Reposting of "Salary Savings" Survey Results Michael Ludwick 08 Sep 1998 07:35 EST
I had posed a question about "salary savings" to the NCURA Region 3 list and these were the results. My questions were a little different but there is some cross-over. I thought this might be interesting to those asking questions on this subject. Mike Ludwick College of William & Mary ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Listmembers, Thank you AGAIN for your response to my query regarding the charging of release time, replacement costs vs. salary and fringe of PI. Below is the summary of responses. Of the 24 responses I received the overwhelming response was that PI salary and fringe benefits are charged for release time, not replacement costs. A few comments from respondents: * Why should we allow an external sponsor to buy a faculty member for a lower rate than we must pay? And why should a faculty member be willing to sell his services cheaper to a sponsor than to his own employer? *We CONSISTENTLY (not generally) charge the PI's salary and FB. I am surprised that schools would ask the grant to pay the replacement cost. In effect, the grantee institution would therefore be cost sharing the difference between the PI salary and the replacement salary, right? I'll bet those budgets ignore this angle and fail to show this cost sharing. *When we charge for the PIs time and effort, we always use the PIs salary etc. I don't see how you can charge replacement cost since the replacement has nothing to do with the purpose of the sponsored project. But, that is just my opinion and since the cost is less, I'm sure the gov't doesn't care. Only one school said they generally charged replacement costs. That is not to say that most folks don't sometimes only charge replacement costs in certain circumstances: 1) the budget is limited 2) cost-share is needed (and using the difference b/w PI salary and fringe and replacement costs can be used as cost share). In general, everyone tries to get the PIs salary and fringe whenever possible. As to who gets the resulting "salary savings" over half said the funds went to the depts or offset the dept account. In several cases the Dean or Provost controlled the money, and a few people mentioned funds going back into the general fund or the PI. Also there we a few who had some combination where the Deans got some %, Depts gots some %, and some % went to the PI. Sounds like the possibilites are endless. I did not ask one question but it is an important one: In those instances when it may be appropriate to charge only replacement and write off the rest as cost share, WHO DECIDES that only replacement costs will be charged? The apparently obvious answer would be whomever is doing the cost-sharing, meaning whomever will not be getting the salary savings, being the PI, chair, dean, VP or provost. Assuming that, then I am guessing that their signature on the routing form is the final indication that they approve the "cost-share" (i.e. charging replacement only.) If anyone would else would like to chime in on this feel free to post it to the list. THANKS AGAIN to you all and I hope this info is helpful to you. Mike Michael Ludwick, CRA Associate Director of Sponsored Programs Grants and Research Administration College of William & Mary P.O. Box 8795 Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795 phone: 757.221.3485 fax: 757.221.4910 email: xxxxxx@grants.wm.edu website: http://www.wm.edu/AI/Grants/index.html ***************************************************