1. Comments to the University Relations Committee and the NCAR Scientist Assembly October 2007

2. Outline  Context  Managing the Irresolvable  Constructive partnership  Context  Managing the Irresolvable  Constructive partnership

3. History  NSF reviewed the proposals from NCAR for non-NSF funding  Review prior to submission  Pre-submission task became impossible for NSF to handle using internal review  In the early 1990’s, the number of proposals from NCAR requesting non-ATM funds began to increase significantly  Recognizing the tensions in the community, NSF and NCAR agreed on a set of guidelines that NCAR must employ to allow a proposal to be submitted for non-NSF funding  Based on practicality and experience, NSF/NCAR/UCAR agreed to have the URC perform an “after-the-fact” review of proposal submitted  URC accepted the task and has done an outstanding job evaluating proposals using a modified version of the NSF/NCAR guidelines  NSF reviewed the proposals from NCAR for non-NSF funding  Review prior to submission  Pre-submission task became impossible for NSF to handle using internal review  In the early 1990’s, the number of proposals from NCAR requesting non-ATM funds began to increase significantly  Recognizing the tensions in the community, NSF and NCAR agreed on a set of guidelines that NCAR must employ to allow a proposal to be submitted for non-NSF funding  Based on practicality and experience, NSF/NCAR/UCAR agreed to have the URC perform an “after-the-fact” review of proposal submitted  URC accepted the task and has done an outstanding job evaluating proposals using a modified version of the NSF/NCAR guidelines

4. Experience to Date  In more than ten years of examinations of non-NSF proposals, the URC found no serious disregard for the guidelines  NCAR takes the guidance from NSF and URC very seriously  An active engagement of NSF in the process as an observer strengthens the process  There is an increased awareness and sensitivity within NCAR resulting from the NCAR/URC process that examines non-NSF funded proposals  University collaborations  Fairness  Accountability  In more than ten years of examinations of non-NSF proposals, the URC found no serious disregard for the guidelines  NCAR takes the guidance from NSF and URC very seriously  An active engagement of NSF in the process as an observer strengthens the process  There is an increased awareness and sensitivity within NCAR resulting from the NCAR/URC process that examines non-NSF funded proposals  University collaborations  Fairness  Accountability

7. Managing the Irresolvable  NSF/ATM is responsible for the health of the atmospheric sciences community.  ATM successfully employs multiple modes of support to ensure a vibrate research community (NRC report)  Inherent tension in a limited resource environment  Internally: (NSF/ATM) the balance of resources between  grants program and NCAR,  science and facilities, and  priority areas and the core programs  Externally: (community) the balance of resources between  Use of observing facilities and computing resources  Outside funding at NCAR  The tension cannot be resolved, but can be constructively managed  NSF/ATM is responsible for the health of the atmospheric sciences community.  ATM successfully employs multiple modes of support to ensure a vibrate research community (NRC report)  Inherent tension in a limited resource environment  Internally: (NSF/ATM) the balance of resources between  grants program and NCAR,  science and facilities, and  priority areas and the core programs  Externally: (community) the balance of resources between  Use of observing facilities and computing resources  Outside funding at NCAR  The tension cannot be resolved, but can be constructively managed

8. Non-NSF Funding at NCAR  Enhances NSF ’ s investment in NCAR, enhances the body of knowledge available to the community, serves society, and improves educational and diversity efforts  NSF must ensure that the entire community is being served by non-NSF funding at NCAR  A key element of NSF's management strategy is to engage the URC in an "after the fact" review of compliance with the URC guidelines  Evaluation is on fairness and coherence with NCAR strategic plan  Not a merit review  Provides NSF with information essential for the oversight of the entire atmospheric sciences community  Enhances NSF ’ s investment in NCAR, enhances the body of knowledge available to the community, serves society, and improves educational and diversity efforts  NSF must ensure that the entire community is being served by non-NSF funding at NCAR  A key element of NSF's management strategy is to engage the URC in an "after the fact" review of compliance with the URC guidelines  Evaluation is on fairness and coherence with NCAR strategic plan  Not a merit review  Provides NSF with information essential for the oversight of the entire atmospheric sciences community

9. Constructive Dialog  An open dialog and cooperation among all parties concerned is essential to managing the situation  If the university community perceives unfair competition and it is verifiable, the NSF will have to modify the current situation  Permission to allow non-NSF funding at NSF's FFRDC is at the discretion of the NSF  NSA and URC must constructively work together to address the concern of the UCAR community  An open dialog and cooperation among all parties concerned is essential to managing the situation  If the university community perceives unfair competition and it is verifiable, the NSF will have to modify the current situation  Permission to allow non-NSF funding at NSF's FFRDC is at the discretion of the NSF  NSA and URC must constructively work together to address the concern of the UCAR community

10. Question and/or Comments

13. NCAR Total Non-Base Proposal Submissions $ Amount Proposed