https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/e...203677.php

From the article:
Rice University has paid the U.S. government more than $3.7 million to resolve claims that for nearly 12 years it improperly used National Science Foundation research and development awards, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Sorry for the double post, please delete the other one.

Who was the President of Rice University during this period?

I have not direct knowledge, but it sounds like a dispute in rules interpretation rather than clear cut fraud. There is a broad spectrum of possibilities from innocent mistake to aggressive accounting (i.e., purposely pushing the limits of what is allowed) to outright fraud. My guess would be that this case falls somewhere in the middle.

(04-17-2020 12:04 PM)temchugh Wrote:  I have not direct knowledge, but it sounds like a dispute in rules interpretation rather than clear cut fraud. There is a broad spectrum of possibilities from innocent mistake to aggressive accounting (i.e., purposely pushing the limits of what is allowed) to outright fraud. My guess would be that this case falls somewhere in the middle.

The article says that the amount Rice paid is exactly double the amount it incorrectly charged to NSF. I wonder if that is NSF's standard approach to these middle-ground cases: if you screw up, and we catch it, then just pay us double and we'll call it even. That gives schools a really strong incentive to not screw up, and gives NSF a way to avoid having to prosecute everyone who does.

(04-17-2020 12:04 PM)temchugh Wrote:  I have not direct knowledge, but it sounds like a dispute in rules interpretation rather than clear cut fraud. There is a broad spectrum of possibilities from innocent mistake to aggressive accounting (i.e., purposely pushing the limits of what is allowed) to outright fraud. My guess would be that this case falls somewhere in the middle.

Neither do I, but...

"Under those rules, the university should have only charged expenses to the awards if they were incurred for research purposes, were beneficial to the award, were vital for the operation of the awardee, and were in accordance with the agency’s terms and conditions, Patrick wrote. Instead, Patrick said authorities learned that from November 2006 through September 2018, “Rice knowingly engaged in a pattern and practice of improperly charging graduate students’ stipends, tuition remission and related facilities and administrative charges to NSF awards.” A portion of the charges were also used to pay graduate students for performing teaching duties that were unrelated to Rice’s National Science Foundation awards, Patrick wrote."

The rules sound pretty clear. I think leaning on the side of being conservative in what is charged against a grant is the more prudent approach. Jeopardizing future grants from the NSF or any other US Government agency sounds like a really big risk to take to save a few bucks. Reminds me of cases during my work career where former employees chose to pad expense accounts. They got caught, lost their jobs and permanently damaged their reputations. Was it worth the few extra dollars? No chance.

The fact this went on for 12 years suggests this wasn't an innocent mistake, but rather a pattern of poor judgement, at the least, or deliberate fraud in the worst case.

I'd be surprised, and disappointed, if someone doesn't lose their job over this. Even in the best case scenario that this was a case of "different interpretations" of the rules, the damage has been done to Rice's reputation. Such damage stays in memories a very long time.

Closer to Conventional Stupidity than Unconventional Wisdom. Very disappointing.

I know nothing beyond what I have read in the media, but I will add one more possibility.

Some bureaucrat got pissed off at Rice for some reason. Maybe his/her son or daughter didn't get admitted. If one of those people decides that he/she wants to get you, they will stay at it forever. I once advised a client to agree to a $5,000 fine, because somebody at the agency told me that if he didn't, they were going to hang him out to dry. The thing that I find most disheartening about this sort of behavior is that those who do it are celebrated as heroes in bureaucrat-land.

I obviously don't know the detailed facts, but I do think this is a realistic possibility. It is a realistic possibility every time you deal with regulators. You think it can't happen? Just ask Gibson Guitars. I remember back when I was opposing the patRIOT act and all my conservative fellow posters were saying, "What's the matter? If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." Oh, no, you give any bureaucrat power to do anything, without accountability, and you have something--maybe lots of things--to worry about.

Remember that guy at EPA or Forest Service or whatever agency who dumped all that pollution into that river out west? Anything ever happen to him? Or did they circle the wagons and cover it up? What would have happened to you or me had we done it?

There are some good people who work for federal agencies. Many of them really take their mission seriously, and most of them are pretty reasonable when it comes time to work out an "win-win" solution to a problem. But there are a few extreme chickens***s who are among the most venal and corrupt people that I have ever encountered. And they know that they are pretty much untouchable and unaccountable, so they do whatever the hell they want to.

Welp, gotta raise tuition then!!!

(04-17-2020 05:27 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

Houston Chronicle Wrote:A portion of the charges were also used to pay graduate students for performing teaching duties that were unrelated to Rice’s National Science Foundation awards, Patrick wrote.

The rules sound pretty clear.

When I was in grad school (not at Rice), I was funded by a research grant. It was department policy that I had to TA a class each semester during my second year. That year I worked on my lab research but I also had to TA a class. I did not get class credit for being a TA. I did not get paid extra or separately for being a TA (beyond the standard grad student stipend). After my second year, I had completed the TA requirement and just focused on my lab research.

Was money from the research grant being used to pay me for performing teaching duties? I never thought I was getting paid to teach; I just had to do it. But a federal auditor might see things differently.

(04-18-2020 07:00 AM)temchugh Wrote:  

(04-17-2020 05:27 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

Houston Chronicle Wrote:A portion of the charges were also used to pay graduate students for performing teaching duties that were unrelated to Rice’s National Science Foundation awards, Patrick wrote.

The rules sound pretty clear.

When I was in grad school (not at Rice), I was funded by a research grant. It was department policy that I had to TA a class each semester during my second year. That year I worked on my lab research but I also had to TA a class. I did not get class credit for being a TA. I did not get paid extra or separately for being a TA (beyond the standard grad student stipend). After my second year, I had completed the TA requirement and just focused on my lab research.

Was money from the research grant being used to pay me for performing teaching duties? I never thought I was getting paid to teach; I just had to do it. But a federal auditor might see things differently.

This is exactly what I've been assuming happened. When I was in graduate school, our department's PhD students spent 8 semesters helping with classes (grading, lab assistant, etc.). Usually it was only 4-5 hours a week. There was no TA pay or course credit; it was simply a degree requirement and was part of training a PhD student. NSF could be objecting to that. It's interesting, because most research assistantships are specified as covering about 20 hours per week. That leaves time for other things that PhD students have to do, such as attend classes.

Rice says that they've admitted no wrong doing and they disagree with NSF. I could see this sort of situation as being something that Rice and NSF would disagree about. This could go back to NSF's auditors. In my experience, even the best auditors know little about how academic programs operate.

(04-18-2020 08:33 AM)Owlbert Patrick Wrote:  

(04-18-2020 07:00 AM)temchugh Wrote:  

(04-17-2020 05:27 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

Houston Chronicle Wrote:A portion of the charges were also used to pay graduate students for performing teaching duties that were unrelated to Rice’s National Science Foundation awards, Patrick wrote.

The rules sound pretty clear.

When I was in grad school (not at Rice), I was funded by a research grant. It was department policy that I had to TA a class each semester during my second year. That year I worked on my lab research but I also had to TA a class. I did not get class credit for being a TA. I did not get paid extra or separately for being a TA (beyond the standard grad student stipend). After my second year, I had completed the TA requirement and just focused on my lab research.

Was money from the research grant being used to pay me for performing teaching duties? I never thought I was getting paid to teach; I just had to do it. But a federal auditor might see things differently.

This is exactly what I've been assuming happened. When I was in graduate school, our department's PhD students spent 8 semesters helping with classes (grading, lab assistant, etc.). Usually it was only 4-5 hours a week. There was no TA pay or course credit; it was simply a degree requirement and was part of training a PhD student. NSF could be objecting to that. It's interesting, because most research assistantships are specified as covering about 20 hours per week. That leaves time for other things that PhD students have to do, such as attend classes.

Rice says that they've admitted no wrong doing and they disagree with NSF. I could see this sort of situation as being something that Rice and NSF would disagree about. This could go back to NSF's auditors. In my experience, even the best auditors know little about how academic programs operate.

I like the pissed off bureaucrat conspiracy theory better.

(04-18-2020 08:33 AM)Owlbert Patrick Wrote:  

(04-18-2020 07:00 AM)temchugh Wrote:  

(04-17-2020 05:27 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

Houston Chronicle Wrote:A portion of the charges were also used to pay graduate students for performing teaching duties that were unrelated to Rice’s National Science Foundation awards, Patrick wrote.

The rules sound pretty clear.

When I was in grad school (not at Rice), I was funded by a research grant. It was department policy that I had to TA a class each semester during my second year. That year I worked on my lab research but I also had to TA a class. I did not get class credit for being a TA. I did not get paid extra or separately for being a TA (beyond the standard grad student stipend). After my second year, I had completed the TA requirement and just focused on my lab research.

Was money from the research grant being used to pay me for performing teaching duties? I never thought I was getting paid to teach; I just had to do it. But a federal auditor might see things differently.

This is exactly what I've been assuming happened. When I was in graduate school, our department's PhD students spent 8 semesters helping with classes (grading, lab assistant, etc.). Usually it was only 4-5 hours a week. There was no TA pay or course credit; it was simply a degree requirement and was part of training a PhD student. NSF could be objecting to that. It's interesting, because most research assistantships are specified as covering about 20 hours per week. That leaves time for other things that PhD students have to do, such as attend classes.

Rice says that they've admitted no wrong doing and they disagree with NSF. I could see this sort of situation as being something that Rice and NSF would disagree about. This could go back to NSF's auditors. In my experience, even the best auditors know little about how academic programs operate.

I wonder if this sort of auditor behavior is being directed at other universities as well. If so, it could be part of the Trump administration's broad-based assault on science ... although if that was the case, you'd think he'd pick on blue-state unis first.

(04-18-2020 11:56 AM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(04-18-2020 08:33 AM)Owlbert Patrick Wrote:  

(04-18-2020 07:00 AM)temchugh Wrote:  

(04-17-2020 05:27 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

Houston Chronicle Wrote:A portion of the charges were also used to pay graduate students for performing teaching duties that were unrelated to Rice’s National Science Foundation awards, Patrick wrote.

The rules sound pretty clear.

When I was in grad school (not at Rice), I was funded by a research grant. It was department policy that I had to TA a class each semester during my second year. That year I worked on my lab research but I also had to TA a class. I did not get class credit for being a TA. I did not get paid extra or separately for being a TA (beyond the standard grad student stipend). After my second year, I had completed the TA requirement and just focused on my lab research.

Was money from the research grant being used to pay me for performing teaching duties? I never thought I was getting paid to teach; I just had to do it. But a federal auditor might see things differently.

This is exactly what I've been assuming happened. When I was in graduate school, our department's PhD students spent 8 semesters helping with classes (grading, lab assistant, etc.). Usually it was only 4-5 hours a week. There was no TA pay or course credit; it was simply a degree requirement and was part of training a PhD student. NSF could be objecting to that. It's interesting, because most research assistantships are specified as covering about 20 hours per week. That leaves time for other things that PhD students have to do, such as attend classes.

Rice says that they've admitted no wrong doing and they disagree with NSF. I could see this sort of situation as being something that Rice and NSF would disagree about. This could go back to NSF's auditors. In my experience, even the best auditors know little about how academic programs operate.

I wonder if this sort of auditor behavior is being directed at other universities as well. If so, it could be part of the Trump administration's broad-based assault on science ... although if that was the case, you'd think he'd pick on blue-state unis first.

My hunch is that someone filed a formal complaint. Likely a PhD who went on to a position elsewhere that did a much better job at making sure funding lines were separate, or thought they were underpaid and did some digging.

(04-18-2020 07:00 AM)temchugh Wrote:  

(04-17-2020 05:27 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

Houston Chronicle Wrote:A portion of the charges were also used to pay graduate students for performing teaching duties that were unrelated to Rice’s National Science Foundation awards, Patrick wrote.

The rules sound pretty clear.

When I was in grad school (not at Rice), I was funded by a research grant. It was department policy that I had to TA a class each semester during my second year. That year I worked on my lab research but I also had to TA a class. I did not get class credit for being a TA. I did not get paid extra or separately for being a TA (beyond the standard grad student stipend). After my second year, I had completed the TA requirement and just focused on my lab research.

Was money from the research grant being used to pay me for performing teaching duties? I never thought I was getting paid to teach; I just had to do it. But a federal auditor might see things differently.

If this is the issue, and it likely is, although I don't dismiss the pissed off bureaucrat theory, then it speaks to poor accounting practices, whether sloppy or intentional. You would think a world class university that has been doing government funded research for much longer than this twelve year period (I worked under a grant from NASA as an undergrad in the 70s) would have practices in place to make sure that such "subject to interpretation" areas are clearly avoided. What do all those administrators that have contributed to the crazy escalation in tuition costs do? Aren't at least some of them supposed to keep Rice out of such situations?

This is not on the grad students that teach courses unrelated to their funding, paid or not. It's on the administrators that are doing the bookkeeping and reporting.

… or perhaps an administrator that pissed off a bureaucrat.

The amount disputed by NSF was $1.85 million. That is $150K per year over the 12 year period covered. A big nothing burger.

(04-19-2020 08:33 AM)temchugh Wrote:  The amount disputed by NSF was $1.85 million. That is $150K per year over the 12 year period covered. A big nothing burger.

All the more reason practices should be in place to ensure there are no questions with respect to how the NSF funding is used. It's just not worth the potential reputation damage to "aggressively interpret" the rules.