I’ve been reading a book on corporate boards, so expect a few posts on astronomy governance coming up, starting with this one. I really knew nothing about how boards out in the “real world” operate, so reading this book has been a great inspiration for reflection on boards I’ve seen in astronomy. There are plenty of things “wrong” with the Board I am currently associated with (according to the corporate model, at least), but one of the common complaints I’ve heard levied against it is not one of them: that its members are also its funders.
On the surface, this complaint seems legitimate and I even bought into it for a while, since there appears to be a clear conflict of interest between someone trying to get more value for less money as a member of a funding agency while simultaneously advocating for the observatory to the funding agencies for the funds it needs to operate and expand.
The flaw in this argument, however, is the passing of the advocacy buck to the Board instead of to the Observatory. Corporate boards are composed to represent the institutions’ stakeholders and certainly an observatory’s funding agencies qualify as stakeholders. Does this make it hard for the Board to argue for more funding from the funding agencies if the funding agencies are the Board? Yes, certainly. But venture capitalists and shareholders, analogs to our funding agencies, are regular members of corporate boards as well. It is not the board’s responsibility to argue for increased funding; it’s the responsibility of the Observatory to present a case compelling enough that its stakeholders are willing to invest more to get more return. This situation is exactly what works in the corporate world and it makes sense that it can work in the astronomy world, too. The observatory, however, has to be willing to act as its own advocate, making strong, supported cases, for the funds it requests. Our Board meets twice a year; who better to understand the ramifications of increased and decrease funding than the Observatory? Who better to argue to those with the purse strings what is best for the Observatory? The Observatory, or the Board?
I think there are other issues with the the make-up of the board, but its having representatives from our funding agencies is not one of them. I’ll discuss some of the other issues in future posts.
I should particularly note here that these are my opinions, not necessarily those of Gemini Observatory, for whom I work. See my standard disclaimer to the right.
While on the subject of advocacy, Scot decided to link to the web splash of a recent result that he is co-author on: the analysis of the surface metal lines on a white dwarf star suggesting the remains of a rocky dwarf planet recently accreted onto the star’s surface. This scenario represents a possible interesting way to see the insides of extra-solar planets!