ASA Connect

I just read the e-mail from Ron Wassertein discussing the ASA "advocating our profession" initiatives. I was unhappy to discover that much of the effort was not indeed directly related to Statistics in any fashion. Accordingly, I sent this e-mail (below) to Ron. I hope that those of you who agree with me will also send Ron (and Steve) your thoughts. Thank you.

Ron,

I strongly disagree with a number of your political stands and do not want my name or membership associated with such.

I can understand advocating for funding for agencies like NIH, but am puzzled why the ASA would advocate increased funding for TANF or any other program not in any way relevant to Statistics or its practice.

I would like some explanation of the decision-making, and I would like to get leadership's thoughts on the value, purpose and intent of these actions.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

------------------------------
Dr. Terry Meyer
------------------------------

I don't know what TANF is, so I looked at Wasserstein's links to find out.  I couldn't find it - only support for issues that are clearly appropriate for ASA.

In light of our current government's disrespect for evidence and rational decision-making, it is extremely important for ASA to support the agencies that collect data, as well as open access to data, and to support the people who analyze and interpret data.  ASA clearly emphasizes impartiality in both data collection and data interpretation.  Its "politics" only relate to good professional practice.  I see nothing to object to in ASA's advocacy program.

I don't know what TANF is, so I looked at Wasserstein's links to find out.  I couldn't find it - only support for issues that are clearly appropriate for ASA.

In light of our current government's disrespect for evidence and rational decision-making, it is extremely important for ASA to support the agencies that collect data, as well as open access to data, and to support the people who analyze and interpret data.  ASA clearly emphasizes impartiality in both data collection and data interpretation.  Its "politics" only relate to good professional practice.  I see nothing to object to in ASA's advocacy program.

Terry, I guess I'm a bit slow, I couldn't find the "Advocating our profession" item you referred to, could you provide the url?.. thanks.. Jim B

------------------------------
James Breneman

SAE Fellow-Reliability

(Formerly): Pratt & Whitney Fellow- Statistics, Reliability & Risk Analysis; Director- Engineering Technical Excellence & ACE Mentor

------------------------------

Dear All, <u5:p></u5:p>

We thank Terry Meyer for sharing his concerns regarding the letter the ASA signed onto earlier this year. It's very important for the ASA to hear from its members on these and other matters.

If any members have concerns about the ASA signing onto this letter or another science policy/advocacy activity, I'd welcome the opportunity to talk with you: 703.302.1841. <u5:p></u5:p>

Sincerely,

Steve<u5:p></u5:p>

Dear All, <u5:p></u5:p>

We thank Terry Meyer for sharing his concerns regarding the letter the ASA signed onto earlier this year. It's very important for the ASA to hear from its members on these and other matters.

If any members have concerns about the ASA signing onto this letter or another science policy/advocacy activity, I'd welcome the opportunity to talk with you: 703.302.1841. <u5:p></u5:p>

Sincerely,

Steve<u5:p></u5:p>

Dear All,

Thank you for the additional comments to ASA Connect on this letter. I'd like to share the rationale for the ASA signing onto this letter.

ASA's budget advocacy focuses on NSF, NIH, and the federal statistical agencies where the underlying challenge is the overall limited funding for non-defense discretionary (NDD) funding going back to the sequestration cuts implemented a few years ago. Thus we signed onto this letter to try to help ease the pressure on limited funding for non-defense discretionary funding. The rationale is that by working with others on the underlying issue, we have a better chance of success for our programs, assuming we can be successful in conveying the importance of the specific programs for which the ASA advocates.

This letter was organized by a broad-based, non-partisan group called NDD United (http://www.nddunited.org/), formed a few years ago when sequestration cuts were imminent. As the letter notes, the NDD programs have been cut disproportionately (versus non-discretionary programs or discretionary defense programs) and so urges "lawmakers to replace sequestration with a balanced approach to deficit reduction." This position is laid out further in this 2013 letter: http://media.wix.com/ugd//8c2a65_c719b3358f17b85f838edd134e2034e3.pdf.

The ASA has been following and acting on the potential impacts of sequestrations cuts going back to 2012:

With Sequestration Six Months Away, Activity to Avoid the Cuts Ramps Up, 7/11/2012

White House document reports 8.2% sequestration cuts for NSF, NIH, and statistical agencies, 9/18/2012

HHS and NSF Letters to Senate Appropriations Committee outline sequestration impacts to NIH and NSF, 2/15/2013

Letters to Senate Appropriations Committee list sequestration impacts for three federal statistical agencies, 2/15/2013

Sequestration Impacts on NSF, NIH and Statistical Agencies, March 4, 2013

If the NDD budget were increased for the next fiscal year, it is still up to Congress to determine which programs would get additional funding. It is very unlikely they would go evenly across all NDD programs. The ASA, working with others, would still specifically focus on NSF, NIH, and the federal statistical agencies. I understand some may see this differently but we don't see ASA's name on the letter as a signal that we support funding increases for each of the NDD programs. Rather, we see the letter as part of our continuing work to counter the impacts of sequestration on the programs ASA supports.

While the ASA remains an independent voice, allow me to note how broadly this effort is supported by the broader scientific community with the following being just some of the many scientific and related organizations who were among the 2100 signers of the letter:

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Association of American Universities

American Mathematical Society

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

American Society for Microbiology

American Geophysical Union

American Geosciences Institute

American Astronomical Society

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

We respect that ASA membership may not be comfortable this approach to our advocacy on the budgets for NIH, NSF, and the federal statistical agencies and encourage those folks to let me know: pierson@amstat.org. I will pass all comments on to ASA Executive Director Ron Wasserstein and ASA elected leadership. As I said yesterday, it's very important for the ASA to hear from its members and let me emphasize how important it is for the ASA to be representing its members.

Sincerely,

Steve

Steve, this is specious and weak reasoning. The ASA through your office is directly endorsing funding for social programs.

The science portion consists of a few percent of the $560 billion NDD dollars. It doesn't make sense to advocate to increase the entire amount under the hope that your (very small) portion will either be maintained or increased.

By that reasoning, the ASA should advocate to retain or increase the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the hopes that the small portion of funding for military-oriented research be maintained or increased.

Here are some of the programs the Office of Science Policy advocates for in signing the letter to increase NDD funding:

crop subsidies, national parks, food stamps, the IRS, the CIA, nuclear energy research, foreign aid, Obamacare advocacy ads, NASA, military weapons to local police, housing subsidies, ads to further American business abroad, grants to large corporations for technology development, fossil fuel research, etc. (I make no statement about the value or lack thereof of these programs; I merely state the ASA should not advocate for their funding.)

Do we want the ASA to advocate for increasing funding for the CIA? For paying McDonald's to advertise overseas? I don't.

The fact that the American Mathematical Society has signed the letter is NOT a rationale for the ASA to do so. Here are a few of the organizations Steve neglected to mention who are also co-signatories on this letter. Do we want our reputation to be tied to the aims of these groups? (Again, I make no statement about the value or lack thereof of these groups, I merely ask whether the ASA should tie themselves to the aims of these organizations.)

Each of these is a social policy advocacy group, something I strongly believe the ASA, as a professional organization, should not be. I think the Office of Science Policy should confine its efforts to science policy as the name suggests, and avoid supporting a wide ranging social agenda. For example, I would not like to see the ASA endorse or advocate funding for a pro-gay rights group nor for an anti-abortion group.

------------------------------
Terry Meyer
------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 05-06-2015 11:11
From: Steve Pierson
Subject: Political stands by the ASA

Dear All,

Thank you for the additional comments to ASA Connect on this letter. I'd like to share the rationale for the ASA signing onto this letter.

ASA's budget advocacy focuses on NSF, NIH, and the federal statistical agencies where the underlying challenge is the overall limited funding for non-defense discretionary (NDD) funding going back to the sequestration cuts implemented a few years ago. Thus we signed onto this letter to try to help ease the pressure on limited funding for non-defense discretionary funding. The rationale is that by working with others on the underlying issue, we have a better chance of success for our programs, assuming we can be successful in conveying the importance of the specific programs for which the ASA advocates.

This letter was organized by a broad-based, non-partisan group called NDD United (http://www.nddunited.org/), formed a few years ago when sequestration cuts were imminent. As the letter notes, the NDD programs have been cut disproportionately (versus non-discretionary programs or discretionary defense programs) and so urges "lawmakers to replace sequestration with a balanced approach to deficit reduction." This position is laid out further in this 2013 letter: http://media.wix.com/ugd//8c2a65_c719b3358f17b85f838edd134e2034e3.pdf.

The ASA has been following and acting on the potential impacts of sequestrations cuts going back to 2012:

With Sequestration Six Months Away, Activity to Avoid the Cuts Ramps Up, 7/11/2012

White House document reports 8.2% sequestration cuts for NSF, NIH, and statistical agencies, 9/18/2012

HHS and NSF Letters to Senate Appropriations Committee outline sequestration impacts to NIH and NSF, 2/15/2013

Letters to Senate Appropriations Committee list sequestration impacts for three federal statistical agencies, 2/15/2013

Sequestration Impacts on NSF, NIH and Statistical Agencies, March 4, 2013

If the NDD budget were increased for the next fiscal year, it is still up to Congress to determine which programs would get additional funding. It is very unlikely they would go evenly across all NDD programs. The ASA, working with others, would still specifically focus on NSF, NIH, and the federal statistical agencies. I understand some may see this differently but we don't see ASA's name on the letter as a signal that we support funding increases for each of the NDD programs. Rather, we see the letter as part of our continuing work to counter the impacts of sequestration on the programs ASA supports.

While the ASA remains an independent voice, allow me to note how broadly this effort is supported by the broader scientific community with the following being just some of the many scientific and related organizations who were among the 2100 signers of the letter:

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Association of American Universities

American Mathematical Society

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

American Society for Microbiology

American Geophysical Union

American Geosciences Institute

American Astronomical Society

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

We respect that ASA membership may not be comfortable this approach to our advocacy on the budgets for NIH, NSF, and the federal statistical agencies and encourage those folks to let me know: pierson@amstat.org. I will pass all comments on to ASA Executive Director Ron Wasserstein and ASA elected leadership. As I said yesterday, it's very important for the ASA to hear from its members and let me emphasize how important it is for the ASA to be representing its members.

Sincerely,

Steve

Steve, this is specious and weak reasoning. The ASA through your office is directly endorsing funding for social programs.

The science portion consists of a few percent of the $560 billion NDD dollars. It doesn't make sense to advocate to increase the entire amount under the hope that your (very small) portion will either be maintained or increased.

By that reasoning, the ASA should advocate to retain or increase the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the hopes that the small portion of funding for military-oriented research be maintained or increased.

Here are some of the programs the Office of Science Policy advocates for in signing the letter to increase NDD funding:

crop subsidies, national parks, food stamps, the IRS, the CIA, nuclear energy research, foreign aid, Obamacare advocacy ads, NASA, military weapons to local police, housing subsidies, ads to further American business abroad, grants to large corporations for technology development, fossil fuel research, etc. (I make no statement about the value or lack thereof of these programs; I merely state the ASA should not advocate for their funding.)

Do we want the ASA to advocate for increasing funding for the CIA? For paying McDonald's to advertise overseas? I don't.

The fact that the American Mathematical Society has signed the letter is NOT a rationale for the ASA to do so. Here are a few of the organizations Steve neglected to mention who are also co-signatories on this letter. Do we want our reputation to be tied to the aims of these groups? (Again, I make no statement about the value or lack thereof of these groups, I merely ask whether the ASA should tie themselves to the aims of these organizations.)

Each of these is a social policy advocacy group, something I strongly believe the ASA, as a professional organization, should not be. I think the Office of Science Policy should confine its efforts to science policy as the name suggests, and avoid supporting a wide ranging social agenda. For example, I would not like to see the ASA endorse or advocate funding for a pro-gay rights group nor for an anti-abortion group.

I'm discouraged that you don't see that this is WRONG for the ASA and should be immediately discontinued.

------------------------------
Terry Meyer
------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 05-06-2015 11:11
From: Steve Pierson
Subject: Political stands by the ASA

Dear All,

Thank you for the additional comments to ASA Connect on this letter. I'd like to share the rationale for the ASA signing onto this letter.

ASA's budget advocacy focuses on NSF, NIH, and the federal statistical agencies where the underlying challenge is the overall limited funding for non-defense discretionary (NDD) funding going back to the sequestration cuts implemented a few years ago. Thus we signed onto this letter to try to help ease the pressure on limited funding for non-defense discretionary funding. The rationale is that by working with others on the underlying issue, we have a better chance of success for our programs, assuming we can be successful in conveying the importance of the specific programs for which the ASA advocates.

This letter was organized by a broad-based, non-partisan group called NDD United (http://www.nddunited.org/), formed a few years ago when sequestration cuts were imminent. As the letter notes, the NDD programs have been cut disproportionately (versus non-discretionary programs or discretionary defense programs) and so urges "lawmakers to replace sequestration with a balanced approach to deficit reduction." This position is laid out further in this 2013 letter: http://media.wix.com/ugd//8c2a65_c719b3358f17b85f838edd134e2034e3.pdf.

The ASA has been following and acting on the potential impacts of sequestrations cuts going back to 2012:

With Sequestration Six Months Away, Activity to Avoid the Cuts Ramps Up, 7/11/2012

White House document reports 8.2% sequestration cuts for NSF, NIH, and statistical agencies, 9/18/2012

HHS and NSF Letters to Senate Appropriations Committee outline sequestration impacts to NIH and NSF, 2/15/2013

Letters to Senate Appropriations Committee list sequestration impacts for three federal statistical agencies, 2/15/2013

Sequestration Impacts on NSF, NIH and Statistical Agencies, March 4, 2013

If the NDD budget were increased for the next fiscal year, it is still up to Congress to determine which programs would get additional funding. It is very unlikely they would go evenly across all NDD programs. The ASA, working with others, would still specifically focus on NSF, NIH, and the federal statistical agencies. I understand some may see this differently but we don't see ASA's name on the letter as a signal that we support funding increases for each of the NDD programs. Rather, we see the letter as part of our continuing work to counter the impacts of sequestration on the programs ASA supports.

While the ASA remains an independent voice, allow me to note how broadly this effort is supported by the broader scientific community with the following being just some of the many scientific and related organizations who were among the 2100 signers of the letter:

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Association of American Universities

American Mathematical Society

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

American Society for Microbiology

American Geophysical Union

American Geosciences Institute

American Astronomical Society

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

We respect that ASA membership may not be comfortable this approach to our advocacy on the budgets for NIH, NSF, and the federal statistical agencies and encourage those folks to let me know: pierson@amstat.org. I will pass all comments on to ASA Executive Director Ron Wasserstein and ASA elected leadership. As I said yesterday, it's very important for the ASA to hear from its members and let me emphasize how important it is for the ASA to be representing its members.

Sincerely,

Steve

The problem with joining these multi-interest lobbying efforts is that your organization gives up its right to represent its viewpoint.  You become a slave to the letter's author, who frequently has different viewpoints and priorities than your membership.  In order to get your interest mentioned, you have to endorse a lot of goals and viewpoints that many of your members do not support and which your organizational mission does not cover.

A couple examples from the letter:

1. "replace sequestration with a balanced approach to deficit reduction " - In the political arena, this means raise taxes instead of cutting spending as much.Some ASA members agree with this.Others do not.The ASA does not have a mandate from its members to represent them on this issue.

2. "NDD (non-defense discretionary) programs have been cut too much. " --The ASA has a mandate from its members to speak out on funding for a small fraction of NDD, related to research. But members have not given the ASA authority to represent them on funding for areas such as national parks, housing, and veteran services (all endorsed in the letter).The ASA is usurping authority.This is not acceptable.

I am also concerned that the ASA is damaging its credibility in two ways:

1. First, it is associating itself with particular political viewpoints unrelated to its mission.This will damage its credibility with elected officials of other political viewpoints.
2. ASA members who disagree with these positions may email their Senators and congressman, stating that the ASA exceeded their authority and does not represent the viewpoints of many of its members. This will further damage the ASA's credibility and reduce its effectiveness when it speaks on statistically-related issues.

I welcome other perspectives.

Best regards,

Dave

------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 05-07-2015 01:47
From: Terry Meyer
Subject: Political stands by the ASA

Steve, this is specious and weak reasoning. The ASA through your office is directly endorsing funding for social programs.

The science portion consists of a few percent of the $560 billion NDD dollars. It doesn't make sense to advocate to increase the entire amount under the hope that your (very small) portion will either be maintained or increased.

By that reasoning, the ASA should advocate to retain or increase the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the hopes that the small portion of funding for military-oriented research be maintained or increased.

Here are some of the programs the Office of Science Policy advocates for in signing the letter to increase NDD funding:

crop subsidies, national parks, food stamps, the IRS, the CIA, nuclear energy research, foreign aid, Obamacare advocacy ads, NASA, military weapons to local police, housing subsidies, ads to further American business abroad, grants to large corporations for technology development, fossil fuel research, etc. (I make no statement about the value or lack thereof of these programs; I merely state the ASA should not advocate for their funding.)

Do we want the ASA to advocate for increasing funding for the CIA? For paying McDonald's to advertise overseas? I don't.

The fact that the American Mathematical Society has signed the letter is NOT a rationale for the ASA to do so. Here are a few of the organizations Steve neglected to mention who are also co-signatories on this letter. Do we want our reputation to be tied to the aims of these groups? (Again, I make no statement about the value or lack thereof of these groups, I merely ask whether the ASA should tie themselves to the aims of these organizations.)

Each of these is a social policy advocacy group, something I strongly believe the ASA, as a professional organization, should not be. I think the Office of Science Policy should confine its efforts to science policy as the name suggests, and avoid supporting a wide ranging social agenda. For example, I would not like to see the ASA endorse or advocate funding for a pro-gay rights group nor for an anti-abortion group.

Steve, you are being disingenuous in framing the issue below as deciding whether we feel "comfortable [with] this approach to our advocacy on the budgets for NIH, NSF, and the federal statistical agencies".  The "Office of Science Policy" has advocated for funding hundreds of billions for social and political programs, and funding for NIH, etc. is only a coincidental byproduct.

I'm discouraged that you don't see that this is WRONG for the ASA and should be immediately discontinued.

------------------------------
Terry Meyer
------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 05-06-2015 11:11
From: Steve Pierson
Subject: Political stands by the ASA

Dear All,

Thank you for the additional comments to ASA Connect on this letter. I'd like to share the rationale for the ASA signing onto this letter.

ASA's budget advocacy focuses on NSF, NIH, and the federal statistical agencies where the underlying challenge is the overall limited funding for non-defense discretionary (NDD) funding going back to the sequestration cuts implemented a few years ago. Thus we signed onto this letter to try to help ease the pressure on limited funding for non-defense discretionary funding. The rationale is that by working with others on the underlying issue, we have a better chance of success for our programs, assuming we can be successful in conveying the importance of the specific programs for which the ASA advocates.

This letter was organized by a broad-based, non-partisan group called NDD United (http://www.nddunited.org/), formed a few years ago when sequestration cuts were imminent. As the letter notes, the NDD programs have been cut disproportionately (versus non-discretionary programs or discretionary defense programs) and so urges "lawmakers to replace sequestration with a balanced approach to deficit reduction." This position is laid out further in this 2013 letter: http://media.wix.com/ugd//8c2a65_c719b3358f17b85f838edd134e2034e3.pdf.

The ASA has been following and acting on the potential impacts of sequestrations cuts going back to 2012:

With Sequestration Six Months Away, Activity to Avoid the Cuts Ramps Up, 7/11/2012

White House document reports 8.2% sequestration cuts for NSF, NIH, and statistical agencies, 9/18/2012

HHS and NSF Letters to Senate Appropriations Committee outline sequestration impacts to NIH and NSF, 2/15/2013

Letters to Senate Appropriations Committee list sequestration impacts for three federal statistical agencies, 2/15/2013

Sequestration Impacts on NSF, NIH and Statistical Agencies, March 4, 2013

If the NDD budget were increased for the next fiscal year, it is still up to Congress to determine which programs would get additional funding. It is very unlikely they would go evenly across all NDD programs. The ASA, working with others, would still specifically focus on NSF, NIH, and the federal statistical agencies. I understand some may see this differently but we don't see ASA's name on the letter as a signal that we support funding increases for each of the NDD programs. Rather, we see the letter as part of our continuing work to counter the impacts of sequestration on the programs ASA supports.

While the ASA remains an independent voice, allow me to note how broadly this effort is supported by the broader scientific community with the following being just some of the many scientific and related organizations who were among the 2100 signers of the letter:

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Association of American Universities

American Mathematical Society

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

American Society for Microbiology

American Geophysical Union

American Geosciences Institute

American Astronomical Society

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

We respect that ASA membership may not be comfortable this approach to our advocacy on the budgets for NIH, NSF, and the federal statistical agencies and encourage those folks to let me know: pierson@amstat.org. I will pass all comments on to ASA Executive Director Ron Wasserstein and ASA elected leadership. As I said yesterday, it's very important for the ASA to hear from its members and let me emphasize how important it is for the ASA to be representing its members.

Sincerely,

Steve

------------------------------
Steve Pierson
Director of Science Policy
American Statistical Association
------------------------------

The problem with joining these multi-interest lobbying efforts is that your organization gives up its right to represent its viewpoint.  You become a slave to the letter's author, who frequently has different viewpoints and priorities than your membership.  In order to get your interest mentioned, you have to endorse a lot of goals and viewpoints that many of your members do not support and which your organizational mission does not cover.

A couple examples from the letter:

1. "replace sequestration with a balanced approach to deficit reduction " - In the political arena, this means raise taxes instead of cutting spending as much.Some ASA members agree with this.Others do not.The ASA does not have a mandate from its members to represent them on this issue.

2. "NDD (non-defense discretionary) programs have been cut too much. " --The ASA has a mandate from its members to speak out on funding for a small fraction of NDD, related to research. But members have not given the ASA authority to represent them on funding for areas such as national parks, housing, and veteran services (all endorsed in the letter).The ASA is usurping authority.This is not acceptable.

I am also concerned that the ASA is damaging its credibility in two ways:

1. First, it is associating itself with particular political viewpoints unrelated to its mission.This will damage its credibility with elected officials of other political viewpoints.
2. ASA members who disagree with these positions may email their Senators and congressman, stating that the ASA exceeded their authority and does not represent the viewpoints of many of its members. This will further damage the ASA's credibility and reduce its effectiveness when it speaks on statistically-related issues.

I welcome other perspectives.

Best regards,

Dave

------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 05-07-2015 01:47
From: Terry Meyer
Subject: Political stands by the ASA

Steve, this is specious and weak reasoning. The ASA through your office is directly endorsing funding for social programs.

The science portion consists of a few percent of the $560 billion NDD dollars. It doesn't make sense to advocate to increase the entire amount under the hope that your (very small) portion will either be maintained or increased.

By that reasoning, the ASA should advocate to retain or increase the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the hopes that the small portion of funding for military-oriented research be maintained or increased.

Here are some of the programs the Office of Science Policy advocates for in signing the letter to increase NDD funding:

crop subsidies, national parks, food stamps, the IRS, the CIA, nuclear energy research, foreign aid, Obamacare advocacy ads, NASA, military weapons to local police, housing subsidies, ads to further American business abroad, grants to large corporations for technology development, fossil fuel research, etc. (I make no statement about the value or lack thereof of these programs; I merely state the ASA should not advocate for their funding.)

Do we want the ASA to advocate for increasing funding for the CIA? For paying McDonald's to advertise overseas? I don't.

The fact that the American Mathematical Society has signed the letter is NOT a rationale for the ASA to do so. Here are a few of the organizations Steve neglected to mention who are also co-signatories on this letter. Do we want our reputation to be tied to the aims of these groups? (Again, I make no statement about the value or lack thereof of these groups, I merely ask whether the ASA should tie themselves to the aims of these organizations.)

Each of these is a social policy advocacy group, something I strongly believe the ASA, as a professional organization, should not be. I think the Office of Science Policy should confine its efforts to science policy as the name suggests, and avoid supporting a wide ranging social agenda. For example, I would not like to see the ASA endorse or advocate funding for a pro-gay rights group nor for an anti-abortion group.

Steve, you are being disingenuous in framing the issue below as deciding whether we feel "comfortable [with] this approach to our advocacy on the budgets for NIH, NSF, and the federal statistical agencies".  The "Office of Science Policy" has advocated for funding hundreds of billions for social and political programs, and funding for NIH, etc. is only a coincidental byproduct.

I'm discouraged that you don't see that this is WRONG for the ASA and should be immediately discontinued.

------------------------------
Terry Meyer
------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 05-06-2015 11:11
From: Steve Pierson
Subject: Political stands by the ASA

Dear All,

Thank you for the additional comments to ASA Connect on this letter. I'd like to share the rationale for the ASA signing onto this letter.

ASA's budget advocacy focuses on NSF, NIH, and the federal statistical agencies where the underlying challenge is the overall limited funding for non-defense discretionary (NDD) funding going back to the sequestration cuts implemented a few years ago. Thus we signed onto this letter to try to help ease the pressure on limited funding for non-defense discretionary funding. The rationale is that by working with others on the underlying issue, we have a better chance of success for our programs, assuming we can be successful in conveying the importance of the specific programs for which the ASA advocates.

This letter was organized by a broad-based, non-partisan group called NDD United (http://www.nddunited.org/), formed a few years ago when sequestration cuts were imminent. As the letter notes, the NDD programs have been cut disproportionately (versus non-discretionary programs or discretionary defense programs) and so urges "lawmakers to replace sequestration with a balanced approach to deficit reduction." This position is laid out further in this 2013 letter: http://media.wix.com/ugd//8c2a65_c719b3358f17b85f838edd134e2034e3.pdf.

The ASA has been following and acting on the potential impacts of sequestrations cuts going back to 2012:

With Sequestration Six Months Away, Activity to Avoid the Cuts Ramps Up, 7/11/2012

White House document reports 8.2% sequestration cuts for NSF, NIH, and statistical agencies, 9/18/2012

HHS and NSF Letters to Senate Appropriations Committee outline sequestration impacts to NIH and NSF, 2/15/2013

Letters to Senate Appropriations Committee list sequestration impacts for three federal statistical agencies, 2/15/2013

Sequestration Impacts on NSF, NIH and Statistical Agencies, March 4, 2013

If the NDD budget were increased for the next fiscal year, it is still up to Congress to determine which programs would get additional funding. It is very unlikely they would go evenly across all NDD programs. The ASA, working with others, would still specifically focus on NSF, NIH, and the federal statistical agencies. I understand some may see this differently but we don't see ASA's name on the letter as a signal that we support funding increases for each of the NDD programs. Rather, we see the letter as part of our continuing work to counter the impacts of sequestration on the programs ASA supports.

While the ASA remains an independent voice, allow me to note how broadly this effort is supported by the broader scientific community with the following being just some of the many scientific and related organizations who were among the 2100 signers of the letter:

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Association of American Universities

American Mathematical Society

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

American Society for Microbiology

American Geophysical Union

American Geosciences Institute

American Astronomical Society

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

We respect that ASA membership may not be comfortable this approach to our advocacy on the budgets for NIH, NSF, and the federal statistical agencies and encourage those folks to let me know: pierson@amstat.org. I will pass all comments on to ASA Executive Director Ron Wasserstein and ASA elected leadership. As I said yesterday, it's very important for the ASA to hear from its members and let me emphasize how important it is for the ASA to be representing its members.

Sincerely,

Steve

------------------------------
Steve Pierson
Director of Science Policy
American Statistical Association
------------------------------

The problem with joining these multi-interest lobbying efforts is that your organization gives up its right to represent its viewpoint.  You become a slave to the letter's author, who frequently has different viewpoints and priorities than your membership.  In order to get your interest mentioned, you have to endorse a lot of goals and viewpoints that many of your members do not support and which your organizational mission does not cover.

A couple examples from the letter:

1. "replace sequestration with a balanced approach to deficit reduction " - In the political arena, this means raise taxes instead of cutting spending as much.Some ASA members agree with this.Others do not.The ASA does not have a mandate from its members to represent them on this issue.

2. "NDD (non-defense discretionary) programs have been cut too much. " --The ASA has a mandate from its members to speak out on funding for a small fraction of NDD, related to research. But members have not given the ASA authority to represent them on funding for areas such as national parks, housing, and veteran services (all endorsed in the letter).The ASA is usurping authority.This is not acceptable.

I am also concerned that the ASA is damaging its credibility in two ways:

1. First, it is associating itself with particular political viewpoints unrelated to its mission.This will damage its credibility with elected officials of other political viewpoints.
2. ASA members who disagree with these positions may email their Senators and congressman, stating that the ASA exceeded their authority and does not represent the viewpoints of many of its members. This will further damage the ASA's credibility and reduce its effectiveness when it speaks on statistically-related issues.

I welcome other perspectives.

Best regards,

Dave

------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 05-07-2015 01:47
From: Terry Meyer
Subject: Political stands by the ASA

Steve, this is specious and weak reasoning. The ASA through your office is directly endorsing funding for social programs.

The science portion consists of a few percent of the $560 billion NDD dollars. It doesn't make sense to advocate to increase the entire amount under the hope that your (very small) portion will either be maintained or increased.

By that reasoning, the ASA should advocate to retain or increase the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the hopes that the small portion of funding for military-oriented research be maintained or increased.

Here are some of the programs the Office of Science Policy advocates for in signing the letter to increase NDD funding:

crop subsidies, national parks, food stamps, the IRS, the CIA, nuclear energy research, foreign aid, Obamacare advocacy ads, NASA, military weapons to local police, housing subsidies, ads to further American business abroad, grants to large corporations for technology development, fossil fuel research, etc. (I make no statement about the value or lack thereof of these programs; I merely state the ASA should not advocate for their funding.)

Do we want the ASA to advocate for increasing funding for the CIA? For paying McDonald's to advertise overseas? I don't.

The fact that the American Mathematical Society has signed the letter is NOT a rationale for the ASA to do so. Here are a few of the organizations Steve neglected to mention who are also co-signatories on this letter. Do we want our reputation to be tied to the aims of these groups? (Again, I make no statement about the value or lack thereof of these groups, I merely ask whether the ASA should tie themselves to the aims of these organizations.)

Each of these is a social policy advocacy group, something I strongly believe the ASA, as a professional organization, should not be. I think the Office of Science Policy should confine its efforts to science policy as the name suggests, and avoid supporting a wide ranging social agenda. For example, I would not like to see the ASA endorse or advocate funding for a pro-gay rights group nor for an anti-abortion group.

Steve, you are being disingenuous in framing the issue below as deciding whether we feel "comfortable [with] this approach to our advocacy on the budgets for NIH, NSF, and the federal statistical agencies".  The "Office of Science Policy" has advocated for funding hundreds of billions for social and political programs, and funding for NIH, etc. is only a coincidental byproduct.

I'm discouraged that you don't see that this is WRONG for the ASA and should be immediately discontinued.

------------------------------
Terry Meyer
------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 05-06-2015 11:11
From: Steve Pierson
Subject: Political stands by the ASA

Dear All,

Thank you for the additional comments to ASA Connect on this letter. I'd like to share the rationale for the ASA signing onto this letter.

ASA's budget advocacy focuses on NSF, NIH, and the federal statistical agencies where the underlying challenge is the overall limited funding for non-defense discretionary (NDD) funding going back to the sequestration cuts implemented a few years ago. Thus we signed onto this letter to try to help ease the pressure on limited funding for non-defense discretionary funding. The rationale is that by working with others on the underlying issue, we have a better chance of success for our programs, assuming we can be successful in conveying the importance of the specific programs for which the ASA advocates.

This letter was organized by a broad-based, non-partisan group called NDD United (http://www.nddunited.org/), formed a few years ago when sequestration cuts were imminent. As the letter notes, the NDD programs have been cut disproportionately (versus non-discretionary programs or discretionary defense programs) and so urges "lawmakers to replace sequestration with a balanced approach to deficit reduction." This position is laid out further in this 2013 letter: http://media.wix.com/ugd//8c2a65_c719b3358f17b85f838edd134e2034e3.pdf.

The ASA has been following and acting on the potential impacts of sequestrations cuts going back to 2012:

With Sequestration Six Months Away, Activity to Avoid the Cuts Ramps Up, 7/11/2012

White House document reports 8.2% sequestration cuts for NSF, NIH, and statistical agencies, 9/18/2012

HHS and NSF Letters to Senate Appropriations Committee outline sequestration impacts to NIH and NSF, 2/15/2013

Letters to Senate Appropriations Committee list sequestration impacts for three federal statistical agencies, 2/15/2013

Sequestration Impacts on NSF, NIH and Statistical Agencies, March 4, 2013

If the NDD budget were increased for the next fiscal year, it is still up to Congress to determine which programs would get additional funding. It is very unlikely they would go evenly across all NDD programs. The ASA, working with others, would still specifically focus on NSF, NIH, and the federal statistical agencies. I understand some may see this differently but we don't see ASA's name on the letter as a signal that we support funding increases for each of the NDD programs. Rather, we see the letter as part of our continuing work to counter the impacts of sequestration on the programs ASA supports.

While the ASA remains an independent voice, allow me to note how broadly this effort is supported by the broader scientific community with the following being just some of the many scientific and related organizations who were among the 2100 signers of the letter:

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Association of American Universities

American Mathematical Society

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

American Society for Microbiology

American Geophysical Union

American Geosciences Institute

American Astronomical Society

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

We respect that ASA membership may not be comfortable this approach to our advocacy on the budgets for NIH, NSF, and the federal statistical agencies and encourage those folks to let me know: pierson@amstat.org. I will pass all comments on to ASA Executive Director Ron Wasserstein and ASA elected leadership. As I said yesterday, it's very important for the ASA to hear from its members and let me emphasize how important it is for the ASA to be representing its members.

Sincerely,

Steve

------------------------------
Steve Pierson
Director of Science Policy
American Statistical Association
------------------------------

Dear All,

Thank you for the additional comments to ASA Connect on this letter. I'd like to share the rationale for the ASA signing onto this letter.

ASA's budget advocacy focuses on NSF, NIH, and the federal statistical agencies where the underlying challenge is the overall limited funding for non-defense discretionary (NDD) funding going back to the sequestration cuts implemented a few years ago. Thus we signed onto this letter to try to help ease the pressure on limited funding for non-defense discretionary funding. The rationale is that by working with others on the underlying issue, we have a better chance of success for our programs, assuming we can be successful in conveying the importance of the specific programs for which the ASA advocates.

This letter was organized by a broad-based, non-partisan group called NDD United (http://www.nddunited.org/), formed a few years ago when sequestration cuts were imminent. As the letter notes, the NDD programs have been cut disproportionately (versus non-discretionary programs or discretionary defense programs) and so urges "lawmakers to replace sequestration with a balanced approach to deficit reduction." This position is laid out further in this 2013 letter: http://media.wix.com/ugd//8c2a65_c719b3358f17b85f838edd134e2034e3.pdf.

The ASA has been following and acting on the potential impacts of sequestrations cuts going back to 2012:

With Sequestration Six Months Away, Activity to Avoid the Cuts Ramps Up, 7/11/2012

White House document reports 8.2% sequestration cuts for NSF, NIH, and statistical agencies, 9/18/2012

HHS and NSF Letters to Senate Appropriations Committee outline sequestration impacts to NIH and NSF, 2/15/2013

Letters to Senate Appropriations Committee list sequestration impacts for three federal statistical agencies, 2/15/2013

Sequestration Impacts on NSF, NIH and Statistical Agencies, March 4, 2013

If the NDD budget were increased for the next fiscal year, it is still up to Congress to determine which programs would get additional funding. It is very unlikely they would go evenly across all NDD programs. The ASA, working with others, would still specifically focus on NSF, NIH, and the federal statistical agencies. I understand some may see this differently but we don't see ASA's name on the letter as a signal that we support funding increases for each of the NDD programs. Rather, we see the letter as part of our continuing work to counter the impacts of sequestration on the programs ASA supports.

While the ASA remains an independent voice, allow me to note how broadly this effort is supported by the broader scientific community with the following being just some of the many scientific and related organizations who were among the 2100 signers of the letter:

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Association of American Universities

American Mathematical Society

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

American Society for Microbiology

American Geophysical Union

American Geosciences Institute

American Astronomical Society

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

We respect that ASA membership may not be comfortable this approach to our advocacy on the budgets for NIH, NSF, and the federal statistical agencies and encourage those folks to let me know: pierson@amstat.org. I will pass all comments on to ASA Executive Director Ron Wasserstein and ASA elected leadership. As I said yesterday, it's very important for the ASA to hear from its members and let me emphasize how important it is for the ASA to be representing its members.

Sincerely,

Steve

Having lived through budgeting-by-sequestration, I've experienced it as an incredibly stupid way to run the government and to fund vital statistical operations.  Advocating for proper treatment of statisticians in the federal government is an appropriate concern of our professional association.  I am glad that ASA has allied itself with our sister scientific and professional organizations in expressing concerns about the impact of sequestration-style NDD funding strategies on the quality of implementation of statistical techniques and on its practitioners.

American scientific associations have expressed concerns about the working lives of colleagues around the world.  I see those types of efforts (petitions, letters, meetings, etc.) as appropriate nonpolitical activities supporting the practice of scientific professions and the advancement of knowledge.

Rachel Braun

Edmund Burke School, Washington, DC

Dan Bolton said it very clearly.

 I wonder, Ms. Braun, if a new person were put in this position and advocated for limiting abortion. How would you now feel? Are you OK with advocating for increasing funding for promoting McDonald's hamburgers overseas? With the CIA? With the NSA? With crop subsidies? The list goes on and on. The science piece is 3%.

The point is that agreement with or against a particular social program is your right; to have the ASA represents all of us is something which I do not want, nor do I think it is the proper role of a professional organization.

------------------------------
Terry Meyer
------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 05-07-2015 06:43
From: Rachel Braun
Subject: Political stands by the ASA

Having lived through budgeting-by-sequestration, I've experienced it as an incredibly stupid way to run the government and to fund vital statistical operations.  Advocating for proper treatment of statisticians in the federal government is an appropriate concern of our professional association.  I am glad that ASA has allied itself with our sister scientific and professional organizations in expressing concerns about the impact of sequestration-style NDD funding strategies on the quality of implementation of statistical techniques and on its practitioners.

American scientific associations have expressed concerns about the working lives of colleagues around the world.  I see those types of efforts (petitions, letters, meetings, etc.) as appropriate nonpolitical activities supporting the practice of scientific professions and the advancement of knowledge.

Rachel Braun

Edmund Burke School, Washington, DC

ASA clearly states on its web page that part of its mission is Support of Research Budgets. I think it is essential that ASA work with its members to persuade Congress to fund statistical research. Of course politics makes strange bedfellows, but just because two different organizations favor the same funding bill does not mean that they agree with every aspect of the bill or even with each other. The budget and appropriations bills group the funding for many different government activities within a single measure. The ASA has little influence on how things get grouped. But it can support research budgets by supporting bills that contain funding for statistical research.

The same problem arises when we vote for congressmen. I can't recall a case in which I agreed with all of the positions of my chosen candidate. But I voted for him or her anyway.

------------------------------
Thomas Dietterich
Professor
Oregon State University
------------------------------

I thoroughly agree with Mark M Pierzchala that participation in our democracy by thoroughly understanding the issues and by voting your preferences is critical to our democracy.

However, participation as an individual or through a party or through a political organization is wholly different from a supposedly professional organization lobbying for social programs having nothing to do with Statistics on behalf of its members. I, for one, do not want the ASA pretending to represent my political views to Congress.

I must admit I am surprised at how many members of the ASA are either indifferent to or even support political lobbying by our supposedly professional organization. I am also surprised that, having raised this issue with the Board of the ASA, I was met with disinterest.

For those of you who do not want the ASA using your dues to represent your political views to Congress, I suggest you write to the board and express your view.

------------------------------
Terry Meyer
------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 05-07-2015 15:16
From: Terry Meyer
Subject: Political stands by the ASA

Dan Bolton said it very clearly.

 I wonder, Ms. Braun, if a new person were put in this position and advocated for limiting abortion. How would you now feel? Are you OK with advocating for increasing funding for promoting McDonald's hamburgers overseas? With the CIA? With the NSA? With crop subsidies? The list goes on and on. The science piece is 3%.

The point is that agreement with or against a particular social program is your right; to have the ASA represents all of us is something which I do not want, nor do I think it is the proper role of a professional organization.

------------------------------
Terry Meyer
------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 05-07-2015 06:43
From: Rachel Braun
Subject: Political stands by the ASA

Having lived through budgeting-by-sequestration, I've experienced it as an incredibly stupid way to run the government and to fund vital statistical operations.  Advocating for proper treatment of statisticians in the federal government is an appropriate concern of our professional association.  I am glad that ASA has allied itself with our sister scientific and professional organizations in expressing concerns about the impact of sequestration-style NDD funding strategies on the quality of implementation of statistical techniques and on its practitioners.

American scientific associations have expressed concerns about the working lives of colleagues around the world.  I see those types of efforts (petitions, letters, meetings, etc.) as appropriate nonpolitical activities supporting the practice of scientific professions and the advancement of knowledge.

Rachel Braun

Edmund Burke School, Washington, DC

Terry,

Can you list the e-mail address you suggest we write to?  I agree with you completely and feel we should focus our efforts by writing the same people.

------------------------------
Pedro Saavedra
Retired
------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 05-21-2015 01:21
From: Terry Meyer
Subject: Political stands by the ASA

I thoroughly agree with Mark M Pierzchala that participation in our democracy by thoroughly understanding the issues and by voting your preferences is critical to our democracy.

However, participation as an individual or through a party or through a political organization is wholly different from a supposedly professional organization lobbying for social programs having nothing to do with Statistics on behalf of its members. I, for one, do not want the ASA pretending to represent my political views to Congress.

I must admit I am surprised at how many members of the ASA are either indifferent to or even support political lobbying by our supposedly professional organization. I am also surprised that, having raised this issue with the Board of the ASA, I was met with disinterest.

For those of you who do not want the ASA using your dues to represent your political views to Congress, I suggest you write to the board and express your view.

------------------------------
Terry Meyer
------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 05-07-2015 15:16
From: Terry Meyer
Subject: Political stands by the ASA

Dan Bolton said it very clearly.

 I wonder, Ms. Braun, if a new person were put in this position and advocated for limiting abortion. How would you now feel? Are you OK with advocating for increasing funding for promoting McDonald's hamburgers overseas? With the CIA? With the NSA? With crop subsidies? The list goes on and on. The science piece is 3%.

The point is that agreement with or against a particular social program is your right; to have the ASA represents all of us is something which I do not want, nor do I think it is the proper role of a professional organization.

------------------------------
Terry Meyer
------------------------------

Terry,

Can you list the e-mail address you suggest we write to?  I agree with you completely and feel we should focus our efforts by writing the same people.

------------------------------
Pedro Saavedra
Retired
------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 05-21-2015 01:21
From: Terry Meyer
Subject: Political stands by the ASA

I thoroughly agree with Mark M Pierzchala that participation in our democracy by thoroughly understanding the issues and by voting your preferences is critical to our democracy.

However, participation as an individual or through a party or through a political organization is wholly different from a supposedly professional organization lobbying for social programs having nothing to do with Statistics on behalf of its members. I, for one, do not want the ASA pretending to represent my political views to Congress.

I must admit I am surprised at how many members of the ASA are either indifferent to or even support political lobbying by our supposedly professional organization. I am also surprised that, having raised this issue with the Board of the ASA, I was met with disinterest.

For those of you who do not want the ASA using your dues to represent your political views to Congress, I suggest you write to the board and express your view.

------------------------------
Terry Meyer
------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 05-07-2015 15:16
From: Terry Meyer
Subject: Political stands by the ASA

Dan Bolton said it very clearly.

 I wonder, Ms. Braun, if a new person were put in this position and advocated for limiting abortion. How would you now feel? Are you OK with advocating for increasing funding for promoting McDonald's hamburgers overseas? With the CIA? With the NSA? With crop subsidies? The list goes on and on. The science piece is 3%.

The point is that agreement with or against a particular social program is your right; to have the ASA represents all of us is something which I do not want, nor do I think it is the proper role of a professional organization.

------------------------------
Terry Meyer
------------------------------

I am also a member of the IEEE, and they (through IEEE-USA, since IEEE is international) actively lobby Congress.  Much of this consists of providing IEEE stands on issues as requested by a Congressman.  Some of it, such as H1B Visa issues, is initiated by the IEEE-USA group in response to member concerns. 

So, I don't know if there is any absolute standard, but I am fairly certain that many other organizations lobby Congress.  I am sure I have missed something, but what is the issue with TANF?  How does it come up?

------------------------------
Louis Giokas
Consultant
Independent
------------------------------

Lobbying Congress is not the issue per se. Lobbying for funding science (NSF, NIH, etc.) makes sense. Lobbying for increasing funding for the CIA, for the NSA, for food stamps, for supporting overseas advertising for McDonald's, for paying farmers not to grow crops, etc., etc. does not make sense to me.

By aligning ourselves with groups such as the Pennsylvania Council of Churches and the National Fair Housing Alliance for a thousand programs not related to science funding, we both dilute our message and sully our reputation.

Note that the IEEE did not sign the letter we signed.

------------------------------
Terry Meyer
------------------------------