Magellan SAC meeting, Aug 6, 2004

Location: Telephone conference
Notes by P. Schecter and A. Dressler, submitted to the Magellan Council
SAC Discussion on Magellan Staffing Recommendations -- August 6, 2004

The Magellan SAC met by telecom on August 6, 2004 to discuss a staffing
plan from Alan Uomoto that is to be considered by the Magellan Council
at its October meeting.  Attending were Uomoto, Mateo, Kirshner,
Fabricant, Dressler, Schechter, Close, Mulchaey, Roth, Osip, Shectman,
Johns, Thompson, Perez, and Phillips.  The discussion lasted just over
one hour; notes were taken by Schechter and by Dressler.

Context:  At its April 2004 meeting in Tucson the SAC endorsed a 5-year
Magellan staffing plan by Uomoto which was reported to the Council at
its meeting immediately following.  The plan recognized a substantial
shortfall of personnel to maintain the level of scientific support and
productivity presently enjoyed at the Magellan facilities.  At the
request of the Council, Uomoto was asked to prepare a plan that
included specific staffing appointments over the next several years, to
be discussed at the upcoming October, 2004 Council meeting.  The
purpose of the SAC telecom was to discuss this plan, advise Uomoto, and
pass its comments on to the Council via this document which will
accompany Uomotos proposal.

Dressler opened the discussion by reiterating the role of the SAC in
this process:  evaluate the effect of present and proposed staffing on
science capabilities and productivity at Magellan.

Bottom Line: At the conclusion of the telecom, unanimous approval was
voiced for the plan proposed by Uomoto.  From the point of view of
science, the Magellan operation as currently structured is the one we
want  it works.  Without the proposed increases in staffing, this
operation cannot be sustained.

The following important points came from the discussion:

1) The proposed augmentation in staffing is not intended to achieve a
higher level of performance than is currently being achieved, but to
provide staffing that can sustain the present operation.  The SAC
agrees that the present level has been reached by unsustainable
commitments in hours and energy by the Magellan staff, and by deferring
even routine maintenance, let alone the provision of desirable support
upgrades.  Important telescope tasks  in particular, the replacement of
primary mirror actuators  loom as near-term big drains on support
personnel, and the long list of incoming instruments, the f/5, and the
adaptive f/11 secondary, the shortfall presently faced will only get
worse.

2) The present level of technical support has already reached the point
where it will be unable to keep the telescopes working well with the
small downtime we have achieved until now.  The already-approved new
Magellan engineer will be crucial in shoring this up.  Additional
Instrument Specialists are the most important next step in maintaining
the current level of telescope/Instrument operations since they help
out with a variety of repair and upgrade tasks associated with both
telescopes and instruments.  At present, the Instrument Specialist
position is so understaffed that on many nights there is no Instrument
Specialist available, with demonstrable loss of science as a result.

3) The Instrument Scientist position has become the method of
instructing observers, who come with a wide range (including none) of
experience, on the operation of the Magellan instrumentation.  Also,
Instrument Scientists have been a key component in the process of
commissioning new instruments, chiefly IMACS, and to providing software
tools necessary to interface observer to the telescope and instrument
these are usually instrument specific.  The Instrument Scientist
position is also understaffed (shored up by other LCO scientists with
other responsibilities) and will be even more so in the future.
Without these additional Instrument Scientists, the burden to
commission and troubleshoot instruments (report back to instrument
builders regarding problems), and to teach observers how to operate
them, will fall entirely on the member institutions.  Experience to
this point has, if anything, demonstrated that this will fail in the
present style of the Magellan operation, the style that the SAC
believes is a requirement for scientific versatility and productivity.
Furthermore, a significant problem with this alternative approach is 
that those managing the operation would have no authority over the 
individuals that are necessary to keep the system running smoothly 
and effectively, a recipe for confusion and inefficiency.

4) It has been pointed out that several of the continuing issues with
the Magellan telescopes could arguably be considered as holdovers from
the construction  finishing the telescope.  Dealing with these might be
partially or wholly supported using the remaining funds in the
construction budget.
acl 2004-09-27