National Science Board: Meetings

NSB-99-153

OPEN SESSION
354th MEETING
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

National Science Foundation
Arlington, Virginia
July 28-29, 1999

Members Present:

Eamon M. Kelly, Chairman
Diana S. Natalicio, Vice Chair
John A. Armstrong
Pamela A. Ferguson
Mary K. Gaillard
M.R.C. Greenwood
Stanley V. Jaskolski
Anita K. Jones
George M. Langford
Jane Lubchenco
Joseph A. Miller, Jr.
Robert C. Richardson
Vera C. Rubin
Maxine Savitz
Luis Sequeira
Bob H. Suzuki
Richard Tapia
Chang-Lin Tien
Warren M. Washington
John A. White, Jr.
Rita R. Colwell, Director

Members Absent

Sanford D. Greenberg
Eve L. Menger
Claudia I. Mitchell-Kernan
Robert M. Solow

At its 355th meeting the NSB approved the minutes of the July, 1999 meeting.

The National Science Board (NSB) convened in Open Session at 3:40 p.m. on Thursday, July 29, 1999, with Dr. Eamon M. Kelly, Chairman of the NSB, presiding (Agenda NSB-99-107). In accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act, this portion of the meeting was open to the public.

The Chairman announced that Drs. Greenberg, Menger, Mitchell-Kernan and Solow were not able to attend this meeting.

AGENDA ITEM 6: Swearing in of NSB Member

The Chairman introduced Dr. Neal Lane, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, to administer the Oath of Office to Dr. Chang-Lin Tien. Dr. Lane expressed his pleasure at administering the Oath to Dr. Tien, a distinguished colleague of long standing. Prior to administering the Oath of Office, Dr. Lane read a statement issued by the White House this day (attached as Appendix A) honoring Dr. Tien and the scientific contributions of other Asian and Pacific Americans.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Minutes, May 1999 Meeting

The Board approved the Open Session minutes of the May 1999 NSB meeting (NSB-99-110, Board Book Tab H).

AGENDA ITEM 8: Closed Session Agenda Items for November 1999

The Board approved the Closed Session items for November 1999 (NSB-99-104, Board Book Tab I), attached as Appendix B.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Chairman's Report

The Chairman said that he had no items to report at this time.

AGENDA ITEM 10: Director's Report

a. National Science Foundation Staff

The Director announced changes in senior staff. She introduced Dr. George Strawn, named Director of the Division of Advanced Computational Infrastructure and Research in the Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE); Dr. Philippe Fondeur, from the University of Illinois, Urbana, newly arrived Program Director for the Infrastructure Program in the Division of Mathematical Sciences, Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS); Dr. Priscilla Nelson, named Director of the Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems, Directorate for Engineering (ENG), and Dr. Grace Wyngard, named Director of the Division of Integrative Biology and Neuroscience, Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO).

The Director announced with regret the departure of Dr. Janie Fouke, formerly Director of the Division of Bioengineering and Environmental Systems (ENG), to become Dean of Engineering at Michigan State University; the departure of Dr. Bruce Hayden, formerly Director of the Division of Environmental Biology; the departure of Program Manager Dr. Ronald Sack (ENG); and the retirements of Mr. Jeff Fenstermacher, Executive Officer of the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE), after a 28-year career at NSF, and Dr. Richard Greenfield, Director of the Division of Atmospheric Sciences in the Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) after 25 years at NSF.

b. Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technological Development

Dr. Colwell reported that the Commission held the first of two public hearings at NSF a week earlier. The hearing was followed by a reception co-hosted by Congresswoman Connie Morella. Representative Morella said she anticipates linkages between the Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities and the Riley Commission on Education. NSB member participation will be sought for the second public hearing to be held in October in Seattle.

c. Gemini Telescope

Dr. Colwell reported attending in June the dedication of the First Gemini Telescope in Hawaii, which was completed on schedule and on budget. NSB member Vera Rubin was also present. Dr. Colwell spoke of the advances that will be made possible by this telescope, which includes remote operation capability through the Internet. She also highlighted the importance of international partnerships in the development and construction of such major new tools for scientific research.

AGENDA ITEM 11: Reports from Committees

a. Executive Committee (EC)

Dr. Colwell, Chair of the Executive Committee, reported that the July 28 meeting focused on the NSF Strategic Plan and the Fiscal 2000 and Fiscal 2001 budgets. The Committee will hold a video conference on August 10 to approve the NSF and the Office of Inspector General budget requests for Fiscal Year 2001.

b. Audit & Oversight (A&O)

Dr. Jaskolski, Chairman, A&O Committee, reported that in regular session the committee reviewed the proposed revision to criteria governing items submitted to the NSB for review and approval (NSB-99-112, Board Book Tab K, attached, Appendix C). The committee voted to recommend the proposed revisions to the full Board for approval. Dr. Jaskolski noted that the committee discussion recognized that while the proposed changes might reduce the number of individual awards from the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) presented to the Board for approval, it was especially important for the Board to have more engagement in issues of science literacy and better understanding of EHR programs.

The committee also heard presentations on the Fiscal Year 1999 audit and financial statement, including efforts being made to align the process with Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requirements, to look at the vulnerability of vital NSF electronic systems, and to reconcile interagency accounts. It also heard a presentation on the forthcoming Federal research misconduct policy. In closed session the committee approved the Fiscal Year 2001 budget request for the Office of the Inspector General, and recommended it to the Executive Committee for approval.

c. Committee on Programs & Plans (CPP)

Dr. John Armstrong, Chairman, CPP, reported that the committee unanimously approved and recommended to the full Board the report of the Task Force on the Environment. The committee reviewed and recommended six award recommendations to the full Board for approval: five Science and Technology Centers and the University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS). They had received a report on UNOLS that was prepared by an Academic Research Fleet Review Committee chaired by Dr. Roland Schmitt. The CPP also continued a discussion with senior Foundation staff on expanded definitions of infrastructure and major research equipment.

CPP Task Force on Polar Issues (PI)

Dr. Warren Washington reported that the task force heard a useful presentation on long range plans for both Arctic and Antarctic programs.

d. Education & Human Resources (EHR)

Dr. Bob Suzuki, Chairman of the EHR Committee, reported on national distribution of the recent NSB report, Preparing Our Children (NSB 99-31). The committee heard a presentation on NSF funding profiles in research and education, and asked for additional information at future meetings. They heard reports on the 1999 Urban Systemic Initiatives competition, and plans for a new Science of Learning initiative. After discussion of the impact of the Internet on education, the framework for the strategic plan for the EHR Committee was approved. The final version of the plan will be forwarded to the full Board for review, along with an attachment summarizing the three field hearings held in 1998. The committee will ask the Board for comments and will seek approval as an NSB report at the November meeting.

The committee reviewed a plan for a symposium on K-16 education, and decided to postpone the event until early 2000. The symposium plan will be revised by Dr. Luther Williams and Dr. Daryl Chubin. The committee also indicated that it wished to review any Foundation plans for reorganizing the EHR Directorate.

EHR Subcommittee on Science & Engineering Indicators (SEI)

Dr. John White reported on the SEI subcommittee meeting for Dr. Mitchell-Kernan, who was absent. He said the committee reviewed three new draft chapters for SEI-2000, (chapter 4: Higher Education; chapter 5: Elementary and Secondary Education; and chapter 6: Academic R&D). There were substantial comments on chapter 5, and the subcommittee expects to see revisions. The subcommittee also discussed the scope of chapter 9, on the significance of information technology. The revised draft of chapter 1 (Science and Technology in Times of Transition, 1940s and 1990s) successfully addressed the committee's previous comments. Dr. White expressed the hope that more Board members will participate in review of the chapters, and said that the committee discussed the need for several teleconferences before the November meeting.

e. Task Force on the NSB 50th Anniversary (NSB50)

Dr. Vera Rubin, Chair of the task force, reported that it met with a science journalist who will write a 30-40 page commemorative brochure for the 50th anniversary of the NSB. The task force will solicit memorabilia and reminiscences from current and former Board members. The task force heard presentations on the NSF/NSB/Parade Magazine project, Jump-Start 2000, which will appear in the magazine September 19. The White House Millennium Council has agreed to include the project as a millennium event. Dr. Rubin asked members to suggest names for judges for the Parade competition. The committee heard updates on NSF 50th anniversary and NSF2000 celebration plans, and reviewed guidelines for the NSF-wide name-the-asteroid contest. Dr. Rubin noted that the Oregon Graduate Institute of S&T would sponsor an NSF50 Opening Day on October 8, 1999, arranged by Dr. Menger.

f. Committee on Communication & Outreach (CCO)

Dr. M.R.C. Greenwood, Chairman, CCO, reported that the committee discussed the charge provided by the NSB Chair and agreed particularly to focus on communicating the significance and opportunities of science and engineering to policy makers. NSF Director Rita Colwell urged the committee to focus on increasing general recognition of NSF and its role, and Dr. Greenwood noted the establishment by NSF of a new Advisory Committee for Public Affairs and indicated that her committee looked forward to cooperating with the new group. CCO received briefings from the Office of General Counsel on regulations governing lobbying, from former congressional staff on communicating with the Hill, and from science writer Curt Suplee (Washington Post) on trends in media treatment of science. The committee plans several teleconferences before the November meeting, and will present its final recommendations in a brief report at the May 2000 meeting.

g. Task Force on International Issues in S&E (ISE)

ISE Task Force Chair Dr. Diana Natalicio reported that the task force received an overview of international activities at NSF. She encouraged Board members to participate in the task force hearing on July 30. She said the task force will co-sponsor a symposium on November 19 on priority setting in other countries with the Committee on Strategic Science and Engineering Policy Issues (SPI). Additional hearings are planned for September 17 and October 29, and the task force plans to report its recommendations to the Board in May 2000.

h. Committee on Strategic Science and Engineering Policy Issues (SPI)

Committee Chairman Dr. Eamon Kelly reported that the SPI committee heard briefings on methods of priority setting in the academic sector, and on international S&T foresight activities. It also discussed the committee work plan, including a literature review, assessment of alternative priority-setting methodologies, and case studies of priority setting in academic settings, foundations, industry, and other countries.

AGENDA ITEM 12: NSB 2000 Meeting Schedule

Dr. Kelly noted the difficulties encountered in scheduling the meetings for 2000. Every schedule proved to have unfair impact on a small number of individuals. The dates proposed to the Board were selected to maximize attendance. He has asked the NSB Office to survey members again to learn their preferences for meeting dates. He moved acceptance of the meeting dates proposed in NSB-99-125 (Board Book Tab J, attached, Appendix D), which were approved by the Board. The members briefly discussed alternative means of conducting business in the face of fast moving issues, including reducing the interval between meetings and the legality of conducting full Board meetings by teleconference.

Mr. Lawrence Rudolph, General Counsel, said that conducting open session Board meetings by teleconference would require provisions for interested members of the public to participate. Members briefly compared their experiences with teleconferencing and videoconferencing technology. Dr. Marta Cehelsky, Executive Officer, NSB, said that the Board had examined these issues in 1997, and decided not to permit full Board meetings by video or phone, due to the value of face-to-face interaction, the state of video technology, and the requirements of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

Chairman Kelly asked the NSB Office to take these issues under advisement, to survey member preferences, and to develop some options for further discussion.

February 2000 NSB Annual Policy Meeting and Retreat

Dr. Kelly reported a suggestion that the Board focus on communication and outreach at its February 2000 policy meeting. Members strongly endorsed the proposed topic. Dr. Kelly then described the locations that had been proposed for the off-site meeting: Invitations were received from Florida (Florida State University and the National High Magnetic Laboratory), and Virginia (University of Virginia/Virginia Tech and the Greenbank Observatory in West Virginia). West Coast members asked the Board to consider California. Due to weather and travel considerations the Board members decided to focus on Florida or California. The Chairman asked for members' preferences, and concluded that more members preferred a California location (specifically the Beckman Center in Irvine, California). He suggested that the Board consider scheduling the off-site meeting during a different month in future years, to widen the range of potential sites.

AGENDA ITEM 13: Proposed Revision of Criteria Governing Items Submitted to the NSB for Review and Approval

The Chairman noted that the Deputy Director had attended each of the standing committee meetings that day to lead discussion of the proposed changes to the criteria governing NSB action on awards exceeding a dollar value threshold, major construction projects, and new programs (NSB-99-112, Board Book Tab K). Dr. Jaskolski, Chairman of the A&O Committee, reported that the committee recommended that the full Board approve the proposed changes. Dr. Joseph Bordogna, NSF Deputy Director, was called on to summarize the proposed changes and describe the impact they would have on business coming before the Board. Dr. Bordogna explained that the proposed changes replace the existing threshold based on award size in dollars with a threshold set at 1 percent of the awarding directorate's (or office's) prior year plan. The same threshold would apply to major construction projects. New programs would require Board approval if the total annualized awards would exceed 3 percent of the awarding directorate's (or office's) prior year plan, in addition to a continued requirement for approval of new programs with sensitive political or policy implications.

The Deputy Director said that the goal of the proposed changes is to avoid the periodic need to adjust dollar thresholds in response to inflation. The percentage thresholds chosen would not significantly change the number of approvals coming to the Board, but the Board would see a different mix of awards, including more from directorates or offices with relatively small budgets.

The Board discussed the impact of the proposed new criteria on the number of EHR awards that would require NSB approval. The Deputy noted that many EHR award actions require NSB approval due to the sensitive or innovative nature of the programs, and this kind of award will continue to require Board approval. He also emphasized the role that the Director's Review Board plays in ensuring the quality of the decision making process for awards that are not large enough to require Board approval. The changes as proposed in NSB-99-112 (attached,

Appendix C) were moved and unanimously approved by the Board. The Office of General Counsel was asked to prepare formal delegation language to reflect these changes for approval by the Board in November.

AGENDA ITEM 14: NSF Strategic Plan

Dr. Kelly asked the Director to discuss the NSF Strategic Plan. She presented an update on the development of a new NSF Strategic Plan that integrates the 1995 NSF Strategic Plan (NSF in a Changing World, NSF95-24), the 1997 NSF GPRA Strategic Plan and the 1998 NSB Strategic Plan (NSB-98-215). Dr. Colwell presented the key elements of a preliminary draft that was shared with the NSB Executive Committee and said she intends to form a high-level NSF working group to assist in revisions. She hopes to discuss the revisions at the August 10 Executive Committee videoconference. Dr. Colwell will discuss the draft with the Chairs of the Directorate Advisory Committees at a meeting September 21. She will send the complete draft to all NSB members for individual comment by mid-September and will ask for additional Board review and discussion at the November NSB meeting. NSF will then post the draft on the Foundation web site for public comment. The final draft will be submitted to the Board for approval at the February 2000 meeting, for reporting to the Administration and Congress by March 1, 2000.

Dr. Colwell said the revised plan covers Fiscal Years 2000 to 2005. It outlines the mission of the agency based on the NSF Act, and sets out outcome goals related to ideas, people and tools. To further the goals, NSF employs four core strategies: developing intellectual capital; integrating research and education; promoting partnerships; and strengthening infrastructure. The Director described the need to align the Strategic Plan with Foundation budget requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and to Congress, and acknowledged the continued difficulty of presenting short-term outcomes for basic research. There were no comments or discussion.

AGENDA ITEM 15: Report of the CPP Task Force on the Environment

Dr. Kelly said all members had recently received copies of the interim final draft of the Task Force report, titled Environmental Science and Engineering for the 21st Century (NSB-99-133). He stressed the difficulty involved in preparing the report, and said the development of the interim final draft reflected a wide range of interests and comments. He called on Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Chair of the Task Force, to report.

Dr. Lubchenco described the process of developing the final draft, including helpful comments from other members of the Board. She said the Task Force gave high priority to soliciting input from multiple communities, including published reports, public hearings and an interactive web site. By releasing the report as "interim final," the Board would have an opportunity to receive additional comments from other agencies, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the science community and the private sector. Once the interim report is approved by the Board, it will be posted on the NSB Web site, and there will be press and public briefings. She thanked the Task Force Executive Secretary, Dr. Penny Firth, Dr. Robert Webber, Ms. Jean Pomeroy, Ms. Anne Tenney, and Dr. Marta Cehelsky for their help.

She briefly summarized the main messages of the report as 1) the importance of basic environmental research to U.S. well-being and economic growth; 2) the need for a substantial increase in the level of effort for environmental research and education; 3) the unique role of the NSF among Federal agencies in this area in providing intellectual leadership; 4) the need for NSF activities to complement and enhance, not duplicate or replace, those of other agencies; and 5) the need for improved communication along with discovery. The task force recommended that environmental research, education and scientific assessment at NSF be increased by an additional $1 billion over the next five years, and NSF management should develop an effective organizational approach that ensures a well-integrated, high-priority, high-visibility, cohesive and sustained environmental portfolio within the Foundation.

The National Science Board unanimously ACCEPTED the Interim Final Report of the Task Force on the Environment, NSB 99-133, Environmental Science and Engineering for the 21st Century.

The Chairman announced the schedule of public and press briefings at NSF on July 30, involving the Director, the Chairman, and Dr. Lubchenco. The Chairman thanked Dr. Lubchenco and the members of the Task Force (Drs. Mary K. Gaillard, Robert Solow, and Warren Washington, and NSF Assistant Directors Drs. Robert Corell and Mary Clutter) for their thoroughness, creativity and dedication. He also thanked Executive Secretary Dr. Penny Firth for outstanding support to the Task Force. In response to a request from Dr. Armstrong, the Chairman agreed to include an update on the status of the Task Force recommendations at the next meeting.

AGENDA ITEM 16: Other Business

Dr. Warren Washington asked the Board to recognize the extraordinary support provided by the Office of Polar Programs during the recent medical emergency at the South Pole.

Dr. Anita Jones asked for a report at the November meeting on NSF preparations for the year 2000 transition, including the continuity of operations at major NSF facilities, the safety of personnel at NSF headquarters and field stations, and the impact on the Internet. Dr. Colwell agreed to provide such an update at the November NSB meeting.

Dr. M.R.C. Greenwood distributed a draft resolution in commemoration of Congressman George Brown.

The National Science Board APPROVED by acclamation the following resolution (NSB-99-144, attached, Appendix E):

Be it RESOLVED that:

The National Science Board and students of government have lost a role model and a colleague. The legacy of Congressman George Brown will light the way to a science and technology policy for the next millennium.

AGENDA ITEM 17: NSB Commendation to Navy Personnel

The Chairman presented a commendation adopted at the March NSB meeting (NSB-99-62) to representatives of the U.S. Navy. Present to receive the commendation were the Honorable Robert J. Pirie, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment, representing the Secretary of the Navy, The Honorable Richard Danzig; Dr. Richard Spinrad, Technical Director to the Oceanographer of the U.S. Navy, representing Admiral Richard West, Oceanographer of the U.S. Navy; Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Sapp, U.S. Navy; and Captain Charles Smith and Commander David Jackson, U.S. Navy, retired.

Dr. Kelly described the highlights of the 44 years of support to NSF programs in the Antarctic from Antarctic Development Squadron 6, and the contribution it made to scientific understanding and progress. He invited the Director to the podium to present a framed copy of the commendation. Dr. Colwell expressed thanks on behalf of the entire Foundation, and cited personal experiences with the support the U.S. Navy provided to NSF in the Antarctic.

The commendation was received by Mr. Pirie, who thanked the NSF and the NSB on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy. He emphasized the close and enduring cooperation between the Foundation and the U.S. Navy, and complimented the Air National Guard on the quality of support it is providing to Antarctic logistics. Dr. Kelly invited the Navy guests to a reception on their behalf in the office of the NSF Director following the meeting.

After thanking the Foundation staff who support the meetings of the Board, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m.

Catherine J. Hines NSB Operations Officer

Attachments to NSB 99-153:

Appendix A: White House Statement, July 29, 1999
Appendix B: NSB 99-104, Resolution Closing Portions of the November, 1999 Meeting
Appendix C: NSB 99-112, Proposed Revision of Criteria Governing Items Submitted to the NSB for Review and Approval
Appendix D: NSB 99-125, NSB Meeting Dates for Calendar Year 2000
Appendix E: NSB 99-144, Resolution commemorating Congressman George Brown Appendix A to NSB-99-153

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
(Aboard Air Force One)

____________________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release July 29, 1999

Statement by the Press Secretary

The President wishes to express his special gratitude to Professor Chang Lin Tien, who begins his service today on the National Science Board. Professor Tien and other Board members help sustain American leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge.

Professor Tien's rich background, as a world-class engineer and as the former Chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley, provides him with a unique understanding of the important links between science and technology, and education and society.

"Asian Pacific American scientists and engineers have long made major contributions to our country, to our national security, and to our unmatched scientific enterprise," the President said. "That is why it is intolerable that the patriotism of Asian Pacific American scientists be questioned in the wake of recent allegations of espionage at one of our national laboratories. Security matters are of the highest priority in my Administration, but history has shown the damage to the lives of our citizens and to our society that results from the destructive grip of prejudice, suspicion and discrimination. Racism and stereotyping have no place in our One America in the 21st century."

In answering the call to public service, Professor Tien carries on the principles and cherished traditions of Asian Pacific Americans who have helped build and strengthen our nation with diligence and determination. 30-30-30

Appendix B to NSB-99-153

RESOLUTION
TO CLOSE PORTIONS OF
355th MEETING
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

RESOLVED: That the following portions of the meeting of the National Science Board (NSB) scheduled for November 17-19, 1999 shall be closed to the public.

1. That portion in which the minutes of the closed sessions of earlier meetings will be discussed. An open meeting on that portion would be likely to compromise information and discussions properly held confidential under the Board's resolutions authorizing the closed sessions.

2. Those portions having to do with discussions regarding nominees for appointments as National Science Board members and National Science Foundation (NSF) staff appointments, or with specific staffing or personnel actions. An open meeting on these subjects would be likely to constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

3. Those portions having to do with future budgets not yet submitted by the President to the Congress.

4. Those portions having to do with pending proposals and proposed awards for specific grants, contracts, or other arrangements. An open meeting on those portions would be likely to disclose personal information and constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. It would also be likely to disclose research plans and other related information that are trade secrets, and commercial or financial information obtained from a person that are privileged or confidential. An open meeting would also prematurely disclose the position of the NSF on the proposals in question before final negotiations and any determination by the Director to make the awards and so would be likely to frustrate significantly the implementation of the proposed Foundation action.

Catherine J. Hines NSB Operations Officer

Appendix C to NSB-99-153
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
4201 WILSON BOULEVARD
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22230

NSB-99-112

July 15, 1999

MEMORANDUM TO MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

FROM: Deputy Director

SUBJECT: Proposed Revision of Criteria Governing Items Submitted to the National Science Board for Review and Approval

The NSF Proposal and Award Manual (PAM) is currently undergoing internal review and revision. As part of this exercise the section that sets forth the policy and procedures governing the preparation and review of action and information items for the National Science Board (NSB) has been studied for ways to obviate periodic changes in the dollar threshold required for Board action.

Items currently requiring NSB action fall into one or more of the following categories:

(1) awards exceeding a dollar value threshold,
(2) major construction projects,
(3) new programs,
(4) policy issues and awards of unusual sensitivity,
(5) Requests for Proposals (RFP's),
(6) Supplementary funding of awards previously approved by the NSB,
(7) Waivers from NSB review, and
(8) Information items.

Changes are proposed in the criteria governing National Science Board action on categories 1-3 as described below. The current and proposed criteria for all 8 categories are shown in the attached table.

RECOMMENDATION

Our study of this issue leads us to recommend that the National Science Board approve the following new criteria for items brought to the Board for its review and approval.

Page two

Awards NSB approval is required for awards where the average annual award amount is 1% or more of the awarding Directorate's or Office's prior year current plan.

Major Construction Projects Board approval of a construction project is required when the resulting cost is expected to exceed the percentage threshold for NSB award approval.

New Programs NSB approval is required for new programs that either: (1) represent a substantive investment of program resources (threshold defined as the total annualized awards to be made by the proposed program exceed 3% of the awarding Directorate's or Office's prior year current plan); or (2) involve sensitive political or policy issues; or (3) are to be funded as an ongoing Foundation-wide activity.

If these new criteria are approved, the resolution reaffirming delegation of authority to the Director adopted by the Board in May 1994 (Attachment A to NSB-94-95) will be appropriately amended by the Office of the General Counsel.

Joseph Bordogna

Attachment Appendix D to NSB 99-153

NSB-99-125 July 16, 1999

MEMORANDUM TO MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

SUBJECT: NSB Meeting Dates for Calendar Year 2000

After discussion at the May NSB meeting, the issue of meeting dates for 2000 was tabled to allow the NSB Office to poll members once more to identify optimum meeting dates. The meeting dates below were chosen to assure attendance by the highest number of members possible. We have also taken into account possible conflicts with holidays and with major professional meetings for which meeting dates were final at the time of the polling.

Based on all these factors, the following meeting dates are recommended for 2000.

2000 Calendar of National Science Board Meetings

February 2, 3, 4 (Wednesday/Thursday/Friday) [Policy Meeting and Board Retreat]
March 15, 16 (Wednesday/Thursday)
May 3, 4, 5 (Wednesday/Thursday/Friday) [Annual Meeting]
August 2, 3 (Wednesday/Thursday)
October 18, 19 (Wednesday/Thursday)
December 12, 13, 14 (Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday) [50th Anniversary]
Executive Committee
August 15 (Tuesday)
The following resolution is proposed for your consideration.

The National Science Board approves the schedule of Board meeting dates for Calendar Year 2000 as contained in NSB-99-125.

Marta Cehelsky Executive Officer

Appendix E to NSB 99-153

NSB 99-144 July 29, 1999

RESOLUTION OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD APPROVED AT ITS JULY 29, 1999 MEETING

IN COMMEMORATION OF CONGRESSMAN GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.

For over three decades of distinguished service to the U.S. Congress and the global science community, the National Science Board recognizes Congressman George E. Brown, Jr., as more than a friend of science. He was a fine intellect and a conscientious leader in extraordinary circumstances.

Mr. Brown was a fount of wisdom about how science and technology transform our lives and our understanding of it. As an advocate for space exploration and environmental protection, he challenged scientists and policymakers alike to consider the unanticipated consequences that future generations would face. As a champion of basic research and science education, Mr. Brown reminded us that all citizens of all ages expect, and deserve, a return on government investments.

Vigilance defined Mr. Brown's career in public service. Concern about the character of human culture and the quality of life dominated his work on the Committee on Science. In a lecture last year, he said "Given that we can completely transform the world with our knowledge, we are morally compelled to answer the question, 'What is the end that we seek?'"

Be it RESOLVED that:

The National Science Board and students of government have lost a role model and a colleague. The legacy of Congressman George Brown will light the way to a science and technology policy for the next millennium.

Back to NSB Meetings