The Scripps Research Institute is a worthy investment, but in tough financial times, legislators are right to want accountability measures in place.
Published October 19, 2003
What Gov. Jeb Bush wants to offer Scripps Research Institute to come to Florida is without precedent, which is why the accountability measures some senators want are really just sound business practice. The institute, which will get a half-billion dollars in state and local tax money to get its new facility off the ground, no doubt understands why.
As Senate President Jim King described it in a letter to Bush on Tuesday: "No one is trying to torpedo the plans, but a lot of folks have serious concerns as to how we are doing it. . . . Folks want some guarantee as to what Florida will receive in return for what it invests."
To date, the governor has operated mostly on what his economic development director Pam Dana has called "best faith." Given that Scripps is a world-renowned nonprofit biomedical research institute that has operated with integrity and distinction in La Jolla, Calif., for some four decades, that faith is well-placed. But $310-million, the state contribution, is not a pat on the back, either. Dana said Tuesday that the only commitment from Scripps is that it will build a research facility in Palm Beach County and employ 545 people within seven years, yet both of those endeavors are being financed entirely by state and county government.
The Senate has presented a series of questions about the plan, some of which Bush already has embraced. The governor's proposed authorizing legislation, for example, explores the issue of royalties, and the extent to which the state should be entitled to share in profits that derive from Scripps' licensing agreements with drug companies. His bill would have Scripps repay the state up to $155-million through portions of its net income in years after 2011. Bush also would set up a private, nonprofit corporation to oversee the disbursement of state money, though he would keep control through appointment of a majority of the corporation's governing board members.
On Monday, as lawmakers go to work in their sixth special session this year, the governor will also need to provide some financial context to this Scripps payment. No one should doubt the value of a Scripps facility and the spinoff biotech and pharmaceutical businesses it would produce, but he is asking lawmakers to spend $310-million at a time when vital government services are being forced to do with less. His explanation that the money comes from a one-time $948-million federal economic relief package is simply not enough, and one senator explains why: "There will be numerous other nonrecurring demands on the state budget next year that could be funded with these funds, including the constitutional requirement for additional classroom space." In other words, where does this leave public education?
This legislative debate is healthy and necessary, and should result in a better deal for Scripps and Florida. It also speaks to Bush's other request, which is to be given another $190-million to be used at his discretion to attract more businesses. But if Bush indeed welcomes the legislative attention to the Scripps deal, as he has been saying publicly, then he ought to welcome such scrutiny in the future. Blank checks are not good business practice, whether Bush or any other governor is signing them, and lawmakers can ill-afford to put $190-million into the governor's piggy bank when universities are being forced to turn away students.
The Scripps deal, done right, is worth the investment for Florida. Aren't public schools and universities worth the investment, too?
