Return-Path: list-relay@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 12:45:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Cassell To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion Subject: Fw: Gary Chapman's alarming posting (re: NSF SBER Division) (fwd) Please pass this around to folks in your department. -- Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Cassell jwcassell@UNC.EDU Institute for Research in Social Science Phone: 919-962-0782 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Fax: 919-962-4777 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3355 USA ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 May 96 11:14 EDT From: Eric Plutzer 814-865-6576 To: psrt-l@mizzou1.missouri.edu, por@GIBBS.OIT.UNC.EDU Subject: Fw: Gary Chapman's alarming posting EXCUSE CROSS-POSTINGS. ***** THE FOLLOWING CLARIFIES WHAT WAS, APPARENTLY, A FALSE ALARM REGARDING ***** N.S.F. SOCIAL SCIENCE SUPPORT. Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 08:21:55 CST From: "Gregory A. Caldeira" Subject: Gary Chapman's alarming posting Author: pchapin@nsf.gov at NOTE Date: 5/1/96 6:46 PM Colleagues, Some of you may by now have received copies of the same troubling message posted by Gary Chapman of the U. of Texas which a couple of people sent me, stating that the Republicans on the House Science Committee voted to eliminate the SBER Division. I forwarded the message to Bill, who checked it out, and determined that it was apparently a misinterpretation of the committee action that actually did occur last week. I have sent the following message to the people who forwarded the message to me; feel free to use any part of it you may wish in responding to any inquiries you get on the same topic. Paul ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re: >>GASP<< Author: pchapin at nsf2 Date: 5/1/96 6:37 PM Dear Steve, Thanks for your message, and for forwarding Gary Chapman's posting (which I understand is being widely circulated). It was the first I had heard of such a claim as Chapman was making, so I had to check it out and see if there was anything to it. I forwarded it to my Division Director (the SBER Division Director, who should be the first to know about these things). He hadn't heard it either, so checked with the NSF Congressional Liaison people. Thus my response to you represents the best information NSF has, which is that the report is incorrect. Our guess is that the factual basis of the report was an event which did take place last week -- the House of Representatives authorization committee responsible for NSF reported out an authorization bill for NSF which instructed NSF to reduce its number of Directorates from seven to six. Last year's House authorization bill for NSF had the same instruction, and added "report language" (not in the bill itself, but in the commentary accompanying the bill) hinting that the Directorate removed should be Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences. As far as we know, there is no comparable report language accompanying this year's bill, as yet at least, although it may well be that that is what Rep. Walker, Chair of the committee, has in mind. Now this event is significantly different from Chapman's report in a couple of ways. First, the reference in last year's report language (which may or may not be repeated this year) was to the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences *Directorate*, NOT to the Division for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research as reported. I understand that this may be an obscure distinction to people in the world outside, but within NSF it's an important one. While it would still be troubling for the SBE Directorate to be disestablished as an internal NSF organizational unit, this is a very different thing from "eliminating the SBER Division" as reported. Even if the committee's action were to become law, it would mean an internal NSF reorganiza- tion in which the SBER Division would continue as part of some other Directorate, not be eliminated. Second, while anything is possible from Congress, last year's experience makes it appear quite unlikely that the committee's action will in fact become law. An authorization bill has to pass both the House and the Senate, and then have any differences between the two bodies ironed out in a conference committee, the conference report pass the two bodies again, and then be signed by the President, before it becomes law. The Senate has shown no interest in endorsing the NSF reorganization urged by the House committee. In fact the Senate did not even pass an authorization bill for NSF last year, and may not this year either (in which case NSF's appropriation carries its own authorization). So while we do very much appreciate the attention and concern for SBER reflected in the report, and hope that people will continue to monitor the situation in Congress carefully, in this case I believe the alarm is misplaced. If people do choose to write to their representatives in the Congress, it's important for their letters to reflect a correct understanding of the actual situation. Feel free to forward this message to anyone you wish. Thanks again for calling Chapman's report to my attention. Best regards, Paul Chapin, NSF ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eric Plutzer Department of Political Science e-mail: exp12@psuvm.psu.edu Pennsylvania State University Ph: 814-865-6576 Fx: 814-863-8979 University Park, PA 16802 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~