Charlie Bolden Violates His Own Travel Policies
Bolden Keynote At AAS Wednesday Morning Will Be Livestreamed, Space Policy Online
“NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden will keynote the American Astronautical Society’s Goddard Memorial Symposium tomorrow morning, Wednesday, March 20, and AAS will stream the event live.”
NASA Limits Travel; No Layoff Plans – yet (update), earlier post
“v. Examples – For example, the following conferences do NOT meet the new criteria and NASA funded participation will not be allowed:
1. National Space Symposium
2. The American Astronautical Society’s Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium and Goddard Memorial Dinner”
Keith’s note: This is just baffling. Charlie Bolden tells all of NASA that specific meetings are not going to be supported by NASA funds – and then he turns around and goes to one of the meetings specifically cited in his official agency policy that do “NOT meet the new criteria and NASA funded participation will not be allowed” to speak in an official capacity. I wonder if Bolden is using NASA-provided transportation (that limo) to go to this unsupported meeting – and if he will have NASA staff with him – also traveling from NASA HQ to Maryland for this event – at NASA expense.
Bolden Cuts Travel; Buys Toy Telescope Models, earlier post
Keith’s update: According to this tweet: @Jeff_Foust: Bolden, on travel bans for this event and Nat’l Space Symposium, notes he came here since it’s local, “doesn’t cost the gov’t a dime.” Charlie Bolden thinks he’s not breaking any rules. Unless Mr. Bolden drove himself to and from this event – with no staff – in his own car – and took time without pay – then it most certainly did cost the government something. The fact that Bolden is oblivious to this fact speaks volumes. His travel prohibitions will save a vanishingly small amount of money and amount, at most, to a stunt.
Keith’s update: According to NASA PAO Bolden was accompanied by one NASA civil servant who drove to/from the event in their own car. NASA will not discuss Bolden’s travel arrangements due to security concerns. As such it is safe to assume that he was using government transportation and security – and that costs money. Bolden’s presence supported the meeting using NASA funds in violation of his own policy. Was this a large expense? No. That’s the point – these arcane travel restrictions will have negligible impact on NASA’s expenses.
Um, if you look through the long (and detailed) memo concerning NASA travel restrictions you’ll see, at the very end, the following:
6. Local travel. This guidance does not affect procedures related to local travel.
Yes, I know that the same memo specifically calls out this symposium as not meeting the criteria for funded travel. But the fact that Greenbelt, MD is considered local to DC, and given 6 above, I think saying that he’s violating his own policies is a bit extreme.
It will be interesting to know how he gets there, though. Note that others from NASA HQ (as well as Goddard Space Flight Center) are also going. Maybe some of them will carpool….
Yes, I know that the same memo specifically calls out this symposium as not meeting the criteria for funded travel.
No.
The memo specifically calls out this symposium as not meeting the criteria for allowed “NASA funded participation”. Those are the exact words.
To quote Keith: “Period.”
Do you work for NASA?
Obviously I can’t speak for every instance of Bolden’s travel, but the one local event (a little outside of DC) where he attended and I did, too, he drove himself in his own vehicle. This was a couple years back.
And travel funds are not salary funds. The travel restrictions are to minimize travel costs and have nothing to do with time worked. So since local travel is not precluded, this is a legitimate trip.
The thing that doesn’t make sense in the new travel guidance is that invited travel is also prohibited. If an organization is willing to pay the expenses of a NASA person to come so that there are no travel costs to NASA, where’s the issue?
What, you’re kvetching about driving from Washington DC to Greenbelt MD, and calling it “travel”? That’s local. Greenbelt is a SUBURB of DC.
I’m annoyed at the travel policies too, but this really isn’t an issue. There are real problems at NASA, and this isn’t one of them.
Bolden specifically called out this meeting – by name – as not being eligible for NASA funding. Period.
…in a document that stated it does not apply to local travel.
The memo covers several issues, including hiring, travel, conference attendance, and so on.
The section in question specifically uses “attendance” and does not mention “travel”.
Do you work for NASA?
Exactly.
Why did Bolden call out these meetings with blanket statements of non-support then?
“Bolden’s presence supported the meeting using NASA funds in violation of
his own policy. Was this a large expense? No. That’s the point – these
arcane travel restrictions will have negligible impact on NASA’s
expenses.”
Ahem,
“6. Local travel. This guidance does not affect procedures related to local travel.”
Leaving aside the argument that this is simply a publicity stunt, and the money NASA is saving is miniscule (which may be entirely true),
I once again note that the above statement is at the very end of the long, detailed, memo concerning the travel restrictions. I take this statement at face value, meaning that everything else that was said about travel previously in the memo does not apply to local travel.
Now then, exactly how did Bolden violate NASA’s own policy, even if some NASA funds were expended? The memo explicitly exempts local travel.
With all the other “stuff” going on at NASA (and the government in general), this is what you want to pick on? Really?
Sheesh….
Bolden specifically called out this meeting – by name – as not being eligible for NASA funding. Period.
I assume Bolden will not be seeing any other NASA employees there (except whoever he rode in the car with) unless they are attending on their own time.
He will be seeing other NASA employees, specifically employees from Goddard Space Flight Center and NASA HQ, because (repeat after me):
“6. Local Travel. This guidance does not affect procedure related to local travel.”
This, quite simply, means that NASA employees at facilities local to a conference or meeting can attend that conference or meeting.
I don’t get it. There’s no hidden message in those simple words. It means what it says. What’s so hard to understand about this?
Are they allowed to attend this conference on government time? I don’t think so (repeat after me):
v. Examples – For example, the following conferences do NOT meet the new criteria and NASA funded participation will not be allowed:
1. National Space Symposium
2. The American Astronautical Society’s Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium and Goddard Memorial Dinner
Is there something about the phrase “NASA funded participation will not be allowed” that is not clear??
Government time is not the issue–the time to attend a meeting is not the issue. The sequester does not affect (yet, anyway) salaries. The meeting is not restricted due to its content or value. Expenditure of travel funds is the issue, and local travel is not included in the restrictions.
Government time is not the issue–the time to attend a meeting is not the issue…The meeting is not restricted due to its content or value.
You really need to read the memo.
Yes, attendance is an issue. In the plain language of the memo, participation (i.e. going there) in these meetings is not allowed.
From the memo:a. Criteria – NASA will limit domestic conference attendance to those conferences that meet all of the following criteria.
If a NASA employee is at a conference/meeting, they are not doing their regular job, so somebody has to pay for it, even if they are salaried.
If the NASA time accounting system can’t figure out whether a person was at a conference or actually doing their day job, then this is a big issue.
Is this why project costs spiral out of control because no one is watching what people are actually working on??
So if a scientist goes to a conference to discuss their work, that’s not doing their day job? If an engineer goes to a workshop to better understand how to build their systems, that’s not their day job?
Since you love asking questions, have you ever attended a legitimate technical or scientific conference?
“This guidance does not affect procedure related to local travel.”
This statement, coming at the very end of the memo, clearly states that is supersedes the rest of it (including the part you cite) concerning local travel. Again, I see no violation of NASA policy, just a poorly written memo.
Again, I see no violation of NASA policy, just a poorly written memo.
How do you connect from “does not affect procedure” to “NASA funded participation will not be allowed”? That’s a big stretch.
Are you a NASA employee?
Are you? If you are, you would receive guidance from local management that clarifies the content of the memo and supports Colin’s interpretation.
Not a NASA employee myself–I’m an on-site contractor.
I am amazed at the people responding to this thread who think the memo does not apply to attending a conference. It clearly does.
Also, if you are a NASA employee, please identify yourself as such.
Why?
Why?
Because it helps me understand why people can’t understand what is written in plain English in a memo.
They are suffering from cognitive dissonance brought on by a culture that has historically failed to follow rules when they are inconvenient.
If I may suggest, try Google. It’s this neat software program where if you type in someone’s name, many times you can find out where they work.
And, before you ask, no, I am not a NASA employee.
BTW – Bolden’s directive was clear in advance that the travel referred to was for NASA employees outside of the local area where the Goddard Symposium was being held. All of these travel restrictions are extremely unfortunate – but they are being implemented in response to the incredibly stupid sequester law that requires NASA to cut nearly $1B from now through October. Erroneously nit-picking on Bolden taking the beltway misses that big picture. Should they not change travel policies and just furlough more workers? Or cancel some space mission or science instrument?
I despair at all this flak being directed at NASA and Charlie Bolden over these fairly innocuous travel/conference policies.
Having read the threads and memo in some detail, it seems that there are
two areas of criticism being levelled at Bolden.
First, that attendance at the AAS Symposium was specifically disallowed by
the change in Conference policy. Actually, no, it wasn’t. The memo clearly
states that “NASA funded participation will not be allowed”. As the
keynote speaker, I rather doubt that Charlie Bolden was paying a
registration fee. If that is true, NASA was not funding attendance.
Arguing that some element of fixed costs (i.e. salaries) was “funding”
his attendance is to deliberately and perversely miss the point of the
policy changes, which is clearly to reduce actual discretionary dollar spend, not to tinker pointlessly with fixed cost allocation processes.
Secondly, that travel policy changes (separate to the conference policy
changes) barred attendance. Again, no, they didn’t. The memo explicitly
excludes “local travel”. Unless the denizens of DC are even more parochial
than they often appear, Greenbelt is surely local to NASA HQ, being only
some 15 miles drive away.
But there’s a wider issue. The training, travel and conference policy
changes themselves have been attacked as pointless in implementing the
sequester. Some context is needed here.
There are various numbers circulating for the effect of the sequester on
NASA, but the most recent seem to be approximately $700-800m from a budget
of around $18bn. About 4-5%. AFAIK, NASA doesn’t publish numbers for its
travel, training or conference spend. Nor would I expect it to – more
interesting, program focussed, analyses are given. However, most major
organisations have travel expenditure in the range of 1-2% of revenue,
with conference costs and training in the same ball park, or, in the
latter’s case, even higher. Thus these costs, far from being insignificant, are likely to be very much of the magnitude required by the sequester. And they are exactly the costs that should be targeted early by a cost reduction program, not least because they can be switched on and off quickly, with few legal or contractual implications, and with limited knock-on consequences in the future.
These issues are particularly relevant when you are dealing with an arbitrary cut, not driven by underlying commercial or technical reasons, and which could be lifted at any moment should the US Government unexpectedly develop the capacity for rational behaviour.
Not to mention that implementing this type of cut has the valuable behavioural side effect of driving home directly to staff that cost control is a real issue. A fact which many otherwise intelligent people can be remarkably ostrich-like in appreciating.
Clearly, these policy changes are not going to deliver the sequester, not
least because they are reasonably well nuanced to avoid undesirable
collateral damage – unlike some “travel bans” I’ve seen. Other reductions
will be needed. But those reductions would only be bigger if travel etc.
were not curtailed in this way. What would those of you criticising NASA
prefer? Staff layoffs or furloughs? Program cancellations? Center
closures? And I can just see the comments that would flow then. “NASA
dumps vital science, while unnecessary and wasteful travel continues…”
Give me strength….
(Oh, and to keep Gonzo happy, I am not a NASA employee, or even a US citizen or resident. Just someone who’d like to see a rather higher level of debate than is sometimes in evidence…)
NASA does publicly disclose their travel budget every year. Here’s the link to the 2013 budget:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/659…
You’ll find it on pg. 642 in the category of ‘Travel and transport of persons’. For 2013, the total travel budget is $76M.
Spending dollars to chase dimes. Frustrating.
And yes, I AM a NASA employee.