CAL budget

I must admit to being utterly amazed at how a discussion on the pros
and cons of microwave drying has led to a furious discussion of the
budget and programmatic orientations of this laboratory that I have
the privilege of directing. These exchanges have by no means
convinced me that Internet chatchannels and the like (sorry, Walter,
no offense intended!) are an optimal medium for such discussions.
Yet, the fact is that a number of issues and numbers (some of them
incorrect) have been brought up on this DistList, and since many of
its readers, who on April 15th file a Form 1040 with the IRS,
participate on that occasion in footing the bill for this
organization, the least I can do, as one person who should know the
true numbers of CAL's budget, is clarify the confusion for the
benefit of those sponsors.

First, Don Williams' numbers are entirely correct. Between FY95 and
FY97 our federal appropriation went from $2.862M to $2.908M, but our
salary and benefits expenses rose from $2.237M to $2.329; hence our
funds for "discretionary" spending actually decreased from $625K to
$579K. For the current year that situation will not change: while
our total appropriation rose to $2.976M, that increase will be
completely consumed through the (mandated) salary increases for
federal employees in January. While the increases in absolute terms
are certainly substantial, and we are quite grateful to Congress for
its generosity in not forcing us to absorb the cost of payroll
increases that are outside our control, any new program initiatives
can only be funded through internal reallocation of existing
resources. Don made these points quite lucidly and I fail to see the
obfuscatory nature of his remarks.

Nicolo Caldararo's sources of budgetary information, on the other
hand, seem to be rather off the mark. I wish that I could confirm
his statement that CAL's "discretionary" resources increased between
1990 and 1995 by more than $800K. In fact, during that period our
total appropriation rose from $2.527M to $2.862M (a $335K increase)
but our payroll expenses went from $1.854M to $2.237M, an increase
of $383K. Thus, "discretionary" funds decreased from $673K to
$625K--a $48,000 decrease rather than a $800,000 increase! It should
be noted that such "base erosion" is not unique to our organization,
and in fact many other institutions have fared much worse. We
certainly are not complaining, but I need to correct the overly
optimistic picture that was displayed on this DistList.

The information on the future of our Furniture Conservation Training
Program is incomplete and hence potentially misleading. We will
indeed discontinue the FCTP in its present format, but foresee a
continued program of education and training in that particular
specialty area, using other media to address the needs of a slightly
different professional constituency. Resources used before to fund
our "old" FCTP will be applied to underwrite these modified efforts,
and will not be available for reprogramming to completely new
activities (such as research in the area of microwave drying, which
I don't expect to be high on our list of priorities in the near
future). This shift in emphasis of the FCTP has, thus far, mainly
been discussed internally; Nicolo Caldararo's government sources may
have picked up on these discussions but clearly have not obtained a
full picture yet.

I hope that this lengthy discourse will serve to correct some
obvious misunderstandings. I consider this particular discussion by
means of this electronic maillist mercifully closed; but I will, of
course, as always be happy to discuss these and other matters in
direct conversations with any colleague.

                                  ***
                  Conservation DistList Instance 11:56
                Distributed: Tuesday, December 23, 1997
                       Message Id: cdl-11-56-005
                                  ***