Bureau withdraws requirement for scientists to raise research funds

The Bureau of Reclamation scrapped a new performance evaluation standard for certain scientists this week, days after a watchdog group said the policy compromised ethical standards.

The unusual sequence of events, which unfolded over 48 hours, illustrated the difficulty of translating the government's focus on accountability and performance into the everyday workplace. In the end, an apparently unprecedented performance guideline gave way almost immediately under pressure.

According to agency documents, the policy required a handful of scientists to raise funds for research projects. The scientists, who were based in Denver, were required to generate funding to cover 70 percent to 89 percent of their base salaries in order to receive a "fully successful" rating on their performance reviews. Generating less than 50 percent of the potential billable hours for the year would earn an "unsatisfactory" rating.

Trudy Harlow, an agency spokeswoman, said the rule had been put in place for the 2005 calendar year, but was removed Thursday after senior officials became aware of the situation. The policy was designed to apply to some senior scientists at the bureau's Technical Service Center, which provides engineering and scientific research for projects dealing with water resources.

"That was the first our management had heard of that. So what we decided to do is to do a management review," said Harlow. "That standard has now been removed."

On Wednesday, the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility made public the documents outlining the performance standard and sharply criticized the policy.

"It's an asinine principle," said PEER Program Director Rebecca Roose. "Prowess in fund-raising is how politicians, not scientists, are supposed to be judged."

Roose added the policy "puts the dollar value above the quality or importance of the scientific work."

Harlow said scientific integrity was one factor that led senior officials to discard the plan.

"There was at least one employee, or perhaps more, who was unhappy with it. We listen to our employees," Harlow said. "The other reason is, if this raises an issue about the credibility of our science, we don't want it there."

Harlow said the policy was put in place with good intentions in an effort to formalize the reality of a federal fee-for-service operation. Within the government, fee-for-service offices support themselves by charging other agencies for services.

The 70 percent to 89 percent standard for "full successful" performance was based on a five-year review of how much work scientists have brought in, according to Harlow.

"They were just trying to codify that," she said.

When told of the bureau's decision, Roose applauded the move.

"That's what we wanted to happen. We had hoped that no one would ever have to be held to that ridiculous performance standard," she said. "We hope that this means they have seen the error of their ways."