Re: Cost of ATBI
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:43:09 -0600 (MDT) From: Michael Ivie <mivie@gemini.oscs.montana.edu> To: Qboyd@aol.com Subject: Re: Cost of ATBI First, the need for a face-to-face meeting is not questioned, but the idea that we should all be squelched if we aren't in that room is. Keith is one person, one that I disagreed with, but that tar does not extend to a whole class of people. He attacked Pick for speaking without clearance, and tried to squelch open discussion in this medium, and got called on it. I doubt that the "enlightened NPS managers" on this list are so fragile they can't take open and frank discussion. As with everyone else, that enlightenment includes a healthy dose of self-interest in the benefits of seeing the ATBI succeed. The point here is that, time and time again certain people have tried to get us to down-play the true cost of the ATBI, wanting us to whisper behind closed doors. This is what sends the wrong message. Established systematists are not (in many/most cases) asking to be paid salaries for their work FROM THE ATBI, but their work does cost someone, and those costs MUST go into the total cited. For instance, if I spend an hour determining a specimen from the ATBI, I don't expect the NPS to pay me for that hour, but my employers (the taxpayers of the US and Montana) will be billed through supporting my salary and benefits, my laboratory, the library, keeping the lights on and the floors swept. Thus, that determination costs about $100. If you on't include that $100 in the total cost of the ATBI, you say that my work is not valued at the same rate that you value the NPS datamanager technician who is paid directly from an ATBI account. That lack of value will then be noticed by the administrators deciding whether or not hire a systematist. If the work is not valuable, why hire someone to do it? It costs a bunch, but is not valuable, hmmm... No wonder they hire someone else. In our society, the value of work is defined by what you pay for it -- free is worthless, and can be abused, but $100/hour is valuable, and must be respected. Do you ask the volunteer or Superintendent to go buy coffee? Further, if you don't pay close attention to these in-kind and co-support pots of money, you limit the ability of the community to explain the real costs of such a "moon-shot," perpetuating the problem. The same accounting must be paid for every systematist for the time they spend driving to the park, collecting, mounting, labeling, determining, writing e-mails, and so on. f they are retired, or amateurs on vacation, they are directly DONATING time that they could be working, and in the case of retirees, expertise that had a large public cost to generate. This is all part of the REAL COST. This view makes the size of the trough larger, as well. Further, it makes a legitimate measure of cost-matching possible, while clearly stating the value of the contribution systematists are being asked to make. Therefore, instead of being made to feel like they are asking for a handout, they are receiving a valid match for their input. It also explains to Congress, NSF, etc., how moneys are needed for permanent positions out in the ATBI hinterlands. This is not a feeding frenzy, as there is nothing to feed on (yet), but an xpectation that the work done will be valued appropriately, and the process an open one. Lets find the total cost by what it really is -- the amount it would cost to go out and actually buy all the services need to do the job. Then we explain that we have a MAJOR portion of it already, and need the matching. Not the other way around. Mike Ivie On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 Qboyd@aol.com wrote: > Folks, try not to get in a bind about this. E-mail discussions are >fine, and > it's true that seeming to try to stifle them is a mistake. But Keith is > right about the need to have a face-to-face about the realities of costs > (and, I think, whether expectations of support are realistic, and who > benefits from what). If you don't think the NPS wants to get all they can > from you by providing you with support that may include only limited $, I > think you've heard your inner voices better than their outer ones. > > I just heard Dr. Ivie talk very persuasively about the inclination to >neglect > things less than megafauna -- and didn't hear much about things less than > arthropoda . Also heard about microorganisms in thermal waters, but not a > mention of those elsewhere in the ecosystem, from another great person (I > mean it). I mean, we all have our biases. Point is, you're dealing with > some of a very small handful of enlightened NPS managers, less blinded than > almost any of them with biases of their own; so try handling with care. > Talk all you want on e-mail. It's not a medium noted for the wisdom of its > participants (witness this), generally, so why not let it all hang out? But > it sure sounds like it's time to take stock, and see if you can avoid being > perceived as participants in a feeding frenzy, without realistic assessment > of the extent of the food source. > > I spent a lot of years dealing with some ignorant and a few enlightened > managers (I was each, at different times) and a mix of, on the one hand, > great, and on the other, hopelessly arrogant and naive, scientists. I saw > some great results, where "them and us" was kept under control, and people > really listened; and I saw some good things die, where it wasn't. Talking > together works better than venting into the ether. > > The enlightened part of enlightened self-interest depends on listening. > Listen, or lose it. > > So now I've vented. But I'm old, and I get to do that. > > Boyd Evison >
| Discover Life in America | Science | Strategic Plan & Budget | Michael Ivie - 15 June, 1999 |