Radio, Millimeter and Submillimeter Planning Group
Agenda for telecon  28Mar05    12nEST
 
Present: Don Campbell, John Carlstrom, Neal Evans, Martha
Haynes, Jackie Hewitt, Ken Kellermann, Jim Moran, Steve Myers,
Jack Welch and Wayne van Citters (NSF)
 
1. MH thanked WvC for agreeing to join with us. A first draft copy
   of the report was sent to him on Friday, and a set of potential
   discussion items was transmitted this morning (items a-f below)

(a) Can you please give us an update on the Senior Review process:
    charge, panel composition, agenda, input, schedule, etc.?

    NSF AST recently had a lengthy discussion with its Committee of
    Visitors (COV) on the process for the Senior Review. The COV has
    strongly endorsed the concept of the Senior Review and the plans as
    far as they are known. AST is faced with an ambitious agenda and expects
    flat budgets over the next 4-5 years. There is also considerable pressure
    on the MREFC line. At the same time, the AST budget has grown by $60M
    over the last 5 years. The Senior Review is therefore part of an
    exercise to rebalance the AST portfolio. It is understood that the
    basic grants program will be preserved (or possibly grown).

    This week, NSF AST plans to send a letter to facilities managers
    (National Centers and URO's) setting out the principles of possible  
    rebalancing of relevance to each program. The facilities will be asked
    to address three possible levels of funding for the next 5 years,
    ranging from flat funding to considerable reduction. The objective
    is to free up $30M spent on current operations; this amount would then
    be redirected towards new intiviatives such as GSMT, LSST, SKA, etc.
    Timescales as well as funding levels will be considered. The objective
    will be to work with the current facilities to help them rebalance
    their own programs. The facilities will be asked to help develop a set
    of metrics for evaluation in conjunction with their users.

    The Senior Review will be held sometime in mid-to-late summer with 
    recommendations for the reallocation by early fall. The review panel
    will have wide representation, with some emphasis on younger members
    for whom the future is especially critical.

(b) Can you please update us on other AST activities complementary to
    RMSPG providing input to the NSF senior review? 

    The OIR community is engaged in a similar process under AURA; the
    OIR planning committee is now chaired by Caty Pilachowski.
    (Note: see "decadal survey" activities report on the AURA website.)

    It is expected that the OIR group will produce a planning report in
    early to mid May. 

(c) Can you please elaborate on NSF expectations for input from our group
    and the required schedule?

    It would be helpful if the RMS report were available on a similar
    timescale.

(d) We would appreciate any/all feedback on our Mar 25th draft report.

    WvC remarked that the draft report clearly pointed out the exciting science
    being done in RMS astronomy. The NSF would however like to see more
    specific detail on budgets and timescales for dealing with level budgets:
    a real roadmap with priorities, branchpoints, timescales. MH summarized 
    RMSPG internal discussions concerning the limitations on RMSPG purview:
    The RMSPG is not a review panel, does not have access to proposals, 
    cannot judge budgetary material, cannot evaluate in overall AST
    context, is not NRC sanctioned. Note that the final draft recommendations 
    address issues of need to involve community in continuing discussions,
    but RMSPG alone does not have a mechanism for that.

(e) Do you have any suggestions/advice for us as to how we should proceed
    to solicit public comment on, revise and then publicize our report?

    It was agreed by all that seeking community input is important before we
    finalize the report. (see 2. below).

(f) Any other questions you have for us?

    Although sympathetic to discussion regarding limitations above, WvC
    asked if we could consider suggestions for how NSF should proceed in the
    event that, with flat budgets, only 25% of the programs presented in the 
    draft report could actually be funded in the next 5-7 years. Can RMSPG provide
    help to the NSF as to the framework, process and schedule by which decisions
    have to be made? It was agreed that, within the boundary conditions that RMSPG
    is not a proposal review panel, we would discuss further suggestions towards 
    a process and framework for decision making.

2. It was agreed that we should try to circulate the draft report, albeit
   incomplete/unpolished, as soon as possible in order to allow for community input.
   MH will first send the report to the directors of NRAO, NAIC and the
   3 URO's (CARMA, CSO, FCRAO) as well as to the co-chairs of the Ad Hoc
   Radio Planning Group (J. Cordes and J. Ulvestad) for quick turn-around
   this week, with a target for public posting a week from now. 

3. A future telecon will be arranged, probably in 3 weeks, April 18th at noon
   (to be confirmed).