On June 25th, the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Oversight and Subcommittee on Research and Technology held a joint hearing to examine the NSF rotating staff program. The hearing, entitled “Is NSF Properly Managing Its Rotating Staff?”, was held to examine NSF’s use of rotating staff, and explore the costs, benefits, and effectiveness of the program. The hearing focused on the higher costs of rotators in comparison to permanent federal employees, and sought to determine if the added costs are worth the benefits brought in by the program. In addition, in light of a recent reported conflict of interest case, the hearing also examined the procedures the NSF has in place to avoid conflicts of interest between rotators and grant awards.
The NSF’s rotator program is designed to bring scientists from around the country into the NSF for 1-4 years to provide an infusion of current research thought and function. As Rep. Beyer (D-VA), the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight, noted in his opening statement, “The program helps to spark fresh and innovative ideas. It fosters collaboration between the federal government and America’s intellectually rich academic community. It improves the advancement of scientific discoveries and cutting edge technological developments in a wide range of subjects.” As described on NSF site, rotators take on a host of roles and responsibilities while at the NSF; they “make recommendations about which proposals to fund; influence new directions in the fields of science, engineering, and education; support cutting-edge interdisciplinary research; and mentor junior research members.” Rotators comprise approximately 12% of the NSF workforce and are seen as a vital component of NSF’s mission.
A March 2013 Inspector General report, however, showed that NSF rotators come at a higher cost than permanent federal employees. In 2013, the NSF had 184 rotators that on average were paid $36,448 more annually than a permanent federal employee, with 54 of those rotators being paid above the federal executive pay limit of about $180,000 per year. These salaries, combined with fringe benefits and relocation, travel, compensation for lost consulting opportunities, and state income tax reimbursements, cost the NSF an extra $6.7 million per year.
During the hearing the NSF touted the benefits of the rotator program and argued that they need to offer competitive compensation and benefits that offset the strain placed on the researchers by leaving their home institutions and relocating to DC to attract the best and brightest talent. Currently the NSF matches a rotator’s salary at their home institution and provides reimbursements for travel, relocation, housing and other losses accrued by the researcher from being away from their home institution. Some Members of Congress, however, worry that the NSF is not doing enough to keep these cost down. They believe the NSF is not sufficiently exploring cost-saving measures, such as increased use of telework from home institutions, and also believe the NSF is not negotiating hard enough with the rotator’s home institution. Currently home institutions are asked to cover 15% of the costs, but the report found that on average institutions only contribute 2%, with only 17% of home institutions contributing any portion at all.
Members on both side of the aisle expressed concern regarding a conflict-of-interest case detailed in a recent Inspector General report, where a rotator was accused of inappropriately approving grants for their home institution. Rep. Posey (R-FL) questioned the integrity of the rotator program, asking the witness Dr. Richard Buckius, Chief Operating Officer of the NSF, if rotators had been responsible for awarding funding to any of the grants that are currently under congressional investigation. Rep. Beyer (D-VA) concluded, “This incident points to broader management issues regarding NSF’s oversight of the rotator program and the recommendations contained in their report seem reasonable, and perhaps obviously overdue.” He went on to express his disappointment that “reforms have been on a very, very slow track.” However, he added a warning to the committee to keep this one reported case in context, stating “One bad case does not a crisis make and the Committee would be well served to keep this in mind.”