Today’s Daily Camera has a short but interesting story about NCAR’s budget woes. The reporter quotes me accurately, but unfortunately characterizes my quote as alleging “sloppy budgeting.” This is not the right characterization. Here is the relevant passage:

Roger Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado whose research also deals with the societal effects of global warming, is concerned that NCAR’s explanation for its financial problems may suggest sloppy budgeting.

“To claim such a shortfall (of $8 million) suggests that NCAR’s appetite for funds has exceeded political realities,” Pielke wrote in an e-mail. “Just because budgets have not increased as fast as NCAR would like doesn’t mean that their budgets have been cut (as they have claimed). Similarly, just because expenses have gone up doesn’t mean that they are entitled to automatic increases. Effective management means making good decision in times of plenty and lean times as well.”

As we have shown here in an earlier post, NCAR’s FY2008 budget is after adjusting for inflation $0.3M less than that in FY2005. This would imply a reduction in perhaps 2 FTE, not the 110 claimed by NCAR. So the problem is increasing obligations, not “budget cuts”, which the Camera story confirms (emphasis added):

“It’s pure and simple,” said Eric Barron, who became NCAR’s director a month ago. “We’ve had too many years of flat budgets with an increase in obligations.”

Last year, raises were deferred for employees, and the center, which opened in Boulder in 1960, has lost more than a hundred staff through lay-offs and attrition.

Barron said that NCAR has research obligations with the National Science Foundation that grow over time, but the flat budget from the foundation hasn’t kept pace. Rhetoric in Washington about increased support for sciences hasn’t been up with cash, compounding the problem.

“People don’t realize that each year there has been an expectation that the support for scientific endeavors will grow,” Barron said.

So the issue is not so much “sloppy” budgeting, as I am sure that Eric Barron and his predecessor Tim Killeen are perfectly fine managers. The issue is how it is that NCAR’s obligations have grown so fast beyond the rate of inflation and beyond the pace of appropriations. How much? As we have discussed, NCAR claims that it has a shortfall of $8 million in FY2008, or 9% (!) above the rate of inflationary growth in FY2008. My guess is that there are three explanations for the rapid grown in obligations:

1. Forces beyond NCAR’s control, like the increasing costs of energy and perhaps health care.

2. Counting chickens before they hatch in the form of planning on increasing appropriations in line with the America COMPETES congressional authorization bill. If commitments are made to spend funds before those funds are actually appropriated, then reductions will be needed if the expected funding do esnot materialize. Barron’s highlighted quote above suggest that this was the case.

3. Self-imposed cost growth by taking on large obligations, such as associated with the annual costs of the HIAPER aircraft. Rick Anthes has hinted that the HIAPER aircraft has resulted in an unanticipated annual cost of 0.6% of the NCAR budget.

Of these, 2 and 3 are the responsibility of management decisions to take on additional obligations that did not fit into the appropriated budget. It would be interesting to see a careful accounting of the increase in NCAR’s obligations, to understand exactly why they now need funding 9% higher than inflationary growth. Such a rate of accelerated growth is not sustainable and probably should not be planned for.