After passing the California Proposition 71 bill, a group of leaders in medicine, science, business, and disease advocacy was appointed to the 29 member Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee by the Governor, Lt Governor, Controller, Treasurer, President Pro Tem, and Speaker. Some of the members of the ICOC include:

• Dr. David Baltimore, a Nobel Laureate and President of the California Institute of Technology
• Zachary Hall, PhD has been elected as the interim President
• Dr. David Kessler, former Commissioner of the federal Food and Drug Administration and Dean of the School of Medicine at UCSF
• Deans of the Schools of Medicine at UC San Diego, UCLA, UC Davis, Stanford and USC, and the Chancellor of UC Berkeley
• The presidents of the Salk Institute, the Burnham Institute, and the City of Hope
• Disease advocacy leaders like Sherry Lansing (Chairman of Paramount Pictures), Joan Samuelson (President of the Parkinson’s Action Network), and Jeff Sheehy (San Francisco’s “AIDS Czar”) and seven other leaders.
• Gayle Wilson, former first lady of California, and other representatives of the business community.
• Robert Klein, the powerful chair of the Prop. 71 policy board, and Ed Penhoet, the board's vice chair

The purpose of the Board is to create an organization which will renovate biomedical research. Although only in operation for two and a half months, the ICOC has made excellent progress toward its goals. Since January 1, 2005, the full Board has met three times (January, February, March) and has established five sub-committees. These sub-groups have each met various times as well. Two of the committees, the Presidential Search Committee and the Site Committee, are responsible for recruiting a permanent president and for finding a permanent site for the Institute, respectively. The Presidential Search Committee has engaged a professional search firm to identify and make a preliminary screen of outstanding candidates. The Site Committee has issued an RFP for site proposals.
The three other sub-committees of the Board are responsible for setting up the three permanent Working Groups that will serve the Institute in its on-going work. These are:

1. The Scientific and Medical Research Funding Working Group (the “Grants” Working Group) which will be responsible for scientific evaluation of grant proposals to the Institute.
2. The Scientific and Medical Accountability Standards Working Group (the “Standards” Working Group) which will recommend scientific, medical and ethical standards for stem cell research and clinical trials and therapy delivery to patients.
3. The Scientific and Medical Facilities Working Group (the “Facilities” Working Group), which will make recommendations to the Board on grants and loans for facilities for stem cell research.

Although the board seems to be gaining ground, this has not gone without controversy. Many critics are carefully scrutinizing this group, and claims against them have already been made.
Mercury News April 7, 2005
“Seven of the 29 members of the governing board of California's new taxpayer-financed institute for stem-cell research have business ties with companies connected to stem-cell research, posing potential conflicts of interest” claimed a certain Oakland watchdog group. The Center for Genetics and Society also reported that these seven board members do have investments in various companies connected to stem cell research. The center suggested that all board member investments be put in blind trusts.
Stanford Report April 13, 2005
The ICOC recently designed and approved a set of rules implemented to keep its members from personally profiting from their decisions. The policy, which serves as a placeholder until the ICOC holds public hearings and adopts permanent rules, bans members from receiving state funds for research or voting on grants that could financially benefit them, their close family members or their employers. It also prohibits members from taking gifts from any person or business that might lobby the institute. The policy does not ban board members from holding stock or serving on the boards of biotech companies, although many people are skeptical and express support for a policy such as this to be implemented.