MICHELLE MCCLURE: Thanks everybody for showing back up. I realized that a schedule is all included to appreciate everybody's tolerance with the changes. And I'm going to hand over to Guy. And then I'll come back at the end GUY: All right, thanks, Michelle. Yeah, this has been a whirlwind of a few days. And the first thing I want to do is thank all of you for providing the presentations, the information, the discussions, the little tours of the facilities, that really helped us get the information we need to try to help provide the-- [INAUDIBLE] in the review. Especially want to thank Adi for all of her work, tirelessly, morning, day, and night, to help keep us on track, and to give us the information that we needed. The review summary that I'm going to give right now is going to be pretty simple. And it's going to start with the fact that PMEL has been known for and is still known for excellent science. Number one, first and foremost, this is a world class group. The science that comes out of this group is world class and continues to be. And you should be proud of that. It's still evident. And it's evident in a number of different ways. The people that we talk to outside of this room tell us about the excellence of the science. The recognition by your peers is still very high. The awards, publications, they're all still at a very, very high level. And you should feel so great about that. And that comes from a combination of the federal employees and the CI. So that's something to be commended. The other thing that is still at a very high level is the integration of engineering, and innovation, and the science. There are a few places around the country, around the world, that have the ability to do that. PMEL is still known for being able to do that. And it's really great to see. It was exciting for us to see that firsthand, to see that it's still ongoing. Its not just the technology of 10 years ago. It's brand new technology being pushed and being incorporated into the science. Integration that we heard from numerous people about, the discussion between the scientists for the needs for a new instrument a new deployment, faster sensor, whatever it was. And the engineers, the ideas that they had to bring to the table, again super exciting. The other thing that PMEL is known for is, again, somewhat unique and important for a federal lab is to be able to provide long-term observations, long-term measurements. Some of the information that is needed from a scientific standpoint can only be gotten from long-term measurements. And so at other places, at universities, where you have to apply for a NSF grant or last a couple of years, it's very difficult to maintain long-term measurements, long-term observations. PMEL, again, has been known for that. They were some of the first to bring some of these together. Some of the measurements get moved off to more of an operational role. And that seems normal and fine, and even with a few hiccups, can be brought back into high quality. So carrying on those discussions about what needs to be transferred to an operational role, or what needs to stay on the science side is something that we need to continue to do. In order to maintain this excellence, we discussed a few things that we think might help, or at least something that you all should be discussing amongst yourselves. One of the first and most important is the need for succession planning and workforce planning. So this is, like many organizations, it is a bit of an aging workforce. And we need to make sure-- you need to make sure if you want to maintain the excellence that you have, that you have the next group of people, the younger, early career, mid-range people, who have the mentoring, and the training, and the culture of PMEL to carry that excellence forward. So that's very important. We think there's been some problems there. Hopefully, the management will be able to work on that. The other thing that we discussed is the need for a well-defined process for ending projects or programs and starting projects and programs. It seems like it's been a little bit of either ad hoc or dictatorial in the past. And that, maybe, you could end up with fine things that way. But it's not necessarily the greatest way to provide for a good feeling amongst the group and clarity in terms of where the group is going. And so we're recommending that there's going to be a better process and a better communication in terms of that process with the workforce. The third thing that we have here is that we are going to be recommending that there be a reorganization of the management structure of PMEL. And this is not-- I didn't mean to make that sound like we're-- [LAUGHTER] [INTERPOSING VOICES] I think this is consistent with some areas that Michelle wants to go in. But again, to provide for a little more clarity on the process for decision making, a little bit more clarity in terms of the collaborative process that will help the group to succeed into the future. So those are the main things that we wanted to summarize here. There are a number of other recommendations that we're going to be making, another number of observations that we'll make. We looked at things like the interaction of the blended workforce and the pros and cons and the issues that are there. That's a very complex issue. So we have nothing to really summarize right now. But that will be part of our report. We looked at the facilities a little bit. There's some issues associated with, for example, lab space. You bring in a new group, like the genomics group, you have to think about the facilities, how that is going to fit and allow those groups to be successful. So we'll have a few recommendations about that. But overall, I want to come back to our primary summary, which is you guys are great. You continue to do great work. And it's important to recognize that, feel good about that. And know what it takes to sustain that. So any questions-- well, first of all, any other comments from the rest of the review panel to clarify my summary? On the phone? Have any questions or anything from the-- LYNN: Nope, everything's fine from here. This is Lynn. GUY: Thanks, Lynn. MICHELLE: Great. GUY: OK. MICHELLE: I'd like to wrap this up with an enormous thank you to our review panel, who've spent three days, three pretty full days, helping us out so-- [APPLAUSE] GUY: Thank you. [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] MICHELLE: No, you have reports. [LAUGHTER] I'd like to thank everyone who was-- pretty much everyone who was involved in presentations, and tours, and preparing in any way. So give yourselves a hand as well [APPLAUSE] And an often unsung group, the folks who dealt with organization and logistics. So Liz [? Akedi ?] from headquarters who's not here. Jamie Shambaugh and especially Adi Hanein. [APPLAUSE] Any-- I suppose I should've asked this first. Any comments or thoughts from the group? AUDIENCE: Thank you for inviting us to participate. It was pleasant. MICHELLE: Great. AUDIENCE: I'd like to hear from Gary, maybe, what his impressions are. GARY: Who is that talking? [LAUGHTER] AUDIENCE: And how this might-- this is all bottom up. So how does this get communicated to headquarters? And how responsive are you to [INAUDIBLE] the workplace? GARY: OK, sure. One of the foundational concepts, notions that we have in OAR and NOAA is the belief that peer reviews are the foundation for the quality of the work that we do, making sure that it's relevant and the performance of it is as best as it can be. So peer reviews are at the heart of making sure that we do the science that's best it can possibly be. Having folks like the five that are here and three on the phone take their time, and their energies, and their attention, out of their incredibly busy schedules to help us accomplish that peer review is always in need of an expression of deep appreciation. There's no way we can accomplish what we do without peer reviews and without folks like you all willing to participate in this. So as Michelle has indicated, thank you very much for taking the task on and giving us whatever kind of insight you might be able to give us. We take these reviews, once they're done, and we require within each of the labs, and programs in OAR the development of a response to the review that you give us. That response is then provided as guidance on our website. So people can see what we were told, what our response to that is, be as transparent as we can. And then we use that by people like me and the rules I have in the performance reviews of the individuals that work under my supervision to make sure that the things that we committed to doing are, in fact, done. Further, not only doing them, but also trying to get, from doing them, what difference that makes. So we use it in evaluations of the individuals that are responsible for overseeing the plans and programs. And then they carry that on through their performance evaluations, or at least they're supposed to, within the organization. The idea is that that's about the best way we can think to demonstrate to the people who do participate in the reviews that we are serious about what you say and about our taking the responses that we have and actually doing something with them. We have an entire system that goes from telling you what we do, what we did, what we plan to do, getting your feedback to us, taking that feedback, responding to it, and then holding ourselves accountable for doing the things that we said we were going to do. And finally, to evaluate, as best we can, whether or not doing those things made any difference. So we do that lab by lab, program by program. And then we exchange that information among ourselves at what is called the Senior Research Council meetings that we have. So that we can learn from each other and apply things that we might do at one place to other places. And in learning, hopefully, we not only get better at what we do, but also in conducting these reviews, so that they're as efficient as we can make them, and ultimately get the maximum effectiveness out of them. So I listened for most of the time. I didn't get to the poster session last night. But I listened to most of the comments, at least that I was allowed to attend, and they reflect-- the entire interaction reflects what I've seen in every review that I've been to at NOAA for now over two decades. And that is they are constructive, they're thoughtful, they're insightful. They are intended to make us better. And you guys have demonstrated that same excellence on your part to help us accomplish that. So here, I'll end by saying thank you all. Thank the people that listened to us and will provide the comments. But thank you all for taking this seriously and providing all of the incredible information that you did throughout the last three days. So thank you very, very much. I probably have time to answer questions, if anybody has any of me. It's late in the day, I'm sure no one does. [LAUGHTER] [APPLAUSE] MICHELLE: OK, any other thoughts or contributions for the good of the order? Scott will tell you [INAUDIBLE]-- SCOTT: Oh, yeah. [LAUGHTER] MICHELLE: All right. Go forth. Sleep well.