At 04:22 PM 2/6/98 +0000, you wrote:
>I am disappointed not to have received ANY responses so far to the request
>for input on internal submission deadlines repeated below. I have to make a
>report very soon! I hope you don't mind me asking again.
>

First time I've seen the question.

>PLEASE _at least_ inform me how many days prior to mailing date your
>preaward office requires proposals for internal review (0 days = no
>requirement).
>IMPORTANT: Please respond to  xxxxxx@voodoo.osr.lsu.edu,  NOT resadm-l
>
>    # of days:
>
>(If you can respond more fully to the mini-survey below, I will be
>especially grateful).
>                                                       Thanks, Charlie Graham
>****************************************************************************
>****
>ORIGINAL REQUEST:
>I would be very grateful for enough responses to 3 simple questions to get
>a reasonable estimate of the proportion and type of institutions that have
>an internal proposal submission deadline; you will help us decide whether
>and how to implement such a policy! I will report the results to the List.
>
>1) Indicate Carnegie Ranking (Research I, II, Doctoral I, II, etc), if known:

Carnegit I

>
>2) What is your internal submission requirement for proposal review (days
>in advance of the mailing date)? PLEASE ENTER 0 if you have no deadline. #
>days:

We publish that we will give 2 working day turnaround, unless negotiation
is part of the package (we get a lot of commercial agreements that we do
not see till there's a contract attached).

In practice, we shoot for 1/2 day; sometimes

Proposals take absolute priority in the office.  We ONLY review, correct
and execute.  P.I. is responsible for copying and shipping.  As to
corrections, we are usually able to attach a note to change this detail or
another and sign it, trusting the P.I.  Strangely enough, anyone who breaks
the implied promise to make the correction gets VERY slow service and
absolute requirement to correct before we sign, the next time.

We have the best reputation in the university for "service".  I think it
results from having no rigid policy on required lead time.  How this will
stack up after electronic processing/submittal comes in, I can't yet say.
Also, there are times when other things really fall behind, like sending
awards to G&C to set up accounts.

Chuck

>
>3) (Optional) Briefly explain how you make exceptions to your policy:
>(If you would prefer to provide a policy document, that would be most
>welcome by e-mail attachment or FAX).
>
>4) Institution name (if not in your signature):
>
>(If you don't want your institution name in the report to the list, add an
>asterisk, & I'll edit out names; if there are a LOT of responses I'll just
>tabulate by Carnegie ranking)
>
>Many thanks in anticipation of your usual great response! Charlie Graham
>
>
>
> ****************************************************
> * Charles E. Graham, PhD., DSc.
> *
> * NOTE NEW  E-mail address: xxxxxx@lsu.edu
> *   alias: xxxxxx@unix1.sncc.lsu.edu (faster)
> *
> * Director, Office of Sponsored Research/OSR
> * Interim Chair, Institutional Review Board
> * 117 David Boyd Hall, Louisiana State University
> * Baton Rouge, LA 70803
> *
> * 504-388-8692    FAX: 503-388-6792
> * OSR Server: http://www.osr.lsu.edu/
> * gopher: gopher.osr.lsu.edu
> *****************************************************
>
Herbert B. Chermside, CRA
Director, Sponsored Programs Administration
Virginia Comonwealth University
PO BOX 980568
Richmond, VA  23298-0568
Express Delivery Only:
 Sanger Hall, Rm. 1-073
 11th & Marshall Streets
  Richmond, VA  23219
Voice:  804-828-6772
Fax     804-828-2521
OFFICE e-mail   xxxxxx@VCU.EDU
Personal e-mail xxxxxx@vcu.edu
http://views.vcu.edu/views/ospa/