AAS review dot points

Document Sample
AAS review dot points Powered By Docstoc
					Dear Sue,

I have had a look through the review documentation and have provided some
comments on the 5 points dealing with contact information. I note that the
terms of reference state that the review will be conducted in 2010 and report at
the end of the first quarter in 2011. That needs to be corrected.

Nowhere is the size of the grant mentioned and the impression given is that this
is sufficiently substantial to warrant such a review. I suggest that this
information is provided in some way to some of the stakeholders. I also suggest
that the Academy write independently to some of these stakeholders indicating
that they may be approached by someone from DISSR and to provide additional
information on what the Academy has done in the stakeholder’s area, possibly
sending our last annual report with reference to the web site where the earlier
annual reports can be found as well as further information on our activities.

Category 1.
    This should include DCCEE, and I would suggest writing to Swirepik with
      a reminder about the Climate Change statement and the numerous
      conferences/workshops where we have provided support. Mention by
      him of our public lecture series would be a good thing as well.
    For DFAT it may be worth considering including the Secretary or
      someone immediately beneath him in regarding our CHOGM proposal if
      that is advancing.
    I would also include GA here with a note to Chris Pigram to remind him of
      AAS work in the area of remote sensing, the earth system science report
      and an earlier contribution we made to the report for the development of
      the digital elevation/bathymetry data base for the coastal zone (I do not
      recall the exact name).

Category 2.
    All the state education departments
    Also chief scientists of those States where we have had a constructive
      relation. I would write to Mary O’Kane, for example, with some
      suggestions of what she may wish to consider in a response.
    From the ACT a reminder about the usefulness of our public lecture series
      would be helpful, as would a statement that AAS is one of the nationally
      visible institutions in the ACT.

Category 3.
    I would try to identify some representative university heads. Certainly
      Glynn Davis, possibly the VC at UWA and Hilmer at UNSW, AIMS and
      obviously CSIRO.

Category 4.
    Consider including the Chair of ANZLIC, Warrick Watkins, about the same
      issues mentioned above in relation to GA.
    The Science Media Centre in Adelaide
    The Royal Institution and the RSNSW
      The Museum in relation to our contribution to the essay prize and to
       facilitating the Cook exhibition.

Category 5.
    I would include the French Embassy here in view of the value this adds to
      the bilaterals program and as representative of some of the other
    IAC/IAP. I would write to Robbert Dijkgraaf as Chair of IAC with the
      suggestion that he may want to comment on our leadership role in both
      bodies and the impact that PC is having internationally.
    I would note that normally we would include FASAS but as AAS provides
      the Chair this is not appropriate.
    Presidents of selected Academies. The RS is an obvious one with a
      suggestion that the Theo Murphy fund is mentioned. Another useful thing
      would be to mention the James Cook exhibition, particularly if you can
      also get the Museum to mention it. With the transition of both the
      Executive Secretary and the President this may need a letter from our
      President to give some background.
    Other Academies to suggest include NAS and CAS, with a letter to at least
      the latter explaining the situation and suggestion that they mention the
      special relationship as well as the AAS role in Asia.

If I think of anything else in the next day or so I will get back to you.

Good luck.


Shared By: