Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NSF Accused of Misuse of Funds In Giant Ecological Project

Posted by Soulskill on from the $15000-for-porpoise-sweaters dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The National Science Foundation (NSF) and a contractor have been accused by both an audit and by Congress of a significant misuse of funds in a major ecological monitoring project costing almost a half a billion dollars. From the article: "With a construction budget of $433.7 million, NEON is planned to consist of 106 sites across the United States. Arrays of sensors at each site will monitor climate change and human impacts for 30 years, building an unprecedented continental-scale data set. Although some initially doubted its merits, the allure of big-data ecology eventually won over most scientists.

But a 2011 audit of the project's proposed construction budget stalled three times when, according to the independent Defense Contract Audit Agency, NEON's accounting proved so poor that the review could not be completed. Eventually, DCAA issued an adverse ruling, concluding that nearly 36% of NEON's budget proposal was questionable or undocumented.

When the NSF green-lit the project, the agency's inspector-general ordered the audit released on 24 November, which found unallowable expenses including a $25,000 winter holiday party, $11,000 to provide coffee for employees, $3,000 for board-of-directors dinners that included alcohol, $3,000 for t-shirts and other clothes, $83,000 for "business development" and $112,000 for lobbying."

116 comments

  1. Somewhat related by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    âoeIt is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.â -- Upton Sinclair.

    1. Re:Somewhat related by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Funny

      ÃoeIt

      Isn't that the ginger chick who kicks pwns a nazgul in LoTR?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. Loss of context and common sense by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In a project worth half a billion, all the cited "unallowable" expenses are utterly and completely meaningless. Somebody has lost all perspective and all reason and is playing politics here.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Loss of context and common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet when they add up to 36% of the budget. That's $180M. So who is playing politics? I guess so long as it's for the children, or the correct ideology anything can get a pass.

    2. Re:Loss of context and common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Regardless of the size of the project, it's not acceptable to spend $25K on a party.

    3. Re:Loss of context and common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a list of allowable expenses.

    4. Re:Loss of context and common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The size of the project is irrelevant. These charges are against the law.

    5. Re:Loss of context and common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The numbers add up to about 0.36% not 36% of the budget.

    6. Re:Loss of context and common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is the report submitted to the NSF.

    7. Re:Loss of context and common sense by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Cocaine is expensive these days. For that matter, so is booze.

      Also, 11K for coffee seems a bit low. No wonder they never got anything done.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Loss of context and common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explanation is obvious; $112,000 not enough for lobbying.

    9. Re: Loss of context and common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, as long as you ignore the other 35.64% in questionable or unaccountable spending documented by DCAA as reported in the article.

    10. Re:Loss of context and common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.

      https://www.google.com/search?...

    11. Re:Loss of context and common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Both of you are idiots.

      DCAA rendered an adverse opinion on NEON’s proposal since the audit disclosed significant questioned and unsupported costs of $154.4 million (nearly 36% of the proposed $433.7 million budget).

    12. Re:Loss of context and common sense by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      If it's government coffee, no thanks, I'll bring my own coffee-maker.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    13. Re:Loss of context and common sense by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      a) Strawman. No one is arguing that the expenses should just get a pass.

      b) The article says "there was no legal wrongdoing, DCAA director Anita Bales told the hearing".

      c) The cited expenses, which the parent refers to, are all in the range of categorization error rather than corruption. However, the article say that "36% of NEON’s budget proposal was questionable or undocumented". The article was silent on how much of the budget spent to date was questionable or undocumented, or whether the problems with the budget proposal were very many instances similar to the cited expenses or larger unmentioned problems were needed to get to the 36%. SO the article fails to give insight on whether the proximate problem is sloppy budgeting or something more nefarious (though you can make the case that sufficiently advances incompetence is indistinguishable from malice).

    14. Re:Loss of context and common sense by radarskiy · · Score: 4, Informative

      My department gets $25 per head for a *quarterly* event, and we have about 1,000 people.

    15. Re:Loss of context and common sense by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      36% of the *proposed budget* which was audited before it went into effect.

      The article does now say what percentage of expenditures to date is represented by these improper expenses.

    16. Re:Loss of context and common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Considering that they claim 1/2 billion are not allowable and the numbers cited only add up to 234k. I'd say that they are only disclosing 1/2 of the unallowable expenses. While I would be okay with everything they did (With the exception the lobbying, i can not think of an excuse for it in a data collection operation), most of these should have been reserved for after the project had been completed, or at least been reserved for major milestones.
      I'm okay with them throwing a party, but 85k seems a bit excessive unless they have around 2-4k employees involved in the project. Which would indicate that their budget would be in the area of 80 to 160 billion just for employee wadges, per year. 3k for a board dinner also seems a bit excessive. But if they can show that they met and preferably exceed all requirements within the original budget then I could forgive those. If they start asking for more money with these expenses on the list then I would throw he book at them. Happy employes generally make better goods, but they need to prove they are doing what they claim they are doing.

    17. Re:Loss of context and common sense by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

      You've never done scientific work for the government.

      These are not "meaningless" expenses, and this scale of project is not unusual, there is a real problem here. All of us who do this kind of work, from JSF contractors to small university professors, have to follow the same rules and be audited for the same things. It's understood that things like food and lobbying (!!) are not allowable expenses.

      This doesn't necessarily show a lack of ethics, because a normal private contract may allow these things. What it shows is a complete disconnect from the culture of the scientific community. If the people running this are not scientists, and are not used to working on R&D projects, then why are they doing this and why do we think they'll produce useful information?

      Moreover, why does everyone else in the multi-billion dollar government R&D market have to follow the rules (or be cut) and it's ok for them to mismanage funds?

    18. Re:Loss of context and common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That depends on many factors.

      Was it a party for 3 people and a hooker? Or was it a party for 500 people and semi nice venue? Which would be about 50 a head (not out of line having priced many of these sorts of things out myself).

      Most of those costs seem in line with many of the expenses I have seen for my company. Also the summary does not include timeframes. 11k for coffee? For a group of say 200 people at 500 a month (not out of line) that could be over 2 years.

      Look I am all about reducing waste. But this seems a bit out of line. More along the lines they didnt bother writing anything down. Which gets expenses disallowed under most accounting rules.

      Without numbers of people involved and timeframes these is speculation and trying to wind up people about waste. 500billion for the project that seems high though... But I do not know the details...

    19. Re:Loss of context and common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of the size of the project, it's not acceptable to spend $25K on a party.

      Maybe had it been for a party large number of people and their +1s to celebrate the completion of the project, but definitely not for a holiday party before it's hardly gotten underway.

    20. Re:Loss of context and common sense by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, compared to the size of this project, these costs don't seem disproportional at all.

      Let's say that salaries + equipment + overhead amounts to 100k per employee per year, and let's estimate that around 1/3rd of the budget, say $150m, was spent in the audit year. Then there'd be around 1500 employees. Thus we have a per-head cost of:

      Winter holiday party: $17
      Coffee: $7
      Shirts and other clothes: $2

      For a project of that scale, whatever business development covers, 83k is chump change and I wouldn't be surprised if the expenses are reasonable. $3k on board of directors dinners sounds abnormally *low*, so kudos to them for keeping the costs down. The only one that sounds off is lobbying - but then again, that's a tiny fraction of what a company that size would probably spend on lobbying, and I don't know what they classify as "lobbying".

      --
      You look beautiful! Incidentally, my favorite artist is Picasso.
    21. Re:Loss of context and common sense by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

      a) Strawman. No one is arguing that the expenses should just get a pass.

      b) The article says "there was no legal wrongdoing, DCAA director Anita Bales told the hearing".

      c) The cited expenses, which the parent refers to, are all in the range of categorization error rather than corruption. However, the article say that "36% of NEON’s budget proposal was questionable or undocumented". The article was silent on how much of the budget spent to date was questionable or undocumented, or whether the problems with the budget proposal were very many instances similar to the cited expenses or larger unmentioned problems were needed to get to the 36%. SO the article fails to give insight on whether the proximate problem is sloppy budgeting or something more nefarious (though you can make the case that sufficiently advances incompetence is indistinguishable from malice).

      My late father, an accountant, always said that if you lack controls, it's a virtual certainty that you'll have people stealing from you. The description of the chaos in their bookkeeping, in which a third of their expenditures were unallowable or couldn't even be determined by an audit, is just the sort of situation he was describing. It's also reasonable to think that if they were that sloppy/incompetent/crooked in one area, that other areas of the project were equally affected, like the engineering.

    22. Re:Loss of context and common sense by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      (With the exception the lobbying, i can not think of an excuse for it in a data collection operation)

      You're not thinking very hard.

      "Gee, Mr. Mayor, it's really a shame that particular legislation is going to disrupt our construction. That means even more delays bringing in those new jobs and that economic boost we've been working towards. You know, with just a few small changes, that law wouldn't affect us. When's a good time to talk about that? Booked all week, huh? How about Saturday? Over a game of golf and a nice dinner? Fantastic! Glad that will work out. I'll see you then..."

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    23. Re:Loss of context and common sense by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "It's also reasonable to think that if they were that sloppy/incompetent/crooked in one area, that other areas of the project were equally affected, like the engineering."

      I am in agreement here. Orthogonal to the question of what motivated the problems in NEON's budget the quantity of problems is more than enough to make the whole thing a problem.

      This is of course why the NSF' inspector-general orders audits in the first place.

    24. Re:Loss of context and common sense by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Especially when so much money is at stake, employee morales have to be kept high.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    25. Re:Loss of context and common sense by sycodon · · Score: 1

      And here we have the reason for our $17 trillion debt. "It's just $83k".

      "It's Just..." is a ticket to financial ruin whether it's a $25k a year janitor or the fucking U.S.A.

       

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    26. Re:Loss of context and common sense by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      What got me was the money for lobbying. WTF! Taxpayers paying for a government agency to lobby the government? WTF!!! Someone should be placed against a wall and shot.

    27. Re:Loss of context and common sense by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Nobody gets it. After all it's the government's money. The bad thing is that this goes on all through the government. Every agency, it's probably about 30 percent or more waste all the way around. You can't stop it either because everyone has a political axe to grind and rise up to protect their territory.

    28. Re:Loss of context and common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, if you want to play the "make up random unsubstantiated numbers" game.

    29. Re:Loss of context and common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, best comment in the thread. Sucks you're an AC. We don't get any respect!

    30. Re: Loss of context and common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's why we're fucked

    31. Re:Loss of context and common sense by gtall · · Score: 1

      It is helpful to have a sense of proportion. The biggest tickets in the budget are non-discretionary (grandma and grandpa are expensive, so are their children who are disabled), and defense. The former is roughly $2.4 Trillion, the latter is roughly $600 Billion and of that last, about $240 Billion is personnel costs. NSF's 2014 budget was roughly $7 billion, out of an approx $3.6 Trillion total budget. The main expenditure are direct transfer payments to...Americans.

      Put quickly, your "observation" is bogus.

    32. Re:Loss of context and common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what the grandparent post is saying is that 83k out of 150 million dollar budget is .005 of the total cost--half of one percent. What they're saying is that, those numbers sound big until you realize what the scale of the project is. I.e., 11k on coffee is a lot of money for the average citizen, but not for a project with a 150 million dollar budget per cycle.

      The question is how much money a comparably sized private corporation would spend on coffee and CEO expenses. My guess is (a) you'll never find out, because there's no accountability, or (b) it's a lot, lot more.

      I tend to think that federal research funding could be done much better, but this is barking up the wrong tree, and is clearly GOP politics. It's pure McCarthyism.

      People who are serious about trimming costs will propose solutions, involving actual serious expenses. None of which the GOP does (I say this as a pragmatic libertarian who feels abandoned by the party that should represent my interests).

    33. Re: Loss of context and common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much do you think universities charge for exclusive use of their building spaces, security, and hosting ?

      $25k is not *unreasonable* for a group holding a hosted event.
      Hosts, servers, catering, setup, clean up, and decoration all adds up.

    34. Re:Loss of context and common sense by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      You're quite right. It's a guestimation. It's based on some knowledge however as it's almost routine to see government waste reported daily. It's so damn prevalent that no one cares anymore because everyone knows it goes on and almost no one ever gets in any real trouble over it. There used to be an award called the "golden fleece award" that was given out to agencies for wasting taxpayer's money. There were some that were questionable and one where they got it wrong but overall most of them were spot on. I think 30 percent is probably conservative.

    35. Re:Loss of context and common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. I once watched an NIH funded researcher blackmail the president and accountants of a hospital by carefully showing where they had promised her funding for certain projects, and showing how the charges they made on all departments for "overhead" were directly forbidden by NIH policy. She'd have been able to afford the project work out of her own funding if they hadn't been illegally taking 1/3 of everyone's funding for "overhead" costs,

      She had been communicating quietly with them, but I got to chat with her about it when I helped resolve an email issue on her Mac. (We didn't let the hospital anywhere *near* our email systems, *I* made sure we had good backups of everything when this stuff gut started!!!)

    36. Re: Loss of context and common sense by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      The size of the project is irrelevant. You are engaging in a logical fallacy. $100k is equal to $100k for projects of any size.

  3. Let's give our government even more tax money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't our government be EVEN better with MORE TAX MONEY to waste?

    And to send to the NSA to use against us?

  4. Republican business as usual... by mspohr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is just the usual Republican FUD trying to kill something that might give us some actual numbers about climate change.
    Among the bombshells:
    - $11,000 for coffee for a $433 Million project... OMG!
    - $3,000 for t-shirts... oh, the corruption! what is the world coming to???

    Really... is this the best they can come up with???

    After the hearing, DCAA director Bales said she was not impressed by the scale of the alleged misconduct. “In the contract world, we do a lot of reports that disallow this kind of thing. So, you know, people do it,” she said. “But then we identify it.”

    Also significant was that the project managers were not invited to the hearing, thus insuring that this would be a true kangaroo court.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    1. Re:Republican business as usual... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Among the bombshells:
      - $11,000 for coffee for a $433 Million project... OMG!
      - $3,000 for t-shirts...

      All of which are illegal to charge to the NSF.

    2. Re:Republican business as usual... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $3,000 for t-shirts... oh, the corruption! what is the world coming to???

      At $10 each that's T-Shirts for 300 people. At every team building thing I have ever been at in the private sector, there were T-Shirts, coffee, tea, donuts, pastries, lunch, etc ....; which was built into the margins charged to the customer.

      The $112,000 for lobbying OTOH, I have to ask, A government agency lobbying the government? What's that about?

      But I agree with you. And this will be on Fox News to piss off their old white conservative male viewers - all reported by young blond women in slit skirts, hooker heels and push-up bras.

    3. Re:Republican business as usual... by PPalmgren · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Our company pays for employee coffee. We have coffee machines in every breakroom with coffee and cream and sugar available. It has been found to increase productivity and reduce the number of coffee breaks that employees take. $11,000 for coffee seems awfully low, honestly.

    4. Re:Republican business as usual... by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Really... is this the best they can come up with???

      Wow, at least read the summary, quote:

      [the auditor] DCAA issued an adverse ruling, concluding that nearly 36% of NEON's budget proposal was questionable or undocumented

      You somehow ignored the problem of 36% and somehow focused on $11,000. You should think long and hard about how that happened, because a cognitive bias like that can cause serious problems in the future.

      One thing that can help is, when you see an article, if you agree with it, focus on trying to find problems with it. If you disagree with it, focus on things that might be true in the article. Taking the role of an adversary is a technique to help you see more clearly (and you really need help, and I'm saying that based on everything you missed in the summary).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Republican business as usual... by mspohr · · Score: 3, Informative

      The complete paragraph is:
      "But a 2011 audit of the project’s proposed construction budget stalled three times when, according to the independent Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), NEON’s accounting proved so poor that the review could not be completed. Eventually, DCAA issued an adverse ruling, concluding that nearly 36% of NEON’s budget proposal was questionable or undocumented."

      They had poor accounting. They have not been given a chance to explain or improve their accounting. This is a lot different than fraud. My cognitive bias is against the Republican climate deniers. If the worst thing they can come up with is coffee and t-shirts, this is just theater.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    6. Re:Republican business as usual... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, instead of rules that are intended to keep various reasonable expenditures like company provided coffee *in check*, we instead have a political process often dominated by folks that have no interest in productivity but instead have a ideological bent that makes it impossible for them to understand that things like coffee have been, by private organizations, determined have a positive ROI. In their mind, if you're paid by the government to do a specific task, ANY charge that is not that specific task (but rather something in support of it) is a heinous crime.

      Ironically, it's usually the same group of people that say 'government should be run like a business!'

      It also leads to idiotic budget rules like automatically docking your budget by any amount you don't spend in a single year, which of course means every entity always spends 100%+ of their budget even if it's a waste, because otherwise they might be a jam in the future.

    7. Re:Republican business as usual... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      They had poor accounting. They have not been given a chance to explain or improve their accounting

      If you have poor accounting on a $200 million budget...........

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Republican business as usual... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you so to the source on this.

      DCAA provides services in connection with negotiation, administration, and settlement of awards to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent on fair and reasonable prices. In 2012, DCAA audited NEON’s construction proposal budget.2 DCAA rendered an adverse opinion on NEON’s proposal since the audit disclosed significant questioned and unsupported costs of $154.4 million (nearly 36% of the proposed $433.7 million budget). Of the total exception amount of $154.4 million, $72.6 million (47%) were questioned contingencies. In February 2013, we contracted an accounting system audit because of the significance of the findings in that report.

    9. Re:Republican business as usual... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of the amounts - you are not allowed to spend government funds on certain things. Everyone knows that and this kind of behavior is just plain stupid on the behalf of the people involved in the project. If I did something similar, my personal NSF grant would probably be gone in less than 10 seconds!

      It is important to keep checks and balances on these projects since the resources are limited. With the money that was wasted, you could have kept a small lab going for three years (typical grant period).

    10. Re:Republican business as usual... by wbr1 · · Score: 2

      Questionable or untraceable != wasteful. It is anloos way of making things sou d worse than they likely are. Specific numbers are much less. Let's throw the FUD around boys.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    11. Re:Republican business as usual... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Questionable or untraceable != wasteful.

      But it is bad accounting.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Republican business as usual... by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "there was no legal wrongdoing, DCAA director Anita Bales told the hearing."

    13. Re:Republican business as usual... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's for the courts to decide.

    14. Re:Republican business as usual... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox News' target audience is old white conservative men. So is AM Talk radio. They actually state this in their business plans. I don't know why conservatives take offense to this.

      Conservatives are so blind to reality and it just amazes me on how they justify their ignorance.

      Things change and being conservative is just tilting at windmills. It's delusional.

    15. Re:Republican business as usual... by hey! · · Score: 1

      All of which are illegal to charge to the NSF.

      Which law would that violate?

      I'm not saying it's *not* against the law, it very well may be. That's because Congress has a cost-plus mentality,

      In the private sector the question would be what did we get for our money and could we have got it cheaper elsewhere? In the public sector Congress wants to know what you did with "their" money. Hey, you paid for coffee for people who worked overtime or attended a meeting? Well we could have saved money if you made them buy the coffee itself.

      But the funny thing is that this penny-pinching doesn't actually save money. I once sat in on a meeting at a state agency that had spent quarter million dollars of federal grant money to build a trivial website. I asked the state IT guy what his group would have charged internally to develop the site. His answer? Twelve thousand. My estimate was fifteen thousand if it were a private sector customer.

      It's outrageous to spend a quarter million dollars for something you could get for twelve thousand, but here's the thing: it's not illegal. Not in the least. It should be illegal to hire lobbyists to work on bids for federal contracts, but it's *totally* legal.

      Legality means nothing here, ethically speaking, because the laws have been corrupted by politicians, who in turn are corrupted by lobbying and corporate dollars. In fact rules that are supposed to prevent Uncle Sam from getting cheated pretty much just ensure that he gets cheated on a jaw-dropping scale. I've seen it up close, and it's more corrupt than even people who consider themselves cynical about government suppose.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re:Republican business as usual... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $11,000 for coffee sounds crazy, but that's just buying 85 coffees from Starbucks a week for a year. So we're supposed to be shocked that on a $433 million project 17 people got a free cup of Starbucks each work day?

  5. Tracking spending is not easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've been on a variety of NSF, DOE, NIH, and private non-profit grants over the years. I can tell you that every time one of those were at play the same employer where I was working also had other streams of money coming in, and each stream had its own restrictions. One problem that inevitably comes up is that you have one stream that allows for X, Y, and Z and another only X and Z but you accidentally charge Y to the latter. Depending on the institutional accounting practices, it may take days, weeks, or months to correct that.

    Take into account that a project this large likely has thousands of employees scattered around the country, and each group of employees has their own fiscal needs. Making sure that all the billing goes through correctly is not trivial.

    1. Re:Tracking spending is not easy by PPH · · Score: 2

      Making sure that all the billing goes through correctly is not trivial.

      No. But it has been done (successfully) by numerous entities in the past. Everything from suppliers who handle gov't, DoD and commercial contracts simultaneously to law offices who have to allocate billable hours to the proper clients, there are well established processes out there. And off the shelf accounting s/w.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  6. Business as usual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They treated it like a corporate endeavor, tsk.

  7. Politics, plain and simple by wbr1 · · Score: 2

    I wonder how this stacks up against waste in huge projects at Boeing or blackwater? The waste is bad but no surprise and seems to be a very small percentage. I wonder how much pressure to generate bad press has been applied by vested interests who do not want data like that made available?

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Politics, plain and simple by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is more at play here than just people afraid of actual scientific data ever being generated in regards to climate change. Remember that most of the GOP is strongly anti-science in virtually every aspect - and even more so when it is science funded by the federal government. The GOP will be spending untold millions the next couple years to try to uncover loose change like this to try to slow down science as much as possible. This first hearing alone likely cost the taxpayer more than the total sum of the wasteful spending.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    2. Re:Politics, plain and simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's different. Defense is a legitimate spend by virtue of the constitution. Finding excuses to take away my Hummers is not.
      --
      roman_mir

    3. Re:Politics, plain and simple by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I wonder how this stacks up against waste in huge projects at Boeing or blackwater?

      Misuse of funds != waste.

      If you want to know how much of the funds at Boeing are misused, the answer is most likely $0, because any company in the government contractor business knows how to follow regulations precisely enough to avoid problems. It's all about following the rules, even if they don't make sense.

      Apparently this company, NEON, is a noob at getting money from the government, and didn't follow the written rules correctly. That's why they're in trouble.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Politics, plain and simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GOP will be spending untold millions the next couple years to try to uncover loose change like this to try to slow down science as much as possible.

      Either "untold millions" is significant or it is not. You have graced them $433.7 million per this story, so shut the fuck up until that much has been spent.

  8. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong, dead wrong. They're signs that the project management was completely, blatantly intending to defraud the government. Putting that in there is a sign of Bush level arrogance. DCAA issuing a ruling, in itself, is a sign. Generally they just slow-roll projects. However, literally 1/3 of the project budget was blatantly illegal.

  9. Slobbering idiot business as usual... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazingly, slobbering idiots try to excuse fraudulent behavior by claiming it's rampant:

    After the hearing, DCAA director Bales said she was not impressed by the scale of the alleged misconduct. “In the contract world, we do a lot of reports that disallow this kind of thing. So, you know, people do it,” she said. “But then we identify it.”

    Wow, your "logical" argument behind your posting "This is just the usual Republican FUD" is that it's no big deal because "we do a lot of reports that disallow this kind of thing"?!?!?!

    Nature.com: "Hmm, this government program is wasteful"
    Slobbering Idiot: "That's just Republican FUD! KLIMUT CHANGZZZ!!! See? It's rampant throughout the government!"

    Jesus H. Fucking Christ, you utter moron. Your defense for the waste and misuse of government funds is that EVERYONE DOES IT, therefore this one instance is merely Republican FUD?

    Really? Claims of government waste and defrauding the government are "Republican FUD" because such waste and fraud are rampant throughout the government?

    What. The. Fuck.

    Do not try to walk and chew gum at the same time. You might hurt an innocent bystander.

    Were you dropped on your head at birth then used in a FIFA-sanctioned game - as the ball? Or do you come by your inability to think genetically?

  10. Agreed, this is not news by tomhath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These are normal things a company would spend it's own money on. They shouldn't be charging it back to the government.

    That said, I have to question why the /. editors think this is newsworthy. I suppose they want to keep stirring the Republican anti-science pot to generate page hits.

    1. Re:Agreed, this is not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That said, I have to question why the /. editors think this is newsworthy. I suppose they want to keep stirring the Republican anti-science pot to generate page hits.

      Isn't that the purpose of the new Slashdot? The old News for Nerds thing died a while ago. Get over it.

    2. Re:Agreed, this is not news by kevmeister · · Score: 1

      FWIW, it is a clear violation of federal law to use ANY federal money to pay for alcoholic beverages. Likewise for lobbying. Some of the others may be, as well. The shirts are probably legal. Business expenses may or may not have been, depending on exactly what they cover, but are likely legal. Lots of things are "fuzzy".

      IANAL or a procurement officer, but spent over 30 years dealing with federal procurement rules for contractors.

      --
      Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
    3. Re:Agreed, this is not news by Hussman32 · · Score: 2

      You can serve wine and beer at conferences as long as it is in reasonable (i.e. a drink or two per attendee), it's not against the law (just look at the White House Correspondents Dinner).

      Personally, I don't expense alcohol, if I have a beer, I pay for it myself. Too many instances lately of click-hungry journalists looking for corruption, and they'll look back as far as they can go.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    4. Re:Agreed, this is not news by Rei · · Score: 1

      Back when I worked for a BIRN project center, it was made repeatedly obvious that alcoholic beverages purchases were banned with the funds. But they got around that by corporate sponsors donating the alcohol for free.

      --
      You look beautiful! Incidentally, my favorite artist is Picasso.
    5. Re:Agreed, this is not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That said, I have to question why the /. editors think this is newsworthy. I suppose they want to keep stirring the Republican anti-science pot to generate page hits.

      This is one of the few new publicly funded big data projects that are being built from the ground up, and so is interesting from an IT perspective that the summary poorly mentions. It competes directly with another NSF-funded project, LTER, which has also come under examination but for coziness between the NSF program manager and the funded program. Additionally, around 15 years ago during the dot-com boom, the NSF got burned by funding NCEAS which was supposed to be a web science platform for ecological computing, which resulted in a bunch of environmental database software and open data platform that almost no one uses.

      The fact that NSF has a poor track record of funding ecology-related IT-heavy programs is also interesting.

  11. Question is, were they spending NSF money? by slagell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Every University, business and organization that receives grants has overhead rates. These vary from reasonable to ridiculous based on the organization.

    These overhead funds then typically go into a larger, not grant specific, fund that is fungible. The spending out of that fund is then restricted not by grant guidelines, but by the general rules of the institution. Usually that is still somewhat restricted at a University, for example, that usually won't allow alcohol. However, businesses receiving grants generally have fewer restrictions.

    If you want to look at how overhead is used out of those general funds, I'm certain you will find this at any recipient organization. I am in fact surprised this is all they found. The fact that they are only looking at NSF and focusing on politically controversial topics for their specific party is very suspect. Should we start looking at how defense contractors spend all of their overhead for DARPA awards? Would they even share that information like NEON did?

    1. Re:Question is, were they spending NSF money? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      When I worked for a defense contractor we all knew exactly what was billable and what wasn't. And we had to account for every minute of our time spent on projects; everything was audited.

  12. That's scientists for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This goes to show that scientists are all a dishonest lot. You can't trust them, nor the things they say. This is exactly why Satan uses them to discredit the Bible. Back to the truth, I say! Abandon science. What has it ever done for us anyway?

    Now, my cell is ringing, probably an update on my cousin's organ transplant surgery. I am planning to fly out to offer support as any good Christian should!

    I just hope they finally got the AC working at their place....

    1. Re:That's scientists for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, dickhead, this is something outsourced to a government contractor. Scientists may have designed the project, but the work is done by subs to a government (think defense) contractor.

  13. Re:Loss of context-common sense? = No! by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    Hey, this is how you motivate underworked, undermotivated, low wage government employees with 'perks.'

  14. 36% of half a billion is $180 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know what's sadder - you defending fraud and waste of that magnitude or the fact you got modded up.

  15. I'd like funding to research fairies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't make yourself right just by repeating yourself over and over. You have to have evidence, and the evidence says you're an idiot who's in denial.

  16. Why I don't give a fuck about "climate change" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why I don't give a fuck about "climate change" or whatever the elitist weasels are calling it these days. If the world is going to shit, there's probably not much we can do about it. You might as well party. Congrats to them, the people that really know, for realizing that. They tricked you into riding your bike in the rain. They went to a party. You'll both meet the same fate.

    Me? I do some common sense thing like not dumping oil in the river; but I don't feel a damned bit of guild about hopping in the car by myself and going for a drive. Life is too short to listen to pricks from the UN, and just long enough to shoot them when the time comes.

    1. Re:Why I don't give a fuck about "climate change" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are who this hit piece of an article was meant to fool and brainwash. Thanks for being a puppet for the wealthy industrialists and polluting the air.

    2. Re:Why I don't give a fuck about "climate change" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep on worshiping your climate change god. You are the one who is fooled.

  17. Offline for Maintance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good thing they're making information available via their web site..

    http://www.neoninc.org/index.html

    "we will be back online on dec 8"

    Plenty of time to scrub things and get the spin up to date, I guess.

  18. Just the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Silly me. I thought that temperature measurements in just one country were "weather" not "climate" so the whole project is useless. Well, useless unless your goal is to cook up some numbers and deceitfully present them in order to shit all over the US. Or unless you are a rent-seeker soaking the tax payers.

    The US is the cleanest large-scale industrial producer in the world. If there is a problem with human activity changing the climate, the US is not the cause.

    1. Re:Just the US by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Silly me. I thought that temperature measurements in just one country were "weather" not "climate"

      100% correct.

      About being silly.

      The difference between weather and climate is temporal, not spatial.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  19. Wikipedia says ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On 21 August 2014 the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DoDIG) released an evaluation of DCAAâ(TM)s quality control system. [2] The review found numerous instances wherein DCAA failed to properly document its audit conclusions as required by Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) and the Statements on Standards for Attestation Engagements (SSAEs) of the American Institute of Certified Public Accounts (AICPA). This resulted in DCAA receiving a rate of âoePass with Deficiencies, indicating that DCAA still has serious work to do in order to fully comply with the relevant professional standards.

    On 8 September 2014 DoDIG released a report that found significant deficiencies in over 81% of DCAA audits from Fiscal Year 2012 and 2013 sampled as part of the review.[3]

    On 17 September 2014 Kellog Brown & Root Services Inc. (KBR) filed a suit against the U.S. Government (acting through DCAA, its agent) in Federal Court (the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware). The lawsuit seeks to recover $12.5 million in legal fees incurred by KBR in defending against what were ultimately determined to be "defective" DCAA audits. [4]

    On 18 September 2014 top DCAA management was accused of âoewhitewashingâ an audit of the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON).... Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Rand Paul (R-KY), who are jointly investigating the matter. [5] Government sources later identified the whistleblower as Senior Auditor J. Kirk McGill of the Denver Branch Office

  20. J. Kirk McGill, from Linkedin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what happens when you cap a Jesuit education with a brand new Accounting degree?
    University of Colorado at Denver
    Master of Science, Accounting 2013 – 2014

    Regis University
    Bachelor of Science, Accounting & Business Administration with an emphasis in Finance
    2005 – 2009

  21. Re:I'd like funding to research fairies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, the record cold temperatures across the globe this last year and the growing antarctic ice say... someone's an idiot.

  22. Typical NSF Corruption and Graft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's time that the NSF fraud machine is defunded and shutdown and its employees imprisoned.

  23. Re:I'd like funding to research fairies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2014 is the hottest year on record.

  24. Re:I'd like funding to research fairies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think what you were trying to say is "the allure of big-money ecology eventually won over most scientists" FTFY.

    But yes I agree with you and more importantly so does the actual data.
    No global average warming for 12 years.
    We are well within the cyclical variances expected for the planet.
    No model has yet matched the actual data or results with any degree of repeatability.

    Global Warming is about a few things:
    First there is a legitimate issue of natural resources wether oil is of biological or non-biological origins there is a limited production of the substance and we are utilizing it faster than it is being discovered/ created. I will grant the left this point. Fuel efficiency is a good thing, preserving the capability to create drugs and otehr oil based products is also a good thing until those materials are replaced.

    Second it is about Power (political/ social). There is a mindset that America/ the West is using more than "its fair share" of resources and that we are evil. so Global warming is a way of yelling think about the children and save 'teh bebe animuls' etc all at one time.

    Third it is about money. Scientists like doing science (novel idea I know) but they have to have money to do it. So if there is money to study the mating behaviour of licorice jelly beans by golly there will be scientists studying it. there is big money in affirming climate change because of reason #2 (see above) so there will be plenty of scientists wanting to study it. However they know that there results had better be what the politicians and social pressure people want or someone is going to notice the Emperor is really not wearing any clothes and then all the tailors get fired (beheaded/ thrown in the dungeon etc)

  25. Nothing of value by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, a Texas Republican who is a climate change and evolution skeptic that's been put in charge of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, has a problem with an ecological project by the NSF. I'm shocked.

    You might want to look at this Science article for a little clarification.

    http://news.sciencemag.org/pol...

    Meanwhile, the defense budget...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  26. Sensors can't monitor climate change by jamesl · · Score: 1

    ... sensors at each site will monitor climate change ...

    Sensors can monitor only weather. They can monitor neither climate nor change. Both must be calculated from series of data points.

    Of course it would be difficult to get a $433 million grant to monitor weather.

    1. Re:Sensors can't monitor climate change by Idarubicin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sensors can monitor only weather. They can monitor neither climate nor change. Both must be calculated from series of data points.

      That's sort of like saying you can't measure the area of a room using a tape measure,. After all, you have to perform a calculation based on the measurements you collect; the tape measure doesn't have an "area" reading. By one sufficiently pedantic, narrow, arrogant, obnoxious measure, you could argue that you were correct--and you probably would get punched by a lot of tradespeople who recognized you were just being an insufferable prick instead of making a useful contribution.

      The sensors - or the tape measure - are necessary tools for the process, even though they don't directly output the final processed result.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    2. Re:Sensors can't monitor climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well put.

    3. Re:Sensors can't monitor climate change by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      Sensors can monitor only weather. They can monitor neither climate nor change.

      That's why they aren't planning to turn them on for only one day and call it quits. The system is designed to collect data for decades.

    4. Re:Sensors can't monitor climate change by jamesl · · Score: 0

      That's sort of like saying you can't measure the area of a room using a tape measure

      That's exactly like saying you can't measure the area of a room using a tape measure. And it's true, as you acknowledge.

      Why do you object to writing with clarity and precision? Why do you resort to insults?

    5. Re:Sensors can't monitor climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can measure the area of a room using a tape measure. I will also need some math as well.
      However, I never said I could measure the room using JUST a tape measure.

      I measured the room using a tape measure and math.

      Normal humans understand the meaning quite clearly and its pretty obvious to them that some extra steps might be necessary.
      If anyone is asked how to measure the area of a room, a normal person will simply say: 'Use a tape measure'.
      No one says 'Use a tape measure and then do the necessary math' as the steps are well understood.
      This is speaking with clarity, precision, and efficiency.

      You are just being pedantic for no meaningful reason.

  27. Former NEON Employee, AMA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to work at NEON. I left just as we were prototyping.

    I designed the Compute Architecture (Cyberinfrastructure in their parlance) that got us through the Final Design Review.

    This came after a lengthy and involved Preliminary Design Review, with considerable feedback and involvement from Senior Scientists and The NSF's own esteemed experts in all the relevant fields.

    I'd say they're the ones to blame.

  28. Re:I'd like funding to research fairies... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    That doesn't say 2014 is the hottest year on record. It says a report claims it should be the hottest year on recent record if two and a half months end up being similar to previous months in the year and the report actually only claims it will be hotter than the average temp during two different periods of time and blames it on oceanic oscillations like el nino (otherwise known as natural causes).

  29. Neon is quite a mess and everyone knows it... by sugarmatic · · Score: 1

    Neon has been a mess for a long time. Feuds between scientists, notable acts of outright sabotage, shaky data from substandard instrumentation, overhead and management fees that approach two thirds of the entire budget, the list goes on.

    The entire enterprise risks entire swaths of ecological science and debate because it has been so incompetent. Chaos.

    Anyone who believes we don't have good data because of a lack of money needs to pay attention...the problem is that incompetent institutions are quite literally sucking the air out of the room. Progress is stymied by incompetence from the likes of Neon.

  30. Re:Denial much ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the thing about science that drives anti-science people nuts: the facts are facts regardless of the people who make the discoveries. Even if Adolf Hitler himself calculates that 2 + 2 = 4, it's still true. It doesn't matter if he wrote an email saying he wants to piss off people who don't believe 2 + 2 = 4 - his integrity doesn't matter. The ONLY thing that matters in science is that the data matches observation, which doesn't play well with people who are used to using innuendo and character assassination to discredit their foes.

  31. Cheap lobbying by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    112 kUSD seems cheap lobbying. How many lawyers do you pay with that?

  32. Re:Denial much ? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    It's pretty hard to take climate change alarmists seriously when y'all

    Who are you talking to? Do you have some internal argument going on in your head?

    We're talking about a guy, a congressman with actual power, who chairs the House Science & Technology Committee, who believes the earth is 6000 years old, that someone named "Adam & Eve" were the first humans (one of which was fashioned out of the other's spare rib). And who then flips out over an ecology project that costs less than 1/2 that of a single failed fighter/bomber (one that's built in his district by the way). Oh, and that fighter/bomber? It'll never be used and the military says they don't want or need it. He does this of course, after taking shitloads of money from the defense industry.

    Now THAT'S integrity.

    He's crying about waste in government, while he works exactly 70 four-hour days, drawing a taxpayer-funded salary of $174,000, not to mention a full pension for life, all his expenses paid (a household in DC for those 70 days) and one at home, health care for life and even free postage he can use to write letters asking his constituents for more money.

    It's hard to take rightwing, science-hating Bible-humpers seriously when y'all defend such an obvious fraud, not to mention an obvious shitlord who believes governing is basically the publicly-funded version of gamergate. Oh, by the way this fraud supported no less than nine separate House inquiries into Benghazi, even after the first eight found no wrongdoing. Each one of those investigations had a multi-million dollar pricetag.

    So you can just walk that climate change denying ass right out of here with that bullshit, parson. Your ass is showing.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  33. Re:Denial much ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    So your argument is that his bad behavior excuses anything you might do ?

    I see you have been well and truly twisted.

  34. Re:Denial much ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Actually in science you judge a statement by its ability to make falsifiable predictions about the universe. How well has climate science been doing ?

  35. Re:I'd like funding to research fairies... by sycodon · · Score: 1

    are utilizing it faster than it is being discovered/ created.

    I just paid $2.38 this afternoon. Seems we have a bit of a glut.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  36. So we don't know where the money went? by hawkingradiation · · Score: 1

    So that is an excuse for cutting funding as I am presuming the committee wants. What about all of those Skunk Works projects in defense. We don't know "where the money went" but it supposedly was put to good use. Cry me a river.

    --
    Society use your Sciences
  37. Re:Denial much ? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    So your argument is that his bad behavior excuses anything you might do ?

    No, my argument is "People who live in glass houses probably shouldn't be smearing their own feces all over the walls."

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  38. You guys are on top of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Went to make a comment about how these costs seem reasonable, and it turns out everyone else already has. Slashdot is a fantastic community. [heart]

  39. Re: I'd like funding to research fairies... by mattwarden · · Score: 1

    You have the burden of proof backwards, my "pro-science" friend.