CHARGE I
--------
User Grants program. This charge continues from previous
meetings. We repeat the original charge, but revise the specific
issues to be addressed at the meeting, based on the subsequent
ANASAC discussions...

[T]he ANASAC will address the following two issues:

  1. Clarification of NSF policy and potential models that are acceptable
     to the NSF, subsequent to the NSF ALMA operations review?

  2. User community advocacy of a grants program: Coordination with
     astronomers who use other NSF facilities (e.g. EVLA, current and
     future large OIR projects)? Use of the AAS as a means of
     communication?


RESPONSE
--------
Following discussion by the full committee, the U.S.-based members of 
the ANASAC have arrived at the following conclusions regarding an 
ALMA User Grants (AUG) program:

(1) Key aspects of the U.S. funding landscape undermine the efficiency
     of ground-based astronomical research and the competitiveness of
     U.S.-based investigators in the global arena.  These issues are not
     unique to ALMA, but ALMA's size and international scope make it
     natural that the ANASAC should develop and express its viewpoint on
     the mechanisms through which U.S.-based investigators are funded.

(2) Legitimate concerns exist at NSF and in the broader community about
     the creation of an ALMA User Grants (AUG) program:
     (a) the possible impact on NSF funding of facility operations and
         other grant programs;
     (b) the even greater impact if other ground-based facilities' users
         were to receive identical support; and
     (c) uncertain compatibility with agency policy on "regranting"
         (i.e., subcontracting decisions about funding to outside panels
         like an ALMA Proposal Review Committee).
     Our consensus continues to be that the dramatic benefits of an AUG
     program-- attracting talented U.S.-based scientists to work with a
     facility whose construction and operation required substantial NSF
     investment, in order to make sure that the project's scientific
     payoff does not accrue disproportionately to our international
     partners-- strongly argue for the establishment of an AUG program
     with a structure that addresses these concerns.

(3) To build support for an AUG program, our immediate objectives should
     be twofold:
     (a) The ANASAC, with input from NRAO, should make a more rigorous
         case for an AUG program by assembling quantitative justification
         for two key premises: that awarding funding for successful
         observing, archival, and (related) theory proposals leads to
         greater scientific *output* as well as greater efficiency, and
         that Canadian, European, and East Asian ALMA users will have more
         secure funding for their research than American ALMA users unless
         an AUG program is established in the U.S.
     (b) The ANASAC and NRAO should involve the broader community in the
         process of defining new funding mechanisms to alleviate "double
         jeopardy" for users of *all* ground-based facilities supported
         by NSF.  In this regard, we recommend that...
         + NRAO work with other facility managers and NSF-AST leadership
           in support of the nascent working group (ideally populated by
           by members of the broader community, including theorists)
           to advise NSF on ways to streamline the funding of NRAO, NOAO,
           NSO, and Gemini-related research programs.
         + NRAO and the ANASAC endorse a survey concerning NSF funding
           mechanisms among the full AAS membership, in order to gauge
           community sentiment over a wider cross-section than is
           presently represented on our committee.  (Since this would be
           a useful exercise for the next Decadal Review, we recommend
           that the detailed content of the survey be set in cooperation
           with the AAS and the National Academies, which could manage
           if not also fund its execution.)
         + the ANASAC advocate a scheme to NSF-AST leadership
           (and to the working group proposed above) in which the
           fates of relevant *observing* proposals to NSF-funded
           facilities would be shared with the reviewers of NSF *grant*
           proposals in any case where the timing of proposal deadlines
           means this information would not otherwise be available to the
           latter.  This would apply to ALMA no sooner than five years
           after the commencement of full science operations (see below),
           but could apply to other ground-based facilities at any time.

(4) We will (gently) inform NSF-AST leadership that
     (a) the ANASAC continues to support a $6M/yr AUG program (in 2006
         dollars) for at least the first five years of ALMA operations,
         consistent with our statement of a year ago, and with the
         front-loading recommended by the McCray letter and the McKee
         and Taylor report; and
     (b) the ANASAC feels that NSF sponsorship of a funding review
         (following scientific and technical evaluation by an ALMA
         Proposal Review Committee) should be compatible with agency
         policy on "regranting".

(5) To promote a broad, open discussion of these issues, we will also
     communicate our views on points (3b) and (4) to the National
     Academies and the NSF's MPS Advisory Committee.

(6) We note that the responsibility to ensure competitive exploitation
     of ALMA by U.S.-based scientists extends beyond NSF and its decision
     on whether to establish an AUG program.  For our part (by way of
     example), we will continue to advocate for project-level commitments
     that the U.S. "open skies" policy will not lead to a disproportionate
     loss of American ALMA time to international proposers.


The U.S.-based members of the ANASAC are unanimous in endorsing points
(5) and (6), and are in broad agreement (with two dissenting opinions
noted) on points (1), (2), (3) and (4).