cc: t.d.davies@uea.ac.uk date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 15:00:31 +0100 from: John Shepherd subject: Re: Research Director to: Mike Hulme , brian.launder@umist.ac.uk Dear Mike et al This is a difficult situation and I don't have any brilliant ideas I'm afraid. I agree with Brian that a part-time RD is actually reasonably OK, (HJS has indeed been rather good value in this mode) and I would not discount that as a permanent arrangement. A small percentage of the time of the right person is always likely to be worth more than the full-time efforts of someone less capable. So I am content with the proposed consultancy arrangement for HJS, which simply reflects reality (is there any need for so low a limit on the total, what's wrong with a call-off at an agreed per diem rate, up to say 50 days per year?). I guess the penalty of HJS's absence is mainly borne by Mike, and the position of a Sci Assistant to the Directors seems to be a reasonable way to cover the deficiency (that presumably can be funded from what we are not paying to HJS ??). I do agree that we also need to cover the lack of executive leadership of the IA programme. HJS and others are coming up with lots of good ideas, but no-one has an overall grip on the programme, and this one really needs it. I did my interim best for round 1, but I have neither the skills nor the time to take it forward now. However, like Brian I am a bit loath to commit funds for another full-time person to this (we just hired a core scientist, after all). Could it be done on a 50% basis, somehow ? Otherwise if we make an appointment, and then HJS comes full-time, we are over-manned and over budget in a big way ! I would also wish to insist on a proper collective decision on any appointment: I don't know who you have in mind, but justice should both be done and be seen to be done. Like Brian I would be less nervous if it were someone from the "fraternity", too, but it would all depend on who it was... Revising the RD and ED titles seems to me to be unnecessary and likely just to cause confusion. Especially if we subsequently have to reverse it. Whether or not the RD is on salary or on a consultancy contract is just a technicality, and we should aim for it to have as little consequential impact as possible. By thwe way I am conscious that this is not quite the same message as I gave Trevor last time we spoke about it. The reason is that I have been very favourably surprised by the positive contribution HJS has been able to make on a p/t basis, and I am therefore less inclined to push for a permamnent solution soon. If HJS eventually decides not to come at all, then we shall obviously have to rethink from square one again. I hope that helps a bit ! Regards John At 18:19 07/09/01 +0100, Mike Hulme wrote: >John and Brian, > >The attached document summarises the agreement reached at the end of July >by Trevor (representing UEA) and I (representing Tyndall) with John Lawton >and David Brown (representing all three R.Councils) regarding the >Schellnhuber Dilemma. (I earlier alerted you to this discussion and the >options available to us). Action has been taken to follow-up on these >decisions. > >There are financial implications of this course of action. What is the >best outcome in management terms (Schellnhubers arrival f-t during the >first 6 months of 2002) carries with it the greatest additional demand on >resources. If there is no option to negotiate with the Research Councils >over this sum, then the Centre will have little option but to direct that >sum of money away from funding specific research projects (probably Round 3). > >What is the worst outcome in management terms (Schellnhuber does not, and >never will, arrive f-t with us; decision-point at latest July 2002) also >carries financial implications. In this eventuality, it has been agreed >that the Councils, together with UEA and the senior Centre managers (i.e., >the two of you), would reconsider how the Centre should best be >managed. This would by no means assume that the Executive Director, >currently funded by UEA and not by the Councils, would take over the single >position of Director. Other options would of course require to be >resourced and, again, if there is no option to negotiate with the Research >Councils over this additional resourcing, then the Centre will again have >to direct the required sum of money away from funding specific research >projects. > >Depending on outcome, we (UEA and Tyndall) would clearly like to explore >further funding options - either full or partial - with the Councils rather >than dilute the research project investment budget further. However, in >the worst case scenario we are seeking assurance from the Councils that the >Centre will not be judged adversely if we do have to dilute the research >monies in this way. In effect, this would be penalising the Centre for the >unique, peculiar and unavoidable circumstances we find ourselves in >regarding our senior Directorial appointment! > >Trevor, rather than myself, is acting as the intermediary with the >Councils. This information is, for now, for you alone until we hear >further from the Councils about the resource implications. As you will >appreciate, this is a case study of taking short-term decisions and making >long-term strategy in the context of a very large unknown - the resolution >of the Schellnhuber Dilemma. > >Mike > > > >Attachment Converted: "D:\Attachments\revised RD replacement package.doc" >