As predictable as the stench of dog dirt that been permanently welded into the soles of deeply ridged and worn sneakers, Rick Perry and the Texas GOP can be counted on to deliver the biggest and most rotten stink to Texas taxpayers.
But this kind of behavior is routine and normal for Texas Republican lawmakers. Anyone who has lived in Texas for any amount of time should know by now that the GOP politicians are corporate whores. The Party has groveled at the feet of its corporate masters for as long as I can remember. A number of voters obviously have no problem with this because Republican voters continue to vote for candidates who will run rough shod over their financial security and the quality of their lives.
And so few of us are surprised when we open the newspapers one morning to learn that once again, the good old boys are hell bent on robbing we the wee ones blind, as opportunities knock for them.
This is what happens in a state where transparency, accountability and oversight are considered job killing evil doers.
Of course many of us are thoroughly disgusted when we read about these stories, some of which have become so common (fracking anyone?) that many of us have become more than a little cynical about the culture of sleaze that pervades Rick Perry's Texas.
Welcome to Rick Perry's cesspool of crony capitalism. The more you stir it the more it stinks.
All of that said and understanding that the Texas Republican Party is what it is, there are certain lines that should never be crossed. At the very least there might be a few areas that should be considered off limits at least in the skullduggery department. There could be some expectation that certain entities and undertakings must be treated with the highest level of integrity, transparency and ethics. (No, I am not drinking rotgut Everclear or smoking magical cigarettes.) One would think that state (taxpayer) funded scientific research and the attendant grant award processes would fall into the sleaze free category and be treated as a sacred cow.
Unfortunately,in Rick Perry's Texas there are only cash cows.
One would think it unthinkable to turn state funded scientific research into a cash cow for the key players.
But here, the unthinkable is completely thinkable if not doable. As a result thirty three disgusted scientists quit CPRIT in October. The reason? According to many of the former CPRIT scientists political appointees tried to improperly influence how the funding is doled out.
Last week I wrote about an article published in the Houston Chronicle that exposed the Cancer Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) and its awards of millions of dollars in grants to state academic institutions with no scientific or commercial review.
The controversy has been brewing at since 2010 when the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas awarded millions of dollars in funding to academic research institutions. The grant awards became problematic when those within and without CPRIT noted that the institution's scientific review process had been completely by-passed in a couple of cases. In one particular instance commercial reviewers who had seen one of the proposals had concerns about it. But the concerns were ignored.
This was a critical issue because, if the M.D. Anderson grant were considered scientific rather than commercial, it would be reviewed by a scientific panel headed by Nobel laureate Dr. Alfred Gilman. Ultimately this step was avoided, and even the commercial reviewers had just 17 days to examine the proposal before a final vote would be taken at the March 29 oversight committee meeting.
Reviewers' concerns
After Gilman learned of the M.D. Anderson request, he asked Cobbs about it. Cobbs replied on March 12, "Much too complicated as presented," and said it would have to be considered later. He made the same recommendation to Gimson.
Two days later the landscape changed when Tate intervened, the emails indicate.
"Charles just called me - he is concerned about the timing and bifurcated approach" to the incubator, Gimson wrote to Cobbs.
Tate wanted the two applications considered jointly in time for a March 29 vote. The M.D. Anderson plan was then sent to five commercial reviewers. Some of them had concerns about the project.
Arizona drug development businessman Jack Geltosky characterized M.D. Anderson's program as "deep biology." Another reviewer, New York biotech consultant Kapil Dinghra, wrote that the amount of money Chin was seeking would pay for "several real and tangible biotech companies," as opposed to hypothetical companies that might emerge from the M.D. Anderson proposal.
Dinghra recommended a "deeper dive" into the proposal.
Three days later Cobbs sent an email to Chin, Rice Provost George McLendon and Gimson, informing Chin that CPRIT was moving forward with a $20 million grant for both institutions, up to $18 million of which would go to M.D. Anderson. Tate was the only oversight committee member copied on the email. Gimson followed up with a note offering to update Tate on the project, adding, "I'm open anytime."
Welcome to Rick Perry's Republican Texas where taxes are low, government is small and crony capitalists can and will rob Texas taxpayers blind.
Dr. Lynda Chin, a physician who runs a cancer research laboratory and wife of the President of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Cancer, received approximately $18 million for one year.
It seems that a venture capitalist could not wait another second in order to launch Dr. Chin's research efforts.
Hundreds of internal emails obtained through a public records request shed new light on the forces at work in the application process - particularly the role of a Houston venture capitalist, Charles Tate, who invests in companies that commercialize drugs and who has ties to M.D. Anderson and to CPRIT.
The emails indicate that Tate, one of 11 members of CPRIT's oversight committee, was instrumental in shepherding Chin's proposal through the review process. He denied doing so.
In the past month, controversy over CPRIT's handling of the grant proposal has led to the resignation of its chief scientific reviewer, an investigation by the University of Texas System and a decision by CPRIT to resubmit the grant for a new review that will consider scientific as well as commercial factors.
But the story does not end with the resignations and the appointments of new high level officers. It seems the lightening speed awards of millions of dollars of taxpayer funding, with no review whatsoever, is merely the tip of the iceberg.
The real story emerges as we learn about a culture of ethically challenged folks who want to make a lot of money. For themselves, of course.
A private foundation emerged, in an effort to provide additional support to CPRIT. Private foundations are certainly not uncommon. Many work in partnerships with government and academic institutions in order to promote various ideas and solutions to particular challenges. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a prime example of when the private sector will work with an academic research institution to help it advance a project like solar energy research.
But rarely are foundations designed for the main if not sole purpose of fattening the salaries of key players at a scientific institute like CPRIT.
So much for the initiative to cure cancer. In 2007 Texas voters voted overwhelmingly in favor of a constitutional amendment that made CPRIT possible. I am among those who did vote for it.
What we voted for:
* Create and expedite innovation in the area of cancer research, thereby enhancing the potential for a medical or scientific breakthrough in the prevention of cancer and cures for cancer;
* Attract, create, or expand research capabilities of public or private institutions of higher education and other public or private entities that will promote a substantial increase in cancer research and in the creation of high-quality new jobs in this State; and
* Continue to develop and implement the Texas Cancer Plan by promoting the development and coordination of effective and efficient statewide public and private policies, programs, and services related to cancer and by encouraging cooperative, comprehensive, and complementary planning among the public, private, and volunteer sectors involved in cancer prevention, detection, treatment, and research.
We also voted for a
review process and oversight.
We did not have this in mind when we showed our support for the creation of CPRIT in 2007.
Who stands to profit?
The key questions that have yet to be answered are who was actually making the decisions to move these grants through the process without adequate oversight, what their motivations were, and ultimately who might stand to profit.
Aside from lining their
personal pockets some of the players running CPRIT are more driven by creating customers for the pharmaceutical companies than they are with efforts toward discovery and the potential for curing cancer.
A foundation created to supplement the salaries of top staffers at the state's cancer agency was the brainchild of its executive director, who would become a beneficiary.
According to documents provided by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas Foundation on Wednesday, Bill Gimson suggested the foundation be created after he was hired as the cancer agency's executive director in 2009.
Until his resignation this week Gimson got an annual supplement of $86,000 from the foundation, bringing his total annual salary to $300,000.
Sadly, and most appalling is the realization that Rick Perry's efforts to bring more jobs to Texas is nothing more than an open invitation to self-serving opportunists to get rich at the expense of Texas taxpayers.
Texans need to stop voting against themselves all of the time. I am talking to you Republican voters. You might want to heed W.'s advise:
Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
End of original diary.
What we need in this state, besides more active voters, is more cops on the beat in order to frequently turn on the lights. Without light the cockroaches can continue to operate, unnoticed, unchecked.
Battleground Texas isn't going anywhere. Neither is the Harris County Democratic Party, the Dallas Democratic Party and the Texas Democratic Party, among many others. 2015 is going to be a year of intense activism.
For those in the Houston area Deputy Voter Registrar classes begin on January 10. Please check the County Clerk's web site for more information. Together we can bring this state back to its former greatness where the playing field was far more level.
Comments are closed on this story.