Bureau Withdraws Requirement that Scientists Raise Research Funds

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Randall <rvh40 () insightbb com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:18:00 -0400
To: JMG <johnmacsgroup () yahoogroups com>
Cc: Dave <dave () farber net>
Subject: Bureau Withdraws Requirement that Scientists Raise Research Funds

http://tinyurl.com/9j9ed

Bureau withdraws requirement for scientists to raise research funds
By David McGlinchey
dmcglinchey () govexec com

The Bureau of Reclamation scrapped a new performance evaluation standard
for certain scientists this week, days after a watchdog group said the
policy compromised ethical standards.

The unusual sequence of events, which unfolded over 48 hours,
illustrated the difficulty of translating the government's focus on
accountability and performance into the everyday workplace. In the end,
an apparently unprecedented performance guideline gave way almost
immediately under pressure.

According to agency documents, the policy required a handful of
scientists to raise funds for research projects. The scientists, who
were based in Denver, were required to generate funding to cover 70
percent to 89 percent of their base salaries in order to receive a
"fully successful" rating on their performance reviews. Generating less
than 50 percent of the potential billable hours for the year would earn
an "unsatisfactory" rating.

Trudy Harlow, an agency spokeswoman, said the rule had been put in place
for the 2005 calendar year, but was removed Thursday after senior
officials became aware of the situation. The policy was designed to
apply to some senior scientists at the bureau's Technical Service
Center, which provides engineering and scientific research for projects
dealing with water resources.

"That was the first our management had heard of that. So what we decided
to do is to do a management review," said Harlow. "That standard has now
been removed."

On Wednesday, the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility made public the documents outlining the performance
standard and sharply criticized the policy.

"It's an asinine principle," said PEER Program Director Rebecca Roose.
"Prowess in fund-raising is how politicians, not scientists, are
supposed to be judged."

Roose added the policy "puts the dollar value above the quality or
importance of the scientific work."

Harlow said scientific integrity was one factor that led senior
officials to discard the plan.

"There was at least one employee, or perhaps more, who was unhappy with
it. We listen to our employees," Harlow said. "The other reason is, if
this raises an issue about the credibility of our science, we don't want
it there."

Harlow said the policy was put in place with good intentions in an
effort to formalize the reality of a federal fee-for-service operation.
Within the government, fee-for-service offices support themselves by
charging other agencies for services.

The 70 percent to 89 percent standard for "full successful" performance
was based on a five-year review of how much work scientists have brought
in, according to Harlow.

"They were just trying to codify that," she said.

When told of the bureau's decision, Roose applauded the move.

"That's what we wanted to happen. We had hoped that no one would ever
have to be held to that ridiculous performance standard," she said. "We
hope that this means they have seen the error of their ways."




------ End of Forwarded Message


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/