ЗВЕРНЕННЯ до Загальних зборів НАН України

#9: математик, ІППММ, Львів - про гроші 

 I do regret, I can write only now.

>> Я, на жаль, не читав фінансових звітів керівництва НАНУ,  >>
 
 I did it. And compared to the open financial and activity reports of
 
 1) INFN, Italy;
 
 2) Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria;
 
 3) Max Plank Society, Germany.  
 
 Many conclusions can be deduced from the comparision.
 The main are:
 
 - structure of scientific organization does not matter;
 
 - what matters is how they are functioning.
 
  It is really amazing. All three examples above
  are very different in structure, and very succesfull in
  producing scientific results.  
   
   What is common for all examples is their way of functioning:
   
 - science = education: INFN is affiliated to Italian Universities
    (with own budget, administration and involved in teaching procedure);
    80 percent of Max Plank Society scientific stuff gives lectures
    in Universities and/or are involved in Federal Working Programmes
    between MPS and German Universities;  
 
 - simplicity: Phd can be defended on publications in Procs. and heps;
    style of your reports - your own choice; I can continue this item ....
 
 - transparency: compare open reports from listed above organizations with ours;
 
  I do encourage all interested people to look at this report:
 
  http://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/NEWS/2015/PDF/OEAW_Jahresbericht_2013-2014_Web.pdf
 
  Mostly it is about activity, and it is important to have reports like this,
  but sturting from page 95 on you can see how each EURO have been used.
 
 On my opinion, last three items must become a normal style of activity
 of our AS. I am not speaking of such trivial things like complete cancellation
 of Presidum of AS. Its very existence is what left from Sovjet time.
 Nonsense....  Again, look at budgets of other countries.
 
  Best regards,
                Oleg