MSA Public Policy Committee Reports
Summer 1997
Winter 1998
Summer 1998
Winter 1999
Summer 1999

Public Policy Home

At the Winter Council meeting a variety of activities and options for the Public Policy Committee were discussed. I will present their current status as a basis for Council consideration:

1. Enhanced use of the CSSP public policy network. I have supplied Ann Goldstein with the list of email addresses of MSA members coordinated by state (prepared by Nestor Zalusek). These are not being used by CSSP, but Barry has begun to receive CSSP updates which he is posting to the Council listserve. My evaluation: these are valuable for general information, but do not address our specific issues of monitoring instrumentation funding. They are usually several days behind (in comparison with FYI and Washington Fax) and often omit very important information, e.g., Although new appointments to the OSTP were covered, Jack Gibbons resignation from the OSTP was not.

2. Develop an MSA network "tree" through the LAS. The plan would be that I would send information to Joe Mascorro and the LAS Presidents each of whom would have a listserve for their own local affiliate society and would forward the information. Joe Mascorro and I have explored this and he would need some help with equipment and the initial set-up. I have supplied him with the list of email addresses which could be an effective membership tool as well. We will discuss this at the LAS breakfast.

3. Change the MSA "grass roots" volunteer list to an email listserve. I have not done this, pending the decision as to whether the committee continues and has a budget to support the creation of this listserve.

4. Keep public policy as a presentation at the national meeting only. In Cleveland this will be - "Federal Research and Development Funding" 1pm Wednesday, August 13.

   This panel discussion will present an overview of the funding situation for FY98 and the projections for how the balanced budget will impact science by 2002. We are pleased to have a staff member of Representative Louis Stokes office speak to us. Rep. Stokes is a pivotal player on BOTH appropriations subcommittees for NSF and NIH funding. We hope to include other panelists from NIH and NSF who fund shared instrumentation centers. Thanks also to Bill Gunning, for Rep. Marcy Kaptur, a member of the House Subcommittee on Appropriations for VA, HUD and Independent Agencies may address us earlier in the meeting, depending on her schedule.

5. Align ourselves with other successful Congressional outreach program. The American Institute of Physics has an extremely effective Congressional outreach. MSA is an affiliate of the AIP, but we would have more input were we to become full members. However, the cost is $4/member/year, or approximately $20,000. Because AIP monitors all of physics funding, MSA would have a more effective effort focused on instrumentation funding if we rehired Kyros & Cummins. Some years ago we approached the ASCB; at that time our cost would have been approximately $25,000, and I did not recontact them this year. Their focus is on biomedical funding, primarily investigator-initated grants.

6. Continue with an MSA-only effort in public policy. To this end, and to assess its feasibility, I visited Washington in early June. We visited the offices of Representatives: Stokes, Lewis, Boehlert, Walsh and Kaptur (NSF appropriations), Pelosi, Porter, Lowey, and the HHS Subcommittee (NIH appropriations) and a AAAS Fellow active in the IEEE on the Senate side. An informational 2-page handout (attachments 1 and 2) and an MSA brochure were left at each office and we spoke with the appropriate science staffer. Boehlert's office indicated some interest in seeing wording included in the final report expressing concern about MRI (the old ARI) funding at the NSF (which we have subsequently provided). Stokes' office asked for a copy of the 1993 Porter letter to NIH pushing for the SIG program. Mike Myers (twice a speaker at our National meetings) suggested that we draft a letter for Porter to do a follow up, because for the first time, the FY98 SIG request is for level funding (see attachment 3), indicating NIH may be backing away from its earlier commitment to increase that program. We have also provided this.

   Without advocates in Washington, how are issues tracked and evaluated? Primarily by netbased information, for NSF the FYI from AIP; for NIH we have the Washington FAX, the public policy networks of ASCB, FASEB and CSSP. In addition, there are Congressional websites which post the subcommittee meetings a few days ahead of time, which in a general way allows tracking of a bill. It does not provide information on the crucial issues and players, nor does it permit timely visits to key subcommittee people.

   My assessment is that, failing an ongoing presence in Washington, the MSA-only effort provides some informational input to the national decisions on these important program. The face-to-face contacts are invaluable and the staffers share information and strategies readily, much more so than over the phone. However, I spent several hours and many days making appointments and did not get some important ones, I was not completely current on the latest budget events and there will be some difficulty providing follow-through over the phone for the NIH letter and the inclusion of language in the NSF report mentioned above. Sadly, I believe it is no coincidence that the loss of our constant presence in D.C. via Kyros & Cummins Associates correlates with the failure of the SIG program to show an increase this year.

7. Include an optional contribution to the Public Policy Committee on the MSA dues form. This would provide one way to partially defray the costs of this committee. The decision is up to Council, but I think it is a good one.

8. Expand the membership for this committee. I have not done this, pending the decision as to whether the committee continues and has a budget. If it does, new members would be sought among the LRPC and interested MSA members. I would have at least one corporate member. We would meet yearly at the National meeting, determine the focus of next year's public policy effort and assess the effectiveness of our strategies. Membership would require a commitment to visit Congress once and to be active in letter writing when crucial issues arose. In lieu of expanded membership, I have tried to engage both Council and the LRPC in this crucial letter writing effort for the FY98 budget. As Council will attest, it is difficult to get people to write letters in a timely manner.

9. Questions were also raised about the legality of a 501C3 organization spending money derived from dues on Congressional education. The ASCB, FASEB, and lawyers at HHS and at the American Council on Education whom I consulted, all stated that no regulation prohibits this.

   However, as we have known since the program was begun in 1992, there are limitations to what can be spent. I repeat here what those are: Under the IRS Code, a limitation on amount that can be spent is set, and a society can choose to use (a) the substantial part test or (b) the expenditures limitation test. The first is poorly defined but generally accepted to be 5% of the annual budget (for MSA estimated to be 5% of $980,000 or $49,000). Should MSA choose the expenditures limitation provision (26 U.S.C. 501(h) (3)), we could spend 20% of the first $500,000 expenditures for the year, plus 15% of the second $500,000, plus 10% of the third $500,000 plus 5% of any adiitional expenditures, subject to a ceiling of $1.0 million on total lobbying expenditures (for MSA, about $172,000). In addition, there is a separate limit on "grass roots lobbying" expenditures which is 25% of an organizations lobbying amount. MSA has never approached these limits and is well within compliance.

   Finally, the need for state-of-the-art instrumentation is something that unites all members of MSA. If we do not look to protect this "seed corn" we undercut the very basis on which the Society is founded and probably impact our future growth.

   Action Items:

   1. Continue the Public Policy Committee with the budget as submitted to the Winter Council meeting, $5,000.
   2. Provide the necessary help to Joe Mascorro to set up an LAS-inclusive listserve.
   3. Include an optional contribution to Public Policy on the MSA dues form to help defray the costs of this Committee.
   4. Invite Kyros & Cummins Associates to make a presentation at Winter Council preliminary to restarting our very successful Congressional education program.