The strategy seems to be based on a fair share concept, often utilized
in labor negotiations as it allows costs to be fairly distributed.
In opposing such a strategy, what would you offer in the alternative?
Robert Gregory Miller
Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science
Div. of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Molecular Science
Administrative Director/Research Administrator
xxxxxx@cdrewu.edu
Office: 323.563.5961
Fax: 323.563.5966
Notice of Confidentiality
This message contains information that may be confidential or
privileged.
It is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee or any person
entitled to receive it. If you received this message in error,
please inform the author as soon as possible, do not disclose its
contents and delete it from your system
-----Original Message-----
From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG] On
Behalf Of Charna Howson CKHOWSON
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 12:04 PM
To: xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Internal Indirect Cost Distribution
Dorothy,
I believe this practice would create much ill will. Moreover, you
will likely find yourself spending more on tracking distribution of
those funds than you will recover..... If it were suggested here, I
would strongly oppose such a move.
Charna
_______________________________________
Charna K Howson
Associate Director
Office of Sponsored Programs
POB 26170, Suite 103 Foust
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, NC 27402-6170
Phone: 336-334-5878
Fax: 336-334-3140
"Spurlock, Dorothy" <xxxxxx@UTNET.UTOLEDO.EDU>
Sent by: Research Administration List <xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG>
02/23/2005 01:53 PM
Please respond to
Research Administration Discussion List <xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG>
To
xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG
cc
Subject
[RESADM-L] Internal Indirect Cost Distribution
Does anyone utilize a sliding scale to determine the distribution of
internal indirect cost recovery, when receiving less-than the full
assigned rate. For example, if you receive something less than your
fully-approved rate from a sponsor, does your central administration
take a larger share than normal of the IDC that will be received?
Currently, our fully-approved rate is 44% which is distributed 70% to
central administration, 10% to the college and 20% to the department.
If we were to receive 19% indirect cost on a project, then the
proposed distribution would be 82.5% to central administration, 3.75%
to the college and 13.75% to the department.
If you utilize a similar system, what are the good/bad points of doing
so?
If your institution thought about using this type of plan but did/ did
not,what was the rationale?
Thanks,
Dorothy A. Spurlock
Director, Research & Sponsored Programs
The University of Toledo
======================================================================
Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================
======================================================================
Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================
======================================================================
Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================
