Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

Version 1 Current »

(Accepted 16 August 2022)

Definition of Purpose

The ACCESS Executive Council (EC) is the primary governance body overseeing the execution of the ACCESS Program awards. The EC provides the necessary coordination and governance of the day-to-day execution of all ACCESS awardees and provides leadership to ensure high operational efficiency and user-centric performance of the collective ACCESS resources for the benefit of the scientific and engineering research and education community.

The EC can establish and discontinue committees, policies, and procedures to facilitate the collective efforts of the ACCESS Service Track awardees.  By contrast, working groups may be formed by program staff as needed with the expectation that they create a working group page on the ACCESS wiki with charter, minutes, and other relevant references.

In particular, the EC is responsible for the integrated performance of the ACCESS awards’ suite of services and reports on progress and plans to the community annually.

Membership

The EC consists of the:

  • ACCESS Service Track PIs and the ACO PI as the voting members of the EC,

    • each Service Track PI may, at their discretion, bring one additional team member as a non-voting participant in any EC meeting,

  • ACCESS-ACO the following additional ACO members will participate in EC meetings:

    • ACO PI as EC Facilitator

    • ACO Project Manager to capture decisions, actions, meeting summary (ex-offcio, non-voting member)

    • ACO External Advisory Board (EAB) Facilitator to be liaison between the EAB and EC  (ex-offcio, non-voting member)

    • ACO External Evaluator to support their role  (ex-offcio, non-voting member)

  • NSF ACCESS Cognizant Program Officer(s) as ex-officio, non-voting, observer(s).

Role of the ACCESS Coordination Office (ACO)

The ACO will facilitate effective governance, communications, and coordination across the ACCESS Service Track awardees via collaboration with the EC. The ACO will be a resource to the EC and is expected to provide impartial recommendations and suggestions to the EC for their consideration.

Executive Council Voting

While not all decisions of the EC require a formal vote, some may rise to that level by virtue of, for example, the impact of the decision on the community, or the impact of work performed by one Service Track by that of another. In addition, there may be instances in which it would be useful for there to be an affirmative record of a decision of the EC (e.g. agreeing on a "joint statement" to the community). Accordingly, any member of the EC may request that an item come up for a formal vote.

When known in advance, any vote expected to be taken should be announced as part of the agenda in advance of the meeting in which the vote is taken.  If any voting member of the EC will not be present for the vote, they must either indicate their vote in advance to the ACO EC Facilitator, or assign a delegate to vote on their behalf. In the case of delegating voting authority, the relevant PI must communicate this delegation to the ACO EC Facilitator in advance of the meeting in which the vote is to take place. If this does not occur in advance of the meeting, the vote will be deferred.

In the case in which the need to take a vote arises during the course of an EC meeting, a vote can only be taken if all voting members are present and they all agree that they are prepared to vote on the issue.  If both criteria are not met, the vote will be deferred to a future EC meeting.

Voting Rights

Only the Service Track PIs and the ACO PI (or their delegates) will have voting rights in the event of any vote being taken by the EC. The Service Track PIs and the ACO PI will have one vote each.

Voting Process

A vote of the EC will be facilitated by ACCESS Coordination Office (ACO) staff. This will use a means acceptable to and approved by the EC.

Voting Outcomes

A vote requires all ACCESS awardees be present. A vote in support of a resolution shall pass with a simple majority of votes (>50%). 

Meetings

The primary work of the EC is conducted through periodic meetings. Meetings shall be no less frequent than monthly with the venue and format set by the EC. Meetings may be in-person, remote (e.g., via Zoom), or hybrid in-person/remote. Furthermore, meetings may be held in conjunction with other community meetings, conferences, or workshops if the EC determines this to be the most efficient in terms of use of members’ time and topics of the specific EC meeting. A quorum will require representation from all ACCESS Service Tracks and the ACO either by the PI for that award or a designee named and indicated to the ACO staff in advance of the meeting.

Records of Meetings

A preliminary report with respect to actions taken at each meeting of the EC shall be recorded and distributed in draft form to the EC members for comment and approval within one week of the meeting. Meeting minutes shall be posted promptly following approval by the EC. In addition, a summary of the meeting minutes will be distributed to all program staff. 

Executive Council Facilitation

Executive Council meetings will be facilitated by the ACO EC Facilitator (the ACO PI).  They will be supported by the ACO Project Manager. The primary role of the EC Facilitator is to ensure that the topics on the previously agreed upon agenda are addressed during the meeting and that there is ample time for all EC members to participate. Additional responsibilities include:

  • liaise with ACO staff on distribution of EC information prior to meetings,

  • timely distribution and approval of EC meeting minutes.

The EAB Facilitator will fulfill the obligations of the EC Facilitator in their absence. 

Communications

The EC will use both formal and informal mechanisms to receive and issue communications with stakeholders. Mechanisms for communications include, but are no limited to:

  • EC agendas and meeting summaries: The ACO Project Manager will solicit inputs from all awardees in the program for issues to be addressed by the EC, be they suggestions, recommendations, or questions requiring either EC input or EC decision. The ACO Project Manager will also create a summary of EC Meetings to be shared broadly throughout the program.  

  • EAB Facilitator communications:  These are communications between the EC and EAB that are facilitated by the EAB Facilitator. The EAB Facilitator will be responsible for ensuring the EC is apprised of the activities of the EAB, and will bring any questions, recommendations, suggestions, or concerns from the EAB to the EC to be addressed.  Likewise, the EAB Facilitator will bring responses to EAB questions for the EC back to the EAB, and bring EC issues, plans or documents that they would like the EAB to provide feedback regarding to the EAB.

  • Working Groups:  As noted above, working groups may be formed by program staff as needed with the expectation that they create a working group page on the ACCESS wiki with charter, minutes, and other relevant references. It is expected that the appropriate Service Track team is communicating the fact that a working group has been created or closed to the EC as an information item to ensure awareness of the creation and then progress reports on the products of a working group.

Alterations to the Charter

The EC Charter can be amended or altered as the EC sees fit. Any changes to the charter will require unanimous agreement by all voting members of the EC at the following meeting.

ACCESS External Advisory Board (EAB) Charter Creation & Maintenance

With EC support, the ACO will develop and maintain the EAB charter, and facilitate approval by the EC of its creation and any changes. The EAB will provide external advice for the program as a whole and act as a source of advice from a trusted group of experts spanning the CI ecosystem and the science and engineering research and education community. The ACO’s EAB Facilitator will fill the role of liaison between the EC and the EAB.  

Conflict Resolution and Compliance with the Charter

Should the EC fail to come to resolution on an issue or should an ACCESS awardee not behave in a manner consistent with the EC Charter, and all attempts at resolution within the EC and facilitation from the ACO fail, the ACO EC Facilitator will make an appeal to the NSF ACCESS Cognizant Program Officer(s) for arbitration and remediation. 

PIs are expected to advise the EC if potential EC decisions may require changes to their respective Cooperative Agreement’s scope, schedule, or budget. Such potential scenarios may involve engagement with NSF ACCESS Cognizant Program Officer(s) for assessment of alternatives. 

Code of Conduct

The EC is responsible for developing, maintaining, and adhering to the Code of Conduct for ACCESS. 

Appendix: Other Items to Potentially Consider with Respect to the EC Charter

During the course of development of the EC Charter, some issues have been left unaddressed or are anticipated to need to be addressed in the future.  Here is listed items identified for future consideration:

  • Code of Conduct:  The EC will need to review and approve a Code of COnduct per the EC Charter.  The following is draft language based on the XSEDE Code of Conduct.

    • ACCESS Draft Code of Conduct:

    • The ACCESS program staff and participants are committed to fostering a welcoming and inclusive environment for learning, inquiry, constructive discussion, respectful exchange, and intellectual freedom—regardless of ability, appearance, or identification with any group. We do not tolerate personal attacks, intimidation, disruptive behavior, or harassment in any form. Sexual, racist, or other identity-based offensive language and imagery is not appropriate for any venue, including meetings, talks, workshops, social events, chat, nor in any digital communication. As a virtual organization, formal policy exists for ACCESS staff as provided by their home institutions. ACCESS staff are expected to be cognizant of and comply with their institutional policies. ACCESS program and event participants, i.e., those not directly funded by the ACCESS awards, found violating these rules will be sanctioned or expelled from these activities at the discretion of program organizers.

  • EC Membership

    • Should the chair of the resource provider forum be considered for being a member of the EC; this could be either a voting or non-voting membership

    • Should the chair of the researcher advisory board be considered for being a member of the EC; this could be either a voting or non-voting membership

  • Tie votes:

    • The charter currently does not address the potential to break ties in votes. The current language indicates 50% of the voting members is sufficient to provide for a successful vote in support of passing a resolution. 

  • No labels