Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE)
National Science Foundation
Arlington, Virginia

MEETING MINUTES
October 7-8, 2003

Attendance

Members Present:
Dr. Indira Nair, CEOSE Chair, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Dr. Luis Echegoyen, Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Dr. Beverly Karplus Hartline, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL
Dr. J.K. Haynes, Division of Science and Mathematics, Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA
Dr. Joyce Bennett Justus, University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA
Dr. Samuel L. Myers, Jr., HHH Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Dr. Willie Pearson, Jr., Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
Dr. Carol Halpert Schwartz, New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, NY
Dr. Telle Whitney, Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology, Palo Alto, CA
Dr. Thomas Windham, CEOSE Vice Chair, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
Dr. Lilian Shiao-Yen Wu, IBM Corporation, Somers, NY
Ms. Sara Young (Participation by Telcon), American Indian Research Opportunities, Montana State University, Bozeman,MT

Members Absent:
Dr. David R. Burgess, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA
Dr. Robert L. Lichter, Merrimack Consultants, LLC, Atlanta, GA

Executive Liaison/CEOSE Executive Secretary:
Dr. Margaret E. M. Tolbert, Senior Advisor, Office of Integrative Activities, National Science Foundation (NSF)

Non-Members Who Presented Oral or Written Statements or Interacted in Other Substantive Manners:
Dr. Joseph Bordogna, Deputy Director, National Science Foundation
Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation
Ms. Mary Jo Dively, Vice President and General Counsel, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Ms. Sandra Gartrell, The Reporters, Inc., Washington, DC
Dr. Richard O. Lempert, Division Director, SES/SBE/NSF
Dr. Nathaniel G. Pitts, Director, Office of Integrative Activities, NSF
Dr. James Powlik, Program Director, Human Resources Development Division, EHR/NSF
Mr. Lawrence Rudolph, General Counsel, NSF
Ms. Marilyn Suiter, Program Director, Human Resources Development Division, EHR/NSF
Dr. Judith Sunley, Senior Scientist, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, NSF
Dr. Donald Thompson, Director of the Human Resources Development Division, EHR/NSF
Dr. Bruce Umminger, Senior Scientist, Office of Integrative Activities, NSF
Mr. Robert Webber, Policy Officer, Staff Member of the National Science Board

The meeting of the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE) was held October 7-8, 2003 at the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Virginia.

Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - Beginning at 9:00 A.M.

Dr. Indira Nair, Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and welcomed the Committee members. After Dr. Nair introduced the three new members, others introduced themselves. Members who had not attended a prior CEOSE meeting were: Dr. J.K. Haynes whose appointment was effective in June 2003 and Dr. Samuel L. Myers and Dr. Joyce B. Justus whose appointments were effective October 2003. Their terms are for three years. Dr. Thomas Windham's appointment as Vice Chair of CEOSE was announced. Members confirmed the approval (with the correction of one word on page 3) of the minutes of the June 12-13, 2003 meeting, which were approved by the Chair of CEOSE on August 13, 2003. Upon review of the agenda for the meeting, it was noted that Dr. Burgess was unable to make his scheduled presentation since he could not attend the meeting as originally planned.

Committee members discussed the pros and cons of holding future meetings at NSF, other federal agencies, and minority serving institutions. It was noted that the Office of Science and Technology Policy should be asked to coordinate meetings at other federal agencies.

Supreme Court Decision on Affirmative Action: Implications for Minority Federal Programs and Initiatives

Mr. Lawrence Rudolph, NSF General Counsel, laid the foundation for a discussion of implications for minority federal programs and initiatives in reference to the Supreme Court decision on Affirmative Action. Among his comments were the following: The split decision by the Court reflects some of the same mixed feelings and beliefs present in our society today. Those in favor of some form of Affirmative Action have felt vindicated and felt race exclusive programs may be constitutionally based on broad language and opinions. Those opposed to any type of Affirmative Action, on the other hand, are finding ways to minimize the court's ruling. Not surprisingly, neither view is correct. The court's decision promised less than what some would like for Affirmative Action to be and provides greater legal basis for race conscious programs than might be argued. The courts tried hard to strike a middle ground. For the past ten years, there have been legal arguments in District Courts and Courts of Appeal to address the question of whether the Supreme Court ruling in the Bakke case embraced Justice Powell's position of 25 years ago. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor clearly confirmed the point of view expressed 25 years ago by Justice Powell, and the court upheld the gender case of constitutionality of race conscious admission policy designed to promote diversity. This was one of the first specific, other than Justice Powell's single decision, confirmations that diversity could actually constitute a compelling statement. That issue is no longer in doubt. Some are pleased, on the one hand, that some clarity-at least in the minds of some lawyers-resulted from the decisions.

Finally, what does the Supreme Court decision mean for NSF and its programs? This is the crux of the issue for CEOSE. NSF has a specific Congressional mandate. Dr. Shirley Malcom, who was a member of the National Science Board, helped write the Science Equal Opportunity Act, which mandated that NSF increase the number of women, minorities and persons with disabilities entering the science and engineering enterprise. However, we-like academic institutions-must do this in a constitutionally permissible way. NSF is currently structured to withstand judicial scrutiny, with standards that existed before and after the Michigan case. However, this does not mean that NSF will not be subject to legal action. As we move forward with plans for the workforce of the 21st century, NSF will continue to support the goals and ambitions set forth.

Ms. Mary Jo Dively, the Vice President and General Counsel of Carnegie Mellon University, spoke on implications of the Affirmative Action decision for educational institution programs and initiatives. She views the decision as being largely favorable to universities and to the goals of universities and NSF in providing a diverse and educated workforce. Ms. Dively included in her presentation details on how her university is reacting to and dealing with the Supreme Court decision as it defines its strategies to address diversity. Once the Supreme Court took over the two cases on which the university was working, she and others began working on a brief. They were joined in this endeavor by 38 other private universities in filing that brief, which supports the concept that diversity is a compelling interest that should permit the consideration of race as one factor in admissions. Ms. Dively expressed her pleasure with the affirmation of principle in Justice O'Connor's opinion. When she reviewed the opinions of the Supreme Court Justices, she thought of them as the good, the bad, and the ugly. The good part is that diversity is a compelling state interest that justifies the use of race as one factor in admissions. The opinion is that while race neutral factors should be considered, they need not be exhaustive. There isn't anything particularly bad in the opinion; however, the opinion does not go far enough. It is limited to admissions matters on its face, which means that there is no expressed discussion of all of the various programs that are used at the university to support diversity and admissions. The Court's opinion did not provide much help on how those programs should be structured. The truly ugly was Justice Scalia's dissension in which he laid out a road map for everyone on how to attack the opinion. Essentially, he asked if educational benefits flow from diversity at particular institutions. It meant the following: "Sure, diversity is important overall, but you have to show us why diversity is important and how it provides educational benefits at the institutions in question …"

With the completion of Ms. Dively's presentation, she and Mr. Rudolph responded to questions from CEOSE members.

Dr. Donald Thompson, Director of the Human Resource Development Division/NSF, gave comments on the initiatives his division is implementing for persons with disabilities. He introduced Dr. James Powlik who serves as Program Director in the Human Resource Development Division. The history of the Program for Persons with Disabilities goes back to 1991 when a series of task forces came to the realization that persons with disabilities are underrepresented in science and that NSF needed to do something about it. That "something" ended up being the Program for Persons with Disabilities, which officially debuted in FY 1994. It was co-funded through smaller projects from 1991 until 1994. Initially, it was funded at $2.2 million. The amount increased from 1995 until 2001, and basically has been level funded at $4.9 million ever since. See publication NSF 02-94 for information. The program has made about nine awards per year for the last decade. A typical award is about $400,000 for approximately 2.7 years duration. Historically, there has been a 20 to 30 percent award rate. By the end of the 1980s, support had been provided in over 30 states to over 60 Principal Investigators. The program is designed for institutions and not individuals. It was designed to give students opportunities, tools, and curricula, and a means of changing the awareness of mainstream education to help get those with disabilities into the door. It has adaptations of the curricula, model programs, mentoring programs, bridge program, and a combination of all of these in a single award. The program encourages students to take science and to recognize that their disabilities are not going to prevent them from getting into the door. There is a lot of work with undergraduates, but also K-12, teachers, counselors, and parents are involved. Self-advocacy is promoted. In 2001, the program was adapted for the formation of alliances based on the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation as a model. This type of project has been funded at three universities. There are grants for small projects that are short term and mostly in assistive technology. In 2004, the program will be re-oriented (i.e., more emphasis on evaluation components and structuring) and renamed, Research in Disability Education. There are specific initiatives for minority serving institutions, and there are gender-based projects that incorporate disabilities. The Research in Disabilities Education Program will broaden collaboration with programs throughout the Foundation. Plans are being made to link this program with those of other agencies for a synergistic effect.

The question and answer period that followed the presentations by Drs. Powlik and Thompson was informative, and a number of ideas were discussed. ACTION: Dr. Thompson is to send to CEOSE information on the needs of the Program for persons with Disabilities. ACTION: Drs. Pearson and Windham are to work together to address the NSF program and initiatives for persons with disabilities. They will seek to articulate CEOSE's interest and to identify a window of opportunity where CEOSE can have a role.

After Dr. Nair reported on the meeting she and Dr. Windham, with Dr. Tolbert as observer, had with Drs. Colwell and Bordogna, CEOSE members developed their strategy for use in interacting with Dr. Colwell.

Dr. Colwell said that she is pleased that CEOSE members had the opportunity to discuss with Mr. Rudolph and Ms. Dively issues pertinent to the Supreme Court decision on Affirmative Action. Also, she expressed how pleased she is that the Committee had the opportunity to discuss with Dr. Donald Thompson initiatives for persons with disabilities. She complimented Dr. Thompson on the super job he is doing at NSF. She commented as follows: Things are going well at NSF. With respect to the budget, the closure between the House and Senate is awaited. Also, activities relative to diversity are progressing. The horizontal and vertical integration, which the Committee recommended is proceeding at a good pace. As she indicated to Congress a few months ago, she is on the verge of announcing a coordinator for diversity. This person will report directly to Dr. Colwell and will be in the Office of the Director. This person will coordinate activities across NSF, as a part of the horizontal integration strategy. She advised that when CEOSE makes recommendations, NSF acts on them. Dr. Colwell then responded to comments and questions from CEOSE members.

Dr. Bordogna spoke of the need to capitalize on what has happened in education in the last 30 years and the need to focus on the successes in getting students through the education pipeline. The focus should be on the enhancement of strategies that work. There are programs (e.g., AMP, CREST, AGEP) at NSF that should be reviewed and linked to other programs, as appropriate. Priority areas that appear in the "Workforce for the 21st Century" document and the NSF budget are critical when discussing the linkage of programs. We need to be proactive in getting minority students into Ph.D. programs. CEOSE should look at which NSF programs work and how to strategize relative to them. A lot of what appears in the "Workforce for the 21st Century" and the NSF budget documents resulted from discussions with CEOSE. Those kinds of discussions must continue.

Dr. Colwell and Dr. Bordogna continued their interactions with CEOSE members by responding to questions and comments. They covered such topics as the following: the role of liaisons to NSF advisory committees, the results of a very productive site visit, community colleges, graduate school admissions and education for minority students, careers in scientific fields, the need for better advising and counseling of students about opportunities in professional careers in various scientific fields, the reports that Congress required of CEOSE, information technology and the expertise of interest to industry-abilities of potential employees to think critically and analytically, strategies to broaden the minority aspect of NSF-sponsored centers at top tier universities, and the need to identify those things that work well for getting underrepresented minorities to complete Ph.D. programs.

In closing, Dr. Colwell told CEOSE members that she appreciates the enthusiasm they bring to the Committee and that the work that they do is critical to NSF and the nation.

• Dr. Hartline reported on the Office of Polar Programs (OPP) Advisory Committee meeting, which was held last week. Two weeks prior to that, a Committee of Visitors' (COV) meeting was held. She participated in both the advisory committee and the COV meetings. Both groups were diverse ethnically and in gender. The latter group met even though Hurricane Isabel was in progress and NSF was closed for two of the three days of the meeting. The primary action of the advisory committee was reviewing the report of the COV. OPP takes diversity, outreach, and the involvement of underrepresented minorities in its programs very, very seriously. OPP convened a meeting of a working group and its staff to flush out and prepare a guide to help principal investigators with Criterion 2. It contains approximately 40 questions/issues of which nine deal with diversity and inclusion types of issues. One type of recommendation that might result from this effort may be to have investigators who request NSF funding and their home institutions submit what they have done so far in terms of broader impacts. Some programs, e.g., those in the Arctic region, have a much higher presence of interacting with minorities, such as the people of northern Alaska. The guide prepared by OPP was later adapted for use NSF wide.
• Dr. Wu pointed out the need to have a discussion on the strategy to use in the advisory committee meetings to highlight CEOSE points. Dr. Whitney suggested that CEOSE relevant agenda items be submitted to the advisory committees for discussion. Dr. Windham suggested that copies of the CEOSE report be presented and discussed at advisory committee meetings. Some members of advisory committees are unfamiliar with CEOSE, and these actions will bridge that gap.
• Dr. Pearson was CEOSE liaison to the MPS Advisory Committee. While he was serving in that capacity, he noted that each MPS division made a presentation to the advisory committee, focusing on exemplary programs and projects. Although each presentation was different, presenters included information on issues of concern to CEOSE. When the advisory committee meets again, Dr. Echegoyen will serve as CEOSE liaison to the MPS Advisory Committee.
• Dr. Schwartz indicated that she will make her presentation to the SBE Advisory Committee once its Chair has agreed with its proposed content.
• In reference to CEOSE members serving as liaisons to advisory committees, the following is noted. The liaison can be a member of the advisory committee if the advisory committee chooses to have it that way. All liaisons should be treated with the same professionalism as full members of the advisory committee. Comparable opportunities to speak at the meetings should be granted.
• Dr. Tolbert made two announcements: (1) that Dr. Jacquelyn Huntoon, GEO Program Director for Diversity, is the GEO liaison to CEOSE (However, she is not a member of CEOSE.); and that an agreement among CEOSE and two NSF offices-the NSF Office of Business, Finance and Award Management and the NSF Office of Information and Resource Management-has been made to permit a CEOSE member to serve as a liaison to the NSF Budget and Operations Advisory Committee. Dr. Haynes was appointed by CEOSE to serve as liaison to the Budget and Operations Advisory Committee. ACTION: Dr. Haynes' biographical sketch is to be sent to the NSF Budget and Operations Advisory Committee.

In discussing the ad hoc subcommittees, the following was decided:

Dr. Windham, who serves as Chair of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on the Mentoring Workshop,reviewed plans for the Mentoring Workshop, which is scheduled for October 8-9, 2003, at the AAAS Headquarters in Washington, DC. The agenda was presented. One desired outcome of this NSF-sponsored workshop is a set of recommendations that CEOSE can submit to the NSF Director for action relative to mentoring. Hopefully, an RFP from NSF would result from the recommendations. Another desired outcome is a report that would be disseminated to the community to help others take action on mentoring. He noted that Ms. Marilyn Suiter of NSF is working closely with Ms. Yolanda George of AAAS in the planning and implementation of the workshop. Ms. Suiter has been facilitating focus group discussions on topics to be discussed at this workshop. Dr. Windham alluded to the ambiguous role that CEOSE continues to play in the workshop planning and implementation. He advised that, in the future, CEOSE clarify its role in projects and activities in advance.

Dr. Schwartz will continue as the Chair of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on NSF-Sponsored Research on Diversity. She mentioned that this subcommittee gave a report at an earlier meeting.The initial focus of this subcommittee was on programs for women. Dr. Schwartz had envisioned focusing on underrepresented minorities and persons with disabilities later; however, the subcommittee realized the enormity of the task and the need for the preparation of extensive reports for Congress. Dr. Schwartz assumes that the work of her subcommittee will be subsumed in the preparation of the ten-year reports to Congress. Actions are being taken by the subcommittee to facilitate (i.e., editing the draft reports) the work of the contractor that will prepare the reports, rather than duplicating the work of the contractor.

Dr. Wu will serve as Chair of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Broader Impacts at NSF Centers, with Drs. Burgess and Echegoyen as members. She gave an abstract of the report that she gave to the National Science Board. However, she only focused on the Science and Technology Centers (STCs) in her report to CEOSE. She provided and discussed excerpts on diversity from the summaries of the currently active STCs, which receive from $1.5 million to $4 million per year from NSF. The effort was to identify strategies to enhance and strengthen the diversity components of the STCs. Dr. Bruce Umminger gave a detailed description (from the preproposal stage to the full proposal stage, the site visits/critical site visits, cooperative agreements, partners, personnel, strategic plans, management plans, research/education/diversity/knowledge transfer plans, annual reports, external assessments, continuation awards, the end of the ten-year award period) of the application and review processes for STCs, thereby setting the context for the presentation of the information on broader impacts by Dr. Wu. With input from several CEOSE members (e.g., Drs. Wu, Echegoyen, Windham, Hartline, Myers, Haynes, and Schwartz, Pearson, Justus, Whitney, and Nair), the discussion was quite lively. The subcommittee was trying to determine if what it was doing would add value to the STC program-especially the broader impacts part-and the processes used therein. Subcommittee members are aware that Criterion 2 addresses more than diversity.

Dr. Echegoyen will chair the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Broader Impact Recommendations with Drs. Burgess, Lichter, and Wu as members. ACTION: Dr. Echegoyen asked for suggestions on how to increase the representation of underrepresented minorities, women, and persons with disabilities at all levels of top universities. These suggestions will be developed into specific concrete recommendations to increase diversity at these Tier 1 Institutions/Research 1 Institutions.

The Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Documentation of CEOSE Actions for which Dr. Hartline serves as Chair was reestablished as the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Reports. Dr. Hartline will serve as Chair of the reestablished ad hoc subcommittee with Drs. Justus, Lichter, Myers, Nair, and Pearson as members. With the formation of this subcommittee, its predecessor will no longer be in effect. The predecessor subcommittee provided a report that resulted from a thorough review of available CEOSE minutes and reports. The role of the predecessor subcommittee will be subsumed under the tasks of the contractor who will prepare the CEOSE reports. The report prepared by this subcommittee will be given to the contractor. The new subcommittee will serve as an interface between CEOSE and the contractor, and it will focus on the end products of the contractor.

As the appointment of members of ad hoc subcommittees ended, the discussion continued on topics of interest to members. Members (e.g., Drs. Wu, Echegoyen, Hartline, Windham, and Nair) discussed the compilation of data on the top 100 institutions in terms of their diversity representation. The results should be distributed for others to see. The objective is to make those institutions focus on diversity and to improve the problem of under representation at those top tier institutions. Also, Dr. Hartline called to the attention of CEOSE members the need to nominate deserving persons, especially minorities and women, for the various awards that are given throughout the year. Also, she called to the attention of the Committee that the physics societies are launching the World Year of Physics (see http://www.wyp2005.org/) in 2005 and that the International Polar Year Committee is preparing for its Polar Year Celebration in 2007.

Report on the NSB Workshop-Broadening Participation in Science and Engineering Research and Education: Dr. Pearson gave the report on the NSB Workshop. A subcommittee under the leadership of Dr. George Langford who is an NSB member developed and implemented the workshop. Drs. Pearson and Wu participated in this workshop. Also, Drs. Shirley Malcom of AAAS and Shirley Jackson of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute were participants in the workshop. Shirley McBay of QEM provided valuable input to the discussions. Additionally, there were participants (e.g., President of Spelman University) who are most knowledgeable of workforce policies and diversity issues. This well-attended workshop focused on national needs for human resources and especially for a diverse workforce in science and technology. Suggestions on workforce needs were made for government, academia, and the private sector to use. Dr. Pearson's opinion is that Dr. Langford accomplished his goal of bringing greater attention to Research 1 Institutions and strategies to provide incentives to them to change their ways for the better. There was discussion of how minority and women (but not women of color) students complete their degree work at Research 1 Institutions and are unable to obtain positions at these institutions. Dr. Webber supported Dr. Pearson with his brief comments and stated that a report on the workshop is being prepared. In closing, Dr. Pearson announced the workshop on STEM Pathways that he and Dr. C. Dianne Martin of The George Washington University will implement October 24-26, 2003 at NSF.

Report of the Executive Liaison/CEOSE Executive Secretary:

Dr. Margaret E.M. Tolbert, NSF Executive Liaison and CEOSE Executive Secretary, provided an overview of NSF developments since the June meeting. She advised that NSF is operating under a Continuing Resolution for the month of October. She presented information on NSF Congressional interactions, the budget, efforts to identify a contractor to prepare reports required by Congress, new major appointments at NSF, and an update on activities of the NSF Diversity Committee. Additionally, reference was made to Dr. Jacquelyn Huntoon's future interactions with CEOSE (see page 4 of this document). Information presented by Dr. Tolbert on the NSF Budget and Operations Advisory Committee is captured on page 4 of this document, also. She called to the attention of CEOSE members that a copy of the statement of work for the preparation of the CEOSE reports to Congress is in each member's binder.

Comments by the CEOSE Chair
Dr. Nair reported that there was only one CEOSE member, Dr. Lichter, who provided comments on the NSB Workforce Policy Statement, and those comments were forwarded to the NSB staff. In reference to the Draft "2004 Report on Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities", comments were to be submitted to Dr. Burrelli of SRS/NSF. ACTION: Upon receipt of requests from CEOSE members, Dr. Tolbert is to send each a copy of the Draft "2004 Report on Women,Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities".

Adjournment: 5:30 p.m.

Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - Beginning at 8:30 A.M.

Opening Statement by the Chair of CEOSE
After a preliminary statement on the plan for the half day of meeting, Dr. Nair was joined in discussion by other members of CEOSE. The matter of how CEOSE members are appointed was discussed. Of note is the fact that the NSF Director appoints CEOSE members; however, members can make recommendations pertinent to the CEOSE mandate. If NSF officials have relevant recommendations, they should be submitted to CEOSE for consideration. The Committee will decide whether to send the recommendation(s) to the NSF Director. The Committee also discussed interacting with other federal agencies. The decision is that the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in care of Dr. Kathie Olsen, will be requested to coordinate meetings/interactions of CEOSE with other federal agencies.

Report on the CEOSE/OSTP Meeting
Dr. Pearson reported on the CEOSE/OSTP meeting held on September 15th in Washington, DC. He gave the presentation on the 2002 CEOSE Biennial Report to Congress, and Dr. Nair reported on plans for the 2004 CEOSE Biennial Report to Congress. Dr. Pitts did a magnificent job of presenting a speech on behalf of the NSF Director. Officials from approximately 20 federal agencies and organizations participated in the meeting, listening to the presentations, providing insights on their programs with relevance to the CEOSE mandate, and sharing ideas on various programs. Meeting participants discussed their agencies' programs for encouraging underrepresented minorities and women to join the science and engineering workforce. They discussed such programs and initiatives as the loan repayment program, local area training systems, opportunities at DOD schools, various science and engineering curricula, federal employment, the need for more women and underrepresented minorities in the workforce, fellowships, community colleges, internships, innovative recruitment strategies, museum science and engineering programs, and mentoring programs. At the CEOSE/OSTP meeting, it was suggested that CEOSE get on the road and do more outreach. Dr. Pearson noted that it was great to have this meeting since that is the type of environment where major decisions are made. The meeting emphasized the fact that there is a great deal of interest in the work of CEOSE. CEOSE members advised that as we focus on other federal agencies, we must keep NSF in the forefront. We need to identify critical issues that require input from other agencies, develop strategies for addressing these issues, and request the assistance of OSTP as needed. Additionally, it was suggested that professional societies be involved in the meetings. ACTION: Send CEOSE members copies of slides used by Drs. Nair and Pearson at the CEOSE/OSTP meeting. ACTION: Send a list of attendees at the CEOSE/OSTP meeting to CEOSE members. ACTION: Send each CEOSE member several copies of the 2002 CEOSE Biennial Report to Congress. ACTION: Compile a directory of professional societies and their contact information for use by CEOSE. ACTION: Explore the possibility of holding a federal agency summit to discuss issues pertinent to the CEOSE mandate.

Discussion of Plans for the Development of CEOSE Reports
Committee members discussed the statement of work, which was developed to obtain the service of a contractor to prepare the four CEOSE reports required by Congress in 2004 or shortly thereafter. They also discussed the options (i.e., have the CEOSE contract as a component of a larger NSF contract, use an 8a company, or award a grant to get the job done) available to them in getting the job done. Although the statement of work had been submitted to the NSF Contracting Branch so that a contractor could be identified, CEOSE members made a few changes in it. Dr. Myers provided a statement for insertion into the document so that the social science aspect (i.e., the effectiveness of what CEOSE has done in the past ten years) of the reports will be evident. The Committee complimented Dr. Tolbert for the phenomenal job she did in preparing the statement of work with enough check points at which CEOSE members will have input. Note was made of the fact that only a limited amount for funds are available for the contract. ACTION: Make the necessary change(s) in the statement of work and communicate with a contractor at an early date to assure that the work will be done in a timely manner. ACTION: CEOSE members will meet with the Contractor during its February meeting at NSF.

Committee Discussion of Unfinished Business
Nomination of New Members: ACTION: CEOSE members are to send to Dr. Tolbert (mtolbert@nsf.gov) the names and contact information for persons that they wish to nominate for CEOSE membership. Dr. Tolbert will compile the list and have it reviewed by NSF management. The Committee is seeking to identify an engineer for CEOSE membership.

Discussion with Ms. Young about the CEOSE meeting to be held in Montana: Ms. Young has contacted officials at Little Big Horn College (One Forest Lane; Crow Agency, Montana 59022; Telephone Number: 406-638-3104), which is located 60 miles from the airport. NSF has funded projects (e.g., T-CUP) there. The college has two new buildings, and it has two or three science faculty members. College officials are receptive to having the meeting there. This college has hosted successfully other meetings on its campus. CEOSE members would fly into Billings, Montana, where they would stay at the Sheraton Hotel at Billings. From the hotel, a van or some other means of transportation would be used to transport them to the meeting on the campus of Little Big Horn College. A traditional American Indian dinner would be held at the college. The second night would be spent at the Super 8 Hotel in Hardin, Montana, as members visit Dull Knife College (One College Drive; Lame Deer, Montana 59043; Telephone Number: 406-477-6215) and other campuses, on the second day of the meeting if possible. At the meeting, students could talk about barriers to careers in science and engineering. There could be a focus on T-CUP if desired. The Committee decided to meet in Montana on April 19-20, 2004. The 18th and 21st would be travel days. There would be an evening meeting at the hotel on the 18th to prepare for meetings on the 19th and 20th at Little Big Horn College and Dull Knife College, respectively. ACTION: Plan for the first off-site CEOSE meeting in Montana in April 2004. ACTION: Ms. Young will make arrangements for the meeting rooms at the colleges on April 19th and 20th. NSF staff will assist with this and other logistics for the meeting. This April Meeting will replace the June 2004 CEOSE meeting. However, members might wish to hold a conference call in June to address any issues that might develop pertinent to the CEOSE reports.

Selection of Dates and Places for Future CEOSE Meetings: 1. The Committee agreed to hold the next CEOSE meeting on February 18-19, 2004, in room 1235 at the National Science Foundation (4201 Wilson Boulevard; Arlington, VA; Telephone Number: 703-292-8040). ACTION: The Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Reports (Members: Drs. Justus, Lichter, Hartline - Chair, Pearson, Myers, and Nair) will interact prior to the February meeting to plan for its interaction with the Contractor. 2. The first off-site meeting will be held at Little Big Horn College in Crow Agency, Montana (One Forest Lane; Crow Agency, MT 59022; Telephone Number: 406-638-3104) on April 19-20, 2004.

Topic for next CEOSE meeting: ACTION: Identify a person to make a presentation on "The Crisis of the African American Male".

Numbering of CEOSE Reports: It was decided that beginning in 2004, all CEOSE reports would be numbered. The suggested format is the acronym for the Committee, the report year, and the number of the report (e.g., CEOSE 04-01).

Adjournment: 1:32 p.m.

CERTIFICATION OF THE ACCURACY OF THE CEOSE MEETING
MINUTES

Dr. Indira Nair, who is Chair of the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, approved the meeting minutes on January 7, 2004 (Reference: See the January 7, 2004 e-mail message from Dr. Nair to Dr. Tolbert).

Link to minutes in WORD