Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Slide 1 - Welcome to the NCURA Region V Homepage

VIEWS: 2 PAGES: 33

									“You say tomato . . .”
Working with the Development
Office
    NCURA Region V Meeting
    May 1, 2007
    Arlington, Texas
Lee Boozer
Director, Office of Grants and Contracts
University of Houston
TLBoozer@Central.UH.EDU

Kathleen Harris
Associate Vice President for Research Texas Tech
University
kathleen.harris@ttu.edu
Why is this relationship an
issue?

Why do we need to talk
about it?
Development Office Responsibilities

   Raising funds from private sources
   Supporting all activities of the university,
    especially scholarships and endowments
   Receipting and acknowledging private
    support
   Avoiding inappropriate or competing requests
    to selected donors
Sponsored Project Office Responsibilities

   Assisting faculty members with submission of
    proposals and administration of grants and
    contracts from all sources
   Supporting all university activities, especially
    research
   Reporting on externally funded projects
    Ensuring that both sponsor and university
    requirements are met
Overlapping Responsibilities

   Projects supported by foundations,
    corporations, individuals, and other private
    entities
   “Gifts” that involve quid pro quo or financial
    reporting
   Gift funds used for matching or cost sharing
   Gift funds directed to activities involving
    human subjects, animals, radioactive
    materials, etc.
Complicating Factors-Outside Forces

   Faculty trying to avoid F&A

   Faculty wanting research credit for gifts

   Pressure to report funds raised

   Academic administrators and faculty
    members trying to establish personal
    relationship with donors
Complicating Factors - Internal

   Physical locations

   Reporting lines

   Turnover

   Personality differences
“No matter how it looks at first, it's always a
  people problem."

                       Gerald M. Weinberg
Myer-Briggs Type Indicator – Four
Preferences

   Extroversion (E) and Introversion (I)

   Sensing (S) and Intuition (N)

   Thinking (T) and Feeling (F)

   Judging (J) and Perceiving (P)
Personality Differences

   Fundraisers – ESFP – Extraverted Sensing
    Feeling Perceiving

   Administrators – INTJ – Introverted Intuitive
    Thinking Judging

   Relationship – Anima – Opposite strengths
Extroverted Sensing Feeling Perceiving

Warmly enthusiastic and imaginative. See life
as full of possibilities. Make connections
between events and information very quickly,
and confidently proceed based on the patterns
they see. Want a lot of affirmation from others,
and readily give appreciation and support.
Spontaneous and flexible, often rely on their
ability to improvise and their verbal fluency.
Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging

Have original minds and great drive for
implementing their ideas and achieving their
goals. Quickly see patterns in external events
and develop long-range explanatory
perspectives. When committed, organize a job
and carry it through. Skeptical and
independent, have high standards of
competence and performance – for themselves
and others.
How to Bridge the Gap
   Recognize common goals

   Respect each other’s abilities

   Accept that you are not competing

   Review and discuss accepted definitions of problematic terms

   Develop written policies and procedures

   Maintain regular communication
Gift or Grant

   IRS

   NACUBO

   FASB

   CASE
IRS Publication 526 - Charitable
Contributions – Tax Return Instructions

If you receive a benefit as a result of making a
   contribution to a qualified organization, you
   can deduct only the amount of your
   contribution that is more than the value of the
   benefit you receive.
IRS Publication 1771 – Charitable Contributions:
Substantiation and Disclosure Requirements
   A contribution made by a donor in exchange
    for goods or services is known as a quid pro
    quo contribution.
   A charitable organization must inform the
    donor in writing that the amount of the
    contribution that is deductible for federal
    income tax purposes is limited to the excess
    of money contributed over the value of goods
    or services provided by the organization.
NACUBO Gift Versus Contract Checklist

Indicates that a payment is a gift when no 'quid
  pro quo' occurs. That is, the transaction is a
  nonexchange transaction in which the
  recipient does not receive something of equal
  value to the resources provided.
FASB SFAS No. 116

Defines a contribution as:

  an unconditional transfer of cash or other
  assets to an entity or a settlement or
  cancellation of its liabilities in a voluntary
  nonreciprocal transfer by another entity
  acting other than as an owner.
CASE Publication

Management and Reporting Standards:
 Standards for Annual Giving and Campaigns
 in Educational Fund Raising, Third Edition,
 CASE, 2004
Statements from CASE

   CASE goal is to insure that institutions report
    only those transactions that involve true
    philanthropic intent
   To be considered a gift, no further
    involvement on the part of the donor is
    appropriate upon gift acceptance
   For the most part, if the IRS does not
    recognize a transaction as a charitable
    donation, it is inappropriate to recognize the
    transaction as a gift for CASE reporting
CASE Definition (problematic term)

   Specific grant: a grant received by the
    institution resulting from a grant proposal
    submitted by the institution. The institution
    commits resources or services as a condition
    of the grant and the grantor often requests an
    accounting of the use of funds and of results
    of the programs or projects undertaken.
   The grantor’s requirement of regular status
    reports or other reports does not negate the
    philanthropic nature of a specific grant
University of Houston Situation

No history of working together

Fear of double-counting

Lack of proper reports and procedures for
  counting funds

No campus-wide guidance
University of Houston Solution

   Established relationship

   Confirmed that numbers are not combined and that
    reports are submitted to different recipients

   Fine tuned report criteria to provide better data

   Jointly established written guidance for faculty and
    staff
Texas Tech University Situation


Conflict between personnel

Sense of competition

Inefficiency

Faculty questions and complaints
Texas Tech University Solution


   Deciding that we can both count some
    projects

   Developing written statement addressed to
    faculty members

   Monthly review of sponsored project awards
Links

   IRS Publication 526 Charitable Contributions
    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p526.pdf
   IRS Publication 1771 Charitable
    Contributions Substantiation and Disclosure
    Requirements http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-
    pdf/p526.pdf
   NACUBO Checklist
    http://www.nacubo.org/x873.xml
   NACUBO Exchange Contracts
    http://www.nacubo.org/x1770.xml
Links, continued

   University of Houston Policy Statement
    http://www.research.uh.edu/Departments/Office_of_
       Contracts_and_Grants/OCG_Guide/Post-
       Award_Section/Guidance_on_Defining_and_Disti
       nguishing_between_Sponsored_Project_Funding
       _and_Gifts
Texas Tech University Joint Statement
  http://www.ors.ttu.edu/NEWORS/NewHome/
  Policies_Procedures/Joint_statement_office_
  of_research_services_and_office_of_develop
  ment_ORS.html
Links, continued

   University of California Berkeley Guidance,
    Indicators, Decision Flow Chart
    http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/RA/05_06/may.
    html
   Kansas State University Statement
    Differentiating Projects and Gifts
    http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/RA/05_06/may.
    html
Links, continued

   Harvard University Gifts vs. Grants Policy
    http://vpf-
    web.harvard.edu/osr/funding/fund_gr_policy.s
    html
   Common Careers for Personality Types
    http://www.personalitypage.com/careers.html
   Jung typology test
    http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-
    win/JTypes1.htm
Discussion Situation 1

Lucia, a research administrator at Armadillo College,
  has a passing acquaintance with her neighbor, Matt,
  who is on the math faculty at AC and who is also a
  musician. Matt has mentioned how learning guitar
  has helped his nephew who has ADD. One evening
  Lucia’s husband tells her that he saw Matt earlier in
  the day and that one of Matt’s former students has
  given a gift to AC to allow Matt to teach guitar to a
  group of children with ADD and see if it helps them.
  Lucia knows nothing about the project.
Discussion Situation 2

In terms of research funding Maria Vargas is
  one of the most productive faculty members
  at Lone Star State University and frequently
  has offers from other universities. Her
  relationship with the research office is cordial
  but there have been issues. Her department
  chair has publicly blamed the internal audit
  office for the loss of one of Maria’s
  colleagues to industry last year.
Discussion Situation 2 Continued

Tom Dodd, director of the research office,
  receives an e-mail forwarded from the tech
  transfer office about an NDA associated with
  loaned equipment. At the bottom of the string
  Maria has written “the money for the
  technician will be covered by a separate
  agreement which will be fairly simple
  because it is essentially a donation. I am
  working with our development officer on it.“

								
To top