CASIS Director Resigns – Accusations Start To Fly – Leadership Turmoil
Resignation Letter from CASIS Executive Director Jeanne L. Becker
“As a result of undue and onerous political pressures exerted over the almost six months of existence of CASIS, business operations have been difficult in standing up this brand new organization. Unrealistic expectations have been levied collectively by Congressional staffers, by NASA (Mr. Uhran) and by ProOrbis. These pressures have placed unnecessary stress and hardship on CASIS, not only organizationally but also on management, forcing a defensive posture with constant focus on mitigation strategies to fend off political threats of the elimination of CASIS.
The fact is that ProOrbis was recruited and paid by NASA to write the ISS National Lab Reference Model, which became the basis for the NASA Cooperative Agreement Notice soliciting for a nonprofit organization to manage ISS National Lab. Space Florida contracted ProOrbis to write the CASIS proposal submitted in response to this Cooperative Agreement Notice. What remains difficult to rationalize is the fact that the interim board admittedly identified inurement and excess benefit issues even as the CASIS proposal was developed.”
ProOrbis Statement re: CASIS Director Resignation
“As is a matter of public record, Dr. Becker was included in the CASIS proposal as its Executive Director. In her commitment letter submitted with the original proposal, she stated “I am supportive of the management concepts as presented in the CASIS proposal being submitted.” However, since taking on this role, she has not engaged ProOrbis in the stand-up activities of CASIS as was contemplated. Issues of conflict of interest for all the principal parties were satisfactorily addressed in the Cooperative Agreement and provisions were put in place to mitigate any potential conflicts. Dr. Becker’s concerns about a non-profit organization working with a private company were addressed by legal counsel, which determined that they would not in any way prevent CASIS from engaging ProOrbis or executing the proposal.”
Jim Royston Named Interim Director of CASIS Dr. Jeanne Becker Steps Down From Leadership Role
“The Board received Dr. Becker’s resignation last week and accepted it as a result of ongoing disputes in relation to the pace and direction of the implementation of CASIS’ mission. The Board has now established an Executive Office of the Chairman within CASIS to drive the organization toward rapid development during this period.”
Astrotech Corporation President Terminated, 16 July 2010
“Astrotech Corporation, a leading provider of commercial aerospace services and in the commercialization of space technologies, today announced a realignment of its corporate structure in order to optimize operational efficiencies. The Company’s action follows an evaluation of each business and a review of strategic alternatives. Astrotech’s corporate realignment includes the termination of James Royston, President of Astrotech Corporation.”
Keith’s note: I just received the CASIS statement around noon. It interesting how ProOrbis responded – directly to NASA Watch – on Sunday night – before CASIS itself even issued a statement. Also, despite issuing a statement to NASAWatch, ProOrbis has not posted anything on its website or issued statement via press release. This is a CASIS matter – why is ProOrbis taking the lead? Who is running the show here – CASIS or ProOrbis? That is what seems to be the core issue in this food fight.
Also note that interim CASIS Director Jim Royson was “terminated” as president of Astrotech in 2010. No reason is given for that termination – nor is mention made of the termination in his CASIS bio.
Does this make sense to anyone? If you ran a non-profit that was responsible for a $100 Billion dollar ISS paid for by 312,000,000 Americans would that be more or less of a burden than dealing with some political pressures and external expectations? The article is very confusing. Why are there accusations that agencies are running or threatening a non-profit? Where are we, the researchers, left?
This is an unfortunate turn of events, and one which I hope will be resolved in a timely manner that is acceptable to all parties involved.
But this is also why I think it is unfair to be criticising CASIS at this point in time (only 6 months into its existence) for not stepping up to its utilisation commitments. This kind of issue, while unfortunate, is exactly the kind of issue that new organisations face. CASIS can’t be expected to provide utilisation services while it is still figuring out the details of its own existence. Unfortunate, but true.
As Dr. Becker said in her statement “Unrealistic expectations have been levied collectively by Congressional staffers, by NASA (Mr. Uhran) and by ProOrbis”. I’d add the public to that list, too.
Do I think CASIS can be an affective organisation? Of course. But it’s going to take time to set the organisation up, and then transition services from NASA to CASIS. I think it’ll happen, but it won’t be an easy ride, and it certainly won’t be as fast as everyone likes.
You’ve got until 2020 (estimated life of ISS), spending $3 billion a year on operations, and you want to argue that it’s OK to take 6 months or longer to get rolling?
In this case, time is very much money.
I agree with you there 100%. CASIS needs to get up & running ASAP, because every month that goes by is one less month of science that can get done.
What I’m saying is, just because it needs to happen quickly, doesn’t mean it will. You can’t rush the process, because it will just result in open questions, unresolved arguments and undefined responsibilities – which, arguably, may have already happened.
This is what I mean by unrealistic expectations – I never believed CASIS would be up and running in six months, regardless of how much it needed to be. Unfortunately, it’s going to take time. Such is the way with new organisations – we all just have to accept that.
No, it’s not OK. But it is unfortunately the way it will be. Unless you have a suggestion to speed up the process?
Pete,
I think some of the public complaints result from the fact that it wasn’t clear (in anything that I read, at least) that CASIS was a brand new entity, not yet operational. I assumed, and so others may have as well, that CASIS was chosen, in part, because they had a track record, not just on the basis of a proposal. So things are a little clearer now.
But I think your point is well made. Better to do it right than to just do it fast.
And points to Dr. Becker for sticking to her word.
Steve
Shooting from the hip, SWRI.
Keith has hinted at more behind-the-scenes details. We’ll see. It is interesting ProOrbis felt the need to immediately issue a press release, rather than just staying silent on the issue.
Instead, CASIS/Space Florida will spend more time trying to get organized.
Bobby Block, formerly of SpaceX, is now a VP at CASIS. I wonder if he was brought in for damage control pending this blow up.
Note that ProOrbis sent me this release on a Sunday night and they have not even bothered to formally issue it or even post it on thier website. Hmmm… pre-emptive damage containment …?
Pete: CASIS could have accomplished far more if it had wanted to – and if the powers that be (NASA, Congress, State of Florida) had left it alone to do so. That said, when you put put out an RFI like CASIS did that asks people what they can do – this smacks of an organization (CASIS) that did not do its homework before hand. This whole process – starting with Mark Uhran and the ISS NL CAN at NASA Headquarters – was doomed to fail from the start given all the indecision and half-hearted support it got. Now everyone will act surprised and point their fingers at someone else. NASA cannot figure out how to use this amazing resource a hundred or so miles overhead and it wants to be trusted to do something far more complex on the Moon or Mars?
Keith: Fair enough, I will agree with you there.
As much as I think it will take time, it’s fair to say that there are different entities (NASA, CASIS, Space Florida, Congress) with different agendas here.
And I agree the ultimate tragedy is that the amazing resource that is the ISS could be squandered by these different groups and their uncoordinated paths to what should be the same goal.
“NASA cannot figure out how to use this amazing resource a hundred or so miles overhead and it wants to be trusted to do something far more complex on the Moon or Mars?”NASA had figured out plenty of research uses ahead of time, but funding was derailed by ESAS.
Someone said that almost none of the existing CASIS staff had anything to do with the proposal effort and have little idea of what needs to be executed to perform in accordance with the original proposal scope and content. Most were just hires off the street or through friends.
Some assumed Becker had plans but she is gone now, so who has any plans there? Will the management, Royston and Block, invent new plans? NASA and Congress make up things every day. Maybe CASIS should ask them for some new plans. We should all be grateful that our Defense Dept doesn’t go into a war so unprepared.
CASIS should have been able to hit the ground running. They did not. Jeanne tried and yet external forces prevented her from doing so – all for their own political/parochial reasons. There is much more to this sad story than meets the eye. Stay tuned.
Jeanne tried and yet external forces prevented her from doing so – all for their own political/parochial reasons.
A predictable, certain failure. The political process behind it couldn’t create a stronger alternative, because it would infringe on those interests, thus it was a setup that only would keep going as long as said interests didn’t intrude.
Some in such delicate circumstance might attempt to nuance survival, to expect that those interests would gradually back off to allow such room. Never happened.
There is much more to this sad story than meets the eye.
Absolutely.
All sides wanted it to fail – they only agreed to have a fig leaf to hide behind.
As to being able to hit the ground running to get a “fast stand up” – you needed much more than she got. Uhran underplayed this clearly.
Which is why I said that for hardball, you needed someone like the University of California to do so. Otherwise they’d be steamrollered. But no, it was all about the optics of the deal. Another ISS moment.
This could have been a really good thing for NASA – if only NASA cared enough to make it work – or allow it to work – as the case may be. NASA is probably the largest factor in causing this whole mess. They do not want people (Congress, the public) telling them how to use the things that taxpayers pay for – so they do the least amount possible or meddle with things behind the scenes and then *poof* things like this happen. They they come back and say “see, we told you this wouldn’t work. Let’s do it our way”.
CASIS never made any sense nor does rearranging the deck chairs now.
Save the $15M and let HQ or JSC do the job like they should.
Yes and no.
Yes, if all we get is nonsense like what we’re seeing.
No, if we could get an actual independently run research lab on orbit that delivers a reliable research product … and eventually is financed and operated outside of NASA. So that the CAPEX and OPEX gets felt on international partner ledgers and not be made up out of the American pocket as has been, to the justifiable annoyance of conservatives. You’d be surprised how fast then things will rationalize…
Clearly, the United States, NASA, researchers and taxpayers interests are all safely cared for and the ISS is going to be put to good use now given the brilliant actions of Space Florida.
So far, they’ve appointed an Executive Director that managed to survive her position six months before being overcome by stress. Hopefully her CASIS Cobra terms include executive burn-out coverage. One might wonder why Space Florida did not decline Becker’s resignation, take strong affirmative actions to help her and support her in resolving issues. Women executives often face special stresses and circumstances, especially ones that are guardians of the use of $100B dollar U.S. assets. Many might hope that supposedly powerful men with any kind of integrity would work hard to support and defend an individual like Becker. Keep on hoping. And don’t read Space Florida’s best wishes and cordial parting words on Becker’s departure more than once or your gag reflex may kick-in.
If you dig in to publicly displayed backgrounds, Space Florida with continuing brilliance has appointed a CASIS Executive that has phone company experience and did M&A work and accounting. It’s always heartening to know that a CPA is in charge of a Space Station science and utilization effort. There might be unforeseen on orbit “accounting technology” breakthroughs that come from that appointment; soon your E-Filing of IRS returns might be replaced by S-Filings in space. It’s always smart to have an accountant in charge when space things don’t add up and these matters surely don’t add up. Space Station researchers be sure to include an Accounting section in your next ISS science proposal or at least one of your monthly phone bills.
Not stopping there, Space Florida tops its CPA move by appointing a Director of CASIS that, if you search, was fired from his position in 2010 as President in some aerospace firm. Why was he fired? For good behavior? Maybe being fired is evidence of some unique ability or qualification one must have for assuming the Directorship of CASIS in the eyes of Space Florida. Or someone has a buddy. http://austinnovation.wordp…
The shrewdest move of all by Space Florida comes from their statement that Space Florida will “… immediately initiate a national search for a qualified executive to lead the organization.” To publicly state the action is positively cunning. Why? Because the original intent [RM] was to have a permanent Board of CASIS select the permanent Executive Director of CASIS. Instead, Space Florida will search and appoint a new CASIS executive before a Board is in place to perform the task. This gives Space Florida great control, choice and advantage. Phone-a-Friend. Space Florida is masterful and should be given credit for their consistent cleverness.
Space Florida can be content in knowing that external authorities that might have issues with these unilateral actions have proven powerless to change them. NASA is powerless, Gerstenmaier will do nothing. Congress is powerless, Nelson, Rockefeller, Hutchison and the rest will do nothing. The White House will plead ADHD and ignore it all.
Any leadership that has by law oversight or responsibility in these matters has already demonstrated, through lack of visible statements and actions, they are substantially impotent. The Space Station is your castle Space Florida. All of the researchers are your loyal grant subjects. And now you’re the King of it all. Relish the moment.
I read the ProOrbis ISS-NL Reference Model back before NASA downselected to CASIS. It is not a real mystery what is going on if you read the ProOrbis Reference Model. Read Appendix A, to be specific. It seems clear that ProOrbis thought they were going to cash-in on the eventual payday that CASIS got by winning. In fact, the ProOrbis information in Appendix A even tells how their business model is different from traditional Enterprise Architecture business consultants. Where other consultants just charge for time and studies, ProOrbis “licenses development tools”. Tools that ProOrbis then makes money off of. This is how ProOrbis gets their foot in the door and makes you, the customer, dependent upon them. It seems abundantly clear to me that ProOrbis inserted themselves into the final solution, even though they were ONLY charged by NASA contract to develop the Reference Model. Seems even clearer that ProOrbis thought, that because they “license development tools” to their customers, and this was part of the Reference Model, that they were then a shoe-in for CASIS to use their tools (under a license, of course). Follow the money folks, this is ALL about money and has NOTHING to do with how well we use the ISS to do science.
I can also provide a LOT of comment (not much of it very complimentary) to ProOrbis’ Reference Model, especially as I work as a systems engineering architect. Enterprise Architecture is a wonderful buzzword for business folk. But it has no real technical foundation (as in real engineering and how we develop architectures). But it does provide for lots of opportunities to use business buzzwords. But I will save such comments for another post.
As a systems engineering architect I’m sure you’re right about everything you’ve said Ray. It would be good to see the rest of your comments on this Reference Model and the money trails. You must be somehow involved with CASIS to be this knowledgeable of the truth.
It’s obvious from what you have said that this CASIS business is about the ISS and science and companies like ProOrbis have no right to make money off of those activities. If anything, they should be donating all of the tools to NASA and CASIS as good Americans and at their cost. No one should be allowed to monetarily benefit from the science activities on the ISS. We all know that space science should be shared freely by all of humanity as a commune would do.
And you’re right about the buzz word technical foundation things too. You’re a systems engineering architect, so you know anyone can cook up a bogus model. None of them are real, they are all just snake oil fabricated out of thin air. Anyone can do enterprise architectures, they are just mental inventions and none have any real value.
Your comment on using the ISS to do science is good and as you’ve said, to have money or profit or any firm gaining from the use of the ISS destroys the purity of the science. Science is too lofty to be contaminated by money issues. Anyone involved in science and space should be doing it for free or donating their time, because its their duty to give to the public and for social good.
Your comments here teach us all how things should be done.
You must be somehow involved with CASIS to be this knowledgeable of the truth.
No, I am not. As I said, it only takes a little reading between the lines of the original ProOrbis ISS-NL Reference Model. It seems abundantly clear to me that they were using that initial NASA contract to set themselves up for more business after the downselect. That means CASIS was not free to execute on their proposal as they saw fit. Rather, there must have been some sort of “strings attached” where certain Powers That Be (would not doubt some people in NASA) wanted ProOrbis tools to be used by CASIS. What I do not know for sure is if anything to this effect was written into the CASIS contract with NASA. It could be that as a technical engineer, my BS detector is just more finely tuned than others. But I do not think it takes any extraordinary prescience to see what is virtually spelled out in the ProOrbis Ref Model.
A suggestion Ray: You’re a professional engineer. Use the skills you’ve acquired. Abandon your collecting of data in non-data spaces, reading white pulp in between lines. Go to the sources.
You may have a BS meter, but who’s BS is it detecting? And when the BS needle pegs hard and bends, has the unit’s calibration gone to hell?
If you have a genuine interest in this, be brave. Pick up the phone and directly inquire. Call CASIS. Call Space Florida. Call ProOrbis. Call NASA (good luck with that one). Inquire. Request an explanation. Call
before they lawyer up, because most will then go on mute.
Being a good engineer, you know that some data you collect may be bad, some good. Think back to the old puzzle, The Fork In The Road, where half the village people always tell lies and the other half always tell the truth. (Don’t remember that puzzle? Go search for it on the web.) Realize that if you ask the right question to each group, you will be able to determine who is telling you the truth.
Being an engineer you aren’t interested in-between- the-lines palm reading, you are a “just the facts ma’am” kind of person, right? Good engineers don’t build bridges and spacecraft and sign and seal their work product with a claim of it is “virtually spelled out” that the bridge will support or it “seems” the rocket will fly. Good engineers don’t design satellite systems with analytical summary statements that say “It seems abundantly clear…”. They provide solid technical evidence.
“.. it only takes a little reading between the lines… to conclude that it “…seems abundantly clear…” that the SRB O-Rings will be fine in near freezing weather. Don’t be known for that kind of engineering analysis.
If those you call put-you-off, that’s a message. If they clearly deceive you, constantly change their story or just wildly ‘make up shit’, those are messages too. If they explain matters to you, that’s yet another message. Be prepared. Know that truths may be complex and lies can be sophisticated. Do the job right. When you’re done, come back here and post your findings, like a professional engineer in good-standing does.
The continuing tragic saga of the ISS. Such tremendous promise and yet not a lick of serious effort focused onto putting it to use. Likely at this rate we will get to year 2020 and they’ll say time to ditch it; never amounted to anything. Shuttle revisited!
If you read the Becker resignation letter, it is clear that Becker is stating that the CASIS Board of Directors, in Space Florida, put her at fiduciary and personal risk by their material actions:
“Likewise, I will not put myself at legal and fiduciary risk to continue in a leadership role in this organization when the interim board continues to pursue engagement of ProOrbis, under such conditions where identified liability has been discussed, documented and reported.”
If your employer put you in a similar situation of risk, what would you do?
Becker claims she acted to protect the non-profit’s status and to comply with requirements in the NASA Authorization. If Becker was wrongfully pressured, wouldn’t she have grounds to sue Space Florida? If she was acting to protect compliance with U.S. law, wouldn’t the government support her position?
Becker’s decision to resign seems to pivot on the Morris legal opinion. So where is Duane Morris? Why didn’t Becker make the Morris opinion public? Where are the NASA lawyers on this? Where are 100 more lawyers on this?
If Duane Morris has a written professional opinion on the matter, he should get it out for all of us to read. It’s not like it’s a national security secret. It is just long standing U.S. law on a very public matter. Read up on Private Inurement and Private Benefit regulations. That’s what it is. Straight forward tax law. Haul in an IRS lawyer and get it addressed.
I don’t know if any of ya’ll joined the CASIS public meeting last fall, but it was pretty obvious that this group had no clue what it was doing. New organization or not, I’d hope that NASA would pick a team that had a plan for using the ISS. As a taxpayer, I expect more for my money and if this lady couldn’t handle the pressure she probably was the wrong pick anyways.
Seems to me that a good leader would take some responsibility for the results of their leadership rather than blaming everyone in the aerospace industry for their failures. But hey, this responsibility stuff isn’t exactly in style these days. Like a good politician, deflect from your own failures by blaming others. Such a shame… They should just clean house and start over if you ask me
The space science industry is a pretty small community and most people know that Becker was forced out of her post at NSBRI… begs some questions for me
I just looked, and I can’t find any U.S. patents issued to James D. Royston. His CV on the CASIS web site says: “Mr. Royston holds seven U.S. technology and software patents”
It also says that” he authored papers in multiple technical publications”, what are they.
He is the “Interim Executive Director”, then with the new board, why is he still there?