed and a report is issued, auditees must provide the State Auditor with information regarding their progress in implementing recommendations from our reports at three intervals from the release of the report: 60 days, six months, and one year. Additionally, Senate Bill 1452 (Chapter 452, Statutes of 2006), requires auditees who have not implemented recommendations after one year, to report to us and to the Legislature why they have not implemented them or to state when they intend to implement them. Below, is a listing of each recommendation the State Auditor made in the report referenced and a link to the most recent response from the auditee addressing their progress in implementing the recommendation and the State Auditor's assessment of auditee's response based on our review of the supporting documentation.

Recommendations in Report 2006-108: California Institute for Regenerative Medicine: It Has a Strategic Plan, but It Needs to Finish Developing Grant-Related Policies and Continue Strengthening Management Controls to Ensure Policy Compliance and Cost Containment (Release Date: February 2007)

:
Recommendations to Regenerative Medicine, California Institute for
Number Recommendation Status
1

To provide accountability and assess annual progress in meeting its strategic goals and initiatives, the institute should fulfill its plans to develop a process to track management information reported annually by grantees.

Fully Implemented
2

The committee should ensure that it follows through with its plan to identify the appropriate standard for providing uninsured Californians access to therapies developed using institute funds and to convey clearly to grantees its expectations for providing access in its intellectual property policies. In addition, the committee should identify practical benchmarks to use as a standard for discount prices for therapies and apply the standard to its policies for grants to nonprofit and for-profit organizations.

Fully Implemented
3

The committee should monitor the effectiveness of its policy to make institute-funded patented inventions readily accessible on reasonable terms to other grantee organizations for noncommercial purposes to ensure that it does not inhibit the advance of stem cell research.

Fully Implemented
4

The institute should complete the development of its grants administration policy targeted toward for-profit organizations.

Fully Implemented
5

To provide increased accountability over the grants award process, the institute should ensure that the grants review working group follows the new procedures to record its votes to recommend funding for stem cell research grants, and that it maintains those records.

Fully Implemented
6

To monitor the performance of grantees effectively, the institute should complete the implementation of a grants monitoring process, including audits, and the development of related procedures.

Fully Implemented
7

The institute should seek a formal opinion from the attorney general regarding whether the exemptions created for working groups from conflict-of-interest laws are intended to exempt them from the conflict-of-interest provisions that apply if the recommendations of an advisory body are adopted routinely andregularly by the decision-making body to which they are made.

Resolved
8

In addition, the institute should follow its plans to amend its conflict-of-interest policies to include specialists invited to participate in stem cell research program activities, such as grant application review.

Fully Implemented
9

To provide employees with the information they need to disclose all potential conflicts of interest, the institute should develop the necessary procedures to ensure that its employees are aware of the companies that apply for funding.

Fully Implemented
10

To ensure compliance with its conflict-of-interest policies, the institute should revise its procedures for reviewing grants to include a review of the Statements of Economic Interest for committee members of the working groups before every grants review meeting. Moreover, it should revise its procedures for grants review meetings to ensure that it retains documentation regarding conflicts of interest of the working groups, including information that it took appropriate recusal actions.

Fully Implemented
11

The institute should ensure that it follows its newly revised policies that address some of the concerns raised in our audit. The institute also should amend its policies further to include the rest of the concerns we have raised. Those concerns are as follows:
Although the institute now monitors staff members who attend its meetings, it should implement a preapproval requirement for travelers who want to claim meals separately.
The institute should revise its travel reimbursement claim form for working groups to require sufficient information that would allow an adequate review of amounts claimed.
The committee should adopt a travel reimbursement policy for its members that will result in the reimbursement of reasonable and necessary travel expenses, as stated in the act, and that addresses the concerns we raised in the report.

Fully Implemented
12

To ensure that the methodology to set salary ranges complies with the act, the institute should follow through with its plan to resurvey any positions whose salary ranges were affected by the errors, omissions, and inconsistencies in its initial salary survey and salary-setting activities.

Fully Implemented


Print all recommendations and responses.


Report type

Report type
















© 2013, California State Auditor | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Download Adobe PDF Reader