Previous Article
Next Article
Table of Contents

Budget for FY 1993 (1Mar93)
(from the Director's Office, NOAO Newsletter No. 33, 1 March 1993)

In mid-January, the NSF provided NOAO with an official budget figure
for the fiscal year that started 1 October 1992.  The total budget of
$26.6M is lower than last year's budget of $28.5M by 6.7%. If inflation
is taken into account, the decrease in purchasing power is
approximately 10 percent. Costs in Chile continue to increase at a rate
that is about 15 percent higher than the rate of increase in the US.
This latest decrease in support, when combined with the other decreases
since 1984, means that the NOAO budget for operations is about 30
percent lower than it was a decade ago.

We recognize that NOAO is not the only astronomical program facing
budget cutbacks. Similar reductions have been made in the budgets for
the other national centers supported by the NSF, in the astronomy
grants program, and in some programs at NASA. Many universities are
also facing reduced support for research, equipment purchases, and
staff.

In choosing how to implement this budget cut, NOAO has tried to take
into account the fact that these are difficult times for all of
astronomy. Specifically, we have tried to absorb the reductions in such
a way as to minimize the impact on observers. The primary enabling task
of the national centers is to provide competitive observing facilities
to the community, with time allocated on the basis of merit. The
difficulty comes about in trying to address both types of activities
that are implicit in this mission statement. If we cut back on the
number of observing facilities or the capabilities offered at those
facilities, then some fraction of the community will no longer be able
to pursue the programs of their choice. On the other hand, if we manage
most of the budget reductions in the form of cutbacks to the
instrumentation program, then in three or four years the program will
no longer be competitive.

A major uncertainty in planning the budget cuts is that we have no idea
of the future trends of support for the national centers. Will next
year bring restoration of support? or a further loss of funds?
Obviously, the strategy required for the two situations is dramatically
different.

In formulating the operating plan for FY 1993, NOAO has tried to keep
as many options open as possible. That is, we have tried to accommodate
these budget cuts without closing any facilities permanently while we
wait for better information on the long-term directions for NSF-funded
astronomy. About 70 percent of the NOAO budget is for salaries, and so
a cutback of the magnitude imposed this year will require cutbacks in
staff costs. We will accomplish these cutbacks in two ways-- through a
reduction by about 20 people in overall staffing and, in an effort to
maintain a large enough staff to keep the telescopes open, through a
salary freeze for remaining staff. It is clear, however, that salary
freezes are not an effective long-term strategy for balancing the
budget. The quality of the NOAO program depends on the quality of the
staff, and we must reward the staff for their contributions with
competitive salaries.

In addition to the salary freeze, we have made reductions in the
non-payroll funds for major facilities maintenance and for equipment
that cannot be sustained over the long-term. If the budget remains at
the present level in future years, we will have to re-examine and
adjust the budget accordingly. As soon as reliable numbers are
available for FY 1994, we will begin the development of a longer term
strategy.

The general impact of the cuts that NOAO has been forced to make this
year will be to reduce the suite of capabilities available at the
telescopes, to reduce the level of observer support, and to slow the
rate at which new instrumentation can be brought on line.  There have
also been substantial reductions in the level of travel and research
support provided for NOAO scientific staff. Each observatory has made
its own decisions about how to reduce its budget for support of
observers, and so the specific program changes are different at the
three sites.  A sampling of those changes follows:

CTIO will not hire a new post-doctoral fellow and will lose an open
scientific staff position. There was also a reduction of 5.5 FTEs among
the Chilean staff. The impacts are on optics improvements for the
smaller telescopes, slowing down the instrumentation program and
completion of the ARCON CCD controllers, reduced observer support on
the mountain, and significantly reduced maintenance activity for the La
Serena headquarters.  Eligible observers are still supported for their
in-country expenses, but all will now enjoy the scenic bus ride between
Santiago and La Serena, rather than the more convenient air trip.

KPNO has seen manpower reductions in support for observers, development
of the mountain computer network, administrative and secretarial
support, and in some of the instrumentation areas. These reductions
have led to limiting access or planning retirement for a number of
observing capabilities that cannot be adequately supported, including
photography and single- channel photometry. Other non-payroll savings
have been found by reducing library subscriptions and sharply limiting
computer and software purchases and maintenance.

Losses of NSF funding support to NSO translate directly to loss of
observing time to the community, unless other resources are found. The
tendency is to move staff to externally funded specific projects, which
preserves the technical groups but limits availability of facilities
both at Kitt Peak and Sac Peak. GONG funding was held constant by the
NSF at last year's level. A modest increase was requested to keep the
project on schedule. Since all the descopes possible have already been
imposed that do not fundamentally compromise the scientific objectives
of the program, an additional delay of at least three months in
deployment will be inevitable without an augmentation.

Please read the relevant sections of this Newsletter carefully for the
details of the decisions that were taken and the impact on your own
program for Fall semester proposals. As the budget deliberations begin
for fiscal year 1994, we need to fight the continuing erosion of
support by devising strategies as a community to highlight the
importance of our field: active astronomers are working throughout the
country; we attract new talent to scientific research; and we uniquely
engage the interest of the general public in scientific activity.  At
the same time, our forward look might well be directed toward closer
cooperation in resolving the priorities of optical astronomy, so that
we maximize the return of high quality data from whatever resources we
get. We appreciate the feedback that you gave us on the broader budget
issues as highlighted in the previous Newsletter and would value your
thoughts at any time.

Richard F. Green, Sidney C. Wolff

Previous Article
Next Article
Table of Contents