Diversity Programming Committee Budget Request Form: Fill & Download for Free

This post originally appeared as part of a two-part series on my personal blog intended to provide basic research frameworks for new analysts. Apologies for any stray reformatting errors. You can read the original posts together here:http://colincookman.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/a-primer-in-understanding-budgets-part-one/http://colincookman.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/a-primer-in-understanding-budgets-part-two/Previously in Part One, I outlined some of the basic analytical questions that may help in analyzing a budget, and went into detail specifically on those related to understanding the content of the budget itself – how much is being spent (the budget scope), how is it being divided up (the budget priorities) and how does it compare to other budgets (the budget context).But a budget is much more than just a series of numbers and how they stack up next to one another on an Excel sheet. The process of gathering resources, identifying priorities, and applying them to achieve goals is at the core of every organization’s strategy, and it is an inherently political process. Understanding how that process work requires understanding a budget’s sources and how they impact decision-making; the budget actors who set the priorities by which the money will be distributed; and knowing who will be responsible for budget execution in the end. I’ll cover all of these aspects in this post, again using the specific case of the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan for my examples. The last post sought to answer the relatively easy question of how much does the U.S. spend in Afghanistan? This one will cover the much more complex question of how does it get spent?Part Two: How Does the U.S. Spend Money in Afghanistan?Budget Sources: The way an organization gains resources and revenue will have a major impact on its structure and priorities; the top priority of any organization is usually to gain more resources or at very least to preserve access to those it currently maintains. Generally speaking, an organization is going to be faced with a tradeoff between maintaining a diverse sourcing of revenue, which increases resiliency but also potentially increases aggregate constraints, and single sourcing of revenue, which reduces the breadth of constraints but makes those that are in effect more severe. To use a business example, Amazon.com has a variety of different revenue streams, from its huge variety of online sales offerings to its new Kindle content ecosystem to cloud server hosting, each of which on its own maybe brings only a moderate amount of money to the company. Amazon can afford to lose some money on one part of the organization or another (Kindles are being sold at a loss right now in order to bring people into the service ecosystem where Amazon will hope to make back the money), but its margins of profit are thin and it doesn’t necessarily have a lot of freedom to concentrate a lot of resources at the expense of others and expand rapidly into new areas. Google, on the other hand, derives a massive share of its revenue just from its lucrative search ad business, which has given it a lot of cash on hand to throw into experimental projects that don’t necessarily need to pay off in the immediate term if ever; if the online ad market ever tanks, however, it will face serious problems, and it always has to prioritize the health of that revenue stream. Many organizations are going to be a mix of the two, and this is not a perfect example, of course; Amazon started with a concentration in book-selling and Google’s now diversifying into other sectors like mobile phones.When analyzing a government organization, the most common form of diverse resourcing will be some form of taxation – income and sales taxes generally being the big ones, the former more progressive and the latter more regressive in terms of which parts of society feel the greatest impacts. Single source revenue usually comes from rents collected by virtue of the state’s exclusive control over access to various valuable assets – things like licensing fees, trading access (customs duties), and (often the big one) state-owned natural resources. The other big source for some countries and many non-governmental organizations is going to be donor aid; this can also be viewed as a form of rent, particularly when that aid is given in exchange for some form of strategic cooperation or access (as would be the case for U.S. aid to both the Afghan and Pakistani governments). Some governments also successfully generate revenue through state-owned businesses or sovereign investments, although the actual productive track record on these has not always been great. Finally, organizations can take out loans (usually on fairly favorable terms if they represent a state), although these too eventually require some form of resource income in order to repay them.Organizations that depend on public tax revenue are more resilient in that no one single contributor bears responsibility for funding any more than a small fraction of the government’s operations. If taxpayer Colin Cookman happens to be unhappy with the exact ways in which the government is slicing up its cut of his paycheck between its various agencies, it doesn’t matter much (particularly since he lives in D.C. and has no representation). As a whole, however, the government is going to have to be concerned with public reactions to their budgeting priorities, since it doesn’t don’t have other large assets that can make up for the loss if a large portion of the taxpayer base revolts and stop contributing (or demands a change in priorities through an election). That taxpayer-constituent / government relationship represents the basic core of the social contract in a democratic state. Rentier economies suffering from the “resource curse” by contrast don’t have to give a damn about what the vast majority of their populations think, since state seizure of the major rent-producing assets is often enough to fund government operations (and allow it to coopt or marginalize any rivals) without any need for public input. The risk of this (besides becoming totally disassociated from the concerns of a large portion of the public) will be that if the asset price of your commodity of choice drops (or your big single donor gets upset with how you have decided to spend the money), you have very little alternative budget sources available (this is why all the major oil producers rely on cartelization to keep their commodity prices high). To use another example, non-governmental organizations that rely on a large endowment for their operations usually can afford to have very specific and not necessarily widely-shared priorities compared to those that rely on small-dollar donations, and have to devote far less of their energy to active grass-roots mobilization and cultivation.Afghanistan Case: The U.S. government does of course generally depend on public taxation as the main source of its operating funding. When taxes got high enough and decision-makers disconnected enough from the priorities of those contributing that money, we fought a revolutionary war over the issue of who would get to control how our resources were going to be spent. Our elected representatives in Congress now control the budget in matters of both war and peace, and their need to be able justify those military operations to their constituencies does serve as something of a check on what we are willing or not willing to fund in Afghanistan. (Pres. Obama and U.S. Congress members primarily justify the ongoing intervention to the public on domestic U.S. counterterrorism concerns, so in this regard it’s not surprising that Afghan state-building has not been a big priority.) Again that’s not to say there’s always a direct relation between popular opinion and the ability to fund war operations; Congress has become increasingly deferential to the executive branch on the details of military operations around the world in the past half century, which probably not coincidentally coincides (particularly over the past quarter-century) with an increased reliance on external debt financing that further removes the direct costs of spending from the current generation of voters and taxpayers. (The other factor moderating constituent concerns is an all-volunteer military force that only draws from a small percentage of the overall U.S. population). As our national conversation has refocused on debt issues and our economic liabilities in the past few years, you’ve seen much stronger criticism of the Afghan war’s relative costs to benefits for U.S. security.A pretty good mirror case to the U.S. system is that of the Afghan government, which is extremely donor-dependent for both its basic operating costs and any capital investments in its security establishment or other public services. I would argue Afghanistan definitely qualifies as a rentier state, providing a single high-value good (counterterrorism cooperation) in exchange for large-scale international assistance. The Afghan government’s primary constituency is U.S. (and to a lesser degree other international) donors, not the Afghan public; elected members of parliament may get to review and vote on budgets, but it’s ultimately the Afghan Finance Ministry officials who work with donors in an attempt to coordinate money flows that actually set the country’s priorities (and even their ability to do so is limited by their dependency on what donors want to do with their money). This dependency on international aid by an Afghan central government is not unique to the U.S. intervention, as Barnett Rubin’s history of the Soviet period notes.Protip: The Afghan government’s chances of collecting large-scale tax revenues from its public are limited, given its capacity limitations, security challenges, and the country’s general level of impoverishment. Its priority then is to to capture control over as much of external donor money as it can in order to fund its own priorities (first and foremost, consolidating its position against rivals). Doing so requires satisfying the concerns of U.S. officials, not necessarily those of the residents of Kandahar or Mazar-e-Sharif. If you’re wondering why the Afghan government is not particularly popular with many parts of the Afghan public and where all the distortion and waste in the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan comes from, this dynamic is at the core of your answer.— — —Budget Actors: The process by which actors within an organization decide how resources will be split up amongst the various priorities of a budget account is the core of the political process. This is sometimes described as “governance” or “strategy” but it’s all essentially the same thing — you just have to remember that it is a political process and that the interests of any specific actor may not necessarily be identical to what we assume the interests of the whole would or should be. The actors who control the process of prioritization (either by actual statutory authority or their ability to broker agreements between the competing interests) are in most cases going to be the most powerful parts within an organization, so identifying them and understanding the ways by which they assign priorities is going to be one of the most basic tasks required of an analyst attempting to understand how another organization works and what it wants.The budgeting process can be separated into three distinct phases which correspond to three different types of actor — requests, wherein members of an organization attempt to advance competing priorities for the distribution of resources; authorizations, wherein approval is granted for a certain level of spending among the priorities, usually based on certain conditions; and appropriations, wherein the final approval is granted to release funds. (The actual disbursal, or spending of the money, will usually be done by the original requesting agency, and is dealt with in further detail in following section on Budget Execution.)Requesting agencies are generally going to be pushing for the highest levels of resources they can get; authorizers will attempt to control the process by which it gets spent by adding conditions and other requirements; and appropriators potentially exercise the ultimate authority by agreeing to dole out the money (or not). Some organizations involve multiple layers of authorization before the final appropriation is approved; others regularly grant budget requests with minimal debate over their particulars. Some actors play different roles at different times. Organizations with greater internal checks and balances will separate some or all of these functions into different offices or agencies in order to avoid a concentration of decision-making power in any one actor. Without this separation of powers, organizations can potentially end up with seriously distorted or unsustainable budgets — it’s why we generally don’t let employees independently set their own salaries or implementing agencies choose their own funding levels without some higher approval and oversight process.Afghanistan Case: Since we’re dealing with the U.S. system here and how it spends money in Afghanistan, that means understanding Congress (which has control over the budget source in our system of government, public tax revenue) and how it works. There are a variety of different backgrounders floating around on this process that you can Google but, in brief, it begins with the various agencies of the executive branch — the State Department, Defense Department, USAID, CIA, etc — formulating their requests, which the White House reviews and presents as an annual budget proposal package, usually in February of the year. (With the exception of a very, very few programs, like Social Security or Medicare, Congress is extremely loathe to enact multi-year budget appropriations, and thus everything is up for renewal every year.) The budget proposal then goes to Congress (usually starting in the House of Representatives) where the action begins.The two houses of Congress (the House and Senate) have a long-established committee system which divides up legislative jurisdiction over various issues facing the government. If you think that this system of jurisdictions might tend to encourage narrow parochialism among members and uneven standards of accountability across the multiple agencies that collectively contribute to American foreign policy, you’d be right! But in any case, these committees — like the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or the House Armed Services Committee — have the power to authorize spending at particular levels (which may be higher or lower than those sought by the requesting agencies), create new program accounts or agencies to spend money in the future, and introduce new laws related to their jurisdiction.These can come in a big legislative package (the FY 2012 Defense Authorization Bill, for example) or in bills dealing with a particular country, conflict, or program (the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill authorizing expanded civilian assistance to Pakistan, for example). Authorization bills for the major categories of the U.S. government budget are supposed to pass every year and given the Congressional logjam, most smaller initiatives tend to get glommed onto them by amendment. It’s worth noting that the foreign aid authorization process in particular has been broken for the past several decades, effectively forcing State and USAID to rely on the same basic program accounts since the 1960s or otherwise on irregular, narrowly-focused legislation (like the aforementioned Kerry-Lugar-Berman) that amends this piecemeal. The act, as amended through 2002, can be found here.The authorizing committees’ powers are separated from those on the Appropriations Committees and their various subcommittees (which deal separately with Defense, Foreign Operations, etc) who hold ultimate decision on the release of funds, which cannot be higher than the levels authorized by the authorizations process but can sometimes be considerably lower. Although they can’t technically enact anything that doesn’t have a specific monetary angle attached to it, Appropriations committee members are the ones who release the funds and not coincidentally tend to be the longest-serving (in a seniority system) and most powerful members of Congress.Any legislation, including appropriations bills, that passes through committee has to go on to pass the full House or Senate (where it is potentially subject to further amendment) and then has to pass in a matching version in the other house of Congress. Any discrepancies in the two final bills have to be ironed out in a conference committee appointed by House and Senate leadership and then pass again in both branches of Congress. The THOMAS legislative search engine will be your friend when tracking all of these bills.Protip: The “power of the purse” is Congress’ biggest institutional prerogative, but once budget funds are officially released to fund a particular program or agency, its ability to actually control how money is used can be limited, particularly in matters of foreign policy where the executive branch has wide leeway (and where Congressional ability to conduct oversight has been poor). “Sense of Congress” statements or Congressional “findings” that express a preference on how the money gets used are common, but generally speaking are not going to be binding. Congressional committees can threaten not to fund a budget account in the future their members don’t like how the administration is using its money, but this makes for a rather blunt policy instrument.Three of the most common mechanisms used by Congress in both authorization and appropriations bills in an attempt to place closer controls on how money is spent are notification requirements that require agencies to let Congressional committees know when money has been spent or transferred; reporting requirements where the administration has to testify or prepare a lengthier report on how it is spending or planning to spend money; and the stricter certification requirements, where the president or one of his deputies must formally certify to Congress that certain standards are being met or otherwise trigger a fund cutoff. Beyond forcing the executive branch to share information with Congress, requirements can potentially create a public trail of documentation on a particular program account that Congress (and outside analysts) can use to make a closer assessment of the administration’s activities.— — —Budget Execution: After the budget actors have divided up a budget’s resources among its various priorities and approved the money’s release, it still has to be spent. Here’s where the balance of power has the potential to shift back to the requesting and implementing agencies. As noted above, appropriators usually have limited direct control over these issues, and depend on their control over future funds (as well as whatever other non-monetary authority they are able to exert by means of law or custom) to compel implementing agencies to abide by their budget priorities.Knowing whether or not those priorities are actually being met requires regular oversight and feedback mechanisms, which some organizations structure into their basic operations and others do not. Even organization that do review their own spending practices often don’t make this information public, which can make conducting outside analysis and oversight extremely challenging.Is the money actually being spent at the levels appropriated in the original budget document? Agencies that fail to spend all of their appropriated funds are inviting other competitors for those resources to make the case that they would be better-spent elsewhere, so the pressure to spend all the money received even if it goes to waste will be high. Will money actually be spent in the ways specified by the budget framers? Appropriators sometimes give organizations considerable freedom to transfer money around between budget priorities, but most require a minimum a notification if this takes place.Afghanistan Case: The U.S. government has a comparatively robust oversight framework in place to monitor how its budgets are spent, starting with the Congressional committees, which can compel testimony and reporting from the various agencies that they fund. As part of the budget process, agencies like the State Department and the Department of Defense prepare budget justification documents which are supposed to describe the activities they are carrying out and what future funding will be spent on. (This year’s State Department justification can be found here, for example.)Both the House and Senate also have dedicated Oversight committees which are supposed to carry out investigations and keep an eye out for waste or misuse of funding. Each U.S. government agency has its own in-house Inspector General, which in the case of Afghanistan is further supplemented by the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction‘s office (although after a tumultuous leadership history, there have been suggestions that SIGAR may be either folded into the State and DOD Inspectors General offices or merged with the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction to create a general wartime oversight body). The Government Accountability Office‘s investigators also conduct oversight when tasked to by Congress.Protip: The last question to ask yourself when considering how a budget is spent is the most important one: what results did the money actually achieve for the organization? This is the hardest form of oversight to conduct because it requires tracking not just how money came or went (the outputs) but how the programs that were funded did or did not accomplish the goals set out for them (the outcomes). Conducting effective oversight requires identifying a desired outcome and identifying what metrics you actually need to look for in order to judge the success or failure of that effort; in Afghanistan, we have not done very well at this so far. Tracking outcomes is not only complicated but also potentially challenging to the interests of those who provide the information for assessment and who implement the programs. Tracking budget outputs is always easier and safer, but don’t confuse it for the reality on the ground.

The following is the blueprint for exactly what’s happened over the last four decades. It is very real. It presents all of us with precisely how the American working and middle classes have been screwed.Confidential Memorandum: Attack of American Free Enterprise SystemDATE: August 23, 1971TO: Mr. Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., Chairman, Education Committee, U.S. Chamber of CommerceFROM: Lewis F. Powell, Jr.This memorandum is submitted at your request as a basis for the discussion on August 24 with Mr. Booth (executive vice president) and others at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The purpose is to identify the problem, and suggest possible avenues of action for further consideration.Dimensions of the AttackNo thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack. This varies in scope, intensity, in the techniques employed, and in the level of visibility.There always have been some who opposed the American system, and preferred socialism or some form of statism (communism or fascism). Also, there always have been critics of the system, whose criticism has been wholesome and constructive so long as the objective was to improve rather than to subvert or destroy.But what now concerns us is quite new in the history of America. We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts.Sources of the AttackThe sources are varied and diffused. They include, not unexpectedly, the Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system, both political and economic. These extremists of the left are far more numerous, better financed, and increasingly are more welcomed and encouraged by other elements of society, than ever before in our history. But they remain a small minority, and are not yet the principal cause for concern.The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism come from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians. In most of these groups the movement against the system is participated in only by minorities. Yet, these often are the most articulate, the most vocal, the most prolific in their writing and speaking.Moreover, much of the media-for varying motives and in varying degrees-either voluntarily accords unique publicity to these “attackers,” or at least allows them to exploit the media for their purposes. This is especially true of television, which now plays such a predominant role in shaping the thinking, attitudes and emotions of our people.One of the bewildering paradoxes of our time is the extent to which the enterprise system tolerates, if not participates in, its own destruction.The campuses from which much of the criticism emanates are supported by (i) tax funds generated largely from American business, and (ii) contributions from capital funds controlled or generated by American business. The boards of trustees of our universities overwhelmingly are composed of men and women who are leaders in the system.Most of the media, including the national TV systems, are owned and theoretically controlled by corporations which depend upon profits, and the enterprise system to survive.Tone of the AttackThis memorandum is not the place to document in detail the tone, character, or intensity of the attack. The following quotations will suffice to give one a general idea:William Kunstler, warmly welcomed on campuses and listed in a recent student poll as the “American lawyer most admired,” incites audiences as follows:“You must learn to fight in the streets, to revolt, to shoot guns. We will learn to do all of the things that property owners fear.”2 The New Leftists who heed Kunstler’s advice increasingly are beginning to act — not just against military recruiting offices and manufacturers of munitions, but against a variety of businesses: “Since February, 1970, branches (of Bank of America) have been attacked 39 times, 22 times with explosive devices and 17 times with fire bombs or by arsonists.”3 Although New Leftist spokesmen are succeeding in radicalizing thousands of the young, the greater cause for concern is the hostility of respectable liberals and social reformers. It is the sum total of their views and influence which could indeed fatally weaken or destroy the system.A chilling description of what is being taught on many of our campuses was written by Stewart Alsop:“Yale, like every other major college, is graduating scores of bright young men who are practitioners of ‘the politics of despair.’ These young men despise the American political and economic system . . . (their) minds seem to be wholly closed. They live, not by rational discussion, but by mindless slogans.”4 A recent poll of students on 12 representative campuses reported that: “Almost half the students favored socialization of basic U.S. industries.”5A visiting professor from England at Rockford College gave a series of lectures entitled “The Ideological War Against Western Society,” in which he documents the extent to which members of the intellectual community are waging ideological warfare against the enterprise system and the values of western society. In a foreword to these lectures, famed Dr. Milton Friedman of Chicago warned: “It (is) crystal clear that the foundations of our free society are under wide-ranging and powerful attack — not by Communist or any other conspiracy but by misguided individuals parroting one another and unwittingly serving ends they would never intentionally promote.”6Perhaps the single most effective antagonist of American business is Ralph Nader, who — thanks largely to the media — has become a legend in his own time and an idol of millions of Americans. A recent article in Fortune speaks of Nader as follows:“The passion that rules in him — and he is a passionate man — is aimed at smashing utterly the target of his hatred, which is corporate power. He thinks, and says quite bluntly, that a great many corporate executives belong in prison — for defrauding the consumer with shoddy merchandise, poisoning the food supply with chemical additives, and willfully manufacturing unsafe products that will maim or kill the buyer. He emphasizes that he is not talking just about ‘fly-by-night hucksters’ but the top management of blue chip business.”7A frontal assault was made on our government, our system of justice, and the free enterprise system by Yale Professor Charles Reich in his widely publicized book: “The Greening of America,” published last winter.The foregoing references illustrate the broad, shotgun attack on the system itself. There are countless examples of rifle shots which undermine confidence and confuse the public. Favorite current targets are proposals for tax incentives through changes in depreciation rates and investment credits. These are usually described in the media as “tax breaks,” “loop holes” or “tax benefits” for the benefit of business. As viewed by a columnist in the Post, such tax measures would benefit “only the rich, the owners of big companies.”8It is dismaying that many politicians make the same argument that tax measures of this kind benefit only “business,” without benefit to “the poor.” The fact that this is either political demagoguery or economic illiteracy is of slight comfort. This setting of the “rich” against the “poor,” of business against the people, is the cheapest and most dangerous kind of politics.The Apathy and Default of BusinessWhat has been the response of business to this massive assault upon its fundamental economics, upon its philosophy, upon its right to continue to manage its own affairs, and indeed upon its integrity?The painfully sad truth is that business, including the boards of directors’ and the top executives of corporations great and small and business organizations at all levels, often have responded — if at all — by appeasement, ineptitude and ignoring the problem. There are, of course, many exceptions to this sweeping generalization. But the net effect of such response as has been made is scarcely visible.In all fairness, it must be recognized that businessmen have not been trained or equipped to conduct guerrilla warfare with those who propagandize against the system, seeking insidiously and constantly to sabotage it. The traditional role of business executives has been to manage, to produce, to sell, to create jobs, to make profits, to improve the standard of living, to be community leaders, to serve on charitable and educational boards, and generally to be good citizens. They have performed these tasks very well indeed.But they have shown little stomach for hard-nose contest with their critics, and little skill in effective intellectual and philosophical debate.A column recently carried by the Wall Street Journal was entitled: “Memo to GM: Why Not Fight Back?”9 Although addressed to GM by name, the article was a warning to all American business. Columnist St. John said:“General Motors, like American business in general, is ‘plainly in trouble’ because intellectual bromides have been substituted for a sound intellectual exposition of its point of view.” Mr. St. John then commented on the tendency of business leaders to compromise with and appease critics. He cited the concessions which Nader wins from management, and spoke of “the fallacious view many businessmen take toward their critics.” He drew a parallel to the mistaken tactics of many college administrators: “College administrators learned too late that such appeasement serves to destroy free speech, academic freedom and genuine scholarship. One campus radical demand was conceded by university heads only to be followed by a fresh crop which soon escalated to what amounted to a demand for outright surrender.”One need not agree entirely with Mr. St. John’s analysis. But most observers of the American scene will agree that the essence of his message is sound. American business “plainly in trouble”; the response to the wide range of critics has been ineffective, and has included appeasement; the time has come — indeed, it is long overdue — for the wisdom, ingenuity and resources of American business to be marshalled against those who would destroy it.Responsibility of Business ExecutivesWhat specifically should be done? The first essential — a prerequisite to any effective action — is for businessmen to confront this problem as a primary responsibility of corporate management.The overriding first need is for businessmen to recognize that the ultimate issue may be survival — survival of what we call the free enterprise system, and all that this means for the strength and prosperity of America and the freedom of our people.The day is long past when the chief executive officer of a major corporation discharges his responsibility by maintaining a satisfactory growth of profits, with due regard to the corporation’s public and social responsibilities. If our system is to survive, top management must be equally concerned with protecting and preserving the system itself. This involves far more than an increased emphasis on “public relations” or “governmental affairs” — two areas in which corporations long have invested substantial sums.A significant first step by individual corporations could well be the designation of an executive vice president (ranking with other executive VP’s) whose responsibility is to counter-on the broadest front-the attack on the enterprise system. The public relations department could be one of the foundations assigned to this executive, but his responsibilities should encompass some of the types of activities referred to subsequently in this memorandum. His budget and staff should be adequate to the task.Possible Role of the Chamber of CommerceBut independent and uncoordinated activity by individual corporations, as important as this is, will not be sufficient. Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.Moreover, there is the quite understandable reluctance on the part of any one corporation to get too far out in front and to make itself too visible a target.The role of the National Chamber of Commerce is therefore vital. Other national organizations (especially those of various industrial and commercial groups) should join in the effort, but no other organizations appear to be as well situated as the Chamber. It enjoys a strategic position, with a fine reputation and a broad base of support. Also — and this is of immeasurable merit — there are hundreds of local Chambers of Commerce which can play a vital supportive role.It hardly need be said that before embarking upon any program, the Chamber should study and analyze possible courses of action and activities, weighing risks against probable effectiveness and feasibility of each. Considerations of cost, the assurance of financial and other support from members, adequacy of staffing and similar problems will all require the most thoughtful consideration.The CampusThe assault on the enterprise system was not mounted in a few months. It has gradually evolved over the past two decades, barely perceptible in its origins and benefiting (sic) from a gradualism that provoked little awareness much less any real reaction.Although origins, sources and causes are complex and interrelated, and obviously difficult to identify without careful qualification, there is reason to believe that the campus is the single most dynamic source. The social science faculties usually include members who are unsympathetic to the enterprise system. They may range from a Herbert Marcuse, Marxist faculty member at the University of California at San Diego, and convinced socialists, to the ambivalent liberal critic who finds more to condemn than to commend. Such faculty members need not be in a majority. They are often personally attractive and magnetic; they are stimulating teachers, and their controversy attracts student following; they are prolific writers and lecturers; they author many of the textbooks, and they exert enormous influence — far out of proportion to their numbers — on their colleagues and in the academic world.Social science faculties (the political scientist, economist, sociologist and many of the historians) tend to be liberally oriented, even when leftists are not present. This is not a criticism per se, as the need for liberal thought is essential to a balanced viewpoint. The difficulty is that “balance” is conspicuous by its absence on many campuses, with relatively few members being of conservatives or moderate persuasion and even the relatively few often being less articulate and aggressive than their crusading colleagues.This situation extending back many years and with the imbalance gradually worsening, has had an enormous impact on millions of young American students. In an article in Barron’s Weekly, seeking an answer to why so many young people are disaffected even to the point of being revolutionaries, it was said: “Because they were taught that way.”10 Or, as noted by columnist Stewart Alsop, writing about his alma mater: “Yale, like every other major college, is graduating scores’ of bright young men … who despise the American political and economic system.”As these “bright young men,” from campuses across the country, seek opportunities to change a system which they have been taught to distrust — if not, indeed “despise” — they seek employment in the centers of the real power and influence in our country, namely: (i) with the news media, especially television; (ii) in government, as “staffers” and consultants at various levels; (iii) in elective politics; (iv) as lecturers and writers, and (v) on the faculties at various levels of education.Many do enter the enterprise system — in business and the professions — and for the most part they quickly discover the fallacies of what they have been taught. But those who eschew the mainstream of the system often remain in key positions of influence where they mold public opinion and often shape governmental action. In many instances, these “intellectuals” end up in regulatory agencies or governmental departments with large authority over the business system they do not believe in.If the foregoing analysis is approximately sound, a priority task of business — and organizations such as the Chamber — is to address the campus origin of this hostility. Few things are more sanctified in American life than academic freedom. It would be fatal to attack this as a principle. But if academic freedom is to retain the qualities of “openness,” “fairness” and “balance” — which are essential to its intellectual significance — there is a great opportunity for constructive action. The thrust of such action must be to restore the qualities just mentioned to the academic communities.What Can Be Done About the CampusThe ultimate responsibility for intellectual integrity on the campus must remain on the administrations and faculties of our colleges and universities. But organizations such as the Chamber can assist and activate constructive change in many ways, including the following:Staff of ScholarsThe Chamber should consider establishing a staff of highly qualified scholars in the social sciences who do believe in the system. It should include several of national reputation whose authorship would be widely respected — even when disagreed with.Staff of SpeakersThere also should be a staff of speakers of the highest competency. These might include the scholars, and certainly those who speak for the Chamber would have to articulate the product of the scholars.Speaker’s BureauIn addition to full-time staff personnel, the Chamber should have a Speaker’s Bureau which should include the ablest and most effective advocates from the top echelons of American business.Evaluation of TextbooksThe staff of scholars (or preferably a panel of independent scholars) should evaluate social science textbooks, especially in economics, political science and sociology. This should be a continuing program.The objective of such evaluation should be oriented toward restoring the balance essential to genuine academic freedom. This would include assurance of fair and factual treatment of our system of government and our enterprise system, its accomplishments, its basic relationship to individual rights and freedoms, and comparisons with the systems of socialism, fascism and communism. Most of the existing textbooks have some sort of comparisons, but many are superficial, biased and unfair.We have seen the civil rights movement insist on re-writing many of the textbooks in our universities and schools. The labor unions likewise insist that textbooks be fair to the viewpoints of organized labor. Other interested citizens groups have not hesitated to review, analyze and criticize textbooks and teaching materials. In a democratic society, this can be a constructive process and should be regarded as an aid to genuine academic freedom and not as an intrusion upon it.If the authors, publishers and users of textbooks know that they will be subjected — honestly, fairly and thoroughly — to review and critique by eminent scholars who believe in the American system, a return to a more rational balance can be expected.Equal Time on the CampusThe Chamber should insist upon equal time on the college speaking circuit. The FBI publishes each year a list of speeches made on college campuses by avowed Communists. The number in 1970 exceeded 100. There were, of course, many hundreds of appearances by leftists and ultra liberals who urge the types of viewpoints indicated earlier in this memorandum. There was no corresponding representation of American business, or indeed by individuals or organizations who appeared in support of the American system of government and business.Every campus has its formal and informal groups which invite speakers. Each law school does the same thing. Many universities and colleges officially sponsor lecture and speaking programs. We all know the inadequacy of the representation of business in the programs.It will be said that few invitations would be extended to Chamber speakers.11 This undoubtedly would be true unless the Chamber aggressively insisted upon the right to be heard — in effect, insisted upon “equal time.” University administrators and the great majority of student groups and committees would not welcome being put in the position publicly of refusing a forum to diverse views, indeed, this is the classic excuse for allowing Communists to speak.The two essential ingredients are (i) to have attractive, articulate and well-informed speakers; and (ii) to exert whatever degree of pressure — publicly and privately — may be necessary to assure opportunities to speak. The objective always must be to inform and enlighten, and not merely to propagandize.Balancing of FacultiesPerhaps the most fundamental problem is the imbalance of many faculties. Correcting this is indeed a long-range and difficult project. Yet, it should be undertaken as a part of an overall program. This would mean the urging of the need for faculty balance upon university administrators and boards of trustees.The methods to be employed require careful thought, and the obvious pitfalls must be avoided. Improper pressure would be counterproductive. But the basic concepts of balance, fairness and truth are difficult to resist, if properly presented to boards of trustees, by writing and speaking, and by appeals to alumni associations and groups.This is a long road and not one for the fainthearted. But if pursued with integrity and conviction it could lead to a strengthening of both academic freedom on the campus and of the values which have made America the most productive of all societies.Graduate Schools of BusinessThe Chamber should enjoy a particular rapport with the increasingly influential graduate schools of business. Much that has been suggested above applies to such schools.Should not the Chamber also request specific courses in such schools dealing with the entire scope of the problem addressed by this memorandum? This is now essential training for the executives of the future.Secondary EducationWhile the first priority should be at the college level, the trends mentioned above are increasingly evidenced in the high schools. Action programs, tailored to the high schools and similar to those mentioned, should be considered. The implementation thereof could become a major program for local chambers of commerce, although the control and direction — especially the quality control — should be retained by the National Chamber.What Can Be Done About the Public?Reaching the campus and the secondary schools is vital for the long-term. Reaching the public generally may be more important for the shorter term. The first essential is to establish the staffs of eminent scholars, writers and speakers, who will do the thinking, the analysis, the writing and the speaking. It will also be essential to have staff personnel who are thoroughly familiar with the media, and how most effectively to communicate with the public. Among the more obvious means are the following:TelevisionThe national television networks should be monitored in the same way that textbooks should be kept under constant surveillance. This applies not merely to so-called educational programs (such as “Selling of the Pentagon”), but to the daily “news analysis” which so often includes the most insidious type of criticism of the enterprise system.12 Whether this criticism results from hostility or economic ignorance, the result is the gradual erosion of confidence in “business” and free enterprise.This monitoring, to be effective, would require constant examination of the texts of adequate samples of programs. Complaints — to the media and to the Federal Communications Commission — should be made promptly and strongly when programs are unfair or inaccurate.Equal time should be demanded when appropriate. Effort should be made to see that the forum-type programs (the Today Show, Meet the Press, etc.) afford at least as much opportunity for supporters of the American system to participate as these programs do for those who attack it.Other MediaRadio and the press are also important, and every available means should be employed to challenge and refute unfair attacks, as well as to present the affirmative case through these media.The Scholarly JournalsIt is especially important for the Chamber’s “faculty of scholars” to publish. One of the keys to the success of the liberal and leftist faculty members has been their passion for “publication” and “lecturing.” A similar passion must exist among the Chamber’s scholars.Incentives might be devised to induce more “publishing” by independent scholars who do believe in the system.There should be a fairly steady flow of scholarly articles presented to a broad spectrum of magazines and periodicals — ranging from the popular magazines (Life, Look, Reader’s Digest, etc.) to the more intellectual ones (Atlantic, Harper’s, Saturday Review, New York, etc.)13 and to the various professional journals.Books, Paperbacks and PamphletsThe news stands — at airports, drugstores, and elsewhere — are filled with paperbacks and pamphlets advocating everything from revolution to erotic free love. One finds almost no attractive, well-written paperbacks or pamphlets on “our side.” It will be difficult to compete with an Eldridge Cleaver or even a Charles Reich for reader attention, but unless the effort is made — on a large enough scale and with appropriate imagination to assure some success — this opportunity for educating the public will be irretrievably lost.Paid AdvertisementsBusiness pays hundreds of millions of dollars to the media for advertisements. Most of this supports specific products; much of it supports institutional image making; and some fraction of it does support the system. But the latter has been more or less tangential, and rarely part of a sustained, major effort to inform and enlighten the American people.If American business devoted only 10% of its total annual advertising budget to this overall purpose, it would be a statesman-like expenditure.The Neglected Political ArenaIn the final analysis, the payoff — short-of revolution — is what government does. Business has been the favorite whipping-boy of many politicians for many years. But the measure of how far this has gone is perhaps best found in the anti-business views now being expressed by several leading candidates for President of the United States.It is still Marxist doctrine that the “capitalist” countries are controlled by big business. This doctrine, consistently a part of leftist propaganda all over the world, has a wide public following among Americans.Yet, as every business executive knows, few elements of American society today have as little influence in government as the American businessman, the corporation, or even the millions of corporate stockholders. If one doubts this, let him undertake the role of “lobbyist” for the business point of view before Congressional committees. The same situation obtains in the legislative halls of most states and major cities. One does not exaggerate to say that, in terms of political influence with respect to the course of legislation and government action, the American business executive is truly the “forgotten man.”Current examples of the impotency of business, and of the near-contempt with which businessmen’s views are held, are the stampedes by politicians to support almost any legislation related to “consumerism” or to the “environment.”Politicians reflect what they believe to be majority views of their constituents. It is thus evident that most politicians are making the judgment that the public has little sympathy for the businessman or his viewpoint.The educational programs suggested above would be designed to enlighten public thinking — not so much about the businessman and his individual role as about the system which he administers, and which provides the goods, services and jobs on which our country depends.But one should not postpone more direct political action, while awaiting the gradual change in public opinion to be effected through education and information. Business must learn the lesson, long ago learned by labor and other self-interest groups. This is the lesson that political power is necessary; that such power must be assidously (sic) cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination — without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.As unwelcome as it may be to the Chamber, it should consider assuming a broader and more vigorous role in the political arena.Neglected Opportunity in the CourtsAmerican business and the enterprise system have been affected as much by the courts as by the executive and legislative branches of government. Under our constitutional system, especially with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.Other organizations and groups, recognizing this, have been far more astute in exploiting judicial action than American business. Perhaps the most active exploiters of the judicial system have been groups ranging in political orientation from “liberal” to the far left.The American Civil Liberties Union is one example. It initiates or intervenes in scores of cases each year, and it files briefs amicus curiae in the Supreme Court in a number of cases during each term of that court. Labor unions, civil rights groups and now the public interest law firms are extremely active in the judicial arena. Their success, often at business’ expense, has not been inconsequential.This is a vast area of opportunity for the Chamber, if it is willing to undertake the role of spokesman for American business and if, in turn, business is willing to provide the funds.As with respect to scholars and speakers, the Chamber would need a highly competent staff of lawyers. In special situations it should be authorized to engage, to appear as counsel amicus in the Supreme Court, lawyers of national standing and reputation. The greatest care should be exercised in selecting the cases in which to participate, or the suits to institute. But the opportunity merits the necessary effort.Neglected Stockholder PowerThe average member of the public thinks of “business” as an impersonal corporate entity, owned by the very rich and managed by over-paid executives. There is an almost total failure to appreciate that “business” actually embraces — in one way or another — most Americans. Those for whom business provides jobs, constitute a fairly obvious class. But the 20 million stockholders — most of whom are of modest means — are the real owners, the real entrepreneurs, the real capitalists under our system. They provide the capital which fuels the economic system which has produced the highest standard of living in all history. Yet, stockholders have been as ineffectual as business executives in promoting a genuine understanding of our system or in exercising political influence.The question which merits the most thorough examination is how can the weight and influence of stockholders — 20 million voters — be mobilized to support (i) an educational program and (ii) a political action program.Individual corporations are now required to make numerous reports to shareholders. Many corporations also have expensive “news” magazines which go to employees and stockholders. These opportunities to communicate can be used far more effectively as educational media.The corporation itself must exercise restraint in undertaking political action and must, of course, comply with applicable laws. But is it not feasible — through an affiliate of the Chamber or otherwise — to establish a national organization of American stockholders and give it enough muscle to be influential?A More Aggressive AttitudeBusiness interests — especially big business and their national trade organizations — have tried to maintain low profiles, especially with respect to political action.As suggested in the Wall Street Journal article, it has been fairly characteristic of the average business executive to be tolerant — at least in public — of those who attack his corporation and the system. Very few businessmen or business organizations respond in kind. There has been a disposition to appease; to regard the opposition as willing to compromise, or as likely to fade away in due time.Business has shunted confrontation politics. Business, quite understandably, has been repelled by the multiplicity of non-negotiable “demands” made constantly by self-interest groups of all kinds.While neither responsible business interests, nor the United States Chamber of Commerce, would engage in the irresponsible tactics of some pressure groups, it is essential that spokesmen for the enterprise system — at all levels and at every opportunity — be far more aggressive than in the past.There should be no hesitation to attack the Naders, the Marcuses and others who openly seek destruction of the system. There should not be the slightest hesitation to press vigorously in all political arenas for support of the enterprise system. Nor should there be reluctance to penalize politically those who oppose it.Lessons can be learned from organized labor in this respect. The head of the AFL-CIO may not appeal to businessmen as the most endearing or public-minded of citizens. Yet, over many years the heads of national labor organizations have done what they were paid to do very effectively. They may not have been beloved, but they have been respected — where it counts the most — by politicians, on the campus, and among the media.It is time for American business — which has demonstrated the greatest capacity in all history to produce and to influence consumer decisions — to apply their great talents vigorously to the preservation of the system itself.The CostThe type of program described above (which includes a broadly based combination of education and political action), if undertaken long term and adequately staffed, would require far more generous financial support from American corporations than the Chamber has ever received in the past. High level management participation in Chamber affairs also would be required.The staff of the Chamber would have to be significantly increased, with the highest quality established and maintained. Salaries would have to be at levels fully comparable to those paid key business executives and the most prestigious faculty members. Professionals of the great skill in advertising and in working with the media, speakers, lawyers and other specialists would have to be recruited.It is possible that the organization of the Chamber itself would benefit from restructuring. For example, as suggested by union experience, the office of President of the Chamber might well be a full-time career position. To assure maximum effectiveness and continuity, the chief executive officer of the Chamber should not be changed each year. The functions now largely performed by the President could be transferred to a Chairman of the Board, annually elected by the membership. The Board, of course, would continue to exercise policy control.Quality Control is EssentialEssential ingredients of the entire program must be responsibility and “quality control.” The publications, the articles, the speeches, the media programs, the advertising, the briefs filed in courts, and the appearances before legislative committees — all must meet the most exacting standards of accuracy and professional excellence. They must merit respect for their level of public responsibility and scholarship, whether one agrees with the viewpoints expressed or not.Relationship to FreedomThe threat to the enterprise system is not merely a matter of economics. It also is a threat to individual freedom.It is this great truth — now so submerged by the rhetoric of the New Left and of many liberals — that must be re-affirmed if this program is to be meaningful.There seems to be little awareness that the only alternatives to free enterprise are varying degrees of bureaucratic regulation of individual freedom — ranging from that under moderate socialism to the iron heel of the leftist or rightist dictatorship.We in America already have moved very far indeed toward some aspects of state socialism, as the needs and complexities of a vast urban society require types of regulation and control that were quite unnecessary in earlier times. In some areas, such regulation and control already have seriously impaired the freedom of both business and labor, and indeed of the public generally. But most of the essential freedoms remain: private ownership, private profit, labor unions, collective bargaining, consumer choice, and a market economy in which competition largely determines price, quality and variety of the goods and services provided the consumer.In addition to the ideological attack on the system itself (discussed in this memorandum), its essentials also are threatened by inequitable taxation, and — more recently — by an inflation which has seemed uncontrollable.14 But whatever the causes of diminishing economic freedom may be, the truth is that freedom as a concept is indivisible. As the experience of the socialist and totalitarian states demonstrates, the contraction and denial of economic freedom is followed inevitably by governmental restrictions on other cherished rights. It is this message, above all others, that must be carried home to the American people.ConclusionIt hardly need be said that the views expressed above are tentative and suggestive. The first step should be a thorough study. But this would be an exercise in futility unless the Board of Directors of the Chamber accepts the fundamental premise of this paper, namely, that business and the enterprise system are in deep trouble, and the hour is late.Footnotes (Powell’s)Variously called: the “free enterprise system,” “capitalism,” and the “profit system.” The American political system of democracy under the rule of law is also under attack, often by the same individuals and organizations who seek to undermine the enterprise system.Richmond News Leader, June 8, 1970. Column of William F. Buckley, Jr.N.Y. Times Service article, reprinted Richmond Times-Dispatch, May 17, 1971.Stewart Alsop, Yale and the Deadly Danger, Newsweek, May 18. 1970.Editorial, Richmond Times-Dispatch, July 7, 1971.Dr. Milton Friedman, Prof. of Economics, U. of Chicago, writing a foreword to Dr. Arthur A. Shenfield’s Rockford College lectures entitled “The Ideological War Against Western Society,” copyrighted 1970 by Rockford College.Fortune. May, 1971, p. 145. This Fortune analysis of the Nader influence includes a reference to Nader’s visit to a college where he was paid a lecture fee of $2,500 for “denouncing America’s big corporations in venomous language . . . bringing (rousing and spontaneous) bursts of applause” when he was asked when he planned to run for President.The Washington Post, Column of William Raspberry, June 28, 1971.Jeffrey St. John, The Wall Street Journal, May 21, 1971.Barron’s National Business and Financial Weekly, “The Total Break with America, The Fifth Annual Conference of Socialist Scholars,” Sept. 15, 1969.On many campuses freedom of speech has been denied to all who express moderate or conservative viewpoints.It has been estimated that the evening half-hour news programs of the networks reach daily some 50,000,000 Americans.One illustration of the type of article which should not go unanswered appeared in the popular “The New York” of July 19, 1971. This was entitled “A Populist Manifesto” by ultra liberal Jack Newfield — who argued that “the root need in our country is ‘to redistribute wealth’.”The recent “freeze” of prices and wages may well be justified by the current inflationary crisis. But if imposed as a permanent measure the enterprise system will have sustained a near fatal blow.This is the infamous “Powell Memo”. It could hardly be clearer. The sad part here is that millions of American voters are complicit in this attack upon themselves. They’ve been storming the gates of their own little castles for almost forty years now. Wake the hell up!

During Fall, the season of job applications is in full swing. Many postdoctoral fellows—gone are the days when you could get a faculty position straight after finishing your PhD—have worked hard on their application package over the summer, most importantly on their research statement; contacted their referees (maybe even drafted letters for them), shortlisted the jobs that they find interesting, and are now in the process of sending in their applications. About two years ago, I was in the same boat; I had completed my postdoctoral fellowship for about a year (as a Banting fellow—Canada’s most prestigious postdoctoral fellowship) and I was ready to start applying for tenure-track faculty positions (assistant professor).Other than actively looking up posted jobs (indeed.com was the most useful and comprehensive), I spent most of my time on understanding the departmental needs and customizing the cover letter (and even the research statement sometimes)—although I could have done a better job, by being more selective and targeted. Since it was my first time entering the academic job market and because I had a diverse training (ranging from nanotechnology to microbiome), I cast my net as wide as I could including both Canadian and American institutions and departments ranging over chemistry, chemical engineering, nanotechnology, biomedical engineering, and biological engineering.Research statementIn retrospect I can see how my research statement could have been even better. One key point is to start early: definitely a few months early (which I did). Although job postings would not be available yet, it is useful to look at a few departments that would be of interest and summarize which federal granting agencies are relevant to these departments (sometimes you can find public CVs of faculty members in the department and their funding sources listed). Within these agencies, look at some solicitations that are relevant to your research program (e.g. by using NIH RePORTER) and prepare a one-page proposal for each such solicitation. Combine these proposals to prepare a research statement. A typical statement should be five pages in length (with at least one relevant figure per page): the first page is a summary of the entire proposal (an executive summary), the next three pages are the projects (one short-term, low-risk; one medium-term, medium-risk; and one long-term, high-risk), and the final page ties everything together, mentions the impact and outcomes, and discusses possible funding agencies. Plus references take up another page.The goal of the research statement is to show your prospective colleagues that you can think about how you would set up your research program and how you would become self-sustained financially. Of course, once you get the faculty position you are not committed to the research statement and generally you have the freedom to pursue new opportunities as they present themselves—depending on the environment of the institute, many opportunities emerge by talking to colleagues (faculty members become more responsive compared to when you approached them as a graduate student or a postdoctoral fellow).Once you have drafted your research statement, send it for feedback to your mentors and your colleagues. Feedback is important but it is up to you whether you wish to incorporate their comments. The key is to judge whether your reader is interpreting your intentions accurately (and whether there are holes in your logic) or can the writing be clearer.You will need a few different versions of your research statement because each job posting could have a different requirement (e.g. page limit).For the rest of your application package, there are plenty of other resources on the web. Based on your CV and research statement, the faculty selection committee will shortlist 10-20 candidates out of about 100-200 applicants for a single position. They will then select the top two to three for interviews. Often, even within these two to three candidates, the committee might already have a favorite but it is difficult to know beforehand.InterviewLet us say you were lucky enough (my success rate was about 5%) to get an interview. It could be in two stages: first, a phone/video interview, and then an on-site/in-person interview. It helps to prepare answers to typical questions. I found the list by Herried II and Full helpful and I was asked the following questions during my phone/Skype interview:Have you seen the researchers on department’s page to see how you fit in?How does your research fit into the position posted?Who else does similar work?Does somebody work on gut microbiome on campus?Research is collaborative, give some examples of collaborations in your research.How does your research fit with the different units/faculty that are present here?Who are the big shots in your field? How do you differentiate from your PhD and postdoctoral advisors?How do you keep students motivated, both in teaching and research?Do you have any questions for us?The best way to prepare for interviews is to do them. So, if you have any control over it, do not schedule your top institutes as your first interviews. I did not do too well on my first two. It takes two to three tries to get the hang of it.In preparation for on-site interview, you want to get a feel of the department, know what the composition is like, even have few questions prepared for each person that you will be meeting (note that you may not receive a schedule until quite close to the date of the interview and so, it makes sense to review the entire department and make notes).Typically, you will be asked to give a research seminar and a teaching seminar. Often, departments will also include a presentation of your proposed research either in the form of a separate chalk talk or within your research seminar. You should ask the chair (the person who invited you for the interview) for details of these presentations. Their goal is to help you succeed and they will be happy to help you. After all, they are spending significant resources (time and money) to arrange the interview. The most important objective of any interview is to determine the fit. In today’s competitive market, you might feel like you would be happy with any faculty position, but in the long-term, the fit is important for success and satisfaction.After the on-site interview, you will have a gut feeling of whether it went well or not. Although there are often factors out of anybody’s control (e.g. budget cuts), your gut feeling is probably accurate in whether you will get an offer.OfferAfter receiving an offer, the ball is in your court and the next step is the negotiation. You have the upper hand because after spending all the time and effort, now the department wants to ensure that you will accept the offer. That being said, do not be a jerk, just play your hand carefully. Know your needs and ask for it.The start-up package will typically comprise funds for purchasing equipment, spending for personnel, and discretionary funds. Equipment typically includes anything that costs more than $5000. It is important to think about your needs, which are not already available as a part of shared facilities (if they are in shared facilities, make sure you budget the fees for them in your discretionary funds). The personnel funds (often expressed as time in addition to dollars) generally cover salaries for graduate student, postdoctoral fellow, and tuition fees remissions (which are funds to pay the tuition fees of graduate students in your lab). They also include some allocation for your summer salary (if yours is a typical 9-month appointment like most schools). You should also request support for undergraduate students and/or lab technician as these can be crucial when setting up a new lab and when grad students are not yet available. The discretionary funds cover fees for core facilities, materials, glassware, small equipment, publishing fees, travel, etc. A bio-related lab runs at about $2000/month in consumables and a good place to include these expenses is in the discretionary funds. It is useful to think of as many items as you can and put a number on it with justification.Do ensure that you get all your details in writing in the offer letter (e.g. lab space, office space, office furniture, etc.) because once you accept the offer, by the time you start your job, the situation might change and oral agreements may or may not hold. Although I have not had any trouble, I have heard of stories from colleagues and you can find plenty of examples online. You can also ask for teaching relief (which provides you a reduced teaching load) for the first one or two years. You can try to negotiate the salary as well, but I am not sure how much flexibility there is (it depends on the institute). A good place to look is the published salaries for new assistant professors in your department (if it is a public school). It is unlikely that you would start with anything much higher than them. There is an opportunity for merit increases annually and it is worth discussing these with your department chair.Second visitDuring the negotiations, you will often be invited for a second visit. This visit is more casual and it is meant to see the surrounding neighborhood and even look for housing. You can set up meetings with potential collaborators and find out any other details about the department or the job. Ensure that you see your lab space and make additional requests that might come up after the visit and include within the offer. They will typically also cover the cost of your spouse’s travel, if you would like to visit together. The main objective of this visit is to answer the question: do you see yourself living here?Once you are satisfied with the offer, get it reviewed by a trusted mentor for any final tweaks (they might catch something that you missed). The total value of the start-up package (often including indirect costs which could be 40-70%) is about $1-2 million for most R1 universities to be spent over a period of about five years. It is important to ask for the funds to be available for up to five years because you may be able to find some other resources early on or you might not. It is nice to have the flexibility.Once you are satisfied with the offer, sign it, celebrate, and start recruiting lab members!See original post here:How did I get here? Landing my first tenure-track positionThe season of job applications is in full swing. Many postdoctoral fellows—gone are the days when you could get a faculty position straight after finishing your PhD—have worked hard on their application package over the summer, most importantly on their research statement; contacted their referees (maybe even drafted letters for them), shortlisted the jobs that they find interesting, and are now in the process of sending in their applications. About two years ago, I was in the same boat; I had chttps://www.lifeofaprofessor.com/post/how-did-i-get-here-landing-my-first-tenure-track-position