Charlie, I'll try again. Some people at a university are authorized by some process to approve proposals on behalf of that institution. These people are the ones whose name should appear in section 19 of the 424. Grants.gov tells universities to delegate some people to be allowed to send proposals to Grants.gov. These people are AOR's. NIH tells universities to delegate some people to be SO's. These people have certain rights within the eRA Commons including receiving notification that an electronic application has been accepted into the Commons and rejecting accepted applications at the request of the PI. SO's can also see the status of a proposal. These are all roles within the grants world, typically in a University Grants Office. The roles are application approver, SO and AOR. Each role has certain rights. It is possible for various people in the Grants Office to have all or only some of these roles or rights. The application approver must approve the application but need not be the person to send it to Grants.gov. Yet the application approver should be the person named in section 19, "Authorized Representative." Another person may be delegated to send the application to Grants.gov, once it has been approved. This sender is the AOR. The name of the who sends the application, the AOR, shows up on the last line of section 19 -- signature of Authorized Representative. If the person who approved the application is not the same person who sent it, then there will be two different names on the application. This might lead to confusion by the grant agency -- why two different names? I am suggesting that to make the process less confusing, all the names should be the same. If the AOR who submits the application is not the application approver (Authorized Representative), then the AOR should use the Authorized Representative's name. When the EBiz POC registers an AOR for the University, that person's name and address are used in the Credential Provider section, and in the Grants.gov process. However, each AOR is given the user name of the Authorized Representative. All AOR's have their own userid and password so each submission can be tracked back to the person how did the submission. This step is merely to save grants agencies from having to worry about how a University handles its internal approval process. All they need to know is: the grant has been approved by someone authorized to do so and it has been sent by someone authorized to do so. The fact that the grant comes through Grants.gov means the EBiz POC has approved the sender. Each University can have its own rules for whom to approve. We approve only Grants Office staff, for example. The grants agency can assume that the application has been approved by the person listed in section 19, and that person is authorized to do so. Giving the SO role to people who are not authorized to sign applications is necessary to allow grants office staff to do their various functions. Until NIH has the forthcoming rights, instead of roles, system in place, it is necessary to give the SO role to people who do not have all the rights associated with it. People other than the application approver need to be able to look at application status and other SO functions. People given the SO role perform only those tasks which the University business rules give them. For example, I am delegated to be an SO but I do not approve anything. I check on status, do AA functions, I will reject a successful submission if asked to do so by the person who is authorized to approve applications, I will make necessary changes to the Institutional Profile. I do not approve eSNAPs (but will help PI's with them) or JOT; nor to I delegate faculty to submit eSnaps. In general, I am suggesting that Grants Office officials make life easy for their staff; using their own business rules to manage proposal submission and other related tasks. Electronic systems should not make things more difficult and need to be subject to University processes. Clearer? Bob xxxxxx@umich.edu On Jun 22, 2006, at 1:17 PM, Charlie Hathaway wrote: I am confused. How did you push the submit button (and enter the AOR user name etc) if you are not the AOR? IF the answer is that the AOR gave you this info, I think this kind of INFORMAL delegation of authority is a larger and potentially more dangerous issue than arguing over whether an AOR should be an SO. If someone other than an AOR can be submitting, then why not hand out the AOR log-in info to every PI? An institution has an EBiz POC who decides who can be an AOR. These people submit. IF they happen to have true signature authority (as defined long ago), fine. If they do not, fine. Let's not confuse true signature authority with the realities of the need for FORMAL delegation of this authority to AORs (a Grants.gov role) and SOs (an NIH role). Bob...I don't get this giving different people the same name??? Are you doing some RESADM genetic engineering? Charlie At 12:54 PM 6/22/2006, you wrote: > Yesterday we submitted our first ever GG proposal, an NIH AREA > grant. After receiving only two minor warnings from ERA Commons' > end everything is fine, but we did wonder about the two different > names of section 19's Authorized Rep and the signature line. I > called GG and was told it did not matter to their system > (obviously, as the proposal went on to the Commons), but that each > agency might treat any matter differently. I called the Commons > help line and was told the two different names did not matter as > long as both persons were fully registered with ERAc. However, as > I was the person who pushed-the-button and 'signed' for the > submission I have to rely on the 'authorized rep' to forward any > messages, which is not a problem in our two-person office, but > still an annoyance so from now on we will have the rep and signer > be the same person. > >> I am the designated person who oversees grants at my university. >> Prior to submission, all proposals must go through a routing >> process and ultimately the Provost must sign off. With that said, >> I am the person responsible for submitting proposals to the >> funder. I have a Grants.gov application going out next week and I >> want to try to prevent as many problems as possible. My question... >> >> According to Grants.gov I am an AOR. >> According to eRA Commons I am an AA. (The Provost is the SO.) >> >> Is this a problem? > > > Carmen Silva > Assistant Director, Office of Sponsored Projects > University of San Francisco (LM132) > 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA 94117-1080 > office: 415/422-5203; fax: -6222; e-mail: xxxxxx@usfca.edu > http://www.usfca.edu/osp/index.htm > > ====================================================================== > 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") > ====================================================================== ====================================================================== I nstructions 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") ======================================================================
