BIOETHICS

The Bioethics Imperative XXIV
Faculty Effort Certifications in a Sea of Change: Unsettled Issues in Current Compliance Practices

“Mokita”: The truth we all know and agree not to talk about. Papua New Guinea

In a prior column, we reviewed Effort Certifications (ECs) or Effort Reports (http://www.aspb.org/newsletter/novdec05/11mandoli22.cfm) and examined basic aspects of the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-21 (Cost Principles for Educational Institutions: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a021/a21_2004.html) that outline ECs (http://www.aspb.org/newsletter/janfeb06/10mandoli23.cfm). We also have explored the potential ramifications of breaches of EC rules (http://www.aspb.org/newsletter/janfeb06/10mandoli23.cfm) as well as how allegations of wrongdoing would be routed through the Office of the Inspector General (http://www.aspb.org/newsletter/janfeb05/10mandoli20.cfm and http://www.aspb.org/newsletter/julaug05/08mandoli21.cfm). Now, let’s examine some of the issues and vagaries that face us all as Circular A-21 has experienced increased enforcement by the U.S. government.

We got into this snafu for two reasons: the lenient way that A-21 was written and the fact institutions may independently decide how they will abide by A-21. Recognizing that creativity does not work on a time clock, EC “reporting rules…have been the product of compromise designed to free faculty as much as possible from the trouble and indignity of periodic timekeeping (e.g. punching timecards), while at the same time providing the federal government with some assurance that the faculty effort it is paying grantee institutions is in fact delivered” (1). Some say that this very leniency, deliberately incorporated with the best of intentions, is now coming back to bite us.

Second, each university is responsible for its interpretation of and compliance with A-21. This means that there is not one simple or “right way” to interpret and comply with A-21. Faculty need to communicate proactively with their institution regarding specific situations and use the compliance vehicles that their own institution has established.

Is the government serious about this? You bet. Recent federal settlements include Northwestern University in 2003 ($5.5 million + legal fees + $970,500 to whistleblower), Johns Hopkins University in 2004 ($2.6 million + legal fees + $440,000 to whistleblower), and Harvard University in 2004 ($2.4 million + $850,000 paid back in 2002).

The probability of finding any particular type of infraction at a large institution is higher than finding one in a smaller institution simply because there are more people, more grants, and therefore more opportunities to err. Sensing their own vulnerability and gauging how much they have to lose, universities and their legal counsel have become proactive in protecting the university from the increased emphasis on A-21. Several institutions now

• have posted online EC policies/rules and mandatory training (for example, http://www.research.northwestern.edu/research/policies/effortReporting.html; http://research.unc.edu/osr/effort_reporting.php#overview; http://www.washington.edu/research/osp/gim/gim35.html)
• have built an online FAQ for ECs (http://www.washington.edu/research/maa/fec/#FAQs).

There are efforts under way to address EC compliance and other sticky issues. For example, the Federal Demonstration Partnership (http://thefdp.org/) “is a cooperative initiative among 10 federal agencies and 98 institutional recipients of federal funds [whose] purpose is to reduce the administrative burdens associated with research grants and contracts.”

However, my strong feeling is that such policy and training will not be as well received if it is solely a top-down effort. An engaged faculty is an empowered and more compliant faculty. Faculty-shared governance is one important mechanism for ensuring a faculty voice. For example, the University of Washington (UW) system of Shared Governance was established in 1897 and follows a Faculty Code adopted in 1956 (see Volume 2 at http://www.washington.edu/faculty/facsenate/handbook/handbook.html). Established in response to McCarthyian intrusions by the Washington State legislature, Shared Governance includes faculty councils designed both to provide for faculty stewardship of the university and to establish protections for faculty. Charged with dealing with this particular issue, the UW Faculty Council on Research concluded that “the accuracy of faculty effort reporting and the adequacy of its documentation represent a significant continuing compliance problem for research universities”(2).

At the core of compliance is each individual faculty member’s obligation. In the next issue I will describe and discuss my eight “Catch 22s” of EC compliance.

Dina Mandoli
mandoli@u.washington.edu

I thank Brent Stewart (chair of the Faculty Council on Research, University of Washington) for permission to quote from the FCR report on FECs, Donna Kerr (secretary of the faculty, University of Washington) for information about Shared Governance, and two administrators at UW who provided detailed input and depth to the issues and who wish to remain anonymous.

References
1. FCR Report to the Faculty Senate regarding Faculty Effort Certification, January 19, 2006.
2. Ibid.