Agenda
The Collaboration Board (CB) Chair, Lukas Nellen described the timeline of the search process and explained the reasoning behind the CB leadership's proposal to delay the election.
The SC Chair, Jim Matthews explained the selection process. The committee solicited names from the collaboration constituency. Approximately 34 responses arrived from the institutions and 10 from individuals. Six candidates stood out in that they were suggested by multiple entities. When contacted, five of the six declined to be considered for the spokesperson but were willing to be considered for the co-spokesperson spot. There remained only one candidate for spokesperson. It was discovered that the by-laws allow for this possibility. The search committed considered that it would be inappropriate to go ahead and unilaterally select another candidate. So the list was submitted to the CB leadership.
There ensued an animated discussion by the members of the CB. Many questions, suggestions, and criticisms were directed towards the CB leadership by the CB members in regard to the management of the selection process. For the benefit of those who were not present, it is attepted to capture the flow of the discussion:
Matthias: The CB leadership should have explained the process better when it disclosed the candidate list to the CB.
Marcus: The two weeks for consideration by the CB was too tight.
Ron: The discussion of the candidate list and procedure should have been done at the present CB meeting rather than by email. We should go forward with the election. Darko seconded Ron’s suggestion.
Mattias: the email activity was entirely nonconstructive in nature. The rules for the election shouldn’t be changed. The candidates should be asked to re-enlist.
Lorenzo on behalf of the CB leadership: The proposal to postpone the election was motivated by many discussions, not just the inflammatory emails.
Jörg: Why not have the CB make the nominations rather than the whole collaboration?
Ralph: It shouldn’t be assumed that any of the candidates will agree to run again. Too many people objected to the process that selected them.
Lukas: we don’t want to force any candidates to run.
Fred: There was lots of support from the collaboration despite the negative emails.
Julian: The emails biased the candidates opinions concerning the collaboration’s endorsement of their candidacies.
Dave Nitz: The emails constituted an unproductive “flame war”. The only thing that matters is what we discuss here in the CB meeting.
Lukas and Lorenzo on the part of the CB leadership: It was more than just the emails. It was also present in the following consultation process. There was serious concern that the list would be voted down by the CB and there was no plan B. Ultimately, it was the candidates’ refusal to run that pushed the proposal for an election postponement.
Carola: The search committee did its job well. There was no hint of male chauvinism. She prefers to deal with one willing candidate rather than a host of inappropriate candidates put up for the sake of surface democracy.
Jose: The CB should vote support of confidence for the SC. But it should respect the candidates’ choices. Postpone the election until next year.
A proposal was then made for a vote of confidence for the search committee’s efforts and their list. And to respect the candidate’s decision to withdraw.
Fred: The committee is already vindicated. Let’s move on.
Antonella: Shares Ralph’s position. Don’t vote on the list. There is no point to it. The candidates do not want to be pestered into running by well-meaning colleagues in the next three days. The search committee didn’t communicate sufficiently with the candidates.
Lukas: we have to withdraw the proposal on the floor in light of the views of the candidates. This means that we cannot proceed with the election this week.
Antonio and Karl-Heinz agreed to serve an extra year in deference to the candidates decision.
Someone: Why one year?
Lukas: We need a year to possibly review and re-work the by-laws and assemble another search committee.
Markus: We should start from scratch. We should vote on the following proposal today. The election for spokespersons should be postponed until November 2017 and that the CB endorses the willingness of the present spokespersons to continue serving for the intervening period.
A vote was taken, resulting in 35 in favor, 0 against, and 2 abstentions.
Lukas described some possible ways forward (slide).
He suggested that we vote on Friday about whether to proceed with an incremental or revolutionary set of changes to the by-laws.
The CB should discuss this with their constituencies in the next 3 days.
The CB discussed the proposed changes on-by-one.
In particular, should there be changes to the way the CB selects the chair and membership of the SC?
Ron: Keep the present rules. But, make sure that they are followed!
There was a consensus among the CB to keep the present rules for establishing the SC.
It was proposed that the election organizers should receive regular status reports from the SC, but not as part of all-CB email exchanges.
Ralph: The SC should inform the CB of steps taken (to avoid last minute problems).
There was a consensus that we adopt the proposed change to the rules.
Peter, Marcus, Antonella, and Ron argued that the charge to the SC should not be changed. There is a good possibility that this will give us problems when not enough candidates agree to run. There is no plan B. Jorge re-emphasized that providing only one candidate should require more careful explanations.
There was a consensus for not changing the charge to the SC.
It was proposed that the Election organizers share the candidate list and report with the CB and the whole collaboration. Discussions have to be confined to the CB members and the CB representatives are responsible for local discussions.
After a short discussion the CB agreed to adopt this proposed change to the rules.
Lukas asked the CB to discuss the options for editing the bylaws.
Ralph suggested that as the changes are so small, we don't need to go through this in this meeting.
All agreed.
There was a proposal from the floor to Charge the CB leadership to make the changes to the rules and by-laws just discussed. The proposal was accepted by acclamation.
Karl-Heinz spoke about Auger Prime funding situation. 67.3% of the funding has been approved. We are still waiting for some big countries to get funding approval. He expressed concerned that many countries will not be represented at the upcoming Finance Board meeting.
Ingo spoke about what will be presented to the Finance Board in Buenos Aires. Finances for the experiment are good this year. The OCL is estimated to be only $8756.48 USD per scientist. He also summarized the TB meeting in his report. (PM report slides)
The project management report from the opening session is considered part of the record of the collaboration board.
There was no report from the data release task as the task leader was not present at the meeting.
Radomir extended his thanks to the shifters this year. There were no problems with filling shifts to operate the FD this year. He expects this to continue next year as well. (Slides on FD Shifts)
Karl-Heinz had some positive contacts with the LIGO group last month. We have agreed to start an MOU with the new LIGO run.
An interim report was given by the committee chair, Charles Timmermans.
The CB thanked Eva Des Santos for agreeing to organize the next collaboration meeting and Piotr Homola for his work in organizing the present meeting.
Isabelle Lhenry-Yvon described the upcoming analysis meeting to be held in Paris was made by (?) The meeting will be held at the Poincare Institute.
Martin Erdmann suggested a change to the by-laws in regard to the appointment of leadership positions within the collaboration. The problem is that these appointments are presently being done without CB input. He proposed that the CB should be given the opportunity of getting involved earlier in the process, before the announcement of the list of candidates.
Karl-Heinz proclaimed the suggestion as “well-taken”! And Karl-Heinz answered that at present the procedure is to appoint respected insiders within the task for these positions and that Martin's comments are none-the-less “well-taken”.