RAN May 2019 Meeting

RAN May 2019 Meeting


I know I’m not very loud even with a microphone. Welcome to our May RAN meeting. Thank you all for coming. My name is Becky O’Brien I’m the Chair of the RAAC Communication subcommittee who puts on this RAN meeting. I’d also like to thank the subcommittee members if the communication subcommittee members could please stand. I see, so there’s quite a few more, but thank you very much. They are the backbone of this whole endeavor. We’d like to recognize and welcome any new members. Are there any people out in the audience who this is your first RAN meeting? If you would please stand, welcome! Great and we also have remote attendees
joining us, hello everyone in computer land. So we just want to mention for anyone watching the live broadcast if you have any issues with the feed if
you could email us at [email protected] we can help try and troubleshoot during that, hopefully, we don’t have any issues, though, that would be great. A couple of reminders we have name tags and sign-in sheets on the table. If you would please put your name tag on, sign-in, let us know who’s here that’s very helpful. These presentations and the video will be on the ORSP website a little bit after this presentation today. And also there’s information for upcoming meetings as well. We will be sending out
a survey like we’ve been doing the last few meetings so if you please see that survey give us your feedback it really does help. We very much appreciate that. We’ve had a couple of things we wanted to mention
for this meeting. We have clickers on the table. There’s
just one clicker per table and that’ll come to play in Kristy Beckons’ presentation a little later. We’ll remind you but you have to hit the power button on the the top of them and you’ll see a green light. So you’ll be reminded to make sure to turn it on. And then this is also our first zero-waste event here. So zero waste event means we’re trying to divert as much as possible
away from the landfill. So everything over there at the station can go into the compostable bins. The plastic cups, the plates, the napkins, the utensils, any food waste can go into those compostable bins. Anything you
brought with you to the meeting, unless it specifically says compostable, you can
put those in the landfill, the trash can over there. And, yeah, thank you. I think this is a new thing we’re trying to do and this is something that the League is offering now and we really wanted to try this out so hopefully, this will be a continuing thing that we do here.
And just a little bit about what goes in there, basically everything
we said, and anything that’s not labeled compostable goes in the trash can. Oops,
sorry, a little too fast. So next I’m going to introduce our emcee for today,
Cathy Handyside. She’s the Assistant Director of eResearch Administration
Systems [clapping]. Thank You, Becky. Good afternoon everyone. I am thrilled to join you today as your guest emcee. We have a lot of excitement and hello to those of you out in, as Becky called it, computer land. Thank you for
joining us remotely today but we have a lot of great people here today, and some
really awesome information to share with you. Today is a shorter RAN meeting. We’ll
run 90 minutes until 3:30 and we’re hoping that all of you will join us
today to help celebrate our colleagues who will be receiving the Research
Administration Service and Technical awards. So we have, let’s give them a
round of applause [applause]. We have four honored recipients and later today at 3:30 if
you’ll join us in the Vandenberg room we are going to learn all kinds of
wonderful things about the contributions that each of these four individuals have
made to our research administration community, but we thought there might be
a little bit more to the story. So we thought today it would be kind of fun to learn a little bit more about each of these four, some of the things you won’t
hear at the 3:30 celebration, and Melissa is already looking at me, oh oh. So in
between each of our various presentations for this afternoon, we’re going to share a couple of fun facts about these four individuals, and we’re going to start with a couple of fun facts about our friend Melissa Kirby. So
what you may not know about Melissa and, what you might not hear at 3:30,
is that Melissa plays glockenspiel in a German oompah band at German Park in Ann Arbor. So we all can go to the first picnic in Ann Arbor at the end of June.
Her favorite band is Depeche Mode and guess you just can’t change your mind about that, apparently, you have some colleagues who agree with you. She was a
competitive Irish dancer in a previous life, good to know, and that skill might
come in handy still to this day. And, she has become an avid backyard bird watcher.
So we are looking forward to celebrating with Melissa later today and we will also learn a little bit more about our other three
recipients as we move forward today. But, next up on our docket today we
are going to introduce our guest speaker Miss Christy Beckon. She joins us from
the Sponsored Programs office and she has been the Financial Senior Manager,
she is the Financial Senior Manager, she’s been with U-M for I heard
almost 24 years. Wow, Christy, I didn’t realize that it had been that long. Prior to joining the university she was an external auditor and she actually worked with the University of Michigan for three fiscal years before she joined us, so she has kind of that unique perspective of an external auditor, as
well as her depth of experience here, and she is going to talk to us about
closeout best practices. I should also mention she is a proud U-M alum so
without any further ado let me introduce Christy Beckon [applause]. Okay, can you all hear me because it’s too
high, too low okay, all right. So good afternoon. As Kathy said I’m
Chris. I am the Financial Senior Manager here
at Sponsored Programs in the reporting area. I have a staff of over 30 people. We
have an operational manager who’s here. In the back, we have five accounting
supervisors and staff of 26 people that consist of accountants and
administrative assistants. As most of you wear other hats
so do I. I am a mother to my beautiful son here Dominic and Dominic does a lot
of activities with basketball. He attends South Pointe Scholars so I volunteer a
lot with his school and with basketball. Mostly I’m screaming on the sidelines.
They’re trying to get me to be quiet but I’d like to add humor to the
workplace so here’s me and my finest moments. I don’t know if you can see me from staff appreciation day. So now I heard some people in the background thought I was going to come with a wig or different attire, I didn’t do that
today! But anyway, let’s move on. I only got like 15 minutes with you all. We’re
here to talk about project closeout. So most of you all may think of project
closeout as progress reports, technical reports, property reports, but I’m here only to talk about the financial closeout. So, what is a project financial
closeout? Well, it’s a financial snapshot of how funds are expended on a research project. We also take into consideration how much revenue is coming in so we
actually know how that compares to the expenditure. What we really sometimes
want to do is make sure we are producing the required financial documents that
the sponsor asks us to submit them. So that might mean for most of you all a 425, it can mean a final invoice, again, we’re just really trying to make sure we’re delivering something to the sponsor. The ultimate goal here is to have this closeout process lead to a project inactivation, and for those of
you all who know me intimately, that makes me very happy! So, just for clarification purposes, a closeout, for a project to be inactivated it has to have the revenue and expenses agree, so an SOA balance
of zero. So, as most of you all know, volume here, volume of research here, has been increasing four percent each year. So we’re almost at approximately 1.6
billion dollars as of the fiscal year 2018. You can see on the screen that being
representative over a decade of our active parent projects of 8,000 projects
and with the parent and sub relationships we’re talking about over
14,000 (oh, that was really quick) okay. And just to put it in further context, I did a
deliverable snapshot from the time period of April 2018 to 2019. So during
the life of a project we have a lot of interim invoices that are generated by
Shared Services and we do letter of credit draws so I just wanted to at least give you a snapshot on the first roll of what that volume can look like. Our office, the reporting office of Sponsored Programs, we do the interim and financial reports and the closeouts, so that’s approximately 11,000, a little
over 11,000 projects. Now, for those of you all know me, as accountants we like math. So I want to basically calculate that number out for you. So if you take that number divided by 12 months, now it’s not evenly throughout the 12 months, but take it out divided by 12 months that’s about 900 something reports that we’re doing a month. I have 18 accountants and so that means about 50/51 reports that we’re doing a month. I don’t want them to be too overwhelmed so I only assign them 30 reports. So what does that mean? Twenty one (21) reports per person don’t get done, no, I’m just kidding [laughing]. No we actually hire interns, or we leverage technology, to
kind of get those reports done. So our goal here is to get at least 95% on time.
So, if you see the on-time percentage on your far right we’re close, we’re not quite there yet. So what does that mean? I think somebody said it, “you need my help.” Sure we do, we need your help! So, I want to start by saying when are reports due? So I don’t actually come up with these due dates. I know we have a system that talks about when the due dates are, but the sponsor actually stipulated in the agreement that you sign, so that’s the date that we’re
targeting for. A lot of times when we send our reports out people say “we need more time.” We’re here to help you a lot of times. What we want you to do is probably work with your sponsor and see if you can get a reporting time extension, not a no-cost time extension, a reporting time extension. They’re definitely different. But again we’re here to help meet your needs. So, if you think about when the reports are due, we have come up with an FSR timeline. So we fit timelines from the shortest time period of ten days to the longest time period of the hundred and twenty days. We definitely try to reach out to you at various times to make sure we’re hitting the sponsor target, getting the report to them on time, so that we don’t actually jeopardize the prestige of the university. How do we notify you? Well the first request we sent to the single
administrative contact that research administrator and I know some
of you all don’t really enjoy these notifications, they can seem not so
enjoyable, but we actually do it just to make sure we’re again hitting the
sponsor deadline. So, we give you 10 business days to actually return us a
signed FSR saying you agree with the reports so we can submit it to the department. If for whatever reason you’re challenged with your workload, it becomes overwhelming, we do a second request. We send it to you again as well as copying the PI. A lot of times we do it to the PI just so he can know it’s really coming from us. You know we’re there to help support you. Then if we don’t hear from you within those five business days we do our final request, and some of you all may think we copy everybody and their mother, that’s not true. We actually only copy, we send it to you, we send it to the PI, we send it to the department manager, and the Dean’s office. Again, it’s just really to point out “hey, there’s a
financial report that’s needs to be submitted to the department, I mean to
the sponsor” and that there could be potential money that we really need to
make sure we get. Now if for whatever reason, with all our
busy schedules, we’re not able to get a hold of somebody, we do actually submit it on your behalf. Again, we want to make sure that financial report is there at the sponsor and it doesn’t impact the university cash position in any negative way. Now, what is the FSR? The Financial Status Report is really just an electronic tool that dumps information from our pathways, our M-Pathway system and capturing all the expenditures that you had on your
research project. We use that tool as a way to collaborate with you all just
giving you again a snapshot so you can say, “hey, it’s missing this expenditure or that expenditure, so we can have an accurate and timely report. We do realize
not submitting this report, or maybe you don’t realize this, but not submitting this report can actually impact future funding – not just for your PI but maybe another PI – so we’re always trying to strive to make sure we’re submitting
reports on time. What are we reviewing when we submit these reports? Well, we’re
always trying to be compliant with Uniform Guidance, University Cost Accounting Standards, and, of course, the sponsor requirements. So again it’s a
collaborative effort with us preparing it, with you reviewing it, it’s just a
partnership again for us to generate an accurate and timely report. Now, I thought
it would be best to kind of just go through the process. So I have this accountant and Captain Marvel. She’s lightning fast as you can see in
the background and so when she submits this tool it has various tabs on there. And the first half that you would get is the instruction. Some of you all probably are very familiar with this so you probably bypass it. But, if you’re not, the instruction actually tells you exactly what we’re expecting from you. The next
tab is the FSR letter that we want you to sign attesting that you agree
with the final report that we submitted you. So here we want Stanley to actually sign it, attest that he agrees with it, and we can submit the report to the sponsor. Now we know stan is busy, he got multiple projects going on, so he might not even really remember what he’s signing or doesn’t understand
exactly the bottom line. So we will actually submit it to the research administrator, in this case, is Pepper Potts. Pepper will actually make sure
before she gets Stan to sign it that she’s actually designating any chartfields for any overdrafts or unallowable cost. So there’s Pepper right there. In that file you also have your
Financial Status Report. Here’s a big snapshot of it. The one thing I want to
say that’s most important is that we always try to make sure, at least Captain Marvel will make sure, the balance here is zero, or a positive number. Now what I
want to say about a positive number the balance doesn’t have to be zero that just means we spend everything the sponsor gave us. But if it’s positive that’s fine, too, it just means we didn’t spend all the money that the sponsor
gave us, right? So, when Pepper gets this Financial Status Report one of the things I want to make sure you all understand as the role of an administrator is you should definitely verify the budget. If the budget is off, too high or too low, it’s going to impact the financial report. So definitely don’t
sign it if this is a problem. One of the things I definitely want to say, because I only have 15 minutes to talk about this, I’m not going to go in anything to detailed, but there is an E-ssential project closeout class that you can take
as e-learning that will go through all of these fine points in detail. The
next thing that I want to point out is the total charges to date, while this shield project award reference Ironman 1316, it actually again takes a snapshot of everything that’s hit in the most current closeout, close month, by December 31, 2018 and just says here’s what was expended for your particular project. Then we’re going to skip over late charge and adjustments because I’m gonna talk about them in a minute. You have your total project expenses which really is just a mathematical calculation of taking your total charges
to date, adding your late charges, and your adjustments. So, here are our late charges. So, in our late charges, you might not be able to see it, I didn’t actually do a blow up or anything, but Captain Marvel, what her role is, she’s going to look at everything they hit the project at the December 31,
2018. Anything they posted to the general ledger, and she’s going to look at concur
activity, vouchers, student financials, journals, payroll – all except timesheets,
and she’s going to be that custodian of the sponsor agency and reflect
them in the allowable columns. Now here she’s only looking at it from the time period of the time the project was started to the end date of December 31st to make that determination, nothing other than that. Now what Pepper needs to come
in here and do is just verify all of these charges are allowable. So in this
case we have payroll from Clint Hawkeye. Does this person actually perform any
aspects of the performance on the research project? So again, just going through it making sure that they’re verifying everything is allowable as in a direct benefit for the research project. Adjustments – adjustments are
something that is a lot of collaboration between the RA and sponsored programs. I
like to highlight our role versus the RA’s role. So in Captain Marvel’s case
she’ll always automatically put in any disallowed costs such as Uniform
Guidance, disallow cost based on the sponsor agreement, any direct cost overdraft, fixed price balance, or any cost-shared
shortage. On Pepper’s side, she might need to look at the report and say “hey, when I
looked at this report you gave me tying it out to the M-reports, I didn’t see
this invoice from one of my sound contracts.” Maybe it didn’t include vacation payout, maybe it’s some travel that’s missing, or a service unit billing. So again she’s going to look at it from that perspective. One of the things that I do, things sometimes get missed, is sometimes charges are hitting our projects incorrectly and we need to look at that. So maybe Pepper may want to say hey, this Thor Otison person, did he really work on there, and give us some
information to take charges off. Okay, so going through the day in the
life of a reporting accountant, just like you all, I know you all have challenging
and overwhelming workloads, I just wanted to put in perspective what our accountants deal with on a daily basis. So, again taking that 919 reports
that they have a month, they have to prioritize them from the short turnaround times to the longest of 120 days, then they actually have the closeouts that don’t even have any financial report requirements, and then early closeouts. I wanted to mention this because I know a lot of people submit early closeouts and you probably feel like oh, it’s been a week, it’s been a month, and I haven’t seen anybody contact me. It’s just that, again keeping it
into perspective, we have lots of demands as far as reports to get out in any
given year so it’s not that we’re ignoring you, we just really try to make sure we’re prioritizing on a regular basis. So, that being said what is our
desired state here? We just always want to put a balanced, accurate, and timely report out to the sponsor, and inactivate the project within 270 days. That really makes me happy. If I’m happy my son is happy because I
don’t have to come home, I don’t have to work on stuff, you know I’m able to enjoy
spending time with him. But, I think I heard somebody say what can stop a project from being inactivated? Well, I’m glad you asked that. Revenue not posting, expenses and charges constantly hitting, well that makes me sad [laughter]. It actually delays the whole process and it just keeps adding to the workload. So what I
wanted to tell you as of May 15 we have 1022 projects out of those 11,000 that
haven’t been inactivated. That means we submitted it to you all, we agreed on the financial report, it just hasn’t come to be inactivated, charges are still hitting.
So what I would encourage you all to do is definitely visit your closeout checklist because it talks about all the things you need to do in order to stop a project from having charges continually hitting – like those PARs
that need to be processed, stopping service unit billings, all that stuff. So, I know that was pretty quick, but
again, I want to encourage you all to make sure you go to the e-learning,
E-ssentials. It talks about everything that I said, it just goes a little slower
and more in detail. So the ones that you can refer to is the project closeout analysis, the project closeout, and the FSR overview is just a
segment in the project closeout. So if you do the project closeout that’s good enough. So that being said get your clickers out. If you turn your power on, get your clickers out I only have three questions [delay in turning on the clickers]. Okay, I just need you to turn your power
on again, does it show when everybody have their power on, no? Okay, you will have a green light on your clicker if your power is on, everybody’s good?
Okay, so here’s the first question. Question #1 – When should you not approve a report? a) when an overdraft exists, b) when a large balance is remaining, and c) when all charges have not been incorporated. Are you expecting a hundred and thirty? Okay, so c) is the right answer – when all charges have not been incorporated. I’m not sure who responded d) was it you Dean? [laughs]. Alright Question #2. What could be needed to adjust the
charge on a final interim report? I didn’t cover this in detail but I wanted
to be a challenging question for you, so a) a direct benefit justification, b) a
hundred twenty days explanation, c) an invoice and supporting documentation, d) any or all of the above, or e) just (a) and (c). Okay, so the correct answer here is d) any
and all of the above. I’m sure some people probably didn’t select b) the 120 day explanation because it’s not necessarily required all the time, but the correct
answer you wanted “is it could be” so make sure you have it. It’s very important
because again it could delay the report. Last question – What is the goal of the
reporting accountant? So Captain Marvel what do you think her goal is? [laughter] a) to get on your nerves with our demanding timelines, b) to partner with the RA for
an accurate report, c) to be good stewards as it is the fiduciary responsibilities of our sponsors, d) all of the above, what happened to the answers on the clickers?
Okay, e) just (b) and (c). Okay, lots of comments about this. Is that the result up there? Oh my goodness. Okay, so the answer is (e). So for those two people that selected “a” we do not try to get on your nerves, we are trying to help
you. I’m appalled you would say that. Okay, and of course, d) those four people must have thought we were trying to get on your
nerves too, no, again it’s (b) and (c). Okay, so again we’re here to help you. So if you ever have any questions about the closeouts, some of you all probably
thought I was going to put my phone number on here, guess what I did something better. I want you to contact your customer service. So those of you all who don’t know who your customer service people are they are here in the audience (so you all want to stand so they can see you). I had to stand so why don’t you all stand. There they are. They can contact you and you can contact them and they will definitely either tell my operational manager or me and we’ll get back with you to help you with any questions you have. So, that’s all I have and so I’m going to pass it on
to Craig. [Applause] Now that’s a hard act to follow.
I can’t recall the last time this room has been so filled with people. I can
just feel the energy, this is great! So I learned something every day and today I
learned that the PBR report is not having anything to do with cheap beer [laughing]. I was so envious of the people upstairs in Sponsored Programs talking about their PBR reports. In any event I’m going to talk about the deadline policy which
is not nearly as fun as Finance, on closeouts, but have you been reading your
email today? So if you have you may have seen an email that came out
this morning from the Provost and Vice President for Research announcing the
deadline policy, and here it is. It’s been at least three years in the making, if
not more, and we are looking ahead confidently into the future with a new policy in place. And so I’m going to share a little bit more about it, not a whole lot, this is not training, but this is just an opportunity to build awareness. So these service standards of the deadline policy really haven’t changed since the last time that we talked and I shared anything about the
policy, but there are a few tweaks. So essentially the deadline policy requires
a finalized PAF, Proposal Approval Form, and a final proposal in order for it to
progress into ORSP’s work queue for review and submission. Whenever you enter a submission deadline on the PAF, if there’s no deadline the policy doesn’t
apply. So, if you have a deadline on your PAF and you have met those two
conditions, finalized PAF meaning it’s all been approved, and a final proposal,
you’ll get one of two levels of service in ORSP. If the proposal, if you meet both of those conditions and that happens at least 32 business hours, read
that, four (4) business days before the submission deadline, you’ll
get this menu of services from ORSP. We call that a full review. We will check
the proposal for compliance with our university requirements, the proposal
will be submitted by the submission deadline that you enter on the PAF, the
proposal will be checked for compliance with the sponsor’s guidelines, that’s one of the big value-adds of getting it there soon within the 32 business hours. We will also review the proposal and the sponsor solicitation to make sure that
any terms and conditions that might be binding upon award, if we were to receive one would be acceptable. So we’ll be scanning that document to make sure let’s say the sponsor says if you get an award under this program, you must adhere to this intellectual property policy, we’ll call that out to make sure that it’s something that we can accept and if not, we will let everyone know “hey, this is going to be problematic, and in some cases in the
federal government, with a contract for example, we may actually append an
exception letter saying we reserve the right to negotiate these clauses. And the
last benefit of this full review is that the proposal will be successfully received by the sponsor, and we say that because we’re checking the proposal against the sponsor’s guidelines. Now, we also recognize that not everyone wants that level of service. Some feel like that level of service provided
perfectly well at the departmental or school and college level, and so there’s
another option which is the less than 32 business hours, but more than 15 business
hours, and all I’ll mention what do we mean by 15 business hours in a moment. But in that instance, you get a limited review which is essentially the
proposal is checked for our institutional requirements and the proposal will be submitted by the submission deadline that’s entered on
the PAF. The rest though, because we only have 15 business hours, is not going to
be part of the service level – so not checking against the sponsor’s guidelines, and as a result, we can’t guarantee the proposal will be successfully received because we’re not doing that check to make sure that it meets all of say the electronic submission
requirements. And then we have this last category, which isn’t really a service
level but a recognition, that if you get it to us with less than 15 business
hours everything is at risk. We’re going to try to submit but we can’t guarantee it by any means, and we’re only going to submit if we have an opportunity to do the limited institutional review to make
sure that it’s compliant with the U-M requirements. And another important caveat here is that we’re not going to submit this proposal if it’s at risk in
over a proposal that was timely, so we’re going to be fair to all of the faculty
and research administrators who were able to get their proposals in by at
least the 15 business hours. So why 15 business hours? Well that was in response to feedback we heard from the research administration community. When we were making that distinction between limited review and at risk, there’s a
desire to have a little bit extra time, and the feedback was well what are you going to do at 5:00 p.m. on the second day? Give us
at least one hour the following day and so that was something that we agreed to do to eek out a little more time and that was a request from the research administration community that we agreed to. So, 9:00 a.m. is how
you should read that for most electronic submissions it would be 9 a.m. the first business day prior to the submission deadline. So the takeaway for today when it comes to the deadline policy is we announced it today, that’s a red letter
day. January 6, 2020, is when the policy itself will be enforced, and then July 1st of next year is the earliest time by which we can
start collecting and analyzing data to see the impact of the policy and making
appropriate tweaks. So, that’s what you have to look forward to. I’ll say that we’re going to do this in three phases roughly or the first of which is
starting today through January 5th, the day before the policy goes live. And
this event is the first of many awareness building activities that will
be happening across campus. Importantly, there are going to be some changes to the Proposal Approval Form, the PAF, that will be introduced we hope on July 22nd
of this year. This is not about enforcing the policy but there are changes that are
necessary as a prerequisite to actually implementing the workflow that will
surround the policy implementation in January. We will do program, we’ll not me,
Kathy’s team will be doing the ERPM programming and testing, and we’ll also have an opportunity to do some user acceptance testing as well as we hope
have some time in the sandbox for everyone to kick the tires, and make sure that it’s working the way we hope. And, of course, there will be a significant amount of communication and training as details emerge, and a lot of
those details are actually in flux, and so that’s not what I’m here to talk about, there will be more communications coming out. But, if you
saw in the email that came out at 10 o’clock this morning there was a
link to a website where we have the deadline policy and a draft of the the
full version of the policy with some of the caveats and important details that you need to know as well is on that webpage. And there’s also a link on that form, to a Google form, for submitting questions you might have about implementation of the policy that will serve as the basis of an FAQ. But what I also want to encourage you to do is that this policy is not just about
U-M or ORSP. All of the schools and colleges also are thinking about how
this implements them locally and impacts everyone locally. So I would encourage you if you have questions the first step would be to go
to your school or college or Institute research administration leadership and
ask what are you thinking about in terms of implementation of this policy, and they might have the same answer that I do, right now, we’re working on it but that would be your first point of contact. If they’re
more general questions about how we’re implementing the policy across the institution I would encourage you to go to that form where you can submit your questions and they will be reviewed. So, as I said the schools and colleges, and the Flint and Dearborn campuses, they are working as well on any
upstream consequences of the deadline policy to make sure that they
can be accommodated as well, and we’ll be coordinating with everyone over the coming days and months. So one of the things that we’re working on right now is a schedule of milestones in terms of what you can expect to see changing between now and January 6th. For example, on the private, I don’t think it’s a
surprise to anyone that there’s a little bit of difference in practice between
the government team and the private sponsors team right now on when a review will be conducted. As part of laying the groundwork for a smooth transition, sometime in the near future, project reps on both teams will be accepting PAFs only when they’ve been finalized before they’ll do the
review, but we’ll certainly communicate that as that’s just one example of a milestone that we want to make sure that you are all aware of. We’re thinking about and making sure that the system will have the appropriate data in the
data warehouse so that we can actually establish some key performance indicators and metrics to think about and assess the implementation of the
policy. As I said there’s a new draft version of the SOP about the deadline policy on that webpage as well so that you can see what to expect
in January. There’ll be a lot of training materials and presentations at multiple
locations across campus, so I very much want to partner with the schools and colleges so that we can communicate to all of the research administrators and any faculty who are interested so that we’re aligned and
coordinated. And then, of course, there’ll be the usual job AIDS and the like so
that’s the beginning of the beginning. Then January 6th, as I said, is the date that we implement the policy and we will collect data and you’ll be hearing more from Cathy Handyside about some of the PAF changes that are coming out in July that will make more sense in terms of the needed changes for the deadline policy itself. So I’m sure you have a lot of questions. This is probably, we could spend all day in this room talking about the questions, but I’m gonna ask that we hold those to the end just because of the schedule that we’re trying to adhere to and I will be available, of course, over the next six
months. Although I’m getting out of town right after this and I’ve bought us
extra set of full tires in case I happen to go out to the parking lot and find my
tires have been slashed [laughter]. And then so July 1st and beyond is when we start looking at the data, making sure that we at least did no harm, and hopefully did a lot of good, looking at success rates for the different kinds of proposals, and many other metrics that we want to capture and refine as appropriate. And then we will also work with the Research Associate Dean’s and the Vice President
for Research for those folks who have a propensity to work outside of policy and
process in the system, you’ve seen them where the proposal and the award are
routed together, and I don’t know how that happens but sometimes it does, or
when we see a frequent at-risk submitter we want to encourage adherence to the
policy so we’ll work with the Academic Research Dean’s to help us in that
endeavor. And then, as I said, there will be an analysis at least beginning at that six-month period, particularly around the need for a potential waiver
process for anything that comes in with under the 15 business hours, that’s something that we’ll think about but we’re not implementing at this point right now. There’s that we have the safety valve of the at-risk category.
So that’s the deadline policy. I’ve been talking about it for three
years and now it’s coming, and I’m very excited and I’m hopeful that this
will bring some order to your lives as well. So more to come on that for sure, but I look forward to working with all of you on the deadline policy. So with that I’m going to transition over to the ORSP update. So I am proud and honored to work with all of my colleagues in ORSP, but today I particularly want to recognize Terry Maxwell. Where are you Terry? Terry is sitting way in the back, yeah, [clapping] she’s terrific, don’t you think? Maybe
that’s why this room is so full because of Terry. But we have other honorees like
Melissa as well, so, and Chuck. Where’s Chuck? Well, all of his friends are here I’m sure. I love this quote that came from the nomination letter, the line, I check with Terry Maxwell as one of the most powerful tools in our toolkit. Yeah, that’s the truth, and I want to say how much I love this picture because this is the expression of someone who says I’ve seen it all, don’t
worry you’re in good hands, I got this. So congratulations to Terry, we’re all very proud. Another staff update I’d like to welcome new Assistant Project Representative, Raymond Clucky. Raymond is here, stand up Raymond [clapping]. You can tell he’s new because the smile on his face, compared to Terry’s face, it’s like sorry, Raymond, you don’t know what you got coming. I actually had to cut and paste this from some law school publication but he’s happy and we’re happy to have him. Another staff update is Maggie Swift, one of our Project Representatives who
handles mostly Data Use Agreements is on leave. If you’re wondering why she’s on leave I’ll just share with you, welcome new Assistant Project Representative Greer Joanna Swift who has got the expression of some of a PR who’s been on the job for a long time again, the circle of life. Quickly a couple of policy updates. One is that we issued a new Standard Operating Procedure on the submission of hard copies, electronic media, and other tangible materials. This is actually just a codification of a long-standing practice that we never wrote down so now you know. There are still some proposals
that need to be submitted in color, or a hard copy, and we’ll provide up to three business unbound copies of a black-and-white or color
version of the proposal. That’s the long and short of it since I have
more to say about other topics you’ll be getting these slides and the SOP is already out on our website so we won’t get into the details there. Very quickly
from the NIH front there’s two items I want to mention. One, is this the
salary cap was officially announced April 17th and it’s $192,300. All of you that know what the salary cap is about no all of the details about how to handle it so I won’t belabor that point. I did want to spend some time though talking about NIH in foreign influence. You may have been, if you watch the news, MD Anderson, there were three investigators there who were dismissed from their positions – faculty there over issues related to foreign influence and we are actively
educating the rest of our campus about the concerns that the federal government, in particular, NIH, has about foreign influence. So NIH actually sent letters to about 70 institutions not long ago with questions about specific
faculty related to foreign components and other support and foreign
affiliations, and at least 12 of those institutions have been referred to the Office of the Inspector General for further investigation. So this is serious business and so I just want to take this opportunity to make sure that all of you are aware of what the issues are so that we can be fully compliant
with NIH requirements. So I’ll take each of them in turn. So a foreign component, this is not a new concept actually it’s been around for at
least 10 years, if not longer. And the definition of a foreign component, it’s in the grants policy statement, it says the performance of any significant
scientific element or segment of a project outside of the US by a researcher employed by a foreign organization, and this is important, whether or not grant funds are expended, so you don’t have to have a subaward to
a foreign collaborator in order for there to be a foreign component. As long
as your faculty are collaborating with an investigator outside of the US on the
specific aim funded by NIH that’s a foreign component, and it has to be reported. In fact, NIH requires that they give its prior approval for any foreign components. So there hasn’t been much attention paid to this in the past, but there’s been renewed emphasis on this issue at NIH in the last year or so. So it’s important for us to be mindful of what truly is a foreign
component and to get the prior approval of NIH whenever it is required. The grants policy statement gives three specific examples of activities that would be considered a foreign component if it’s performed outside the U.S. Involvement of human subjects or animals, foreign travel for the purpose of data collection or surveying and the like, or any activity
that may impact U.S. foreign policy by getting involved in the affairs of a foreign country. So, if your faculty are doing any of those three things outside
of the U.S., it’s a foreign component. There are some other examples and this is
where things get a little bit hard to interpret NIH’s intentions, but they give some examples of activities that might be considered a foreign component including collaborations with investigators at a foreign site where
you end up co-authoring an article, using facilities at a foreign site, or getting foreign financial support or resources from a foreign entity. So that’s the
definition of a foreign component. If you want to know how to comply, if you’re
submitting a proposal and you anticipate that there is some collaboration with a foreign colleague outside of the U.S., the easiest way to do this is to
answer yes to question six on the Other Project Information form of the application, and then provide a justification for why that
collaboration is necessary. On the post-award side, if you’re familiar with
how you request ORSP action on an award, just use that process to let us know
that you would like to get prior approval for a foreign component and we
will work with you to submit the appropriate materials to NIH to seek their approval. And, also, there’s a spot on the Research Performance Progress Report to include the disclosure of a foreign component,
that’s item G-9. So foreign components are very important that we disclose them and they are subject to a fair amount of scrutiny. It’s not a perfunctory rubber stamp. Another of NIH’s concerns is related to the appropriate disclosure of other support. When there is a foreign source of support for a faculty,
we have to be sure that other support is disclosed to NIH even if the University of Michigan is not the grantee, okay. So we have seen examples in the press of Faculty of U.S. institutions receiving grants from foreign governments where the university
is not the grantee, but rather it’s a university in another country and our faculty are PIs on that particular award. So, we would have no visibility into that, we need to have that disclosed for sure. So that’s another important message for your faculty. So how to comply with the foreign support from a foreign entity? Disclose it as part of your just-in-time
response to an NIH proposal and the post-award activities when you’re doing the RPPR you can disclose it there in item D.2c And then finally foreign affiliations. This is something that’s relatively new but NIH is on the lookout for faculty who have affiliations, appointments, positions at foreign
universities, and whether or not those are disclosed in their biosketches or
anywhere else. So if your faculty have an even an honorary
professorship, or an honorary appointment at a foreign university, make sure that
that’s included in the biosketch under relevant positions, okay. And it’s pretty much the same idea here so it makes on the pre-award side, put that affiliation in the biosketch, and I’m not sure what actually to say about on the post-award side. Include it somewhere just make sure it’s disclosed as part of
the RPPR process. So what else can you do? Help us educate and raise awareness with the faculty about these not really new definitions, but new
increasing importance of these concepts to NIH, and make sure they are aware of
any of the prior approval requirements so you can see in the table here if you have a foreign component yes, you must disclose it in your proposal, you need prior approval, and you need to disclose a new foreign component, or an existing foreign component, in the RPPR. And similarly, for other support, it must be disclosed in the proposal. You don’t need prior approval, but you also have to disclose it in the annual
progress report. And the same is true for affiliations. Now, having said all that we expect NIH to be issuing some new guidance soon, and when I say soon, I mean governmentally soon; meaning I don’t really know when. But we anticipate we
know that NIH is going to be releasing some guidance, we just can’t exactly say whether it’s gonna be a month or two months or six months, but we’re certain that there will be new guidance and so everything that I just told you
will change. So keep your antenna up for new guidance from NIH, and new guidance
from the University as well. I’ll just close with a note that we have something called the International Research Security Working Group (just
rolls off the tongue). That group is looking at all of these issues as
well as others around international research, and identifying ways that we can help faculty and shore up any compliance gaps that we may have. And if you’re not concerned, because you’re thinking well my department doesn’t get NIH money I get NSF money, NSF is going to be
under the same pressure that NIH already is to be responsive to Congress about demonstrating the due diligence around foreign influence. And so I expect
different, but similar, type of guidance coming from NIH soon but I don’t know
when. So this is important for the entire institution. So please please be careful
and help us and we’ll try and help you as best we can. I ended right on time so back to Cathy Handyside, thank you [applause]. Well, thank you, Craig. That was a lot of
great information. Craig mentioned that one of our recipients this afternoon is his own Terry Maxwell from the ORSP office. So he didn’t mention a few other fun facts about Terry which I’m going to share with you now. So we found out from
Terry that she enjoys traveling in Europe with her husband. She attends many live shows at the arc and elsewhere so maybe if that’s something that’s of interest to you, you might want to go talk to Terry about that. She’s an avid reader, news follower, and political junkie, and she is also a cat person, although she only has two, so I don’t know if that really qualifies as a cat
person. So our congratulations to Terry and we’ll look forward to celebrating with her later this afternoon. Our next update is from Debbie Talley who is the Director of Finance, Sponsored Programs, and she’s going to be talking to you about the Sponsored Programs update [clapping]. I don’t know that I have much to say after Chris’ show a little earlier, but a few things. So when we were together last [pause adjusting microphone]. When we were together last February I mentioned that we were
still working on her single audit. So I wanted to let you all know that we
completed it, just in time, and like May, March, sorry March 29th maybe, it was
due on the 31st. But we did have a finding this year and the finding was related to
how the university was handling, what we refer to as a program fee, for running the strategic sourcing program. So with that program, we were keeping that discount centrally to run the program and the federal government said
no, that should really just decrease the cost of whatever it was that you were purchasing and, therefore, we had to change our process. So we had a finding, we’re in the process of settling that with the federal
government, but we also incorporated a new process for journal entries. So
hopefully, those of you who prepare journal entries are familiar with the FAQs
that we have out there, they’re on the procurement website, they were also
in a RAPid with information, but this is the link to it, and I know that we’ve had journals sent into Sponsor Programs. Hopefully, people understand how to go about preparing those journals to make sure that they’re correct. But, if not, if
you have questions, please talk to your Sponsored Programs accountant and they will help you with that. The other thing that I wanted to talk
about was that right on the tale of getting the FY 18 single audit done we
are gearing up to do the new single audit for this year. So when I put together these slides I said we were going to work on, you know, testing was going to start soon. But, we have our entrance meeting with our auditors next week, and we’re going to be talking to them about what we believe should be in scope this
year. So, more to come on that but if, indeed, we need to reach out to you, Brian
and his team we’ll be reaching out for the testing that’s going to happen for the single audit, but more to come on that. The next step I wanted to share
some exciting news. Dennis Poszywak and his team have
historically reported to Procurement but they’ve been sitting in Sponsored Programs. Effective, I think it was the beginning of May, I’m losing track of
time, but Dennis and his team now report to Pete in Contract Administration. The reason that we moved or had that staff move, really with that reporting
structure is because the work really more aligns with Contracting with what
Pete and his team do for subcontracts then it does really with Procurement
transactions. So when you think about procurement it’s usually buying items right off the shelf versus when you’re working on a
hybrid you’re really negotiating with another entity. So that is effective, and
so Dennis and his team are now part of Sponsored Programs, and we’re in the
process of filling a position in that area, another Contract Admin lead. And
then the other thing I wanted to share, and I realize that I didn’t include all
of the updates for personnel, but we hired five new accountants and three
interns. They all started May 13th and unfortunately, they couldn’t be here today because Kris has them in training. So none of them are here but hopefully
they’ll be here in the fall. Just not Captain Marvel, apparently, but I’m not
sure who that is because I did meet them all. But we do also have a new supervisor, Kimdra Payton, right I’m like wait that’s not her name but it is. We promoted Kimdra effective May 20th. So is Kimdra here? She’s not here either
because she’s in training. So next time she’ll be here but Kimdra was in Customer Service. She actually came back from Flint earlier, well actually the last part of last year, and she has many years of experience in Sponsored Programs and research administration. So excited to have her as a supervisor in
the reporting area. And I think that’s all of my updates so I’m going to hand
it back to Cathy [applause]. Thank You Debbie. So next our third recipient today I’m not sure if many of you know Chuck, but now you’re gonna know a lot more about Chuck, so when you meet him later at 3:30 you’ll be able to ask him a few things about these fun facts. Chuck has worked
for the center of ergonomics at the University of Michigan for 38 years. Unfortunately he’s looking, well I guess fortunate for him, he’s looking forward to retiring soon. He is well-traveled – he’s been to Kenya, Liberia, Haiti, Costa
Rica – all doing volunteer work for his church. He likes to read nonfiction and mysteries, and he also enjoys gardening and landscaping, as well as
railroad history and model railroading. So a few fun facts you can share with him when you meet him later today and he’ll be like how do you know that about me. So, we congratulate Chuck and we’ll look forward to seeing him later today. Next
up we were supposed to have David Mulder but I saw him leave the room. I know he
lost a crown right before on his way to the meeting today and so our colleague
Chris DeVries has agreed to step in on David’s behalf and present the Navigate
update for us today. So, I’m going to introduce Chris [applause]. Okay, well I think I picked a good day to not wear my Led Zeppelin t-shirt and my ripped jeans [laughter], so whew, thank goodness for thinking ahead. Alright, so I’ll give you the Navigate update, also will give some updates from professional societies, excuse me.
So Lunch & Learn. Our upcoming Lunch and Learn is going to be on Data Use
Agreements. That will be on June 18th. I haven’t confirmed all of the details
with David on this as I’m reading the slides though it sounds like there was a
an overwhelming demand for this course. So, the in-person session is already full, and there is already a waitlist for that. There’s also simulcast attendance that
still is available. What I do know is in response to feedback that we’ve received from the research administration community we will have some sponsor
specific Lunch & Learns. Those are going to be upcoming in the fall. We’ll
have one for NIH and one for NSF. The dates on those are still TBD so keep
your eyes open. If you would like to receive the emails that come from the group, you can either email [email protected], or you can find information on the ORSP website about how to sign up for the newsletters. We
have some exciting courses that we’re working on developing. The first is what
we’ve been loosely terming large and complex projects. As this working group
has been doing its work, we’ve determined that really a lot of
the content areas, the topics, for that specific course don’t really necessarily
pertain only to large and complex projects. For instance, you could have a
standard NIH RO-1 that has five or six subcontracts. To me, that’s a pretty
complex project but maybe not that large. So this group is working, we’re first
working on rebranding, but what I can say is that we’ve done a lot of work in terms of gathering the content for this course and determining the best way to
deliver all of that content. I can say that there’s a lot of content, so more to
come on that. We’ve also, in response to the overwhelming demand that we
had for I believe now, two, Lunch & Learn sessions around BusinessObjects Reports
which, as I like to say, were sort of like a u2 concert. Where if you weren’t the third person in line at that very second, you’re out of luck. So we’ve
actually decided to move this more into a full course as opposed to a Lunch &
Learn. We’re still working on the details of that, but more to come as well. Another thing that I’m really happy about is, because I’ve had some interaction with
this is that we have a new portal coming for the navigate courses. This will replace the website that’s currently there. I personally feel it makes it more
of a concise and easy to navigate endeavor, as opposed to having sort of a long list of all of those navigate courses. Our website vendor has really helped us sort of get this in the same vein as a lot of the UMOR
websites that are out there. Specifically, the research resources website on UMOR’s
page. So look for this we will be launching that soon. Again, for more
information you can always email [email protected] or go
to the ORSP website as well. So, that’s all I have for navigate updates. I wanted
to give a few updates for professional societies. So NCURA, National Council
of University Research Administrators, their annual meeting will be in August, 2019. So that is coming up soon. Those meetings are in Washington DC and the
registration deadline is July 26. I should also note that if you navigate to
this website you’ll find that there are a lot of pre and post conference
workshops that are also available. There are also three sort of mini-workshops, traveling workshops, for financial research administration and also the two levels for sponsored project administration. Those will be held on
September 4 – 6. That’s coming up soon in Chicago. Coming up soon, it is not coming up that soon, but it will feel like it especially as you work through deadline policy I can tell you it will be here sooner than you know it, and the registration deadline for that is August 30. For SRAI, the Society of Research Administrators International, their annual meeting, we did announce this last time, but now that we are getting closer and I have to say that our next RAN meeting will be October 15th, so sort of
jot this in your head if it’s something that you’re interested in attending, in San Francisco and that will be October 19-23. Our Michigan Chapter of SRA has been doing a lot of work planning. I have overheard a lot of David’s conversations, because I know he’s part of the group that’s actually planning this, so I’m a little remiss that he’s not here to sort of convey his excitement, but that meeting will be June 10th and 11th up on Mackinac Island at the Grand Hotel which if you’ve never been it might be worth the trip just to see the Grand Hotel. And, early registration closes on next week Tuesday, I believe that is, May 28th. There’s a website there if you need more information. As we note here the full program is already up on the website so take a look and especially if there come,
I’m sorry, the concurrent sessions or any of the other sessions that interest you, I would certainly encourage you to attend. We also have a roster here of the University of Michigan folks who are affiliated with Michigan SRA. So I would encourage you to reach out to them and pose any questions that you might have. I’m sure they will be able to help you and also they do have a group email if you’d prefer to send sort of more of a general question to that group. NORDP, the National Organization for Research Development Professionals. They
will have their 2020 national meeting coming up soon, I’m sorry, soon, it’s 2019. I’m fumbling my dates here, but that’s okay. So, San Antonio if you want to visit San Antonio in May, if it’s anything like San Antonio is right now it will be hot so you might need your Led Zeppelin t-shirt and your ripped jeans to actually survive. This is something I know Jill Jividen is really thrilled about that the Great Lakes regional meeting for NORDP will be held here at U-M. That meeting will be October 21st. There is a $60, sort of nominal, $60 registration fee and you don’t need to be a NORDP member to attend. Registration will open in July of 2019. Jill didn’t have a specific date but I would say keep your eyes open for that. But the Request for Proposals, the RFP, is
open right now and those proposals are due on June 17th. There is a website I did navigate to it, it’s very slick. I was pretty impressed in terms of how conference websites go so there’s a lot more information at the website
that’s listed here. Or, you can contact the email address that we have there. So
that’s all I have for the professional societies and navigate updates, so back to Cathy [applause]. I have to say not only a special thank you to Chris for filling in at the last minute, but I also noticed that he was also keeping his own time
because that’s usually what he does for us when we’re up here, and you finished a few minutes early which is awesome. Now I’m gonna introduce our next speaker who happens to be me to talk about the ITS update. Most of my story today is going to be about some of the changes that we’re going to be making to eResearch Proposal Management to support the deadline policy that Craig
mentioned. So as Craig mentioned this has been a project that is three years in
its planning, and now we’re finally ready to get started. Some of the changes will
be coming to eRPM sooner than the January 6 date, and so I want to share some of that with you today. I also wanted to mention we recently completed an update on May the 6th that introduced a few quick wins for the award enhancements, and also several changes to the compliance
section. For those of you, I know not everybody here is pre-award, and I know
not everyone here fills out a PAF, but I know a lot of you do, and many of the rest of us have to read those and process them and work with them, so I
wanted to share a few items that we are planning for our next release on
July 22nd, but also recognized that we did make a pretty big change to compliance recently, and I hope that everybody’s managing through that as well as can be expected. So coming July 22nd we have three pretty
big items. First of all we’re going to be introducing a new Unfunded Agreement
type for system security plans. So this would be if you’re using controlled unclassified information, if you have FISMA requirements, if you have enhanced IT security, those types of things. We have a security officer who works in the Ethics and Compliance office in the University Office of Research, Steve Dawson. He is the person that we interface with and he is the one who
would be creating these system security plans, but now we’ll have a place in the system to store them. In addition to that we have a few additions to make to award enhancements. I’ll share those with you in just a second, and then of course some changes that we’re going to be putting into the Proposal Approval Form to
support the new deadline policy. So let me just talk about the award enhancements very quickly. For those of you who have been kind of pulling your hair out since last August when we introduced the new award management, It’s very difficult sometimes to understand that there’s now an award and that the
proposal is historical. It is no longer the instrument that we use to
communicate with one another, it is no longer the instrument that we keep
updated with who are the persons working on this project. All of that activity has
moved to the award and we’re still having some confusion with that. So one of the things that we’re planning to do for July is to make changes to the PAFs
that are awarded, to make it much more clear that this is a historical record
and that there’s now an award, and you should really be doing most of your
actions over there. So, we have a new workspace message that will go on those
awarded PAFs that’s here on the slide. We are planning to move the award
information higher on the workspace so you’ll be able to see it clearly. We’re also right now in discussions about removing
the Post a Comment activity on the awarded PAF. It’ll still be there whenever the path is being routed, etc., but once that PAF is awarded we don’t
keep the personnel up to date. So say, for example, if the PR has changed and there’s another PR now working on the award, we don’t want you to Post a
Comment to the PR who was on that record historically because they’re not going to
be able to help you. So, those are some of the changes that we’re looking to make,
and, also, we’re looking to give access to that historical PAF to any people who are added to the award once it’s created. So hopefully that’ll make things a little bit easier to live in this world where we have these two different
instruments. Then the other thing that we’ve already actually programmed, and
we’ve been testing, is adding on the Post a Comment activity that’s on the award there’s been many requests to add all the Department context. You can just check boxes and indicate which Department folks you want to communicate with, that has been added to the Post a Comment activity on the award and on the award modifications so hopefully those items will help. The biggest changes that
we’ll be making though are changes to support the road to the Deadline Policy. So the Deadline Policy working group has been meeting for several months, I was
going to say but it feels like years, right, to look at ways to streamline
information in the Proposal Approval Form. We’ve identified several questions that we feel flow better if they’re in different places. I’m not going to talk about every question that’s getting moved to some other area, but I do want to introduce some new questions that will
be coming in July so that we can start getting used to the questions that will
be asked that’ll support the Deadline Policy when it goes into effect in
January. So, one of the first things is a new question on the first page that asks essentially are you routing a proposal, or are you routing a contract or a
funding agreement? The words on this page are up for discussion right now so
please don’t look at the wording, but essentially know that there will be a question there to indicate are you doing a proposal, are
you doing a contract or an agreement, or are you possibly routing both? And we’re
going to leverage the answers to those questions to direct you to different questions as you move through the Proposal Approval Form. So you won’t see some questions if you’re routing an agreement as opposed to if you’re
routing a proposal. The biggest changes are going to be coming in the last
section of the Proposal Approval Form, a lot of the deadline entry, a lot of
the questions that you ask about how you’re submitting and instructions for
ORSP, all of those things are now going to be moved to Section 6. I have a
couple of glimpses at some of those changes so let me take you through them. First thing that we’re going to have is a new way, if you’ve indicated that you
are routing a proposal, there will be a place for you to indicate the submission
deadline. That’s the date that this proposal needs to leave U-M campus. So if it’s an electronic submission that’ll be the day that the sponsors due
date is. If it’s a hard copy that has to be sent to a foreign country, and you need three or four days for it to be sent there physically, then that should
be the date that it needs to leave U-M to make it to your destination by the due date. There are still options to indicate that there’s no sponsored
deadline, or that there is a time that it’s needed to be there before 5:00 p.m.,
so all of those questions remain but this question is the one that we’re going to use to calculate the Deadline Policy. There’s also a new field
that’s been added to indicate if there’s a prime sponsor deadline. Sometimes we are actually going to be submitting to someone else who’s going to be submitting to the final sponsor, and that’s helpful information just to know from planning purposes so that will also be captured. This is a new screen that
you will see that will calculate the limited and full review deadlines that
Craig mentioned in his policy introduction. So he mentioned the greater than 32 hours and the greater or less than 15 hours, just so that you know once you put in that submission deadline the PAF will have a page that will very
clearly say to you if you said that submission deadline was May 24th, the
system will calculate using business days, etc. to get full review for ORSP your proposal must be received by ORSP before 5:00 p.m. on May the 20th. If for a limited review it has to be there by 9:00 a.m. on May 23rd. And
to get to ORSP, in January, you will have to have both a finalized proposal that’s
unit reviewed, but for July this is just going to be helpful information for you
to kind of plan see how well you would be doing against those deadlines that are going to be coming. We also will have an option for you to indicate a preferred target date, and this will apply whether you’re submitting a proposal or a contract funding agreement. If there’s a date that you’d like to try and meet this is where you would enter that information. It is optional. If you do put
in a date, though, the explanation field is required and I’ll leave it up to
Craig’s staff to tell you what is a good explanation and what’s not. The last item is that we are going to be giving you enhanced help to help with the instructions for ORSP, and there will be a separate box of instructions for you to enter if you’re routing a proposal, and you’ll see that the help has context if
you’re routing a proposal, and then the similar box if you’re routing a funding
agreement. If you’re routing both you’ll see both of these boxes, and literally
just this week we got a tip to number the help so that you don’t have to type the questions back in the text box, thank you, Debbie, but that you can answer the questions in the text box. So these changes are all planned for July 22nd right after the June/July NIH deadlines so hopefully this will be
something that you’ll have a chance to start working with and getting used to. We’ve also gotten some great feedback from the RAAC Committee at Large on how to help you have materials to get your folks up and prepared for these
changes. So those items and more are coming July 22nd [applause]. So, last but not least, we do have a fourth recipient today this is Jessica Soulliere, and Jessica is going to be receiving this award posthumously. Her
husband and son will be here to receive this award on her behalf today. I did not
have the opportunity to meet Jessica and after learning more about her from her colleagues I’m really sad that I didn’t because it sounds like from everybody that we’ve spoken with multiple examples of just what a font of
positivity she was. So we heard from her colleagues in the Office of Tech Transfer that she just had a way of bringing positivity to every day. That
would be people who passed her cube where she would always shout out something like “happy Monday or happy Thursday,” as it is today. She could keep
her positive attitude and her cool in all kinds of different situations. They shared with us a story of a particularly difficult negotiation she
was dealing with, with a very difficult phone connection, and somehow managed to keep her cool and her positive attitude through that. Her positivity made such an
impact on everyone and on the office, that we’re actually going to be seeing an award named in her honor for people who bring a positive attitude to the workplace. And I don’t know about you guys, but I think that’s pretty awesome to celebrate. So, we will get a chance to meet her husband and her son
later today at this ceremony so hopefully, you’ll join me in congratulating them on her behalf [applause]. So that gives us just enough time for some closing remarks. So I want to make sure that I hit all of the business
items. Thank you for participating in our zero waste event today so the slide
reminds you of some of the items that you might have on your tables and how to appropriately dispose of them on your way out. We hope that all of you will join us in just a few minutes across the hall at the Vanderberg room so that we can celebrate our colleagues who are receiving the Research Administration Service and Technical and Staff Awards. For those of you who are joining us online, and for those of you who might want to see some of the content that was
presented today, the video of the RAN meeting will be up on the ORSP site very soon. If you have questions or suggestions for a future RAN meeting,
there’s contact information also available on this slide (it’s always important to hit the little button). Our next RAN meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October the 15th, and there will be a survey that’s going out after this
meeting so we really do enjoy your feedback, it’s very helpful for planning future RAN meetings, so we encourage you to all fill that out. And we’d like to say a big thank you to those of you who filled out the survey from our last meeting. So that is our meeting for today, anything that I missed? Alright, I’d
also like to say one other great big thank you to the RAAC Communications committee for planning these RAN meetings. I was having a deja vu moment. I think this is my 13th year coming to RAN meetings and I remember where we used to be down on that end of the hall and I just feel like the content of these meetings has really been significantly changed over those 13 years, and hopefully, you’ve seen the improvements as well. So thanks to all and we’ll see you at 3:30 [applause].

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *