[LTER-imc-ddms] Summary from EB, 205-06-22

[Margaret O'Brien]

Hi all -
I gave an update on our exercise to the EB this week, and got some 
feedback. For context, they had the diagram and digest here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1HbE-d-kTrsfm9aei1pSXJxcXc5bmtuaEpwZHJ1bU9oNVBrM3J3c3A5eFBzR0ZtSGdBeFU

Major points (some details below)
The split between fiscal and intellectual entities did not seem highly 
unusual, but they thought it might introduce complications. One or two 
people pointed out that the potential for high double-overhead costs. 
But others brought up the advantage that subcontracts make it easier to 
redirect funds when things aren't working out (eg, easier than a 
university replacing an employee). I also learned of another project 
that is organized very similarly.

The EB was particularly interested in the organization, in suggesting 
ways to compose the governance committee, and in exploring if/whether 
certain practices might help even out the sites' engagement in network 
activities or even the varied levels of technical expertise. I think we 
should pursue this further. Engaging individual members on specific 
topics would be the most effective, and the best use of their time. The 
EB would want to have a voting member on the governance committee for 
more direct involvement than just advising.

The EB considered whether they, as LTER leadership, should have 'a say' 
in the yes/no decision (of whether we should go forward with a 
proposal). The answer was generally 'no'. But Peter Groffman will reach 
out to the site PI's and urge them to think about what is going on and 
to tell him what they think; positive or negative. This is follow-up to 
the discussion at the Science Council, and consistent with Saran's 
request to have network buy-in; we can't move ahead without broad (or 
maybe even full) support. The EB would also like to be able to advise 
throughout the process, and expects regular updates.


Below are more specific ways I think EB members could help, and the 
names of individuals who seemed interested in pursuing discussions in 
that area:
1. exploring committee compositions. (Peter Groffman and Steve Pennings).
Several EB members seemed willing to explore some ideas of composition 
in more detail, but there was no time for this due to the EB's large 
agenda. Steve in particular though, brought up some interesting aspects.

2. disaster scenarios: (Bob Waide)
Given the  EB's collective experience with NSF and grants, this group 
probably has experience with lots of ways projects can go wrong. We 
should spend more time coming up with all the what-ifs, and examining 
how the system would respond.

3. split fiscal/intellectual organization (Dan Reed)
Dan Reed's other major project (not NSF) is organized in a very similar 
manner - with all accounting handled by a commercial company. 
Essentially all they do is write checks (and this service costs very 
little). All the negotiations (budget and tasks) are by the funder, the 
governance group and the scientists. There are some differences because 
of the nature of the participant groups.


Margaret


-- 
-----------
Margaret O'Brien
Information Management
Santa Barbara Coastal LTER
Marine Science Institute, UCSB
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
805-893-2071 (voice)
http://sbc.lternet.edu